Psychological Safety in Law Enforcement: A Proposed Behavior-Based Approach
- Dr. Chris Fuzie
- Apr 29
- 8 min read
Abstract Law enforcement officers operate in an environment where constant external threats and societal scrutiny create unique challenges to psychological safety. This article explores the possibility of achieving psychological safety in policing by integrating behavioral leadership principles from the liminal leadership model. Drawing from established psychological safety research and my original frameworks, this article outlines how law enforcement organizations can intentionally foster internal cultures of trust, adaptability, and mutual respect. The final section proposes a practical five-step framework, grounded in behavior-based leadership, for creating psychologically safe environments within police organizations.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."—George Orwell
Introduction
The nature of police work—high-risk, high-scrutiny, and often misunderstood—raises a vital question: Can police officers ever truly experience psychological safety on the job given the constant threats from society? Psychological safety, defined as the belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999), is essential for cognitive clarity, team cohesion, and moral resilience. Yet in law enforcement, this state is frequently disrupted by the dual pressure of current public hostility and organizational silence. This article argues that while psychological safety may be elusive in external interactions because the police can't predict all of the threats it encounters, it can and must be cultivated within the internal culture of police departments through behavior-based leadership.
Why is Psychological Safety Critical to Police Culture?
Psychological safety is critically important in police culture—especially during and after critical incidents—because it directly impacts decision-making, emotional resilience, team cohesion, and long-term officer well-being. In high-stress situations such as officer-involved shootings, mass casualty responses, or emotionally volatile encounters, officers must make rapid decisions while coordinating with others. If psychological safety is absent, individuals may withhold observations or suppress concerns due to fear of judgment or retaliation, even when those insights are crucial to preventing harm (Edmondson, 1999; Stogner, Miller, & Sanders, 2020).
After critical incidents, the ability to debrief honestly and process emotional responses becomes essential. However, the prevailing culture in many law enforcement environments still discourages vulnerability, framing it as weakness rather than strength (Papazoglou & Andersen, 2014). This culture of bravado can lead officers to internalize trauma, increasing their risk for burnout, substance misuse, or long-term psychological distress. In contrast, environments that foster psychological safety allow officers to express fear, doubt, or moral injury without fear of humiliation or penalty, which promotes learning, emotional regulation, and collective accountability (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson & Lei, 2014).
Ultimately, psychological safety transforms the aftermath of critical incidents from sources of isolation and trauma into opportunities for growth, cohesion, and moral clarity—outcomes vital to both individual survival and organizational integrity.
Understanding Psychological Safety in Policing
Officers face a barrage of external threats—ranging from life-threatening confrontations to reputational damage in the age of social media. These realities erode their willingness to speak up, seek help, or admit mistakes (Stogner, Miller, & Sanders, 2020). However, the internal environment—comprised of team dynamics, supervisor behavior, and organizational norms—can either buffer or amplify these stressors (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).
"Officers who express fear, doubt, or emotional fatigue often risk being perceived as weak or unfit for the job."
Many police agencies still operate within a deeply ingrained culture of bravado and fearlessness, where emotional restraint and physical toughness are valued above vulnerability or self-awareness. Officers who express fear, doubt, or emotional fatigue often risk being perceived as weak or unfit for the job, creating a powerful disincentive to seek help or admit mistakes. This cultural norm not only isolates individuals but also reinforces antisocial behaviors within the group, such as emotional detachment, aggression, and hypermasculinity. Over time, these behaviors can erode empathy, reduce psychological safety, and foster a closed environment where distrust, silence, and resistance to accountability thrive—ultimately undermining both officer wellness and community trust.
Internally, psychological safety depends on the presence of trust, fairness, and open communication. It is within this realm that behavior-based leadership models become especially relevant. We must recognize that leadership and followership are behaviors, not roles, and that psychological safety emerges when these behaviors are performed in alignment with mission goals and functional, appropriate team values.
