By Assistant Chief Curvin Wolfgang
We’ve all heard it: “Firefighters don’t like change.” In fact, I have probably uttered those words a time or two myself. But the longer I have been in this profession, and especially the longer I have been in leadership, the more I have come to believe that the statement simply isn’t true.
I would now argue the opposite: Firefighters want change. They embrace change. In many cases, they are the ones pushing for change.
| READ MORE: When firehouse talk becomes an alarm: Are you listening to the message?
What they don’t particularly enjoy is having changes enacted without understanding why, without being asked for their input and without having an opportunity to influence decisions that directly affect them.
I have even started to wonder whether, when officers face pushback and respond with, “Firefighters just don’t like change,” if that response is a veiled, newly packaged version of: “I don’t particularly care what you think. Just do what I say.”
That may sting a little. It probably should, and I say that having been guilty of that thought myself.
I think about times in my career when I had an idea, wrote a policy or issued a directive without getting enough feedback from the people most affected by the decision. Then, when I received pushback, I became frustrated. Instead of asking myself why people were concerned, I found it much easier to fall back on the old fire service cliché: “They just don’t like change.”
Looking back, I probably shouldn’t have been surprised by the response. The problem wasn’t necessarily the change. The problem was how I managed — or failed to manage — the change.
Firefighters welcome change
It doesn’t take long for the “firefighters don’t like change” argument to fall apart. Firefighters love plenty of changes. Just put a new apparatus in the station and watch what happens. Introduce a better tool, improve the station, develop a more practical uniform policy, replace an outdated piece of equipment, reduce paperwork or give crews a better way to accomplish a task. Most of those changes are embraced pretty quickly.
Go even further into everyday station life, and you will see firefighters initiating change themselves. Crews experiment with hose loads, reorganize compartment layouts, improve station spaces, develop training ideas and find better ways to accomplish routine tasks. Those are all changes, and yet we rarely describe those firefighters as “resistant to change.”
So why are some changes embraced, while others generate frustration, anxiety and resistance? Maybe we have been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking, “Why are they resisting this change?” perhaps leaders should ask: “What do they believe they are losing because of this change?”
Maybe it isn’t change. Maybe it’s loss.
Ronald Heifetz, Marty Linsky and Alexander Grashow, authors of “The Practice of Adaptive Leadership,” challenge the common belief that people simply resist change. They argue that what people often resist is the loss associated with change.
Once I began looking at resistance through that lens, I started viewing change management differently. Instead of immediately becoming defensive when someone questioned a decision, I tried to consider what the person believed they were losing.
Sometimes the concern was legitimate. Sometimes it was based on perception. Sometimes the concern came from incomplete information. And sometimes we, as leaders, had simply failed to consider the downstream effects of what seemed like a perfectly reasonable decision from our perspective.
More recently, Debra M. Kawahara, PhD, in an article for the American Psychological Association, discussed a similar concept. She identified five areas of perceived loss that can contribute to resistance during periods of change: safety, freedom, status, belonging and fairness (2025). Those five areas translate remarkably well to the fire service.
1. Safety: Hopefully, none of us are intentionally developing policies, procedures or practices that make our firefighters less safe. But that doesn’t mean a change cannot feel less safe. There may even be legitimate safety concerns that decision-makers did not recognize.
Consider changes involving firefighter protective equipment. New technologies and evolving equipment standards may offer improvements in one area while causing firefighters to question performance in another. A firefighter who has trusted a certain type of equipment for years may reasonably want to understand how its replacement will perform under real-world conditions. That concern can easily be labeled resistance. But what if it isn’t resistance? What if that firefighter is simply worried about losing a level of protection he or she trusts?
The leader’s responsibility is not to dismiss the concern. It’s to listen, explain, provide evidence when available and determine whether something was overlooked.
2. Freedom: Fire and EMS personnel operate in an environment that requires policies, procedures and accountability. There is no getting around that. But there is also a significant difference between providing necessary direction and unnecessarily removing autonomy. Something as simple as dictating exactly when a routine station task must occur can create resistance if crews previously had the flexibility to accomplish the same objective within their own workflow. The result may be identical, but crews perceive the change as a loss of freedom.
That does not mean every rule should be eliminated or that crews should simply do whatever they want. It means leaders should understand that autonomy has value. If we are going to take it away, there should be a reason, and we should be able to explain why.
3. Status: Status can be one of the more difficult forms of loss to recognize because few people are comfortable admitting that status matters to them. But it does. Promotions, transfers, reorganizations and leadership changes can alter established relationships and informal influence within an organization. Someone who had unfettered access to a previous leader may suddenly have less influence. A highly respected member of one crew may transfer into an environment where they have to establish themselves again. Organizational restructuring can move responsibilities from one position to another.
