By Luigi Davoli
In any high-risk profession, leadership, teamwork and respect for the chain of command cannot be overstated. The fire service exemplifies this reality. Operating in life-threatening situations, firefighters must adhere to discipline and follow orders, as a failure to do so may be the difference between life and death.
That being said, a hierarchical structure that is too rigid may have hidden pitfalls that are potentially dangerous. Rigidity in organizational structures gives way to a lack of flexibility and. It can lead to a lack of information sharing that can deter disaster. This is what is called “blind following.”
| BETTER EVERY SHIFT: Rehab stations: Your sabbatical from ‘zombie mode’
When firefighters follow an order, they do so with the belief that the order is lawful, based on a thorough assessment and calculated to ensure the safety of those involved. Such blind obedience undermines safety, stifles critical thinking and may have catastrophic consequences not only on the fireground but also in the boardroom.
Here we’ll explore the risks of blind following in the fire service and provides guidance on how to formulate a culture that promotes accountability, critical thinking and alternative decision-making.
Paramilitary structure
The fire service is built on a paramilitary model with a clearly defined hierarchical and disciplinary structure. Its lineage can be traced back to the Roman Empire, and from that history, firefighters have learned to respect the chain of command and execute orders swiftly and without hesitation. The autocratic structure is essential during emergencies, when time is critical and coordinated action is necessary for a successful outcome. These orders, however, are issued only after the incident commander conducts a thorough risk management assessment. Still, the same structure that brings order in times of chaos can also discourage questioning or speaking up.
When a team follows orders without understanding the rationale or considering alternatives, there may be severe consequences. The consequences on the fireground can be life-altering to an individual or group, while those in the boardroom may be equally detrimental for the entire organization. The consequences can range from distrust to loss of morale to widespread dissention in the ranks. However, decision-making ultimately lies with one person; channels for input need to be available.
History as a teacher
History, which offers stark examples of blind obedience, has shown that simply stating, “I was just following orders,” cannot serve as a defense. Former Schutzstaffel, or SS, officers attempted this argument after World War II, claiming they were not personally responsible for the atrocities committed during the war. The Nuremberg trials unequivocally rejected this defense and established the principle of command responsibility. They further reinforced that individuals have both a legal and a moral obligation to disobey unlawful orders, even when doing so carries significant personal risk.
Two vivid examples stand out in the fire service: the 1994 South Canyon Fire, which claimed the lives of 14 firefighters, and the 2013 Yarnell Hill Fire, which claimed the lives of 19 firefighters. Although many factors contributed to both tragedies, questions were raised about decision-making, pressure to follow orders and the failure to question leadership. These examples illustrate how blind obedience, driven by fear of consequences for insubordination or by a determined leader, can cost lives. Moreover, such tragedies have lasting implications on an organization’s reputation and the morale of those who serve.
Why blind following occurs
Understanding why blind following occurs is crucial. Studies on the topic, including the famous Milgram experiment, have demonstrated how far people will go in obeying an authority figure, even when the actions they are asked to perform clearly conflict with their conscience and moral compass. On the fireground, this effect can be amplified by the stress of the incident and the urgency to act quickly. Beyond the immediate pressures, obedience can also stem from a desire to be accepted or from the belief that compliance shows respect for rank or authority.
Blind following often stems from a pursuit of harmony or conformity that can lead to apathy. This, in turn, leads to a kind of disengagement in which individuals stop critically evaluating the situation and accept what is being presented. Such disengagement can result in decisions or actions that lack depth or rational consideration. Firefighters may suppress dissenting opinions to maintain unity or avoid conflict, even when their concerns are legitimate.
People find it difficult to ignore the values they hold dearly. In fact, over time, doing so erodes their moral compass and can have harmful effects on both the individual and the organization. Blind obedience leads to poor decisions that no one is willing to challenge until it is too late. The issue is further amplified in the fire service, where integrity, loyalty and courage are the cornerstones of the service. If these cornerstones are weakened or removed, the entire structure is at risk of collapse.
Striking a balance between discipline and independent thinking
As with any organization, the fire service must strike a careful balance between discipline and independent thought. While discipline ensures orders are carried out quickly and efficiently, excessive rigidity can inhibit a subordinate’s willingness and ability to think. True discipline also includes recognizing when something is wrong and having the courage to speak up.
Fire service personnel should be encouraged to use critical thinking. By doing so, firefighters learn not only to follow procedures but also to understand the reasoning behind them. This approach allows them to recognize when exceptions may be necessary.
As Jocko Willink and Lief Babin state in their book “The Dichotomy of Leadership”: “Disciplined procedures must be balanced with the ability to apply common sense to an issue, with the power to break with SOPs when necessary, with the freedom to think about alternative solutions, apply new ideas, and make adjustments to process based on the reality of what is actually happening.”
In other words, real strength lies in applying critical thinking and adaptability when plans change. When SOPs are treated as guidelines rather than established rules, they leave space for creativity and insight that can lead to better outcomes.
Empowering firefighters to question decisions when safety is at risk does not equate to promoting insubordination. Rather, it promotes responsible accountability. Leaders must create an environment where such communication is welcomed and respected. Everyone on the fireground should feel confident voicing concerns or seeking clarification. Likewise, in the boardroom, fire service leaders must feel empowered to speak up when the department’s overall mission, vision or values are being challenged.
Diversity in thinking and decision-making
Emergency services, particularly the fire service, have worked to create a diverse workforce. This is key, as diversity in the fire service aims to create a service that reflects the community it serves. However, diversity must go beyond demographics. True diversity includes different perspectives, cultural backgrounds and lived experiences.
People who are blindly obedient can stifle the organization’s growth, whereas a range of perspectives within the fire service strengthens it by offering different insights and broader problem-solving. When faced with complex situations, independent thinkers provide multiple paths forward, leading to more effective and successful outcomes.
Fire service leaders must promote open communication, encourage questions and reward those who demonstrate sound judgment, even when it means questioning a superior’s decision. They must also recognize that every team member can contribute valuable insight.
Final thoughts
Blind following in the fire service is not just a cultural issue; it is a safety concern. While structure, discipline and respect for leadership are vital, they must be balanced with critical and independent thinking, open communication and a shared commitment to the mission, vision and values of the fire service.
Firefighters and fire service leaders should be empowered to think, speak up and act when necessary, both on and off the fireground. Leaders must model and reinforce this behavior, ensuring the department’s culture prioritizes accountability over obedience.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Luigi Davoli is a 26-year veteran of the fire service. He previous served as a platoon chief with Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services in Ontario, Canada. Davoli holds a master’s degree in public safety from Wilfrid Laurier University as well as a certificate of fire service leadership and an advanced certificate of fire service administration Dalhousie University.
