We rely on a paramilitary structure. It’s built into our DNA and starts on day one in the academy, and follows us through promotions, lateral moves and into leadership roles. Our predecessors built the system so that decisions flow directly from the command staff to battalion chiefs, then to captains, lieutenants and ultimately to firefighters.
This structure works well during complex incidents where we have a measured span of control and a unified system where everyone is working from the same playbook. Everyone knows their role and there is no ambiguity. We respond, bring resources to the party, make decisions quickly and then leave it better than we found it. However, away from the fireground, this same system can hinder our progress and limit our adaptability for the challenges that lie ahead.
| SPECIAL REPORT: What Firefighters Want in 2025
Where our command structure fails
Our traditional structure is familiar and straightforward. Yet, from an organizational development lens, it often keeps us stuck in past practices (“that’s how we’ve always done it”). We assume past success means future success. Making decisions based only on rank without context and a growth mindset can feed egos and limit how openly we consider new ideas or accept honest feedback. The European Management Journal identified this as true even in large organizations, finding that their rigid hierarchies isolated leaders from frontline realities, making adaptation challenging.
It’s not that the chain of command doesn’t have value — it does. It’s just not the only way to make good decisions. When every decision is expected to flow through the same path, we create bottlenecks. Minor problems take too long to solve, and big problems can get stuck with the top-level leaders. The people doing the work — the firefighters on the rig, the captain managing the company, the manager running a program — often see the issues before the executive does. If we don’t let them act or weigh in, we miss valuable input.
Distributed leadership: A new path forward
A better approach is distributed leadership. The concept simply means giving those closest to a problem a voice in how to solve it. According to researcher Richard Bolden, distributed leadership enables smaller groups to make decisions based on their direct knowledge, resulting in faster and more effective responses.
This isn’t just about delegation. It’s about trusting people to make their own decisions within their area of responsibility and using “leader’s intent” to establish parameters. Leader’s intent is a clear statement of what needs to be achieved and why it matters. It gives teams the freedom to decide how best to get the job done, especially when plans change or leaders aren’t immediately available.
Leader’s intent is best communicated through three elements: the Task, the Purpose, and the End State:
- The Task defines what action needs to be taken.
- The Purpose explains why that action matters in the broader context.
- The End State describes what success looks like when the task is complete.
In a distributed leadership model, this clarity enables teams to adapt and make decisions on their own while still aligning with the overall mission. For example, a training captain should be able to set the direction for drill schedules without waiting for sign-off from the top. A company officer should be able to adapt policy when the facts on the ground demand it. Those on-the-fly changes doesn’t mean instant chaos. It means clarity — knowing who owns which decisions and trusting them to carry them out.
To get there, we need to define decision rights clearly and in a straightforward manner. Decision rights outline who has the authority to make what kind of call. We begin by identifying decisions that drive performance, such as task orders, staffing plans, deployment changes, community risk reduction priorities, and capital purchases. Then we ask who is closest to those issues and who has the bandwidth and skill to make the right call. It won’t always be the person with the highest rank. Often, it isn’t.
When decision rights are clearly defined, everyone benefits. The decision-maker has clarity. The rest of the team knows where to go for answers. And senior leaders are freed up to focus on big-picture strategy instead of micromanaging routine operations.
The role of committees
Committees also have a place here. In fire agencies, committees can feel like either a rubber stamp or a black hole where ideas go to die. But when done right, they serve a critical function. Committees pull together diverse experiences. A training committee that includes paramedics, firefighters and engineers will design better drills than a single training officer working alone. A labor management health and safety committee will spot issues sooner and fix them faster because it brings multiple perspectives to the table.
Committees should also have clear scope and decision-making rights. If a committee is advisory, say so. If it has final say within a defined area, spell that out. That level of clarity helps prevent confusion and protects the committee from being undermined or ignored.
Distributed leadership under pressure
We can look to the military for examples of how distributed leadership works under pressure. In “Team of Teams,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal describes how the U.S. military adapted during the Iraq War by shifting decision-making authority to frontline teams. What they found was that people closest to the action could make better and faster decisions — if they had access to the correct information and knew the overall mission.
This model is also used in progressive and high-performing fire departments. The frontline officer knows the capabilities of their crew, the conditions in their district and the needs of their shift. With the proper leader’s intent, context and trust, they can adjust their actions and make informed decisions. Good officers plus the trust of their leadership equals high performance without needing to escalate every issue or add drama.
For distributed leadership to be effective, trust is essential. If people think they’ll be punished for making the wrong call, they’ll stop making any call. Harvard Business Review defines psychological safety as the belief that one will not be embarrassed or punished for speaking up with ideas, questions or concerns. Fire departments that build this kind of trust perform better, learn more quickly and retain top talent longer.
To build that trust, we must educate people about how we work as human beings and train them to lead. This includes providing them with the knowledge and experience to make informed decisions. Scenario-based training, shift-level mentoring and honest feedback sessions go a long way in enhancing performance, as does the simple act of letting someone make a decision and backing them up — even if the outcome isn’t perfect.
The chain of command + distributed leadership = success
The change away from a strict hierarchy takes time. It requires us to name decision rights, set clear expectations and communicate often. It also requires senior leaders to get comfortable with less control. That’s hard for some. However, the reward is an organization that can think, move and learn more quickly.
Don’t even think about throwing out the traditions that work. The chain of command still matters. So does accountability. But when we pair those with distributed decision-making, we get stronger leaders at every level. We solve problems before they escalate and create a culture where people feel ownership over the mission.
