BY RUSTY SULLIVAN
We have all heard the leadership parable regarding the metaphoric bus that is supposed to haul or lead us into the future. Many so-called leaders or managers have stood in front of a leadership class or have sat in a labor-management meeting proclaiming the stoic words of the parable. First, you must find a driver for the bus, a driver who can take this bus where it needs to go. Then, you get the right people on the bus and the wrong people off the bus, proclaiming, “There will be no dead weight on my bus!” Once the bus is filled with the “right” people, you must arrange them in the right seats; I assume the right people are up front.
I have heard this almost-biblical story most of my public safety career, with slowly diminishing buy-in from me. I was a relatively new firefighter the first time I heard a gold-clad chief officer tell this story. In front of a room full of “old-timers,” he proclaimed that a new time had come in the fire service and that the “good ol’ boy” system was gone forever. Before his men, he endeavored to rally his troops for a battle that would capture the soul of the fire service. He pronounced that education; training; hard work; and, most of all, selfless service to the citizens would be the fuel for this intolerable bus ride.
After this compelling address, we all returned to our respective stations, continued to watch TV, and planned our next meal. Nothing changed! No one was moved or transferred (much less fired). There were no new regulations, rules, or policies. The hiring process remained the same. The promotional process remained the same. Any incentives (or lack thereof) that were in place remained the same. We may have bought some new gear, maybe bid on a new truck, but philosophically nothing had changed.
ARE WE REALLY SERIOUS?
That exchange happened in 1983; I have heard the bus parable so many times since then that now my subconscious believes it was actually on a bus. I should take a moment and tell you that the gold-clad chief telling this story was a good man and an average leader. A few years later, Chief Gary Fisher, one of the best fire chiefs I had or have ever worked for, told the same parable. And more than 20 years later, I was working for a very different type of chief, and I heard the same parable once again. Each of these chief officers, among many other fire service leaders I have heard, have told the same story with equal enthusiasm.
This is not about any chief’s ability to lead or manage his department but about the hypocrisies in the fire service. It’s the contrast between what we publicly proclaim to our department and the citizens and what we do behind closed doors in hiring and promoting future firefighters and fire service leaders. Our profession should look at the public perception of firefighters and the reality of who we truly are and what we are truly capable of doing.
When we tell the bus story, are we simply uttering words to fill space and time? Is it a semiannual obligation for fire service leaders to stand before their crews and proclaim a new ethical and service-oriented path? Or is this metaphoric bus changing directions so often that we must be informed of its new course at each gathering? Does our profession lack such basic discipline that we need to be reminded at each assembly of our “new” obligations to the citizen? Or, is this story a wish in disguise, a story of hope for the future, sort of a collective wishful thinking?
The vast majority of public safety leaders actually believe in this bus metaphor and, at the time of their speech, fully intend on filling the bus with the proper people, putting them in the right seats, and guiding that bus to an exciting new future. So what happens to that innovative belief and that dogged intent to change between the meeting and the station? If everyone-firefighters and chief officers-believes in a single effort to build a better future for the fire service, what is the barrier to its implementation, much less its success?
This is a complicated question with as many contributors to the answer as the Mississippi River has tributaries. However, the single largest issue, the biggest most influential tributary, is cultural. Over several hundred years, the fire service has developed a unique culture of isolation and brotherhood. This unique culture was forged in a cauldron of unique experiences, danger, death, and a desire to protect those with a shared experience.
Every organization or profession has a unique way of looking at a single experience or event, and each entity never perceives the same event exactly the same as another one might or even as it perceived it in the past. These billions of event perceptions are the building blocks of what we might call culture as described by psychologist George Kelly’s personal (organizational) construct theory in Richard M. Ryckman’s text Theories of Personality.
Each perception is hypothesized, linked to other perceptions, and calculated against existing perceptions, and an organizational construct or culture is formulated. Organizations believe that these constructs will explain and predict future events in the organization; they anticipate the future and its consequences. Constructs also give organizations their belief systems and perception on the next experience. If the organization maintains a perceived favorable response, their construct is reinforced; if the experience is not favorable, their construct is likely to change. These organizational constructs also formulate the organization’s sense of justice, fairness, tradition, and culture. The fire service is no exception to this construct theory; there is no denying we have a unique culture.
This simple psychological concept has also been the catalyst for our fire service culture and its philosophical stagnation. We have developed a culture of self-preservation and protection of our comrades-all our comrades. Many times in my career I have heard and have most likely said it myself, “Joe is a screw-up, but he is our screw-up, and nobody else had better mess with him-he is our brother. He is one of us, one of our brothers from a long tradition of servants who have been mistreated and underpaid” (at least that is the majority pronouncement).
