Change and the Lost Art of Fellowship
BY JOHN LEE COOK, JR.
Change is the ultimate paradox. In a highly technical society, change is commonplace and occurs with some degree of frequency. Not all change, however, is as meaningful as it first appears. As an example, consider the color of fire apparatus. The appropriate color for our chariots is an emotional topic for some people and can be a source of great pride. Apparatus color can also be a powerful nonverbal communication device, but it is at best merely symbolic.
It is not uncommon for a new administration to assert its authority and independence by painting the department`s apparatus a different color. Even if the color is not changed, the marking scheme is changed. This communicates to the troops that a new chief is at the helm. A new bold, but trendy marking scheme may also attempt to communicate that the department is poised and ready for the new century.
What does all of this really mean, however? Perhaps not much. I am familiar with a number of fire departments that have changed the color of their apparatus at least five or six times within the past 25 years; this number does not include changes in their marking schemes. Beginning with some shade of red, the color of the apparatus changed with enough frequency so that the apparatus fleet was never entirely the same color at any one point in time.
The color changes often signaled a change in the direction of the department toward some noble vision of its new future. In many departments, however, the new direction was simply endured for a while and when the “new chief” took a better job in a bigger department, the “Luddites”1 changed the color back to red.
Someone sold some paint, but very little actually changed. Changing an organization`s outward symbols may be a powerful communication device, but it does not mean that real change has occurred within the department. It is far more important to change the fundamental beliefs of the members and the culture of the department.
This is a difficult, if not impossible, undertaking. Unless there is some defining moment, such as the Apostle Paul`s conversion on the road to Damascus, most individuals will not believe that anything is to be gained by such a change. For a fire department, this defining moment may be the death of a firefighter or the public outcry that results when the fire department fails to adequately perform its duty to the community it serves.
CHANGING THE ORGANIZATION`S CULTURE
How, then, is it possible to change an organization`s culture? Most people would say that it requires a strong, effective leader with a clear vision of the future. This is true to some degree, but it is not the entire answer. There seems to be a pervasive belief in our society that anything is possible if there is proper leadership. This is largely a myth perpetuated by the vast and significant body of literature written on the subject of leadership and our society`s fascination with its leaders.
Leaders are deified in legend, in song, and on the silver screen. We name our children after them. Their portraits hang in public buildings. Statues are erected to their honor in our public squares, and their images adorn our postage stamps. We even declare their birthdays to be holidays, and we obediently take the day off and go fishing in celebration of their memory. Is it surprising, then, that so may people aspire to become leaders?
Transformational change is not the exclusive product of leadership. Leadership is an essential ingredient, but leaders are powerless without followers. It is equally important for leaders and their followers to share a common goal of their future. Without a shared goal, there can be no followers; without followers, there can be no leaders. Without his armies, Napoleon was, after all, just a man with grandiose ambitions.
By transformational or cultural change, I am talking about change that has the ability to transform an organization`s basic assumptions and beliefs about itself or, to use a more popular phrase, to cause a paradigm shift. Mature organizations have their own unique and distinctive culture. The key to effecting change is to recognize and understand that culture. Schein defines an organization`s culture as “a pattern of basic assumption invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”2
The chieftains and patriarchs of preliterate, tribal societies taught their assumptions to their young around the village campfire. The elders passed the values of the tribe on to the next generation, and the tribe was able to survive and flourish. In a similar fashion, the gatekeepers of a fire department`s culture teach their assumptions to the rookies. The tribal campfire, however, has been replaced by the kitchen table, a cup of coffee, and a cigarette. The great fires of the past are fought over and over again, and specific acts of bravery and defiance are relived. As a result, the behavioral norms and core values of the department are passed on to the next generation of firefighters.
The followers in preliterate tribal societies selected their leaders on the basis of cunning and strength, thus ensuring the survival of tribal values. Unions and volunteer fire departments may, if they choose, replicate this process when they elect their officers. Followers in paid departments also choose whom they will follow, but they do not appoint their officers.
Career officers are appointed on the basis of some predetermined process such as seniority, political patronage, or competitive examination. The process does not require that a career officer be a leader. Instead, an officer is expected to be a manager even though the term “manager” may be a distasteful label in a contentious labor/management environment.
