Included in this blog post are the article, a link to a short peace ou!dcast, the explainer video, a concept explainer, and a case study format.
Climbing to Rank- Or Rising to Rank
The Two Paths to Promotion in Law Enforcement Leadership
In my experience across the country, I have had the opportunity to engage with some of our countries greatest law enforcement supervisors and command. Most of the greats have the realization that the pathway to leadership through the organic approach of mentorship and deep-seated integrity are hard to find and are not the norm.
Risk-aversity, assuming liability where none exists, knee jerk reactions, agenda-based decisions; the signs of poor leadership that are damaging the profession. In law enforcement, a profession defined by sacrifice, integrity, and high-stakes decision-making, the journey to promotion reveals the heart of a good leader.
A close friend and colleague, Dr. Travis Yates, who has spent 30 years in law enforcement, with 26 of those years in a supervisory or managerial role, spent the last decade of his career as a Major in a large metropolitan agency, and it was at this level, Yates said, that the real damage was being done to the profession.
“It was clear which leaders were there for the right reason and those looking to the next rank while taking a machete to those under and around them.”
Yates referred to these self-centered leaders as “cowards” who often ignore the realities of policing and side with the popular narrative regardless of the law, the truth, the facts, or what the best practices presented in department policy, protocol, human performance, and critical thinking dictate. The opposite of this is “Courageous Leadership.”
Click here for information on training from Dr. Travis Yates – Courageous Leadership
“These individuals have no business making decisions on policy or discipline without the proper training and understanding of the environment. It should be mandatory for anyone in middle management or above to get the training needed to evaluate a critical incident properly.”
Sgt. Brandon Askew, President of the Davenport Union of Police Professionals Inc., made the clarifying point, that “In today’s policing environment leaders who drive change are those who stay strive to stay relevant. Relevancy is a key quality that resonates and attracts those who need the mentorship and rely on good leadership as good followers who are poised for informal leadership roles.”
Chief Ken Wallentine – who has been a brother, friend, and mentor for many years quantified this perfectly in the following statement he made regarding true leaders, from the perspective of a great leader;
“At our department, we teach and practice a belief that ‘you matter like I matter.’ In other words, your goals, needs, and challenges matter to me, and mine to you. When officers see a leader who works to elevate those around him, they naturally respond by elevating that leader. When your team understands that you truly see their humanity and their need, goals, and challenges matter to you, they’ll propel you (and themselves) on an upward path. We’ve all seen those who are politically savvy, but who see those around them as tools to be used or objects to be pushed aside. Some of them get promoted in rank, but they’ll never be leaders. A leader’s legacy is what he leaves behind. A chief, captain, lieutenant, or other command-level supervisor who sees those around him as tools, objects, and obstacles leaves a hollow and shameful legacy.”
I’ve recognized that there are two distinct paths to advancement. One driven by blind ambition, where individuals fixate on climbing the hierarchical ladder, looking up the ladder rather than looking around; and another where great followers and informal leaders are pushed upward by the trust and respect of those they serve alongside, a natural rise thru the ranks based on the need for good leadership. Both paths require effort and ambition, but the difference lies in self-awareness versus self-centeredness. This distinction shapes not only who rises but how they lead, impacting the integrity of the department and the officers who uphold the calling of law enforcement.
The Leader that “Rises”: Self-Awareness as the Foundation of Greatness
Great leadership in law enforcement begins not with a title but with the ability to inspire as a follower and informal leader. These individuals are not chasing the next rank; instead, they are propelled upward by the very people they work with—officers who recognize their commitment, integrity, and selfless effort. This “Rise” model is rooted in self-awareness, a quality that allows leaders to prioritize the needs of their teams and the profession over personal gain.
