Fire departments are considered paramilitary or quasi-military organizations, and much like the armed forces, fire departments are structured for efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. As such, the chain of command is an essential element in the fire department organizational structure. When understood by all parties and used correctly, this system improves communication, reduces confusion and helps limit risk. But when misunderstood or misused, the chain of command can severely hamper a department’s ability to function, both on the fireground and in the station.
Everybody answers to somebody
If a department consisted solely of firefighters and a fire chief, the chain of command would be simple – one link. But this system would quickly fail because the chief’s span of control would be exceeded, hence our setup of divisions, battalions and companies. The structure may be simpler in smaller departments, but the concept remains the same: Everybody answers to somebody. This is accountability in its simplest sense.
Looking from the bottom up, the chain of command appears straight and direct, but when viewed from the top down, the chain of command is a series of splits that break responsibility down into manageable pieces. These pieces are the foundation of span of control, the concept that a fire service supervisor is only capable of effectively and efficiently managing 3-7 subordinate people or units. The concept of span of control is already applied to incident management but should also be adhered to in non-emergency activities.
The issuance of orders is an effective means of directing fire department operations, but the authority to issue orders comes with heavy responsibility. This is because people tend to follow orders, sometimes to a fault.
Authority gone wrong
American social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments on human obedience at Yale University in the early 1960s. His research was intended to discover and explain how humans will follow an order from somebody in authority, even if that order is unethical or unjust.
One study, dubbed the Baseline Study, found that all participants continued to follow orders to administer an electric shock to a test subject until 300 volts were delivered and the subject screamed. In the same study, 65% of participants continued delivering shocks until they believed they were delivering the maximum charge, 450 volts, despite the understanding that they were causing severe pain. (It’s worth noting that the test subject and experimenter were role playing and there was never any electrical charge applied. However, the participants were not aware of this.)
The experiments demonstrated that many people obey authority figures even when asked to perform actions they believe are wrong due to social pressures, perceived legitimacy or fear of consequences. This provided a psychological explanation for why individuals in hierarchical systems might follow immoral orders, and the concept can be extended to apply to unsafe orders or those orders issued outside of the chain of command.
Stay in your lane
This behavioral tendency should be studied and understood by all personnel. Officers need to know how their authority is interpreted and that personnel may have a desire to comply with their orders, even if misdirected or inherently risky. Firefighters also need to understand this psychological phenomenon because awareness of it can help prevent them from falling into it.
Because of the positional authority associated with rank, firefighters can be misled into thinking that all officers senior to them are in their chain of command, and some officers may believe that all firefighters should answer to them, but this is not the case. While members are expected to respect superiors outside of their chain of command, officers must recognize that not all firefighters are under their charge. Issuing orders to those outside of your charge leads to confusion and failure, potentially ending in catastrophe. This is a form of mission creep or overreach, and it is counterproductive to effective operational initiatives. In simple terms: Stay in your lane.
Splintered accountability
While fire companies usually operate under the direct supervision of their company officers, there are many tasks that members must complete independently (e.g., operating apparatus on scene, connecting to a hydrant or performing outside ventilation work). When a member is given an order by their officer, that order needs to be carried out to completion, whether the officer oversees it directly or not.
One purpose of the Incident Command System (ICS) is that it helps to streamline the chain of command at incident scenes. When adhered to, orders are issued and received only within the appropriate chain of command. Unfortunately, conflicting orders are sometimes issued on the fireground. This practice creates a tremendous hazard to firefighters by splintering accountability and interrupting the chain of command.
Let’s review this scenario as an example:
Firefighters are operating at the scene of a house fire. A firefighter from Truck 1 has been issued an order by their captain to place ground ladders on all sides of the structure while the captain and another firefighter go inside to search. It is not an uncommon practice for truck companies to split interior and exterior duties based on staffing constraints or incident needs.
The firefighter places a ladder for egress on the “A” side of the house and heads back to the rig to retrieve another one when he is stopped by the captain from Engine 1 who tells him to help with stretching a second hoseline from the engine because they are short-handed.
Not wanting to disobey the engine company captain, the Truck 1 firefighter helps get the handline into position. As this is happening, the conditions inside the building suddenly change, requiring all firefighters to evacuate. The fire causes a stairway collapse, trapping the truck company captain and firefighter on the second floor. The captain locates a window and opens it, hoping to find a ladder. But the ladder isn’t there. It was never placed because the firefighter was given a subsequent order by an officer outside of his chain of command – and he followed it. Now there are firefighters trapped on an upper floor of a burning building, and they need to resort to bailout methods to safely escape.
Conflicting orders are issued more often than they should be in our business. On the one hand, firefighters choosing to follow a conflicting order illustrates the desire to get the job done and to help each other out. On the other hand, it can lead to disastrous situations, like the example above – and quite frankly cannot be tolerated. Officers should exercise care when asking for help from firefighters who aren’t assigned to them. There may be times when this practice is acceptable, but those situations should be a rare exception.
