By Chief Robin Shusko, Ed.D.
In public safety, command hires are never just personnel decisions. They are legitimacy tests. They tell people what the organization values, what it rewards and what kind of leadership it expects.
When you are the only woman in the room, or the first woman in a role, those decisions can come with an added layer of scrutiny. People may not say it out loud, but they watch for signs that you are either playing favorites or overcorrecting to prove you are unbiased. Either perception can damage trust.
As a female chief leading an all-male sworn and non-sworn team, I recently conducted a command-level hiring process with more than 30 applicants. Only one was a woman.
That one fact carried more weight than a simple tally should.
It raised questions about the leadership pipeline, professional networks and who sees command as a realistic next step. But it also created a leadership tension many chiefs may not want to say out loud: I wanted her to do well.
I wanted the candidate to succeed. I wanted the outcome to broaden representation. I wanted to see what the profession often says it wants: more women ready, supported and visible in leadership roles. But I also knew the decision had to be fair, defensible and credible to the team I lead.
That is the heart of the issue. This article is not about lowering standards. It’s about how leaders can check bias (including positive bias), run structured, defensible hiring processes, and communicate outcomes in a way that reinforces standards, transparency, and trust, especially when the dynamics of representation are present, and everyone knows it.
The hidden risk of positive bias
Most leaders understand the danger of negative bias. Fewer talk about positive bias: the quiet pull to want something to work because it would feel meaningful, affirming or overdue.
When the pool includes more than 30 applicants and only one candidate represents something you have rarely seen at the command table, the temptation is real. You root for her. You imagine what the team could become with a broader leadership bench. You picture what it might mean for other women watching from earlier points in the pipeline.
Positive bias does not come from a bad place. Often, it comes from a sincere desire to widen opportunity. But it can still distort judgment. It can make you interpret an answer more generously, overlook a gap you would not overlook in someone else, or search for evidence that confirms what you hoped to see.
The goal is not to pretend you are unaffected. The goal is to be honest enough to recognize it and disciplined enough to keep it from driving the outcome. A few questions helped me stay grounded:
• If this candidate were not the only woman in the pool, would I weigh this answer the same way?
• If this candidate were a friend, would I still apply the same standard?
• If this candidate were someone I felt neutral about, would the score change?
Build a process strong enough to carry the weight
When a hiring decision is highly visible, the best protection for the candidate, the chief and the organization is a process that is consistent, structured and documented. Not because chiefs need more bureaucracy. Because they need clarity.
1. Use structured interviews with anchored scoring
If you want to protect fairness and credibility, reduce “vibes-based hiring.” Command hiring is especially vulnerable to style bias: confidence, charisma or familiarity can be mistaken for competence. A structured interview shifts the emphasis to what matters: leadership behaviors and decision quality.
A strong structure includes:
- The same questions in the same order for each candidate
- A shared rubric with anchored scoring, such as what a 1, 3 or 5 looks like
- A standard note-taking format tied to the rubric, not impressions
- A requirement that panelists score independently before discussion
Anchored scoring is the key. Without anchors, “strong answer” means whatever each panelist feels it means. With anchors, “strong answer” means the answer demonstrated specific behaviors: prioritization, accountability, decision cadence and clarity under uncertainty.
Tip: If you can’t articulate why one candidate scored higher using your rubric language, your rubric isn’t doing its job.
2. Separate “potential” from “proven” and state what you’re hiring for
Command roles often require a blend of readiness, or proven performance, and runway, or the capacity to grow. The risk comes when leaders talk themselves into treating “potential” as a substitute for the competencies the job requires on day one.
Before interviews, define:
- What must be day-one capable
- What can be developed within six to 12 months
- What is non-negotiable
This protects candidates who are newer to command roles and protects the organization from making a selection based on hope rather than readiness. It also helps with a common command-hiring trap: confusing a “good human” with a “ready leader.” Both matter, but they are not the same.
3. Keep follow-ups consistent and intentional
In tight races, follow-ups are where fairness can slip. Some candidates are invited for extra conversations, informal clarifications or second chances to explain. Others are not.
