Skip to content


Reminding You of Why We Are Here

1 comment

As things change, so must we.  If we fail to evolve, we become unnecessary, irrelevant, or even extinct. Especially since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, workplace development has improved efficiency and those who understood the changes and made  adjustments to them thrived, those who did not, were left by the side of the road. Firefighting is a lot like that, except that we have the emotional ties of a very highly-respected tradition chained around both feet. Once the populace catches on that it is cheaper for them to protect their home through automation they can trust, we will no longer be in business.

One of the main reasons, I would speculate, that we have not been simply replaced by automatic sprinklers is not because the general populace respects firefighters. It is because Joe Citizen is afraid of a head activation flooding all the floors of their home like what happens in stupid characterizations seen on TV or in movies.  If all we have to do is come mop up after an activation, firefighting isn’t going to be the issue; water-removal and restoration is.  So perhaps that is our avenue to survive.

But the point of my coming back to you all twice a week (for the most part) is to coach you all in survival by brainstorming ways we can provide a better service. The most logical way to do so is to leverage the collective brainpower of those who work with you.  And the only way that will ever bubble to the surface is by having leadership that engages, encourages, and demonstrates transformation. That's where I come in: helping you to understand and embrace transformational leadership.

Being a leader that guides people not based on preserving their jobs but on what that job actually is – serving others – THAT will preserve jobs.  Because as departments that have incorporated all-hazards response have found, there is plenty of work to be had, it’s just not necessarily in fighting fires.

People need individuals and teams that can see a problem and “bring what they brought” to develop a workable solution.  They called us because they lacked resources; tools, knowledge, skills, and/or manpower to solve their problem.  Our job isn’t firefighting, our job is problem-solving.  As was brought up by a comment in an earlier blog, "The Fixers", we aren’t firefighters, per se, but emergency service technicians.  And even then, that’s a reach, because not everything we go to solve is an “emergency”, as I am reminded each time our crews go to help someone get off the floor and back into bed.

I am reminded of a firefighter saying to me once, “Why do we go to these calls?  They aren’t emergencies.”

My answer: “They are to the person who calls us.”

Think about that the next time you are performing a task for a citizen that you don't really want to be doing.  While we like to believe it's all lights and sirens and saving babies and scantily clad women, it isn't.  It is about helping others when they don't know what to do.  As Bill Carey pointed out in that comment, kids don't grow up wanting to be "emergency response technicians", but wanting to be "firefighters".  And the reason why isn't necessarily because we fight fires, it is because they grow up knowing that if they are in trouble somehow, a firefighter is someone they can count on.

For that reason alone, you should be proud that when someone is in need, they call for a firefighter.

Unsafe Until Proven Otherwise

No comments

I look back at my years as a firefighter and paramedic and recall once being held at gunpoint by an irate patient.  This was back in the early 80's and things were a little different then.  While I feared for my life, it was more out of the belief that the gun she was brandishing could go off rather than the prospect of us being held hostage.  She was upset at her husband and she was (looking back on it) more angry at him than frustrated with us.  Fortunately, an alert dispatcher was on the other end of the radio and asked "10-61?" to which the only acceptable answer was "Affirmative".  My officer at the time keyed up and said, "10-4, ma'am, everything is 10-4 here!"

Law enforcement was quick to arrive on scene and like I said, back then, hostage negotiation was more along the lines of one of the officers telling her to put the damn gun away before someone got hurt.  She did, she went to jail, and we lived to tell about it.

I went forward from that night being a lot more aware of my situation.  While later I became a commissioned law enforcement officer (for a while) and learned even more, after that night, at least, I paid more attention to not permitting anyone to get between my crew and the exit, watching people's faces and hands, and lighting up every space I was working in.

These days, incidents like those would have gone much differently.  But these days, the evil is a lot more intense.

While I happen to be a gun owner and I believe in my Constitutional rights, I am concerned about how adding another gun to a situation is going to play out if I were permitted to start carrying a sidearm on duty.  I don't honestly know if that's a good situation.  And while I am a peace-loving and open-minded individual, I am also aware that I have been in positions where I felt threatened and yet was able to negotiate a less-than-violent outcome, whereas had I been armed at the time, the situation might not have ended up so well for the person I was dealing with.

Maybe this is an opportunity to look at a number of things, like the availability of body armor, or equipping personnel with less-lethal means of dealing with violence.  I'm not saying I have the answer.  But what I am saying is that until we can prove a scene otherwise, we need to approach with greater caution these days.  Simply walking up to the front door, standing in front of it and knocking loudly is not what I consider good technique. Ignoring the presence of weapons in a room is not acceptable.  And these are all things I have seen seasoned personnel do in my career, and when pointed out, got this "Are you kidding me?" look.

The point is that if you can PREVENT an incident from getting bad, you need to.  Being observant, keeping a low profile, and taking in the surrounding clues can go a long way toward never letting things go south to begin with.

While this latest incident in Gwinnett County, GA will be dissected and we will learn lessons from it, I don't know how we could have ever prepared for a situation like that faced in West Webster, NY.  But while those incidents are extraordinarily tragic, they happen less so than the violence to providers faced daily around the nation.  And while these very newsworthy incidents illustrate very deranged individuals exist out there, they only scratch the surface of what we have to deal with every shift when we interact with people who are intoxicated, angry, high, delusional, or just have a chip on their shoulder.  And these days, there are a lot of those people out there.

If you don't know how to protect yourself, seek assistance from your local law enforcement agency for tips on approaching subjects.  Be careful going into places where you can't get out of and never let anyone get between you and the way out.  And establish a procedure in case things do go bad and the individual can figure out that pushing that little red button isn't going to be good for them.  Be proactive and hopefully, you never will have to deal with situations like these.

Children

No comments

"It is not for the master of Iaido to control his enemy by his actions, but moreover to control himself and then to defeat his enemy, and to do so in every eventuality, a sudden and decisive sword strike concludes the operation."

My children, being children, want to manipulate and squirm their agenda through any manner of pleading, puppy eyes, and hugs.  Being a parent, however, I know that capitulation is not necessarily an option.  It's not that I don't give in from time to time, but if I were to let my children simply run amok without structure, well, you know how that ends. So for me, "no" means "no", not "well, maybe".

Our subordinates, being adults, don't do the same thing.  Or do they?  Isn't flattery, collegiality and fraternization the same thing?  It is the matter of using the familiar in order to gain advantage.  And with equally tragic results, I see how officers who permit that behavior fare, with constant disciplinary battles and personnel who are less than effective.

It is my hope that my children and my subordinate officers see my style of leadership and recognize that while it is difficult sometimes, good leadership requires self-discipline.  We all are faced with moments where it seems like the easy way is the best way, but down inside, we know that there might be a profound difference in the outcome if we take that easy way out.  It might be something as acute as an injury or death, or it might be at the loss of a lesson that the individual will take with them for the rest of their lives.

Find the strength to maintain your composure, stand your ground, and then put the issue to rest.

Courage

2 comments

Courage is a commitment to something bigger than yourself.  Fear is often considered the opposite of courage, but I would suggest that  fear is an important part of courage. Courage comes when you are more afraid of the consequences than you are of failure, of injury, or of death.

People often do things that are considered courageous to others, but they themselves see as routine.  So I would suggest also that it really depends on your perspective.  The reason we see things differently comes from education and exposure.  To the untrained eye, charging into a fire requires a lot of courage.  To us, we know that we can do things like stay low, or shut doors behind us, or position a line at the stairwell to protect our egress.  We train in fires and we go to many fires, so all of that helps us to maintain our own perspective.  The danger still exists, but we have learned to live with it.

Our acceptance of the danger, however, should not be confused with complacency.  Complacency is laziness; complacency is disrespect of the conditions. We may get conditioned to live with the danger near to us, but we should never underestimate its unpredictable nature.  We may think we have all the facts, but sometimes we do not.

#FRED

No comments

By now you have probably seen my insinuation of something interesting via Twitter, a la #FRED.  A few weeks back I was listening to some chatter and it popped into my head as an idea to examine further, where I see a round-table session on the future of emergency services.  It apparently has some traction because I have heard from some of you all pretty regularly about it.  But while I envision what it could be, I just don't see it in the same format as what a bunch of people seem to keep suggesting, so I figured I'd write about it in more length here and see what pops up.

