Before It Becomes the Culture: How Police Leaders Can Stop Toxicity From Spreading Inside the Agency

By Inv./Sgt. Michael S. Burgess, M.S.S. (ret.)

Toxicity inside a police agency rarely starts as an official policy problem. More often, it starts in the places leadership does not always see: the squad room, the report room, the parking lot, text threads, ride-alongs, social circles, side conversations, and the quiet moments between calls.

It can come from a senior officer who has become cynical. It can come from an FTO who teaches new officers to distrust every initiative before they fully understand the job. It can come from a supervisor who publicly supports the mission but privately undermines command staff. It can come from a respected veteran who has influence, but uses that influence to complain, gossip, discourage effort, and pull others into the same negative mindset.

The problem is not that officers sometimes vent. Police work is stressful. Officers deal with trauma, staffing shortages, repeat calls, difficult cases, public criticism, political pressure, organizational frustration, and a justice system that can often feel discouraging. Honest frustration is real, and leaders should not confuse every complaint with toxicity.

But there is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive influence.

Constructive criticism identifies problems and wants improvement.

Toxic criticism wants company in misery.

When toxic influence goes unchecked, it can spread across a squad, a shift, a unit, or an entire agency. It can affect morale, productivity, retention, supervision, training, and the willingness of officers to engage in proactive work. It can make good officers withdraw, new officers become cynical, and motivated officers feel foolish for caring.

If agencies want officers to put in the work, take initiative, solve problems, and buy into proactive policing, they need to create an environment where officers feel valued, supported, and motivated to contribute. Officers should not dread coming to work because of the internal culture. They should feel like they are part of a mission, part of a team, and part of something that matters.

This is personal

I say this from experience. I spent 24 years in law enforcement. I have seen these people, heard them, worked around them, and experienced the impact they can have on others. I also know that, at times, it can be easy to get pulled into that same negativity.

I am not proud to admit that I have fallen into it myself at times, but it happens.

Police work is stressful, frustrating, and emotionally demanding. Without strong leadership, accountability, purpose, and a healthy culture, negativity can become easy to justify. The danger is that what starts as venting can become an identity. Eventually, the agency becomes a place where complaining is normal, initiative is mocked, and anyone trying to do something positive is treated like they are naïve, trying too hard, or simply trying to impress the boss.

That is why a positive work environment matters.

Officers need to understand their worth and value. They need to be recognized for good work, praised for meaningful accomplishments, and reminded that their efforts matter. At the same time, accountability must be fair, consistent, and professional. There cannot be favoritism. There cannot be selective enforcement of standards. There cannot be one set of expectations for some and a different set for others.

When officers believe the workplace is unfair, stale, or inconsistent, negativity has room to grow.

External pressures can fuel internal negativity

Agency culture is not shaped only by what happens inside the building. Law enforcement is heavily influenced by outside pressures, including politics, legislation, public scrutiny, media coverage, court decisions, and major incidents elsewhere in the profession.

Officers may feel frustrated by laws or policies that restrict what they can do in the field. They may feel that victims are being overlooked while suspects are quickly released back into the community. They may feel that their decisions are constantly second-guessed, that one mistake by another officer in another jurisdiction reflects poorly on everyone, or that the profession as a whole is under a microscope.

Whether leaders agree with every concern or not, they need to understand that these pressures affect morale. They can create frustration, resentment, hesitation, fear, cynicism, and withdrawal. They can also become fuel for gossip, rumors, passive-aggressive comments, and negative squad-room conversations.

Leaders should not dismiss these concerns with empty positivity. Officers know when they are being patronized. Instead, leaders need to acknowledge the reality of the environment while keeping officers grounded in the mission.

That may sound like this:

“We all know this job is under a lot of scrutiny right now. We also know there are laws, policies, and decisions we may not personally agree with. But our responsibility is still to serve professionally, protect people, follow the law, support each other, and do the job the right way.”

