Leadership Under Pressure:
Cross-Disciplinary Lessons for Jail Administration
Adapting Proven Practices from Other High-Risk Public Safety Disciplines
Kevin E. Rhea
Jail leaders today operate within an increasingly complex and demanding environment shaped by persistent staffing shortages, heightened public scrutiny, operational risk, and expanding legal and political accountability. Correctional administrators are expected to maintain safety, order, and constitutional conditions of confinement while managing constrained resources, evolving standards of care, and growing workforce instability. Research consistently shows that staffing challenges in correctional settings contribute to increased burnout, weakened supervision, and elevated staff turnover, all of which directly affect organizational performance and institutional legitimacy (Lambert et al., 2018).
Although jails function within a unique legal and operational context, corrections is not alone in facing these pressures. Other public safety disciplines (e.g., law enforcement, fire services, emergency medical services, and emergency management) have long confronted comparable challenges related to risk, accountability, and public trust. Over time, these disciplines have developed leadership practices, organizational structures, and professional norms designed to function reliably under sustained pressure. Examining these approaches offers correctional leaders valuable insight into how leadership behaviors, not simply policies or formal structures, can help shape organizational outcomes.
Increasingly, scholars and practitioners alike recognize that performance in high-risk public safety organizations depends less on written policy frameworks and more on leadership decision-making, sensemaking, and organizational culture (Schein, 2017; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). For jail leaders, learning from other disciplines does not require abandoning the unique mission or legal responsibilities of corrections. Instead, it involves identifying transferable leadership principles, understanding how they function in comparable environments, and adapting them thoughtfully to the jail context.
Leadership Development Pipelines: Lessons from the Fire Service
One of the most instructive leadership development models in public safety is found in the fire service. Fire departments have historically emphasized structured leadership preparation, progressive responsibility, and formal development prior to promotion. Leadership readiness is treated as a prerequisite for supervisory authority rather than a byproduct of it. National-level fire service education programs reinforce this expectation by linking promotion and advancement to demonstrated leadership competence and completion of formal development pathways (U.S. Fire Administration, n.d.).
This approach reflects a broader recognition within the fire service that technical proficiency alone is insufficient for effective leadership. Supervisors must be prepared to manage personnel, make high-stakes decisions, communicate clearly under pressure, and model professional behavior. As a result, leadership development is embedded throughout the career lifecycle, beginning early and continuing as responsibilities expand.
In contrast, many jail organizations continue to rely heavily on tenure, seniority, or operational competence as the primary criteria for promotion. While experience is undeniably valuable, research in public service leadership suggests that promotion based solely on tenure often leaves new supervisors underprepared for the interpersonal, ethical, and organizational demands of leadership roles (Van Wart, 2011). Newly promoted supervisors may possess deep operational knowledge yet lack training in conflict management, coaching, ethical decision-making, and organizational communication.
Fire service leadership pipelines demonstrate the value of early identification of leadership potential, acting assignments that allow individuals to experience supervisory responsibilities before promotion, and structured mentoring relationships. These practices reduce the performance gaps that often emerge when individuals are promoted without adequate preparation. For jail administrators, adopting similar principles may involve defining leadership competencies by rank, formalizing acting supervisor programs, and integrating leadership education into career pathways.
Such approaches do not require wholesale adoption of fire service structures. Instead, they encourage jail leaders to view leadership development as an ongoing organizational responsibility rather than a discrete training event. Over time, intentional leadership pipelines strengthen frontline supervision, improve decision-making consistency, and reinforce professional norms throughout the organization.
Incident Command and Decision-Making Under Pressure
Another area where correctional leaders can draw meaningful lessons from other public safety disciplines is incident management. Law enforcement, fire services, and emergency management organizations rely heavily on incident command systems to manage complexity during high-risk events. These systems are designed to establish clear authority, define roles and responsibilities, standardize communication, and promote unity of command (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2017).
Incident command principles emerged in response to catastrophic failures caused by fragmented leadership and poor coordination. Over time, they have become foundational to managing emergencies involving multiple hazards, agencies, and operational priorities. At their core, these principles emphasize clarity, accountability, and shared situational awareness.
