Accreditation as Organizational Memory: Why Standards Matter When Leadership Changes

Across the public safety profession, leadership change is inevitable. Chiefs retire. Directors move on. Administrators accept new opportunities. Political leadership shifts. Each transition brings new ideas and energy—but it can also introduce risk.

When experienced leaders leave, organizations sometimes lose something less visible but equally important: institutional memory. The knowledge of why policies exist, how procedures evolved, and what lessons were learned from past incidents can slowly disappear if it is not captured in a structured way. One of the most overlooked benefits of accreditation is that it helps preserve that knowledge. Properly implemented, accreditation becomes a form of organizational memory, documenting not only what agencies do, but why they do it.

The Hidden Risk of Institutional Amnesia

Public safety organizations operate in environments where decisions carry real consequences. A policy change, operational procedure, or training program may be the result of years of experience, critical incidents, or careful evaluation. Yet the individuals who developed those systems are rarely in the same roles forever.

When leadership turnover occurs, agencies can experience what researchers describe as the gradual loss of institutional knowledge. Without a structured system to preserve operational practices and lessons learned, organizations can unintentionally drift away from effective policies or repeat past mistakes.

This is where accreditation plays a crucial role. Accreditation frameworks require agencies to document policies, procedures, training practices, and operational evidence in a systematic and verifiable way. These records form a durable foundation that survives leadership transitions. Rather than relying on individual memory or informal tradition, accredited organizations maintain a professional record of how the agency operates.

Accreditation as a Knowledge System

Many professionals first encounter accreditation through the lens of compliance: standards, files, and assessments. But when viewed from a leadership perspective, accreditation functions as something more powerful—a structured system for capturing and preserving organizational knowledge.

Research on law enforcement accreditation has found that the accreditation process can support organizational learning by creating systems that encourage knowledge sharing, documentation, and internal expertise (Abner, 2024). Accreditation programs essentially require agencies to build repositories of institutional knowledge that support long-term learning.

These frameworks also reinforce professional standards and accountability. The U.S. Department of Justice has noted that accreditation programs help agencies strengthen operations and improve service delivery through the adoption of recognized professional practices (U.S. Department of Justice, 2025). In other words, accreditation helps organizations remember what works.

Continuity Without Rigidity

Some leaders worry that accreditation may limit flexibility or slow innovation. In reality, accreditation does the opposite when used correctly. Because accredited agencies maintain documented policies and evaluation systems, leaders can make changes with greater confidence. Existing practices can be reviewed, gaps can be identified, and improvements can be implemented while maintaining transparency and consistency.

Accreditation therefore supports two essential leadership objectives:

• Continuity — preserving institutional knowledge and proven practices
• Adaptability — allowing agencies to evolve responsibly as conditions change

Rather than creating bureaucracy, accreditation creates structure for responsible change.

A System That Works Across Public Safety

While accreditation is often discussed in the context of policing, its value extends across the entire public safety ecosystem.

Fire departments rely on accreditation to document response readiness, training standards, and risk-reduction strategies. Emergency medical services maintain clinical protocols and quality improvement systems through structured accreditation frameworks. Emergency management agencies preserve disaster planning and lessons learned from exercises and real incidents. Communications centers use accreditation to maintain call-handling standards and quality assurance systems.

Across these disciplines, the principle is the same: operational knowledge should not exist only in the minds of individual leaders. Accreditation embeds that knowledge into the organization itself.

Leadership Determines the Value of Accreditation

Accreditation systems provide the framework, but leadership determines whether those systems reach their full potential. When accreditation is treated as a short-term project aimed only at passing an assessment, its long-term value diminishes. Files are assembled for review and then neglected until the next cycle.

But when leaders treat accreditation as a management system, it becomes something far more valuable. Policies are reviewed regularly. Documentation reflects real operations. Lessons learned from incidents are incorporated into future practices. In this environment, accreditation becomes a tool for leadership—not just compliance.

Preparing the Organization for the Next Leader

Every organization eventually faces leadership transition. One of the most practical benefits of accreditation is that it prepares agencies for that moment.

When a new chief, director, or administrator arrives at an accredited agency, they inherit something incredibly valuable: a clear picture of how the organization operates. Policies are documented. Processes are transparent. Training expectations are defined. Performance can be evaluated against recognized standards.

Instead of rebuilding systems from scratch, new leaders can focus on strategic priorities and organizational improvement. In this way, accreditation supports not only present leadership but future leadership as well.

Moving Beyond the Checklist

Accreditation will always involve documentation and assessment. That is part of maintaining professional standards. But its deeper value lies in something more strategic.

Accreditation preserves institutional knowledge.
It stabilizes organizations during leadership change.
And it helps ensure that professional standards endure over time.

For public safety organizations entrusted with protecting communities, that continuity matters. Accreditation, at its best, is not just a checklist. It is organizational memory in action.

References

Abner, G. (2024). How can we help law enforcement agencies learn? A look at police accreditation and organizational learning. Policing: An International Journal, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2023-0099

U.S. Department of Justice. (2025). Community policing development accreditation program. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://cops.usdoj.gov/accreditation

Arizona State University. (2025). Accreditation helps build exacting standards and public trust in policing. https://news.asu.edu/20250206-local-national-and-global-affairs-accreditation-helps-build-exacting-standards-public

 

When Oversight Never Ends: How Federal Monitoring Became a Cottage Industry

Federal court-ordered monitoring is intended to correct serious constitutional violations and measure compliance so oversight can end. In practice, however, many long-term monitoring agreements have evolved into open-ended arrangements that lack clearly defined exit criteria, effectively fostering a cottage industry around oversight. While federal intervention can be appropriate in egregious cases, oversight must be time-limited, measurable, and outcome-driven if it is to reinforce, not undermine, local accountability and trust.

