Safe firegrounds require strong leaders

Firefighters spend a great deal of effort analyzing “lessons learned.” When we do it right, we apply those learned lessons to our next fire. But in reviewing near-miss events, as well as in the mountain of material generated as a result of a firefighter fatality, something continues to show up — and it’s not subtle. Far too often, a known truth, or a lesson learned and repeatedly reinforced, is violated during hazard zone operations. What is at the root of this problem? The following discussion goes beyond what I normally discuss in this space — tactics and strategy — to examine what is, in fact, a lack of leadership.

PHOTO ADAM ALBERTI Leadership on the fireground is an awesome responsibility, one that requires officers to assess critical risk factors, identify a firefighting strategy and direct the tactical and task-level work.

Gaining Ground
Firefighters are better equipped and better trained than ever before. We have done a reasonably good job keeping pace with all the changes we’ve faced, and in some cases, we have even gained ground. Firefighting tactics make more sense, and are grounded in reality in ways that, at least for me, were missing early in my career. I don’t mean to cast doubt on, or display a lack of confidence in my predecessors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our predecessors laid the groundwork for us, as we do for those who follow us. We cannot minimize the sacrifices of those who carried the fight before us.

However, I hope that one day the next generation of firefighters can say, “We are better equipped and trained than those who came before us.” The next generation will inherit a far trickier world than the one we live in. To continue to keep up with the challenges of an ever-changing world, we must all be lifelong learners.

Fireground Officer Challenges
When you think about it, there are not very many examples of a more challenging work environment than the hazard zone in which we operate, particularly during fire operations. The decisions that officers must make, and the timeframe allotted in which to make those decisions, make firefighting one of the most difficult jobs. I have written many times about information that the fire officer, particularly the first-arriving officer, must gather and process in a hurry. Officers must assess critical factors, perform a risk analysis and select a firefighting strategy, all while addressing the tactical priorities within an incident management plan.

This is an awesome responsibility for the first-arriving officer, made even more complicated by the fact that the officer must direct the tactical and task-level work at the same time. It is no wonder we spend so much time trying to improve these skills.

The Courage to Lead
In the study of what went wrong during hazard zone operations, the problem can often be traced to a simple (but critical) failure of an officer to lead. It takes some courage to lead operations in the often nasty (and sometimes deadly) environment that accompanies hazard zone operations. This is a simple truth. Overlooking the responsibility to lead, especially in hazard zone operations, is a recipe for near misses or worse.
 
Firehouse management has some degree of latitude (and democracy) that simply does not exist while supervising workers in the hazard zone. Failure to lead around the firehouse rarely results in serious injury or death, but lacking the courage to lead on the fireground can be catastrophic.

The Popularity & Leadership Balance
We all know officers who are laid back and easy-going supervisors; they are normally the ones for whom everyone wants to work. Not only is a relaxed leadership style OK, but it probably makes sense to create a work environment that allows subordinates as much latitude as possible without disrupting the productivity and order required to get the work done. But easygoing supervisors must make a distinction between firehouse and fireground management, both for themselves and their subordinates.
 
Leadership styles from the firehouse can carry over to the fireground, and good leaders recognize that the two areas carry different challenges that require different skills and strategies. Simply put: The latitude supervisors allow around the firehouse should not extend to hazard zone operations.

In our culture, fire officers, particularly newer ones, often strive to be well liked. The trick: pulling this off without giving up the ability to lead. Being liked is a worthy endeavor, but it’s far easier said than done, at least consistently. Often, being laid back is seen as being compromising; however, it’s possible to be easygoing without compromising your principles.

In my small part of the world, we talk about being “nice” to one another. Being nice is not the same thing as being soft — think of a supervisor who takes the attitude of “don’t mistake my kindness for weakness.” And while it’s not immediately obvious, subordinates want clearly defined standards of behavior and performance and a supervisor with the guts to enforce them. This is particularly true on the fireground.

Subordinates may never tell their supervisor they appreciate strong leadership, but they do. A good rule of thumb for a fire officer (new or old) facing the decision between gaining popularity or respect: Choose respect. Popularity will follow.

Failure to Lead
Being able to lead activities anywhere, but especially on the fireground, requires compliance from followers. I have addressed this issue before and it is worth repeating.

There is no place in the fire service for insubordination. This is especially true during fire operations. But the worker cannot be held totally responsible if the supervisor fails to lead. When we try to get to the bottom of something non-standard (death or injury) that has occurred on the fireground, we often find more than one cause. But one thing is certain: Any blurring of who is in control at any level (task, tactical or strategic) on the fireground creates an out-of-control hazard zone. When the workers are not being directed or led, they will continue to do the work without any system. By default, they will do what they think is best. Simply having good intentions is not enough. Many accidents have been the result of good intentions. Responsibilities and roles on the fireground are defined and assigned based on the incident management system; every participant must know their position and function. And those in charge of these positions and functions must lead.

Examples of Failure 
Bad fireground results are frequently accompanied by an absence of leadership at some level—and lack of leadership is unmistakable. We must take seriously those cases where supervisors clearly fail to lead. For quite some time, when my department reviewed fireground activities, we looked very narrowly at individual unsafe or non-standard acts.

For example, when a firefighter operated in an unsafe position on a defensive fire, that firefighter’s activities were pretty much the beginning, middle and end of the review process. Finally, it is our standard procedure to question what the firefighter’s supervisor was doing as well. Now, in cases where the supervisor failed to step up and lead, we hold the supervisor accountable. In such cases, the supervisor on the fireground can be more responsible, and held to a  higher standard, for an unsafe or stupid act than the subordinate who committed it. This is particularly true when it is clear the boss knew better and simply failed to lead.

Most unsafe or non-standard acts, such as needless or extensive damage during overhaul, wearing the wrong (or incomplete) protective clothing, crew separation, poor air management and even worse, freelancing, are not rooted in the fact that our members don’t know better. These kinds of violations are not tactical mistakes that are made in the course of firefighting. They are much more sinister and disturbing. Subordinates are expected to comply and the supervisor must be held accountable to a standard that is expected of a boss—to lead.

Conclusions
Our success (or failure) to bring our members safely home after each tour of duty relies to a great extent on how effective our supervisors are at the task and tactical level. We hedge our bet on survival by doing what we were trained to do; during firefighting activities, we gain experience (without getting killed or injured) that makes us even more effective. It is discouraging to see fundamental principles violated simply because those charged with supervision fail to act like supervisors—because they fail to lead. The tactical advantage we enjoy through our experience and training is all but neutralized if those charged with the responsibility to do so fail to direct those activities.

There will be times when subordinates and their bosses don’t necessarily see eye to eye, or don’t think the same thing at the same time. Our fireground bosses don’t have the luxury of trying to gain approval in the hazard zone by building consensus through some democratic process. Smart and effective bosses accept input from all sources, including crewmembers, and then they take charge. Taking responsibility for the decisions made, and displaying the courage to lead, comes with being a good supervisor. If that hat is uncomfortable, there is no shame in leaving it to someone who fits it better. Some of the finest firefighters I have ever seen want nothing to do with being a supervisor. We should tip our hat to those who do this job well. But if the organization has put us in a leadership role, when we show up, we ought to be prepared to fill it.

John Hinton has been with the Phoenix Fire Department for more than 29 years and is currently a deputy chief and shift commander. His duties include training recruits and active firefighters.