First off, I see that the issues of emergency response are very similar.  Someone has a problem that exceeds their resource level, be it knowledge base, ability, skill, equipment or whatever, and we have the means to help them. So while the service we provide differs between fire response, rescue response, emergency medical response, or disaster response, these are all areas in which our shared resources make a difference in the community. Thus, FRED.

Now before anyone asks, "Where is law enforcement?" I will tell you. When I came up with this I didn't see them involved, but now I don't even know and have been thinking that especially in regard to homeland security, we need to be closer partners than we already are.  So maybe we need to make room at the table for them too.  Or maybe all of this is wrong.  The question is, do you have an open enough mind to the possibilities and are you willing to share ideas, not ridicule, and not be an elitist?  Do you have the ability to check your ego and be willing to believe anything is possible?

When we were building the South Carolina US&R Task Force, I had a philosophy I shared with the other principals in the formation of the team and they embraced it as well, which helped us get to where that asset is today.  I wanted to see our group be inclusive rather than exclusive.  I envisioned that if someone really wanted to be part of the team, whether they were in a small department or a big department; career or volunteer; EMS, fire, or both or none; or regardless of prior experience – we wanted them.  We wanted desire to commit to excellence over technical skill because honestly, if you have the desire to do a great job but not the skills, we can teach you the skills.  If you have skills but a crappy attitude, there's not much I can do to change your crappy attitude.

Likewise in this endeavor; if you want to learn, this is going to be a forum to do so.  But it's on a grander scale than whether we get a new fire truck next year.  The vision I want to discuss is what we see the future of delivering emergency service to be.

I have begun to research some places in which we can host a round-table situation and how to best moderate it.  It might be a panel of individuals, it might be sessions leading up to a grand session, or it might be something I haven't thought of personally and you will come up with it.  But the storm of change is coming and no matter how hard the sparrow beats his wings, he can't stop the rising winds. I think we have the readers on Firehouse Zen who get it and really want to be the agents of that change.

Are We Off Limits?

1 comment

Nobody on this planet can ever accuse me of not having a heart and soul steeped in the tradition of the fire service.  And an LODD is no laughing matter.  But when the satire site The Onion lampoons a fictional firefighter who dies in the line of duty because he sucks at his job, is it really worth the collective ire that I'm sure will arise from it?

It's satire, and while you or I may find it distateful, it's not like the site says that firefighters themselves are idiots.  If you choose to read the post, the story is that this fictional firefighter survived in spite of his complete incompetence, failing to wear turnout gear, etc., but the reality is, it is satire.  The Onion has tackled virtually every celebrity and institution on record, including every known religion.  So what makes the fire service off limits?

What isn't satire is a real LODD.  And what isn't a laughing matter is the real issues behind a number of the causes of these incidents, which seem to me like an annual recitation of what we tell firefighters not to do, yet, they do anyway. What should be the routine fire becomes a nightmare because we neglect to use a means of accounting for our personnel.  Or we fail to recognize the signs of imminent collapse.  We lose firefighters because they fail to wear seatbelts, which after the number of appeals to correct, should long be a non-issue anymore, yet it still happens.

So while the fictional "Stuart D'Abarno" rushed into buildings without his PPE, nearly died during training drills, burned his hands on hot door knobs, backed into things with the apparatus, and set grease fires in the station kitchen, we have real-life people who do these things with and without consequence.  And that is incompetence defined. And you know, if they die in the line of duty, instead of saying, "Wow, what a screw-up", we celebrate them as heroes.

We should instead focus our outrage on the real people who make the brotherhood look bad by their lack of professionalism on a regular basis.  We should actually be glad that The Onion didn't decide to take on some even more embarrassing moments for the fire serivce, like firefighter arsonists, or fire chiefs taking from the till, or firefighters getting caught running a prostitute ring out of a station. I mean, really, isn't truth stranger than fiction? 

Spring Cleaning

2 comments

Sometimes I start a blog post and don't like how it sounds, so I may bench it for a time where it sparks my interest.  I started this last year and just came back through it again.  

I was thinking about a time where I was helping a family "in need" to spruce up their home.  We were doing a lot of work to the person's yard and some interior patchwork, but I remember wondering how this home got in this condition to begin with.  There were members of the family standing around and not so nicely critiquing the effort a stranger was making on their own time, out of their own pocket, to fix up their family home. I also remember I was thinking, if it was so important to you, why didn’t you step up and fix it yourself?

While there are any number of things we can talk about in that regard, I’m just going to share this one today.  It is the reality that we can polish the outside of the house and fix the cosmetic damage, but if the foundation is unsound, it’s just a matter of time before the place falls apart anyway.  Given the short amount of time we were spending, this home would become acceptable for a period of time, but the overall neglect of the structure for many years only doomed it to eventual failure.

If you truly want organizational success, putting a shine on everything is nice, but the heart of the issues lie at the hearts of the people involved. Together, all that we do, especially in the promotion of our core values and our mission, all works together with shiny fire trucks and ambulances, the uniformity of deployment, procedures, etc.. to create a strong structure. But without the strong foundation of shared values, the organization will not be a lasting success.

Efforts to progress should be positively directed forward, not looking backward, except in an effort to gain perspective. Even then, our look in the rear-view mirror should be brief. If we stare at the rear-view long enough, we are bound to crash into what is in front of us. 

Listen To What You Are Saying

8 comments

So I'm sitting here, taking in a lot of the nonsense circulating on the internet today, thinking that the buzz is the same as always, just insert a different name this week.  However, and this really does fold into our ongoing discussion as well, there are a number of individuals who have learned the art of inflammatory language and like to insert it as desired, whether or not it is apropos to the discussion.  In some cases, the statements are one-liners thrown in simply for impact; some, though, are more like a hand grenade into a crowded room.

I happen to know a little about conflict. There is such a thing as escalation of conflict in which the rhetoric continues to ramp up on either side until it becomes an intractable situation.  Nobody will give ground on either side because doing so would, in their eyes, admit defeat.  Let's take the situation that seems to be the issue du' jour, going on this week in Miami-Dade and courtesy of my buddy Dave Statter.

In no way do I condone the officer's actions in the video.  In fact, the first few times I watched it, I could see the event unfolding WAY before Smart got to the videographer.  It was easy enough to see that he was ready to make his point and that he did, to the point of embarrassment.  You know what though?  I have been in his shoes before and I know how frustrating it is when you have some gawker taking video or rubbernecking at something, especially an emergency you are emotionally vested in, like a serious accident or when a kid is involved.  But the way he handled it, as we have learned from Dave and from Curt Varone, is not just ill-advised, but a violation of the photographer's First Amendment rights.

But while the rest of the nation was hanging Capt. Smart out to dry and even having some punny remarks on his name, one or two individual comments were drowned in the flood.  And while any attempt at perspective these days is considered siding with that party, the reality is that those comments indicated a little observation that there very well might have been prior history.  And when one poster indicated that the videographer's YouTube page included just such evidence, that's where I went.

I suspected that the YouTube page referenced was going to pull up a plethora of Miami-Dade hate, and so it did.  However, I don't see any name attached to the page that matches the name of the videographer in the LZ episode.  The YouTube channel pointed out belonged to "305whistleblower", and I refuse to link to it because frankly, the many videos racked up on there are obviously those intended to inflame and agitate the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue folks.  I don't know what the guy's problem is, but it is apparent he has a beef with the department.

So let's now put the shoe on the other foot.  You are an officer in a department where some troll is following your trucks around making it clear that you are "wasting taxpayer money" and "resuscitating donuts" (his words).  You happen to be working a scene where you have to fly out your patient, and given the nastiness of the gloves, I'm assuming it was a trauma patient.  Of course, one of the flight crew looks over, sees somebody filming everything, makes a comment like, "Man, we're on video." And given the amount of adrenaline already flowing (and I'm not talking about into the patient), everyone goes on high alert.  There is no "flight" response; we are Type "A" take-charge individuals, which I'm sure a line officer in one of the nation's finest fire departments has to be. It is all "fight" and he makes it clear by the way he strides across the field.

