MAGA Machine Guns and Chuck: The Jenkins Indictment, Examined   Read More

Toxic Leadership in a Sheriff’s Office: Why It Matters to the Public

October 19, 2026

Karl Bickel was warning about toxic leadership in law enforcement 12 years ago. In 2014 he wrote “Are Toxic Leaders Derailing Your Community Policing Efforts?” for the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS Office (read the original). Now, as a candidate for Frederick County Sheriff, he looks at what toxic leadership does inside a sheriff’s office. He covers how to spot it, why an elected sheriff’s agency is especially exposed to it, and how it reaches the public through thinner staffing, poorer judgment and lost trust.

Toxic leadership in a sheriff’s office is a pattern of command behavior that wears down employees, and the damage reaches the public through thinner staffing, poorer judgment, and lost trust. It is not the same as being demanding: a tough leader who is fair is different from one who humiliates, plays favorites, or punishes dissent.

What it is and why sheriff’s offices are exposed

The COPS Office defines a toxic leader, following Col. George Reed, by three traits: little real concern for subordinates, a style that harms the organization’s climate, and staff who believe the leader mainly serves themselves (COPS Office).

Sheriff’s offices face added risk for structural reasons:

  • Elected head. The sheriff answers to voters rather than a board that reviews how people are managed, and public popularity can mask internal problems.
  • Small agencies. One person’s style can shape the whole organization.
  • Many operations. Patrol, jail, courthouse security, each have their own culture, so problems in one unit are easy to miss from the top.

Warning signs

The pattern usually shows up in how people are treated and in how the workforce behaves.

  • Treatment: favoritism in promotions and assignments, inconsistent or retaliatory discipline, public shaming, secrecy, and punishment of people who raise concerns.
  • Workforce symptoms: high turnover, heavy sick-leave use, quiet disengagement, cliques, and an “us versus them” culture.
  • Cover: the leader may post strong short-term results and impress superiors, and ambitious subordinates may copy the behavior to get ahead.

From morale to service

When people believe rules apply by loyalty rather than fairness, they stop volunteering ideas and reporting problems, and start protecting themselves. Stress and fear of retaliation drive burnout and exits, and the most employable staff often leave first. That leaves the office short-staffed and more dependent on overtime, which deepens the fatigue.

The public feels this in five ways:

  • Staffing and response: vacancies and tired, less experienced staff thin out coverage in the field.
  • Judgment under pressure: stressed or cynical employees make more mistakes in how they treat the public.
  • Silence: if speaking up is punished, misconduct and safety problems surface only as scandals or lawsuits.
  • Community policing: partnerships and problem-solving depend on deputies who feel respected, which is the central argument.
  • Legitimacy and cost: lost trust makes victims and witnesses less willing to cooperate, and turnover and litigation cost taxpayers.

What helps

It is the responsibility of executive leadership, and its remedies are to:

  1. Name toxic leadership as a problem and discuss it openly.
  2. Select and promote leaders on leadership style, not only technical skill or short-term results.
  3. Hold supervisors accountable for how their subordinates lead.
  4. Use climate assessments and 360-degree evaluations as developmental tools.
  5. Address problem behavior directly and promptly.

Two additions from general practice: protect people who report concerns and bring in outside review when the source of the problem is the top of the organization.

A caution on fairness. “Toxic” is easy to say and hard to prove. Investigate allegations carefully so a strict or unpopular leader is not labeled by rumor.

Sources. Reed’s definition, the warning signs, and the five remedies come from Bickel’s COPS Office article, March 2014. The structural risks of sheriff’s offices and the community-impact points are general analysis, not individually sourced.

Karl Bickel
Candidate for Frederick County Sheriff

Admin

Lorem ipsum amet elit morbi dolor tortor. Vivamus eget mollis nostra ullam corper. Natoque tellus semper taciti nostra primis lectus donec tortor.

Where's Karl
Secret Link