The Los Angeles Riot of 1992
The Los Angeles riot of 1992 occurred after the trial of police officers who had been accused of beating Rodney King. This essay is an analysis of various aspects of leadership within the ranks of the officers responding to the uprising. The disturbance was anticipated by the leadership within the various responding forces, and decisions had to be made in response to the insurrection (Rosegrant, 2000). Some of the choices played a crucial role in ensuring the riot was handled as it was, with errors occurring and many lives lost. The uprising lasted longer than some leaders anticipated due to inaccurate projections. The case study is important for the study of leadership as it highlights the errors made during distress and helps a studying leader avoid such errors in the future. A manager offers direction to their subordinates and dictates their actions, while a leader offers guidance while also showing by example.
Actions of Leadership for the Motivation of Employees
Motivation is a crucial aspect of leadership and can be achieved in multiple ways, as demonstrated during the Los Angeles riot response in 1992. Chief Edward Gomez of the CHP had adequately motivated his officers through thorough preparation. The preparation involved setting goals on how to respond to various levels of threat. He alerted his employees to be ready with riot gear as a way of ensuring they take the least time possible preparing to respond to the riot, should it occur (Rosegrant, 2000). During the first night of the riot, Gates (police chief) demotivated Block (the mayor) when he turned down his offer for additional troops. This was manifested during the operation where Block turned down offers from elsewhere for additional troops on account of Gates’ initial negative response. Some 120 CHP officers were present in Los Angeles during the riot but did not respond in any way. They watched the proceedings on television because they were not motivated. Demotivation stemmed from the poor preparation they had and hence could not respond effectively.
Actions of Leadership for Communication Issues
Communication was flawed during the response to the 1992 Los Angeles riot, and this is demonstrated in various instances. Thrasher (general of the National Guard) called Andrews (Office of Emergency Services director), hoping to be enlightened on the role of the Guard, but Andrews could not inform him. This led to confusion and diminished clarity on why the National Guard was called to Los Angeles and the subsequent deaths that occurred (Rosegrant, 2000). Communication was not harmonious during the response as some players were not sufficiently appraised of the plans in play. The Emergency Operations Committee and Emergency Operations Board were not aware of the ideal actions should a riot occur despite the seniority being aware. The ineffective and inadequate dispensation of information was responsible for the many deaths that occurred during the riot. Poor communication was also witnessed during the request for sufficient armory after the personnel arrived. Late communication also amounts to poor communication, as early planning and demand for resources would have averted the escalation of events.
Effectiveness of the Supervisors as Leaders
The supervisors in the case study did not act as effective leaders due to various flaws in their methods of handling their troops. Effective communication by a leader should be both vertical and horizontal, ensuring equals and juniors receive the message alike. Junior officers were not aware of their roles at some point, and this jeopardized the operation, leading to a lapse in discipline. The officers acted out of intuition, which led to the loss of many lives. The lack of clarity was also an issue, as the officers were not warned of the extent of their response, causing some of them to kill the rioters (Rosegrant, 2000). The organization is vital for effective leadership, and it was lacking during the response. In conclusion, the riot response would have been more effective with adjustments in communication, assignment of responsibilities, and motivation of staff.
Reference
Rosegrant, S. (2000). The Flawed Emergency Response to the 1992 Los Angeles Riots (C). In HKS Case Program.