As a by-product of self-preservation and protection, we have developed a cultural system that does not allow us to set one of our own adrift. We simply do not fire anyone but the most heinous of our group. Unless left no choice, we will always allow even the worst to resign or retire. And, in only the rarest of circumstance do we even inform the new fire department of the former employee’s failures. Again, let us be honest: We have all at one time or another turned a blind eye to this dreadful and even deadly practice. So, are we simply in a cultural circumstance none of us can escape?
On examination, our metaphoric bus story fails to take into account one very important feature of a plan, idea, or resolution-and that is an organization’s culture. Every plan or idea is framed with the unforgiving and sturdy boundaries of culture. Each of our orders, demands, suggestions, requests, and dreams must emulsify inside the organizational culture in which it is introduced. Like fine bourbon and cola mix or a crisp gin and tonic, the two elements-desire and culture-must combine into one living fulfillment. We must understand the environmental impacts on the bus. Is it a rocky road? Is the wind blowing? Is it raining? Is the road steep or flat? What is the language on the bus? Are those on the bus individuals with individual dreams and ambitions, or are they simply reflective robots of our demands in lockstep with our wishes?
Now how do we change those on the bus-or do we? Right now, the fire service is conflicted with what the “problem” is: Why is the bus stalled on the side of the road? The young firefighters say it is the old-timers standing in the way of progress; the old firefighters say it is the new generation and their lazy attitudes. Management blames the union, and the union blames management. C-shift says B-shift is the problem; A-shift says C-shift is the problem; Station 2 blames station 3, which blames station 4, which blames station 5; and we all blame the city. Each group has some validity in its accusations; there are plenty of “those” to blame for the breakdown of the bus and the culture in which it travels.
Ultimately, the problem in the fire service is that of the gatekeeper. The fire service has been notoriously selective in its admissions. Two hundred years ago, the fire service was a gentlemen’s club, reserved for only the finest and most respected of residents, lawyers, statesmen, and doctors. One hundred years later, the ranks were filled with poor immigrants, mostly Irish and Italian. The dangerous and low-paid job was passed down from immigrant father to immigrant son. Over time, other immigrant groups (mostly European) were “allowed” into this unique society. As things became more dangerous, the unions began to form, along with organized crime. And still later, men of color and women were allowed (through antidiscrimination suits) into the fire service-a profession that was becoming fairly attractive and lucrative. All of these cultural additions to the fire service had their positive influences. But, what was the driving force that compelled their employment?
The admission of these groups to the fire service was predicated on one factor-they were part of the “in group” at that time in history (not that most did not have the courage, the education, or the desire to serve others-I assume most did). Education, courage, and service to others were not the litmus test for fire service employment. Even today, we lack the hiring and promotional processes to build an educated, courageous, and service-oriented profession.
A LEAKY WATER FILTER
The fire service culture is like a slow leak in a water filter. Think of a water filter with a very slow but methodical leak. It is so slow that it is hard to even recognize that it is getting worse, somewhat like the frog-in-boiling-water syndrome. An unsuspecting frog is relaxing in a pot of water that is slowly being heated to a boil. The frog slowly dies and wonders why he died.
In the case of the slow leaking filter, we know something is wrong. We know the water is getting nasty, but we simply look at it in amazement, without an investigation and without a plan of action. We even bail a little bad water out now and then but not nearly enough to make a difference. The leak is so slow that the water may well become stagnant and begin to stink from the introduction of the nasty, unfiltered water. Over time, a thick layer of rot permeates the water, and the tank is lost.
Is there anything we can do about this cultural failure? Can we clean the tainted water? YES! As in any other emergency, focus on the priorities. First, make sure your people are safe, that those who have been hired or promoted meet the basic requirements to safely perform their assignments. If they can’t do the basics, remove or move them now! Next, stop the leak! Shut off the water flow, plug the hole-do not hire or promote anyone. Do not allow any more water into the tank until the filter has been fixed. We know that once the water is in the tank, it is almost impossible to bail it out. Once the leak is plugged and you are certain the water will be filtered, you can start bailing out the worst of the water (do the best that you can). Some bad water may simply need refiltering. Time and dilution will take care of the remainder.
If you are serious about getting the right people on the bus, start with your hiring process. If you are serious about getting the right people in the right seats, review your promotional procedure. These are, respectively, the outer and inner filters that determine the quality of water in the tank (the quality of personnel on the bus).
How can we fix the casing, and what will the future filter look like? Fixing the casing is as simple as putting together and implementing a validated, standardized, reliable, and ethical procedure for hiring and promoting and then following it. This seems to be no easy task in the fire service. As you will see, fixing the casing is uncomplicated; the hard part is building the filter, building an efficient process or system for the new human resources to enter the system.
