By Dave Casey
How do officers sharpen their skills to become stronger, more respected officers? What about firefighters aspiring to be officers, how do they decide to prepare others than by just putting their nose in the textbooks for the exam?
There has been a great deal written about leadership, and, specific to the fire service, there is no shortage of excellent seminars, books, DVDs, and blogs on the subject. Two of the Facebook pages I follow, Frank Viscuso’s “Step Up and Lead” and Mark vonAppen’s “Fully Involved” feature inspirational eye-catching photos/illustrations that can instill a thought or bring one into better focus. The quick visual with a reminder or a call to action regarding our role, responsibility, or mission can be a good reminder and even serve to provoke thought or reflection. An “in your face” vonAppen quote like “MORALE–It can’t be put on like your boots; it is built one day at a time” can leave a mark, which is its intent. So beyond the media, what does the person who wants to improve his leadership skills do?
Following is a discussion on how we “learn” our leadership skills, the different perspectives of leadership, the attributes of a leader, self-analysis, taking the next step, generational changes in leadership, and the time-tested truths of being the company officer (these apply also to all officer positions).
SOURCES OF LEARNING
With variations, most fire service leaders will tell you that learning leadership comes from observation, formal training, experience, and mentors. There probably would not be great debate on the sources of learning unless we try to quantify or prioritize each.
Frequently, parallels and similarities are drawn between the fire service and the military–shared terminology, mission-centered beliefs, organizational structure, unit leadership traits, teamwork, “combat readiness,” the use of tactics and strategy, and leadership beliefs.
Regarding some of the shared leadership traits, recently, U.S. military executive officers attended an executive leadership program hosted by a private training and consulting group.[i] As part of the program, surveys were conducted to help determine how these executive leaders learned their leadership skills. “Respondents were asked to reflect on their careers and to share the key developmental experiences that led to a lasting change in the way they lead or manage.”(They identified “Key Developmental Events” and the lessons they learned from them. Although this information cannot be exactly applied to the U.S. fire service, especially at the company officer vs. command staff level, the results are still interesting. Before the arguments start, this was a survey of senior officers, not a conclusively validated, scientific research study. All listed items were considered to be very important and were not intended to yield 100 percent of an individual’s learning. It does not reflect a quantitative value of how much learning came from each event; it reflects the value of how many officers indicated the item as one of their personal top 10 key developmental events. The survey yields some very interesting information that we can relate to and should consider as we plan to groom new officers or as prospective candidates planning for promotion.
Most of us probably appreciated that much of our learning of leadership comes from observation of good and bad role models. In this study, the participants said more than half (64%) of their learning came from the observation of good and bad role models. We don’t consciously rate our leaders on everything they say or do (or don’t do when they should), their technical skills, or even their character. However, as you read this, you can think of many “vignettes” when you observed an interaction on either end of the scale–inappropriate behavior, comments, bullying, laziness; being too timid to rock the boat when needed; or all negative interactions. Positive actions include mentoring, caring, interest in personnel, technical competence, and many things that make us better prepared to do our job and be more of a team (more on these later). Although leaders can be put into the category of “good” or “bad,” most often we rate them good or bad according to the majority of their actions. We must remember that good officers will have the occasional failing, and the officers deemed as bad will rise to the occasion and do good.
In It Doesn’t Take a Hero[ii], General Norman Schwarzkopf stated that he believed you learned more from negative leadership than from positive leadership “because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it.” Negative decisions have negative effects, and those effects can leave an emotional or physical scar.
The next highest-ranking developmental event cited by the military leaders was “Failures and Mistakes” (19%). When combined with “Negative Role Models,” the negatives add up to almost 50% (46% if you are checking math). These mistakes are observed, participated in, or owned; taken in the context of General Schwarzkopf’s comment about negative leadership, they seem correct. A very important lesson is how not to do something. This can range from a strategic fireground decision to not making enough of the main course at dinner—you will learn from either one and probably will be reminded of it in unpleasant ways. A primary concern is that you recognize the failure/mistake and learn from it.
