By Leigh H. Shapiro
The nature of the firefighting business is rudimentary and therefore highly dependent on trust. Public trust in the fire service is paramount because when we show up to answer citizens’ desperate calls for help—when they hand us an unresponsive infant or wave us into a burning home containing all their worldly possessions—they depend on us with blind trust that we are trained and ready to spring into action to save their child or their property. Volumes have been written and opined on being able to trust the incident commander (IC), with all the common accompanying virtues bestowed on them. But what about ICs being able to trust those whom they command, communicate with, and ultimately depend on while operating at an incident?
- The Real Value of Fire Service Mentoring
- The Dynamics of Change Leadership in the Fire Service
- Fire Officers: Are You a Manager or a Leader?
Trust. That’s what it comes down to. The ability to trust others in their statements, their actions, and their results, and have confidence in their consistency and dependability. Without it, the IC can flounder, lose initiative, and be handed a result that was clearly not intended. The IC is very much like the conductor of an orchestra, trusting that each musician can effectively play their instrument to formulate what is required to produce music. Trust is obviously a two-way street, but as the IC, you must maintain the ability to exercise your trust in key people, crews, or companies on an assignment to get the job done.
For the IC, the concept of trust is built and maintained based on several factors. When interacting with officers or persons in charge, what are your previous personal and professional interactions, if any? How have the individuals in question handled prior incidents and situations? How have they handled privileged information when the opportunity is presented? Are the interactive radio reports you receive on scene valid and relevant? Beyond the usual academic “leadership” and “trust” bullet points, do you have a connection with the individuals you are communicating with? Is there a disconnect and you are left to figure out for yourself what they may be telling or omitting during an incident? Are they minimizing or maximizing key information because that’s how they perceive it or are they playing to a different audience? Do certain individuals or crews constantly need extra attention, coaching, and guidance to succeed, if at all? Have you built relationships with the people you interact with? Has anything you have taught or demonstrated to them had any influence on their conduct? Many firefighters can be habitual bunglers of information and communication and offer you what often seems like an alternate reality in terms of radio and face-to-face reports. Not everyone on the job is a superstar; some may only be there for a steady paycheck, whereas others may see it more as an occupation or vocation rather than a career or a calling. None of these observations serve to denigrate someone’s motivation but rather to illuminate a potential mental state of distraction and disengagement.
Cultivating Trust
What does it take to construct that connection needed for implicit trust? How is it measured from one individual to another, and how does it overcome the “zero credibility” factor? The answers are not so simple. Although hope is certainly not a tactic in the IC’s toolbox, there is, however, a lot of anticipation. One effective method I frequently used while serving as an IC at various incidents was the method aptly named “Management by Walking Around,” which can be found in its entire definition and explanation in any fire officer or business management textbook. This is much like when President Ronald Reagan once remarked while negotiating with the USSR, “Trust but Verify!” On the fireground, I would walk around the scene and compare what I am being told via the radio or face-to-face with what I am seeing and make my own determination if in fact the information was accurate and actionable. Often the crews performing suppression activities are only privy to what they are directly engaged in, and do not see other evolutions playing out as well as changing conditions. It’s not that I distrusted my officers and firefighters; rather, this is simply a way for me to get it right rather than being right and ensure that I can receive the most accurate information to bring the situation to a safe and effective conclusion. The IC is dependent on the individuals’ training, education, and experience to guide them to a successful outcome, because once fire crews enter the building, my eyes are off them, and my entire interaction now becomes an operation of abstract images and concepts based on my own training, education, and experience. I must now believe they are doing the right thing and cautiously embrace my own level of intuitiveness. I must trust. However, being the IC is not solely about formulating strategies and directing companies; effective communication is paramount. As I have often stated, your reputational value is a commodity and should be cultivated and used as such. Status and character may be frequently challenged, and having a less-than-stellar standing follows you around like a foul odor and can ultimately fuel distrust and prohibit you from certain privileges. Layers of confidence should be deliberately established, as often depicted in the term “win my trust.” Each instance builds on another until there is a defined body of trust.
Ultimately, you are compelled to figure out how to interact and work with everyone at all levels to accomplish your goals and objectives, because it will always be about the result, and not the process. Many times, the decisions made by the IC are both strategic and necessary to complete the task, the operation, or the entire incident. Some may argue that putting the right people in the right places is the best method, however we don’t often have that opportunity or those people at our disposal. Trusting in those you are ordering on the fireground to understand direction and complete the tasks safely and effectively is always the defining goal.
An example comes to mind to illustrate what I am referring to: Recently, a weather event in my neighborhood caused a large tree in my yard to fall onto my neighbor’s garage. It required immediate removal, so instead of calling the usual tree service I have used in the past (and trusted based on experience) and possibly waiting a week, I opted to hire another contractor who agreed to remove it immediately. After watching the crew work for several hours, I concluded that I had made a terrible mistake in hiring them because of the way they operated. Yes, the tree was successfully removed in a timely manner, and they certainly cleaned up after themselves, but the sheer lack of safety precautions and total disregard for safe planning and executing of removal techniques was startling. Each time they engaged in cutting and removing the large tree parts, they were setting themselves up for disaster and extreme danger to their own safety, not to mention the increased potential destruction to the objects in the yard. Once completed, I was grateful that nobody got hurt or killed and more damage was avoided.
If this was a fire company or several fire crews, I would have stopped their suppression activities and had them swapped out for other crews. This type of blatant disregard for safety is unacceptable in the fire service, and such behavior often leads to distrust of those individuals or crews who operate in such a manner, reinforcing my expectation bias. But when the officers and firefighters adhere to an attitude of safety, perform their evolutions in an effective and efficient manner, and do not normalize the deviation from safety standards and procedures, my comfort level of trust is safeguarded based on their predictable results. However, even established trust needs to be nurtured because it is wholly based on consistency and dependability.
Some key questions come to mind when deliberating over this issue:
- How would you build trust with your personnel beyond the usual academic bullet points? What is the mortar between the bricks?
- How would you foster growth with your personnel to achieve the desired communication level and status you believe to be most effective?
- What steps would you employ in a situation where there is no connection with the personnel you are interacting with on scene, as may often be the case, yet you still have goals and objectives to achieve to mitigate the incident safely and effectively?
The bottom line is elementary: I cannot teach you how to trust someone, nor can I compel you to implicitly trust anyone. I can, however, illuminate the path forward for the IC standing in front of the building as the rapid oxidation slowly dismantles what was generally considered a sound structure. Trust, like learning, is where you find it. Inherently, humans want to trust each other, and it is incumbent on the IC to exercise that quality to bring the incident to a safe and successful conclusion. Without that trust, we are a less effective team, offer a less reliable service for the public, and ultimately diminish our mission.
Leigh H. Shapiro retired as deputy chief from the Hartford (CT) Fire Department after 28 years of service. He has numerous degrees and certifications, is an adjunct professor for the University of New Haven and Gateway Community College fire science programs, and is an instructor for Connecticut’s Fire Investigator Pre-Certification Program.
