The fire service of today remains a microcosm of modern society, often divided and at odds. Numerous issues contribute to the division, some of which have been subjects of debate for longer than most of us have been alive. If I were to distill the multitude of matters that generate opposing opinions, the majority seem rooted in the concept of safety.
The modern fire service, akin to the Montagues and Capulets from the classic story of Romeo and Juliet, finds itself split on matters such as interior versus exterior water, vertical ventilation tactics, vent-enter and waterless searches, and clean cabs. The common thread running through these divisive arguments is safety, forcing a dichotomy between being safe and being aggressive. In this article, I aim to identify and solidify a middle ground – aggressive safety – between these adversarial positions.
What is aggressive safety?
According to Merriam-Webster, safety is defined as “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss.” As the distinguished instructor Aaron Fields emphasizes, “words matter.” If words indeed matter, can the objective of being safe from hurt, injury, or loss be attainable for the American fire service? Can fire chiefs, battalion chiefs, or company officers ensure our safety? To answer these questions, we need to specify where we can achieve safety and acknowledge situations where complete safety may not be feasible or even the desired target.
Beyond the safety of operations, attention must be directed towards organizational safety concerning the individual. Having interacted with firefighters from across the United States, a prevailing issue is poor morale. Regardless of location, very few firefighters report experiencing high morale in their organizations. Can this be attributed to a lack of organizational safety? Drawing from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which places safety as the second-lowest level, including health, employment, security, consistency, freedom from fear, and order, we can assert that a substantial portion of the American fire service is not even achieving this basic level of organizational safety.
Focus on culture
Renowned management consultant Peter Drucker asserted, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” This statement holds true; both organizational and operational safety are products of culture. An organizational safety culture begins with servant leadership that permeates from the top down.
To establish a servant leadership culture, leaders must ensure that every member knows the department is committed to the individual success and personal and professional well-being of all.
Such a culture, coupled with a well-articulated commanders’ intent, surpasses detailed policies and authoritarian discipline every time. A culture of organizational fear is limiting and compounds down the ranks, hindering decision-making, innovation, and leadership risk-taking.
Dr. Amy Edmonton PhD, a leading expert from Harvard University, highlights the significance of “psychological safety” in healthy teams. A leader’s responsibility is to create a safe space for people to speak up, make mistakes, and bring their full selves to work. While Dr. Edmonton’s focus is on psychological safety for innovation, it’s equally important for teams dealing with critical scenarios.
Mission, vision, and values (MVV) are integral to any organization. The alignment of these with actions and purpose is crucial. If we delve into operational safety, do our actions align with our stated mission, vision, and values? While each department may have its spin on MVV, some common components include mission as providing protection to communities, vision supporting the future of the mission, and values encompassing courage, honor, integrity, trust, and professionalism. The prevalent answer to “why be a firefighter” is usually “to help people,” forming the core “why.”
Is aggressive safety achievable?
The question arises: Is our “why” aligned with our MVV? Frequently, it is not. An organization prioritizing the operational safety of firefighters but having a mission of protecting citizens with courage, honor, and professionalism is in an organizational misalignment. Coupled with a lack of organizational safety, this creates significant challenges. An organization asking its members to prioritize personal safety over community safety while fostering a “self-protective” leadership culture is on a path to failure. This me-oriented approach contradicts the essence of the mission statement that should reflect a commitment to the community’s safety without conditions.
The question of whether complete operational safety is achievable prompts the response that inserting the word “safe” into guidelines and slogans doesn’t automatically make a department safe. Safety is achieved through training, fitness, education, data evaluation, and competence. Unfortunately, many fire departments opt for the easier route of displaying safety slogans rather than investing in training officers or evaluating operational competence.
Finding the balance
Moving forward, a belief in prioritizing operational safety and addressing organizational safety misalignment can guide necessary corrections. Maslow’s assessment suggests that the organization should initiate changes by prioritizing organizational safety, creating an environment that embraces rather than ignores mistakes, and challenges to current thought. Every level within a department must embrace servant leadership. Once the organization achieves a level of safety, it can focus efforts on aligning organizational values and operational expectations. This starts with a well-articulated commanders’ intent, allowing employees the latitude to make operational decisions based on guidance rather than relying on numerous policies.
An organization can attain a culture of aggressive safety through tactical competence. This involves clearly defined operational guidelines, supported by company training and identified performance standards. Operational safety is not achieved through daily reminders but through the integration of “why” into “how.” To truly serve communities, commitment to getting hose lines and search crews to the interior as fast as possible is essential. Aggressive safety is achieved through competence, which is cultivated through training and repetition.
References:
(1) Merriam-Webster. Accessed 08/10/2023.
(2) Mcleod, S. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Accessed on 08/14/2023.
(3) Edmonson, A. Accessed on 09/05/2023.
(4) Willink, J. Babin, L. (2018). Extreme Ownership. Macmillan US. New York, NY.
BIO
Ryan Scellick is a 23-year veteran of the fire service and holds the rank of Captain for the City of Pasco Fire Department, in WA State. He is co-owner of Young Officers on Fire which puts on annual conferences, trainings, and manages a national non-profit mentorship group. Ryan has Bachelor’s degrees in Fire Administration from Eastern Oregon University and Paramedicine from Central Washington University.