“Leading in High-Risk Situations” accounted for 17%. Just as in the fire service, this pertains to officers’ leading during high-risk situations such as combat missions. Serving as the leader, which involves using the knowledge and skills you learned earlier, becomes a “key developmental event” from which learning occurs.
The next four groups—“Increase in Scope” (15%), “Coursework” (14%), “Personal Trauma” (14%), and “Mentors” (14%)– are virtually ties.
The “Increase in Scope (of work)” is new responsibilities, not necessarily a promotion. It still allows the individual to apply knowledge and skills learned earlier, most likely under pressure, but without the physical threat to self and others found in the “High Risk.”
That “Coursework” and “Mentors” scored so much lower than observations is surprising. When combined, the key events only approximate the numerical value observed for “Negative Role Models” and only three-quarters of the value for “Positive Role Models.” This would indicate that observed role models affect learned leadership knowledge far more than formal training or education.
“Personal Trauma,” part of the four-way tie, refers to powerful emotional events such as the death of a loved one or a significant person, divorce, personal injury, a close call, and other emotionally or physically frightening events.
The last developmental influences selected by the military leaders, although at the bottom, are still quite significant. “Values Playing Out” (12%) involves an event the individual observed or participated in. From the white paper, the event is “out of context”– that is, the “snapshot” had survived while the larger scenario in which it happened had dimmed. The event involves an individual doing something to another person (or persons or to self/self-destruct), and the observer develops a value-driven conclusion that remains long after the event.
A mainstay of many fire department operations is to move “up and coming” officers through the different functional branches to learn how they interact and to gain a better understanding of the agency as an entity. “Lateral Moves” was rated at 10%.
OBSERVATION PERSPECTIVES
In the above discussion, observation of others for good and negative examples was the primary method of learning. In deciding to be a better officer or to start the journey toward becoming an officer, one of the steps is to look at the expectations the fire service has for its officers–not just the written job description but also the different perspectives of the expectations of those we work with, work for, and supervise.
There are five perspectives (they are not weighted evenly or scientifically):
- How the company perceives the officer. This group gets the biggest part of the evaluation. These people see and interact with the officer the most.
- How peers perceive the company officer. If it is a multicompany station or a volunteer station with several officers, these people interact with each other as opposed to only the officer in a station/shift.
- How the supervisors perceive the company officer. In a very informal survey, the “next up the food chain” identified the following as desirable traits: company leadership (fair, positive, mentoring), proficient technical skills, low maintenance.
- How the public perceives the company officer. This is normally a very narrow view based on a very short interaction. That interaction can be how technically proficient and caring the officer was when your company treated Aunt Mable or if the company seemed to have its act together and was nice afterwards when the laundry room caught fire.
- How the officer perceives himself/herself as an officer. Usually, we are our own harshest critics. The officer should share this opinion of self only with chosen mentors and advisors to gain their input.
|
|
|
Those perceptions–including what you think when you look in the mirror–come from many “scenarios” in which you were involved. As discussed previously, you informally, often without conscious consideration, evaluate others by the interactions you observe: the decisions they make (or don’t make), the way they treat others, and actions they take every day–from the lunch plans to true life-and-death tactical situations.
Do not expect rave reviews for everything you do. You will not be thrilled with all of the people with whom you interact.
