The only thing constant in life is change. If you don’t manage change, it will manage you. Emergency service providers everywhere are feeling the forces of change as demands for our services and the expectations from our customers increase. To be able to effectively manage change and, better yet, lead change, it’s essential to understand why people behave the way they do when dealing with change.
The first step in effectively leading change in your department is to understand how people are affected by change-the psychology behind the behaviors you see manifested when members react to change. It seems that young members are more resilient to change. Why is this? Well, logic would dictate that young members have had less time on this earth and less time in the fire department in which to develop habits and to become set in their ways. Young members also seem to be more comfortable with learning new things, and they are less afraid of how it will be perceived if they don’t know something.
Change can be a very frightening thing. There is potentially a lot to lose. All change, in fact, results in some loss. At risk is the loss of a member’s job, job duties, fellow members, self-esteem, self-confidence, power, and respect. Take a moment and think about the last significant change in your life. What did you lose? How did it make you feel?
We’ve seen it a thousand times. We introduce a change, and we face resistance. In fact, we’d probably be surprised if we didn’t get some resistance from someone. There are many reasons for members’ resisting change. Let’s examine some of them.
REASONS FOR RESISTING CHANGE
• Self-interest. As sad as it is, there are people in this world and in our fire departments whose radios are tuned in to “WIIFM” (What’s In It For Me?). Before we chastise them, take a moment to reflect. We probably do this ourselves at times. It’s harder to understand this behavior when we are the implementer of the change than when we are the recipient of the change. Members want to know how they will benefit from the change. It’s quite likely that some will benefit while others will not. It’s also a possibility that our external customers will benefit more than our internal customers (our members). Ken Folisi, a captain with the Lisle-Woodridge (IL) Fire District, describes it this way: “The fine traditions of the fire service sometimes get lost in a society where the ‘me’ is often put before the ‘we,’ where what’s good for ‘me’ comes before what’s good for those we are sworn to protect.”
• Anxiety. It’s natural for us to feel anxious about things we don’t understand. We need to look no further than examining how we would feel if we had to visit the dentist for a toothache. There’s a great deal of anxiety surrounding that event. Why? Because we don’t know with any degree of certainty what to expect. The fact is that there are a lot of unknowns with any change. A lot of things can go wrong. The “fix” can be worse than the original problem. To bring it to its rawest form, think about the anxiety we feel during the changing conditions at a fire. It’s impossible not to feel some anxiety if we’re taking our job seriously.
• Fear of failure. Everyone wants to be part of a winning team. That’s natural. And, for the most part, everyone wants to do a good job or at the very least look good in the process. With change comes new ways of doing things. This might include new policies, new operating procedures, and new equipment. Some members will feel threatened by this. Some will fear they cannot adapt to the new way of doing things. Some will fear that they will be embarrassed in front of the other members as they struggle to learn.
• Differences of opinion on how things should be done. Everybody has an opinion. Some members have lots of opinions. Realize that you’re not going to please everyone when you introduce a change. One of the leadership principles extolled by Attila the Hun was, “Don’t expect everyone to agree with you-even if you are king.” It just isn’t going to happen. Make the changes that best serve the mission of the department and the customer and that meet the approval of the majority (51%) of your staff. Then move on. Don’t deny a member the right to have an opinion. However, there’s a balance between having an opinion and being disruptive and damaging to the department.
• Relationships with officers/supervisors. As chiefs, all of our staff love us. Right? No? You mean to say there are members who aren’t in our fan club? Don’t feel bad about it. It’s not about being popular. It’s about doing the right thing. However, it is important to be the kind of leader who can inspire members to want to change. We do this by being good communicators of the plan, having a vision and sharing it, getting members fired up about the change, and involving them in the process.