Measuring Success: Objective Benchmarks vs. Subjective Expectations

Early consent decrees and monitoring agreements focused largely on objective, verifiable benchmarks such as adopting updated policies, implementing training programs, improving use-of-force reporting, and revising internal affairs processes. These elements could be clearly measured and verified by courts, agencies, and communities. Over time, however, many monitoring systems have incorporated more subjective evaluation criteria, most notably organizational “culture change.” While culture is important, courts themselves have acknowledged the challenge of treating it as a compliance metric.

For example, in Allen v. City of Oakland (Case No. 3:00-cv-04599-WHO), the federal court placed Oakland into a one-year sustainability period after finding the city had achieved substantial compliance with its Negotiated Settlement Agreement, an agreement that had been in force for nearly two decades. Yet even after this determination, the court extended the sustainability period because compliance “with fundamental questions regarding the Oakland Police Department’s ability to police itself remain[ed]” unresolved, citing difficulties in measuring ongoing reform over 20 years of oversight (Fourth NSA Sustainability Period Report, June 30, 2023). Subsequent reports from the independent monitor demonstrate that compliance assessments and site visits continue to be conducted, with court orders reshaping reporting requirements and task assessments rather than concluding oversight (Ninth NSA Sustainability Period Report, Dec. 20, 2024).

The Detroit Example: Extended Oversight and Compliance Questions

The Detroit Police Department’s federal oversight case illustrates similar structural issues. Although many provisions of the 2003 consent judgments were eventually met, the case saw monitoring decisions, suspension of monitor activities, and ongoing court involvement over more than a decade. After the monitor confirmed compliance with the Conditions of Confinement Consent Judgment in December 2013, a transition agreement was established, and federal oversight formally concluded by March 31, 2016 (U.S. v. City of Detroit, Case No. 03-72258).

The federal court record shows that even as compliance rates rose (with the monitor noting high levels of adherence to many requirements), orders continued to adjust oversight structure and sequencing instead of clearly terminating supervision. For instance, a 2009 order suspended monitoring activities but still directed continued pursuit of full compliance (Document 403, July 24, 2009).

A Cottage Industry: When Oversight Becomes Self-Perpetuating

These cases reveal a troubling pattern: as objective compliance increases, oversight increasingly depends on qualitative judgments about organizational culture and broader reform goals. A federal judge’s sustainability order in Oakland directly linked compliance assessments to long-term institutional capacity rather than specific, measurable targets, effectively extending court involvement beyond technical performance improvements.

When success is tied to amorphous concepts like culture change without rigorous metrics, oversight risks becoming perpetual. There is no clearly defined end point at which an agency can conclusively demonstrate reform, even if it complies with the vast majority of measurable requirements. This creates a structural incentive for oversight itself to persist, encouraging, albeit unintentionally, an industry centered on monitoring rather than resolution.

Reinforcing Accountability Through Clear Standards

These structural flaws do not argue against oversight per se. They argue for better oversight design. Oversight should be grounded in measurable outcomes with transparent benchmarks and defined termination criteria. Models like professional accreditation demonstrate how accountability can be both rigorous and bounded. Accreditation systems rely on published standards, periodic assessment by trained peers, and structured compliance timelines, fostering sustained improvement without indefinite external control.

Federal oversight plays a vital role in addressing serious constitutional violations. But when oversight becomes open-ended and dependent on subjective evaluations, it undermines its own purpose. True accountability requires measurable reform, transparent criteria, and the confidence to step back when work is done. Oversight that never ends is oversight that no longer works.

References

Allen v. City of Oakland, No. 3:00-cv-04599-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2023). Fourth NSA Sustainability Period Report of the Independent Monitor (Doc. 1593, June 30, 2023).

Allen v. City of Oakland, No. 3:00-cv-04599-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2024). Ninth NSA Sustainability Period Report of the Independent Monitor (Dec. 20, 2024).

U.S. v. City of Detroit, No. 03-72258 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Order continuing suspension of monitoring activities (Doc. 403, July 24, 2009).

U.S. v. City of Detroit, No. 03-72258 (E.D. Mich. 2016). Federal oversight concludes following compliance and transition agreement.

Why Clear, Defensible Policies Matter — and How to Build Them

Written policies are not merely administrative documents; they are foundational instruments of leadership, accountability, and organizational legitimacy. In law enforcement and other public safety disciplines, policies establish the formal expectations that govern decision-making, supervision, and the use of authority. Courts, oversight bodies, and the U.S. Department of Justice routinely evaluate agencies not only on the actions of individual officers, but on whether those actions were guided by clear, reasonable, and well-implemented policies (U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], 2017). As a result, the quality of an agency’s policies directly affects its operational effectiveness, legal exposure, and public credibility.

At their core, policies define what should happen, who is responsible, and how authority is to be exercised. Clear policies reduce ambiguity by providing consistent guidance across shifts, units, and personnel, particularly in high-risk or discretionary situations. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has repeatedly emphasized that inconsistent or vague policies contribute to uneven enforcement and increase the likelihood of adverse outcomes, especially when officers are required to make rapid decisions under stress (PERF, 2013). Without clear written standards, organizations struggle to demonstrate that actions were intentional, reasonable, and aligned with professional norms.

Policies also serve an essential cultural function. They communicate organizational values by translating abstract principles—such as fairness, accountability, and proportionality—into operational expectations. DOJ consent decrees and pattern-or-practice investigations consistently identify poorly drafted policies as indicators of deeper organizational weaknesses, including unclear supervision, inadequate training, and ineffective accountability systems (DOJ, 2017). In this way, policies do not simply regulate behavior; they shape how authority is understood and exercised throughout the organization.

