For decades, law enforcement leaders have faced the challenge of creating a culture that is not only conducive to the profession but also positive and supportive of the organization’s mission. However, history has shown this is not always the case (Ng, 2025; Modise, 2023; Schafer, 2010). Leaders genuinely take command with the best intentions. Initially, as they immerse themselves in their organizations, they identify obstacles that hinder success. Their goal is to create a culture where officers thrive, succeed, grow professionally, and maintain a service delivery strategy that is above reproach.
Although many law enforcement leaders will tell you that part of their organizational strategy is to create this desired culture within their organization, they often face veiled challenges, unspoken obstacles, and sometimes juvenile-like defiance to the thought of change. This leads us to question what causes these leaders to fail to reach the desired culture within their organization. Although there are many theories and hypotheses that have been presented in various empirical studies, the potential causes or factors that have led law enforcement leaders and executives to be unsuccessful contain one common denominator: the law enforcement leader. Recognizing this common factor in this phenomenon begs the question: Are our law enforcement leaders getting in their own way?
Discussion
Before addressing whether law enforcement executives are a part of the reason agencies fail to achieve their desired organizational culture, we must first examine the two reasons I would submit would lead executives to get in their own way. The initial challenge law enforcement leaders face is confronting the adage, “This is the way we’ve always done it.” I’m not saying those practices are necessarily wrong; however, just because something has been done a certain way (1) doesn’t mean it is or was correct to begin with, and (2) doesn’t mean it’s not time to change. For example, law enforcement leaders experiencing a rash of residential burglaries would not respond to this uptick in burglaries today in the same manner we did in 1960. During the last 65 years there have been significant advances in patrol techniques, burglary mitigation strategies, and innovation in technology that provides law enforcement executives with formattable tools to address the issue. Simply saying law enforcement executives will rely solely on routine patrols to combat residential burglaries could be considered borderline maleficent. Law enforcement executives must embrace the notation that evolution and change is not particularly negative (Schafer, 2010).
This is not to suggest that the methods or practices to conduct burglary investigations and prevention were fundamentally wrong in 1960; it simply suggests that law enforcement has discovered new methods, new approaches, and technology that have advanced the way law enforcement agencies attack this particular criminal problem. In 1939, Bill Wilson published The Big Book, a guide for individuals enrolled in the newly formed alcoholic anonymous program. In this book, it contained the saying “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result” (Wilson, 1939). This saying has transcended time, leadership disciplines and has been repeated countless times by leaders – yet it seems as if its impact and applicability to modern leadership is simply overlooked. Too often, we as law enforcement executives are apprehensive about employing a different approach especially when it comes to establishing the culture of their agency. I would submit that a latent function of leadership is being a change agent of the post-modern law enforcement and community policing eras.
The second challenge, commonly known as posturing or peacocking, hinders a law enforcement leader’s ability to create a positive culture within their agency (Schafer, 2010; Stamper, 1992). Throughout my 31-year career in law enforcement, I have come across law enforcement executives who demonstrate this presence of inferiority. To be more specific, I have witnessed law enforcement leaders go to great lengths to present this image of themselves who have seen it all and done it all. This is not to say that they are not highly qualified or do not possess excellent credentials; however, I would submit that pontification is not the most advantageous position for leaders to employ when developing the culture of an agency. In leadership, the difference between confidence and incompetence can be extremely thin (Boure, 2025).
What position should we assume when building or fostering agency culture? The answer is difficult but quite simple – leaders have the responsibility of extending trust first. Law enforcement leaders often make the mistake of not trusting their subordinates and say, “I’ve been doing this for 22 years…” I would postulate that assuming this position is counterintuitive to the objective of creating a positive and effective culture. Several years ago, a seasoned Captain said to me, “If you are the smartest person in the room, you are probably in the wrong room…” Most leaders I have discussed this topic with would agree with this statement and proudly proclaim they actively recruit highly qualified, experienced, and educated applicants for their agencies. Although once hired, leaders must stay the course and not fall into the trap of believing that others within the agency may think less of them because a subordinate is able to demonstrate innovation, leadership, engagement, etc. (Shafer, 2010; Simmons-Beauchamp & Sharpe, 2022; Stamper, 1992).
The lack of openness, humility, and the leader’s lack of being secure in their own abilities drives good employees and really good ideas away from the creation of the desired culture. This lack of engagement on the executive’s part creates a barrier within the organization that a foundational culture cannot be built upon. We can speculate as to the reason for this posturing or peacocking – regardless of the reason, this position should be avoided at all costs (Shafer, 2010; Simmons-Beauchamp & Sharpe, 2022; Stamper, 1992).
