By Fire & EMS Chief Drew Hoehn
In the mountain town of Breckenridge, Colorado, the Red, White & Blue Fire Protection District is quietly redefining what leadership can look like in the modern fire service. Instead of a single chief carrying the full weight of command, we lead through a shared model, two chiefs working side by side, united by purpose, trust, and respect. It’s a structure that challenges the long-standing hierarchy of fire service leadership, yet it’s proving to be both practical and profoundly human.
A personal reckoning that reshaped perspective
Before I ever stepped into the chief’s office, a personal experience changed how I viewed leadership, balance and endurance. In 2021, during what I assumed would be a routine annual physical, doctors discovered an aortic root aneurysm that required open-heart surgery. The news came as a shock — I was in peak condition, running 100-mile ultramarathons and already training for the next one.
The diagnosis forced me to confront an uncomfortable truth: Endurance and toughness, the very traits I had always prided myself on, were not the same as sustainability.
In the fire service, leadership has long been equated with unrelenting drive, often at the expense of personal health and balance. Recovering from surgery, I realized that my new path in leadership couldn’t follow that traditional model of bearing every burden alone. Instead, it would need to prioritize sustainability, balance and well-being, fostering a form of resilience that was shared, supported and enduring — one that could last without sacrificing health or perspective.
That perspective would prove invaluable just months later when Red, White & Blue found itself facing a leadership transition that would test, and ultimately redefine, how we lead as an organization.
A leadership model born of necessity
Our dual-leadership model didn’t begin as an experiment in innovation. It began out of necessity. When our previous chief retired, the district’s board asked me and my colleague, Deputy Chief Jay Nelson, to step in as interim co-chiefs.
Chief Nelson, born and raised in the community, grew up in the firehouse, following in the footsteps of his father, a long-standing volunteer before the district transitioned to a career organization. At the time, Chief Nelson was serving as our fire marshal and deputy chief of Administration, and I was the deputy chief of Operations. We had different responsibilities, different leadership styles, and truth be told, a strained relationship shaped by years of organizational turbulence and the natural friction that comes when two people care deeply about the same mission.
But when the board handed us the responsibility of leading together, we had to make a choice: cling to old frustrations or commit to collaboration. We chose the latter. I remember sitting down with Chief Nelson early in the transition and saying, “We both care deeply about this organization. Let’s get past the noise and focus on what’s best for our people and our community.” That simple conversation changed everything.
As we began to share command, we found our strengths complemented each other. I stayed focused on operations, training and emergency response, while Chief Nelson led the administrative, prevention and financial divisions. We didn’t just divide tasks, we built balance. The arrangement allowed us to play to our strengths without competing for control.
Two keys to every decision
The analogy we use to describe our model is the “nuclear football.” Every major decision — budgets, contracts, personnel changes or strategic planning — requires two keys to turn. Nothing moves forward unless both of us agree, and our finance officer often serves as the third key for fiscal oversight.
It’s a simple concept, but it has had a profound effect on the culture of our leadership team. We’ve built a rhythm of collaboration that ensures every decision is informed, transparent and defensible. Every day, we talk through the challenges facing our district, sometimes for five minutes, sometimes for an hour, and every major decision leaves the room as a unified front.
Today, our firefighters see a command team that models the values we want across the district: collaboration, balance and respect. They see two leaders who sit side by side in adjoining offices, not in separate silos. They see transparency in how decisions are made and consistency in how those decisions are communicated.
When we present a recommendation to our governing board, they know it’s already been tested from multiple perspectives. That unity has become one of our greatest strengths.
The medical roots of dyad leadership
Interestingly, the model we’re using has deep roots in another profession known for high-stakes decision-making: medicine. In modern hospital systems, a dyad leadership model pairs a physician leader with an administrative partner.
Together, they share responsibility for outcomes, combining clinical expertise with operational insight to make decisions that balance care quality, cost and organizational sustainability.