From an operational standpoint, clear policies promote consistency and risk mitigation. Standardized policies help ensure that similar situations are handled in similar ways, reducing confusion and limiting arbitrary decision-making. PERF’s Guiding Principles on Use of Force underscores that agencies with clear, well-structured policies are better equipped to manage risk proactively rather than reactively, particularly in areas involving force, stops, and critical incidents (PERF, 2016). Clear policies also allow agencies to demonstrate compliance with professional standards when subjected to audits, accreditation reviews, or external investigations.

The legal significance of policy clarity cannot be overstated. U.S. Supreme Court case law has firmly established that municipal liability can arise from inadequate policies, customs, or training practices. In Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), the Court held that local governments may be liable when constitutional violations result from official policy or longstanding custom. Subsequent cases reinforced this principle, emphasizing that unclear or deficient policies can expose agencies to liability when they reflect deliberate indifference to known risks (City of Canton v. Harris, 1989; Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 1997). These decisions underscore that policies must be more than aspirational statements—they must provide meaningful guidance that aligns with constitutional standards.

Defensibility, therefore, becomes a central policy objective. A defensible policy is clear, unambiguous, and aligned with how work is actually performed. It avoids vague language that leaves excessive room for interpretation and instead provides structured guidance that supports professional judgment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor (1989) further reinforces this need, requiring that officer actions be evaluated under an objective reasonableness standard—one that is heavily informed by agency policy, training, and expectations. When policies are unclear or outdated, agencies are left without a defensible framework to justify decisions after the fact.

Best practices in policy development are well established within the law enforcement profession. Effective policies use plain, direct language; are logically organized so they can be applied in real time; and are regularly reviewed to ensure alignment with evolving law, training, and operational realities (PERF, 2016). The DOJ COPS Office has also emphasized the importance of involving supervisors, training staff, and frontline personnel in policy development to ensure policies are practical, understood, and consistently enforced (DOJ COPS Office, 2021). These practices strengthen not only compliance, but credibility—internally and externally.

Clear, defensible policies are not about avoiding accountability; they are about supporting good decision-making before problems arise. Agencies that invest in policy clarity are better positioned to lead, adapt, and withstand scrutiny. In today’s environment of heightened oversight and public expectation, policy writing is no longer a clerical task—it is a core leadership responsibility.

✍️ Put It in Writing — Strengthen Your Policy Writing Skills

If you’re responsible for policies in your organization and want to master the craft of writing clear, defensible policies, consider attending one of the National Association for Accreditation Leadership’s in-person Put It in Writing: Developing an Effective Policy Manual classes this summer.

These one-day trainings are designed for multidisciplinary public safety professionals — including law enforcement, fire, EMS, corrections, communications, and emergency management — whose work involves creating, reviewing, or maintaining agency policy manuals. Each session focuses on practical strategies for structuring language that supports consistent decision-making and reduces organizational risk.

Upcoming locations include:

• Novi, Michigan — June 2, 2026
• Willowbrook, Illinois — June 4, 2026
  (More dates and cities may be available — check the full schedule at the NAAL Events page.)

These classes go beyond templates and checklists; they teach participants how policy functions as leadership in writing and how to build manuals that are clear, usable, and defensible.

References

Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/397/

City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/378/

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/

Police Executive Research Forum. (2013). Civil rights investigations of local police: Lessons learned. Police Executive Research Forum. https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Critical_Issues_Series/civil%20rights%20investigations%20of%20local%20police%202013.pdf

Police Executive Research Forum. (2016). Guiding principles on use of force. Police Executive Research Forum. https://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2017). Investigation of the Chicago Police Department. https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2021). Standards and guidelines for internal affairs: Recommendations from a community of practice. https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0940-pub.pdf

Accreditation as Legitimacy Infrastructure: Why Standards Matter Even When No One Is Watching

Accreditation in public safety is often described in operational terms—standards met, policies updated, files reviewed, assessments passed. But its deeper role is structural. Accreditation functions as institutional infrastructure: a system that quietly sustains organizational legitimacy long before it is tested by crisis, controversy, or public scrutiny.

Seeing accreditation this way helps explain why its value can be overlooked in stable periods and urgently rediscovered in disruptive ones. Accreditation matters not only because it outlines what organizations should do, but because it creates a durable framework for demonstrating that they are worthy of trust—even when no one is actively evaluating them.

Legitimacy and Public Expectations

Public safety organizations operate with authority that is conditionally granted. Communities and oversight bodies expect power to be exercised responsibly, consistently, and transparently. Scholars describe this expectation as legitimacy, or the perception that an organization’s actions are appropriate and aligned with shared values (Suchman, 1995).

Legitimacy is rarely questioned during routine operations. It becomes critical after a major incident, lawsuit, audit, or controversy. In those moments, leaders must show not only what happened, but how the organization maintains internal discipline: Were policies clear? Was the training aligned? Were risks anticipated?

Accreditation provides structured answers. It requires agencies to document expectations, align practice with policy, and engage in ongoing self-assessment. Importantly, this record exists before it is needed. Accreditation’s value lies in prospective assurance, not retrospective defense.

Infrastructure, Not Intervention

Infrastructure is designed for reliability, not attention. Like internal controls or continuity planning, accreditation works largely in the background. Its importance becomes most visible when it is absent. This helps explain why accreditation can feel burdensome in calm periods. When no immediate threat is visible, documentation and review may seem excessive. Yet research on organizational reliability shows that systems built during calm are what allow organizations to perform under stress (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Accreditation supports this readiness by institutionalizing expectations and reducing reliance on memory or informal practice.

