Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the “What Firefighter Want in 2024" digital edition. To download your copy and find more department resources, visit the “What Firefighters Want” resource page.
Are you worried about the leadership at your department at any level? If so, at what level do you see poor leadership in your department? Big questions with worrisome answers from the respondents to FireRescue1’s newest What Firefighters Want survey.
More than three-quarters of respondents (76%) answered yes – they are worried about leadership in their departments. And where the respondents identified leadership issues might surprise you: Nearly 62% reported poor leadership at the company officer level, over 64% highlighted the chief officer level, 57% selected the fire chief position, and 43% pointed to poor leadership at a political level. (Let’s pause to take that in for a moment: Our firefighters are seeing better leadership from politicians than they are from those of us entrusted to lead our organizations. Are you kidding me?)
I am going to lead with my chin here. If you are a fire chief, mid-level officer (deputy chief, assistant chief, battalion chief), company officer (lieutenant, captain) or a member of a fire or emergency services organization, then you are partly to blame for these dismal leadership conditions. Hear me out.
Are leaders born or made?
There are myriad leadership styles, everything from autocratic leadership and servant leadership to situational leadership and beyond. However, there are two opposing positions when it comes to delineating the necessary qualifications or characteristics of the individual leader. Each of the two opposing positions are founded on the answer to the question, “Are leaders born or are they made?” We can chase the answer to this question so far down the rabbit hole that we will experience decompression sickness trying to climb out. So why mention it? Because I believe leaders are created, and I want to remove the argument of not being born with leadership traits as an excuse for failure.
The truth of the matter is this: Whether we were born with leadership traits or developed into leaders, we were either forced into or sought after and accepted a leadership position within our organizations. With the position of leader, at any level, comes responsibilities and expectations. And based on the responses in the most recent What Firefighters Want survey, we are clearly failing as leaders in all capacities.
But misery loves company. We are not failures alone. Our constituency, our team, our subordinates, those with whom we serve as leaders must accept some of the blame as well.
Hold on, Chief! What do you mean I share in the blame? I am just a black hat; I ride backwards. How do I hold any responsibility for this mess?!
Patience, Grasshopper, allow me to explain.
Leadership is not a noun. It is not a person, place or thing. Although we often use it as such, leadership is not an adjective either. It does not provide a description of a person, place or thing. Leadership is a verb. It is used to describe an action, state or occurrence. Going one step further, for our purposes, leadership is an action verb. It is something we do, like running, swimming and learning. And action verbs necessitate a process. As a process, being born with the traits of good leadership, or acquiring the traits through training, education and experience, becomes inconsequential. The process of leadership is the same.
Leaders talk leadership
As Jocko Willink and Leif Babin explain in “Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win,” for there to be leadership, there must be followers. There can be no leadership without followers. Therefore, leadership is a transaction between leader and follower. Leaders who are part of the process affect followers, and followers who are part of the process affect leaders. As you can see, leadership is clearly interactive. Moreover, as Peter Northouse explains in “Leadership: Theory and Practice,” in the leadership process, the responsibility to lead belongs to everyone, not just the formal leader.
As leaders, we must accept the responsibility for this failure. President Harry Truman is credited with the phrase “The buck stops here.” This implies he was exposed to leaders who did not want to accept responsibility, who shifted blame. Truman understood that as the leader of the country, he was ultimately responsible for every problem. The leader is responsible for all problems and all failures, and therefore must be prepared to suffer all consequences (Willink & Babin). With this in mind, if you are unable or unwilling to accept this prerequisite of leadership, please pass on seeking and/or accepting a leadership position.
I am hopeful that by now you are willing to accept the responsibility for this failure in leadership and are willing to address it. This problem did not pop up overnight. The results of the What Firefighters Want survey are not part of an ambush. There were warning signs – signs we either did not clearly see or that we chose to ignore.
In his book “Upstream: How to Solve Problems Before They Happen,” Dan Heath describes a phenomenon he calls problem blindness. With problem blindness, we accept a situation or hazard as we would the weather. We recognize it, we may not like it, but accept it as being beyond our control. Problem blindness can cause a leader to fail to recognize a looming disaster, and this failure can have a catastrophic impact on an organization.
