The Mirror Effect: How Subordinate Failure Reflects Poor Leadership in Public Service

In public service, when a subordinate fails, it often isn’t a reflection of the employee alone. It can be a signal of a deeper problem within the leadership structure. The performance, morale and accountability of the workforce are direct outcomes of the environment that’s created by administration and command staff. When that environment is broken, even the most dedicated employees struggle. Subordinate failure, in many cases, is a mirror image of leadership failure.

Public sector leadership holds a significant amount of responsibility, not only for daily operations but for shaping the culture that influences every department. Whether in a fire department, EMS agency, police force or public works division, those who are in command establish the standards and expectations. However, setting standards is only one part of leadership. Equally important is the ability to lead by example, provide clear guidance and maintain a consistent presence. When leaders isolate themselves from the rank and file or make decisions without insight into the day-to-day realities of the job, they create distance, resentment and distrust.

A toxic cycle often begins when administrators or command staff blame employees for poor performance without considering the role that leadership played in shaping the outcome. Leaders must take the time to ask whether the failure could have been prevented through better training, more effective communication or stronger leadership presence. When accountability only flows downward, the system becomes unfair and unsustainable.

This disconnect is a major reason public service agencies are struggling to hire and retain quality employees. Although competitive wages and benefits are important, culture remains a driving factor in whether employees choose to stay or leave. People want to feel respected, valued and heard. They want to be part of an organization that supports them and believes in its mission. When that’s missing, no amount of money will keep them engaged.

Recruitment and retention

Far too often, command staff believe that respect comes automatically with title or rank. That’s a mistake. Respect isn’t issued like a badge or included in a promotion. It must be earned. Employees don’t respect a title; they respect a person who is competent, honest, fair and willing to show up in difficult moments. Leaders who demand respect without offering it in return are unlikely to gain the trust or loyalty of their team.

This is where ego becomes a problem. Leaders must be willing to check their ego at the door and realize that leadership isn’t about power. It’s about service, integrity and responsibility. The best leaders are those who understand that they aren’t above the people who they lead. They are responsible for them. When command staff operate from a place of arrogance, they create a culture of fear, silence and disengagement. Employees begin to feel like expendable tools rather than valued professionals.

Younger generations that are entering public service today particularly are attuned to the culture of their workplace. They aren’t interested in staying in a job where they are treated poorly, where feedback is ignored or where leadership is absent until there’s a problem. They want to work where they feel respected, where there’s two-way communication and where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities rather than grounds for humiliation. If leadership fails to adapt to this shift, hiring and retention problems will continue to worsen.

Policy without input

Retention isn’t only about keeping employees. It’s about creating a place where people want to stay. This requires trust, communication, mentorship and fairness. It means holding leadership to the same standards that are expected of subordinates. When employees see leaders take responsibility for mistakes, invest in their teams and remain approachable, employees are more likely to stay committed. When they see the opposite, such as deflection, favoritism, micromanagement and a lack of accountability, they begin to plan their exit.

In many public service organizations, there also is a communication breakdown between leadership and staff. Policy decisions are made without input from those who are on the ground. Feedback is dismissed or ignored. Meetings become lectures rather than conversations. Over time, employees disengage, not because they’re lazy or indifferent, but because they believe that their voice doesn’t matter. When leadership fails to listen, it loses the opportunity to lead effectively.

Removing ego

Every time that a subordinate fails, leadership must be willing to look in the mirror and ask what role it played in that outcome. Was the person adequately trained? Were expectations clearly communicated? Was support available? Was the person led by example? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the failure isn’t the employee’s alone.

Rebuilding trust in public service starts with strong leadership. That means being visible, honest and accountable. It means listening to employees, valuing their experience and adjusting course when needed. It means removing personal ego from the equation and recognizing that leadership isn’t about being right but about doing what’s right.

The future of public service depends on creating healthy, resilient organizations in which employees feel seen and respected. It depends on leadership that earns the trust of its team and supports it through challenges. If command staff continues to demand respect without earning it, blame others without reflection and lead from a distance, failure will remain the norm.

True leadership is built on humility, service and mutual respect. Until those principles are restored at the top, the problems at the bottom never will go away.