When every difficult decision flows through one leader, personnel lose opportunities to develop. Decentralized command helps public safety leaders prepare their teams to take ownership, make sound decisions and lead with confidence.
The most capable person on a public safety team can also become its biggest bottleneck. When every difficult question and urgent decision goes to the same leader, personnel learn to wait for answers instead of assessing the situation and acting within the mission. Over time, that dependence strains the leader and limits the team. The leader becomes overwhelmed, while personnel miss opportunities to develop the judgment and confidence they will need when a supervisor is unavailable.
Decentralized command breaks that cycle by moving appropriate decision-making authority closer to the work. It does not remove leadership or accountability. It requires leaders to communicate the mission clearly, prepare their personnel and give trained people room to decide how the work should be done. The following principles can help public safety leaders use decentralized command to begin building more capable, confident teams.
Build the Foundation for Decentralized Command
Leaders cannot simply tell personnel to take ownership and expect decentralized command to take hold. Teams need strong working relationships, clear communication and a shared understanding of which priorities matter most before personnel can make sound decisions on their own.
Public safety organizations can easily develop silos between administration and operations, management and frontline personnel, or specialized units competing for resources and recognition. Those divisions limit the flow of information and make people less willing to support one another. Strong working relationships help break down those barriers. Personnel are more likely to share resources, step in to help, and make sacrifices for the larger mission when trust already exists. Leaders should build those relationships during routine operations, not wait until a critical incident makes them necessary.
Communication must also be simple enough to understand and apply. A complicated plan may sound thorough during a briefing, but it has little value if personnel leave the room unsure what they are expected to do. One way to check for clarity is through a readback, but the approach matters. Calling on one person can put them on the spot and shift the focus from confirming the message to evaluating the individual. Instead, the leader can acknowledge that they shared a lot of information and invite someone from the group to explain the plan in their own words. This keeps the focus on whether the leader communicated effectively and provides an opportunity to correct confusion before it affects operations.
Finally, leaders need to prioritize instead of trying to manage every problem at once. Sorting responsibilities into “now, next and later” can help identify which action will have the greatest immediate effect on the mission. “Now” items have the greatest potential to advance or disrupt the mission, while “next” and “later” responsibilities can wait until those immediate priorities are addressed. When everything feels urgent, leaders should step back, assess the situation and make one clear decision at a time.
[cta_content id=”21638″]
Communicate the “Why” Behind the Mission
Personnel can make better decisions when they understand more than what they have been told to do. They need to know why the assignment matters and what the leader intends to accomplish. “Because I said so” may produce short-term compliance, but it does not prepare someone to respond when conditions change. A person who only knows the assigned steps may stop when the original plan no longer fits. Someone who understands the purpose can adjust while continuing to work toward the intended outcome.
The leader’s responsibility is to communicate the “why” and then allow trained personnel to determine the “how.” Their method may not be exactly what the leader would have chosen, but that does not make it ineffective.
Prepare Personnel Before Expanding Their Authority
Decentralized command is not an excuse to assign a task to an unprepared person and walk away. Without the necessary training and guidance, delegation quickly becomes decentralized chaos.
Leaders should establish guardrails based on each person’s experience and abilities. New personnel or employees learning unfamiliar roles may initially require close supervision. As they demonstrate competence, leaders can widen those guardrails and give them greater authority.
The goal is not to give everyone equal responsibility for every assignment. It is to find appropriate opportunities for each person to practice decision-making, take ownership, and build the skills needed for larger responsibilities.
“Each time a leader says, ‘I’ll just do it,’ someone loses an opportunity to learn.”
Create Space for Others to Lead
For an experienced leader, taking over may seem easier than spending the time to explain the task and guide someone through it. But solving the immediate problem this way can create larger problems for the team over time.
Each time a leader says, “I’ll just do it,” someone loses an opportunity to learn. Over time, the team becomes increasingly dependent on that leader. Personnel bring problems instead of proposed solutions, and work begins piling up at one point in the organization.
Leaders should look for responsibilities they can place with trained personnel. Giving up control of a task does not mean ignoring it. Leaders still provide intent, monitor progress, and offer support, but they resist taking the work back simply because they could complete it faster.
Recognize When It Is Time to Step Back
In a recent Lexipol and Echelon Front webinar, Sergeant (Ret.) Jason Lehman shared how his response to a shooting early in his time as a sergeant taught him an important lesson about decentralized command. When he arrived outside a Long Beach liquor store, officers were rendering aid to a shooting victim, establishing a perimeter and de-escalating an agitated store clerk.
The response was moving forward, but Lehman began stepping into his officers’ assignments. He redirected crime scene tape because it was placed about 5 feet from where he would have put it. He also took over the conversation with the clerk, even though the assigned officer had avoided an unnecessary use of force and was bringing the situation under control.
While handling those details, Lehman stopped gathering the information he needed as incident commander. When his lieutenant called for a briefing, he had little to provide. The problem was not that the officers were failing. They were doing their jobs differently than he would have done them. By taking over, he neglected the responsibilities that belonged to him.
Sometimes leaders step in because they believe they are helping or maintaining high standards. But if they are not careful, that instinct can turn into micromanagement. Leaders need to ask whether intervention is necessary for safety or mission success, or whether they simply prefer their own method.
Build Leadership at Every Level
Decentralized command works up and down the chain of command. Senior leaders must provide direction and create opportunities, while personnel must be willing to develop plans and take responsibility for implementation.
In Pocatello, Idaho, Police Chief Roger Schei saw this when personnel proposed adopting exterior load-bearing vests, equipment he personally disliked. Their initial plan did not address all his concerns, so he asked them to test the vests with the community, during defensive tactics training and at the range. He also asked them to resolve questions involving rifle plates.
The group returned with a stronger proposal and a plan to use uniform allowances to cover the cost. Schei approved the proposal and found room in the department budget to pay for the equipment. The personnel who developed the idea were then assigned to write the policy, identify acceptable gear, and help implement the change.
By approving the proposal, Schei showed personnel he was willing to consider their ideas, even when he personally disagreed with them. More employees began bringing plans up the chain of command. The same culture allowed him to give personnel the purpose and expectations for a National Night Out event without planning every detail himself. Officers and specialized units organized the work, engaged vendors, and carried out the event. The leader established the “why,” and the team developed the “how.”
A strong public safety organization cannot depend on one person to make every important decision. Leaders build lasting capacity when they communicate the mission and prepare their personnel to take ownership. The result is a stronger foundation for developing confident leaders who can make sound decisions in the field and take on greater responsibility in the future.
- Webinars