This kind of leadership matters. Officers need to hear that their concerns are understood. They also need to be reminded that their work still has value. Most officers entered this profession to help people, protect victims, solve problems, and make their communities safer. Outside pressure should not be allowed to strip them of that purpose.

Strong leaders do not pretend the frustrations are not real. They acknowledge them, explain what can and cannot be controlled, reinforce professional expectations, and remind officers that their worth is not defined by politics, headlines, or public criticism.

In difficult times, officers need leaders who can say, “I understand why you are frustrated, but we are not going to let frustration become our culture.”

Informal leaders shape culture

Every agency has two organizational charts.

There is the formal chart: chief, captain, lieutenant, sergeant, officer.

Then there is the informal chart: the people everyone actually listens to.

Sometimes those informal leaders are positive, respected, and mission-focused. They steady the room, mentor younger officers, support the mission, and help people stay grounded. Other times, the informal leaders are cynical, bitter, passive-aggressive, and influential.

That second group can do serious damage, especially when they are FTOs, senior officers, specialty unit members, union voices, or supervisors.

A young officer may hear agency expectations from administration, but learn the “real culture” from the squad. If the wrong person controls that informal culture, the agency has a problem.

Leaders should regularly ask themselves: Who is actually shaping the attitude of this agency when command staff is not in the room?

That question matters.

Supervisors and FTOs can build or damage culture

First-line supervisors should be at the forefront of shaping a healthy squad culture. They are closest to the officers, closest to the daily conversations, and closest to the informal attitudes that develop between calls. A good sergeant can correct negativity early, redirect conversations, support motivated officers, mentor younger personnel, and prevent destructive attitudes from becoming squad norms.

But agencies also have to be honest enough to recognize that sometimes the supervisor is the source of the problem.

A toxic supervisor can do more damage than a toxic officer because the supervisor has positional authority. They can normalize low effort, protect poor performers, discourage initiative, mock proactive work, undermine command staff, and create an entire squad culture of negativity.

This is where self-reflection becomes important. Accountability cannot only flow downward. Supervisors, command staff, FTOs, senior officers, and informal leaders all need to look in the mirror and ask whether they are helping build the culture or quietly damaging it.

The same is true for FTOs.

FTOs are culture-carriers. They do not just teach report writing, officer safety, call handling, and policy. They teach new officers what the job means. They shape how new officers view the public, supervision, proactive work, accountability, and the agency itself.

A toxic FTO can damage a young officer quickly.

Agencies should be careful about who is allowed to train new officers. Being experienced is not enough. Being tactically sound is not enough. Being popular is not enough.

Good FTOs should model professionalism, emotional control, ethical decision-making, officer safety, problem-solving, respect for the community, and respect for the agency mission.

A highly skilled but toxic FTO can create long-term damage. Agencies should be willing to remove FTO status when necessary. That is not punishment. That is quality control.

If a department would not let someone with poor firearms habits teach firearms, it should not let someone with a poor cultural mindset teach new officers how to view the job.

Use a prevention mindset internally

Police agencies already understand the importance of identifying and addressing recurring problems in the community. The same mindset can be used internally.

Toxicity should not only be addressed after it causes damage. It should be scanned for, analyzed, interrupted, and prevented before it spreads.

Leaders should look for patterns.

Are new officers becoming cynical after being assigned to certain FTOs? Is one squad consistently negative? Are good officers withdrawing? Are motivated officers being mocked? Are proactive efforts being discouraged? Are complaints repeatedly connected to the same supervisor or senior officer? Is turnover higher on a certain shift? Are officers afraid to speak up? Are people only willing to talk honestly when certain influential people are not in the room?

This is not about hunting people or punishing personality. It is about identifying patterns that are harming the organization.

This is not about creating a perfect agency culture. That does not exist. It is about preventing the loudest, most negative voices from becoming the voices that define the agency.

Once a problem is identified, leaders need to understand what is driving it.