As a manager, an officer has the formal authority to compel a person to do work and, as such, the officer`s efforts can cause change. Change occurs because the subordinate`s behavior must conform to the officer`s expectations. The subordinate does not normally have any choice in the matter. The changes that result from the new behavior tend to be superficial in nature and may not last. I call this a change in activity level; others may label the new behavior as “productivity.”
The increased activity levels tend to last only as long as the officer is in a position of authority. The subordinates will normally revert to their former habits and activity levels if the officer is transferred or leaves the department. This may not occur if the officer is replaced by someone with a similar predisposition.
Firefighters do not have to agree with or believe in what they have been directed to do. It is often just easier or more prudent to go along with the officer than to publicly oppose him. After all, there are far more subtle ways to resist and subvert change. A form of guerrilla warfare may begin to develop, and the new fire chief`s programs can be very skillfully sabotaged. Time is on the side of the firefighter because the average tenure of a fire chief is less than five years.
An individual firefighter is not alone in his ability to resist change. An entire organization has the ability to tolerate a change in management type and direction for an exceptionally long period of time while being able to sustain its culture. The visible symbols of the culture may change, but the core values of the department simply retreat safely into the protective bedrock.
When the driving forces that threaten the culture subside, the culture will slowly and surely resurface. For cultural change or transformation to occur, there must be a leader, not a manager, at the helm of the department, and the department`s members must be transformed from workers to followers. Pay status is not important in this relationship. Followers may be paid, volunteer, or a combination of both. The significant difference between the manager/worker and the leader/follower relationship is that leaders and followers are able to reach an agreement on a common or shared set of goals.
This agreement is not necessary in a manager/worker environment, nor is it desirable in many instances. A union local may fear that it will lose members or even cease to exist if there is harmony within the organization. Conflict creates a perception that the local is doing its job and that it is necessary to be a union member. In a volunteer organization, conflict may rally the members to elect a chief who will protect the department from the governing body`s intrusion in its affairs.
It is possible for a department to respond to fires and conduct fire inspections without management and labor reaching an agreement on a common goal. This work can take place even in the presence of conflicting goals. For example, management`s goal might be to increase productivity to satisfy the new city manager. Labor`s goal might be to do less work. Management`s legal authority to compel others to work and the union`s political skills to influence the city council might enable both groups to achieve their separate but conflicting agendas.
A manager does not need followers to cause work to occur. A leader needs followers, however, to cause transformation. People will follow to the fullest when leadership is based on an individual`s competence and expertise or there is an admirable goal to pursue. People do not blindly follow someone because of title or organizational status. The followers determine if someone will be accepted as a leader and are critical for a leader`s and an organization`s success.3
It is interesting to note that it is not always the noblest call that gets answered but the answerable call. The leader need not be loved or admired; he need only advocate a goal others agree is worthwhile to pursue.4
LEADER-FOLLOWERSHIP RELATIONSHIP
Paradoxically, every leader is also a follower. No one commands an organization without constraints.5 In reality, most people spend far more time in the role of being a follower than being the leader. The leader may have a large number of people who may report to him. Nevertheless, he still has many others to report to. (3)
A person is able to become a leader because he is able to mobilize others to pursue a goal. Even then the role of the leader is often overstated. The leader at best will only contribute about 20 percent to the success of an organization. Followers, on the other hand, contribute the other 80 percent. (3)
This might sound a little too “touchy-feely” for some. Nevertheless, the shared goal becomes the organization`s vision of a collective future. Over time, a set of organizational values develops. This is normally a slow process. Without a defining moment, it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The shared goal is the reason leaders and followers exist, and it is the great equalizer between the two because they join together in pursuit of the goal. (4)
Many are willing to lead. What organizations lack is sufficient followers. In today`s world, being a follower is not so noble; there is something demeaning about being a follower. Unfortunately, there aren`t any schools for followers. West Point, however, teaches people to become leaders by teaching them to first become followers. Students are taught the value of the mission and to learn and subordinate their own personal good to the good of the whole. The follower`s job is to do essentially what he is told to do. A follower is asked to surrender for a time his independence and devote himself exclusively to practicing the values of the institution he has joined. Followership is a form of self-mastery, a mastering of ego. The best followers are self-motivated. They are secure in their ability to do a job. Their sense of purpose and of self-worth comes from themselves, not others. The most important lesson of followership is that a job well done is its own reward. (5)
A considerable portion of a management textbook will be devoted to the subject of the chain of command and to the concept of the “span of control.” This is evident in a fire department, which tends to have a much higher ratio of supervisors to subordinates than other city departments including the police. While it is not the purpose of this article to debate the legitimacy of that practice, I think it is safe to assert that if we had stronger followers, we would not need so many leaders.