Self-awareness in this context means understanding one’s role within the broader mission of law enforcement. Self-awareness gained not only by succeeding, but failing with grace, and learning through adversity and challenge, and sharing this wisdom with those that follow. Understanding that knowing the hurdle is present, watching someone fall and then helping them up is not leadership – its planed heroics – its bullshit! Helping someone avoid the fall with no expectation or recognition for the assistance is leadership. These leaders mentor rookies through long shifts, advocate for better resources, and tackle ethical challenges head-on; and they do it without expectation or advocation. They don’t seek the spotlight but earn it through actions that foster trust and camaraderie. Their ambition is not absent—it’s essential—but it’s tempered by a focus on service and need. They work tirelessly to improve the department, protect their colleagues by calling the good, the bad and the ugly, and uphold public safety, and their efforts naturally elevate them.
This requires an earned “wisdom” that can only come from application, successes and failures – this cycle creates wisdom – remember exposure to information is not tacit knowledge, nor is it expertise. You cannot attend any class and become a subject matter expert, you only gain an understanding of what you don’t know and open the pathway to learning and applying what you don’t know. This then becomes wisdom and expertise over time.
As an example, a high-level manager that promoted beyond their effectiveness had attended a human factors class several years early in their tenure as a newly promoted Sergeant. Fast forward to present day – this individual is a high-ranking member of department command staff. There is a critical incident that occurs, the incident is investigated properly by skilled investigators, cleared by the Internal Affairs unit with full documentation. The commander was advised by the Chief that “We are no longer going to hide behind case law.” And directed the commander to reopen the case.
In doing so the commander who had attended the human factors class some years prior as a sergeant, never having applied the concepts, theories or conducted an investigation, blatantly misapplied the concepts and theories presented in that class in an attempt to hang the officer for decisions that were absolutely reasonable and within policy as determined by the investigation, review and the analysis of incident by skilled and objective professionals. Simply doing the bidding of the chief – who was clearly a poor leader as evidenced by his termination through a vote of “no confidence.” This is a pure example of “borrowed wisdom.”
Borrowed wisdom breaks under pressure because you haven’t earned it. You’re trusting someone else’s compression without knowing what created it. Earned wisdom, on the other hand, holds up because it’s rooted in your actual experience. You know when it works, why it works, when to ignore it and when to bend it because you created the compression. (Shane Parish- FS Brain Food)
Considering this information, this organic rise through earned wisdom creates a virtuous cycle. Great followers become informal leaders, inspiring others to grow into leaders themselves. Their promotions are not the goal but the result and biproduct of their impact on the individuals they mentor and work alongside. These individuals rise upward because of the commitment to the profession’s core values—integrity, sacrifice, and fortitude. Departments led by such figures thrive, with higher morale, stronger teamwork, and meaningful progress in addressing systemic challenges.
The Treachery of Blind Ambition: Self-Centeredness Over Service
Contrast this with the path of blind ambition, where the focus is on climbing the ladder at all costs. Blind ambition isn’t just ambition—it’s ambition unchecked by self-awareness, and an absence of wisdom. Where the pursuit of promotion overshadows the needs of colleagues and the department. As well as the abilities required to lead at higher levels – this skill set cannot be measured with a test – the test is the job! Blind ambition is driven by self-centeredness, prioritizing their own advancement over the collective good. While ambition itself is a natural and necessary part of any career, including law enforcement, when it becomes self-centered, it tramples over the potential needs of those working alongside them.
Self-centered climbers often navigate promotions strategically, currying favor with superiors or avoiding contentious issues that might derail their ascent. They may lack the grounding of informal leadership roles, where tough decisions are made without the cushion of rank. Without this experience, they fail to develop the fortitude required to protect the profession’s integrity or advocate for the men and women who make daily sacrifices—missing family time, facing danger, and committing to a calling that demands unwavering resolve and quick critical thinking.
The treachery of blind ambition lies in its consequences. These leaders, once promoted, are more likely to act as puppets for those above them, prioritizing the approval of higher-ups or pursing hypothetical “reform” over meaningful, foundational assessments and change. Their decisions are filtered through a lens of self-preservation, not progress. For example, they might shy away from addressing officer wellness or pushing for accountability measures based on appearances instead of objective facts, fearing backlash that could jeopardize their position. This self-centered approach stifles positive change, leaving departments stagnant and officers unsupported. In these responsive decisions, driven by “risk-aversity,” these leaders may accept liability in a critical incident where liability doesn’t actually exist. Essentially collapsing due to the public outcry surrounding an incident that may look bad on video, as an example.
