New Paragraph

Donald J. Trump: Leader or Boss?
February 5, 2020

I, like millions of others across North America, watched the unfolding events of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election with baited breath and loss of sleep. Why? I’m not an American. I wasn’t voting. Actually I wasn’t particularly impressed with the credibility of either of the nominees. But I am a newsy; have lived in a number of U.S./Canada border cities; have travelled the U.S. extensively for work and pleasure; and have many American friends that would be impacted by the selection of the 45th President of the United States of America. In fact the reality was and is that the vast majority of the 7.5 million inhabitants of this planet have the potential of being impacted by the decision of the American people when electing a President.


Since November 9th, I’ve keenly followed the activities of President Elect and then President Trump – and his team, with awe. Mostly out of morbid curiosity of what jaw-dropping “Breaking News” story they may create next. It is often like watching a twisted social experiment that is akin to many reality TV shows, but that is just a coincidence I’m sure.

I wanted President Trump to succeed and I still do. I pray that the U.S. prospers over the four years of his tenure. I liked “some” of his ideas around injecting more proven business strategies into Washington, as well as his professed support of the military, Homeland Security and law enforcement. I knew that he was a flamboyant showman and salesman, but truly hoped that he would also be a “leader”. However I’m sad to report that in my view his “leader” ship has sailed.


Consider this: Through their words and actions, true leaders inspire all of those around them to do and be their very best. They communicate effectively, respectfully and listen to the suggestions and feedback of others. They make decisions based on what is best for the people, as opposed to what will advance their personal agendas or feed their egos. When things go bad, they take the blame and don’t throw others under the bus. When things go well, they pass on the credit – letting the light shine on those they have the honour to lead. They set a positive example of honesty and integrity at all times, and in doing so, they build the trust of those they lead and serve.


Is this what we are seeing from Donald Trump? No. Far from it I’m afraid.


Almost everything that publicly comes out of his mouth is either an exaggeration or a complete untruth. He takes credit for things that he didn’t make happen or never happened at all. He is incapable of admitting a mistake – fueling mistrust when he defends himself through his outright denials or during a series of changing renditions. While doing so, he destroys the credibility of his team and his V.P., as they stick to the occasional true version or often a contrived script while he blurts out contrary remarks. True leaders work with staff to develop consistent but “true” messaging, then speak the truth within established legal parameters. It’s a lot easier, less confusing and much safer.


His communication style is far from authentic or demonstrative of strong leadership. Very few sentences don’t contain his irritating catch-phrases, “tremendous”, “incredible”, “amazing”, “lots of people are saying” and “believe me”. Continually bragging about his alleged successes being much greater than those of predecessor Presidents does little to bolster his credibility amongst the majority of Americans and international observers. That includes consistent reveling about his Electoral College win over opponent Hillary Clinton to deflect from the emerging White House fiasco of the day.


He responds impulsively on social media to anything or anyone he feels may be critical of him, continually digging an ever deeper hole for himself with a 140-character shovel. He constantly spews out inaccurate and divisive rhetoric – on national, international and partisan fronts. He may be inspiring his die-hard base with his brashness in the process, but concurrently pushes international allies further away. Is that what is truly best for the U.S., its relationships, security, economy or citizenry? Is that “leadership”?


Hourly, he tries to convince the public that any media reports that are critical of him or members of his staff are "fake media". This from a man who often during the election campaign and several times since, has made completely nonsensical claims himself, including implicating the father of one of his GOP nomination competitors in the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963!


Is it effective leadership to jaundice members of the public against certain media outlets when the public should be able to rely on reports from those very same sources in emergency situations? The same would apply to his referring to the several committee and Justice Department inquiries into various allegations against election team members as nothing more than a “witch hunt.” How does that boost public confidence in these investigations? He’s obviously trying to preemptively discredit results that may point finger at him or his associates. A confident leader would reassure the public by stating: “I fully support the processes and look forward to the results”, then quietly allow them all to run their course.


Donald Trump makes decisions that affect government and the country based on his temper and or personal bias. Great leaders simply don’t do that, even on a micro scale. He fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on January 30th because she didn’t support his so-called travel ban. Yates, on the other hand, made her decision despite knowing it would be unpopular with the President, due to her sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Who emerges as the true leader in that scenario? Coincidentally, her January 30th firing was 4 days after Yates alerted White House Counsel that President Trump’s chosen National Security Advisor was in fact a national security liability. Trump then waited almost 2 weeks to fire Flynn.


True leaders don’t publicly bad-mouth employees. President Trump told Russian visitors to the White House that recently fired FBI Director James Comey is “crazy, a real nut job”. Trump wasn’t a factory foreman talking to a close confidant over a beverage. He is the President of the United States for heaven’s sake and was talking to geopolitical foes about the leader of one of the world’s most respected law enforcement agencies. Trump fired Director Comey after being rebuffed on his request for Comey’s “loyalty” and his subsequent comments to the media showed a complete lack of leadership. Referring to a dedicated career public servant as a “grandstander” and a “showboat” during a nationally televised interview is the antithesis of leadership and professionalism. Former Director James Comey has more leadership ability and class in his pinky-finger than Donald Trump has in his entire body.


Trump continually laments over the leaks of communications within the White House. Not that such illegal disclosures are ever acceptable, but has he ever considered why that is now happening with such alarming regularity? Has that sort of activity occurred during any past presidency? Perhaps it did to a lesser degree during the Nixon administration – which coincidentally was also a leadership debacle, but at no other time since. It’s an obvious example of my belief that “when leadership is bad – employee morale goes bad, trust and respect dissolve and bad things happen.”


A “boss” – not a leader, is routinely described as a master, a controller and a manipulator. Think about that. Does the current President of the United States routinely display the qualities of a leader or of a boss? In answering that question, some of his supporters will harken back to a recent White House decision they liked or the fact they were impressed with a public statement the President once made. Yes, he will embolden his base with the occasional win while delivering a speech somebody else wrote for him and is a total pivot from his campaign rhetoric, but that doesn't make him a leader. A number of dictators through history were viewed as oratory successes when addressing sympathetic audiences.



The 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams once said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

The 45th President on the other hand, has a lot to learn. Hugely.

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.