"Absence of these modern theoretical perspectives within modern criminal justice agencies reflects more on the intransigent institutional nature within criminal justice institutions, rather than on the efficaciousness of contingency and situational management. Most criminal justice agencies are rigid, old-fashion, bureaucratic, paramilitaristic organizations that stick to the traditional views of DiIulio, Fayol, Taylor, Weber, and Wilson. For better or worse, criminal justice agencies remain hierarchical organizations" (Dias and Vaughn 544). There are many suggestions to be followed, and "Dysfunction within criminal justice agencies occurs because managers do not adhere to the traditional elements of the organization, resulting in administrative breakdown and managerial disorganization" (544). "Managers that treat criminal justice agencies as closed systems, run the risk of administrative breakdown. In organizations experiencing administrative breakdown, there is no crisis management plan in place and no flexible channels of communication have been established, and no procedures have been developed to tap into feedback mechanisms external to the organization, resulting in supervisors being incapable of recognizing the signs of imminent breakdown (M.S. Vaughn, 1996), which leads to organizational chaos and lack of resiliency in times of crises (Sheffi, 2005)" (545). According to Dias and Vaugh, "Many criminal justice managers reject research that shows the benefits of human relations management and situational leadershipin criminal justice organizations, while sticking to the outdated and heavy-handed leadership of tradition" (544).
References:
Dias, Clarissa Freitas, and Michael S. Vaughn. "Bureaucracy, Managerial Disorganization, and Administrative Breakdown in Criminal Justice Agencies." Journal of Criminal Justice 34.5 (2006): 543-55. Print.