If you plan to use follow-ups:
- Use the same follow-up format for all finalists
- Ask the same clarifying questions
- Document what was asked and how it was answered
- Tie any follow-up scoring back to the rubric
Consistency isn’t a technical detail; it’s the foundation of perceived legitimacy.
Communicating the decision: Credibility is built in the explanation
Even the best hiring process can lose trust if leaders communicate the outcome poorly. Communication should not be defensive, but it should be transparent enough to reduce speculation. The message must reinforce standards, not personalities.
A strong internal communication has three elements:
1. Reaffirm the standard
Make the standard explicit: what competencies the organization needs in this role. This shifts the discussion from “who was liked” to “what was required.”
Example language: “This selection was based on demonstrated command-level competencies: decision-making under uncertainty, accountability practices, communication discipline and team leadership.”
2. Describe the process briefly
You don’t need to publish scores, but you can describe the fairness safeguards:
- Structured interviews
- Rubric-based scoring
- Panel diversity
- Consistent follow-ups
This signals that the decision was disciplined.
3. Connect the hire to organizational needs
Command hires should be linked to mission priorities:
- Operational readiness
- Workforce stability
- Consistent supervision
- Community trust
- Interagency coordination
That linkage helps teams understand why the decision matters beyond a vacancy.
Avoid statements that imply the decision was subjective, such as “best fit,” without defining fit. “Fit” can sound like favoritism unless you anchor it to job requirements.
Before interviews
During interviews
After interviews
Ongoing
Leading under the credibility microscope
When you are a female chief leading an all-male team, some decisions carry extra interpretation weight. A choice that might be seen as routine in another context can be read as symbolic, political or personal. The answer is not to lead timidly. It is to lead consistently.
Here are three ways to reduce that microscope effect over time:
1. Be predictable in standards, even when you’re flexible in style
Teams don’t need you to lead like your predecessor. They need you to be consistent about expectations:
- What “good” looks like
- How accountability is handled
- How decisions are made
- How follow-through is documented
When standards are stable, perception risk declines.
2. Use transparency as a routine, not a defense
If transparency only shows up when you anticipate criticism, it feels reactive. If it’s part of your routine, such as regular updates, clear decision rationales and consistent briefings, it becomes culture.
The “microscope” becomes less intense when people stop guessing what you’re thinking because you communicate consistently.
3. Protect the process so you don’t have to defend yourself
When your processes are disciplined, you’re not asking people to trust you as a person. You’re asking them to trust the system you built. That’s leadership.
What I learned from wanting it to work
I did root for her. I wanted to see more women in the command pipeline. I wanted to believe the profession’s “we want diversity” message could be reflected in a candidate pool that often says otherwise. But leadership isn’t proven by what we hope for. It’s proven by whether we can hold standards steady when emotion is present.
That’s the uncomfortable but important truth: The strongest leaders don’t pretend bias doesn’t exist. They design processes that keep bias from driving outcomes, and they build pipelines so the “only one” situation becomes less common over time.
Closing
Command hiring is one of the most powerful leadership acts a chief performs. It shapes culture, standards and the future leadership bench. When you’re leading under a microscope, the path forward isn’t to shrink your decision-making or overcorrect. It’s to standardize the process, communicate it clearly and keep your leadership anchored in consistent expectations and visible follow-through.
And if you find yourself quietly rooting for the only woman in the pool? That doesn’t make you unprofessional. It makes you human.
The goal isn’t to pretend bias doesn’t exist. The goal is to build a process strong enough that bias, positive or negative, can’t drive the result. The professional move is ensuring your process stays fair enough that if she earns it, everyone knows she earned it. And if she doesn’t, you keep building the bench so she’s not the only one next time.
About the author
Robin Shusko, Ed.D., is the Chief of Campus Police and Director of Public Safety at Frederick Community College. With prior law enforcement experience, she leads department strategy and operations, compliance and multi-agency coordination in support of campus safety and emergency preparedness.
Her practitioner-scholar work focuses on safety culture, leadership and training effectiveness in higher education. Robin presents at regional and national conferences and contributes to professional publications on public safety leadership, governance and campus readiness.
