New Paragraph

Leadership = Risk. Accept that and promote accordingly.
August 17, 2023

“I think you make impacts by taking risks.”

Shenae Grimes

I believe that you can make even bigger impacts – negative ones, by not taking risks.

Life is risky from the day one emerges from the security of the womb. All our lives we make decisions that could cause us personal or career harm.


On the leadership front, there is no end of risk – day after day, 24/7. Risk for you, your people and your organization. The only way to avoid it is to never do anything, ever.

But in my view, to NOT take risk as a leader is risky in itself. The lack of decision-making or the fatal flaw of not making decisions for the right reasons should be the demise of many so-called leaders – depending on the experience, ability and mindset of those higher up the food chain. But weak leadership teams won’t recognize the many issues at stake and the rationale for decisions when things do go bad, and will forever tag some individuals as the “one that failed.” Whether the senior team leans in terms of their own ability and experience is a crap shoot in many organizations.


From another perspective, if those you lead view you as afraid to take risk or incapable of making decisions, they are undoubtedly going to wonder why they are taking such enormous risks when you won’t and will question if you will truly have their backs if things go bad.


Decisions will often go well and will be huge successes. Some decisions won’t go particularly great, but life will go on. Other decisions will be total train-wrecks unfortunately. The true test of the leader will be their reaction to all of those scenarios and whether they give credit to those who carried it out when things do go well and take the hit on occasions that things don’t.


In policing – in which risk is inherent 24/7, I saw cycles where people were promoted because they never failed. They had no black marks in their files. There were deemed to be “good guys” by an influential individual or group of what I call “pseudo-leaders”. But did they ever really take a risk? Did they ever make an arrest? Did they ever go out after dark?


Then conversely, some great, honest, hardworking officers who stayed operational in risky environments – working the road, investigations, undercover, tactical units and more, failed on occasion and in the minds of some non-leaders above, were forever considered "failures". Promising careers turned bad on a dime.

The so-called “good guys” that were rewarded for never failing, never had an opportunity to fail, because they never did anything. They learned that you never fail if you never take a risk.


These non-combatants (as my friend calls them) that did get promoted often continued the cycle of destruction by promoting more people that never disagreed with them, made a sound decision or did a day of police work. Not all obviously – some great leaders snuck through the system but when they did it upset the leadership applecart and caused competitive friction between leaders that “walked the walk” and those that only “talked the talk.” The balance of power issues that resulted could be destructive.


The Chief or Commissioner of the day and their senior officers in most services generally picked their inner circle in their own likeness, but for some the “true leaders” made them feel insecure, so, they opted to promote those that would quietly acquiesce to their every whim. The bulk of the organization then quietly shook their heads, believing that some leaders they believed in didn’t make the grade and some that had never really done anything including make decisions were climbing the ladder of success while dragging others down.


The system often perpetuated itself from there, creating massive leadership voids that took years to overcome. When that happened, the resulting failure of leadership impacted morale, decision-making and the development of future leaders for years to come. That’s hard to recover from.


“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.”

Robert F. Kennedy


Employees at all levels in private and public sector companies have to take risks. In policing, those risks often jeopardize lives or at minimum can be life-altering and unfortunately, mistakes will happen. However, we can’t throw the towel in on our people when they honestly err and cast them aside like an empty chicken bucket. We should always differentiate honest mistakes from maliciousness when doling out punishment and moving forward, or we will dissuade our people from ever taking risk in their daily duties.


We have all experienced the opposite unfortunately, that being weak-kneed leaders that accept credit for the efforts of others and/or pass blame for their own blunders on the rare occasion they make a decision. If you do either of those things even once, you are not a leader, and your goose will be cooked. It will spread like wildfire and you will lose whatever credibility you may have had, perhaps forever – at least with those you are supposed to be leading.


True leaders step up to the plate when there is a risk worth taking – for those they serve and for those they have the honour to lead. They lead by positive example and try to develop true leaders to replace them. Those are the people that should be further promoted. I’ve seen many people in leadership roles that were the furthest thing from leaders. They were so afraid to make decisions because of a fear of adversely impacting their chances for promotion – based on their fear of the weak pseudo-leaders above them, that they never took a risk or made a decision, ever. Sometimes their fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy when some true leaders came to power that rightfully believed taking calculated risks is the job of a leader.


The lesson in all this is that if you are afraid to take risk or will point fingers and run screaming into the night when things go bad, then accept that leadership is not for you. Find another role. It will save you a lot of stress and a ton of heartache for those around you.


*Taken in part from my book “Never Stop on a Hill” (2016).

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

By Chris Lewis • June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

By Chris Lewis • February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

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.