By Lisa Burton
In the world of firefighting, risk is a constant companion. Every call, every fireground decision, and every tactical action carries with it a degree of uncertainty — potential loss, injury or even death.
The fire service has increasingly begun to differentiate between good risk — calculated, necessary actions taken with awareness and preparation — and bad risk — reckless or unnecessary decisions that endanger personnel without corresponding benefit. This conversation is often shaped by the underlying culture of each organization. The issue is further complicated when filtered through our leadership principles, community expectations and operational reality.
| ON-DEMAND WEBINAR: What Firefighters Want in 2025 — aggressive tactics + safety culture
Culture as a lens for risk acceptance
Organizational culture profoundly impacts how risk is perceived and accepted. In departments prioritizing safety, risks are more thoroughly evaluated and often mitigated through protocols and training. Conversely, in cultures that celebrate heroism or aggressive tactics without the same emphasis on safety, the threshold for what is deemed “acceptable risk” may be higher.
The What Firefighters Want survey data shows that 91% of respondents indicate that their departments demonstrate a strong commitment to safety. However, nearly as many (87%) report that their departments support aggressive fireground tactics. This duality illustrates a tension: Departments are trying to be both safe and aggressive — a balance that’s difficult to maintain.
Internal conflict over risk
This tension can lead to internal conflict at multiple levels:
- Within leadership ranks: Leaders may disagree on how aggressive tactics should be, particularly when weighed against policy or community perception.
- Among firefighters on the fireground: Tactical disagreements, especially those that arise under pressure, can cause confusion or unsafe decisions.
- Between leadership and operational personnel: If leadership pushes for caution while the rank-and-file prioritize aggressive action, or vice versa, cohesion breaks down.
These conflicts, left unaddressed, may hinder decision-making and erode trust.
Self-fulfilling risk and cultural reinforcement
Interestingly, risk can be self-fulfilling. When a department constantly operates at high-risk levels, it can begin to normalize that danger. Personnel may start to believe that the only way to be effective is through risky behavior. This mindset becomes ingrained, reinforced through peer validation, leadership expectations, and even community praise for “heroic” acts.
The role of community expectations
Community perception also plays a role in shaping risk tolerance. Fire departments serve the public, and public expectations can put pressure on departments to act boldly. This influence can subtly (or overtly) shift how risk is approached. If a community equates heroism with aggressiveness, departments may feel compelled to live up to that standard, even when it increases danger.
Navigating the risk spectrum
Survey responses reveal how departments are navigating this complex landscape:
- Safety policy enforcement is inconsistent, with only 71% agreeing that their department consistently enforces such policies.
- Operational autonomy remains relatively high, with 80% agreeing that firefighters are allowed to choose tactics that best fit the scenario.
- Notably, 79% agree there is a need to potentially engage in unsafe actions, a revealing insight into how risk is internalized and justified in certain scenarios.
These perceptions around risk and policy enforcement provide important context for understanding how safety practices, particularly during training, are actually being implemented.
Unpacking the results
Let’s delve deeper into key findings related to risk and safety in the fire service.
1. Safety briefings are inconsistent across training types
Safety briefings — critical tools for managing and mitigating risk — are not being consistently conducted across all types of fire service training, especially in high-risk evolutions. Here’s a breakdown of how frequently safety briefings are reported as “always” conducted:
- Live burn: 71% — the highest level of consistent briefings
- Interior fire suppression: 50%
- Rapid intervention/mayday: 40%
- Search and rescue: 35%
- Vertical ventilation: 37%
- Aerial ladder operations: 27%
- Overhaul: 21 %
Takeaway: While live burn exercises, which are tightly regulated, have the highest briefing rates, approximately 30% of respondents still flagged no safety briefing beforehand — a deeply troubling figure given the inherent hazards. This is far from acceptable; such high-risk evolutions should be briefed 100% of the time — no exceptions. Furthermore, other dangerous training evolutions like vertical ventilation, search and rescue, and aerial operations see significantly lower rates of consistent safety briefings. This suggests potential complacency in training scenarios not traditionally associated with extreme risk, despite evidence that these scenarios can go wrong quickly.
2. Firefighters frequently encounter dangerous situations on the job
In the past year, a significant percentage of firefighters reported experiencing critical incidents, with some incidents indicating imminent danger or near-disasters:
- Low-air alarm activation: 38%
- Close call or near miss: 30%
- Medical emergency or injury: 24%
- Disorientation inside a structure: 7%
- Apparatus crash: 14%
- Flashover/backdraft: 4%
Only 24% reported not responding to fireground incidents, indicating that the majority of respondents are active in frontline operations.
Takeaway: These numbers highlight the real-world consequences of risk in the fire service. The fact that nearly one-third of respondents experienced a near miss or close call — and more than one-third experienced low-air activation — suggests that operational risk is not just theoretical; it is frequent and tangible.
3. Cultural implications: Risk exposure without safety foundations
Combining the two data sets — the inconsistent safety briefings and the frequency of dangerous incidents — suggests that firefighters may be regularly exposed to hazardous situations without adequate safety preparation. This raises important cultural questions:
- Is the aggressive-tactic mindset overshadowing the need for procedural safety?
- Are safety briefings seen as optional or bureaucratic instead of foundational?
- Is leadership modeling a risk culture that prioritizes action over caution?
Taken together, the above three findings paint a concerning picture: Firefighters are routinely operating in high-risk environments without consistent safety briefings, pointing to a gap where the urgency of action may be prioritized over the discipline of preparation — an imbalance that could have life-threatening consequences.
4. A culture gap between policy and practice
Data indicated high agreement that departments value safety in principle. However, this data set shows a gap between policy and implementation:
- While a combined 91% agree their department is committed to safety, only 71% report consistent enforcement of safety policies.
- And now, we see that even training events lack standard safety briefings in many cases. This culture gap may be contributing to the types of incidents reported — maydays, disorientations and medical emergencies — which could, in part, be preventable with stronger safety protocols.
Reflection: Data-driven decisions on risk culture
The fire service operates in inherently dangerous environments, but danger should not equate to disorder. The data calls for:
- Institutionalizing safety briefings across all training types, not just live fire exercises.
- Analyzing near-miss reports to refine training and tactics.
- Leadership engagement in cultural change, ensuring that safety isn’t just a checkbox, but a lived value at every rank.
Final thoughts
Risk is an inseparable part of the fire service, but it must be understood, measured and chosen with intention. Cultures that openly address risk and support both safety and intelligent aggression are more likely to make sound decisions in high-stress environments. Leaders at all levels must communicate clearly, train thoroughly and build trust so that when risk presents itself, it is met with unity, not confusion or conflict. By bridging the gap between what we say and what we do, fire departments can evolve toward a risk culture that is both courageous and calculated. After all, the goal isn’t to eliminate risk; the goal is to manage it wisely, courageously and collaboratively for the safety of all in the fire service.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lisa Burton serves as Manager of Fire Training for Maine Maritime Academy where she oversees training for both MMA undergraduates and industry professionals through the Center for Professional Mariner Development. Burton also serves as a captain with the Castine (Maine) Fire Rescue Department and volunteers as the Everyone Goes Home Advocate Region 1 Advocate Manager for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. A credentialed Chief Training Officer, Burton works as an instructor for Hancock County Fire Academy as well as a state fire instructor with Maine Fire Service Institute.
