By Carrie Carone
Not long ago, a former employee reached out to me after being passed over for a promotion. Ironically, that same evening, I stumbled upon a podcast discussing the same topic: why it seems like employers keep promoting their worst employees.
It’s a phenomenon most of us have witnessed at some point in our careers. You work hard, show up early, never miss a deadline and still, somehow, the least competent person in the room ends up with the corner office.
It’s frustrating, disheartening and confusing. But there’s an explanation for it, and it often has little to do with performance.
Popularity over competence
We’ve all watched it happen: that coworker who spends half the day chatting, mingling at every event and making sure they’re always seen somehow ends up moving up faster than the people actually doing the work. They show up at every law enforcement fundraiser, every training, every retirement party.
And honestly? It works.
Being visible creates a certain image. People who come across as outgoing, upbeat and social often get tagged as “leadership material,” even when their work doesn’t really back it up. Meanwhile, the quiet, steady workers — the ones who rarely take time off, who volunteer for overtime, who handle the tough calls without complaining — can fade into the background. They’re reliable, but they’re not flashy. And in a lot of workplaces, especially in policing, visibility can influence how employees are perceived.
There’s another uncomfortable dynamic that can come into play: Highly competent employees sometimes challenge managers simply by asking questions, identifying problems or proposing a different way of doing things. For some leaders, that confidence can feel challenging rather than valuable.
Loyalty over performance
In some organizations, loyalty can carry as much weight as performance. A “loyal” employee may be less likely to challenge decisions, ask hard questions or push back. They keep things smooth and predictable, which can make management feel comfortable.
High performers can be a different story. They spot inefficiencies. They ask why things are done a certain way. They speak up when something isn’t right. And in some organizations, those behaviors may be seen as challenging rather than valuable.
If you have ever questioned a policy or procedure and had a supervisor respond with, “Because we’ve always done it that way and it works,” then you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Promoting someone who rarely challenges the status quo can feel like the safer choice. Promoting someone who regularly questions how things are done may bring change with it. And in large bureaucratic systems — including police departments — that tension between stability and change can influence promotion decisions.
Confidence can challenge the status quo
When you’re good at your job, you may also be more willing to question how things are done. Some police organizations can fall back on leadership styles that rely heavily on micromanagement and conformity. This can reinforce a top-down leadership model where ideas and orders flow from the top while those below are expected to follow them.
Employees who are comfortable with that structure may be less likely to seek autonomy or challenge decisions. Over time, that dynamic can discourage innovation and initiative.
The result? The thinkers, the innovators, the “disruptors” — the ones who see a better way — can burn out from a lack of recognition or leave to find a place that values them. That’s how law enforcement and other government workplaces risk losing talented people who might otherwise become future leaders.
The price of being good at your job
At first, your competence earns you praise — you’re dependable, a team player, the person everyone can count on. But give it time. That praise can turn into pressure. You become the one who fixes everything — not because you want to, but because no one else will. You stop being recognized and start being relied on. You’re the one holding everything together while others take the credit. You train people who earn more money than you do. You clean up after those who care less. And somehow, you’re the one being told to “set better boundaries.”
And if you’re a woman working in the male-dominated law enforcement industry, the weight can feel even greater. The pressure isn’t just to perform — it’s to prove you belong. You may feel expected to outwork your peers while navigating a culture built on longstanding hierarchies and unspoken rules. Your strength may be applauded until it challenges authority. Assertiveness can be mistaken for attitude. You learn to walk the tightrope — to be confident but not intimidating, capable but not threatening, vocal but not “too emotional.”
It’s a difficult balance that can leave women exhausted, not from the work itself, but from the constant recalibration it demands. In these environments, competence doesn’t just make you visible — it can also make you vulnerable.
That constant recalibration can be mentally exhausting. And some outside leadership programs can add another challenge when their structure doesn’t account for working parents and others balancing significant responsibilities outside the job. Leadership development opportunities should be designed so qualified employees have a meaningful opportunity to participate.