In the meanwhile, the videographer (and I'm giving him the benefit of doubt as NOT being 305trollboy, but an innocent member of the public, because I have no evidence otherwise) sees this and stiffens his own resolve.  After all, here I am, taking a video of a helicopter landing in a field, which is pretty cool stuff.  I am on the other side of the street and cars are passing in between me and them.  If it is safe enough for all these people to be standing around out here without a care in the world, I should be fine.  But the first firefighter comes up and makes it clear the issue isn't safety, but the videotaping.  Well, guess what? The videographer has the right to videotape it, just like the people do all the time when they see something of interest, so long as they are safely out of the way.

And then along comes Capt. Smart, who is obviously emotionally off the edge by the time he gets there.  And I don't need to narrate it; the result is an intractable situation in which neither party is going to win.

I'm going to ask you to do something interesting.  Just go to Facebook or Twitter and take note of the comments that bound on language inciting overthrow or accuse the President of the United States of conducting some anti-American agenda.  While I think it is interesting that there are those bent on protecting the United States from armed invaders, immigrants, and other riff-raff are also those who are saying the things most against our own democratically elected government and advocating, in some cases, violent change.  Does anyone expect that productive discussion is going to come out of this kind of language?

Go to any website where any point of controversy is discussed.  If anyone is actually reading it, within moments sides are taken and any effort at reasonable and considered discussion becomes uncivil and names start getting called.  Like the discussion I have been throwing out there recently about the wisdom of an interior attack in a building where tenability is in question and to be honest, the application of an exterior stream for fire control makes more sense.  This makes my simple observation a target of response; despite over thirty years of aggressive (and admittedly, in a lot of cases, stupid) decisions, I am now a "pussy". 

We are never going to come together as a society at this rate. Lines are drawn over any little slight and the knives come out.  Anyone that says something against our views is automatically "the enemy".  Whatever happened to being able to say, "I don't agree, but I am willing to listen?"  And then, in the spirit of being a better person, listening to see what you can gain from the discussion.  If anything, you can find better arguments for your own position by understanding what it is that troubles the other party.  Or even if you were able to listen for a moment, you were able to convince the other person that YOU are right?  Drawing lines doesn't establish anything other than telling the other party there is no chance that anyone will achieve an agreement.

I will reiterate what I said: Capt. Smart let his emotions dictate the situation and he lost the battle.  I don't agree with what happened.  But before the internet pundits flock to his public beating, remember that before Dave and Curt's educating us on these issues, all of us were not only willing to take Capt. Smart's position, we believed it to be our duty to do so.  And not long ago, the screaming would have been different, but we learned this was not the case, so we changed.  And we need to also realize that there are other factors at play here, factors we have no idea about.

Before you all jump to execution for someone who does something wrong, perhaps we should take a breath, consider the different perspectives, and then decide.  There is nothing wrong in learning about what to do and what not to do, but the rhetoric has got to quiet itself.  The hysteria is really out of control and I see this coming to an end that won't be pretty.

Zen Shorts

No comments

Saturday I was scheduled for a day off and then the plans for that day changed.  Instead of canceling my leave, I just decided to do nothing for the day.  For me, "nothing" still involves something.  So I caught up on some correspondence, looked over a few drafts of blogs that have been sitting, then went for a two-hour run.

While it was a beautiful day, it was a little windy, so it wasn't exactly what I consider a leisurely run.  But instead of being glued to a computer monitor, there was need to step away for a second or two and breathe.  

Humans tend to do things not necessarily conducive to their safety when pressed to the limit, and the breathless voices telling us we need to go, go, go must be silenced sometimes.  So today, instead of facing the masses of sheep trying to figure if they will be dying by hurricane or by earthquake (or both), vacationers were heading for the beach, the outlet malls near my home were full of consumers, and I was concentrating on making my footfalls as silent as possible.

Find peace in nothingness sometimes.  That kind of break is important for us all, and in our business we never seem to do enough of it.

Circle of Personal Transformation

2 comments

Going for a paddle is my work.  While the IRS may not agree, my logic is if I get paid for it somehow, it is, and when I am out in the kayak, I am experiencing, I am taking in new ideas, and I am observing my surroundings.  Since Firehouse Zen is a continuous story of asking questions and my “business” is also to ask questions, it must be. And while I occasionally get paid in the coin of the realm when I generate content, it is more important to me that I am getting paid in finding truth about myself and the people who surround me.  It is a constant effort of take and give, give and take.

When I was a young officer, I believed my role was to have the answers. As a chief officer nearing the end of my career, I realize that my role is actually to ask questions.  Paradoxically, when I was a young officer, I fought continuously to take in as much as I could. Now I find myself giving it all away.  And while I sometimes wonder if I should be out at all the fire and emergency service expos, conferences, trade shows, and etcetera, I find that the experiences I continue to have outside of the usual places seem to be growing my library of knowledge.  But that isn't sharing, that's taking, so I have to keep finding ways to get that message out while maximizing my opportunities to learn more.

As you probably already know, lightning follows the most direct path to ground.  But to use this analogy in the context of being able to draw and channel that energy, there are factors that must be met.  You have to be present when the energy is accumulating; then there has to be a lack of resistance; there has to be a conduction of the energy and permission for it to flow.  If the energy slows, if it encounters resistance, it creates heat, it creates damage. It might even stop and find a new way to go to ground, destroying what can’t contain it.  As a "student of the game". you have to be present in thought, willing to listen, and willing to understand.

Lightning isn’t a thinking thing, a living being.  It is simply energy, generated somehow when there is friction, and seeking a means to go to the earth.  Learning isn't a thing we can touch, but it is "energy" in that challenges are identified, "friction" is generated, and we have to find a way to solve the problems.  Being open to new experience creates growth.

These parallels exist in our everyday being and provide us a way to relate to what is going on around us.  Just like a funny story, when we both laugh, we have a shared connection and we can relate easier, we can begin to speak the truth.  And like the world around us, there are ways to illustrate what we are experiencing that are graphic, that are relatively tangible, but these stories actually open up our minds to other questions.  And that’s the way it should be.

No Trash Talking

3 comments

Cicero said it best: "We do not destroy religion by destroying superstition." In fighting fire, however, if you suggest at all that doing things differently because the science indicates a better way, you'd think we were saying that the Earth was actually round.  

Oh, yeah, that's right, the Earth IS round.  Really, it is.  Think back to those boring days of middle school, where we learned that the world being round was suggested by individuals who were then persecuted for suggesting such a thing.  And in the fire service, it is true, that if you suggest doing things differently because the science says so, you too, are considered a heretic and burned at the figurative stake on the internet.  Just read the comments and you shall see, it is true.

My father had a pretty serious heart attack this week and fortunately, was seen, evaluated, and sustained intervention for his potentially lethal LAD obstruction.  He is snoozing peacefully at his own home in his own bed as I write this, courtesy of the modern miracle of medicine, for something that in my own lifetime, pretty much would have been a death sentence.  The side benefit of these little disasters, however, is the chance to have side talks with my brother, who is on the cutting edge of the fire service in his own right, only he doesn't choose to have a nifty little blog like I do to talk about it.

We were talking about some studies in regard to the application of exterior streams to rapidly moving interior fire conditions, something that is seen to some in our business as being, let's see, "cowardly".  As I said, however, as much as I too like to roll around in the heat and byproducts of combustion, from a purely scientific standpoint, it makes better sense to apply streams to the fire from the outside to control the fire quickly, rather than try to engage it automatically from inside.  Rolling around on the inside of a burning building is not only hazardous, but in some moments, unnecessary, to achieve what it is we need to do.

Now this is certainly an oversimplification of the scenario, because there are other factors, but my point is that regardless of the science, there are those who profess to be immersed in the state of the firefighting art who think that just because they too like to get in and be "one with the Red Devil", that it actually makes sense to do so.  And I am not saying (in this post) that it is right or wrong.  

What I AM saying is, that we have many who resist the suggestion that change is warranted, not because of any other reason than their desire to do things the way we have always been doing things, and more often than not, because the changes being suggested happen to conflict with their mental image of the dashing, courageous firefighters of old, leaping into the flames and carrying out young damsels in distress and anything else that happens to make good headlines, like Fluffy, or a case of really good wine.

I guess that in the opinion of some, my father's heart attack might have been better off addressed by the liberal application of leeches, or bed rest and opium.  But then, people died pretty often from things in years gone by that they don't die from today.  You know: that science thing.