• Lack of trust. This one can be tough. For many reasons, some valid, some not, some staff members have a hard time trusting the bosses. It might be from a bad experience they’ve had on another job or the way a family member has been treated at work. Or, it could be that the department’s previous chief didn’t rank being trustworthy high on the list of priorities, and now you’re stuck with the label. Whatever the reason, earning and keeping the trust of your staff involve a lot of work. There are several ways to build and maintain trust. The most essential is to communicate with people. Tell them what your plans are and how you think the plans will affect the department, good or bad.
• Status quo. Face it: Some people just don’t like change. In fact, I think some are actually allergic to it. They break out in hives, their blood pressure rises, and their neck veins bulge at the sound of the word. They’ve probably found a way to muddle through life, avoiding as much change as possible along the way.
TO CHANGE
The mannerisms by which people display their resistance to change can vary significantly. Let’s examine a few of these behaviors:
• Passive resistance. This is low-key resistance. It’s displayed by members who aren’t completely onboard yet. They’re scared, and they’re confused; they don’t want to embrace the change-yet. They don’t sabotage the change, but they won’t do anything to help the change be a success either.
• Poor performance. This can be on purpose or unintentional. The poor performance can be an outward sign-an effort so to speak-of a person’s showing just how much he doesn’t care for the change you implemented. However, the poor performance can also be a symptom of a larger problem. Sometimes, as chiefs, we think that the rest of the department can run as fast as we run when it comes to digesting change. No so. Every now and again, look back to see that you’re not leaving anyone behind. Poor performance, along with the anxiety and often accompanying “bad attitude,” can be symptomatic of someone who is being left behind.
• Active resistance. These people will leave no doubt in your mind that they’re not supporting the change. It’s like being hit in the head with a hammer. You feel the pain. A member can display active resistance in several ways. The first I call “chin music.” These members are always running off at the mouth, and it’s never anything positive about the proposed change. They play their chin music to anyone who will listen. Sometimes they speak of the facts, but often they’ll make it up as they go-but it’s always negative.
Another way to actively resist change is to be the organizer of resistance. This involves “recruiting” others to be on the bandwagon of the member resisting the change. For someone to lead an effort to resist, there needs to be followers. Sadly, misery loves company, and it’s sometimes easier than we’d like it to be for an active resister to get supporters.
MODELS FOR LEADING CHANGE
There are many models for successfully leading change. The model I like best comes from the Strategic Management of Change course at the National Fire Academy. The four-step process is a straightforward approach that can help us guide our organization through the sometimes-turbulent waters of change.
• Step 1: Analyze the problem. Before you can solve a problem, you must first understand it. As simple as this seems, it’s amazing how many times I’ve seen managers treat the symptoms and not the problem. Take, for example, an employee with a “bad attitude.” The bad attitude isn’t the problem; it’s a symptom of the problem. The real problem is something else that’s causing the bad attitude. Our job as leaders of change is to get to the root of the problem.
A word of caution: It is possible, and I’ve seen it many times, for a chief to overanalyze a problem to the point that a decision is never made. This is sometimes referred to as “analysis paralysis.” The chief gets all knotted when he doesn’t have all the information. Think about it in terms of the decisions made on a fireground. Chiefs make decisions on emergency scenes all the time without “all” the information. We send crews into building fires without complete information about what’s inside. Even if we have comprehensive preplans, there is still information we do not have when we make the decision to attack. Colin Powell, when asked about his ability to make critical decisions under extreme pressure during the Gulf War, gave this advice: “Once you have 40 to 70 percent of the information, rely on your gut for the rest, and make a decision.”
• Step 2: Plan. Once you feel you have enough information to make a change, plan the strategy of how you would implement the change. This may be as simple as a mental image of what the process will be. On more complex changes, this may involve a written plan, defining the steps to be taken, and contingency plans to deal with predictable variations of the desired outcome. It’s especially helpful to have others help during the planning process. One strategy is to involve the people you think are going to be the most active resisters to the change. Although you would think that involving them would only slow down the process and frustrate the planners, the resisters can be a great source of information on how to make a good plan as they unload on you all the reasons the change won’t work. Don’t shut them down; encourage them. You want them to tell you every conceivable reason the change is destined to fail. Armed with that feedback, you will have valuable information for helping to ensure that the plan covers all their issues.
