Ethics and Leadership Failures in the Tulsa Sheriff's Office
This paper examines the systemic ethical and leadership failures that led to the fatal shooting of Eric Courtney Harris by Tulsa County reserve deputy Robert Bates in 2015. Drawing on the Leadership Practices Inventory, the six pillars of character, and scholarship on police integrity, the paper argues that corruption rooted in political elections of sheriffs, inadequate training, and an entrenched organizational culture permitted Bates — an unqualified civilian — to function as a law enforcement officer. The analysis demonstrates that Sheriff Stanley Glanz's self-interested decisions, absence of role modeling, and disregard for established policies produced a department-wide ethical collapse with fatal consequences for the community it was sworn to protect.
- Introduction: Systemic Failure in Tulsa: Three root causes of Tulsa leadership collapse
- Background: Corruption and Conflicts of Interest: Bates's unqualified appointment and Glanz's misconduct
- Leadership Practices Inventory Applied to the Sheriff's Office: LPI framework violations across five leadership practices
- Role Modeling, Character, and the Six Pillars: Six pillars of character absent from department culture
- Self-Awareness and Its Absence: Individual and organizational lack of self-reflection
- Conclusion: Leadership failure as root cause of deadly outcome
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds a real-world case study in multiple named frameworks — the Leadership Practices Inventory and the six pillars of character — giving the analysis a clear theoretical spine.
- Moves systematically from contextual facts to framework application to individual accountability, maintaining a logical chain of argument throughout.
- Uses specific, verifiable details (Bates's age, campaign donations, independent review findings) to support each analytical claim rather than relying on generalization.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied framework analysis: it introduces two established leadership and ethics models and tests each element of those models against documented facts from the Tulsa case. This technique shows examiners that the writer can operationalize theory, not merely describe it.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis identifying three root causes (electoral politics, training failures, organizational culture). It then establishes the factual record before applying the LPI and six-pillars frameworks in sequence. A brief section on self-awareness ties individual failings back to organizational consequences. The paper closes with a summary judgment linking all failures to leadership deficiencies. Citations are APA-formatted throughout.
Introduction: Systemic Failure in Tulsa
The deplorable shooting of an unarmed man named Eric Courtney Harris was precipitated by unethical and ineffective leadership practices and policies within the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office. One of the key issues in this case is that the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office relies on public elections of its sheriffs, inviting potential corruption and preventing law enforcement from operating independently of politics. Another issue reflects poorly on police departments across the nation: ineffective training. Finally, the Tulsa case reveals the problems with entrenched organizational cultures that condone violent responses to conflict rather than inculcating nonviolent conflict resolution strategies. All of the problems in the Tulsa case can be traced to leadership failures, ethical violations, a lack of self-awareness, and a lack of strong values.
Background: Corruption and Conflicts of Interest
Former Tulsa reserve deputy Robert Bates was an insurance salesman who was 74 years of age when he shot Harris. O'Connor (2015) claims that his training was "murky" at best; during Bates's trial, even the defense had no tangible proof of what training the civilian had received before being allowed onto the sheriff's force. There were also flagrant conflicts of interest: Bates "led the most recent re-election campaign" of Sheriff Stanley Glanz, who subsequently stepped down after being indicted for misconduct (O'Connor, 2015, p. 1). Bates was not a trained officer of the law but instead a personal friend of the sheriff who had also "donated thousands of dollars to the department in the form of cash, cars, and equipment" (O'Connor, 2015, p. 1).
After the circumstances of the Harris shooting were brought to light, an independent review of the sheriff's office found, among other things, that "the office suffered from a system-wide failure of leadership and supervision" and that it had been in "perceptible decline" for more than a decade ("Report," 2017, p. 1). The problems that emerged in the Bates case were therefore systemic and reflective of a deeper absence of values guiding the organizational culture of the Sheriff's Office.
Leadership Practices Inventory Applied to the Sheriff's Office
The sheriff's department exhibited poor leadership throughout the Bates episode, with the only partial exception being Sheriff Glanz's ultimately stepping down — and even that occurred only after he had been indicted on multiple counts of misconduct. Having initially invited his friend's campaign contributions, allowed corruption to infiltrate the department, and then permitted that same friend to carry a badge and weapon without proper training, Glanz demonstrated almost no self-awareness of how his self-interested actions would affect the people he had been elected to serve and protect. Leadership ethics were guided not by a principled code built on solid values but by egotism.
The Leadership Practices Inventory identifies five core behaviors: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart. None of these principles were meaningfully exhibited by the Sheriff's Office. Choosing any two illustrates gross violations of effective leadership. For example, the Sheriff's Office never "challenged the process" of how sheriffs are elected or how officers are trained. There was no "encouraging the heart," because officers had been taught they could commit abuses of power without consequence — getting caught was the only real problem. The deputy continued to protest his indictment and conviction rather than showing remorse. On the other hand, the Sheriff did "enable others to act" — but according to what he believed were the principles of his office: instilling fear in the general public and using force to resolve minor conflicts with citizens.
Conclusion
The shooting of Eric Courtney Harris and the subsequent exposure of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office's failures illustrate what happens when leadership is guided by self-interest rather than ethics, values, and accountability. The absence of self-awareness at every level of the organization — from the elected sheriff to the unqualified reserve deputy — permitted corruption, inadequate training, and a culture of impunity to take root. Applying frameworks such as the Leadership Practices Inventory and the six pillars of character reveals just how comprehensively the Sheriff's Office failed its obligations. Meaningful reform in law enforcement requires leaders who model integrity, demand rigorous standards, and remain accountable to the communities they serve.
References
Huberts, L., Kaptein, M., & Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study of the impact of three leadership styles on integrity violations committed by police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(4), 587–607.
Jones, C. (2016). External review of Tulsa County Sheriff's Office cites 'system-wide failure of leadership.' Tulsa World.
O'Connor, B. (2015). Tulsa sheriff to resign over shooting by deputy who bought his way into police. Gawker.
"Report: Tulsa County to pay ex-deputy $138k to settle suit." (2017, June 24). U.S. News and World Report.
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership, 1(1), 25–30.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.