Have you ever noticed a tendency for conversations and feedback to skew negative? You may be able to recall a time when you walked away from an after-action review feeling deflated, as the review focused on everything that went wrong but none of what went right. And of course, we’re all familiar with those prolonged kitchen table discussions about department problems – discussions that typically don’t leave us feeling better about the situation.
What is negativity bias?
Our brain’s tendency to see the bad over the good is called negativity bias (Baumeister et al. 2001), and when allowed to go unchecked, it can be harmful to morale and motivation.
There is strong evidence that negativity bias is deeply entrenched in our psyche (Finkenauer & Rime, 1998; Goodheart, 1986; Paolini et al., 2024; Thomas & Diener, 1990). In one study, researchers concluded that, “in everyday life, bad events have stronger and more lasting consequences than comparable good events … and the principle that bad is stronger than good appears to be consistently supported across a broad range of psychological phenomena (Baumeister et al. 2001, p. 354-55).”
Some believe humans evolved to see the bad more prominently than the good as a mechanism to avoid threats and danger (Baumeister et al. 2001; Cacioppo & Berntson, 1999).
The question for us in the modern fire service becomes whether consistently focusing on areas in which we didn’t measure up is the most effective way to improve fire department performance.
The impact of negativity and psychological safety
The goal is to tap into the vast benefits a positive workforce brings, which can include greater productivity (Achor, 2010), better physical and mental health (Krekel et al., 2019), higher retention rates (Harter et al., 2002) and enhanced collaboration and teaming (Edmondson, 1999; 2012). This does not mean we should start employing false positivity or give unwarranted compliments, which can damage a leader’s credibility. However, training our brains to start recognizing and calling out the truly positive aspects of our performance can help us see things as they really are and acknowledge what, in most cases, are overwhelmingly positive actions, behaviors and results by our crews.
The good news: It is possible to move the needle away from the broken record of negativity and criticism while still embracing process improvement, realism and accountability. The goal should be to promote deep learning and personal improvement based on one’s personal reflection of their experience.
One of the prerequisites for a culture that can support a balanced and positive learning environment without unnecessary negativity is strong roots in psychological safety. Psychological safety is demonstrated when members of the team feel safe to speak up, make mistakes and take risks in front of the team (Edmonson, 1999; 2012). This culture helps support innovation and accelerate learning (Edmonson, 2012; Hedlund & Österberg, 2013). When present in the fire service, it can help foster an environment where people can be held accountable for well-intentioned mistakes without feeling overly embarrassed or ashamed.
Here are several tools that can help leaders achieve the right balance of positivity, realism and accountability when reviewing performance:
Demonstrate curiosity
Genuine curiosity is a leadership jewel. Asking sincere questions allows a leader to bypass their assumptions, which in many cases may not be accurate, and gain a fuller picture before they weigh in. It is relatively easy to see someone make a mistake and tell them to do it differently. However, leaders who think strategically can turn errors into learning opportunities by asking questions about what led to that decision. In situations like AARs where critical feedback will be given, starting with a question or two can lead you on a path to discovery of crew intent, understanding and root cause analysis, and may help to lessen feelings of defensiveness.
Another option is to employ the “five whys” problem-solving technique. After you identify the problem, ask why that problem occurred. You continue asking why based on the previous answer until you get closer to the root cause of the decision-making process. Perhaps the crew was following an out-of-date policy that needs to be corrected. Maybe the employee had not previously been trained on the procedure, or maybe they were simply overwhelmed in the moment. The reason for doing or not doing something matters, and the information we gather when crews feel safe enough to speak up and share their thought processes could have implications for future organizational improvement.
Emphasize positive actions
It is tremendously important to identify what went right, which in most cases is the majority of the incident. Operationally, almost every working incident will include a “first” for someone on that scene – the first time stretching a 2½-inch to the Charlie side or the first time performing a live window search on a second-story window. If the operation went well, letting the crew know with specific positive feedback can help cement those actions and increase the likelihood that they will continue to do it well. They will now have something that works to refer to – a “slide in the slide deck” – that they can use to help make future decisions (Klein, 1993). If we leave the positive part out, we may leave them wondering if they made the right choice and miss a chance to build their confidence with a foundational piece in their knowledge bank.
Normalize accountability
True accountability should be demonstrated up and down the chain. Leaders should hold their people accountable for what they say they’re going to do, department standards and operational expectations. Leaders should also demonstrate accountability and ownership for their own actions. Modeling traits you want to see is a powerful way to mold culture as it relates to conversations about accountability.
An AAR is a great time for chiefs and captains to demonstrate accountability. There are so many decision points in a dynamic incident that you will never hit all of them perfectly. Owning what you would have done differently opens that space for others to own their actions. It also provides a framework for leadership in action, demonstrating what a leader should consider in those moments. This can help shift the tone from focusing on the mistakes of the newest crewmembers (which may feel like blame) to identifying broad learning points spanning all ranks and tenures.
When accountability is normalized, it’s less likely to feel negative. When talking about broad process improvement, a balanced, fair, realistic conversation that includes constructive feedback does not have to carry a negative connotation. If it does, that may be a sign we are spending too much time on what didn’t go well or haven’t really opened the conversation with curiosity. In the best-case scenario, a team whose leader facilitates an analysis of a process to look for efficiencies and more effective execution can create bonds within the team. These bonds are a result of a team that enjoys mutual trust because they don’t have to wonder where they stand in relation to the standard, and they are acknowledged for meeting the mark more often than not.
Final thoughts
Being intentional about your culture, especially in moments known to skew negative, has the potential to move the needle of the entire department toward constructive process improvement. If areas of your department culture have slipped into frequent criticism and negativity, there are ways to promote a more authentic and balanced approach. After practicing these concepts, you might notice changes in your workplace, including:
- Employees showing up to drill more frequently because the environment feels growth-oriented
- Crews speaking up about their actions on scene because they feel safe to do so
- Committees innovating more because the environment supports thought diversity and out-of-the-box ideas
It is important to understand the propensity for negativity bias, its potential effects and the tools to navigate through it to better guide your department’s culture. I write this not as someone who has mastered these principles but as someone who is trying to get better at applying them.
REFERENCES
- Achor, S. (2010). The Happiness Advantage: The seven principles of positive psychology that fuel success and performance at work. Crown Business/Random House.
- Baumeister, R., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology. 5 (4): 323–370.
- Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system: Architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 133–137.
- Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
- Edmondson, A. (2012). Compete in the knowledge economy. Jossey-Bass, 2012.
- Finkenauer, C, & Rime, B. (1998). Socially shared emotional experiences vs. emotional experiences kept secret: Differential characteristics and consequences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 295-318.
- Goodhart, D. E. (1986). The effects of positive and negative thinking on performance in an achievement situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 117-124.
- Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
- Hedlund, E., & Österberg, J. (2013). Team training, team learning, leadership and psychology safety: A study of team training and team learning behavior during a Swedish military staff exercise. Sociology Mind, 3(1), 89-98.
- Klein, G. A. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. Decision making in action: Models and methods, 5(4), 138-147.
- Krekel, C., Ward, G., & De Neve, J.-E. (2019). Employee wellbeing, productivity, and firm performance: Evidence and case studies. Global Happiness and Wellbeing Policy Report, 2019, 48–61.
- Paolini, S., Gibbs, M., Sales, B., Anderson, D., & McIntyre, K. (2024). Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact. Psychological bulletin, 150(8), 921–964.
- Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (in press). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
- Thomas, D.L., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 291-297.
