By Zachary L. Freiwald, assistant fire management officer
In many government agencies and corporate environments, the word flexibility has become a euphemism for overextension, ambiguity and burnout. While intended to promote adaptability, its overuse often signals a breakdown in prioritization, decision-making and clear chain of command.
For long-time employees, being asked to “be flexible” can trigger frustration, anxiety and a sense of being undervalued or misused.
| BETTER EVERY SHIFT: Captain Marc Wysocki talks mental health as operational readiness
Let’s consider what this looks like at the 30,000-foot level as well as ground level — the real-world impact on firefighters.
The weaponization of “flexibility”
In practice, flexibility has become synonymous with vague directives like “do more with less,” often accompanied by buzzwords like leveraging, collaboration and cross-pollination. These terms, once meaningful, have been diluted through overuse. As a result, they now often signal a lack of direction rather than innovation.
This linguistic drift reflects deeper organizational issues: the inability to prioritize, the failure to make timely decisions, and the erosion of clearly defined authority. Employees are left to navigate a maze of competing demands without guidance on which path best uses their time and capabilities.
Real-world example: During preparations for a busy fire season, when I was already buried in fuels mitigation planning, readiness work and several ongoing projects, my supervisor added another slew of additional tasks to my plate and told me to “just be flexible with it.” I already track my workload in a spreadsheet that lists all major assignments, estimated work hours, and deadlines and according to that spreadsheet, and I could see that I was overbooked for nearly three months within that planning year. When I laid this out and asked which task I could postpone, hand off or drop to make room for the new assignment, I got a blank stare and a frustrated look in return. No direction, no prioritization. They simply walked away, leaving me with the pressure to somehow absorb more work without any guidance.
For a while, I tried to make it work, but the math didn’t change as I still didn’t have three extra months hidden somewhere. So I went back with a written breakdown — the spreadsheet, the hours, the timelines and the operational risks of continuing to overload critical tasks. That documentation finally forced the conversation that should have happened from the start. Two assignments were reassigned, deadlines were adjusted, and the remaining work was realigned so it fit within my capacity. Things improved not because I was “flexible,” but because I pushed for clarity and put real numbers behind the boundaries I needed to set.
How to reduce the impact: When told to “be flexible,” ask for specifics: Flexible in what way? Toward which goal? Push for clarity on expectations and priorities. If none is provided, document what you believe the priorities are and request confirmation. Use your calendar as a boundary-setting tool. Block time for core duties and protect it from vague or shifting requests.
The burden of team overload
At one point in my career, I was assigned to as many as 15 different working teams on top of my regular duties. While the level of involvement varied, the top five teams alone consumed 25–50% of my weekly work time. That time commitment fluctuated with seasonal demands and project timelines, but the impact was consistent: I was stretched thin.
Two or three of those teams were arguably essential to my role, but even then, they often required the kind of sustained attention that should have been assigned to a dedicated specialist. The remaining teams, while less demanding, still required time and mental bandwidth, often without clear direction or prioritization from leadership.
Real-world example: A couple years ago, I was added to a growing list of internal teams as well as several short-term working groups that were supposed to require only “minimal input.” However, once I was actually in them, it became obvious that minimal input meant weekly meetings, document reviews, ongoing taskings and multi-step follow-ups. None of that was visible from the outside, and it was clear no one realized how demanding these teams actually were. Meanwhile, my core responsibilities kept stacking up.
Beyond the workload, what made this such a challenge was the quiet way the pressure built. No single assignment felt unreasonable on its own, and it would appear easy for others to assume I had room/time. Unfortunately, each new task chipped away at the margins, and I could feel myself constantly shifting between groups, trying to keep up while losing time for the core duties that keep the fire program functioning. It was not dramatic. It was a steady, creeping sense that the more I tried to stay ahead, the more the gap widened.
How to reduce the impact: Ask your supervisor to rank your team assignments or confirm which ones take precedence. If that’s not possible, track your time and show how much is being consumed by “team” work versus core duties, creating leverage for renegotiating commitments. Set limits where you can, and don’t be afraid to decline new team assignments unless something else is removed from your plate.
The myth of equal partnerships
Working with external partners and cooperators is often framed as a strategic advantage — and it can be. But like any relationship, it requires time, trust and mutual investment. A good agreement is more than paperwork; it’s built on understanding what your partners are doing, how you can support each other, and what each party is realistically capable of.
The expectation that one person can maintain meaningful relationships with many partners is unrealistic unless time is specifically carved out for that purpose. Prioritization becomes essential but rarely is guidance provided on how to do it.
Real-world example: My program works with a wide range of partners, including state and municipal departments that share mutual aid, conservation and land management groups, federal cooperators, and even small volunteer agencies that operate around our area. On paper and without honest conversations, these relationships are treated as equally important. In reality, the level of involvement varies drastically.
The expectation is that I would actively maintain over a dozen of these partnerships. Some of them required in-the-field site visits, multi-agency pre-project walk-throughs, detailed reviews of proposals, and regular updates to ensure grant or agreement requirements were being met. Others needed me at monthly planning calls or wanted me to assist with their own fuels or readiness concerns. Management above me saw these as simple relationship maintenance tasks. What they did not see was that each of these partners expected meaningful time, steady communication, and follow-through on commitments.
The personal impact came from knowing these cooperators rely on me in real ways. I did not want to shortchange anyone, especially the partners who show up consistently during fire season. Still, with so many relationships treated as equal priorities, it became impossible to give the most critical ones the attention they deserved.
