New Paragraph

Why are some organizations reverting back to "Centralized Decision-Making"?
January 10, 2019

I distinctly recall the decision-making model of the 1970’s in my para-military organization being very hierarchal. Shift supervisors had specific authorities bestowed upon them based on set policies. Anything above their pay-grade went to a higher-level manager for a decision, and then on and on up the food chain from there. Although our binders of written policy were prefaced with the caveat that they were “only a guide”, the reality was that if you couldn’t find the answer to your question within that policy while pondering a decision-making dilemma, you had better contact someone with more stripes, pips or crowns on their shoulder-boards. God help anyone who had the nerve to make a decision contrary to what was etched in policy and/or outside their policy-driven span of control. The grey areas were few and far between!


I don’t know that it was an overly onerous model at that time frankly, it’s just the way it was. We didn’t know any different. However, there were less external oversight bodies; no 24-hour live news or social media pressures; and less public scrutiny. So even if you couldn’t contact the appropriate manager by telephone immediately, they wouldn’t likely hear about the incident or be questioned about it before you told them anyway. That was then.


In the two decades to follow, for the most part the benchmark for decision-making was pushed down to the lowest possible level. Lower-level managers were given much more control over their allotted budgets; there was less second-guessing of local operational decisions; and mid/senior level managers were allowed much more latitude to select/promote people for vacancies within their areas of command. “Some” so-called leaders still tended to micro-manage within their areas because it was the nature of the individual, not because it was an organizational ethos. Certainly, some managers took advantage of the situation and improperly made the odd decision without considering the broader organizational impacts, but for the most part those individuals were taken to task.


But a large number of supervisors and managers I meet with in my work tell me that many organizations of 2019 have shifted back to a more centralized model, negatively impacting morale and ultimately hurting the self-confidence of those managers and their trust in the executives of those organizations.


Some claim that they have little to no decision-making ability and that almost all decisions are made centrally, and that local manager input is largely disregarded. This obviously creates a feeling of malaise among those managers and much frustration across the majority of employees who are continually waiting for a seemingly routine decision to be made by “someone, or anyone”. When a decision from the centre does come, particularly when it is totally contrary to the locally suggested course of action, irritation abounds, particularly when there is no rationale communicated as to the “why”.


We all know managers that were so reluctant to make a decision out of fear that an error could cost them future promotions, that were never promoted because they couldn’t make a decision. As a rule, executives should limit the amount of decision-making required by them and drive as many decisions down as safely and reasonably as possible. We need to encourage innovation and some level of risk-taking within broadly established parameters.


We’ve also experienced good managers who were actually effective decision-makers until they had to report to a micro-manager executive that ineptly questioned them non-stop until they lost self-confidence and similarly second-guessed their subordinates ad nauseam. 


Downstream from these examples, managers, supervisors and many employees often threw their hands up in despair, developing the “why even bother” attitude. This did nothing to develop employees or build employee trust. They lost interest as well as complete confidence in those above them, and their morale deteriorated. And we all know what happens when morale goes bad: people go bad and bad things happen.


In my view, there is a clear need for centralized decision-making in some circumstances:


·  Low-frequency matters that bring a significant level of risk to the organization, from financial, legal and/or precedent-setting perspectives. Examples being: broad bargaining group issues that will result in high-risk labor relation conflict; and civil liability matters that may establish unworkable standards and financial loss.

·  Issues that will broadly impact the organization, as opposed to an individual area. Example: High-profile actions that may cast a negative light over the organization; and issues that will affect operations/administration in multiple areas of the organization.


It’s a given that on occasion, circumstances and the need for expediency will require immediate decisions on a local level. When that happens in circumstances as described above, then the need for a speedy notification up the executive chain is essential. Effective communication and required damage control – if any, can then occur.


Effective leaders will:

·  Set decision-making boundaries based on reasonable organizational needs, balancing them with efficiency and expediency realities;

·  Ensure executive-level decisions and the rational for them are properly communicated to subordinate managers to them not only understand the decisions but to further develop their decision-making expertise;

·  Include discussion around the need for consistent decision-making at managerial and supervisory meetings to encourage regular off-line dialogue between managers and supervisors;

·  Encourage managers, supervisors and front-line employees to be innovative, flexible and take some calculated risk in their decision-making roles; and

·  Provide positive feedback on the good decisions and debrief the poor ones with those involved – always recognizing the difference between honest attempts, complete thoughtlessness and malice.


We generally hire smart people and promote capable folks. More often than not, doing the right thing for the right reason is a part of who they are. Wherever possible, allow them the opportunity to prove that.

Should the Police Chief be blamed for the misdeeds of subordinates?

By Chris Lewis • February 13, 2026
I say "No."