Risk Aversion vs. Relentless Betterment: Protecting Position or Profession
The divide between these paths becomes starkly clear in decision-making. Self-centered leaders, driven by blind ambition, operate from a place of risk aversion. Their primary goal is to protect their position, not the profession, the department or the officer. When faced with a challenging issue—say, an officer-involved incident requiring a transparent investigation—they may choose the path of least resistance, sweeping issues under the rug to avoid scrutiny from above or the public. Or calling out issues without full knowledge of the investigative facts and circumstances revolving around the incident. This may feel like it’s protecting their rank and position but erodes trust among officers and the community.
In contrast, self-aware leaders focus on relentless betterment and true accountability. Their ambition is channeled into improving the department, even when it means making hard calls. Fortitude is their hallmark: the courage to say “no” when it’s the only ethical answer, even if “yes” is expected by superiors, or to push for “yes” on initiatives like enhanced training or community engagement, despite resistance. These decisions prioritize the long-term health of law enforcement—its officers, its integrity, and its public trust—over short-term personal gain or agenda-based decisions.
The self-centered leader’s risk-averse mindset has ripple effects. Officers feel neglected or cheated when misinterpretations or misunderstandings related to their work, or their needs are sidelined for the sake of a leader’s career. Morale dips, turnover rises, and the department’s ability to serve the public weakens. Meanwhile, self-aware leaders, pushed up by their teams, create a culture of accountability and growth. Their decisions reflect a commitment to the profession’s calling, ensuring that officers are supported and the department evolves to meet modern challenges.
Conclusion: Building a Stronger Ladder Through Selfless Leadership
Both paths to promotion—climbing and being pushed—require immense effort and ambition. The difference lies in intent and impact. Blind ambition, rooted in self-centeredness, tramples over the needs of colleagues and the profession, producing leaders who protect their position at the expense of progress. Self-awareness, however, channels ambition into selfless hard work, creating leaders who are elevated by the trust of those they serve.
One leader will say,
“I am at the top of the chain, my people work for me, I hope they make me proud!” ~unnamed~
A great leader has stated, “I have reached the pinnacle of this profession as a Chief, I now work for hundreds of people, I strive to and hope to make them proud!” ~Chief Jeremy Story~
Law enforcement needs leaders who rise not by climbing over others but by lifting them up. Departments must recognize and reward those who demonstrate self-awareness, who lead informally with integrity and fortitude, and who inspire great followers to become great leaders. In a profession where officers commit to a calling of sacrifice and service, the ladder to leadership must be built on the strength of those below, not the ambition of those looking above. Only then can law enforcement evolve, maintaining its integrity and delivering the positive change its officers and communities deserve.
Concept Explainer
Two Paths to Promotion: Understanding Law Enforcement Leadership
In law enforcement, a profession defined by sacrifice, integrity, and high-stakes decision-making, the journey to leadership is a critical one. The quality of a department’s command staff directly impacts its officers, its integrity, and the community it serves. Within this demanding environment, experience shows that there are two distinct paths an individual can take toward promotion. These journeys reveal the core of a person’s character and leadership philosophy.
The two paths are defined by their core motivation:
- Climbing to Rank: This path is driven by a “blind ambition” where individuals fixate on moving up the hierarchical ladder, often at the expense of those around them.
- Rising to Rank: This path is taken by individuals who are “pushed upward by the trust and respect of those they serve alongside,” earning their promotions through selfless service and proven character.
The core difference between these two journeys lies in self-awareness versus self-centeredness. This document will explore the motivations, characteristics, and profound impacts of each leadership style. Let’s begin by exploring the leader who is elevated by their peers: the “Riser.”
The Leader Who “Rises to Rank”: Service and Self-Awareness
The Foundation: What Defines a “Riser”?