Problem blindness aligns with Michele Wucker’s perspective on a leader’s failure to respond to an urgent problem. As Wucker describes in her book “The Gray Rhino: How to Recognize and Act on the Obvious Dangers We Ignore,” there are multiple reasons leaders fail to respond to the warning signals of an impending problem. These include, but are not limited to:
- Procrastination – leaders put off taking action, hoping the problem goes away;
- Not wanting to be an alarmist – the leader does not want to appear in a panic or out of control;
- Internal bias – the leader feels the situation is not an issue;
- Groupthink – the leader wants to go with the flow and does not want to rock the boat. No one wants to tell the emperor he is naked; and
- Normalization of deviance – the leader knows there is a problem, but since the problem has not produced any immediate consequences, the problem is ignored.
Furthermore, we live and operate within a social, political and economic system that incentivizes inaction. As Wucker explains, many leaders are only interested in making it through the next election cycle, the next fiscal year or the end of their current term. As such, they become solely focused on short-term gains and, therefore, kick the can down the road.
Difficult conversations
A critical first step is taking ownership of the problem. We should explain/define the problem as if we are 100% responsible for the problem. Leaders who accept a problem as “unsolvable,” “not my fault” or “just the way it is” are suffering from problem blindness. Whether they accept it or not, the leader holds the ultimate responsibility for everything. A good leader accepts that they may not have created the problem, but they are responsible for fixing the problem.
Where do we start? Communication. As a leader, you are going to have to initiate a conversation, likely a “difficult conversation,” as defined by authors Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila in their book, “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most.” Difficult conversations are those that make us feel uncomfortable, where we risk our self-esteem or there is concern about the outcome – conversations that are difficult because we fear the outcome. Are we going to be rejected or embarrassed? Will a relationship end? Will people be angry with me? Bottom line: There is no way to avoid the consequences of a difficult conversation, and forgoing the conversation is simply not an option.
It takes guts to lead – and to have difficult conversations. It is best to meet with your subordinates in small groups. This is not difficult for company officers; however, higher ranks may have to make special accommodations.
Follow this process – and these rules – during your difficult conversations ahead:
- Check rank at the door: To make everyone feel comfortable and to inspire an honest dialogue, Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky recommend establishing a “holding environment” (“Leadership on the Line”). This means there is no rank. People can feel safe expressing views that may be emotional and controversial, with a guarantee that there will be no retribution for what is said, thus allowing honesty.
- Have an open mind: Seek to understand before being understood. Listen with the intent to understand the other person’s point of view, not to respond to or refute what they are saying.
- Control your emotions: Do not get angry. I am sure some of what is being said will be painful. Do not take it personally, no matter how personal you perceive the attack to be.
- Be prepared for multiple meetings with the same group: There is always a meeting after the meeting. The group will get together without you. Here they will think of things they forgot to say or wish they had said, or consider new ideas that come to mind.
- Find common ground: Finally, find connection. You listened to them and made an effort to understand. Hopefully, they extended you the same courtesy. Where you have found common ground is your leverage point to make change. Common ground is really the key step in solving problems.
Start the conversation with a question. Here are several suggestions related to leadership:
- What are your expectations of me as a leader?
- Where am I falling short of your expectations?
- How do you assess the current status of the unit (or the company, the battalion, the department)?
- How can it be better?
- Where would you like to see the department in five years?
- How do we get there?
- What in the unit (or company, battalion, department) is going well?
This list of questions is certainly not all inclusive. These questions may spark additional questions as the conversation proceeds. Allow the conversation to go where it needs to go to get the important questions answered, but always remember the overarching goal to improve leadership for the greater good of the department and the service to your community.
Time to step up
The answers to our lead questions – Are you worried about the leadership at your department at any level? If so, at what level do you see poor leadership in your department? – are not necessarily the problem in and of themselves. These answers are most likely signs and symptoms of a bigger problem, one that must be addressed now to stave off a larger, more catastrophic problem down the road. There are no shortcuts, no hacks, no easy ways out. We as leaders must step up, own the problem, assume responsibility and take action.
EXTRA | Leadership Library
Do you have any of these titles on your personal or professional selves?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darryl Jones is the fire chief for the City of Pittsburgh Fire Bureau, responsible for the leadership over all personnel and oversees the daily operations of the Fire Bureau. Chief Jones began his career with the city in 2007 after serving 20 years with the Aliquippa (Pennsylvania) Fire Department. Jones is a graduate of Carlow University, Carnegie Mellon University and Capella University.