ATTRIBUTES OF THE OFFICER
Over several offerings of “Lead from the Right Seat” class, slightly more than half of the attendees were firefighters; the remainder were officers. Group members were asked to think of their favorite officer and the attributes that officer displayed, and then to do the same for their least favorite officer. A consensus of the input follows:
Favorite Officer (Positive Role Model)
· Technical knowledge/practical skills
· Decisive
· Fair
· Confident
· Listens
· Leads from front
· Remembers where they came from
· Respected/respects others
· Effective
· Shares knowledge/mentors
· Shares expectations
· Inclusive
· Clear with direction
· The right thing to do
· Helps with duties
Least Favorite Officer (Negative Role Model)
· Lazy
· Not knowledgeable/lacking skills
· Autocratic
· Evasive/indecisive
· Speaks down to company and bad mouths brass and other officers
· Ambiguous
· Favoritism
· Not the best thing to do
· More interested in paycheck than mission
· Doesn’t remember where he/she came from
· Sits while others work
THE NEXT STEP
Back to the aspiring officer or the officer who wants to become a stronger or better officer. There are many positive and negative traits listed above. Compare these attributes with those you see in the officers you observe. Check to see how your attributes match up.
Looking at the list of attributes from class members, they generally fall into two groups, technical and character, and most of them deal with character. There are a number of reasons for this. The biggest reason is that you spend more time in the station socializing than responding to emergencies or training. As General Schwarzkopf stated, “There’s no question about the fact that you have to have competence to be a leader, but you also have to have character. Good leaders are men of competence and character.”ii
There are excellent classes and seminars from which you can learn. As you take in that knowledge, apply what you have learned to the officers you admire and see if the “Positive Role Model” attributes match up. You will find that for the most part they do.
You have many potential “learning moments” every time you are at the station. Observe the interactions; think how successful an interaction was and how else it might have been handled. Then determine how you would handle it. Read the trade journals, the fire service blogs, and the news: consider how you would handle the events. Add the different perspectives; see if your actions would differ.
LOOKING IN THE MIRROR
Are you really the officer type? That is a pretty awkward question to answer. The various lists that follow include a number of desired qualities of officers; not all are technical skills. Have you ever known an officer who can recite passages from textbooks but cannot decide the kind of doughnut he wants from the coffee shop? How about the officer who seemed more interested in the badge than in the people for whom he was now responsible?
Arguably, the biggest question you need to ask yourself is, why do you want to be an officer? Several of the fire officer textbooks discuss Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.[iii] There is a lot of reality in his concept. The five-tier pyramid reflects personal motivation and meeting one’s needs. The two lowest tiers are related to the personal needs of sustainment and safety. The third tier applies to social needs and reflects the sense of camaraderie, of “family” the fire service often epitomizes. The second tier is Esteem Needs–achievement, mastery, independence, status, prestige, managerial responsibility, which, again, neatly meet the rise to officer status in the fire service. The top tier is self-actualization. (Note: Maslow expanded the five-stage model to include Cognitive Needs and Aesthetic Needs (seven tiers) iv and later added Transcendence Needs (eight tiers), helping others to achieve self-actualization.v
You may be wondering what that has to do with you. The “connection” is that perhaps once you are comfortable as a member of the fire department family (tier 3), you may want to reach for additional responsibility as a company officer.
In the chapter “A Leader of One” in Frank Viscuso’s Step Up and Lead,he differentiates between being an officer and being a leader and discusses what it takes to be a good officer and a good leader. An early point he raises is that a leader must be able to manage himself and his affairs: “A leader of one can become a leader of many; but if you can’t lead one, you’ll never lead any,” he states.
When you are a firefighter, you are morally responsible for your company, your station, and your department’s firefighters. When you are an officer, you have the legal or assigned responsibility as an officer. “Your time” at the station is now your company’s time much more than it is your fire department’s time. You are responsible for everything from directing crews under dangerous conditions to directing who needs to clean the bathroom.
When I first yearned to climb the ladder, my primary motivator seemed to be the desire to make changes that were badly needed. I was frustrated that the very young fire department I belonged to was not keeping up with our neighboring departments as they progressed. Probably because we were so young, company officers had maybe more of a voice than they would have had in the same size department if it had been around longer. Most of our officers were “first round”–that is, the most experienced officers had only three years in. With the shiny new badge on a very young person (I got over that), I was ready to change everything, save lives, protect property, and update our surprisingly old-fashioned fire department. I wasn’t planning on the mounds of paperwork just to maintain the status quo–evaluations, hydrant testing, hose testing, journals, run reports, evaluations, supplies, inventory, vehicle maintenance–an absolutely mind-numbing array of forms in carbonless triplicate. And much to my surprise, many of the firefighters were satisfied with how things were and did not see the need to do things as our neighbors (in this case, I refer to changes such as bunker pants instead of pull-up boots and large-diameter hose). That was quite a disheartening part of the overall experience for me, but the good far outweighed the bad.
