BY RICHARD MARINUCCI
Based on the title of this article, you are probably expecting some miracle solution to your biggest challenges. That will not be the case. I will present information that will hopefully get you to think about a couple of issues in different ways and prevent you from getting frustrated when you keep trying to do the impossible. You may be getting exasperated over situations that are beyond your control, and some problems may not be fixable to your satisfaction.
One of my biggest frustrations in dealing with problems over the years has been addressing specific individuals who never seem to “get it.” By that, I mean they never seem to make improvements and believe they are “superstars”; they have no idea of why they are being questioned. They seem to think that they have all the answers and block out unfavorable reviews or constructive criticism. Often, they are marginal performers who seem to know instinctively the bare minimum requirements of the job, but they do not view themselves as “slackers.” They don’t mess up enough to warrant any corrective discipline, but their view of the world affects the ability of the organization to move forward and continually improve.
Dunning-Kruger Effect
This issue is not solely a fire service concern. In fact, two researchers, David Dunning and Justin Kruger, studied this phenomenon and put forth a theory known as the “Dunning-Kruger effect.” Basically, it states that incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent. It is a cognitive bias in which someone without adequate skills makes a poor decision but doesn’t have the ability to realize that he made a mistake. Essentially, these folks always think they have done great work and have an uncanny ability to shut out others who may question their competence on individual cases or as a collective whole. Just knowing this can ease frustration and help you view problems a little differently.
I think all of us have some of this effect. I am sure I do, and others may think I have more than I realize. As a chief, I know I have an ego. To be successful, I need to control it and also take into consideration what others think. That is not the point. The issue is that those who remain steadfast in their beliefs and view of the world make it very challenging to fix things and move forward. When presented with a problem, some people are unable to comprehend the discussion and hear very little of the information presented. Frustration mounts when you think you have explained something and, in your mind, you are very clear as to your expectations, and yet the behavior continues.
This is not to be confused with the need for legitimate confidence an individual needs to be a strong performer. There is a fine line between knowing your level of competence and overinflating your capabilities. A challenge of leadership is to maintain a healthy level of confidence in individuals (and even in the organization) while working toward continual improvement. You cannot continually discourage individuals by constantly pointing out deficiencies. There needs to be balance. This is not easy to achieve in some cases and requires tact and skill.
Annual Review
One area in which this may be evident is the annual review. Anyone who has done one of them knows the challenges that they present to having a positive outcome. Often, when you identify areas that you, as a supervisor, think need improvement, the person you are reviewing becomes defensive. This can lead to an uncomfortable situation and denial on the part of the individual. The result is that the review becomes useless and counterproductive. In the future, the supervisor may elect to take the easy way out and provide a more positive or neutral review that detracts from the intended purpose of the program. Why waste the effort when it does not lead to a change in behavior?
The situation is not hopeless, and you can try some ways to improve the situation. First, evaluate the training you provide. Take a comprehensive look at the overall program offered to employees, including internal training and the need to get outside of your organization. Exposure to other fire service professionals with similar backgrounds can acquaint individuals with different perspectives. Sending employees to training outside of the organization can provide opportunities not available inside a department when only shift or department peers are part of a learning experience.
Another tactic is to look for others who may have more sway in the discussion. I know that I take constructive criticism easier from some people than from others. It could be a case of personalities. It could be a case of credibility. It could be style and methodology. Regardless, no matter how good you are at communication, you will not make a direct connection with everyone. You will need to look for the right person to deliver the message with hopes that it will be received in the spirit in which it is intended and lead to a fix for the problem.
Establish Measurable Standards
Another approach is to establish measurable standards where possible, and keep score. Here are a few examples. Turn-out times for alarms are an important part of our service. How quickly an organization can get out of the station has an impact on overall response times. During my time as chief, I have had many discussions regarding this issue, and rarely do individuals realize they may not be meeting standards. It is only when you present concrete evidence that they begin to understand what really is occurring. Establish a standard acceptable time, and use a stopwatch. You may also get this information from your run reports, but this could depend on the person recording the information (there is not enough space here to delve further into this issue).
How quickly does your organization deploy hoselines? I’ll bet if you ask many of the members of your department, they will tell you how good they are. If you observe their performance, you may not agree. But, without concrete evidence, those underperforming will not believe your assessment. They will maintain that they are doing better than you think. If you put a stopwatch to the operation, it will be more difficult for individuals to deny their level of competence. They will then have the opportunity to practice and train to improve and show that they indeed are competent regarding acceptable standards.
Carrying this example a bit further, we can use video to further help drive home the point. Although there are some limitations to two-dimensional videos, those taking them have some insight into the reality being portrayed. The video provides evidence that is as definable as possible to ascertain performance levels. Videos will show competence or the lack thereof. Occasionally, this point-blank approach removes any perceived subjectivity and allows for an objective assessment of an incident or a problem.
Videos are not a cure-all. Some of the effectiveness depends on the individual taking the pictures. We all should know that we are subject to being recorded while in the public eye. Cameras, from security cameras to those on cell phones, are everywhere. These videos might not be completely reliable because of various factors. The videos consist of a series of one snapshot in time-only one view. They may or may not capture audio. But, they most likely will be made public and do offer evidence that is subject to interpretation. Whether or not you like the proliferation of videos, videos are not going away. Even videos taken by private citizens, the news media, or security cameras offer insights into competence. They will show effort, time to deploy, and some basic tactical decisions. They can be helpful in determining capabilities more in line with reality than an individual’s opinion.
Another approach is to not try to remedy some level of incompetence-that is, to ignore those individuals and focus on the individuals who are most likely to improve. This approach may not always be the best; it would depend on the issues you are trying to correct. However, by focusing on the positive people, you may elevate the overall expectations and create an environment where it is easier to distinguish the high performers from the mediocre performers. Put another way, a rising tide raises all boats.
I recently saw a cartoon where the first cell stated that the root cause of problems had been found. The second cell stated the obvious: It was people. The conclusion was basically, “Duh!” Different personalities, along with the Dunning-Kruger effect, increase the challenges when seeking solutions to specific problems and attempting to prevent future occurrences. Every person should strive to continually improve and look critically at their performance. To counteract the theories presented here, personnel and supervisors must be able to view less than peak performance as an opportunity to improve. This can happen only when we are open to the possibility that what we perceive as our level of competence may not be exactly the same as what it really is.
It has been said that perception is reality, but an individual’s perception of himself might not match the supervisor’s perception and the goals of an organization. Problems related to this issue are challenging and necessitate creativity in seeking solutions.
RICHARD MARINUCCI has been a chief for more than 30 years. He is a speaker at FDIC, a columnist for Fire Engineering and Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment, and the editor of the 7th edition of the Fire Chief’s Handbook. He is a faculty member at Eastern Michigan University and the Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute.
