The Police Leadership Commission’s final report is an important moment for policing in England and Wales. Led by Lords Blunkett and Herbert, it argues that while there are many examples of excellent leadership across the service, leadership is still too inconsistent, too under-developed and too reliant on individual effort rather than a strong system.
That conclusion strongly reflects the evidence gathered by the Police Foundation for the Commission. Through surveys, focus groups, interviews and international engagement, we heard from frontline supervisors, middle and senior leaders, chief officers, international police leaders and members of the public. Across those groups, the message was consistent: policing has many dedicated leaders, but the evidence tells us leadership capability is too variable and that the systems for selecting, developing and supporting leaders need to be much stronger.
What 1,700 frontline leaders told us
The Commission examined whether the everyday conditions in which officers and staff operate enable good leadership. The evidence is unequivocal: they do not. The report points to long-standing under-investment in leadership development, fragmented training, weak workforce planning and promotion systems that are not always trusted.
The Police Foundation’s evidence backs this up. Our survey of more than 1,700 sergeants and inspectors found widespread concern about leadership training, workload, promotion and organisational culture. Most respondents said leadership training had prepared them either “not at all” or only to a “slight extent” for their roles, and many questioned whether promotion processes identify those most likely to become effective leaders.
Why does this matter so much? Because sergeants and inspectors are not peripheral to police reform. They are where organisational culture is often made real. They supervise inexperienced officers, manage risk, support wellbeing, quality assure work and translate strategy into daily practice. Yet time and again they told us they lacked the time, support and development to do it.
The sergeant role needs urgent attention
One of the strongest themes in both the Commission’s report and our research is the importance of frontline leadership. The Commission recommends creating a new senior constable rank and reforming promotion to sergeant and inspector, recognising that first-line leadership is crucial to performance, standards and culture.
This builds directly on what we heard in focus groups. Participants repeatedly described the sergeant as the most influential leadership role in policing: the person who “makes or breaks” the team, sets standards and supports newer officers. But they also described the role as overloaded, increasingly administrative and too often something people are expected to learn by surviving it.
The Commission sets out a positive blueprint here, placing frontline leadership at the centre of reform. A senior constable rank, better promotion routes to sergeant and inspector, and stronger leadership development could give first-line leaders the status, preparation and support the demands of the role. The challenge now is turning it into reality.
Rethinking how leaders are chosen
Firstline and middle leaders often described promotion as opaque, inconsistent and too dependent on interview performance. Senior leaders made similar points, arguing that boards may reward those who perform well on the day rather than those who have demonstrated leadership over time.
The Commission’s proposals respond directly to those concerns. They call for reformed promotion, built around clearer leadership criteria, annual performance reviews, completed leadership development, stronger central oversight and fairer evidence of readiness for leadership roles. Central to making this work could be the proposed ‘complete professional digital passport’: a live record of development, training, qualifications, conduct and performance that supports promotion, workforce planning and the proposed licence to practise. Done well, it would give officers and staff a clearer way to evidence achievement and give the public greater confidence in professional standards. The key next step is winning workforce trust, and that means designing and testing these processes with the officers and staff who will go through them.
Making a National Academy count
One of the Commission’s biggest proposals is the creation of a National Academy of Police Leadership. This is intended to provide stronger national leadership development, clearer standards and a more consistent offer across the service.
There is a strong case for this. Our research found repeated frustration with the unevenness of leadership development. Some officers had received useful support and there was plenty of evidence of good local training and development but others had received little or none. For many training came months or years after promotion, when habits had already formed and in some cases, mistakes had already been made.
But an academy will only work if it is more than just a name. It will need funding, excellent teaching, strong links with operational policing and real influence over what forces do locally. It must not become remote from the frontline, nor overlook the good work already happening in forces and through regional partnerships. It should build on that work as it develops. The best leadership development combines national consistency with practical relevance.
Leadership reform is also about culture
The Commission rightly links leadership to culture. It highlights risk aversion, bureaucracy, weak performance management and insufficient focus on delivering outcomes for the public.
That was also a major theme in our evidence. Officers described leaders who were often constrained by process, nervous about challenge and overloaded by administration. Senior leaders raised similar concerns about bureaucracy and the hollowing out of supervision. International police leaders from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and the UK, also identified bureaucracy, wellbeing, political pressure and leadership pathways as common challenges.
The public dimension matters too. Our public focus groups showed real sympathy for frontline officers, but weaker confidence in policing as an institution. Participants wanted visible, credible and accountable leadership, and many felt disconnected from local policing.
What needs to happen next
The report is ambitious. That is welcome. This is an important opportunity for change and what happens next is key. For the Commission’s recommendations to succeed, five conditions matter.
First, implementation needs clear ownership. The Commission’s proposals cut across the Home Office, the College of Policing, Chief Constables, Police and Crime Commissioners and Deputy Mayors, the proposed National Police Service and forces themselves. The Home Office should create an implementation lead and team with representatives from all these entities. Without this, delivery will not happen.
Second, leadership development needs sustained funding. The report identifies long-term underinvestment that cannot be fixed through small pilots or short-term programmes.
Third, reform must focus on the frontline, not just the top. The strongest case for change is at Sergeant and Inspector level, where leadership has the most immediate effect on officers, staff, victims and communities. Reform must be done in consultation with the frontline, as much as with those at senior levels.
Fourth, promotion reform must be trusted. That means transparent criteria, meaningful feedback, independent assessment where appropriate and more evidence from real performance in role.
Finally, policing must evaluate what works. New academies, ranks, fast streams and promotion systems should be tested against outcomes: better leadership, improved workforce confidence, stronger standards, improved retention and better service to the public. This should all be underpinned by better data.
The Commission’s recommendations are bold. Evidence collected by the Commission, including research conducted by the Police Foundation suggests the case for change is real. Officers, staff and the public are not asking for slogans about leadership. They are asking for leaders who are visible, fair, capable, supported and accountable.
The challenge now is implementation. If policing can turn this report into practical change, leadership reform could become one of the foundations for a more trusted, effective and resilient police service.