In this sense, accreditation is less about enforcing behavior and more about stabilizing organizational knowledge. Policies codify intent, training reinforces consistency, and assessment cycles prompt reflection. Together, these elements support continuity across leadership transitions, staffing changes, and shifting external conditions.

Transparency, Accountability, and Trust

Transparency alone does not build trust. Without internal consistency and follow-through, transparency can expose gaps rather than credibility. Accreditation strengthens transparency by linking public commitments to internal practice. Published policies are tied to training, supervision, and review. This alignment signals that openness is supported by internal discipline, not just communication. Research on procedural justice reinforces this point: trust is shaped not only by outcomes but also by perceptions of fairness, consistency, and adherence to rules (Tyler, 2015). Accreditation supports those perceptions by showing that decisions are guided by established standards rather than improvisation.

Tested in Crisis, Built in Calm

Leaders often recognize accreditation’s value most clearly during a crisis. Accredited organizations can respond to scrutiny with documentation, context, and demonstrated patterns of practice. Accreditation does not prevent every error, but it provides a framework for explaining how the organization approaches risk and accountability.

Still, accreditation is not a crisis tool—it is a pre-crisis investment. When treated as episodic, it loses its integrative value. When embedded in daily operations—where policy informs training, training informs supervision, and assessments inform planning—it becomes part of how the organization routinely functions.

The Role of the Accreditation Manager

Accreditation managers sustain this infrastructure. Positioned between external standards and internal operations, they ensure that expectations translate into practice and that documentation reflects reality. Their work goes beyond administration. They exercise judgment about priorities, capacity, and risk, helping leaders see where formal expectations and operational realities intersect. Often working without formal authority, they lead through credibility and institutional knowledge, helping preserve trust through leadership transitions and change.

An Ongoing Commitment

Accreditation is not a one-time achievement; it is a continuous commitment to disciplined, consistent practice. Its real value lies in continuity—the ability to show, over time, that operations align with stated expectations. For public safety organizations, where authority carries risk and trust is fragile, this continuity matters. Accreditation sustains trust through steady, documented practice. It matters most in the quiet periods—between incidents and headlines—when the systems that support legitimacy are built and maintained. When scrutiny returns, accredited organizations are not scrambling to explain themselves. They are simply revealing the systems already in place.

References

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Tyler, T. R. (2015). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice (Chicago, Ill.), 30, 283-357. https://doi.org/10.1086/652233

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Wiley.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00570.x

The Invisible Authority: How Accreditation Managers Lead Without Command Power

In most public safety organizations, authority is clearly defined. Rank, position, and responsibility determine who directs actions, allocates resources, and enforces compliance. Accreditation managers, however, often operate outside these formal chains of command. They rarely supervise personnel, issue orders, or control budgets. Yet, despite lacking positional power, accreditation managers wield significant influence over organizational behavior, decision-making, and risk posture. This influence stems from a different kind of authority—one based not on command but on credibility, trust, and institutional knowledge.

Understanding how accreditation managers lead without formal authority is key to recognizing their true value to the organization. Their influence isn't based on rank; it comes from how accreditation efforts connect with legitimacy and ongoing improvement.

Informal Authority in Complex Organizations

Scholars of organizations have long acknowledged that influence does not originate solely from formal authority. In complex systems, individuals often impact outcomes through expertise, relational trust, and control over critical processes rather than just rank (French & Raven, 1959). Informal authority arises when others defer not because they are compelled to, but because they believe it is wise to do so.

Accreditation managers exemplify this dynamic. They are often the individuals most familiar with organizational policies, historical decisions, audit findings, and external expectations. Over time, this knowledge becomes essential. While executives may retain final decision-making authority, they often depend on accreditation managers to interpret standards, evaluate risk, and predict downstream consequences.

This reliance reflects a form of expert authority. Accreditation managers influence results by shaping how problems are defined, which options seem viable, and how decisions are recorded. Their power lies not in issuing commands, but in framing reality.

The Accreditation Manager as Organizational Memory

One of the most overlooked sources of accreditation managers’ influence is their role as custodians of organizational history (Abner et al., 2024). Public safety organizations often face frequent leadership changes, restructuring, and policy updates. Chiefs, directors, wardens, and administrators may serve relatively short terms compared to the organization’s overall lifespan.

Accreditation managers often ensure continuity during these transitions. They remember why policies were put in place, how standards were previously interpreted, and where vulnerabilities have appeared over time. This historical perspective enables them to advise leaders not only on what standards demand but also on how similar issues have been addressed in the past.

Organizational research highlights the importance of memory for maintaining institutional stability. When memory is lost, organizations tend to repeat mistakes, drop effective practices, or make decisions without understanding previous tradeoffs (Weick, 1995). Accreditation managers reduce this risk by linking current decisions to documented practices and historical context, ensuring consistency even with leadership changes.

Trust, Credibility, and Procedural Influence

Informal authority is maintained through trust. Accreditation managers establish credibility by showing consistency, fairness, and dependability in applying standards. When personnel trust that accreditation findings are based on evidence rather than preference, and that expectations are enforced equally, resistance decreases and cooperation grows.

Research on procedural justice shows that people are more likely to accept decisions when they see the process as fair, transparent, and predictable (Tyler, 2015). Accreditation managers help this perception by clarifying expectations, documenting reasons, and making sure standards are applied evenly rather than selectively.

This procedural influence is especially significant because accreditation often affects sensitive organizational areas—such as training deficiencies, policy gaps, supervisory failures, or risk exposure. Accreditation managers who lack formal authority must depend on legitimacy gained from process integrity. When that legitimacy is strong, their recommendations are influential even without enforcement power.

Boundary-Spanning and Translation

Accreditation managers also gain influence from their role at the intersection of internal operations and external expectations. They regularly interact with assessors, regulators, professional associations, and peer agencies, while working with internal stakeholders across various divisions and levels.

