New Paragraph

Leadership: Do you give second chances?
July 14, 2023

“We all make mistakes, everybody should be given a second chance.” - Lailah Gifty Akita

I don’t agree that “everybody” deserves a second chance. Some acts are so egregious that forgiveness isn’t an option in my view. However, from a leadership perspective, many acts by employees are forgivable – and many more people deserve a subsequent opportunity than are afforded one.


I firmly believe that leadership is not easy. If it was, everyone would want to do it.


As a leader, I didn’t always get it right. At times I was too hard on people that made mistakes. Generally, not for accidental errors made by staff that were honestly trying their best, but more so for intentional acts that were done without any consideration for the impacts on others, and/or cases of pure stupidity.


But in other instances, I was unforgiving of some that disappointed me through their simple carelessness or perhaps because I just expected better from them. Occasionally, I was more charitable and gave second and even third chances to those that I liked personally. At other times I over-reacted and then held long-time bad feelings for folks that maybe were good employees overall but just weren’t my cup of tea on a personal level. When you don’t particularly care for an individual, it can be much easier to find fault in things they do, when the reality of the matter is that they may be hard workers that do things perfectly right.


Was that fair on my part? On reflection, in some situations, it was not. For leaders, fairness is extremely important and although I constantly preach that leaders need to be able to distinguish ‘error from malice’ and dole out any reprimands accordingly. But sadly, I didn’t always live up to my own adage. I regret that I failed some I have led by judging and reacting unfairly to their perceived transgression.

“These men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they, and all others, shall have.” - Abraham Lincoln


I was recently watching the final season of Apple TV’s series, Ted Lasso, as Ted pondered whether to hire back a previous coach that had turned on him. He then said the following:


“I hope that all of us, or none of us are judged by the actions of our weakest moments but rather by the strength we show when or if we are given a second chance. If you were judged by your actions in your weakest moments, would you have cause to be trepidatious?”


His statement really resonated with me.


I recall specific instances when I stopped supporting some colleagues and friends that I felt had wronged me. Sometimes it was based on what others told me these folks had done or said. I now know that in at least a few of those cases what I had been told was untrue, but I had opted to believe someone I trusted that was in fact trying to hurt others while trying to better position themselves in my eyes. In hindsight, I undoubtedly made some poor decisions that subsequently unjustly impacted careers and relationships in a negative way. I’m sure that led to a breakdown in trust in me as a leader among those that were wronged. Some deserved the second chance I mistakenly didn’t offer them.


Renowned leadership author and speaker Robin Sharma said: “Forgiveness isn't approving what happened. It's choosing to rise above it.”


I didn’t do that often enough and to those that I hurt through my failures – I apologize. I wish I could have a second chance to do better myself, but unfortunately life is not that easy.


“Having a second chance makes you want to work even harder.” -

Tia Mowry

By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
Share by: