By Lieutenant Ricardo Cuellar
Across the country, law enforcement agencies are quickly hiring new officers. Recently, I reflected on this and noticed that almost none of my original field training officers are still here, nor are any of the supervisors I worked with when I was hired.
I used to think the training methods I experienced would easily work for new recruits. However, my time as a field training officer and now as the lieutenant of our training unit has shown me that we can maintain strict standards while adjusting our approach to accommodate the different personalities and skills of today’s officers.
The key is understanding the difference between changing a standard and changing how we help an officer meet that standard. The expectations for performance, safety and professionalism should remain consistent. How we coach officers toward those expectations can vary.
Offering immediate feedback keeps officers energized
When I was initially promoted to patrol supervisor, several of the officers under my command were still on probation. I sought effective strategies to motivate these new officers, aiming to foster proactive engagement through activities such as traffic stops and other self-initiated activity while avoiding the perception of being overly focused on statistics.
During discussions with my officers, I quickly observed that providing timely feedback, whether a compliment or acknowledgment, motivated them to repeat positive behaviors. When I thanked officers for being proactive or told them they did a good job of staying engaged during a shift, I often saw that behavior continue.
The experience taught me that feedback does not always need to wait for a formal evaluation. Timely, specific recognition can reinforce good performance while also giving supervisors an opportunity to address problems before they become habits.
Officers need exposure
Keeping officers actively engaged is definitely helpful, but as we all know, doing the same work for too long can become repetitive. I worked with an officer who started his career very enthusiastically, performing well and responding quickly to calls. Over time, I noticed his activity declined and his radio communication became less frequent. When I asked about it, he said the work was starting to feel repetitive.
This made me realize I hadn’t shown him enough of the variety and complexity of our job. When I was first hired, they only showed me how to do basic tasks, like pulling someone over, checking a name or making an arrest, but the bigger picture wasn’t explained.
At first, I thought new officers should be trained the same way I was rather than tailoring training to each person’s needs. So, I began exposing officers to a wider range of duties, such as checking for active warrants, conducting bar checks and learning how to handle different types of proactive enforcement consistent with department policy. My aim was to show them that our responsibilities are more complex and important than routine duties, helping them understand the true significance of their work.
Personalities matter
When I first became a field training officer (FTO), I decided to be strict, serious and thorough. I wanted student officers to understand that only through hard work and dedication could they earn my respect and approval. I didn’t worry about their feelings regarding my tough attitude. I believed it was my right to shape how we interacted.
Later, I asked a former student whether my teaching style had helped their learning. To my surprise, they said their knowledge was similar to what they gained with other FTOs, but they enjoyed working with me less.
This was hard to accept, but it made me think. I began questioning whether being so strict was actually making me a more effective trainer. The purpose of the FTO program is to develop officers who can demonstrate the knowledge, judgment and skills required to perform the job successfully. Those standards shouldn’t change based on an officer’s personality or an agency’s staffing needs.
What can change is how we help officers reach those standards.
I started changing my teaching style and how I interacted with students, tailoring my approach to each person. When a student was confident, I pushed them further. When they lacked confidence, I offered more support. In either case, they still had to demonstrate the same required competencies.
This change made a big difference. I saw students become more engaged on the job and report greater satisfaction. It showed me that flexibility in how we teach does not require flexibility in what we expect.
Allow officers to bring in new skills
I remember working with a student officer who used a department-issued cellphone to record information during an encounter. My first reaction was that a notepad and pen appeared more professional and reliable, so I encouraged the officer to use those instead.
But the experience made me reconsider my assumption. The officer was comfortable and efficient with the technology in a way I wasn’t. What I initially viewed as a distraction was actually a skill the officer had developed through familiarity with the device.
That doesn’t mean technology should be used simply because it is convenient. Officers still need to follow department policy, protect sensitive information and maintain situational awareness during every contact. But trainers should also be willing to recognize skills new officers bring with them, particularly when those skills can help them perform their duties safely and efficiently.
This made me reevaluate not only my own tech skills but also the additional abilities student officers can bring to the job. As trainers, we shouldn’t automatically reject a new approach simply because it isn’t the way we were taught.
Training should adapt to officers rather than forcing them to adapt to it
At first, I believed it wasn’t my job to change our training approach to better fit new officers. I thought customizing training might make them too dependent or “soft.” Since I had to train in a certain way, I wondered why they couldn’t do the same.
I had to remind myself that our main goal is to develop successful officers, not just copy old training methods. I was so focused on maintaining high standards that I overlooked the difference between the standard itself and the method used to reach it.
Now I understand that it’s possible to do both. We can hold every officer accountable to the knowledge, judgment, skills and professionalism the job demands while recognizing that different officers may need different coaching to get there.
The standard doesn’t have to change. Sometimes the way we teach it does.
About the author
Ricardo Cuellar is a patrol lieutenant who has served with his department since 2017. He has served as a corporal, field training officer and school resource officer and as a member of his department’s SWAT team. Lt. Cuellar supervises his department’s FTO program and also serves as a high school wrestling coach in the city where he works.