This cross-boundary role involves translation. External standards need to be interpreted in a way that makes sense internally, while internal practices must be explained in a way that satisfies external reviewers. Accreditation managers who perform this translation effectively reduce friction and uncertainty for leadership.

Boundary-spanning research indicates that individuals who can operate across multiple organizational areas often have outsized influence because they control information flow and lessen uncertainty (Scott, 2014). Accreditation managers serve in this role by assisting leaders in understanding not only what standards demand but also how those requirements will be viewed by external audiences.

Informal Authority and Organizational Risk

Accreditation managers’ informal authority is closely connected to organizational risk management. Many decisions related to accreditation involve balancing efficiency, flexibility, and exposure. Leaders might ask whether a deviation is justifiable, whether a policy gap presents a real risk, or if documentation is adequate to prove due diligence.

Accreditation managers shape these decisions by framing risk in organizational rather than abstract terms. They assist leaders in anticipating how decisions will be judged afterward—by auditors, courts, insurers, or the public. This forward-looking role is vital in public safety, where retrospective judgment is typical and tolerance for error is minimal.

Importantly, this influence isn’t based on fear-based enforcement. Accreditation managers don't threaten consequences; they highlight them. This approach allows leaders to make informed decisions while maintaining their autonomy.

Leading Without Command

The lack of formal authority does not lessen the leadership role of accreditation managers; it defines it. Their leadership is demonstrated through preparation rather than issuing orders, through framing rather than enforcing rules, and through consistency instead of coercion.

This form of leadership requires self-control. Accreditation managers must avoid the temptation to overreach into command roles, even when they have greater knowledge of standards or risks. Their influence is most effective when they act as credible advisors rather than acting as decision-makers.

Organizations that fail to acknowledge or support this informal authority risk weakening their accreditation systems. When accreditation managers are left out of planning discussions, denied access to leadership, or seen only as administrative staff, they lose a vital governance resource.

Recognizing and Supporting Informal Authority

For accreditation systems to work effectively, organizations must recognize the informal authority that accreditation managers already have. This doesn't mean changing formal hierarchy, but it does mean being intentional about including them. Accreditation managers should be able to participate in leadership conversations, get involved early in policy development, and raise concerns without fear of being sidelined.

Supporting informal authority also involves investing in professional development. Expertise, credibility, and judgment are not static qualities; they are developed over time. Organizations that see accreditation managers as strategic partners rather than just compliance technicians strengthen their overall capacity.

Conclusion

Accreditation managers lead without formal authority, yet their influence profoundly shapes organizational behavior. Through expertise, trust, institutional memory, and boundary-spanning translation, they assist public safety organizations in navigating complex expectations while maintaining credibility and continuity.

Their authority is unseen in organizational charts but visible in outcomes. When accreditation managers are empowered to use this informal authority, accreditation transforms from a periodic assessment into a stabilizing force that reinforces governance, accountability, and trust over time.

References

Abner, G., Merritt, C. C., & Boggs, R. (2024). How can we help law enforcement agencies learn? A look at CALEA police accreditation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2023-0099

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.

Tyler, T. R. (2015). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1086/681829

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

Why Accreditation Looks Different Across Disciplines—but the Pressures Feel the Same

Accreditation in public safety often seems contradictory. In areas like law enforcement, fire services, emergency medical services, corrections, communications, and emergency management, accreditation programs vary widely in structure, scope, terminology, and maturity. Some are voluntary, while others are strongly encouraged or expected. Certain programs focus on operational performance, whereas others highlight governance, policy alignment, and documentation. Despite these differences, professionals involved in accreditation across these fields share very similar experiences. The challenges they encounter, the questions from leadership, and the organizational tensions related to accreditation are consistently familiar across disciplines.

This shared experience shows that accreditation cannot be understood only through the lens of program design or standard content. Instead, accreditation operates within a broader environment of expectations that shape how public safety organizations demonstrate responsibility, credibility, and control. While accreditation programs are tailored to specific disciplinary contexts, they also address common demands faced by modern public safety institutions.

External Expectations and Organizational Assurance

Public safety organizations operate in environments characterized by constant oversight, high visibility, and severe consequences for failure. Legislatures, courts, regulatory agencies, insurers, governing bodies, and community stakeholders all expect these agencies to demonstrate effective management, internal consistency, and the ability to minimize preventable harm. These expectations are not only for times of crisis; they establish the foundational conditions under which public safety leaders make decisions.

Accreditation has become a crucial tool for meeting these expectations. By requiring agencies to document policies, align training with procedures, and establish internal review systems, accreditation offers organized evidence of control and due diligence. Importantly, organizations do not always pursue accreditation mainly to promote innovation or achieve immediate results. Rather, accreditation often serves as a reassurance system. One that helps leaders demonstrate that their organizations operate within accepted professional and administrative standards (Suchman, 1995).

Although oversight sources differ across disciplines, the fundamental requirement remains the same: leaders must be able to explain and defend how their organizations manage risk. Accreditation offers a clear framework for meeting this requirement, especially in settings where informal assurances are no longer sufficient.

Peer Comparison and Professional Marking

Public safety leaders rarely make decisions alone. Agencies regularly compare their practices with similar organizations in size, mission, and reputation. Choices about accreditation are often influenced by these comparisons, especially when accreditation relates to professionalism, credibility, and organizational growth.

As accreditation becomes more common within a discipline, it begins to act as a professional signal. Agencies that pursue accreditation align with current standards for good governance, while those that opt out may feel the need to justify their decision. Over time, accreditation can become standard. Not because its practical value is universally acknowledged, but because participating demonstrates seriousness and accountability.