Look closely at the interactions and activities your officers have every day, and make sure you are up for that type of schedule.
GENERATIONS
Much has been written about Generation X, Y, and such. How does this affect how you make decisions and how you work with others? Subordinates in another survey cited the attributes listed below as those they wanted to see in their officers:
• Knows the job
• Is fair
• Has a positive attitude, never appears excited
• Is approachable
• Understands the job of each person.
• Earns the confidence and respect of his personnel
• Complies with his own rules
• Participates in company tactical operations
• Is decisive
• Is appropriately aggressive
• Assumes responsibility
• Maintains control
• Has personal contact with the subordinates.
That survey was taken in 1945 and applied to U.S. Army soldiers as they fought their way from the invasion in France to Germany. From this response, we can see that technology certainly changes, tactics and strategy change more slowly, and leadership skills and character don’t seem to change all that much.
TIME-TESTED TRUTHS FOR RIDING IN THE RIGHT SEAT
In video recording the company officer development DVD series The Right Seat, a series of scenarios were presented for viewers to critique. Consider it the “application step” of much of your learning, be it from observation, coursework, or other sources. Much of the information below comes from Captain Mike Gagliano of the Seattle (WA) Fire Department and newly retired Captain Mike Dugan of the Fire Department of New York, with input from a number of officers who participated in the series.
• The officer has ownership of everything that happens in firehouse.
• Be the officer. If you lose the role of the leader, you abdicate the authority to be in charge, and you may not get it back.
• Be the officer: Communicate the plan, make sure everyone knows what is expected of him or her.
• When you can, involve the crew in the decision making and planning. It fosters buy-in and good ideas and mentors the crew for future roles.
• Do not be the dictator or the micromanager if you want the crew be able to think on their own.
• There will be times when you will have to intervene.
• There will be times to talk with other officers and mentors for advice and support.
• There will be times when you will need to advise and support your fellow officers.
• Never let those who follow you think you are ignoring them.
• Never allow a member of your crew to be uncomfortable being at the station. If this happens, there is something wrong.
• If your troops do not back you up, you need to look at respect issues and your leadership.
• You do not have to hurt firehouse morale to be the leader; firehouse life should be fun.
• Build a firehouse culture that self-limits behavior to prevent injury and emotional distress.
• Once behavior harms a member, it is not camaraderie or esprit de corps.
• What your company does represents the entire department and maybe also our profession, and chances are some joker will get cell phone video.
• Show that you know; don’t just tell them you know.
• Check before acting.
• Skip the bait, and avoid the snare; don’t get trapped in a bad situation.
• Watch for “blind spots”–other officers not realizing their level of behavior or not understanding its effect on others.
• Treat other people’s property as if it were your mother’s.
• Have an open door policy for firefighters to come and talk with you if they feel that undue joking around is aimed at them.
• Make yourself and your company the good example.
If you ask many chief officers and almost all company and station officers, they will tell you the power for company success and effectiveness is the company officer. If you are the officer, be the officer, and Lead from the Right Seat.
[i] Van Velsor, Ellen; Corey Criswell; Katie Puryear; and Neil Hollenbeck. Learning Leadership in the
Military: Key Developmental Events & Lessons from Senior Officers. (2011). The Center for Creative Leadership.
[ii] Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. It Doesn’t Take a Hero. (1992). Bantam Books.
[iii] McLeod, S. A. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, (2007). Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.
iv Maslow, A. H. (1970a). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
v Maslow, A. H. (1970b). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin.