This style of leadership begins long before a formal title is awarded. It starts with being a “great follower” and an “informal leader”—an individual who inspires others through action, not authority. These leaders are not chasing the next rank; instead, they are propelled upward by the very people they work with who recognize their unwavering commitment and selfless effort. This organic rise is rooted in a deep sense of self-awareness, allowing them to prioritize the needs of their team and the profession over any personal gain.
- They are propelled upward by their peers, who see them as necessary for good leadership, not by chasing rank for its own sake.
- They are rooted in self-awareness, a quality gained by learning from both success and “failing with grace.”
- They possess the core values of integrity, sacrifice, and fortitude.
- They earn the spotlight through their actions rather than actively seeking it out.
The Motivation: What Drives a “Riser”?
The ambition of a “Riser” is channeled into service and the relentless betterment of the department. Their motivation is not self-centered; it is focused on genuine, preventative leadership. They understand the crucial difference between authentic mentorship and self-serving theatrics. As the source text bluntly puts it: knowing a hurdle is present, watching someone fall, and then helping them up is not leadership—”it’s planned heroics—it’s bullshit!” True leadership is helping someone “avoid the fall with no expectation or recognition for the assistance.” This is the core of their motivation: to uplift others and strengthen the team, not to stage a rescue for personal glory.
The Impact: Creating a Virtuous Cycle
The promotion of a self-aware leader creates a positive, virtuous cycle within a department. Their leadership is not just an outcome but a catalyst for further growth, building a culture of trust and excellence from the ground up.
- Higher Morale: When officers feel supported by leaders who genuinely care about their well-being and professional growth, it fosters deep trust and camaraderie.
- Stronger Teamwork: This leadership approach inspires others to become great followers and, eventually, informal leaders themselves, strengthening the entire team.
- Meaningful Progress: By focusing on relentless betterment rather than personal status, these leaders are better equipped to address systemic challenges, implement effective training, and build public trust.
In stark contrast to this positive model of service stands the leader whose journey is defined by self-interest and personal gain.
The Leader Who “Climbs to Rank”: Ambition and Self-Centeredness
The Foundation: What Defines a “Climber”?
This path is driven by “blind ambition unchecked by self-awareness.” It is a journey where the pursuit of promotion overshadows the fundamental duties of service and integrity. Dr. Travis Yates, a veteran law enforcement leader, describes the destructive nature of this style as leaders who look “to the next rank while taking a machete to those under and around them.” These individuals prioritize their own ascent above all else, often leaving a trail of damaged relationships and eroded trust in their wake.
- They fixate on looking “up the ladder rather than looking around” at the needs of their colleagues.
- They strategically curry favor with superiors to ensure their path to promotion is clear.
- They avoid contentious issues or difficult decisions that might derail their personal ascent.
- They often lack the grounding experience of informal leadership, where character is forged without the cushion of rank.
The Motivation: What Drives a “Climber”?
The primary motivation for a “Climber” is self-centeredness and self-preservation. Every decision is filtered through a lens of personal risk and reward. Their ambition is not tempered by a sense of duty to the “collective good”; instead, it tramples over the needs of those they are supposed to lead. This self-centered approach means their loyalty is to their own career trajectory, not to their officers or the principles of the profession.
The Impact: The Treachery of Blind Ambition
The consequences of promoting self-centered leaders are severe and far-reaching, creating a culture of stagnation and fear that weakens the entire organization.
- Stagnation and Fear: Their “risk-aversity” stifles positive change. They avoid making hard calls, choosing the path of least resistance to protect their position, which prevents the department from evolving.
- Eroded Morale: Officers feel neglected, unsupported, or betrayed when their needs are sidelined for a leader’s career. This leads to cynicism, higher turnover, and a weaker commitment to the mission.
- Lack of Fortitude: Lacking true fortitude, they collapse under pressure. They may act as “puppets for those above them” or make decisions based on popular narratives instead of facts. Critically, they might “accept liability in a critical incident where liability doesn’t actually exist,” simply because they are collapsing “due to the public outcry surrounding an incident that may look bad on video.”
