By Richard O. Segovia, Ph.D., Ed.D.
Anyone who has run a law enforcement agency knows the quiet tension between two jobs that look, and often feel, the same. There is the work of leading staff: setting direction, earning trust and giving people a reason to push through a difficult shift. Then there is the work of managing the systems that keep an agency functioning: schedules, investigations, budgets, audits and everything else that supports daily operations.
I have spent more than three decades in public service, and I have watched capable people and organizations excel at one of these responsibilities while struggling with the other.
I recently published a scoping review in the “International Journal of Excellent Leadership” that addresses this tension. A scoping review is a systematic process in which a researcher maps existing literature on a question, identifying what studies say, where they agree and where gaps remain.
My research asks a straightforward question: Is good management simply a byproduct of good leadership, or can either function independently?
The review synthesized 25 peer-reviewed studies published from 2021 to 2025 across the public and private sectors, including healthcare systems, military organizations and project-based organizations. It followed the PRISMA-ScR approach, a recognized standard for identifying, screening and selecting studies.
None of the studies examined policing directly, but I believe the patterns they reveal apply to police organizations in the United States.
Why leadership usually gets the credit
The literature consistently places leadership first and treats management as secondary.
For example, a cross-cultural meta-analysis found that transformational leadership improved performance across organizations in various industries because leaders who motivated and challenged employees helped move them toward shared goals [1].
A separate meta-analysis of public-sector leadership found that leadership styles were strongly associated with performance and satisfaction, although the strength of those relationships varied with the rigidity or flexibility of organizational systems [2]. Other studies reported that leaders who fostered learning and trust produced stronger teams and greater productivity [3].
The pattern that emerges aligns with a common assumption among leaders: Organizational performance stems from leadership that sets the tone, inspires people and drives results.
That assumption is partly right. Effective leadership motivates staff and shapes outcomes. But it becomes a liability when an agency relies on leadership alone, overlooking the systems that support daily operations and what happens after a strong leader moves on.
Can management systems stand on their own?
One of the most interesting findings in my research, and one sometimes overlooked in police leadership discussions, is that administrative capacity can drive organizational performance independently of leadership.
Administrative capacity refers to an agency’s management systems and the skills of the people who operate them.
For example, one study examining Italy’s public sector found that skilled managers raised productivity by roughly 10%. The improvement came not from additional resources but from better allocation of work and greater output from their teams [4].
Across several studies in my review, systems and process management were primary drivers of results, rather than merely supporting functions of leadership.
The distinction between leading teams and managing systems becomes clear in a police organization when we consider the functions that outlast any single leader.
Budgeting, records management, audits, overtime tracking, procurement and performance reporting are not inherently products of good leadership. These systems produce results through established processes, and sound systems can sustain an organization through changes in leadership.
Over my career, I have studied agencies that maintained their performance despite mediocre leadership because their systems were sound and could function independently. I have also watched capable leaders leave, taking the organization’s operational stability with them because there were no systems in place to sustain it.
For example, safeguards that identify growing case backlogs or missed deadlines should be established processes rather than ad hoc functions dependent on a single leader.
Still, systems alone do not build trust or establish the direction that motivates staff to use them effectively.
My research also identifies an organizational condition that can determine when systems influence outcomes more than leadership does.
In highly formalized and centralized settings, clear rules and procedures can substitute for some leadership influence [5].
Policing operates within many of these conditions because statutes, case law, policies and chains of command govern much of what personnel do.
In these environments, weaknesses in management systems can become apparent quickly, and the quality of those systems can matter as much as strong leadership in determining whether the work withstands scrutiny.
What only leadership can do
Just as management can drive results independently, leadership accomplishes things no system can replicate.
The strongest evidence in my review pointed in this direction: Across meta-analyses spanning multiple industries, leadership behaviors were consistently associated with performance, engagement and satisfaction [1-3].
Systems do not produce those effects in the same way. They keep an organization functioning, but they do not establish direction, build trust or motivate staff to contribute beyond baseline expectations.
A well-designed system can carry an organization through a period of weak leadership, but it cannot inspire the discretionary effort we see in police work or hold a team together under the pressures officers face daily.
That effort comes from people who feel led, not simply from processes that tell them what to do.
The point is not that one is more important than the other. It is that no management system can fully replace what effective leadership provides.