Is the issue burnout? Poor supervision? Favoritism? Lack of accountability? Resentment over discipline, promotions, or assignments? A toxic senior officer? A weak supervisor who avoids conflict? A long-standing culture that has been allowed to grow unchecked?

Not every negative officer is the same. Some are tired. Some are angry. Some are burned out. Some are struggling. Some are influential for the wrong reasons. Some are intentionally destructive.

Leaders need to know the difference.

The response should be based on the cause. A burned-out officer may need support, direction, and reset expectations. A frustrated but valuable employee may need a direct conversation and a path to reengage. A manipulative officer who knowingly undermines others may need formal accountability. A supervisor who allows or participates in toxic behavior may need direct command-level intervention.

After intervention, leaders need to assess whether anything changed. Did the squad improve? Are officers more willing to bring forward ideas? Are younger officers more engaged? Are complaints decreasing? Is proactive work increasing? Did the toxic behavior stop, or did it simply move somewhere else?

Without assessment, agencies may believe they solved the problem when they only pushed it underground.

Address behavior, not vague attitude

Leaders should avoid general accusations such as, “You have a bad attitude.” That is easy to deny and difficult to prove.

Instead, leaders should address specific conduct.

For example:

“Over the last several weeks, I have become aware of repeated comments discouraging newer officers from being proactive, mocking agency initiatives, and undermining supervisors in front of other officers. That behavior is affecting the squad, and it needs to stop.”

That kind of conversation is direct, specific, and professional.

Leaders should also make it clear that disagreement is not the problem. Officers can raise concerns. They can identify operational issues. They can challenge ideas professionally. But they cannot poison the squad, discourage effort, undermine supervision, or turn every conversation into a complaint session.

A healthy agency makes room for honest feedback.

An unhealthy agency allows destructive behavior to hide behind, “I’m just telling it like it is.”

Documentation and due process matter

Leadership does not always have unlimited discretion when addressing toxic behavior, especially in unionized environments. If discipline becomes necessary, the officer may be entitled to representation, and the agency may be required to follow specific procedures outlined in policy, civil service rules, or the collective bargaining agreement.

Those requirements may limit how quickly or severely leadership can respond, even when the behavior is clearly damaging to the organization.

That does not mean leaders are powerless. It means they must be deliberate, consistent, and well-documented.

Empty threats, emotional reactions, inconsistent discipline, or informal warnings that are never followed through can weaken leadership’s position and create additional problems. If toxic behavior is going to be addressed, supervisors and command staff need to clearly document specific conduct, connect it to policy or performance expectations, follow the proper process, and apply standards fairly across the agency.

Fairness matters. Consistency matters. Due process matters.

Leaders can and should address destructive behavior, but they must do so in a way that protects the rights of the employee, protects the integrity of the agency, and strengthens the credibility of the leadership team.

No false promises. No empty threats. No favoritism. No selective accountability.

If leadership says something will be addressed, it needs to be addressed. If leadership sets a standard, that standard needs to apply consistently.

Replace negative influence with positive influence

Agencies cannot remove toxicity only by telling people to stop being negative. They also have to elevate the people who model the right behavior.

Leaders should identify officers who are respected, balanced, hardworking, professional, and mission-focused. These are the officers who are realistic about the challenges of the job but have not surrendered to cynicism.

Those officers should be used as mentors, FTOs, project leads, peer support voices, and informal culture-builders. They should be included in problem-solving efforts, training discussions, and agency initiatives.

Culture changes when the right people become influential.

Sometimes the most important thing a leader can do is stop giving influence to the wrong people and start giving influence to the right ones.

Proactive policing can help rebuild purpose

This is where proactive crime prevention plays an important role.

A lot of cynicism grows when officers feel like they are only running call to call, taking reports, dealing with the same problems, and watching nothing change. Over time, officers may begin to believe their work does not matter.

Proactive problem-solving can help restore purpose.

Instead of simply telling officers to “be proactive,” leaders can give them ownership of real problems.

