False fire alarms are a common problem for fire departments. In my city, there was one source of false alarms that was consistent and troublesome: fraternity houses near a university campus. A few buildings were particularly bad, not just with frequency, but also in that the residents never followed protocols for fire alarms. Evacuation would be haphazard if it happened at all. Most often, occupants would silence or reset the system before we even arrived on scene.
One night at around 2300 hours, we got called to a fire alarm at one of the worst-offending houses. It was winter and a large party was going on. Of course, no one had evacuated, and the alarm had been reset prior to our arrival. This was the final straw.
I met with the fraternity president and made very clear what our expectations were for alarms in their building. I informed him that the next time a fire alarm occurred there, the alarm would remain sounding and everyone would exit the building until we could clear the scene for potential hazards.
Little did we know that this mandate would be tested just a few hours later. At 0200, another fire alarm came in for the same building. As we got on the rig, I said to my crew, “It’s show time.”
When we arrived, there were a few people wandering around outside and the alarm was still sounding. I directed my two firefighters to go into the building and ensure that every single person had evacuated. I set a stopwatch when that evacuation effort began.
It took over 20 minutes to completely clear the building, even with two firefighters, a couple police officers and the fraternity leaders assisting. This was with all the lights on and no hazards present. Some of the occupants were so incapacitated that they had to be carried out.
A new way forward
At this point, we had a pointed conversation with the fraternity leadership. We made it clear to them that, had it been a real fire, they would likely have dead people on their hands. We stressed that the fraternity as an organization and they as individuals could be liable for that. No one wanted that outcome. So, what needed to change for things to get better?
We came to an agreement that every day in the house, no matter what was going on, there would be a designated sober person who would meet us on arrival and be our liaison for any emergency incidents in the building. All protocols would be followed for every fire alarm in the building, even if residents were fairly certain the alarm was false.
What we quickly learned from this conversation was that the fraternity had numerous fire alarms, in part, because the system was defective, but the alarm company consistently ignored the members’ requests for service. I told them we could help with that. I made the next call to the alarm company and service was remarkably prompt after that. Meanwhile, some of the fraternity leaders became friendly with a couple of the firefighters. One of the firefighters gave a nickname to the fraternity president, which he loved and probably still uses to this day.
Ultimately, the number of false alarms in our district went down dramatically. This result was a combination of both enforcement and relationship. If we had only come across as enforcers, we might have created fear in people, but it would not have created any desire to solve the problem. On the other hand, if we had strictly focused on having a good relationship with the fraternity members, there might not have been any sense of urgency for changing behavior related to fire alarms. It was the combination of these two factors that led to success.
These two elements are critical beyond emergency response. Those who do fire inspections know that clear standards and enforcement are most effective when there is a relationship present, and people share common goals. Even when managing station life as an officer, the best outcomes are a result of establishing clear expectations and developing a sense of common mission through relationship that make others want to meet those expectations.
Over the ensuing months, our relationship with those fraternity members deepened. The president would sometimes call to let us know of a party planned elsewhere in the neighborhood, allowing us to resolve some potential problems proactively. The fraternity members clearly liked being on a first-name basis with the fire guys and the fire department generally and said positive things about us to their friends in other houses. We found that compliance improved generally, and the quality of our interactions with all the fraternities and the university community improved.
Conditions for lasting change
Those in leadership roles need to be clear about rules and standards and be prepared to enforce them. But in the longer term, enforcement alone is not enough. Relationships and a sense of common mission are equally important. The combination of enforcement and relationship creates the best conditions for lasting positive change.
