By Brian Miller, Ed.D.
The filing period for a sergeant’s promotional process closes, and command staff review the applicant list. One name is missing: an experienced officer with sound judgment, strong evaluations, and credibility among peers. Younger officers already seek this person out after difficult calls. Someone says, “She just doesn’t want it,” and the meeting moves on.
That explanation may be correct. It may also be an assumption standing in for succession planning.
Most agencies can report how many employees applied, completed the process, made the eligibility list, and were promoted. Far fewer can identify how many qualified employees seriously considered applying but opted out. A leadership pipeline does not begin when the announcement is posted. It begins years earlier through assignments, feedback, encouragement, mentoring, sponsorship, and the signals employees receive about whether advancement is attainable and worth the cost.
A promotional process can be technically fair on the day of the exam and still reflect years of uneven access to preparation. By the time executives review the applicant list, some of their most promising future leaders may already have left the pipeline.
What the numbers don’t tell us
Women remain underrepresented in law enforcement leadership. The most recent nationally representative, agency-reported comparison by rank for local police departments comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2020 data: Women represented 13.5% of full-time sworn officers, 10.9% of first-line supervisors, 8.7% of intermediate supervisors and 3.6% of chiefs. [1]
More recent data from the 30x30 Initiative show a similar pattern among participating agencies. Its 2025 report found that women represented 19% of officers and detectives, 16% of mid-level supervisors and 14% of commanders and chiefs among 171 agencies reporting rank data. [2]
Those numbers tell us that representation narrows as rank increases. What they do not tell us is why.
The statistics do not establish that qualified women are choosing not to apply for promotion, nor do they tell us how much of the decline results from interest, preparation, opportunity, organizational practices, selection outcomes or other factors.
Instead, the numbers raise a broader succession-planning question that applies well beyond gender: Why do qualified employees decide not to enter the promotional process?
That is the question police leaders should be asking.
Why missing applicants matter
A 2024 report by the RAND Corporation and the Police Executive Research Forum identified barriers stemming from assignment practices, training access, promotion procedures, family circumstances, work-life demands and organizational culture. Its expert panel specifically called for research involving people who chose not to pursue promotion. [3]
Other recent studies reinforce the importance of looking before the test. Matusiak and Frazier found that formal structures explained only a limited share of women’s supervisory representation, suggesting that those managing developmental and promotional decisions may be especially influential. [4] Paoline and Gau found no gender difference in perceived advancement opportunities in one large urban agency, but women expressed greater concern about mentorship availability. [5]
A 2025 study of 5,015 officers across 85 U.S. agencies found that women leaders were more likely than men to identify workplace inequalities, elevate community voices and reject a primarily tough, physical view of policing. [6] That does not mean one gender is inherently better suited to lead. It does show that leadership composition can influence which perspectives reach the command table.
My doctoral research on the underrepresentation of women in U.S. law enforcement reached a practical conclusion that applies more broadly. Confidence and aspiration are shaped by what employees observe, the opportunities they receive, the feedback they hear, and whether they can see a credible path from their current role to leadership.
Police executives should stop guessing why qualified employees do not apply.
A practical tool: The promotion opt-out interview
Agencies routinely conduct exit interviews when employees leave. A similar diagnostic can be used earlier: the promotion opt-out interview.
This is a brief, voluntary and confidential conversation or an anonymous survey offered to every employee who met the minimum qualifications for a promotional process but did not apply. It is not a performance evaluation, a complaint interrogation or an effort to pressure anyone into testing. It is a succession-planning tool designed to identify where capable employees disengage.
The process should be administered consistently, not only to women or to employees selected by command staff. Human resources, a neutral manager or an outside facilitator may be best positioned to collect the information. Individual responses should not be placed in performance files. Command staff should receive aggregate themes, with any confidentiality limits explained in advance.
The following five questions offer a practical starting point. The instrument has not been validated and should be piloted and tailored to the agency’s needs.
1. Did you seriously consider applying, and when did you decide not to?
Do not begin with the accusatory question, “Why didn’t you apply?” First, determine whether the employee ever entered the decision-making process.
Some excellent officers have no interest in formal supervision. Others attended an information meeting, began studying or sought advice before withdrawing.
Timing indicates the exit point. A decision made long before the announcement may reflect accumulated perceptions of leadership or the organization. A decision made after reviewing the schedule, compensation, testing format or likely assignment may point to a specific disincentive.
2. What made the position or process less attractive?
Begin broadly, then use neutral prompts: loss of overtime or specialty pay, schedule changes, reduced control over assignments, on-call expectations, caregiving responsibilities, workload, study time, preparation resources, workplace climate or confidence in the process.
Leaders should not dismiss these concerns as a lack of ambition. If promotion reduces take-home pay, creates an unpredictable schedule or causes major family disruption, those are features of the position, not character defects in the employee.