• Step 3: Implement. This can be the hardest step. This is where the rubber meets the road. While teaching a class with Chief Mike Chiaramonte from the Lynbrook (NY) Fire Department, he described it this way: “You may have the most intricate plan imaginable, and there is always going to be some element of risk with implementing a change. There have been many times when I’ve sat in my office with my door closed, anxious over the possible outcomes of implementing a major change; giving myself a pep talk and taking a deep breath; and giving myself the courage to open the door, walk out, and say to the troops confidently, ‘OK, folks, here’s what we need to do and here’s how we’re going to do it.’ On the outside, I was giving the organization the leadership they needed. On the inside … well, they didn’t need to know what was happening on the inside.”
Indeed, these are the words from Chiaramonte’s 35 years of experience. We may never feel 100-percent confident on the inside. But, on the outside, it’s critical to take a leadership role. Think about how the military teaches soldiers how to shoot a rifle. How do you hit the target? Ready, aim, fire. This approach is fine if you’re on the shooting range. However, once the soldier is faced with a more urgent problem, such as the enemy charging at him, he’s more likely to practice, ready, fire, aim, and look after the fact to see if he hit the target. The more urgent the decision, the less time you have to plan. Under these conditions, you may have to use the little time you have to do limited analysis and planning and then make the change.
• Step 4: Evaluate. Whether you have a lot of time to plan or whether the enemy is charging at you, once you make the change, you’ll need to see if you hit the target. In other words, did the change achieve what you thought it would? If it did, great! All you do then is continually monitor the progress, look for snipers (resisters to the change), and deal with them accordingly.
If the change did not achieve what you intended (i.e., the bullet didn’t hit the target), then you will have to go back to step one to understand why-maybe the problem was not properly identified-there may have been multiple problems and you didn’t see them all-or maybe your planning didn’t consider all the variables that are now more evident (hindsight is always 20/20).
Whatever the reason, don’t give up. Any change worth making is a work in process until you get it right. And every time you try something that doesn’t work, you have an obligation to learn from it. Pay close attention to how people behave under the pressure of change. You’re likely to see that significant change and the stress associated with it bring out the true character in people. Some members will impress us with their resilience; others will crumble before our very eyes and leave us shocked at their behavior.
Remember, stress (tension) can be good or bad. It depends on the type and amount of stress and how the person reacts to it. In his book The Psychology of Winning, Dr. Denis Waitley talks of the need for stress in our lives. People need tension (stress) in their lives, he says, but it should be the kind of tension that comes from struggling and striving for a goal that is worthy. As fire chiefs, we have an obligation to make sure that the changes we propose are worthy of the stress (tension) they will cause. ■
References
Harari, Oren. The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
“Strategic Management of Change Student Manual,” Emmitsburg, Md.: National Fire Academy, 1996.
Folisi, Ken, “Teaching ethics: can we, should we?” Voice; 1995. Apr; 24(3): .25-26.
Wadsworth, Walter J. The Agile Manager’s Guide to Leadership. Bristol, Vt: Velocity Business Publishing, Inc., 1999.
Waitley, Denis. The Psychology of Winning. Chicago: Nightingale-Conant Corporation, 1979; New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1984, paperback.
■ RICHARD B. GASAWAY is a 24-year veteran of the fire service and chief of the Roseville (MN) Fire Department. He is a graduate of the National Fire Academy’s Executive Fire Officer Program and the Maryland Fire & Rescue Institute’s National Staff & Command School. He has a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in business administration and is an International Association of Fire Chiefs accredited chief fire officer. He lectures throughout the United States and Canada on leadership-related topics.