How to reduce the impact: Create a simple matrix of your partnerships: Who contributes the most? Who has legal or financial obligations? Who’s just a shared-interest group? Use this to focus your time on relationships that produce tangible outcomes. Communicate your bandwidth to both leadership and partners and be honest about what you can realistically support.
Role confusion and anxiety
Whether on internal teams or in external partnerships, role confusion is a persistent issue. It comes from all directions with unclear expectations from leadership, overlapping responsibilities, and ambiguous authority. This confusion creates anxiety and undermines both individual performance and team cohesion.
When roles aren’t clearly defined, people hesitate to act. They second-guess decisions. They worry about overstepping or underperforming. And in the absence of clarity, the chain of command becomes diluted, replaced by a fog of well-intentioned but poorly coordinated activity.
Real-world example: During the early planning stages for a multi-agency prescribed burn, I was asked to participate in an initial meeting and told my role would be to “support operations,” but that was not defined. The burn was planned for a piece of ground that was not in my jurisdiction, which made the lack of clarity even more noticeable. When the first planning meeting started, everyone had a different understanding of why I was there. Some people assumed I was taking the lead on operational pieces, even potentially to be the burn boss. Others believed I was present only as a technical advisor. A few believed I was supposed to help coordinate communication between the agencies involved. None of this had been discussed beforehand.
Because the roles were unclear, we never reached the original intent of the meeting. Instead, we spent the entire session sorting out who was responsible for what, who was deemed the lead agency, and whether additional personnel needed to be brought in to close gaps. Every time we tried to move forward, we had to pause and revisit basic questions about authority and expectations. It was impossible to make real progress until those foundational issues were addressed. This lack of clarity at the first step set the entire project on a tone of confusion and disorganization, and that feeling stayed with the group long after the first meeting ended.
How to reduce the impact: Clarify your role early. Ask: Am I here to lead, support or advise? Don’t assume, confirm. In meetings or emails, state your role explicitly: “As the operations lead, I’ll focus on ….” If no one is assigned as lead, suggest a rotating chair or designate someone to coordinate. Structure doesn’t limit flexibility. It enables it.
The path forward: Reclaiming clarity
The solution isn’t to eliminate flexibility; it’s to use it with intention. That starts with spending the time to truly prioritize objectives, internal teams and external partnerships. It means defining roles clearly, setting boundaries and empowering people to focus on where they can have the greatest impact.
Define your non-negotiables — the parts of your job that can’t be compromised — and protect them. When asked to take on something new, ask: Does this align with my core duties? Will it displace something more important? Speak up early. Don’t wait until you’re overwhelmed. Raise concerns when the first signs of overload appear.
7 situations where “flexibility” can undermine the chain of command
To further put this into perspective, let’s review seven common situations where being flexible can quietly erode the chain of command — and what to watch out for:
- Ad hoc tasking without clear delegation: You’re asked to take on a new initiative but no formal authority is delegated. You start making decisions, only to be overridden later by someone higher up who wasn’t looped in. Why it matters: This undermines your credibility and creates confusion about who’s actually in charge.
- Cross-functional teams with no defined lead: You’re placed on a multi-agency or interdepartmental team with no clear leadership. Everyone is told to collaborate, but no one is empowered to make final decisions. Why it matters: Without a designated lead, decisions stall, accountability disappears, and the team becomes ineffective.
- “Flexible” reporting to multiple supervisors: You’re told you now report to several people depending on the project. Each has different priorities and none of them coordinate. Why it matters: You’re stuck in a tug-of-war, unsure whose direction to follow. This leads to burnout and poor performance.
- Role creep through “flexible” job descriptions: You’re hired for one job but told to “be flexible” about taking on unrelated duties, often without training, support or recognition. Why it matters: This leads to role confusion, inefficiency and resentment. It also dilutes your ability to do your core job well.
- Overcommitment to internal teams: You’re assigned to multiple internal teams, with no guidance on which ones take priority. You’re told they’re all important and expected to juggle them. Why it matters: Without prioritization, your time is fragmented, and your impact is diminished. Essential duties suffer.
- Partnerships without capacity or prioritization: You’re expected to maintain relationships with numerous external partners, but no time is carved out to do it meaningfully and no one tells you which ones matter most. Why it matters: You end up spreading yourself too thin, and key partnerships suffer while less critical ones drain your time.
- Informal authority in emergency situations: Someone outside the formal command structure starts giving orders under the guise of ‘just helping out’ during an incident. Why it matters: This creates safety risks, conflicting instructions, and a breakdown in incident command protocols.
Final thoughts
Flexibility without structure isn’t a strength; it’s a liability. Clear roles, defined authority and deliberate prioritization are essential to maintaining an effective chain of command. But for the individual caught in the middle, the real challenge is navigating ambiguity without burning out. When leadership fails to set boundaries, it falls on you to ask the hard questions, seek clarity and protect your time. No one else will do it for you.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zachary L. Freiwald serves as an assistant fire management officer for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in New England, bringing over 25 years of experience in wildland fire, fuels management and interagency operations. A U.S. Army veteran and former paratrooper, Freiwald has held previous leadership roles with the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, with positions spanning Alaska, California, Oregon, Florida and the Northeast. Freiwald is qualified as a Prescribed Fire Burn Boss, Safety Officer and Division Supervisor, and has supported national incident management teams in multiple roles. His career includes leading prescribed fire programs, developing interagency fuels projects, instructing wildland fire courses, and mentoring fire personnel across diverse ecosystems and agency cultures. He has been acknowledged for advancing safety and supporting firefighter wellness throughout his career.
