In public safety, accountability is often defined by action: what an officer does, what a supervisor approves, and what policy requires. But what about the moments when no one acts? That question sits at the center of Lexipol’s recent webinar, “Enablement and Intervention: A Conversation on Accountability,” featuring legal scholar Dr. Amos N. Guiora and Chief (Ret.) Ken Wallentine, legal advisor for Lexipol.
Together, they examine a critical but often overlooked issue by focusing on enablement and the behaviors, decisions, and cultural norms that allow misconduct to continue unchecked. For public safety leaders, the implications are significant. Accountability is not just about identifying misconduct. It is about understanding the systems that allow it to persist and about building organizations that respond decisively when something is wrong.
The following are five key takeaways from the webinar to help public safety leaders recognize enablement and build stronger accountability.
Enablement Is Often Passive — But No Less Harmful
One of the most important ideas explored in the discussion is that enablement is not always obvious. It does not require malicious intent or direct participation. Instead, it often shows up as silence, inaction, or a conscious decision to look the other way.
Guiora gives the concept a clear definition: “For me, the enabler is a person in a position of authority who knows of harm and yet makes the conscious decision to ignore that harm.” He goes on to explain the larger organizational impact, saying, “The primary purpose of the enabler is to protect the institution.”
In many cases, individuals may not see themselves as contributing to wrongdoing. They may believe they are avoiding conflict, protecting colleagues, or preserving stability inside the organization. But as the panel makes clear, inaction carries consequences.
When misconduct is ignored or rationalized, it sends a message about what the organization will tolerate. Over time, that message shapes behavior across the agency. For leaders, the takeaway is clear: Preventing harm requires recognizing enablement in all its forms, including the quiet and passive forms that often go unchallenged.
The Duty to Intervene Is Broader Than Policy
Law enforcement agencies are familiar with the legal concept of a duty to intervene, especially in use of force situations. But the webinar makes clear that accountability cannot stop at a narrow policy definition.
Guiora pushes the audience to think more deeply about obligation and responsibility by asking, “To whom do you owe a duty?” That question reframes intervention as more than a procedural requirement. It becomes an ethical and professional obligation.
That broader perspective changes how leaders should think about accountability. It is not confined to a single kind of incident or a specific policy trigger. It applies whenever integrity, safety, or the rights of others are at stake. This is especially important in public safety, where competing loyalties often shape decision-making. Personnel may feel responsibility to partners, supervisors, the chain of command and the public all at once. But when those loyalties conflict, agencies need a culture that makes the right priority clear.
Culture Determines Whether People Speak Up
Policies matter, training matters, but culture often determines whether intervention actually happens.
Even the strongest policy has limits if the surrounding environment discourages people from acting on it. Personnel look to everyday signals from leadership and peers to decide what will actually be accepted.
That is why culture matters so much in conversations about enablement. In an environment where speaking up is supported, intervention becomes part of the job. In an environment where silence feels safer, enablement takes root. Wallentine explains this point even further: “If you don’t design your culture, you don’t get no culture,” he says. “You don’t just get a culture of tolerance and enabling. You get somebody else’s culture.”
That is a powerful reminder for leaders. Organizational culture is never neutral. If leaders do not shape it intentionally, it will still be shaped, often by misplaced loyalties and unspoken expectations.
Building a culture of intervention takes more than policy language. It requires clear expectations and visible leadership support when personnel do the hard thing.
Fear, Hierarchy and Loyalty Create Real Barriers
If intervention is so important, why do people still hesitate? Guiora highlights one of the most basic drivers, noting that “employees of institutions have loyalty to the institution. It’s where they get their paycheck. Can’t ignore that.”
That honesty is important. Too often, organizations talk about accountability without acknowledging the forces that work against it. Loyalty, fear of retaliation, concern about reputational harm, and the weight of hierarchy all influence behavior. Those pressures are especially strong in public safety environments, where rank, cohesion and trust inside the organization carry enormous weight. Loyalty can strengthen teamwork, but it can also discourage individuals from challenging a peer, questioning a supervisor, or reporting harmful conduct.
That is why leaders cannot treat silence as a purely individual failure. In many cases, silence reflects organizational dynamics that make intervention feel risky. If agencies want personnel to act, they must address those barriers directly. Expectations matter, but support matters too. People need to know they will be backed when they step forward.
Moving from Awareness to Action
Understanding enablement is only the first step. The real challenge is turning awareness into action. The webinar closes with a clear call for personal and organizational responsibility. Wallentine describes the goal as “doing everything you can to never be complicit, to never be the enabler, and to always be the one who is remedying the enabling.”
That kind of culture does not happen by accident. It requires leadership, training, policy reinforcement, and accountability mechanisms that support intervention in real time. It also requires leaders who model the behavior they expect from others.
When leaders act, they reinforce trust and professional integrity. When they stay silent, they reinforce something else. Across the discussion, one message remains consistent: Agencies cannot reduce enablement simply by telling people to do better. They have to build systems and cultures that make intervention possible and expected.
Bringing It All Together
Enablement, whether intentional or passive, plays a critical role in determining outcomes. Left unaddressed, it allows harm to persist and trust to erode. But it is not inevitable.
By expanding the concept of duty, addressing barriers to intervention, and intentionally shaping organizational culture, public safety leaders can create environments where accountability thrives.
The path forward is not always easy. It requires difficult conversations, consistent leadership, and a willingness to challenge long-standing norms, but the cost of inaction is far greater. For agencies committed to integrity and public trust, the message is simple: Never allow silence to become the standard.
- Blog Articles