Within jail environments, critical incidents such as disturbances, medical emergencies, or facility evacuations often unfold rapidly and under intense pressure. Operational failures during such incidents frequently stem not from the absence of policy but from ambiguity in leadership roles, overlapping authority, or communication breakdowns. In these moments, unclear command structures can exacerbate risk and undermine staff confidence.
Applying incident command principles to jail operations enhances leadership clarity and coordination without requiring full adoption of an emergency management framework. Even limited applications, such as clearly identifying an incident leader, establishing standardized communication expectations, and reinforcing command presence, can significantly improve decision-making and operational effectiveness.
Research on high-reliability organizations underscores the importance of clear authority structures and shared situational awareness in maintaining safety in complex systems (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). These principles are directly applicable to jail operations, where leaders must balance security, safety, and care obligations under dynamic conditions. By reinforcing clear leadership roles during incidents, jail administrators can reduce confusion, improve response times, and strengthen staff confidence in leadership.
After-Action Learning and Continuous Improvement in EMS
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) organizations provide another instructive model through their consistent use of structured after-action reviews. After-action reviews are designed to examine performance following critical incidents to identify strengths, uncover systemic weaknesses, and promote organizational learning. Importantly, these reviews are typically non-punitive and focused on improvement rather than blame (Darling et al., 2005).
In EMS, after-action learning is normalized as a routine part of professional practice. Crews are expected to reflect on performance, discuss what worked and what did not, and identify opportunities for improvement. This process reinforces accountability while also fostering psychological safety, allowing individuals to speak openly about challenges without fear of retribution.
In correctional environments, post-incident discussions may often occur informally or framed primarily around compliance and discipline. While accountability is essential, research indicates that organizations emphasizing blame over learning are less likely to adapt effectively over time (Edmondson, 2018). When staff perceive post-incident reviews as punitive, they may withhold information, limiting organizational learning.
Jail leaders could benefit from adopting structured, non-punitive after-action practices that emphasize system improvement rather than individual fault. Such practices encourage candid discussion, surface latent organizational weaknesses, and reinforce leadership commitment to learning. Over time, consistent after-action learning contributes to stronger organizational resilience and more reliable performance.
Implementing after-action reviews does not require extensive resources. Simple, consistent processes, such as facilitated debriefs following major incidents or operational disruptions, can institutionalize learning and signal that leadership values reflection as much as response.
Integrated Planning and Systems Thinking in Emergency Management
Emergency management offers correctional leaders valuable insight into systems thinking and organizational alignment. Emergency management practice emphasizes integrating planning, training, exercises, and evaluation. Plans are not only written but routinely tested through exercises to ensure they reflect operational realities and evolving threats (FEMA, 2020).
This systems-based approach reduces reliance on reactive problem-solving and enhances organizational readiness. By aligning plans, training, and evaluation, emergency management organizations ensure that expectations are clearly communicated, practiced, and reinforced.
In many jails, policies exist independently of training programs and performance evaluation mechanisms. Organizational research suggests that misalignment among policy, training, and accountability undermines effectiveness and weakens institutional credibility (Kotter, 2012). When staff are expected to comply with policies they have not been adequately trained on, or when performance evaluations do not reflect stated priorities, organizational coherence suffers.
Applying emergency management principles encourages jail leaders to assess whether policies are supported by training, whether training reflects operational realities, and whether performance evaluation mechanisms reinforce desired behaviors. Even incremental improvements in alignment, such as incorporating policy expectations into training curricula or supervisory evaluations, can significantly improve operational reliability.
Systems thinking also encourages leaders to consider how decisions in one area affect outcomes in other areas of the organization. For jails operating under constant pressure, this perspective supports proactive risk management and more deliberate leadership decision-making.
Learning Is Reciprocal: What Other Disciplines Can Learn from Jails
While this article identified what jail leaders can learn from other public safety disciplines, it is critical to highlight that jail administrators also offer important leadership lessons that other disciplines can learn from. Jails operate in environments defined by continuous operations, involuntary populations, constitutional obligations, and limited public visibility. These conditions demand exceptional consistency, ethical decision-making, and supervisory discipline.
