Tale of Two Departments
As I reflect back on my first week completed interning with the New York City Police Department’s Legal Bureau I realize that many of the points we have discussed in leadership classes arose in some shape or form. My week was spent split between the Civil department and the Police Action Litigation department of the Legal Bureau. These two departments as their names might suggest deal with vastly different litigation on behalf of or against the NYPD. Just as their day-to-day tasks differ, so do the leadership styles that can be observed by the lead attorneys for each department.
Considering this difference in observed leadership styles, I felt the contingency theory was especially appropriate to discuss. As we learned in Dr. Von Reuden’s Theories and Models class, the contingency theory of leadership states that the effectiveness of a leader is highly contingent on situational variables. Further, the effectiveness of a leader is contingent on whether that leader matches their style of leadership appropriately with the observable variables of the situation.
My first two days with the internship I primarily aided my internship supervisor who works in the Civil department. The tasks assigned focused on background research and case notations for currently active civil litigation. I was given these assignments and then told to use these findings to help the law school interns who are qualified to do more intensive legal analysis. The fact these cases are active compounded with the fact that my reporting was more often to more senior interns made the relationship with my supervisor far less personable. When considering what we learned with the contingency theory it is fair to assume due to the stress of the looming deadlines of the active cases and the established power structure my supervisor was far more task-oriented than relationship oriented in dealing with the intern
However, on Wednesday of last week the Police Action Litigation department, specifically the Early Response Team, requested the assistance of interns. Myself and two other interns were sent down to complete the required task. This team is tasked with identifying trends in lawsuits against the NYPD and mitigating the exposure/potential settlements of future lawsuits. Due to the proactive nature of the team’s tasks and working closely with the team leader, the leadership style is much more centered on relationships within the team. Often the senior attorneys will run through why my task is important and then provide me with legal explanations for any questions or curiosities that might arise while completing my tasks. These senior attorneys have also provided me with a great deal of insight regarding law school and how I might most effectively navigate the legal profession following graduation.
The two departments I have worked with both are highly effective in accomplishing their tasks, just as their leaders are effective in managing the group of employees as they see appropriate. Just as we learned through our study of the contingency theory, effective leadership is highly dependent on what needs to be accomplished as shown by these two departments.
Good discussion of some elements of contingency theory (relationship and task oriented styles) and examples to illustrate those elements. As the major paper this fall will ask you to take a deep dive into a particular theory, I would encourage you to continue to reflect on contingency theory as you go forward (in case this is the theory you choose). For the paper this fall you’ll want to talk more explicitly about the three elements of contingency theory (leader/member relations, task structure, and position power); you elude to those here, but you’ll need to be more specific in the fall. You’ll want examples of behaviors that illustrate (or do not illustrate) the different elements. I’m glad that the Police Action Litigation department has afforded you some mentors who not only provide more context about the nature of the work, but insights into your post-college interests.