The foundation of dyad leadership rests on four key principles:
- Mutual accountability: Both are equally responsible for outcomes.
- Complementary expertise: Each partner brings a distinct and valuable perspective.
- Shared values: The mission is common and clear.
- Psychological safety: Honest disagreement is encouraged, not punished.
This approach, proven in healthcare, translates surprisingly well to the fire service. Like hospitals, we operate in a high-reliability environment where split-second decisions and long-term strategy must coexist. Chief Nelson brings the administrative precision and policy foresight that keep our organization steady; I bring the operational and field experience that grounds our choices in real-world application.
The result is a leadership dyad that functions less like two voices and more like one balanced, informed decision-maker.
Practical lessons from shared command
After several years in this model, we’ve identified a few principles that make shared leadership successful in practice:
- Absolute trust is non-negotiable: You can’t fake collaboration. If either partner doubts the other’s intent or integrity, the model collapses. Building trust takes time, humility and consistent communication.
- Define domains, but be ready to blur the lines: Chief Nelson and I each have distinct areas of responsibility, but those boundaries aren’t barriers. We consult across domains frequently, which prevents blind spots and maintains shared ownership.
- Communicate early and constantly: The best decisions come from unfiltered dialogue. We meet daily, debrief strategic challenges together and ensure no decision ever blindsides the other.
- Stay mission-focused, not ego-focused: Leadership models like this fail when personalities take precedence over purpose. Our guiding question is always: “What serves the organization best?”
- Build structural support: The third “key” in our model, the finance officer, is critical. Having a neutral, data-driven voice adds stability and prevents emotional or reactive decisions.
These principles have made our organization more adaptable and resilient. The benefits aren’t just internal. Our board has greater confidence in our decisions, our employees see visible alignment among leadership, and our community sees continuity in service.
Not a blueprint, but a possibility
I’m the first to admit this model isn’t for everyone. It works for Red, White & Blue because of our size, culture and history. We’re a close-knit district serving a dynamic mountain community with the unique demands of seasonal tourism, wildland-urban interface and a workforce that balances high performance with high personal investment.
Shared leadership fits our environment because it reflects who we are: cooperative, community-minded and unafraid to evolve. But I don’t view this as a one-size-fits-all solution. If one of us retires or the district changes shape, the model might evolve again, and that’s OK. Leadership should adapt to fit the people, not the other way around.
What I do hope is that our experience encourages others in the fire service to rethink what leadership can look like. As recruitment challenges grow, as mental health and burnout become more visible and as communities expect more transparency, we owe it to the profession to explore structures that are sustainable, not just for the organization, but for the people leading it.
The future of shared leadership
In many ways, the shared command approach has become less about how we manage the district and more about how we model modern leadership. It’s shown that strength doesn’t always come from hierarchy, it can come from humility. It’s proven that shared accountability can actually increase decisiveness, not weaken it. And it’s reinforced the idea that leadership doesn’t have to mean isolation.
When I look back at what we’ve built, I see not just an organizational model, but a statement of values — that collaboration, health and service can coexist at the top of a command structure.
At the end of the day, Chief Nelson and I are still keeping our metaphorical “keys” on the table, reminded that the decisions we make are never ours alone. Two heads really can be better than one, so long as both are focused on the same mission: serving people, protecting community and sustaining those who lead.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Drew Hoehn serves as the Fire & EMS Chief for the Red, White & Blue Fire District in Breckenridge, Colorado. Chief Hoehn began his career in St. Louis County, Missouri, in 1996 and migrated to the Colorado fire service in 2003. Throughout his career, Chief Hoehn has served as a firefighter/paramedic, lieutenant, training lieutenant, captain, battalion chief, interim EMS chief, deputy chief and fire & EMS chief. Hoehn is a graduate of the Executive Fire Officer program, designated Chief Fire Officer, and is completing a master’s degree in organizational leadership.