The chain of command and issuance of orders can become complicated if all parties involved do not respect the system and its boundaries. Yes, I said all parties – even the fire chief. It’s understood that the fire chief is the ranking officer of the fire department and that their orders override those issued by other officers in the organization. But if you’re a fire chief and you want your fires to go out, make sure your firefighters carry out the orders issued by their officers before changing the plan. Overriding orders not only leads to confusion, it also disempowers and marginalizes the other officers. It essentially says, “Your captain doesn’t know what to do, so do what I tell you.”
Managing conflicting orders
So, how do we deal with conflicting orders? First, we need to understand that not all orders are lawful, nor are they valid if the person issuing them has no authority over the recipient. Sounds tricky, doesn’t it? How does a firefighter handle such orders?
Let’s start with the conflicting order example from above. As uncomfortable as it may be to do so, the truck company firefighter needs to refuse the order. This isn’t a disrespectful action, nor is it insubordinate, but it does need to be done as tactfully and clearly as possible. The firefighter could say something like, “Sorry Captain, I’m under orders from my captain to get these ladders placed.” That should be all the information the engine captain needs. The fireground is not the place to discuss this in detail and if the engine company boss is unhappy with what occurred, he can discuss it with the truck company boss after the fire.
What about unlawful orders? Just because someone has the authority to issue orders does not mean they are all lawful or safe. Here’s an example. An engine company is responding to a call and the officer is concerned about response times, so he tells the engineer to speed up. The engineer, familiar with the laws and regulations governing his actions, knows he can’t go any faster without violating department policy and putting people at an undue risk. But he does it anyway and the apparatus is involved in a crash, injuring firefighters and the driver of the other vehicle. Speed was determined to be a factor in the collision, and both the engineer and officer are disciplined. There are things both parties could have done to avoid this.
For the officer, it’s a simple fix: Don’t do that. It’s unethical to use your authority to order your people to do incorrect or dangerous things, period.
For the engineer, it’s a little more complicated. He needs to firmly but tactfully refuse the unlawful order. A simple statement like, “It isn’t safe to go any faster” or “I’m not going any faster; it’s against the policy and I’m not going to put us at risk” should be enough to send the message.
“Only following orders”
Claiming that you were “only following orders” is indefensible and unacceptable in this case. This is known as the “Nuremberg Defense,” so-named because Nazi soldiers used it while on trial at Nuremberg following World War II. (It was also the initial basis of the Milgram experiments.) The soldiers’ argument was that they should be acquitted of their war crimes because they were merely following orders from superior officers. This defense was denied, as judges ruled that unlawful orders should be refused if the individual receiving the order knows them to be unlawful. While the origins of the Nuremberg Defense are egregious and extreme, the concept should be understood in the professional setting. Just because your boss says to do it doesn’t make it OK. “Just doing what I was told” is no excuse to do the wrong thing.
Department policy should provide some guidance on this. If a member receives an order that they believe to be unlawful or unethical, they should inform the officer issuing the order that they believe it to be unlawful and that they intend to refuse it.
They should also contact a superior officer within their chain of command to report what occurred. However, the belief that an order is unlawful does not absolve the member from accountability. If it is later determined that the order was indeed lawful, the member may be subject to discipline.
Firehouse chain of command
While not as critical as the operational examples, breaking the chain of command at the firehouse can have consequences as well. A company officer should take great pride in leading their crew and should also have a handle on where everyone is and what they’re up to throughout the shift. If another officer is assigning tasks and responsibilities to members of the company, it leads to confusion and undermines the company officer’s authority with their crew.
Certain decisions in a fire department are reserved for the fire chief, so when there is a recommendation from the ranks, it should be routed through the chain of command. This might mean that a firefighter’s recommendation needs to be considered by several officers before the fire chief sees it, and some recommendations never make it to the fire chief.
Let’s say one of the officers in the chain of command does not like the recommendation. This may be because the recommendation is unsafe, impractical or unrealistic. But it may also be because the officer misunderstands the recommendation or has a personal bias against the idea. Even if an officer disagrees with a recommendation, it should still make it all the way to the top of the chain. In this case, the officer should indicate that they do not support the recommendation and provide some background on why. This prevents good recommendations from being missed due to personal reasons. Sometimes the chain of command is used as a mechanism to prevent ideas from turning into action. In order to prevent this, your department should have a policy that supports all recommendations reaching the intended recipient.
Fire chiefs should ensure that all members understand the concept of the chain of command and the concept of lawful orders. Merely being in a position or rank that is higher than another person does not make you their boss. Members should show proper courtesy and respect to all other members, regardless of rank. A job title or rank does not guarantee respect, nor does it excuse you from respecting others.
Final thoughts
Fire departments are structured organizations. Orders are issued and should be followed. Lack of order and discipline can cause chaos and mission failure and may ultimately cause failure at the organizational level. However, those issuing orders must adhere to the authority they have been granted and refrain from issuing orders outside of their scope. At the same time, all members should possess a strong understanding of the chain of command and the positional authority within the organization. Leaders should foster an environment where members are empowered to speak up when something is wrong and refuse conflicting or unlawful orders without fear of retribution.