None of those changes necessarily mean someone is being mistreated. But they can represent a very real perceived loss of status. Recognizing that simply allows us to better understand the human reaction to necessary organizational decisions.
4. Belonging: This one should be especially easy for those in the fire service to understand. Our profession places enormous value on crews, stations, shifts and relationships. Those bonds are part of what makes the fire service special. They can also make change difficult.
I have counseled more than one firefighter considering promotion who struggled with the realization that moving up might mean leaving a crew they loved. Some firefighters even chose not to pursue promotional opportunities because maintaining that connection was more important than obtaining the next rank. That isn’t necessarily fear of promotion; it may be fear of losing belonging.
Similar concerns can occur with transfers, station realignments, schedule changes or any organizational decision that disrupts established crews. Leaders may look at transfers as moving a name from one box on an organizational chart to another. To the person being transferred, it may mean leaving their closest friends. Those are very different perspectives.
5. Fairness: Fairness may be one of the most subjective — and potentially damaging — areas associated with organizational change. A decision can make complete sense administratively and still create unintended consequences for employees.
A new policy may benefit one group while disproportionately affecting another. A scheduling change may appear neutral until its actual impact is seen. A new requirement may be reasonable for future employees but create significant challenges for those already in the organization.
Sometimes the perception of fairness is based on incomplete information. Other times, if we are willing to admit it, the change really is unfair. That’s exactly why we need input before implementation. The people closest to the work often see consequences that those of us further away simply cannot.
Stop calling it resistance
How can fire officers use this information when leading change? First, when resistance appears, stop immediately labeling it resistance. Instead, get curious. Ask yourself: What might this person believe they are losing? Is it safety, freedom, status, belonging or fairness?
Then ask them. We can spend an incredible amount of time trying to determine why firefighters are upset while doing everything possible to avoid asking the question directly. Have the conversation; you may discover something you never considered.
That doesn’t mean every objection should change the decision. Leadership still requires difficult decisions, and consensus is not always possible. Going back to Heifetz’s concept of loss, meaningful change can also create casualties along the way; sometimes, unpopular change is necessary. Our responsibility as leaders is to recognize those potential losses, minimize unnecessary casualties where possible and ensure the value of the change justifies its impact.
But there is an enormous difference between hearing someone and disagreeing with them and never hearing them at all.
Resistance management starts before the change
The best way to manage resistance is to avoid unnecessarily creating it in the first place by being open, inclusive and transparent.
Involve the people affected by the change early enough so their involvement matters. Ask for input before the final decision — not after it’s already been made. Explain the problem you are trying to solve, the desired future state and, most importantly, why change is necessary.
One model I have found useful for organizing this process is John Kotter’s eight-step approach to leading change, originally outlined in his book, “Leading Change.” In practical fire service terms, the framework encourages leaders to:
- Create a sense of urgency. Help people understand why maintaining the status quo is no longer acceptable and why action is necessary.
- Build a guiding coalition. Bring together respected people throughout the organization who can help shape and champion the effort.
- Develop a clear vision. Make sure people understand where the organization is trying to go and what success should look like.
- Communicate the vision. Communicate repeatedly, consistently and through multiple levels of the organization.
- Remove barriers and enable action. Give people the authority, resources and support necessary to move the change forward.
- Generate short-term wins. Identify progress early and celebrate it so employees can see that the effort is producing results.
- Build on the progress. Don’t declare victory too early. Use early success to continue improving processes and addressing barriers.
- Make the change part of the culture. Reinforce the behaviors and practices until the new approach becomes the default for how the organization operates.
Kotter’s framework has evolved over time, but the core principle remains especially relevant to public safety organizations: Sustainable change requires more than issuing an order. It requires creating understanding, building support and removing the barriers that prevent people from moving forward — and maybe that is where the fire service has gotten it wrong.
Lead crews through the change
Firefighters aren’t inherently resistant to change. They change every day. They adapt on scene, develop new tactics, learn new equipment and work with new crewmembers. They promote, transfer, train, improvise and solve problems as part of their profession.
The question for leaders isn’t whether firefighters will change; it’s whether we will lead them through the change or simply announce the change and expect compliance.
So, the next time you hear yourself saying, “Firefighters just don’t like change,” it might be worth pausing for a moment. Maybe they aren’t resisting the change. Maybe they are telling us something about the change — or about the way we are leading it — that we need to hear.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Curvin L. Wolfgang Jr., MA, CFO, EFO, serves as assistant fire chief for the Sarasota (Florida) Fire Department as well as vice chair for the EFO section of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. Wolfgang also serves as an instructional facilitator and instructor for the National Fire Academy.