We can continue to keep our heads in the sand about advances in research, but like I have said, simply addressing the art of fighting fire from a fiscal aspect (and not an emotional one), each of my firefighters represents not only a living human being, but an expensive investment.  And while throwing bodies into a battle without regard for how many lives are lost might have been the way you win wars in the pre-Napoleonic days, we realized that wars of attrition were more practically won through strategy and prudent use of resources, being that the losses were faced by the other side, not our own.

I have been batting around some ideas for the "vision" of fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency management on the FHZ Twitter feed lately and getting some interesting comments via hashtag "FRED" (#FRED) and maybe its time to have some more open dialogue over what we should or should not be doing in our quest to save lives, property and the environment.  At any means, I see this as opening up conversations that will be uncomfortable to some of you, simply due to the reactions I see when someone suggests doing things differently.  But perspective is a funny thing and unless you open your mind up to a different alternative, you are doomed to only see one way of doing things.  That one way isn't an issue if things are going perfectly, but every time I see an LODD that could be prevented, I'm thinking that isn't currently the case.

What do you have to say about this?  Are you interested in a new reality?  Are you interested in doing things better with less of a chance of losing more brothers in unnecessary and inefficient charges against an unwinnable situation?  Or are you okay with the world being flat?

Je Ne Sais Pas

No comments

Of the words in the English language, "I don't know" are three of the least helpful.  When I took three years of French, the first sentence I memorized was "Je ne sais pas" and for good reason I could remember it, because I still, to this day, can't speak or understand the language (however, I understand "No sé" just fine, although I do speak a little Espanol).

When I am asked a question for which I don't know the answer, I learned a long time ago to not pretend to know.  Someone with a huge ego might be troubled by admitting they don't know the answer, but in reality, I think most people would rather find out you don't know something when you tell them so than finding out when you tell them something they think to be true and find out you are clueless later.

We have all had these kinds of "knowledgable" people as our supervisors before.  We usually just say they are full of shit.  And the sad part is, everyone on the floor knows them and thinks the same thing, that they are full of shit.  This deluded individual keeps walking around the station, thinking everyone respects them, and in truth, everyone thinks he is a total dumbass.  Personally, I'd rather know you think I'm a dumbass than be walking around thinking everyone thinks I'm a God, but really thinks I'm a dumbass. I don't know.

I get asked questions about how to deal with these types a lot.  It's one of my most popular questions, next to "How can I create positive change in a negative culture that doesn't want to change?"  And can you guess what my answer to both of these questions is? Yes, I do not know.

And I say I don't know not because I haven't been able to deal successfully with these types in my career, but because in every case there are differences in context that are hard to understand.  I can offer all kinds of helpful advice, but the reality is that I don't, in fact, know.  How can I know if I am not in your shoes?  I can be empathetic, but every individual brings a different dynamic to it.

There is a passage by the martial master Zhuge Liang in his commentaries on The Art of War that says, "To overcome the intelligent by folly is against the natural order of things; to overcome the foolish with intelligence is in accord with the natural order."  To me, if you are interested in creating change and have good reasons for doing so, there should be an easy way to make things happen.  But this doesn't always work, and for no good reason sometimes.

I take the approach that I can control what I can control in this world and anything outside of that little realm, I can't worry about.  I can try and make positive change happen, but while I can drag the horse to the water, I can't make it drink.  Unfortunately, some people can not find it in their heart to change.  So that brings us back to what we asked to begin with.

There are, unfortunately, situations in our lives that don't seem fair.  Sometimes these situations are completely out of our control and some of them can be opportunities for change.  But that doesn't always pan out the way we'd like.  I can think back on times when my choice was to wait things out and in doing so I missed opportunities for growth and conversely, I can remember times where I chose to move on and found that things improved when I left.  

These are personal choices and we have to make the best of our current status and try to make good decisions based on realistic observation, assessment, and consideration of the options.  I believe that it does because it has for me more often than not.  Assessing our next step works well if we can maintain objectivity and if we don't, and make decisions purely on emotion, they tend not to work out so well.

I wish I had all the answers, but I do not.  I have many questions I want to ask myself and know that nobody else has the answers either.  All we can do is continue to strive to be good, fair, and seek continual improvement and when we don't know something, simply say, "I don't know." Then together try to find a solution.

I Am A Bully

No comments

Curt Varone wrote an excellent post on the Fire Law blog today on the concept of cyberbullying,  this after a firefighter posted photos that could be construed as unflattering and might even go on to be considered hateful.  He even presented this poignant question: “How do we, as members of the Internet community, draw our own lines about what is and is not fair game when it comes to humor, satire and parody?”

So, after reading the post, I replied about how much I enjoyed the article and how it seems, to me, to be an issue of maturity and self-control, which we will talk about in a second.  After hitting the send button, I watched the extraordinarily funny video on the “People of Walmart” that he used as an example, and thinking it to be a good illustration of why I prefer not to shop at Walmart, I shared that video on my Facebook page.

I then sat and sipped on my triple espresso and began to write a sanctimonious post on how bullies were ruining the internet, blah, blah, blah…

The funny part about being introspective is that when you begin to practice it, you see yourself in a whole different light, and each time, you begin to see it more quickly (as in, before regretting it, sometimes).  As I began to write and speak about how people are different and we needed to be a little more appreciative of differences in individuals, it occurred to me that by sharing the Walmart video, I wasn’t any better than anyone else.  Not only that, I was a hypocrite, which is precisely the one thing I don’t ever want to be.

Curt asked this of us:

“Can we protect Jayden [the subject of the post] and still have our funny Walmart photos? Is there a line that can be drawn that makes one OK and the other not?”

In my comment to Curt, I stated: “I think that a lot of problems [in what could be considered cyberbullying] could be traced back to maturity and some personal self-control [sic].” Not a very well written sentence with the redundancy, but you get it, I hope.  My point, however was that there have been plenty of times where an inappropriate comment or reply has crossed my mind, something that in context might have been funny, even between me and the subject, but then I thought better of it. 

I believe, of course, that there is nothing wrong with sarcasm, cynicism, or even good ol’ fashioned sophomoric humor.  But the bigger question has always been: Do I want this attributed to me?” Or do I want it to be seen by people who see me as being above that?  Or is this how I want to represent Firehouse Zen?  Or the greater emergency services culture?

I said in that comment that it “almost” seems to me to be the equivalent of handing a child a weapon.  Given the outcomes of some of the more publicized events (suicide or retaliatory homicide), maybe that isn’t so far of a reach. The child doesn’t necessarily understand the power they are holding.  They don’t have a grasp on the gravity of the situation.  With the pull of a trigger, they can launch down an irrevocable path with unbelievable repercussions.  The child may mean absolutely nothing in doing so.  The action might even be the result of mishandling the weapon.  But regardless of intention, it still does damage.

The pro-gun folks could have a field day with this discussion, but it is completely relevant: How do we regulate something with so much power to change lives, so that those who don’t understand or can’t appreciate the outcomes don’t end up with the ability to hurt others?  Do we take it away?  Do we restrict access?  Or is this truly an adaptive issue we need to address not through a technical fix, but through a change in culture? I don't believe an across-the-board ban on internet speech is any more useful than an across-the-board ban on weapons.  But the million dollar question is how do we manage to protect the vulnerable from those who mean them harm, regardless of the context?

I have no doubts that there are plenty of malicious individuals on the internet.  I see them every day, cowering behind their keyboards, making references, creating innuendo, spouting about subjects of which they have no knowledge, and doing so without repercussion.  There are comments I read that frankly, make me think to myself that I’d love to meet that individual and push their f***ing teeth in. 

But while the internet is not for the weak of heart, it provides us the ability to share information that we couldn’t do before.  With the “send” button firmly pushed, I can converse with people in foreign lands, people who I would never have met, or may not ever meet, just because of the issues of time and place.  The thing I can see as being a precious tool that has changed my life can, honestly, also be used against me if someone so chooses, and with my being able to do nothing about it.  So just as we don’t go walking into saloons with revolvers strapped to both hips without expecting a fight, there are places and people and conversations to avoid on the internet as not to cause yourself to be the focus of someone’s “weapon”.  But honestly, I also don’t want to be a cyberbully either, so I must resolve to be what I say I am and not contribute to the distribution of the same material.