These two challenges present the most catastrophic errors that law enforcement leaders can make while attempting to change the culture within their agency, although I will stipulate that law enforcement executives face a myriad of challenges in addition to the two that I have mentioned in this article. When we specifically talk about creating a culture within our agencies that not only leads to an effective outcome but also the delivery of law enforcement services to our communities, we must consider how to preserve our most precious resource, the law enforcement officer.
Consideration
Having addressed the fatal errors that law enforcement executives often make, let’s examine two approaches that may lead the law enforcement executive to achieve their goal. Initially, law enforcement executives must embrace the notion that, as leaders, they are charged with extending trust first (Ng, 2025; Modise, 2023). This is suggestive of the leader or executives’ confidence in themselves. They must recognize and trust in themselves as they were selected for that position based on their knowledge, education, training, experience, and ability to lead their organizations – there is no need for competition with their subordinates (Ng, 2025; Modise, 2023).
This is not to say that leaders should solely depend on individuals that they work with or work around to do the heavy lifting; rather, leaders should want to empower their subordinates and elevate their subordinates to at least their level, if not beyond. A common way to achieve this is through participatory engagement and providing subordinates with the confidence to openly engage in the creation and sustainment of the desired culture. Essentially, as leaders, we are highlighting and reinforcing that all the employees in our charge know they have value, are heard, and their participation is encouraged (Ng, 2025; Modise, 2023). Talpur et al. (2025) illustrates the danger executives flirt with when intentionally or unintentionally dehumanizing their subordinate employees and its nexus with performance, employee behavior, etc.
The second approach executives can take is centered on allowing the people we hire to do the jobs we employ them to do. Allowing employees to demonstrate the skillsets we hired them for is a foundational aspect of development and growth (Edwards, 2014). This will not prevent mistakes from happening, but it will project the culture our agencies must possess while practicing the tenets of humility, intelligence, confidence, and transformational leadership. Although this prolific approach creates change, it is often the hardest action to take, as some leaders find it difficult to relinquish control. Ironically, by empowering subordinates, the executive creates unilateral growth and development (Ng, 2025; Modise, 2023; Schafer, 2010; Stamper, 1992).
Edwards (2014) presents the concept of “The Trifecta of Leadership.” This concept provides executives with essentially a secure platform where the leader’s (competence), the employee’s (organizational justice), and the context’s (situation) perspectives are equitably presented to create relationships that are built on trust. As Edwards describes, leaders have the responsibility to foster an environment where subordinates are confident in the leader’s competence regardless of the situation or circumstance that encourages the subordinate’s ability to retain their individual and social identities thus establishing organizational justice (Edwards, 2014; Greenberg, 1987).
Summation
Although law enforcement executives have the best intentions as they shape their agency’s culture, a leader’s pride and their inability to trust become a barrier to their success. As leaders attempt to hurdle the obstacles presented, they fail to recognize the most common obstacle – themselves. By considering the approach of trusting our subordinates and allowing our employees to do what we have hired them to do, change can and will occur.
References
Bourne, P. A. (2025). The Costs of Incompetent Leadership: Impacts on Organizational Vision, Productivity, and Employee Futures. International Journal of HR & Organizational
Management Insights & Transformations. 10(2). 46-63.
Edwards, J.B (2014). The Burden of Command. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management review, 12(1), 9-22.
Modise, J. M. (2023). Efficient and Effective Leadership in Law Enforcement, Characteristics and Behaviors of Effective Police Leaders that Assists Upholding A High Standard of Professionalism and Integrity. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 8(9), 2096-2112.
Ng, W. (2025). Reimagining the Leader Behind the Badge: A Qualitative Study Examining Perceptions of Law Enforcement Leadership from the Perspective of Law Enforcement Officers (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Incarnate Word).
Schafer, J. A. (2010). The ineffective police leader: Acts of commission and omission. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 38, 737-746.
Simmons-Beauchamp, B., & Sharpe, H. (2022). The moral injury of ineffective police leadership: A perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 766237.
Stamper, N.H. (1992). Removing managerial barriers to effective police leadership: A study of
executive leadership and executive management in big-city police departments.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Talpur, Q. U. A., Khan, R., Malik, M. A. R., & Murtaza, G. (2025). The impact of organizational dehumanization on creative performance through self-esteem threat: the moderating role of work locus of control. Personnel Review, 54(1), 130-149.
Wilson, B. (1939). The Big Book (4th ed.). Alcoholic Anonymous World Services, Inc.