The followership/leadership relationship is synergistic and acts to strengthen all the players. The question for leaders is not whether to have followers but what kind do they want? Followers must understand the value of their role and learn to live it fully. Exemplary followers have focus, commitment, and competence. A good follower is a team member and adds value to the team and to the entire organization. The best followers know how to get along with their coworkers and leaders in ways that benefit the organization. Followers and leaders both have mutual responsibilities and must work cooperatively with each other, not adversarially. (3)
When someone mentions the word follower, an image of a sheep often comes to mind. This is an erroneous image. It takes more than blind obedience to become a follower. It also takes courage. A follower must have the courage to assume responsibility for himself and the organization. A follower must have the courage not only to serve the organization and its leader but to challenge them when they deviate from the organization`s core values. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and complain about the status quo. It takes courage to participate in transformation.6
Followers are the stewards of the group`s trust and the resources of an organization. A follower has considerable power including the power to follow or not follow. Followers permit leaders to exist and give them strength. This creates an interdependent relationship. It is not ethical to break rules for simple convenience or for personal gain, but neither is it ethical to comply with or enforce rules if they impede the accomplishment of the organization`s purpose, the organization`s values, or basic human decency. The greatest courage that followers must possess is the courage to leave the organization if the organization or leader violates its core principles. (6)
What does all of this mean to the average fire department? It is one thing to talk about the virtue of followers. It is another thing to create an environment in which followers and leaders can work together to transform an organization. This requires a lot of hard work and a considerable amount of cooperation. Typically, it is necessary to start with just a handful of people and slowly build on your success. The good news is that followership is contagious. Christianity, as you may recall, started with fewer than 12 people.
It is unlikely that any of us will ever help to create a new religion, but each one of us can make a difference in our own department if we are willing to work hard enough. It is not necessary to be an officer. It is necessary to have a goal and to be able to convince others that the goal is worth pursuing. It is easy to become discouraged because people fear the loss of control that accompanies change.
Perhaps the most fundamental question of all is, What will happen to your department if you don`t try to change it? Perhaps nothing. But then again, for some departments it means that the department will cease to exist because of privatization or consolidation. For others, it means the elimination of the volunteers in favor of an all-career force. These changes may be good or bad depending on your perspective. Nevertheless, they represent change. You can become an agent of that change, or you can become the victim of the change. Act while you still have the freedom to choose. n
Endnotes
1. The Luddites were workers in England in the early 19th century who saw technological improvements in factories as a means through which they would be thrown out of work. They worked to subvert the new technologies and to prevent change. See Odiorne, G.S. The Change Resisters: How They Prevent Progress and What Managers Can Do About Them. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981.
2. Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1985.
3. Kelley, R. E. The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers Who Lead Themselves. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1992.
4. Wills, G. Certain Trumpets: The Call of Leaders. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.
5. Donnithorne, L. R. The West Point Way of Leadership: From Learning Principled Leadership to Practicing It. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1993.
6. Chaleff, I. The Courageous Followers: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1995.
n JOHN LEE COOK, JR., a member of the fire service since 1969, has served as a member of several volunteer and career fire departments. He has held the positions of training officer, fire chief, emergency management coordinator, and director of fire and rescue services. He has a bachelor`s degree in business administration from Sam Houston State University and a master`s degree in public administration from Southwest Texas State University. Cook is a charter member of the Fire Service Section of the National Fire Protection Association; a member of the technical committee for the Fire Chiefs Association, the State Fire Chiefs Association of Virginia, and the National Fire Sprinkler Association; and an associate member of the Institution of Fire Engineers.