In reference to the Walmart video; it IS funny.  It is accurate in that these people have gone into a Walmart and been photographed in public.  And I concede that if you do these things, perhaps you open yourself up to a certain amount of criticism or ridicule.  But on the other hand, I found it pretty tragic as well. Really, who knows if some of these people aren’t suffering from an emotional disturbance or simply are clueless about how they look or what it is they are doing.  Like I have heard said, “They obviously don’t have friends or a mirror.”  You know, really, we should be instead grateful that we aren't ourselves suffering the same fate.

One person may not be able to change the world overnight, but we can at least give it our best shot.  Being human, I realize that I can’t control everything, but I can control myself and be a responsible individual and a good example for my family, friends and colleagues.  And while I may laugh, I need to do so in a way that isn’t mean or hurtful to others, despite how viral the laughing might be. 

Watch where you are pointing, because tomorrow, the pointing could very well be in your direction.

The FNG

No comments

I was someplace the other day and ran into this guy who I remembered from my very young days as a rookie firefighter.  I was in my Class A, which has a few shiny things on it, as well as 32 years worth of Maltese crosses on the sleeve. So I guess I looked moderately important, I don't know. But the guy Introduced himself and asked me if I knew who he was and I responded that I did.  And he proceeded to act like I was his new best friend, because he cornered me to chat for a while. 

Unfortunately, the reason I remember him is because when I was a rookie firefighter, he wouldn't give me the time of day.  Fortunately, I am well past the point in my life where I would have held that against him.  In a way, even, I feel sorry for him.  When I retire, I would hope people spoke of me fondly and reverently, but in this case, I'd bet not many of my colleagues knew who this individual was, nor did they care.  He was pretty important in his time, but I also remember the wedges he drove between people in order to further his agenda.  

As a brand new member, I remember that I had time and energy to contribute and I wanted to be involved, yet my help was unwelcome. I know now that it had more about my being a firefighter than about me personally (this was in a third-party EMS setting), but it still stung at the time.  This brings me to the question of how we treat our new personnel.  While it is one thing to accord a certain amount of ambivalence to the new guys until they can earn your attention, it is a whole different issue to just be disrespectful and dismissive.  Remember those guys who had a little power and exerted it on you just because they could?  The ones who were big fish in a small puddle and the way they got their power fix was to take it out on you?  That, my friends, defines bullying behavior.  That, my friends also defines a hostile workplace.  These days, not only is it boorish behavior, it is against the law.  

I am not saying you need to have a group hug and a round of Kumbaya.  A good leader should simply be fair, understanding, and even objectively detached, while being there to guide and mentor.  You don't need to be the FNG's new best buddy, and in fact, that would be a huge mistake.  You need to be the designated adult supervision, which means you need to act professional and display behavior you would like to see emulated by your new member.

So while my ego may have suffered a bruise over the years, I lived to tell about it.  I can even laugh about it now. The good thing I took from it though, was that I wouldn't treat other people like that and if anything, like any other bad situation, instead of dwelling on it I learned to grow through it.  Be open-minded and receptive to lessons learned in adversity, and it will make you a stronger leader.

Change Your Mind

No comments

When I was very young and was grappling with the nuances of the language, I used the word "loathe" to express my "dislike" of something.  I'm pretty sure I didn't use it to describe my feelings for my siblings, but my memory isn't that good.  My mother, who I think I got the writing gene from, explained to me the difference between "loathe" and "don't like", and with that, I understood the subtleties of one more word in our language.

In this spirit, I'm trying to be helpful.  When you express your disagreement with a fellow human being, it is not the same as saying you don't like Brussels sprouts.  The growers of Brussels sprouts may not agree with me, but Brussels sprouts don't have feelings, or at least none that we are aware of yet.  They don't have children that look up to them.  They don't have colleagues and friends with whom they have to maintain some mutual relationships with.  So saying you "hate" Brussels sprouts doesn't have immediate impact.  Expressing your opinion of the worthlessness of Brussels sprouts, unless you are the President of the United States, doesn't create a change in the popularity of them.

When speaking of others, when you say that someone is different than you, that is an observation of fact in many cases.  When you say they are stupid or backwards or simply wrong, you are basing that observation on your own perspective, and while you may feel strongly about that emotion, you also may very well be wrong.  And then who is the stupid one?

The debates we entertain in society these days don't seem to be anything other than shouting matches for the intolerant.  There is a lot of merit to the understanding that in a lot of cases, when one opens their mouth, very often they expose their ignorance.  As these arguments are hashed out not over reasoned discussion but inflammatory sound bites, one must really look at the way we choose to talk to one another and the damage it is doing to us all as a society.

I think it is very important to hear the thoughts of others.  This would be great if those thoughts were framed in the context that they are your thoughts and you are interested in trying to educate others.  A statement that you understand that and you are interested in hearing alternate viewpoints is valuable when you are engaging others.  But unfortunately, where the discussion is left open and unfettered, where people fail to remain on point, they use not only poor reasoning, but in some cases, slanderous, unfounded, and utterly ignorant rhetoric.  While this may be acceptable to some, and maybe even in a perverse sort of way, to them, amusing (a la Jackass, where we watch individuals making stupid decisions and laugh at the consequences) in my observation it is simply permitting the type of attitude that evolves toward less than desirable outcomes.

There is nothing healthy about poking at something with a stick to see what it will do.  I'd bet the Romans probably wished they hadn't been lording their power over the world when the barbarians finally figured out how to cross the Rhine. If you are sitting around, smug in your belief that you are in a position of power, or righteousness, or whatever ego-inflating situation you happen to see yourself in, think again.  Conditions change, other vantage points become apparent, and additional factors come into play.  Just because you think yourself right today, tomorrow can bring an entirely new way of thought.

Today I went out in my kayak to clear my head and to get ready for the upcoming week, a meditation of sorts.  I am by myself, I am paying attention to everything going on around me, and I don't have the backscatter going on that distracts me from one task or another.  In these cases, I am constantly listening.  I relax and listen to what is going on around me.  It is something I began to develop more in watching some of the people I respect greatly, in that they listen and take in what is being said, and then reflect it back, with maybe their ideas on the subject.  But they aren't talking, they are listening.  They aren't judging, they aren't criticizing, they aren't telling you how to do something, or why they are right.  They listen, they relate, and they suggest.

Instead of telling people what you think, maybe you should take a moment and listen to others.  While doing so might educate you on these points of view, I would bet that you will also find yourself in a position where people are willing to look toward you as a voice of reason and enlightened when that kind of viewpoint is most valuable.

Loser

No comments

In our business, unfortunately, we don't always get to pick when and where we have our battles.  I don't mean this in the context of leading, but in the context of response and operations.  

Simply said, our overarching goal as an incident commander should be to dictate the conditions, not to permit the conditions to dictate to us.  But no matter what, we are on the defense on every call, despite our terminology; we didn't choose to engage in battle at the time, it was chosen for us, so offensive, defensive, or transitionally, we are really always starting on the idea that we defend, even if that defense is an aggressive offense.

Sun Tzu's warnings are clear that a good general doesn't go into battle unprepared.  Zhuge Liang's commentaries on leadership suggest the need for picking the place of engagement to obtain maximum effect.  Clausewitz cautions that we have to cut through the "fog of war" to get to the real essence of situational awareness.  But these classics all are predicated on the general's ability to maneuver out of a situation where they are put into conflict without adequate preparation.  We don't have that luxury.

When we are called out after midnight to respond to a structure fire, we are already on our heels.  When we are alerted to a cardiac arrest on a fine spring afternoon, we didn't necessarily expect it to happen.  We prepare for these events through training, but what we can't prepare for are the contributing factors that led to this disaster occurring at that moment, at that place, and in that context.  The fight may already be lost by the time we arrive to the battlefield and we have to keep that idea tucked away in the back of our heads and prepare for the proper reaction to those events.  Adding to disaster by refusing to admit our need to defend is the downfall of many a general, and many a fire chief.

On a recent call, my crews were unable, despite extraordinary and valiant efforts, to reverse the outcome.  In the past, perhaps they would be more accepting, but in light of recent changes to our strategies, these guys have been enjoying the fruits of their labor and they have been pulling off some amazing work.  Today, however, all of that effort was notable, but not able to change what was already writ.  I could see the expressions on their faces as they questioned what else they could have done.  I spoke with them and encouraged them, but it was obvious, they had gotten so used to winning that losing was just not an option.