When Oversight Becomes Overreach: Why a Few Bad Officers Must Not Redefine Policing

By Chris Lewis • February 11, 2026
Policing depends on public trust. So does police oversight. When either loses credibility, both suffer and the public they are sworn to serve isn’t sure who to believe or where to turn. In recent years, calls for stronger police oversight have grown louder, often driven by a small number of high-profile misconduct cases. Confidence in institutions by the public – often fueled by ridiculous social media theories and damnations, is more fragile than in the past, and reputational damage spreads faster. Despite the fact that Canadian police officers operate under tight legislative and regulatory frameworks that exceed any other Canadian profession in my view, existing oversight bodies feel pressure to take action quickly when bad things happen, as isolated as they may be. But there is a risk in this moment that deserves equal attention: the risk of overreach. The seven officers who have been alleged to have committed crimes – including serious ones that involve organized crime, must not be allowed to redefine an entire profession. Public trust certainly adds urgency to this moment. When corruption cases like this surface, the public does not necessarily see them as isolated failures. They see a system that is broken and in my view in this instance they see that unfairly. Policing is unlike most professions. There are over 70,000 police officers in Canada, comprised of federal, provincial and municipal officers that work under the worst of circumstances at times and face the harshest of critics. As a result of the arrests of seven serving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers as well as a retired officer, then the subsequent suspension of two additional TPS officers and two Peel Regional Police Service officers, a large portion of the Canadian public are focusing on the ‘bad’ and forgetting the wonderful and brave police work occurring in their communities 24/7. Officers exercise coercive authority on the public on behalf of the public, often in volatile environments. They have right to take away people’s liberty and in the worst of situations to take lives. That authority most definitely demands the greatest of accountability, but it also demands reasonable, sensible and balanced oversight. Oversight systems designed around ‘worst-case scenarios’ risk governing by exception rather than thoughtful considerations and reality. One of the most overlooked consequences of overly broad oversight is its impact on ethical officers. When serious misconduct is identified, entire services face scrutiny and as a result of the Inspector General of Policing’s announcement to inspect all 45 police services in Ontario, the impacts are far reaching and not isolated to the police service of the members in question. The risk is that the resulting collective stigma will not only damage public trust but will also hurt officer morale; officer initiative may decline; recruiting could be impacted; and the reputation of the entire profession across Ontario will be damaged because of the alleged actions of a few. Oversight that blurs critical lines risks judging officers by association rather than their individual conduct. Officer trust in the oversight system and public trust in the policing profession could both be further harmed. As a result, both the Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario have rightfully expressed their concern regarding the inspection of all of Ontario’s police services. Their distress is that the announcement may be read by many that police corruption is rife across the province. At this point we do not know how much of this alleged criminal activity occurred off duty, versus on. We don’t know all the details of what they may have done and how, let alone what processes, policies or systems within the TPS that may have to be examined by the Inspector General. He may well have identified them all, but perhaps not. As the investigation portion by police continues, more things for inspection may be identified. In the meantime, I have no doubt that Ontario’s police Chiefs are reviewing their processes based on what they know so far, to ensure their policies, systems and internal oversight mechanisms are as tight as they can reasonably be. The seven charged officers are suspended and before the courts. The justice system is entrusted with dealing with these allegations from here. Others not charged but under investigation are suspended as well. There was no rush to begin a review process as this unfolds. Announcing that it will occur when the criminal investigation is complete and when they are armed with a more fulsome understanding of the issues that should be examined, would have been more appropriate. None of this lessens the need for accountability. It argues for thoughtful processes, analysis and reporting. Misconduct should be addressed decisively and dealt with through due process as it is, but broad oversight driven by isolated wrongdoings risks weakening the institutions we all depend on. Public trust matters. Undoubtedly. But so does institutional trust in police officers. In my view, processes that signal broad-based suspicion undermine the trust they are meant to protect. Oversight works best when it is firm, fair, and controlled.

Police corruption arrests: How do we move on from here?