The stark differences in their motivations and methods become undeniable when their leadership styles are compared directly.
At a Glance: A Tale of Two Leaders
This table provides a concise comparison of the two leadership paths, highlighting the fundamental differences in their approach, motivation, and ultimate impact on a law enforcement agency.
Attribute | The “Riser” (Self-Aware Leader) | The “Climber” (Self-Centered Leader) |
Core Motivation | Service to the profession and colleagues | Personal advancement and self-preservation |
Primary Focus | Relentless betterment of the department | Protecting their own position and rank |
Decision-Making Style | Guided by fortitude and integrity, even when difficult | Risk-averse and guided by currying favor with superiors |
Ultimate Impact on Department | Builds trust, morale, and a culture of growth | Stifles change, erodes morale, and weakens the organization |
This direct comparison reveals that while both leaders may possess ambition, how that ambition is channeled determines whether they build up or break down their organization.
Conclusion: Building a Stronger Ladder
Both paths to promotion in law enforcement—climbing through ambition and rising through trust—require immense effort. However, the intent behind that effort is what ultimately defines a leader’s impact on the profession. Blind ambition, rooted in self-centeredness, creates leaders who protect their own position at the expense of progress, integrity, and the well-being of their officers. In contrast, self-awareness channels ambition into selfless service, creating leaders who are elevated by the trust of those they serve.
The difference in mindset is captured perfectly by these two opposing views of leadership:
“I am at the top of the chain, my people work for me, I hope they make me proud!”
unnamed
“I have reached the pinnacle of this profession as a Chief, I now work for hundreds of people, I strive to and hope to make them proud!”
Chief Jeremy Story
In a profession where officers commit to a calling of sacrifice and service, the ladder to leadership must be built on the strength of those below, not the ambition of those looking above.
A Case Study
Introduction: More Than Just a Badge
Law enforcement is a profession defined by integrity, sacrifice, and high-stakes decision-making. The path an officer takes to a leadership position reveals the core of their character and predicts the kind of impact they will have on their department. Within this journey, there are two distinct paths to promotion. One is driven by a “blind ambition” that fixates on personal advancement, often at the expense of others. The other is a path of service, where leaders are pushed upward by the trust and respect they have earned from their colleagues. This case study will explore these two leadership styles to understand how these internal leadership choices have direct, tangible consequences for public trust, officer safety, and the very integrity of the profession.
——————————————————————————–
- The “Climber”: A Profile in Blind Ambition
The first type of leader can be understood as the “Climber”—an individual whose primary motivation is to ascend the organizational ladder, regardless of the consequences for those around them. This is especially true for decision-makers in the review, analysis and assessments of force incidents. Without specific training in the realm of this important environment, decisions are often made as a response to the popular narrative – this is where the rubber meets the road for leadership. There is much riding on these events.
1.1. The Mindset: Self-Centered Ambition
The Climber is driven by what the source text calls “blind ambition” and “self-centeredness.” This mindset causes them to fixate on climbing the hierarchical ladder, constantly looking up toward the next rank rather than looking around at the needs of their team. Their ambition is unchecked by self-awareness, leading them to prioritize their own advancement over the collective good of the department and its mission.
Dr. Travis Yates, a veteran police commander, captures the destructive nature of this approach:
“It was clear which leaders were there for the right reason and those looking to the next rank while taking a machete to those under and around them.”
1.2. The Consequences: A Ripple Effect of Damage
This self-serving leadership style creates a cascade of negative consequences that weaken a department from the inside out.
- Risk-Averse Decisions: Focused on protecting their own position, these leaders avoid difficult decisions. They may sweep problems under the rug, ignore controversial issues, or even accept liability where none exists. As the source material notes, they often “side with the popular narrative regardless of the law, the truth, the facts” simply to appease public outcry and avoid scrutiny that could jeopardize their career.
- Eroding Morale: When officers see their needs and well-being sidelined in favor of a leader’s career ambitions, they feel neglected and unsupported. This directly leads to a dip in morale and can cause a rise in officer turnover.