Behavior-Based Leadership and Psychological Safety
The liminal leadership theory emphasizes that people (officers are just people in a uniform) exist in a constant state of shifting roles—sometimes leading, sometimes following—based on situational context rather than hierarchical titles. In this model, the behavioral tessellations, or repeating patterns of behavior, between officers form a dynamic structure of support, where psychological safety is both a cause and consequence of adaptive leadership behaviors.
The emphasis on behavior over position creates an environment where officers feel empowered to voice concerns and share responsibility without fear of ridicule and scorn. For example, a patrol officer might lead a tactical entry due to specific training, while a sergeant follows that direction because the behavior—not the badge—dictates the moment’s needs. This fluid role exchange fosters respect and trust, which are foundational to psychological safety (Kahn, 1990).
Furthermore, the use of the Behavior Motivation Matrix tool contained in S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling book reinforces expectations around behavioral integrity and adaptive response. These tools create structured opportunities for feedback, reflection, and growth—critical ingredients in building a culture where officers are safe to speak and grow.
Framework: Liminal Leadership for Psychological Safety
The following framework translates these theoretical models into practical, behavior-based steps that law enforcement agencies can implement to foster psychological safety:
Establish the Behavioral Floor
Define and model the behaviors that reflect respect, teamwork, and mission alignment.
Behavioral expectations must be clear, visible, and modeled by leadership. Officers should know what “right” looks like—such as active listening, backing up partners verbally and physically, and showing respect regardless of rank or assignment.
Example: During roll call, a lieutenant routinely praises officers who de-escalated a tense encounter by calmly listening to a distraught subject rather than rushing to physical control at the scene.
Use tools like S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling to counsel and reinforce performance expectations.
S.C.O.R.E. (Supportive, Clear, Organized Redirected, Effort) is a structured feedback method that builds behavioral consistency by saving the relationship and changing the behavior. It focuses on objective observations, mutual understanding, and growth.
Example: A sergeant uses S.C.O.R.E. with an officer who consistently interrupts dispatch before getting full details. Rather than reprimand, the sergeant walks the officer through how this behavior affects him, the team coordination and public safety, then asks the officer to co-develop an action plan to change the behavior.
Tessellate Leadership and Followership
Train teams to shift roles based on skill, context, and need—not hierarchy.
Leadership and followership must be understood as interchangeable behaviors that shift depending on the situation. This flexibility enhances adaptability and utilizes each member’s strengths.
Example: In an active shooter drill, a newer officer trained in tactical medical response takes the lead in triaging casualties while a senior officer supports that decision—recognizing that leadership in that moment belongs to the one with the most relevant expertise.
Emphasize shared power and responsibility in critical decision-making moments. Critical incidents require fast decisions and mutual trust. Officers must feel empowered to speak up and contribute insights, especially in dynamic or uncertain situations.
Example: During a pursuit, a pursuing officer suggests a parallel containment strategy rather than direct chase. The shift supervisor accepts the suggestion immediately, allowing real-time, decentralized decision-making.
Codify “Safe Room” Conversations
Create spaces for officers to discuss emotional, ethical, or performance challenges.
Safe rooms—or psychologically safe conversations—are intentional, protected spaces where vulnerability is normalized. These may take the form of facilitated peer groups or post-critical-incident discussions such as a debrief.
Example: After responding to a traumatic child-involved fatal collision call, a precinct schedules a voluntary debrief led by a peer support officer and chaplain to process the emotional weight of the scene.
Normalize vulnerability through structured peer and leader reflections.
Vulnerability should be role-modeled and practiced by leaders. Sharing mistakes and growth moments humanizes authority and fosters safety.
Example: A captain shares during a staff meeting that early in his career he mishandled a citizen complaint and learned from the fallout—encouraging younger officers to be honest about their learning curves.
Recognize Trust-Building Behaviors
Reward actions aligned with safety, ethics, and team collaboration—not just outcomes.
Create recognition systems that elevate behavioral integrity as much as tactical or statistical success. This reframes what “success” means culturally.
