Before I was promoted, one thing that really drove me crazy was watching company and chief officers contradict themselves. It seemed like these officers would talk out of both sides of their mouths and not think twice about it. So, like many young firefighters, I would rush to judgment on these officers, thinking they were being hypocritical and contradictory with their actions. But the truth of the matter was that I generally took things at face value, developed ill-informed opinions of the situation and generally made an ass of myself, as I would later find out what was really going on. I quickly learned that it’s extremely easy to appear as if you’re contradicting yourself to someone who doesn’t have all the necessary information.
After I got promoted and started to grow into my position, I often found it very difficult to not come across as hypocritical or contradictory. When you’re in a position of leadership, you sometimes have to make unpopular decisions that can create controversy. You also don’t have the time to speak to every person who may have an opinion about what to do, so getting their “thumbs up” before making a decision may not be possible.
The really difficult part is that everybody gets to watch the outcome of your decisions, but very few people have the information you had when you made them. As a result, you’ll find no shortage of critics with almost every decision you make, so if that bothers you, I wouldn’t recommend promoting anytime soon.
It’s Paradoxical–Not Contradictory
Instead of thinking of your decisions as contradictory or hypocritical, think of them as paradoxical. A paradox is basically a person or situation that exhibits an apparently contradictory nature. The “art of paradox” involves the ability to do the right thing, know the situation and have some common sense while making decisions–and it’s is an essential skill that every company and chief officer must learn if they want to be successful.
For example, a company officer may find it difficult to be both flexible and consistent in following a policy, or both compassionate and tough when disciplining personnel. Leaders often strive to define their style as one or the other, not realizing that their style can and should change with the situation.
Some would say that a company officer can’t be both flexible and consistent with a policy, because policies set the standard for behavior, operational practices and the overall function of the department. If a policy is ignored, leaders often take disciplinary action. That said, the concept of flexibility doesn’t seem to fit if you’re expected to consistently apply and uphold a given policy.
I would argue that the opposite is true. Flexibility begins with trust, but trust stems from reliable relationships that are based on the character of the individuals involved. Company and chief officers have a tremendous amount of responsibility in the fire department, so their superiors need to trust that they will consistently make good decisions. If you’re a trusted officer, it most likely means that you’ve proven yourself to have a certain strength of character. And if your character is consistent in its strength, the flexibility you may lend to a policy isn’t as likely to be questioned.
But when a trusted officer makes a mistake, does that mean they can’t be trusted anymore? No, it simply means that they need to be guided back on the right track, and hopefully they learned something from their experience.
So if that’s true, then no one should ever get disciplined for not following policy, right? Not so much. When discipline is used to correct a policy infraction, officers must take into consideration 1) why the policy was broken, 2) the seriousness of the policy infraction and 3) the intentions of the person who made the infraction.
Compassionate & Tough
Another paradox for fire officers involves the ability to be both compassionate and tough. Many officers don’t want to seem weak around their subordinates. Plus, showing a compassionate side isn’t often encouraged in the fire service (even though some of the toughest guys I know are soft-hearted).
Sometimes being tough with someone is the most compassionate thing a leader can do. Other times, a leader has to show compassion even though they may be criticized for being “weak.” This paradox is difficult to understand and even more difficult to practice in the fire service. Most of our time as officers is spent interacting with people, so knowing when to apply compassion and when to be tough is something that comes with time and experience.
A Conservative Risk-Taker?
One of the more challenging paradoxes that I think should be encouraged is the ability to be both conservative in your decision-making and a risk-taker. These two concepts don’t sound like they go together, but I know some conservative risk-takers in my department. Someone who’s conservative is cautious in most endeavors, not wanting to change for the sake of it. A risk-taker is often seen as someone who flies by the seat of their pants and works without a net.
Being a conservative risk-taker involves the three elements I mentioned earlier: having the ability to do the right thing, knowing the situation and having some common sense while making decisions. But doing what’s right doesn’t always equal doing what’s easy. So doing the right thing can be conservative and risky at the same time, because the action required may be considered very conservative, but it might not be a popular idea. So you might draw a great deal of criticism, which is often viewed as risky.
Knowing the situation at hand is crucial to making the right decision because there are times when being conservative is necessary, and there are times when being aggressive is necessary. It all depends on the information you have and the possible outcomes that could result from your decision. But you can’t make the right decision without applying some common sense. Many times, we don’t have a book or policy to rely on, so good ol’ common sense must be our guide.
Conclusion
No one said being a fire officer was easy or without complication, and neither is the art of paradox. I have given up hope on trying to make everyone think I don’t contradict myself or have moments of hypocrisy, because I can’t control what people think of me. What I can control is how and why I make decisions. I try to make decisions for the right reasons, I learn as much as I can about the situation before making a decision, and I try to apply some common sense. If I follow those simple steps, I know my decisions are the right ones–no matter what.