The agency may not eliminate every disincentive, but it should understand the package of incentives and disincentives employees are being asked to accept.
3. Did you believe the process was clear, credible and worth entering?
Ask whether the employee understood the steps, scoring, timelines, selection criteria and feedback process. Then ask whether prior outcomes influenced the decision.
A perception that a process is predetermined is not proof of unfairness. Repeated perceptions remain organizational data. If several qualified employees believe that acting assignments go to favored candidates, that criteria are unclear or that feedback has little value, command staff have a credibility problem, even if every formal rule was followed.
The interview is not the place to rebut the employee. The leadership task is to listen for patterns and determine whether the process is transparent enough to build trust.
4. Did you have reasonable access to preparation and career-building opportunities?
Promotional preparation goes beyond a study guide. Ask about acting-supervisor assignments, specialty positions, leadership courses, assessment-center practice, major projects, budgeting, performance management, presentations, coaching, mentoring and sponsorship.
Mentors offer advice. Sponsors use their credibility to create access, recommend people for assignments and make potential visible when opportunities are discussed. When both functions remain informal, employees with the strongest existing networks often receive the most preparation.
Standards should remain high. Access to the experiences needed to meet them should not depend primarily on proximity to the right supervisor.
5. What one change could make you reconsider in the future?
The answer may be earlier notice, clearer criteria, on-duty preparation time, a realistic preview of the position, rotating acting assignments, flexible study options, a formal mentor or meaningful feedback.
Not every request will be feasible, appropriate or consistent with a labor agreement or civil service rule. Every recurring answer warrants examination.
The purpose is not to promise a promotion but to identify conditions leaders can influence.
Turn the interviews into a pipeline audit
Interviews without follow-through will become another listening exercise employees learn not to trust. Combine the findings with a simple pipeline audit.
Eligibility → Interest → Preparation → Application → Completion → Selection → Successful transition
At each stage, count how many employees remain. Examine who receives preparation, withdraws after applying, makes the eligibility list and is promoted. Where sample sizes protect confidentiality, look for relevant workforce patterns.
Also audit developmental access. Who received acting-supervisor experience, leadership training, high-visibility projects or experience in budgeting and personnel? Were those opportunities announced, rotated and documented, or distributed informally?
This is not a quota exercise, and it does not predetermine who should be promoted. It tests whether the organization is producing a broad, well-prepared and credible candidate pool.
A 30-day action plan
Follow this 30-day plan to find out why eligible employees stay out of the promotional process:
The first change may be as simple as posting acting assignments, providing earlier notice or creating a standardized feedback meeting.
One visible response is more credible than a long list of promises.
The hardest part is hearing the answers
Employees may say the process appears predetermined, that a supervisor discouraged them or that the same people repeatedly receive career-making assignments. Command staff may disagree. The interview is not the place to cross-examine employees or to protect the organization’s reputation.
Low participation is also informative. In a small agency, an outside facilitator, multi-cycle reporting or a truly anonymous survey may be necessary.
Some barriers stem from contracts, civil service systems, staffing shortages, compensation structures or municipal processes that cannot change quickly. Leaders should distinguish what can be corrected now, what requires negotiation and what cannot change at present. Candor is better than a promise the agency cannot keep.
Look beyond the names on the list
Police leaders often say they want the best people to step forward. That desire is not a succession plan.
A real succession plan examines how employees are recognized, developed, encouraged and prepared, and why qualified people decide the opportunity is not right for them.
The next time a promotional filing period closes, review the names on the list. Then give equal attention to the eligible employees whose names are missing.
The most consequential loss in a promotional process may not be the candidate who fails. It may be the future leader who never applies.
References
- Goodison SE. (2022). Local Police Departments Personnel, 2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
- 30x30 Initiative. (2025). Milestones and Momentum: The State of the 30x30 Initiative.
- Barnum JD., et al. (2024). Promotions in Law Enforcement: High-Priority Needs for Improving the Process to Identify and Select the Next Generation of Police Leaders. RAND Corporation.
- Matusiak MC, Frazier JD. (2024). Achieving Female Supervisory Representation in US Law Enforcement Agencies: The Roles of Organizational Structure, Practice, and Context.
- Paoline EA, Gau JM. (2024). Officer Gender and Opportunities for Mentoring and Advancement in Policing.
- Schuck AM, Rabe-Hemp CE. (2025). Women Police Leaders: Attitudes About Policing and Experiences in the Occupation.
About the author
Brian Miller, Ed.D., is a police captain in Orange County, California, with more than two decades of law enforcement experience. He has served in patrol, investigations, professional standards, tactical operations and executive leadership. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and the Senior Management Institute for Police and holds a Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership from the University of Southern California. His doctoral research examined organizational factors that affect the recruitment, retention and advancement of women in U.S. law enforcement.
The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent those of his employer.