For accreditation managers, peer comparison can be a powerful tool for gaining leadership support. However, it also brings risks. When accreditation is adopted mainly to copy other organizations, agencies might duplicate policies, templates, or procedures without truly integrating them into daily work. Research on organizational change indicates that such superficial adoption can reduce effectiveness and harm credibility if it’s not backed by meaningful internal alignment (Rafferty et al., 2013).

Professional Standards and Organizational Identity

Accreditation is also closely tied to professional identity in public safety. In various fields, there is a growing emphasis on formal standards, peer review, and continuous improvement as indicators of professionalism. Accreditation translates these expectations into clear criteria, fostering a shared understanding of what competent and responsible practice involves.

This professional aspect helps explain why accreditation often triggers strong reactions within organizations. Standards are not just technical benchmarks; they are viewed as statements about what professionals should do and how organizations should operate. When gaps are identified, they may be seen as threats to the organization’s self-identity rather than neutral findings.

Accreditation managers often serve as intermediaries in this process. They must uphold standards while staying aware of operational realities and cultural context. When standards are enforced without considering local conditions, accreditation can appear disconnected from actual practice. Conversely, when accreditation is viewed as a tool to foster alignment and professional growth, it can reinforce organizational identity rather than weaken it (Scott, 2014).

Understanding Variation Without Fragmentation

These dynamics explain why accreditation programs differ across disciplines while creating similar pressures for those who oversee them. Program structures vary based on specific mission needs, their historical growth, and governance systems. However, accreditation’s core role remains the same: it provides organizations with a way to demonstrate responsibility, meet professional standards, and withstand external scrutiny.

This perspective also shifts how we talk about accreditation design. Questions about which program is more rigorous or comprehensive often hide a deeper issue: whether accreditation truly supports organizational governance within its environment. Uniformity across disciplines is neither practical nor necessary. What truly matters is functional effectiveness: how well accreditation helps organizations understand expectations and respond appropriately (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).

The Strategic Role of the Accreditation Manager

For accreditation managers, understanding the common pressures behind accreditation is essential. It shows why leaders across fields share concerns about workload, exposure, cultural resistance, and return on investment. These concerns aren't signs of resistance to change; they are natural responses to working in high-risk, high-visibility environments.

Accreditation managers play a unique role that connects external standards with internal processes. They turn unclear requirements into practical systems, helping leaders demonstrate accountability without disrupting operations. When handled strategically, accreditation moves beyond mere compliance to protect the organization's credibility over time.

In this role, accreditation managers act as guardians of organizational trust. By aligning standards with actual practices and expectations with capacity, they help public safety organizations demonstrate (consistently and credibly) that they deserve the trust placed in them.

References

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00570.x

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Reform: (verb) “to make better by removal of faults.”

In public safety, “reform” is rarely a neutral term. Even when a change is reasonable, evidence-based, and operationally necessary, the label reform often conveys a stronger message: public disappointment, political scrutiny, media pressure, or an implied judgment that the organization has been doing things “wrong.” This framing matters because leaders do not see reform as an abstract management idea. They view it as a reputational and operational threat that must be managed simultaneously across multiple audiences: elected officials, accreditation assessors, unions, line personnel, community members, mutual-aid partners, and courts. In that environment, fear is not irrational. It is often an adaptive response to real danger.

A core reason reform feels threatening is that it challenges legitimacy. Suchman (1995) describes legitimacy as a generalized perception that an entity’s actions “are desirable, proper, or appropriate” (p. 572). For public safety executives, legitimacy is not just a philosophical issue; it forms the foundation for authority, discretion, budget stability, recruitment, political support, and community cooperation. When reform is announced, especially after a critical incident, lawsuit, assessment, or scandal, leaders may perceive an unspoken accusation: your organization is no longer trusted to govern itself. That perception can lead to defensiveness, delays, or symbolic compliance, not because leaders reject improvement, but because they want to protect the organization’s reputation and continuity.

Reform also risks challenging organizational identity. Public safety fields tend to build strong professional cultures centered on competence, sacrifice, and mission clarity. The best leaders understand that culture can serve as a protective shield. However, this same strength can make reform seem like an attack on “who we are.” Institutional theory explains why: organizations function within expectations shaped by the state, professional organizations, and peer agencies, and face pressure to conform to maintain legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). When reform is seen as external pressure (e.g., the legislature made us, the court ordered it, the public demands it), leaders often expect morale to drop and view the change as a threat to identity rather than an opportunity to improve. In policing, for instance, research has long noted organizational resistance to innovation and change, especially when change is perceived as imposed or misaligned with internal norms (Lingamneni, 1979). Similar dynamics are evident across fire, EMS, corrections, communications, and emergency management when reforms are seen as top-down mandates rather than organically driven improvements.

Another reason reform is intimidating is the uncertainty and operational risk it brings. Public safety involves high-stakes decisions made quickly. Many public safety agencies resemble high-reliability settings, where failure can be disastrous, encouraging vigilance and a reluctance to simplify or assume that new systems will function perfectly in practice (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Reform interrupts routines that people depend on for safety and performance: response procedures, staffing, use-of-force policies, dispatch protocols, evidence management, detention operations, training programs, and mutual-aid connections. Leaders might reasonably worry that an untested “improvement” could introduce new failures and that they will be held responsible if short-term outcomes decline.

Reform also activates human resistance to change, which is not simply stubbornness. Research consistently shows that resistance has cognitive (beliefs), affective (feelings), and behavioral (actions) components, and these reactions can be intensified by ambiguity, fairness concerns, and distrust in the change process (Oreg, 2006; Rehman et al., 2021). Leaders anticipate that reforms will compete with existing workload, generate union conflict, or create “initiative fatigue.” They also know that well-designed reforms can fail when organizations do not build a shared understanding, confidence, and commitment to the change (Rafferty et al., 2013).