Where leadership and management overlap
Part of the reason we give leadership so much credit is that we measure it loosely.
One study developed a scale to distinguish leadership actions from management actions and found that many behaviors we label as leadership are actually management tasks, including planning, coordination and performance monitoring [6].
Other research went further, finding that leadership measures sometimes added little explanatory value once management quality, employee engagement and organizational context were considered [7].
Simply put, when we praise leadership, we may actually be praising good systems management. Likewise, strong systems management may reflect good leadership.
Understanding the distinction matters because agencies need to recognize what is producing results before deciding where to invest their resources.
Four lessons for law enforcement agencies
After completing my research, I came away with a simple conclusion: Invest in leaders, but also build the systems that support them.
For law enforcement agencies, that translates into four practical steps.
1. Continue developing leaders, but recognize that leadership development is only part of the answer.
The research demonstrates the importance of trust and direction in organizational performance [1-3], making leadership development a worthwhile investment.
However, developing leaders does not automatically create the management systems that independently produce results. Agencies that assume otherwise risk neglecting those systems.
2. Build management systems that function regardless of who’s in charge.
A sound system keeps work moving through leadership changes and staff turnover.
When a quality review, audit trail or procedure for handling exceptions depends on one individual, the agency has created a dependency rather than a sustainable system. When that person leaves, the process may leave with them.
3. Align management priorities with organizational structure.
The more formalized and centralized an organization is, the greater the influence its systems may have on performance [5].
In tightly regulated functions, administrative capacity is not merely a supporting function. It can be a primary factor in determining whether an agency’s work withstands scrutiny.
4. Assess leadership and management separately.
When evaluating a supervisor, agencies should distinguish between the person’s leadership abilities and the effectiveness of the systems under that person’s responsibility.
Does the supervisor build trust, establish direction and motivate employees? Do the processes under that supervisor’s control consistently produce the intended results?
Combining these into a single judgment can cause capable leaders to go unrecognized while allowing weak systems to persist beneath a well-regarded supervisor.
Why agencies need both
Whether management is a byproduct of leadership depends on the organization.
Across the studies I examined, leadership most often established direction and created the conditions that enabled effective management. That helps explain why management can appear to be a byproduct of leadership.
But for law enforcement agencies, leadership and management should not be competing priorities.
Leadership moves people toward a shared purpose. Management moves the work forward through structure and accountability.
Staff who feel well led may find ways to deliver results despite limited resources and heavy bureaucracy. But those efforts become difficult to sustain when they depend on individual leaders rather than reliable systems.
Both are necessary. The strongest agencies I have studied demonstrated strength in both areas and understood the difference between them.
Agencies should invest in developing leaders at every level while building systems that support their work. Treating either leadership or management as merely a byproduct of the other leaves an organization vulnerable to operational, legal and reputational risks.
References
- Agag G, et al. (2025). A cross-cultural meta-analysis of transformational leadership-performance outcomes relationship. International Studies of Management & Organization.
- Backhaus L, Vogel R. (2022). Leadership in the public sector: A meta-analysis of styles, outcomes, contexts, and methods. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 986-1003.
- Deng C, et al. (2023). Transformational leadership effectiveness: An evidence-based primer. Human Resource Development International, 26(5), 627-641.
- Fenizia A. (2022). Managers and productivity in the public sector. Econometrica, 90(3), 1063-1084.
- Eva N, et al. (2021). Does organizational structure render leadership unnecessary? Configurations of formalization and centralization as a substitute and neutralizer of servant leadership. Journal of Business Research, 129, 43-56.
- Collins RT, Algaze C, Posner BZ. (2023). The Leadership/Management Concept Scale: Differentiating between actions constituting leadership and management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 44(5), 657-677.
- Eva N, et al. (2025). An inconvenient truth: A comprehensive examination of the added value (or lack thereof) of leadership measures. Journal of Management Studies, 62(7), 3072-3117.
About the author
Richard O. Segovia, Ph.D., Ed.D., has more than 30 years of law enforcement experience at the local and state levels. He currently serves as division director of special investigations at the Texas Education Agency. Dr. Segovia is a certified law enforcement instructor and contributes to the academic community through teaching and qualitative research. He is the author of Mastering Qualitative Research: Your Concise and Comprehensive Blueprint. His work has appeared in scholarly journals and trade publications.
