New Paragraph

Promotional processes in police services: We need to promote LEADERS!
November 7, 2024

Focusing on knowledge of policy isn't the answer

During my law enforcement career, I always struggled with our various promotional processes in terms of their efficacy.


Although they differed somewhat from time to time, at the lower levels they generally consisted of a local recommendation; a written exam (largely based on pertinent legislation and the odd inane puzzle/logic question) and then the top X% would be interviewed by a panel of senior officers. Interview questions were situational in nature, i.e. ‘what if’ scenarios regarding policy and procedure decisions, with the occasional query that might loosely relate to ‘leadership’. It all culminated in a ‘list’ of those identified as being ready for promotion to Corporal or Sergeant. As the list of candidates grew thin, we’d do it all again. The questions didn’t change a lot over time.


I passed some and failed others, each time questioning how the process would actually identify officers that could lead a platoon, unit or detachment. It undoubtedly did at times and some great leaders were selected, but it was more a function of good luck than good management. In other instances, names appeared that most of us knew were a complete train wreck, in that they were lazy; crazy; avoided police work all costs; were afraid of their own shadow; treated people terribly and or couldn’t lead a pack of Boy Scouts to a campfire. Then, many wonderful leaders that I’d follow anywhere never made the cut.


At mid-management levels, there was most often an interview phase, with the top candidates being then put through an “Assessment Centre”, which was four days off-site and comprised of a schedule of group discussions, interviews, an administrative exercise and perhaps a paper of some description. It was better, but still not related to ‘leading people’.


After one process that involved an Assessment Centre in which I was successful, I wrote a 14-page critique of the process and submitted it through channels to the head of our Human Resources Branch. My Superintendent called it my “career suicide memo.” I just wanted those in power to hear it from someone who had been successful so they wouldn’t regard the feedback as being sour grapes. I heard crickets from there.


Months later I participated in a town hall meeting of sorts where said ‘Head of HR’ was a speaker. He opened the floor to suggestions on how to improve our promotional process. I offered several of the points made in my earlier memo, and he seemed truly excited while he furiously make notes. I then pointed out that I had sent all those comments to him by memo, but he had not replied. It was all smoke and mirrors and he really didn’t give a hoot about what any of us thought or said.


At one point interested members had to submit a self-assessment detailing examples that demonstrated how they met the various competencies. Verifying that document for so many applicants was impossible as well. Eventually we got rid of the written exam, advertised every open position and interviewed. That was very challenging to manage in a deployed organization of 9,000 people. Even though we developed some interview questions to delve into the member’s leadership competencies (decision-making, people management, relationship building, change management, etc.), some people fabricated tales about accomplishing things that never happened, while others told true stories about actual events but either exaggerated their involvement or outright lied about even being there. Others had legitimate and perfect examples to give the panel but weren’t always the best at saying “Hey, look at me, I’m wonderful. Pick me.”


Sometimes, particularly at the upper levels, they picked who they wanted and simply placed them into positions. At times the selection was based on who was liked for whatever reason, including who might excel at particular job skill - but not necessarily because of proven leadership skills. Instead, we heard justifications like, "Oh he has a law degree" or "She is a good undercover officer". Again, some good folks were picked and some not. Those promoted were always elated; those not remained disappointed; and thousands of hardworking people that carried the OPP on their backs then had to then work with and for all of the above.


Through those decades and process iterations, it was apparent that some people had jobs that allowed them to study at their desks and they were home every night and weekend to study more and/or spend time with their families. Others were in busy roles where studying at work was not an option, and many of those officers were away from home on operations or investigations five days a week or more. When they finally did get home for a day or two, it was hard to spend the little time they had studying, while their families and the household chores list all needed attention.


We also conducted so-called “360 Interviews” in some specific processes (i.e. Detective Inspector), to seek peer, subordinate and supervisor feedback – including on leadership ability. It was very telling in some cases, but quite resource intensive, expensive, and we always struggled with finding the balance between interviewing those individuals that were identified by the candidates themselves (references in essence), versus picking them more randomly.


As Commissioner, I challenged our management team, HR and the member’s association to come up with suggestions to improve our process. Changes were implemented here and there but no panacea was ever achieved. I failed from that perspective.


I don’t have all the answers to this promotional assessment dilemma for police services. If I did, I would be a rich man. However, in my opinion:


  1. Policy is important, particularly policies that carry a high level of organizational risk if not followed. Legislation is very similar. Lower risk policies and laws can be looked up when they arise, but most or all of them aren’t worth examining in great detail in promotional processes. Knowledge of obscure policies or laws for which violators will only receive a warning or ticket at most, means nothing in the big picture.;
  2. Organizations cannot just promote the smooth talkers; talented fabricators of facts; and people that have time to study but from a leadership perspective couldn’t lead a dog to drink. Most will leave a path of destruction that may not be realized until the lives of a lot of employees are irreparably harmed; and
  3. Proven leadership ability is the most critical element to focus on. Past performance most often indicates future performance, so if an individual is a dumpster fire at one level, they aren’t likely to become the epitome of leadership a level or two higher. Figure out ways to measure that skill that are more definitive than the individual spewing falsities about how good they are. Focus on the impacts they have had at the subordinate and peer levels and not just the opinions of those whose egos the candidate has puffed up.


Effective people-centered leadership will make or break a law enforcement organization. That’s what will inspire people; lead to professionalism, productivity and the provision of quality service; and will greatly contribute to attaining organizational public safety goals.


Make ‘leadership’ the foundational principle for developing, identifying and promoting supervisors, managers and executives.

 

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.