Finally, reform worries leaders because public-sector change is uniquely political. Unlike private organizations, which can quietly change priorities, public safety agencies often implement reforms under visible oversight and contested narratives. Fernandez and Rainey (2006) emphasize that successful public-sector change requires clear goals, leadership commitment, stakeholder support, and alignment between systems and culture. Leaders understand that reform is not only about what changes, but about who gets to define success and who benefits. These questions can quickly become political.

Where the Accreditation Manager Changes the Trajectory

This is where the accreditation manager becomes more than a technical specialist. At their best, accreditation managers operate as institutional interpreters and risk translators, helping executives convert pressure into credible, defensible improvement.

First, accreditation managers help leaders reframe reform from accusation to stewardship. When reform is treated as a public shaming ritual, leaders naturally defend. When it is framed as disciplined stewardship (an evidence-based effort to reduce preventable harm, strengthen consistency, and protect public trust), it becomes easier to lead. Accreditation provides a language of standards, proof, documentation, and continuous improvement that can shift conversations away from blame and toward change.

Second, they offer sensemaking and legitimacy protection. Because legitimacy is delicate, leaders need a clear story that explains why this change is necessary and how the organization will implement it responsibly. Accreditation managers can base this story on recognized standards, peer benchmarks, and auditable processes. This shows that the agency is not improvising but following a credible improvement path (Suchman, 1995; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Third, accreditation managers foster change readiness throughout the organization. Readiness is not just hype; it is the practical foundation that helps prevent failure. It involves clarifying the “what” and “why,” addressing perceived costs, ensuring training and resources are in place, and establishing feedback loops (Rafferty et al., 2013). During periods of significant reform, accreditation managers can also protect leaders from overreach by breaking implementation into manageable phases, highlighting early successes, and identifying obstacles before they escalate into scandals (Kotter, 1995).

Fourth, they interpret reform as enhancing operational reliability. Environments that require high reliability avoid change because failure is expensive. Accreditation managers can lower that fear by treating reforms like operational upgrades: testing, validating, documenting, training, and auditing. This approach makes sure that new practices are not just effective on paper but also under pressure (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015).

Finally, accreditation managers can assist leaders in maintaining internal legitimacy—the trust of their own people. Reform efforts often fail when staff perceive leadership as inconsistent or unfair. Procedural justice research highlights that perceived fairness and trustworthy decision-making influence legitimacy judgments in authority relationships (Tyler, 2015). Accreditation managers can help executives communicate reforms openly, document reasons, standardize expectations, and demonstrate consistent follow- through. These actions help reduce cynicism and foster greater buy-in.

Reform is intimidating in public safety because it signals a threat: a threat to legitimacy, identity, control, and operational stability. However, it does not have to remain intimidating. With an accreditation manager serving as a strategic guide, leaders can shift from reactive defense to deliberate improvement. In that shift, reform ceases to be a fearful word. It becomes what Webster’s definition suggests: making the organization better by carefully and credibly addressing faults in a way that builds trust.

References

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.

Lingamneni, J. R. (1979). Resistance to change in police organizations—The diffusion paradigm. Criminal Justice Review, 4(2), 17–26.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Reform. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved December 24, 2025, from Merriam-Webster.com.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110–135.

Rehman, N., Hasaaan, S. H., & Ahmed, F. (2021). The psychology of resistance to change: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 647.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

Tyler, T. R. (2015). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Wiley.

Accreditation leaders occupy a uniquely complex position within public safety organizations. Whether serving in law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical services, corrections, or emergency management, accreditation professionals operate at the intersection of policy, practice, accountability, and organizational culture. While standards, assessment models, and operational contexts differ across disciplines, executive expectations of accreditation leaders are strikingly consistent. Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, Sheriffs, Wardens, Directors, and Emergency Managers do not view accreditation as a clerical function. Rather, they rely on accreditation leaders as strategic partners who help translate external expectations into internal coherence, manage organizational risk, and sustain professional legitimacy over time.

Although accreditation is often discussed in terms of compliance outcomes, executive expectations extend far beyond checklists, proofs, and assessment cycles. Accreditation leaders are expected to function as translators, advisors, and institutional stewards who understand both the technical requirements of accreditation systems and the lived realities of public safety operations. This article examines what executives across public safety disciplines consistently expect from their accreditation leaders and why these expectations position accreditation as a leadership function rather than an administrative task.

Strategic Translation of Standards Into Organizational Meaning

Executives expect accreditation leaders to serve as strategic translators rather than technical messengers. At the executive level, decisions are shaped by competing operational demands, political considerations, fiscal constraints, workforce capacity, and community expectations. Accreditation leaders are relied upon to interpret standards in ways that align with organizational mission and strategic priorities, not merely to recite requirements verbatim. This expectation reflects a broader understanding that standards do not exist in a vacuum; they must be integrated into complex organizational systems if they are to have practical value (Schein, 2017).

Effective accreditation leaders communicate how standards influence operational effectiveness, organizational credibility, and long-term sustainability. They contextualize requirements within real-world conditions, helping executives understand both the intent of a standard and the implications of various implementation options. In doing so, accreditation leaders act as boundary spanners between accrediting bodies and internal stakeholders, translating external expectations into actionable internal guidance. Executives value accreditation professionals who can articulate not only what must be done, but why it matters and how it supports organizational objectives.

