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).

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.