Despite our best efforts, we lose from time to time.  There are parking lots out there that were predestined, rather than created by failure on the part of the incident commander.  People die sometimes catastrophically, with the only possible saving intervention being bright lights and cold steel.  Rather than dwell on the loss, it is imperative that we review our actions, determine the things we did right, analyze the things we could improve on, and prepare for the next battle.  The greatest sports teams, the most powerful armies, and the most skilled negotiators lose on occasion.  The difference between their continued success and sliding into the pit of failure is their ability to look creatively and insightfully to what occurred and to create means of learning from the issues they were presented.  If anything, simply maintaining status quo might be a save if the only other alternative was lost ground.

Good leaders find value even in a loss.  They may not like it and in fact, should not.  But they can look at the loss and see the opportunity to educate and to reset things, if that is necessary.  We should never "accept" a loss, but use it for what it is; a chance to grow.

Your Altruism Is Hereby Noted

No comments

I was reading the never-ending stream of discussion on Dave Statter's site about the AZ fire department refusing respond to a structure fire three miles away from their station because the home was in an area that was not paying for fire service.  And we have had this discussion many times before, here on Firehouse Zen, a la South Fulton County and others.  And I am constantly surprised at the discussions that go on regarding the "pay to spray" concept, since, by now, I would have thought most communities in our nation would have gotten a clue and done something about it, one way or another, or would stop acting so surprised when it happens again.  And it keeps happening again. And again.

When I was a very young firefighter, I remember this very same kind of event occurring with a subscription fire department.  I also remember being outraged that something Ike this could occur. Really, we are altruists, we firefighters, and we do this stuff not for the pay but for the love of our fellow man.  Right?  But, some thirty years later and more jaded and cynical, I wade into this conversation with a dose of reality for you.  While it is great that we are all so willing to serve and to lay down our lives for others, there comes a serious discussion that is higher on the food chain than we happen to be.  This discussion lies at the feet of those who make these policy decisions, at the jurisdictional level, and with those who claim the fire service is gutting their wallet for all they can get, then act stupid when we tell them all this stuff costs money.

This situation is heartbreaking and I can certainly empathize with the homeowner, my own family having lost everything we had to fire when I was young.  But I also know from the perspective of a community activist: if a necessary service or facility is needed in my neighborhood, I work to fix it, or build it, or develop it.  I don't sit around and wait for someone else to do it.  If I were in a situation like this, I'd work with my local fire department to get them funding.  I would help with fund raising.  I would be a total pain in the ass to my elected officials and agitate to resolve the problem.  But I wouldn't just stick my head in the sand and hope nothing happened.

Please don't take my tone as being disparaging to those of you who feel the urge to help regardless of whether the person pays or not.  I certainly believe in selfless service to my neighbor.  I am happy to be there in their time of need and regardless of their ability to pay.  But I have a question for those of you who are getting emotional: "How many times does it have to happen before the elected officials in these communities get a clue and ensure that sustained funding is provided for fire protection?"

I feel stupid just repeating it, because the subject has been covered SO MANY TIMES; these trucks cost money.  The fuel to send them costs money.  The equipment on them costs money.  The insurance costs money.  The protective gear we wear costs money.  The station we respond out of costs money.  It's not even an issue of paying salaries and benefits; just the most elemental of operations at least requires the means to put out the fire and that requires funding. Do the citizens in these neighborhoods just assume the fire department will pay for these needs and they can get by without paying for the service?

You take a gamble when you decide to go uninsured, or in this case, live in a community who won't pay the bills.  While I agree that there are likely some contributing factors, it is as simple as this: If I lived in a community and there wasn't police protection, I'd find out why.  If the community leaders refused to help, I would do something about it.  Or perhaps (which will make the pro-gun advocates jump with joy) I would arm to protect myself.  But I wouldn't keep quiet and accept that I would be without help in the event I needed it.  

The real tragedy is that over the history of our nation, when "real" leaders realized fire protection was substandard, or too far away, or wouldn't be available to them, they organized their own fire protection.  In this day and age, one could even add sprinklers to one's home, you could be fire safe and maintain your home and property correctly, and if you absolutely had to, you could even provide your own fire apparatus (people still do this).  But even if one can't afford to pay a subscription, there should be some alternative solutions, like a community grant to pay for those who haven't the means, or maybe even some work equity to pay the subscription off.

This leads into discussion on the situation in these communities in regard to "service".  Volunteerism is a highly commendable and altruistic calling, not just in the fire service, but in many community services who lack the resources afforded to other projects.  I volunteer as an advocate for those with Down syndrome; I volunteer to help the homeless and hungry; I served for years with a camp for children who have vision challenges; and I support a whole range of other causes.  I would never withhold assistance to someone who needed help.  In fact, that is why we are there, to help.  But if the people who need the help can't fund the service, it is incumbent upon us, as leaders of these projects, to find out where to get those funds.  I may seek corporate funding, or community funding, or tax funding, or pay for things out of my pocket.  But the money has to come from somewhere, and if we were in the situation of helping someone who could afford help, I would certainly expect them to have some equity in the solution.

"Pay For Spray" is a pretty derogatory descriptor of the situation.  I would bet that the firefighters in these communities are challenged between doing what is right to help their neighbors and the elected officials who chose to abandon their responsibility for ensuring public safety needs are adequate.  This is not an enviable position to be in. But frankly, those of you who are so aggrieved by this situation should really consider moving to these areas and offering your services free of charge, putting diesel in using your credit card, and paying the light bill, because it sounds like they would love to have you pay for it all out of your pocket.

Instead of bashing the department's chief for having to make a tough decision, perhaps we should focus the blame squarely on those  who created the problem: The taxpayers and politicians who knew they had coverage issues and elected to abandon their neighbors out of convenience.  If you have a subscription service, as I said before, you'd better have an alternative plan in the event someone doesn't pay and you have to go into action.  And if the answer from the town fathers is, "Too bad", that should be widely known in the community, in the media, and everyone involved, and there should be no shock when it actually occurs, because trust me, it will.

 

Next Man Up

No comments

I was catching up on my reading and came upon an interesting tidbit.  While I have heard it said before, I never really ascribed to the concept that when a leader is cut down, the enemy is unable to function.  This was apparently a widely held belief in World War II which led to some surprise when, after cutting down an officer, confusion did not necessarily occur.

On teams where a leader takes a very regimented stance and fails to entrust his or her subordinates with the "keys to the ship", there may very well be some disarray when something happens to that leader.  Believing that to be true disregards the power of initiative when the leader falls, which has historically been the very opportunity seized by those who are now considered to be our most treasured heroes.  Think of all of the Congressional Medal of Valor winners who have stepped up in the wake of a lost officer.  Think about the forces of the FDNY who charged forward when they lost so many of their commanders on 9-11-2001.  And you can trace back throughout the story of mankind where this has happened again and again.

It is necessary for not only officers to show leadership, but everyone, all the way to the probie on their first shift.  It is important to know that being a leader is contextual.  You may not be the ranking officer on your department, but when something goes wrong, you may very well be the one who has to step forward and take action. You may need to be the one who says, "Follow me" and charges ahead.  Or you may be the one to coax someone to go be seen by a physician even though it's three in the morning and you don't feel like transporting, but because this individual needs your leadership at that moment, you do it, and it's because it's the right thing to do.

Leading implies by its very nature that you are "in front".  And being in front places you in a very vulnerable position.  But the vulnerability keeps us honest and causes us, if we really are leaders, to act with diligence and to be restrained when it becomes advantageous, especially for those whom we lead.  Leading is mostly give and sometimes take, but mostly give again and again.  Leading is serving others.

We have to foster leadership tendencies in our followers and this is best done by our example.  Being a "just" leader shows everyone that doing the right things for others has merit, and it hopefully breeds a culture of everyone on the team doing these same things and stepping in if something happens to you, and then even with the same results.

Share your vision with others, especially those on your team, and bring them up to your level.  They will in turn lighten your load and someday, hopefully, cause you an enormous amount of pride.

Another Lesson To Be Learned – More of What You Don’t Want To Hear

No comments

It is not for the master to control his enemies by his actions, but to control himself and then to defeat his enemy. This is a tenet of many martial arts, the one I am referencing today being Iaido.  My daughters like playing that silly Fruit Ninja game that everyone seems to have on their smart device.  When I saw them playing it and slashing wildly at everything that popped up on the screen, I realize it's part of the game, but I wanted to say, "That's not how you use a katana".