How nepotism advances mediocrity
While loyalty and visibility can influence promotions, nepotism can distort them. Throughout my career, I witnessed instances in which individuals appeared to benefit professionally because of family relationships within an organization rather than because of what they contributed.
In some cases, employees received opportunities or advanced despite concerns about their performance. When others believed family connections played a role in those decisions, the effects were felt throughout the organization. Morale dropped, cynicism rose and trust in leadership eroded.
I also witnessed situations in which family relationships appeared to make accountability more difficult. When employees believe personal connections can influence how performance issues are handled, they may become reluctant to speak up or challenge decisions.
These examples illustrate a broader truth: Even the perception of nepotism can breed resentment and undermine legitimacy. It can create an environment where officers question whether ethical behavior, professional development and operational excellence will be rewarded.
Agencies with clear nepotism policies are ahead of the curve. Those without them risk allowing family relationships to influence decisions that should be based on qualifications, performance and leadership potential. Law enforcement cannot afford that — not in a profession where public trust and internal integrity are essential.
A systemic problem, not an individual one
When officers ask why poor performers keep advancing, the answer is rarely about individual flaws. It is about systems that can reward compliance over courage, relationships over merit and familiarity over fairness. These dynamics are not unique to law enforcement, but the consequences can be significant in our field. Ineffective leadership influences morale, decision-making, accountability and, ultimately, the quality of service provided to the community.
Competence may not always lead to promotion, but it remains an important indicator of leadership potential. Agencies that fail to recognize and reward it risk entrenching mediocrity, damaging morale and weakening public trust. But agencies that promote based on merit — not compliance, popularity or personal relationships — can build cultures that attract strong officers, retain them and ultimately serve their communities with greater professionalism and integrity.
In the end, the problem isn’t that high performers aren’t good enough. The problem is that promotion systems don’t always reward the qualities that make someone an effective leader. The future of law enforcement depends on getting that right.
What a good promotion system should look like
A great leader isn’t simply the most experienced person or the most technically skilled person in the organization. The best leaders consistently make the people around them better while accomplishing the organization’s mission. Technical expertise matters. Experience matters. But neither automatically translates into the ability to lead.
If we are serious about developing the next generation of law enforcement leaders, agencies must begin treating promotions as more than a reward for longevity, test-taking ability or simply being the most visible person in the room. A good promotion system should be fair, transparent, consistent and designed to identify leadership potential — not merely technical competence.
The process should evaluate the qualities that actually matter in a supervisor: sound judgment, integrity, communication, accountability, emotional intelligence, the ability to develop others and the courage to make difficult decisions when doing so is unpopular. Candidates should know what is expected of them before they enter the process, and those expectations should be applied consistently to everyone.
Agencies should also look beyond the promotion process itself when identifying future leaders. The best candidates often demonstrate their leadership abilities long before they submit an application. Who takes responsibility when something goes wrong? Who develops newer employees rather than competing with them? Who can de-escalate conflict, accept criticism, make decisions with incomplete information and hold themselves and others accountable? Who earns the trust of the people they lead?
These are leadership behaviors that can — and should — be observed and measured over time. A promotion should be the culmination of demonstrated leadership, not the beginning of it. Peer feedback, documented performance, leadership development opportunities, mentoring and meaningful evaluations can help agencies identify employees who are already demonstrating the characteristics of effective leaders.
Ultimately, chiefs and command staff have to ask themselves a difficult question: Are we promoting the people who are best at getting promoted, or the people who are best prepared to lead?
Those are not always the same people.
A strong promotion system does more than fill vacancies on an organizational chart; it shapes the culture and future of an agency. When promotions are based on clearly defined leadership competencies, demonstrated performance, integrity and the ability to inspire trust and accountability, agencies are far more likely to put the right people in positions of influence.
And when employees believe the process is fair, they are more likely to trust not only the promotion system, but the leaders who emerge from it.
