I recently had one of the most rewarding experiences I have had — and one that I have experienced scores of times — attending the law enforcement academy graduation of new peace officers. The pomp and circumstance, the proud graduates, and their proud and loving friends and relatives all came together in what, for most career peace officers, is a wonderful event that will forever remain a positive memory.

Along with the warmth and happiness of the event, I always ask myself a question that inevitably occurs to me at academy graduation ceremonies: How many of these officers, if any, will “crash and burn” and morph into troubled employees? While we all hope that will not be the case, the reality is that some percentage of new hires will encounter difficulties that, in some instances, will result in their separation from the law enforcement profession. Solid selection and training criteria will reduce this percentage, but the continuing reality is that some people, despite our best efforts, will fail.

My longstanding concern over these realities has reached a boiling point and has resulted in some self-criticism and self-reflection as to what I might have been able to do over the years to salvage one of the many officers who failed under the many commands I have held. I have often wished that I could take an employee “out behind the woodshed” and have a pointed, fatherly discussion in an effort to talk some sense into them. For a variety of reasons, including personnel rules, disciplinary protocols, workers’ compensation guidelines and legal practices, we all realize that the potential for blunt and candid discussions is not always practical at certain stages of dealing with troubled employees.

In my personal reflections, I look back on situations where I was part of a schism that developed between the employee and the agency, in most instances influenced by disdain over behaviors, foolish defenses and rationalizations, boisterous behavior by defense representatives, questionable medical claims and contemptuous demeanor. Thus, the focus of this article is somewhat of a reset.

I have come to believe that, in some instances, there may be a path forward for a command officer who is inclined and willing to try to talk some sense into a young and immature officer — two key ingredients in most of the situations that are the focus of this article. The path forward that I envision is an “outside-the-normal” career-focused conversation between the command officer and the troubled employee. For simplicity, I will categorize my thoughts in an outline format.

Overture to the troubled employee

I envision avoiding the involvement of third parties in the overture — just a call and an invitation from the command officer to the employee for an informal chat about career trajectory, without any discussion of pending disciplinary or legal issues. Explain that you understand and support the fact that the employee may have union, legal or medical representation, and that such persons are welcome to attend as observers only. The employee’s family should also be welcome to attend and hear what the command officer has to say.

Further, make it clear that the employee is welcome — perhaps even encouraged — to remain silent and make no statements or comments whatsoever. The goal is simply to try to “pound some sense” into what is likely a young and immature mind. (There we go again — young and immature!)

Likely perspective of the employee’s representative(s)

Most likely, the reaction will be negative and resistant. At this point, the troubled employee has probably already entered a negative pipeline that includes sympathetic fellow employees (likely also young and immature), a union representative who may have embraced the employee’s concerns, an attorney who benefits (yes, sorry, but true) from prolonged involvement and sometimes a psychological counselor (recommended by the attorney) whose biased “diagnosis” is that the employee should have no contact with superior officers.

The command officer should remind the employee that nothing will be lost by simply listening and that the decision to participate in what will likely be a one-way discussion belongs entirely to the employee. The employee’s family, who were so proud when the badge was pinned on their loved one’s shirt, is likely to embrace an approach that may save the career.

Likely perspective of the agency’s legal representative(s)

Most likely, the reaction will again be negative and resistant. Public attorneys seemingly most often advise that no extracurricular conversations take place. There is wisdom in such advice in many instances, but the blanket recommendation to let the issues be resolved solely through the legal arena is too often impractical.

The command officer needs to recognize and embrace the reality that attorneys are legal advisors, not decision-makers. Listen to the attorney’s perspective and consider any viewpoints that truly have merit; then the command officer makes the decision. In conversations with the agency attorney — or anyone else — an appropriate rhetorical question is: What is the downside, and what is to be lost if the effort fails?

To those who might suggest that the command officer is acting in bad faith by taking this extraordinary measure, the response is simple: Who can reasonably and legitimately criticize an effort to salvage someone’s career?

Points for the command officer to emphasize during the encounter

1. The encounter is not a forum to discuss the specifics of any ongoing disciplinary matter or litigation, and doing so would be improper.
2. Remind the employee of the hopes, dreams and aspirations they had when entering the profession, and express the command officer’s desire — if achievable — to support a restoration to good standing.
3. If accurate, state that the command officer is generally aware of the pending administrative actions and believes that, absent other issues that may emerge, the employee can survive the situation and once again gain stature and upward mobility within the agency. Be honest about the likelihood of discipline and some institutional purgatory during the recovery process.
4. Encourage the employee to go outside their circle of supportive colleagues and seek the perspective of people who, for lack of a better term, are “older and wiser.” Discuss the realities of younger peer groups in less offensive terms, and emphasize that insular, like-minded cliques are often counterproductive.
5. Do not criticize anyone else who may be present, but encourage the employee to demonstrate strength by determining their own personal destiny.
6. Remind the employee that the psychological pain of leaving a law enforcement agency never truly goes away, and that it is best to think long and hard before leaving the profession.
7. Suggest that the employee and the family prepare a comparison spreadsheet measuring the immediate and long-term factors of salary, retirement, health care and other tangible and intangible considerations. Remind them of former employees who desperately wish they could return to the agency, to their former colleagues, to the profession they once coveted and to the extraordinary benefits that few other professions provide.

Documentation and discovery

The command officer should create documentation that the encounter occurred at the command officer’s instigation, identify who was present and explain the rationale for the meeting. This documentation is not intended to further support the agency’s disciplinary actions, but rather to defend both the agency and the command officer if the process is ever challenged, while also documenting the good-faith intent of restoring the employee to good standing. This should be explained at the beginning of the encounter.

Is it a wise strategy?

I don’t know, as I have never tried it to this extent or in this manner. Such efforts are sometimes employed informally by a peer with strong credibility, but such a person is not always available, nor is the process always practical. If there is such a thing as reincarnation and I return once again as a command officer, I will give it a try.

Finally, in my judgment, any process that may save a career and that carries no serious downside is worth the effort.