Week 5: Leader (Investigator) – Follower (Witnesses/Victims/Clients) Relationship

            This week we carried out another investigative request. This particular request involved speaking with the alleged victim of a case of whom we are representing the alleged offender. This case is extremely sensitive so there are few details that can be shared. However, what is of more importance is the way in which the relationship between the leader and follower  assisted in the completion of this request. Unlike the attorneys whose leadership is structured with the judge, jury, and client in mind as the followers, investigators have one more group of followers that the attorneys do not necessarily/directly have or consider–the victims. 

            Due to the fact that the attorneys work directly with the clients, it is both natural and logical that the victims involved would not want to speak or cooperate with them. Given this, the task of communicating with victims is delegated to the investigators. As mentioned, the investigative requests are created by the attorneys, and include the information that they would like them to gather. Thus, in that regard, the attorneys are the ones making decisions, however, that is not representative of the overall process. Although the attorneys provide instructions with the information that is needed, which appears to be centralized, the investigators decide the way in which the request is to be approached. They decide whether it is best to speak to someone in person or over the phone, whether they can/should bleed out a conversation for more information, as well as countless other approaches to the action being requested. This demonstrates the decentralization of the leadership and influence within the organization itself. Despite the attorney being the leader of the case, each member on the defense team has the ability to lead, influence, and progress the case. 

           As it pertains to the relationship level between the leaders and members on the defense team, it falls nothing short of cooperative and reliability. Each time that the attorneys submit an investigative request, they are inherently trusting the investigators with the case. As mentioned prior, unlike the commonwealth the information and facts of the case are far more difficult and require more work to be gathered by the defense attorneys. Thus, when the attorneys request that the investigators get this information they are trusting that they will do all in their power to get this information as well as make sure that it is accurate. Without that trust, the dynamic of their relationship could be extremely complex and unproductive. Additionally, there is always great amounts of cooperation between the leaders and members of the team. No matter how stringent or difficult the information is to obtain, each investigator on the team is working diligently and is always fully cooperative with the attorneys. On the other hand, the attorneys are also cooperative in working with the information that the investigators provide which can divert from or is not completely what was asked for. The willingness of the investigators to go such great lengths help to nurture the efficacy of the overall approach to and strategy employed during the case.; in hindsight, they need each other 

           Regarding the followers’ perception of the leaders, the followers in this instance being the alleged victim, they view the leaders of the defense team differently than the members. As mentioned, because the attorneys are directly representing the client, there is little incentive for the victim to want to speak with them. However, given the indirect relationship that the investigators share with the client, it tends to be the case that the followers are more willing to speak with them as they regard them as impartial and merely in search of the truth, whatever that may be.