When asked, most people can describe what a good firefighter or a good leader looks like. We all can spout off the catchwords like loyal, courageous, ethical, honest, dedicated, organized, caring, driven, selfless, ambitious, educated, and compassionate. Now look at your testing processes. Are these the character traits your hiring and promotional tests actually test for? For those departments that take the “safe” way out-the canned test-have you even taken it? Do you know what is in it? Have you seen or wondered how your best people would do on these (canned) hiring or promotional tests? If Captain A, B, or C is the best captain you have, are you building your promotional tests with his characteristics in mind?
THE HIRING/PROMOTIONAL TRIANGLE
When assessed carefully, most, if not all, positive characteristics for public safety personnel can be bundled into three basic categories called the Hiring/Promotional Triangle, which comprises three equal and mixable sections: an actualization tendency, integrity, and a commitment to serving. They embody the very fabric of community service and public safety.
The actualization tendency or self-actualization, according to psychologist Abraham Maslow, is the highest level of personal fulfillment. Self-actualizing people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the opinions of others, and interested in fulfilling their greatest potential. At this point, people start to become fully functional and begin acting purely on their own volition. These people can function for hours with little stress in a state that the renowned psychologist Martin Seligman, Ph.D., called “flow,” a mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.
Self-actualizing people also embody other positive attributes that are helpful in public safety. For example, self-actualizing people have a keen sense of reality; they mostly see problems as challenges and situations that need solutions. They are less susceptible to social and cultural pressures, and they are generally socially compassionate. Self-actualizing people have a sense of humor regarding their own self. They are generally spontaneous, natural, creative, and inventive and seek peak experiences that leave a lasting impression (a state of flow). The bottom line is self-actualizing people have a basic need or force that drives them forward and onward.
Integrity is a consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. Ethical integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. Simply put, integrity is “saying what you mean and doing what you say” (while being fair and just to everyone regardless of their social status).
According to Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy, integrity is attributed to various parts or aspects of a person’s life. The book uses such descriptors as professional, intellectual, and artistic integrity. However, the most philosophically important sense of the term “integrity” relates to the general character of a person. It means that you have developed into a person whose thoughts, words, and actions are congruent and, therefore, do not conflict with each other. We are the sum total of our actions and not just our words; we are what we do. That is why most organizational psychologists report personal interviews are notoriously the worst predictors of a person’s future performance and that past performance (background investigation) is the best predictor of future performance.
Commitment to serving. In Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “commitment” is a broad umbrella term covering many different kinds of intentions, promises, convictions, and relationships of trust and expectation. One may be, and usually is, committed in many ways to many kinds of things: people, institutions, traditions, causes, ideals, principles, projects, and so on. Commitments can be explicitly, self-consciously, and publicly entered into or implicit, unself-conscious, and private. Some are relatively superficial and unimportant, like the casual support of a sporting team. Others are very deep, like the commitment implicit in genuine love or friendship.
The second part of commitment to serving is serving-putting the needs of others above your own. Serving is based on a selflessness and brotherly compassion toward all people. In religious or transformative company, some might say God, others, and then self. In law enforcement circles, officers are taught in most police training circles that the innocent person comes first, then bystanders, and finally the officer. One should keep in mind this is a statement of philosophy and not a statement of tactics. Although the primary principle in commitment to serving is the serving of others, it does not start and end there. There is also a commitment to serving institutions, traditions, causes, ideals, principles, and projects. Serving is the idea of taking care of the people’s equipment, the people’s money, or the people’s city as if it were your own.
Now the question remains: How do we measure something we cannot see? How do we quantify something we cannot put our hands on or something that is even less studied in public safety? The answer rests in the sciences. We can measure actualization tendency, integrity, and commitment to serving the same way we measure gravity or black holes in space-through cause and effect. We measure the effects of a person’s personality, character, and moral attitude by his actions and the effects of those actions on his environment.
We must understand that assessment instruments are used for collecting information or data-in our case, on individuals seeking to join or wishing to promote in our department. In “The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate” (2006), William Trochim presented insights into the subject of qualitative-quantitative research. Trochim’s comments put the debate in clear perspective: “Qualitative data typically consist of words while quantitative data consist of numbers.” He explains that although these (qualitative/subjective-quantitative/objective data) are fundamentally different, they are interdependent.
Trochim makes a logical point when he states that “anything that is qualitative can be assigned meaningful numerical values” and that “all quantitative data are based on qualitative judgment.” He implies that one research method without the other is extremely unlikely. Each method relies at least to some degree on the other for a complete picture of the data. Trochim says, “The bottom line here is that quantitative and qualitative data are, at the same level, virtually inseparable. Neither exists in a vacuum, nor can one be considered totally devoid of the other.”