Proactive Identification and Management of Risk

Across public safety disciplines, executives increasingly view accreditation as a risk-management function. Accreditation systems provide structure for identifying vulnerabilities related to policy gaps, training deficiencies, documentation weaknesses, and inconsistent practices. Executives expect accreditation leaders to surface these risks early, before they materialize during critical incidents, audits, litigation, or external reviews. This expectation aligns with organizational safety and reliability literature, which emphasizes the importance of anticipating failure rather than reacting to it (Reason, 2000).

Accreditation leaders who proactively identify areas of exposure help executives make informed decisions about prioritization and resource allocation. Silence, by contrast, is often interpreted as risk blindness rather than neutrality. Executives understand that not all risks can be eliminated, but they expect accreditation leaders to ensure that risks are known, documented, and addressed intentionally. In this way, accreditation functions as a protective mechanism that supports executive accountability while strengthening organizational resilience.

Credibility Across Organizational Levels and External Audiences

Executives expect accreditation leaders to maintain credibility both internally and externally. Internally, accreditation leaders must engage supervisors and line personnel in ways that foster understanding and buy-in rather than resistance. Externally, they are expected to represent the organization professionally to assessors, auditors, and peer reviewers. This dual expectation requires accreditation leaders to navigate organizational hierarchies without relying on positional authority, instead leveraging influence grounded in competence and consistency.

The ability to move fluidly between executive briefings, operational environments, and external assessment contexts is critical. Accreditation leaders who lack credibility at any level risk undermining the integrity of the process and the confidence of executive leadership. Research on professional legitimacy suggests that credibility is built through demonstrated expertise, reliability, and alignment with organizational values (Suchman, 1995). Executives recognize when accreditation leaders embody these attributes and rely on them accordingly. 

Operational Realism and Practical Applicability

Executives consistently expect accreditation leaders to understand how policies and procedures function in operational contexts. Standards that exist only on paper, disconnected from the realities of public safety work, erode trust and diminish the value of accreditation. Whether in the context of a working fire, a jail disturbance, a mass-casualty incident, or a complex emergency response, executives expect accreditation leaders to ensure that policies are both compliant and practicable.

Operational realism requires accreditation leaders to engage with frontline personnel, observe practices, and understand constraints related to staffing, time, and environmental conditions. Executives value accreditation leaders who ask critical questions about feasibility and sustainability, recognizing that policy compliance must be achievable under stress. This expectation reflects broader insights from implementation science, which highlights the gap between formal policy adoption and effective practice (Fixsen et al., 2005). 

Professional Judgment and Appropriate Escalation

Accreditation leaders are expected to exercise professional judgment in determining when issues warrant executive attention. Not every deficiency requires escalation, but some issues carry legal, operational, or reputational implications that demand executive awareness. Executives rely on accreditation leaders to distinguish between minor technical matters and systemic concerns that threaten organizational integrity.

This expectation underscores the importance of discretion and discernment. Accreditation leaders who escalate every issue risk overwhelming leadership, while those who under-report critical concerns expose the organization to unnecessary risk. Executives value accreditation professionals who understand organizational thresholds, communicate clearly, and provide options rather than ultimatums. Such judgment reflects a mature understanding of both accreditation systems and executive decision-making processes (Yukl, 2013). 

Stewardship of Organizational Identity and Values

Across disciplines, accreditation serves as a tangible expression of organizational identity. Policies, training programs, and accountability mechanisms collectively reflect what an organization values and how it defines professionalism. Executives expect accreditation leaders to steward this identity by ensuring alignment between stated values and operational realities. Accreditation leaders play a central role in maintaining coherence across documents, practices, and cultural norms.

This stewardship function becomes especially important during periods of organizational change, such as leadership transitions, restructuring, or response to high-profile incidents. Accreditation provides continuity by anchoring organizational practices in documented standards and shared expectations. Executives rely on accreditation leaders to safeguard this continuity, reinforcing professionalism while allowing for adaptive change (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). 

Confidence Grounded in Competence

Executives expect accreditation leaders to demonstrate confidence rooted in preparation and expertise rather than authority or ego. Accreditation processes are often time-sensitive and high-stakes, particularly as assessment dates approach or corrective actions are required. During these periods, executives value accreditation leaders who remain composed, transparent, and solutions-oriented.

Confidence grounded in competence fosters trust. Accreditation leaders who acknowledge uncertainty while demonstrating a clear plan for resolution are viewed as credible partners. Conversely, overconfidence or defensiveness can erode executive trust. This expectation aligns with leadership research emphasizing humility, self-awareness, and emotional intelligence as critical components of effective professional influence (Goleman, 1998). 

Long-Term Sustainability and Institutional Memory

Finally, executives expect accreditation leaders to think beyond individual assessment cycles. Accreditation is not a project with a defined endpoint; it is an institutional discipline that must endure leadership changes, staffing turnover, and evolving standards. Executives rely on accreditation leaders to build systems that are sustainable, documented, and transferable.

This long-term perspective includes maintaining institutional memory through organized documentation, consistent processes, and ongoing training. Accreditation leaders who plan for succession and continuity help ensure that organizational standards remain intact despite personnel changes. Executives often measure the success of accreditation systems by their resilience over time, asking whether processes will continue to function effectively in their absence. 

Conclusion

Across public safety disciplines, executive expectations of accreditation leaders converge around a shared understanding of accreditation as a leadership function. Executives do not expect accreditation leaders to operate as checklist managers or passive administrators. They expect trusted advisors who can translate standards into strategy, identify and manage risk, maintain credibility across organizational levels, and steward institutional identity over time.

When accreditation leaders meet these expectations, accreditation becomes more than a compliance exercise. It becomes a mechanism for aligning policy and practice, reinforcing professional values, and sustaining organizational legitimacy. In this role, accreditation leaders contribute not only to successful assessments, but to the long-term strength and credibility of public safety institutions.

References

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93–102.

Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.