Example: An officer who slows a traffic stop to calm a distraught driver and ensure a non-confrontational interaction receives praise in the shift newsletter, even though the stop did not lead to an arrest or citation.
Create micro-validations through supervisor recognition of day-to-day behaviors.
Micro-validations are small, frequent affirmations—quick comments, nods, or acknowledgments that reinforce safety and teamwork behaviors.
Example: A corporal quietly tells an officer after a call, “The way you backed your partner without taking over was exactly what we needed—nice job.”
Use Reflective Routines
Embed short reflection practices into briefings and debriefs.
Briefing and debriefing should include time to review not just tactical success, but team behaviors and decision points. This builds a shared learning culture.
Example: At the end of each shift, the team takes three minutes to answer: “What went well? What could we learn from today?” Reflections are noted and patterns tracked over time.
Use behavior-based feedback loops to adapt to team needs over time.
By consistently reviewing performance and behavior trends, supervisors can spot performance gaps, reinforce growth, and course-correct at the team level.
Example: After a few weeks of feedback, a watch commander notices that officers hesitate to admit mistakes. She begins modeling error admission during command briefings, shifting the tone of reflection.
Conclusion:
While the external environment of law enforcement is inherently dangerous, unpredictable, and politically charged, the internal culture of departments can and must become a safe space for officers to function effectively, ethically, and sustainably. Officers are continually exposed to psychological and physical threats as part of their "normal" daily job, yet it is often the internal organizational climate—marked by rigid hierarchies, silence, and emotional suppression—that poses the greatest risk to long-term health and performance. Addressing this begins with recognizing that a culture rooted in bravado and fearlessness at all costs is not only outdated but actively harmful. This cultural mindset discourages vulnerability, suppresses open communication, and fuels antisocial behaviors such as bullying, emotional detachment, and moral disengagement and may be a primary cause of officer suicide.
Changing this dynamic requires a deliberate cultural transformation that redefines strength—not as stoic silence—but as behavioral integrity, emotional courage, and mutual accountability. Through behavior-based models like Liminal Leadership Theory, organizations can break down rigid leadership-followership binaries and instead embrace situational adaptability, where anyone can lead or follow based on context and skill. The tessellations of behavior model further enable departments to view team dynamics as interconnected and fluid, reinforcing the idea that safety and success are shared responsibilities, not individual burdens.
Moreover, tools such as S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling provide leaders with a structured, respectful method to address underperformance, foster growth, and reinforce mission-aligned behaviors while preserving the relationships within the organization. These interventions do more than improve operational efficiency—they rebuild trust, open communication, and make it acceptable to speak up, learn from mistakes, and support one another.
To meet the demands of modern policing while preserving the dignity and mental health of those who serve, law enforcement must intentionally dismantle cultures of bravado and replace them with behaviorally-driven cultures of psychological safety, adaptability, and relational trust. Only then can departments create the resilient, ethical, and effective organizations the public needs—and the officers within them deserve.
About the Author: Dr. Chris Fuzie is honorably retired from the Modesto Police Department after 28 years of public service where he last served as the Assistant Division Commander of Investigations. He is the author of "Because Why?...Understanding Behavior In Exigencies." and of "S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling: Save the Relationship, Change the Behavior," and "Liminal Space: Reshaping Leadership and Followership." Chris is the owner of CMF Leadership Consulting. Chris is a developer/trainer/consultant for leadership of public, private, profit, and non-profit organizations. Chris holds a Doctor of Education (Ed.D), M.A. and B.A. in Organizational Leadership, and has graduate certificates in Human Resources and Criminal Justice Education.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Papazoglou, K., & Andersen, J. P. (2014). A guide to utilizing police training as a tool to promote resilience and improve health outcomes among police officers. Traumatology, 20(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099394
Stogner, J., Miller, B. L., & Sanders, A. (2020). Police stress, mental health, and resiliency during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 718–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09548-y
Comments