11.3 Leadership, Followership & Professional Accountability
Key Takeaways
- POST Unit VIII.C, Leadership, is a 2-hour required block, and recruits are assessed on leadership and followership at several points throughout the academy, not only in this block.
- The POST outcomes require recruits to identify traits desirable in both leaders and followers, because most of an officer's career is spent following.
- Colorado law makes followership a legal question: C.R.S. 18-8-802(1.5)(a) requires intervention against another officer's excessive force without regard for chain of command.
- The anti-retaliation provision in C.R.S. 18-8-802(1.5)(c) prohibits an agency from disciplining or retaliating against an officer for intervening or for refusing to follow what the officer reasonably believes is an unconstitutional directive.
- Leadership without rank is exercised through competence, initiative, integrity, and the willingness to speak up before something goes wrong.
Leadership, Followership & Professional Accountability
Unit VIII.C — Leadership (2 required hours) closes the Communications unit. The Colorado curriculum attaches an unusual note to it: recruits will be assessed at several points in the academy on their ability to demonstrate leadership in a scenario and to follow directions as a team member to carry out an objective. Leadership in the Colorado program is a graded behavior, not a lecture.
1. Why Leadership Is Taught to Recruits
A new officer holds no rank, but they exercise leadership constantly: taking charge of a chaotic scene before a supervisor arrives, directing citizens and bystanders, coordinating with fire and EMS, and setting the tone of every contact. The POST performance outcomes ask recruits to explain how effective leadership affects team performance and community relations — the two are treated as a single subject, which is itself the lesson.
2. Styles and Their Fit
| Style | Description | Fits |
|---|---|---|
| Directive / autocratic | Rapid unilateral decisions, clear orders | Active threats, tactical operations, medical emergencies |
| Democratic / participative | Input sought before deciding | Problem-solving projects, policy development, planning |
| Transformational | Motivates through vision and purpose; develops people | Culture change, mentoring, long-term unit performance |
| Transactional | Rewards and consequences tied to performance | Routine operational compliance, measurable objectives |
| Servant | Leader exists to enable the team | Building trust, supporting officers after critical incidents |
| Laissez-faire | Minimal direction | Highly experienced specialists on well-defined tasks; fails badly in emergencies |
No style is correct everywhere. The competence being tested is matching the style to the situation — a directive style on a problem-solving committee alienates the team, and a participative style on an active threat kills people.
3. What People Actually Look For in a Leader
The POST outcome asks recruits to describe what people look for in a leader. Research and practice converge on a short list:
| Trait | What it looks like on a shift |
|---|---|
| Integrity | Reports their own mistake before anyone finds it |
| Competence | Knows the law and the tactics, and keeps current |
| Consistency | Same standard on Monday and on a Friday night |
| Courage | Says the hard thing to the person who does not want to hear it |
| Care | Knows the people on the shift as people |
| Communication | Explains the why, not just the what |
| Accountability | Owns outcomes rather than distributing blame |
| Humility | Takes correction; says "I don't know" |
The most powerful of these on a police shift is consistency. Officers calibrate to what a leader tolerates, not to what a leader says.
4. Followership as a Discipline
Most of a police career is spent following. POST asks recruits to identify traits desirable in both leaders and followers, because a competent follower is not a passive one.
| Effective follower | Ineffective follower |
|---|---|
| Executes lawful direction fully and promptly | Slow-rolls or performs to the minimum |
| Raises concerns before the decision is executed | Complains afterward, to peers |
| Supports the decision once it is lawfully made | Undermines it quietly |
| Takes responsibility for their own errors | Deflects |
| Keeps the supervisor informed of bad news early | Hides problems until they are unmanageable |
| Refuses an unlawful order | Follows it, then cites the order |
5. Colorado Turns Followership Into a Legal Duty
This is where the Colorado program departs sharply from generic leadership instruction. Three provisions convert professional courage into a legal obligation:
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C.R.S. 18-8-802(1.5)(a) DUTY TO INTERVENE |
| An on-duty peace officer SHALL intervene to prevent or stop another |
| officer's use of force exceeding what C.R.S. 18-1-707 permits, |
| 'WITHOUT REGARD FOR CHAIN OF COMMAND.' |
| Failure to intervene = CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR (18-8-802(1.5)(d)) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C.R.S. 18-8-802(1)(a), (1)(c) DUTY TO REPORT |
| Written report to the immediate supervisor within TEN DAYS. |
| Failure to report = CLASS 2 MISDEMEANOR |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| C.R.S. 18-8-802(1.5)(c) ANTI-RETALIATION |
| A member of a law enforcement agency SHALL NOT discipline or |
| retaliate in any way against an officer for intervening, for |
| reporting unconstitutional conduct, or for failing to follow what |
| the officer reasonably believes is an unconstitutional directive. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Read together, these tell a Colorado recruit something specific: rank is not a defense, and the statute protects you for refusing an unconstitutional directive. A probationary officer who intervenes against a sergeant is doing exactly what Colorado law requires, and the law forbids the agency from punishing them for it.
6. Ethical Decision Making
A workable field test for an ethical decision has four questions:
- Is it legal? If not, stop.
- Is it within policy?
- Is it what a reasonable, well-trained officer would do?
- How does it look on body-worn camera, played in open court, on the news?
The fourth question is not cynicism. Under C.R.S. 24-31-902 the footage exists, and Colorado's release timelines mean it may become public. An officer whose decision only survives if nobody sees it has already answered question three.
Colorado also offers a formal path here: POST provides Ethical Decision Making Under Stress (EDMUS), a Colorado Department of Law course that academies may use to satisfy the stress-management outcomes. Its premise is the one worth carrying into the field — ethical failures rarely come from bad people making cold calculations. They come from ordinary people making fast decisions while exhausted, angry, and afraid, which is precisely the condition police work produces.
7. Leading Without Rank
A new officer leads by: being the person whose reports are complete; knowing the statute before the argument starts; going to the difficult call without being told; treating the intoxicated, the homeless and the hostile with the same professionalism as everyone else; saying "hey, ease up" to a peer before it becomes an intervention; and telling the supervisor about their own mistake first. None of that requires stripes. All of it changes a shift.
A field training officer directs a probationary officer to conduct a search the probationary officer reasonably believes is unconstitutional. Under Colorado law, what protects the probationary officer if he refuses?
Which leadership style is the poorest fit for an active threat incident, and why?