On Jan. 7, 2025, the Palisades Fire was reported north of Los Angeles. It quickly grew to be the third most destructive fire in state history. Spurred by Santa Ana winds, the fire burned simultaneously with the Eaton Fire, which became the second most destructive fire in state history, destroying over 9,000 buildings and killing 19 people.
Subsequent investigation of the Palisades Fire revealed that it was a rekindle of an arson fire that was started, and reportedly extinguished by the LAFD, on Jan. 1. Rekindles as a source of major fires have occurred before — the Oakland Hills Fire of 1991 being one major example.
| READ NEXT: How to protect structural firefighters responding to WUI fires
But in the case of the Palisades Fire, at least one Los Angeles firefighter raised concerns to his officer that the initial fire, named the Lachman Fire, was not completely extinguished when the crews were ordered to pack up and leave the scene on Jan. 2. “I could feel the heat coming off of it, and I didn’t even want to use my gloved hand because it was hot … and there was like red hot coals … I even heard crackling,” the firefighter testified, part of a lawsuit brought by fire victims against the city and state. He raised these concerns to his officer but felt “like I got kind of blown off a little bit. The captains don’t want to hear that.”
Five days later, the Palisades Fire blew up, destroying over 6,000 structures and taking a dozen lives.
‘Kill-the-messenger cult’
Several issues have emerged as a result of the Palisades Fire investigation, including how engines were staged or deployed, and how budget concerns influenced decision-making. But the fact that firefighters knew that there was a danger from the original Lachman Fire and either did not speak up or were ignored when they did has raised concerns for what one attorney associated with the investigation has called a “kill-the-messenger cult” within the LAFD.
This is not the first time this concern has been raised. In a 2022 audit into internal sexual harassment investigations, the LAFD’s top watchdog found that firefighters were discouraged from reporting misconduct and encouraged by supervisors and others to withhold information during investigative interviews. More recently, several current and former firefighters stated that it’s often easier to keep their mouths shut than deal with the ramifications of speaking up. A former fire commissioner said that fear of retaliation prevents firefighters from reporting racial or sexual harassment and other bad behavior. “They don’t just think they’ll get retaliated against — they will get retaliated against,” said the commissioner.
A culture that inhibits individuals from speaking up is not unique to the LAFD. Fire departments are hierarchical organizations that require focused teamwork and obedience to orders to accomplish difficult and dangerous tasks. Living together in close quarters reinforces this unwritten rule. My first year on the job, I was explicitly told, “If you want to succeed around here, show up to work on time, do what you’re told and otherwise keep your mouth shut.” And just this week, after reading my article, “When is hazing OK? Never. Let me explain,” one retired firefighter sent me a message in which he described himself as “a former victim, a willing observer, and then an unwilling, but sadly silent, observer.”
Changing the culture
When people are effectively silenced, there is a real problem. What can be done to alter this cultural norm? Certainly, leadership at the highest levels must not only say but act on a commitment that individual input is important, and no one should feel intimidated or fearful when speaking up about anything at work.
But even more important is what happens at the company and battalion levels. As one former LAFD commissioner said, “The captain needs to model respectful behavior, which may include understanding that asking questions isn’t automatically insubordinate. I do think that culture can be changed through training and accountability.”
Training can definitely help. Many company officers have little training in communications, group decision-making, conflict management or other leadership skills beyond technical ones. Their role models may have been authoritarian figures who suppressed any input or questioning from their crew members.
The reality is, however, that one person cannot ever see or hear or know everything they need to know. The observations and perceptions of all crewmembers are critical to good decision-making and effective emergency response.
Managing a more collaborative approach to leadership can be challenging. As an officer, you need to give orders that will be followed — an emergency scene is not the place for a debate. Yet officers still need — and should want — to hear from their crewmembers if they have information that is critical to a successful outcome of the incident.
How can this be done? It can be as simple as saying the words: “If you see or learn something that I need to know, tell me. I will listen to you” — but then there must be follow-through. Genuine and respectful listening. Follow up regardless of the ultimate decision. Conduct substantial after-action reviews that talk about why decisions were made and what could have been done differently.
Even more basic than this is instilling confidence in all members that speaking up will not hurt them. This is apparently an issue on the LAFD but most certainly many other fire departments as well.
Are you ready to listen?
Another recent news story caught my attention, prompting similar questions about how to change deeply ingrained culture. In Florida, a fire lieutenant was arrested and fired after deputies said he assaulted a 65-year-old man during a medical call.
While the two firefighters that were with the officer were trying to get the patient’s vital signs, the officer allegedly slammed the patient’s head against the stretcher for about 30 seconds, and then “used his fingers to press into the patient’s eyes and struck his head against the stretcher again,” according to deputies. This incident only came to light because after the medical call was over, the other two firefighters reported what happened.
Were those firefighters retaliated against for what they did? I don’t know. Regardless of any repercussions, they felt confident enough that they were doing the right thing that they spoke up. All firefighters need to have this confidence — and all officers need to be ready to listen.
