“It’s Just Training” Is the Problem

By: Chief Scott Hughes (ret.)

Take a look at a photograph from a recent law enforcement training session. How are the officers dressed?

Some may be in uniform, while others are wearing agency polos or clothing appropriate for the course. Then there may be a few wearing hoodies, graphic T-shirts, ball caps, gym shorts, or something that looks more appropriate for a Saturday afternoon at home.

Ask whether that appearance reflects professionalism, and someone will inevitably respond, “Lighten up. It’s just training.”

But perhaps that is the real problem.

Training is not separate from the job. It is where officers prepare for some of the most difficult and consequential moments they will face, and how they show up, physically and mentally, often says something about how seriously they take that responsibility.

This is not an argument that officers should attend every in-service training session in a pressed uniform and polished boots. Defensive tactics, firearms training, scenario-based exercises, and classroom instruction all have different practical requirements. There is still a difference, however, between dressing appropriately for the training and showing up as though no thought was given to the occasion.

More importantly, this is not really about a shirt, hat, or pair of shorts. Those things are simply the most visible signs of the attitude someone brings into the room.

We have all seen the officer who arrives late, sits in the back, and immediately begins scrolling through a phone. That officer may be physically present, but there is very little chance that much of the training will be retained. Long before the instructor begins speaking, some people have already decided whether the course has anything to offer them.

Too often, agencies reinforce this mindset by measuring training almost entirely through completion. Did everyone attend? Was the sign-in sheet completed? Were the required topics covered? Did the officers receive their certificates, and can the agency document the necessary hours?

Those things may satisfy an administrative requirement, but they do not establish that anyone learned anything.

Training should improve knowledge and performance. It should challenge officers to think about what they do, why they do it, and whether there may be a better way. Instead, it sometimes becomes another box to check, with attendance mattering more than engagement and completion mattering more than comprehension.

What Are the Leaders Communicating?

Now look again at that training photograph, but this time pay attention to the supervisors and command staff.

How are they dressed? Where are they sitting? Are they participating and paying attention, or are they setting the same casual tone they may later criticize in their officers?

An individual officer’s appearance and conduct reflect on that officer, but a supervisor’s example influences the entire room. Rank makes the message louder.

A chief can send an email explaining that training is important, and a supervisor can remind officers to arrive on time and be prepared. If members of the command staff arrive late, dress as though the course is an inconvenience, sit together in the back, answer emails throughout the day, or leave before the training concludes, the organization receives a very different message: This is just training, and it does not really matter.

Perhaps that is not the message those leaders intended, but officers notice what leaders emphasize, what they ignore, and whether rank allows someone to operate under a different set of expectations. Leadership should not lower the standard because someone has earned rank. If anything, rank should make that person more accountable.

A Shared Responsibility

Officers bear responsibility for the attitude they bring to training, but agencies and instructors also help create the culture surrounding it.

Agencies must provide training worthy of their officers’ time and attention, while instructors must be prepared, credible, and able to connect the material to the realities officers face. Leaders cannot repeatedly provide predictable, low-quality instruction merely to satisfy a requirement and then act surprised when officers become disengaged.

Clothing alone does not make someone a good officer. A neatly dressed officer can remain completely disengaged, while someone dressed casually may be the most attentive person in the room. But appearance is not meaningless. How we prepare and present ourselves communicates what we think about the occasion, the people around us, and the organization we represent.

Law enforcement training is not an ordinary workplace seminar. What is discussed in a classroom may later guide an officer during a rapidly evolving use-of-force encounter, a domestic violence investigation, an interaction with someone in crisis, or an attempt to render lifesaving medical aid. Another officer’s safety may depend on whether the person beside them paid attention, participated, and retained what was taught.

Training is not a day away from the job, an inconvenience to endure, or merely a collection of hours required to maintain a certification. It is part of the job. Officers should arrive prepared to learn, supervisors should reinforce that expectation, and command staff should model it.

The knowledge dismissed today as “just training” may be exactly what an officer needs tomorrow, when the situation is no longer a scenario, and the consequences are real. If supervisors and command staff treat training as though it does not matter, they should not be surprised when their officers learn exactly that.