Knowing a little more about the use of katana in something other than the dissection of vegetables, I found it pretty typical that as in much of what we have been talking about lately, there is the right way and the wrong way to go about things.  Swinging a sharpened virtual device at anything that moves, I guess, is entertaining.  However, if you weren't aware (and not too many people are) simply the act of drawing a katana from its sheath ("saya") is an art-form in itself, called "Iaido".  The term Iaido is often translated as "the way of harmonious living". Literally, it is "understanding your surroundings, controlling your emotions, and adapting to circumstance, then returning to normal."  Sound like anything I have been trying to get you all to understand?

Yes, slashing at fruit is just a kids game on the iPhone.  But it takes me through each of these lessons I am trying to get across to you right now.  The warriors of old used extraordinary skill in leading and were revered by their contemporaries in a time without global news networks and the internet.  These people were able to mobilize others to defend their lands, to maintain the honor of their traditions, and their stories live on, in some cases, more than a thousand years later.  The traditions they used prepared students for critical thinking by forcing them to pay attention to the details. When a katana was drawn from its saya, it was done with deep consideration, because it was designed not for an extended Hollywood sword battle but for one decisive chop: end of fight.

A katana was considered the "soul" of the warrior.  The principal weapon of the samurai were actually bows, spears, and the like, before getting down to one-on-one killing, if necessary, with the katana. There were advocates of dual sword fighting and "fencing" but those techniques, according to the sources I have read, were not as prevalent as Westerners would like to believe (because that's pretty exciting stuff).

When the katana came out, it was time for business.  Quick, decisive, final, powerful, but graceful.  Likewise, leading is more than being the boss.  Leading is more than exerting power.  Leading implies taking a deep breath, seeking to know the conditions, and battling on ground in which you can win, or adapting the battle plan to do so.  Leading the right way means doing so where others are watching, admiring your skill, seeing you for the example you should be setting.  And more importantly, making the right decisions as a warrior back then were essential; failure was considered a humiliation that could only be rectified by seppuku, or ritual suicide.

It is easy to go along with the crowd and make lots of noise when you aren't happy.  Children do this all the time.  Real leaders exhibit the ability to seek the answers, even when it isn't something they want to hear.  Even when those answers are telling you that we have been doing something wrong for the past couple of decades and we need to evolve.  I don't like letting go of the past anymore than you do, but there comes a time when, if you don't make the decision to evolve, someone will make it for you.  And as we have said many times before, if it comes down to making changes, I'd just as soon be the one deciding how to do it than someone else deciding for me.

Read this and understand it, because it's going to get deeper here soon and I can guarantee you, it's going to make some people upset.  But it is reality.

“What You Need” Continues

Comments Off

I originally wrote this on Christmas Day.  I was at my place, eating chicken and rice soup.  While I would have liked to be doing other things, I had some sort of head cold.  Knowing that what I really needed to do was to rest, it's certainly not what I would rather have been doing.  This isn't a desire for sympathy; I am making a point.  This action was not an act of selflessness but an act of necessity.

My oldest daughter is sick today, however.  I told her last week we would go geocaching today, and she has been talking about it ever since.  But yesterday she came down with a temperature and today, knowing she's going to have to go to school tomorrow, I'm not so sure we will be out looking for goodies.  This isn't making me very popular, but this isn't a popularity contest.  I'm the dad, the designated adult supervision, just like in my regular job as a Battalion Chief.

While in both situations this local crud is the topic d'jour, the whole point in even bringing this up is that I have a decision to make.  In one case it is for my benefit, in another, for someone else's. A conscious decision has been made on what must be done, the effects of the actions on others must be considered, and tough choices must be made.  I agree its a miserable way to spend your Christmas or a weekend, but its part of the situation I have to deal with.  I approached the problem using logic, not my emotions.  Hopefully I will be right.

This brings us back to the issue of what we want versus what we need.  It's the age-old debate of resisting temptation to do what we are supposed to be doing.  You know, the difference between doing what feels good at the time and doing what is going to be best for everyone in the end.  And you are going to have to bear with me, as I too am under the influence of cough medicine and other antihistamines, so I'm going to do something stupid.  I am going to wade into the issue of the frat house culture in many fire stations and why it is a bad thing.

Thus, I happen to have grown up in the fire service in a time where the horseplay and the antics were acceptable, so I have my share of "funny" stories.  Lately, none seem to be coming to mind, because frankly, I take a very dim view of that kind of nonsense going on in any of the stations I am responsible for these days, and with good reason.

We can use the business analogy and realize that again, our citizen taxpayer funding base these days also takes a dim view of a bunch of guys pulling jokes on each other while they are being paid good money to be productive.  I think the rationale is that "If I have to be miserable when I am working, so do you."  I don't think being miserable at work is absolutely necessary, but I'm sure it chaps the asses of a few in the community when they think you are more preoccupied in saran-wrapping a toilet than in protecting their loved ones during that 24 hour shift.

Even worse, though, is the negative implications these antics have in the community when they are seen by the public in regard to their trust in your ability to do the job.  And now more than ever, we need the public to trust us: trust us when we tell them they need to evacuate a building, trust us when we tell them we need better equipment, or are defending our budget, and to trust us when we are holding their lives in our hands.

So as hard as it is for some of you to rein in your inner advocate for either side of the issue, let's look at the REAL problem. The issue is that our culture should be one of quiet professionalism rather than juvenile behavior.  In the fire service, one of the issues we need to deal with is recruitment.  Do we want to attract individuals who exhibit questionable judgment and poor self-restraint?  Or those who will serve as pillars of the community?  If we act like we have a frat house mentality, we will attract those very same individuals.

But this post is not meant to suggest a solution to the problem of this behavior directly.  What I want you to do, rather, is to step back from the debate a second and view this situation, as Heifetz and Linsky so eloquently described, from the balcony.  

At some point, I would bet both sides could have agreed that this problem is one we agree on.  We would all like to keep those who can not be trusted to act responsibly off our engines and out of our medics.  This population would include "juveniles", the emotionally fragile, and those who have egotistical reasons for being in the fire and emergency services (because of the "power" they attain).  Each of those scenarios has their own factors we must deal with.

The real issue is that the solutions we seek are not technical in nature; they are very much adaptive issues.  And people with attitudes like those are incapable of utilizing adaptive strategies in handling problems.  The business of public safety requires individuals who can exercise independent decision-making in high-stress situations where their ethics are often put to the test.  And that's just in the station.  It is very easy for the new leader to want to make poor decisions or even just abandon the hard decisions altogether just because they want to remain "part of the gang".  We don't need more of those personalities; we need people who are capable of being grownups and being responsible.  We need real leaders.

The future of this industry requires a better approach to how we do the job.  It requires more than stomping our feet and saying that if we don't get our way, we'll hold our breath until we turn blue.  Trust me, there's more coming on the subject.  And like I told Emma when I gave her a dose of medicine this morning, it's gonna get worse before it gets better.  But yes, I omitted from telling her, you can get so sick by avoiding the medicine that you could, in fact, die.  If we really care about what it is we want to preserve, we need to make some hard choices and be the designated grownups.

Superstition

No comments

I am not what most people would call superstitious.  If a black cat crosses my path, I don't really care; I carefully walk under ladders not because I believe in some unseen hex but because something may fall on my head.

So on Christmas Eve, of all days, I happened to be at a funeral for the three-year-old child of a brother firefighter.  Between this tragedy and all the other events of this year, it certainly seems as if 2012 has not been very good to many of us.  I was walking along and looked down to see a bright, shiny penny, heads up, on the ground.  I bent down to pick it up.  

Right now, we need all the luck we can get.

We are all seeking answers to our personal questions as to how bad things can happen to good people. We all have our own battles to deal with, in our statuses, our relationships, our beliefs and our values.  The source of the answers can only come from within and it takes some really tough moments of introspection to reflect on the bad and what good may have come from it to understand that there may be lessons for us all in these events.

Don't let it all get to you.  If you need a friend, find a friend.  Reach out to others. Take part in your community and give back to those who need help.  Challenge yourself.  But in the words of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy piety or wit,

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,

Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

We can't change the past, but we can learn from it.  Have a better year in 2013 and look forward, looking back only to understand where we are today came from the things that happened to us yesterday. Instead of dwelling on it, move forward from it.