- Stifling Progress: A self-centered approach stifles positive change. By avoiding risks and prioritizing self-preservation, these leaders leave their departments stagnant and their officers unsupported, preventing the organization from evolving to meet modern challenges.
- Lack of Fortitude: At their core, Climbers are defined by a lack of fortitude. They operate not as leaders but as what Dr. Yates calls “cowards”—individuals who become “puppets for those above them.” This cowardice is the direct opposite of Courageous Leadership, which requires the moral strength to advocate for officers and defend the integrity of the profession, even under pressure.
The damage caused by the “Climber” stands in stark contrast to the positive, team-oriented approach of a service-driven leader.
——————————————————————————–
- The “Riser”: A Profile in Self-Aware Leadership
The “Riser” represents a healthier, more effective model of leadership, where promotion is the natural result of service, integrity, and the trust earned from one’s peers.
2.1. The Mindset: Self-Awareness and Relentless Betterment
The Riser’s journey begins long before they receive a formal title. They start as great followers and informal leaders who are propelled upward by the respect of those they serve alongside. Their core quality is self-awareness—a deep understanding of their role within the broader mission of law enforcement. This is not a passive quality; it is self-awareness gained not only by succeeding, but by failing with grace, and learning through adversity and challenge.
This mindset allows them to prioritize the needs of their team over personal gain. True leadership, from this perspective, is not about planned heroics. As the source powerfully states, helping someone avoid the fall with no expectation or recognition for the assistance is leadership. It is this quiet commitment that earns the trust necessary to lead. As Sgt. Brandon Askew notes, effective leaders are those who “strive to stay relevant” in order to mentor the next generation.
2.2. The Impact: Building a Stronger Department
The actions of a self-aware leader create a culture of accountability, growth, and trust. Their impact can be seen in the direct link between their behaviors and the health of the department.
Action | Positive Outcome |
Mentors rookies and advocates for better resources without expectation of recognition. | Fosters trust, camaraderie, and inspires others to grow into leaders, creating a “virtuous cycle.” |
Protects colleagues by “calling the good, the bad and the ugly,” ensuring accountability. | Upholds the profession’s integrity and ensures the department evolves to meet modern challenges. |
Focuses on “relentless betterment” and true accountability for the whole department. | Results in higher morale, stronger teamwork, and “meaningful progress in addressing systemic challenges.” |
This approach builds a department on a foundation of mutual respect and a shared commitment to service, setting up a direct comparison between the two leadership philosophies.
——————————————————————————–
- Head-to-Head: Two Leaders, Two Destinies
The fundamental difference between the “Climber” and the “Riser” lies in their intent. The Climber’s ambition is self-centered, using their position to serve their own career. In contrast, the Riser’s ambition is channeled into selfless work, and their rise is a byproduct of serving others. This distinction is perfectly captured by their differing views on what it means to be a leader.
The “Climber’s” View:
“I am at the top of the chain, my people work for me, I hope they make me proud!” unnamed
The “Riser’s” View:
“I have reached the pinnacle of this profession as a Chief, I now work for hundreds of people, I strive to and hope to make them proud!” ~Chief Jeremy Story~
——————————————————————————–
- Conclusion: Why Leadership Style Matters for Everyone
The intent behind a leader’s ambition has direct and tangible consequences for public trust and safety. Self-centered ambition, or “climbing,” harms the profession by producing risk-averse leaders who protect their own positions at the expense of progress, integrity, and the well-being of their officers. In contrast, self-aware leadership, rooted in service and fortified by experience, lifts everyone up. By elevating leaders who have earned the trust of those below them—leaders with proven fortitude—a police department can build a stronger, more resilient organization capable of meeting the needs of its officers and the community it is sworn to protect.
Discussion Questions for Your Study
- According to the text, how does a “risk-averse” leader’s decision-making negatively affect both police officers and the community’s trust?
- The author describes a “virtuous cycle” created by good leaders. What does this mean, and how could this cycle benefit a public institution like a police department?
Why is it important for citizens to understand the difference between these two leadership styles when thinking about police reform and accountability?