Jail leaders routinely manage risk not as an episodic event but as a constant operational reality, requiring sustained vigilance, interpersonal competence, and procedural fairness. These experiences offer valuable insight into other public safety disciplines confronting increased scrutiny, workforce fatigue, and complex accountability structures.
In particular, the correctional emphasis on procedural justice, rights-based decision-making, and sustained supervision in closed systems provides a model for leading organizations that must exercise authority with restraint and legitimacy. As public safety agencies increasingly operate in high-accountability environments, the leadership practices developed in jails merit broader recognition and adaptation across disciplines.
Professional Learning and Cross-Disciplinary Engagement
Across public safety disciplines, professional learning networks have played a significant role in advancing leadership practice. These networks facilitate peer exchange, disseminate research, and reinforce professional norms beyond individual organizations. Participation in such networks allows leaders to learn from others facing similar challenges and to contextualize their experiences within broader professional conversations (Van Wart, 2011).
Correctional leaders have historically operated in relative isolation compared to other public safety disciplines. However, increasing complexity and accountability have prompted greater engagement with cross-disciplinary learning opportunities. Exposure to leadership practices developed in law enforcement, fire services, EMS, and emergency management provides jail administrators with alternative perspectives on supervision, incident management, and organizational learning.
Cross-disciplinary engagement reinforces the concept of leadership as a professional practice requiring continuous development. Rather than relying solely on internal experience, leaders benefit from engaging with peers, examining research, and reflecting on emerging best practices. For corrections, this engagement supports professionalization while respecting the distinct mission and constraints of jail operations.
Culture as a Leadership Responsibility
A consistent theme across public safety and organizational research is the central role of leadership in shaping organizational culture. Culture is not defined by written statements or formal policies but by shared assumptions, values, and behaviors reinforced over time (Schein, 2017). Leaders influence culture through what they prioritize, what they tolerate, and how they respond during moments of stress.
In correctional environments, culture is often discussed but rarely intentionally managed. High-risk organizations that perform reliably over time exhibit leadership behaviors characterized by consistency, transparency, and visible accountability (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). These behaviors foster trust and reinforce professional norms, even in challenging conditions.
Jail leaders who actively engage staff, model ethical decision-making, and reinforce professional identity create environments where expectations are clear, and behavior is aligned with organizational values. Culture, in this sense, reflects leadership in action. When leadership behavior is inconsistent or reactive, cultural drift occurs, undermining performance and morale. Intentional culture management requires leaders to be present, engaged, and reflective. It involves reinforcing desired behaviors through recognition and accountability, while promptly and consistently addressing misalignment.
Learning Without Losing Identity
Learning from other public safety disciplines does not require abandoning corrections’ unique mission or legal responsibilities. Instead, it involves recognizing that leadership challenges such as managing risk, developing supervisors, and sustaining organizational performance are shared across public safety contexts.
As correctional environments continue to evolve, leadership effectiveness will depend increasingly on the ability to adapt proven practices, foster organizational learning, and engage in continuous professional development. Drawing on leadership lessons from other public safety disciplines offers jail leaders a pathway to strengthen organizational performance while preserving the distinct role of corrections within the broader public safety system.
_________________________
Kevin E. Rhea is a public safety leadership practitioner with extensive experience supporting leadership development, organizational culture, and professionalization initiatives across public safety disciplines. He is the founder of a national nonprofit that supports public safety accreditation managers and assessors. He is also a Doctoral Candidate at Liberty University, where his research examines how public safety leaders interpret and implement reform under varying institutional pressures. He can be reached at admin@thenaal.org
References
Darling, M. J., Parry, C. S., & Moore, J. E. (2005). Learning in the thick of it. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 84–92.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2017). National Incident Management System (3rd ed.). U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2020). Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Lambert, E. G., Qureshi, H., Frank, J., Keena, L. D., & Hogan, N. L. (2018). The relationship of work–family conflict with job stress, job satisfaction, and turnover intent among correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 65–73.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
U.S. Fire Administration. (n.d.). Executive fire officer program. National Fire Academy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Van Wart, M. (2011). Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