How does this apply to public safety and the Hiring/Promotional Triangle? Currently, most public safety agencies, especially fire departments, administer what could be considered only a quantitative test. These tests consist of two main sections or areas on competencies. One mostly measures one’s ability to read, write, comprehend, and calculate math problems; the other measures one’s ability to compete in a given physical agility test in a given time frame. These two tests are often used as a measure of competency (whatever that is) that allows the candidate to proceed to the interview, interviews, or assessment centers, as the case may be. It is the interview or, in the case of promotions, the assessment center that is most often the deciding factor in the public safety hiring/promotional process. After the hiring interviews, a background investigation is usually conducted. Depending on the department, this investigation can be minimal or very extensive. Both processes have one thing in common: They are mostly looking for eliminating factors. In short, we use the quantitative tests to open the door, the qualitative interview to pass judgment, and background investigation to confirm our decision.
Based on the theories of most organizational psychologists, past performance is the best predictor of future performance, and interviews (assessment centers are simply a practical skills version of an interview) are notoriously the worst predictors of future performance. So, how do we measure these three past-performance clusters in the Hiring/Promotional Triangle? Again, we measure them the same way we measure gravity, temperature, a black hole, or the distance to a star-by their effects on the objects or environments around them. In the Hiring/Promotional Triangle case, we gather cause-and-effect information from methodical and complete background investigations. We must understand whom we are measuring and assign real value to what they have done in their past.
If we look at an applicant’s resume or conclude from a comprehensive background investigation that the candidate has taken numerous courses in a variety of subjects or has an advanced degree or even multiple lesser degrees, we may assume he has a high propensity for self-actualization. If an applicant’s resume or comprehensive background investigation indicates that the candidate has served on or participated in several community projects or belongs to community-related organizations, we may conclude the candidate has a construct of service to others or a commitment to serving. Although integrity is a little more subjective, it still remains measurable. If a background investigation reveals numerous violations of the law or if we find out that a candidate has left other employment under less-than-honorable conditions, the financials were out of order, or a psychological test indicates some dishonesty-we might further evaluate his integrity. None of the preceding factors alone are confirming or eliminating by themselves. These investigation findings are simply data used to form a bigger and more accurate picture of the candidate’s standing within the Hiring/Promotional Triangle’s appraisal.
It is only after we have obtained this background information and calculated that an interview or an assessment center should be conducted that the interviewer has enough information on the candidate to conduct a real two-sided dialogue. Communication theories vary among scholars and publications, but in their basic form, these communication models consist of a sender, a message, a medium, a receiver, and feedback. The more complete the message and feedback, and the more informed the sender and receiver, the more effective the communication is. Teachers often have their students read educational material before class so that the dialogue between teacher and student is more fulfilling. In regard to hiring or promoting, data are gathered from background investigations and regurgitated in the interview to create a more fulfilling bilateral dialogue.
The fire service must fix its hiring and promotional filters and begin adding clean fresh water to its personnel tanks. Simply having a measurable test or a filter is not enough. We must understand the desirable symbols we want to measure. We must identify what makes the best employees and what makes the finest and most efficient firefighters, managers, and leaders and then build instruments to measure those qualities.
The fire service has thousands of wonderful and outstanding people in its ranks-firefighters and chiefs. Over the fire service’s long history, there has been an immeasurable number of sacrifices for the benefit of others. It is this tradition of selfless sacrifice and commitment to others that is the catalyst for ensuring that the fire service hires and promotes only those who fit within its mission of service. Using the Hiring/Promotional Triangle and considering a candidate’s actualization tendency, integrity, and a commitment to serving in our hiring and promotional processes, we solidify the foundations that embody public safety, filter out the poisons in our system, and move that proverbial bus on down the road of progressive change.
REFERENCES
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, Stanford, California. http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html.
Ryckman, Richard M. (2013). Theories of Personality. United States: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Seligman, Martin E. P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. Simon and Schuster.
Trochim, William M.K., (2006). “The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate,” in “Qualitative Measures,” Research Methods Knowledge Base. http://pdf.aminer.org/000/248/418/quantitative_and_qualitative_measures_myths_of_the_culture.pdf.
RUSTY SULLIVAN is a captain with the Grandview (MO) Fire Department, where he has served since 1988, and the chief of training for the Metropolitan Community College’s Blue River Public Safety Institute. He has a bachelor’s degree in social psychology with an emphasis in public safety from Ottawa University in Kansas and a master’s degree in conflict management and dispute resolution/analysis from Baker University in Baldwin, Kansas.
Fire Engineering Archives