10 signs someone is ready to lead
There are fundamental qualities that show up in the everyday behavior of good leaders. In my experience, there are 10 simple behaviors that can signal someone is ready to lead:
- Answer questions directly. People can handle an answer they don’t like. What erodes trust is avoiding the question, talking around the issue or giving an answer designed to protect yourself rather than inform the people you lead. Good leaders are willing to say, “I don’t know,” “I was wrong” or “Here’s what we’re going to do.”
- Take responsibility. When things go wrong, good leaders don’t immediately look for someone else to blame. They own their decisions and their responsibilities. That doesn’t mean shielding employees from accountability; it means understanding that the leader ultimately owns the environment in which the team operates.
- Give credit to the people who deserve it. Great leaders don’t need to be the smartest person in the room or take credit for every success. They recognize the people who did the work. Giving credit publicly builds trust and reinforces the behaviors you want repeated.
- Address problems early. Difficult conversations rarely become easier by waiting. Good leaders address performance problems, interpersonal conflicts and misconduct before they become larger organizational problems. Accountability should be fair, consistent and applied regardless of someone’s rank, popularity or relationship with the supervisor.
- Set clear expectations. People cannot consistently meet expectations they don’t understand. Leaders should communicate what success looks like, what standards apply and what happens when those standards aren’t met. Clarity is one of the simplest forms of good leadership.
- Make work a safe place to tell the truth. Employees should be able to tell their supervisor that something went wrong, that they disagree with a decision or that they made a mistake without immediately fearing retaliation. A culture where everyone tells the boss what they think the boss wants to hear is dangerous. Leaders need honest information — especially when that information is uncomfortable.
- Treat people like adults, not children. Good employees generally don’t need to be micromanaged. Give people responsibility, establish expectations and boundaries, and then allow them to do their jobs. Treating experienced professionals like children creates resentment and discourages initiative.
- Stay calm under pressure. People watch their leaders most closely when things go wrong. A supervisor who becomes angry, panicked, defensive or erratic under pressure can quickly destabilize an entire team. Calm doesn’t mean passive. The best leaders can be decisive and demanding while still maintaining control of themselves.
- Listen to understand. Listening is more than waiting for your turn to speak. Good leaders ask questions, seek context and genuinely consider perspectives that differ from their own. Employees don’t necessarily need their supervisor to agree with them, but they need to know they were heard.
- Support people more than you manage them. Management is about tasks, schedules, policies and performance. Leadership is about people.
The best supervisors understand that their job is not simply to direct employees, but to provide the tools, guidance, training and support people need to succeed. When employees know their leader has their back, they are more willing to take ownership, accept responsibility and perform at a higher level.
Performance and leadership aren’t the same thing
The best investigator isn’t necessarily the best sergeant. The best officer isn’t necessarily the best lieutenant. The best technician isn’t necessarily the best manager. And the employee who consistently produces the most may not be the person who will create the strongest team.
That distinction is particularly important in law enforcement, where the consequences of poor leadership extend far beyond employee morale. Leaders influence organizational culture, officer performance, public trust, accountability and, ultimately, the quality of service an agency provides to its community.
A promotion should therefore be more than recognition for past performance. It should be a decision about who the organization trusts to shape its future.
The ultimate question for chiefs and command staff shouldn’t simply be, “Who deserves the promotion?” It should be, “Who has demonstrated that they can make the people around them better while moving the mission forward?”
Because leadership isn’t about having authority. It’s about what you do with it.
About the author
Carrie Carone is a retired lieutenant with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, where she served for more than 22 years, including as head of litigation. She is a graduate of Sacramento State University with a degree in criminal justice and is pursuing her Juris Doctor at Northwestern California University School of Law.
Carone is a published author, guest speaker and certified instructor with experience in investigations, risk management and federal court matters. Her article, “The 80/20 Rule and How It Applies to Corrections,” was published in JAILS, the American Jail Association magazine, in 2021.