A squad can examine repeat theft locations. An officer can lead a small hot spot project. An FTO and trainee can work through a recurring disorder issue using SARA. A patrol team can help identify environmental concerns at a problem location. Officers can be asked to look at repeat calls, repeat victims, repeat offenders, or repeat places and help develop practical responses.

This does not have to be complicated. It does not require every officer to become a crime analyst or academic researcher. It simply requires leaders to give officers meaningful opportunities to identify problems, understand what is driving them, try realistic responses, and assess whether those responses helped.

Prevention gives officers a mission beyond response.

Toxic culture feeds on helplessness.

Proactive work creates ownership.

When officers can see that their work prevented the next call, reduced harm at a location, helped a victim, disrupted a pattern, or improved a neighborhood, they are more likely to feel that their work matters. That sense of purpose is one of the strongest counters to cynicism.

Recognize the behavior you want repeated

Agencies often say they value professionalism, initiative, mentorship, and problem-solving, but then only recognize arrests, statistics, seniority, or high-profile incidents.

If leaders want a healthier culture, they need to recognize the people who build it.

Recognize officers who mentor well. Recognize FTOs who develop strong new officers. Recognize supervisors who create healthy squad environments. Recognize officers who solve problems, reduce repeat calls, build partnerships, help victims, identify patterns, or prevent harm.

Recognition does not have to be elaborate. It can be a roll-call acknowledgment, a note from the chief, a social media post, a training opportunity, a special project, or consideration for future assignments.

The message should be clear: This is what we value here.

Officers do not need fake praise. They need meaningful recognition when they do good work. They need to know their effort is seen. They need to know that prevention, professionalism, and problem-solving matter.

Accountability and positivity must exist together

A positive work environment does not mean avoiding accountability. In fact, the opposite is true.

A workplace without accountability eventually becomes negative because good officers see poor behavior tolerated. They see favoritism. They see different standards applied to different people. They see toxic employees protected or ignored. Eventually, they stop believing leadership is serious.

At the same time, accountability cannot be selective, emotional, or retaliatory. It must be fair, consistent, and professional.

No favoritism.

No singling out.

No empty threats.

No false promises.

No ignoring problems because the person is popular, senior, connected, or difficult to deal with.

A healthy culture requires both support and standards. Officers need to know they are valued, but they also need to know destructive behavior will not be allowed to define the agency.

Leaders must be present where culture is formed

Culture is not built only in command meetings, policy updates, or annual training. It is built in the daily interactions that happen across the agency.

It is built in roll call.

It is built in how supervisors talk about command staff.

It is built in how senior officers talk to new officers.

It is built in how mistakes are handled.

It is built in how good work is recognized.

It is built in whether officers believe leadership will address problems fairly.

It is built in whether motivated officers feel supported or mocked.

Leaders cannot lead culture from behind a closed office door. They need to be present enough to know what is really happening, approachable enough for officers to bring concerns forward, and courageous enough to address problems when they see them.

This does not mean micromanaging. It means paying attention.

Sometimes leaders learn more from sitting in roll call, walking through the station, riding along, checking in after difficult calls, or having informal conversations than they ever will from reports or meetings.

The bottom line

Toxicity in police culture is not just a morale issue. It is a leadership issue, a supervision issue, a training issue, a retention issue, and an operational effectiveness issue.

A cynical, divided, and internally unhealthy agency will struggle to be proactive externally. If officers do not trust the culture inside the building, it becomes much harder for them to fully invest in the mission outside of it.

Leaders cannot eliminate every complaint, every bad day, or every frustrated conversation. That is not realistic. Police work is too difficult for that. But they can identify destructive patterns, address toxic influence, support positive informal leaders, protect new officers from poor role models, and create opportunities for officers to take ownership in meaningful work.

Police leaders often talk about preventing crime before it happens.

The same principle applies inside the agency.

Prevent the negativity before it spreads. Address the behavior before it becomes the culture. Build the environment before officers lose faith in it.

Because officers are far more likely to invest in the mission when they believe their agency is also investing in them.