By Chris Lewis • February 7, 2026
Thursday’s announcement of the arrest of seven serving and one retired Toronto police officers for corruption, was a dark moment for policing in Canada and for the communities that trust their police to always do what is honest and right. At times like this it is too easy for us all to lose trust in those in which we should hold the highest level of trust in society, because of the actions of a few. I believe that we must remind ourselves about all that is good in policing in Canada – where training, standards, equipment, professionalism, governance and competence are second to none in the world. I view this as both bad news and good news stories. The bad news is that seven officers allegedly broke their oaths and committed heinous crimes. Startling, sad and completely unacceptable for the profession and more importantly for the public they were sworn to serve. The “good” news (although I struggle with the word) is that the system worked. Suspicions arose about a certain Toronto Police (TPS) officer’s potential involvement in a crime in York Region. Police there notified the Chief of the TPS, and they quickly agreed that York Regional Police (YRP) would lead the investigation, and TPS would remain in a support role by providing Professional Standards investigators and other assistance as required. I assume that would mean investigative support personnel and access to internal information about the TPS officers in question, like their schedules; what police cars they were driving; assignments and personnel file information, at minimum. By design, the TPS Chief did not have decision-making authority in the investigation. None of that raises any red flags for me. This was a large and complex investigation that eventually involved 400 officers and would require highly experienced investigators and specialty personnel. YRP and TPS have all of that and more. The leaders that addressed the media spoke competently and professionally, leaving no doubt that they would leave no stone unturned. Evidence was gathered and arrests of officers and others were made. The public was then appropriately advised of as many details as we have ever seen released in a media conference when charges were before the courts and an investigation ongoing. TPS Chief Demkiw announced he was seeking to suspend at least some of the officers without pay. That is something that has only recently became acceptable under Ontario’s policing regulations and must be used judiciously. Of course, social media “experts” and anti-police pundits took over from there. Please allow me to offer answers to some of the most consistent queries: Why wasn’t an independent oversight body like the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) brought on to investigate? Police shouldn’t investigate police! It’s not the legislated mandate of the SIU to conduct criminal investigations into police except in specific circumstances around police use of force or sexual assault. Nor is it the mandate of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing. These governing bodies do not possess the expertise or resources to conduct massive criminal investigations into officers and organized crime groups. Only large police services have the critical mass and knowledge to manage such difficult operations. An option for Chief Demkiw was to let his Professional Standards personnel be the liaison for TPS information and potential Police Act charges against TPS personnel that might emerge but leave the investigative support/assistance piece to another large outside service. That would’ve helped suppress any concern around TPS investigating their own. But police services often conduct criminal investigations into their own people with regularity in Ontario, unless they involve senior officers. There’s no hard and fast rule or Ministry guidelines on the issue to my knowledge. The Toronto Chief should step down. This happened under his watch. I cannot speak to his day-to-day job performance, but in my view, Chief Demkiw did not handle this case wrongly. The alleged illegal actions of 0.12% of his police personnel do not justify his removal. If he knew and didn’t take action that would be different but there is no suggestion of him doing anything but throwing his full support behind the YRP investigation. Again, perhaps he should’ve kept TPS out of it as much as possible, but that was a judgement call made in the early stages of an investigation that grew very large over time. All cops are corrupt. Why didn’t other officers stop them? What? This was seven officers in a police service of almost 6000 TPS officers and out of over 70,000 police officers in Canada. It is awful, without a doubt and concerning to say the least, but this does not mean there is a wave of police corruption and ties to organized crime across the nation. As this criminality unfolded and as we speak, thousands of officers are on the streets of Canada, saving lives and risking their own; patrolling communities; preventing crime and victimization; responding to life and death situations; arresting evil criminals and more. They do that professionally, bravely and honestly, or they are held to account under various laws and disciplinary processes. They are governed and regulated more than any other profession in Canada. Yes, some cops (even one is too many) out of those 70,000, commit crimes in their careers, which is unacceptable. Some of that occurs while they are on duty, some not. It is disappointing when it happens, but with rare exception police leaders will not accept it and will deal with it expeditiously through due process. In cases where a police supervisor or executive doesn’t take proper action, they will be held to account as well. As a rule, no one hates dirty cops more than honest cops. They hurt the profession as a whole across the continent. Canadian officers take a reputational hit regardless of where the wrongdoing occurs in North America. We don’t know the details yet of what these accused officers were doing or how much of it they were doing on the job, versus off duty. IF evidence comes to light in the ongoing investigation that colleague officers knew or participated in any way in the criminality, they will be in trouble as well. Let’s not jump to conclusions that other officers “must have known” and let the investigation run its course. Why do officers not have more oversight on the use of police databases? Police officers and a number of civilian colleagues have access to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) database that holds all licenced driver and vehicle registration information in Ontario. Most police cars have computers in them that can access that information, which includes driver’s and owners’ addresses. It is accessed non-stop, 24/7, as a regular part of core police business. Other databases involving outstanding warrants and criminal history, as well as occurrence records are similarly accessed. Government employees that work at MTO or in some other Ministries have like access to people’s names and addresses. That is reality in all 10 provinces. We cannot limit legitimate government employee access to vital systems on the off chance they may be inappropriately used. That includes those that we entrust to carry guns and make life and death decisions. When such databases are misused in some way, proper action must be taken promptly, as it was in this case, as opposed to hamstringing the operability of several hundred thousand honest employees across Canada. Canadian police officers are internationally highly-regarded, but they are human, have frailties and will honestly err on occasion while truly trying to do their best. That can be dealt with and repaired when it occurs. But when officers commit acts of malice, they will be appropriately held accountable and dealt with through due process. That is the bedrock of Canadian policing. Public trust in police is paramount to effective policing, and largely we enjoy that in our country. We cannot let this dark day define what policing actually is in Toronto or anywhere in Canada. Canadians should move forward with confidence that the system did work in this case. Those that violated our trust are before the courts. The vast, vast majority of officers that are still out there bravely doing what they do so well, will never let us down. Please give them a chance.