What You Want vs. What You Need

6 comments

So, continuing on my theme of pissing off the vast majority of the fire service with the intention of waking you up, I am going to go ahead and tell you that there is a huge difference between what you all believe to be our jobs and the reality of our jobs.  This is a recurring theme in our "business", because you know what, it IS a business.  It is a business because we have to, like it or not, adopt good fiduciary management; we have to market our organization; we have to "sell" our product.  In short, we as a fire service, at the national, state, regional, and local levels, do all the things we have to do to survive, because if you hadn't noticed, we are at war.

War sounds a little dramatic, but I'm really trying to awaken you to what is occurring, and being nicey-nice about it doesn't seem to be working.  As an unscientific gauge to why it isn't working, I took a little look around the internet.

Let me begin by pointing out that I have no issues with the sites I am speaking of; their authors have done an extraordinary job of finding their market niche and giving the people what they want.  That is rule number one in business.  So using that business logic, the demographic I am going after here, no exclusions intended, are 25-34 year old white males (Sorry, but those are the numbers).  Why those numbers, you ask?  Good question; the people I am trying to reach are those who overwhelmingly prefer the sugary snack of scantily clad women in fire apparel, lots of fire pictures, and tough, adrenaline filled talk.  

I already have a readership of enlightened men and women who think outside of their positions and who prefer reading about concepts that will help them lead others.  The demographic that is affecting the change in the fire service, however, are those 25-34 year old white males who refuse to put down the toys, stop bitching, and realize that this job isn't day care for teenagers anymore.  That demographic I speak of is the demographic of the American Fire Service, and coincidentally, the one that everyone dances around when they are trying to elevate our traditions above being endless cannon fodder for the fires we fight.

Yes, there are many of you reading this who might take exception to this and frankly, I am you, so stop whining.  I have been and in a way, still am one of those people.  But above that, however, I took the stance that I would be visionary and forward-thinking in my approach to this blog, and I would seek ways to lead and improve our industry so that we could continue on into the future.  And being honest, the approaches that many of you/us are taking will doom our tradition if we don't wake up and evolve.

The short-sighted approach that many firefighters seem to take is that we are a necessary evil.  "If you don't like it, tough, because there will always be fires and you will always need us."  "We are the only show in town."  "We don't need to be nice because if we aren't, who are you going to call?" If we behave like a bunch of frat boys, we are saying, the community will look past our antics and realize we are providing a service that they can't afford to replace with a new model.

Well, I have news for you all.  That new model is being trotted out everywhere.  Communities across this country are overwhelmingly sick and tired of the liability of having juveniles running things at the company levels.  The chiefs they hire are people with education, people with a business acumen, people who are aware that they have to make hard decisions to rein in spending.  They will do it regardless of whether you agree with them or not; remember how "wildly popular" Iacocca and Welch were at their companies when they came in, cut the fat, and fired people?  If you don't, it's because most of you in that 25-34 year old demographic were infants then. But what YOU know of these guys is that they turned around companies who were near failure and brought them back into power.  Well, if you think your fire chiefs haven't read anything on these guys, then you are delusional.

I hear tales from my friends who aren't chief officers about what the "chiefs" are doing to the fire service all the time.  I tell them that it isn't what the chiefs are doing to the fire service, but what the economy, education, technology and the political will of the elected is doing to the fire service.  We are simply managing the changes, and if you don't like it, well, there's not much we can do about it, is there?  We can agree to resist change that will affect safety and efficiency, but the arguments thrown up by the unions and the firefighters are widely unconvincing: "People will die if we close this station." Well, they might and they might not.  "Firefighters will die if this staffing isn't maintained."  Well, again, they might and they might not.  The reality is that to counter these proposals, you need facts.  Provable, verifiable, scientific facts.  Some people are striving to provide those facts.  Overwhelmingly, however, YOU are not, everytime you scoff at the need for documenting, researching, or validating as being "desk jockey" material. And that's a whole blog post in itself.

Why don't you chew on this for a few days and tell me what you think?  Trust me, there is much more I plan to say, but I'll probably have to break it down a little.  If you are truly the apathetic individuals I speak of, I'm pretty sure there will just be stunned silence.  Or you may just tune me out after seeing there's more than one paragraph and go back to the titty blogs.  Either way, it's not what I do to make things continue on, it's what YOU do.  I'm nearing the end of MY career and I have lots of great memories.  But whether you have memories like those or not depends on what you are willing to do to change things.

Unspeakable Pain

1 comment

As I mentioned in my last post, I am struggling to understand certain beliefs and our world's approach to how we plan to live together meaningfully and peacefully.  With the tragedy in Connecticut, I'm afraid I am struggling to understand, like many of us are.  In this season where we should be celebrating all that is good in the world, we are faced with unspeakable pain of which I hope to never face myself.

I deliberately did not watch television yesterday or last night.  I know that the reaction to this disaster will be emotional, there will be as a result of the rapidly unfolding events, many inaccuracies and much rhetoric, and none of it serves the memories of those sweet children, innocent, unsuspecting, not understanding themselves what was happening.  None of this coverage helps the adults who were also massacred trying to defend these children.  None of the sensationalism does anything to alleviate the suffering of the families and friends of those who were involved, or the responders, or the community as a whole.

No amount of legislation, no amount of restricting, no amount of preparation or arming ourselves or anything will stop the machinations of a highly motivated and inherently evil person.  We can place hurdles in their paths but these can be subverted by just looking for the weaknesses in the armor.  The question goes to a bigger issue: What would possess someone to take the life of another in such a manner? 

If you are angry at an individual, I can rationalize your wanting to kill them.  If you are tormented by a certain clique of classmates, I can even reach a little more and understand that.  I can even dig down deep and "understand" lashing out at an institution.  But in the case of Aurora, in Oregon this past week, and now this in Connecticut, what really drives someone to want to kill random, innocent people?  What purpose does killing children, movie goers, holiday shoppers, or anyone else who isn't even involved in your twisted world, prove?  The answer goes to the "fame" they get from it, and our society prides itself on knowing the name and every other prurient detail of the famous or infamous.

The answer is to not give these individuals the reward they seek.

While it would be perfect to be able to exterminate them at the point they make contact, an armed populace only confuses the issue. We can provide better mental health support and I think that is extremely important, but first you have to identify and convince these people to seek that help and frankly, many of them believe they are in the right and everyone else in the wrong.  We can come up with all kinds of other bandaids and patches, but they don't go to the heart of WHY these people take out innocent lives: that the outrage serves to elevate their ego.

I am asking you to pray and reach out to those who are affected by this heinous event.  But even more so, don't buy into the hype.  It's not going to go away by ignoring it and we can plan and make efforts to mitigate the situation, but the elemental issue here is that these sick individuals "one-up" each other by ramping up the evil in their actions.  If we give in to that, the next person sees that and is encouraged to go one better.

If you really want to learn something from this, delve into the post-incident analysis that will eventually occur and learn how to minimize the impact of similar events in your own communities.  But above all, we need to look around us, and if we see someone who needs help, get it to them.  And most importantly, we need to reach out to the people around us, tell them we love them, and let them know that we can all co-exist on this planet, and should, with peace and happiness.

Going To The Source – A Manifesto

No comments

I am struggling with my faith, not specifically in my church, my community, or even in society per se.  In the context of this blog, I am struggling with those who administer, those who interpret the needs of others, and those who teach what is supposed to be the infallible word of how to provide our service from its lecterns, regardless of career or volunteer, urban or rural, American or anyone else, among other things. 

While I am not questioning the principles of how we provide emergency service, or rather any service to those we are charged with protecting, any effort to ask the hard questions instead of simply criticizing more often than not labels one as a troublemaker, a rebel, or worse (at least in our nation), unpatriotic.  In many circles my desire for enlightenment would label me as a heretic, I suppose, which is a big reason why I’d just as soon do this at arm’s length from the people I am close to, including those in my own circles, who are blameless in these observations.  So I guess this becomes a manifesto, of sorts.

Speaking in regard to the fire service, I have been a leader for longer than I care to be, sometimes, because frankly, it says that I am part of the problem.  I am not, however, what I consider to be even a passing expert in anything regarding the psychology of those I lead.  This blog site, called Firehouse Zen, actually describes my “religion”; I seek enlightenment, I ask questions, I challenge “authority” to do a better job, I seek positive change, and I am healthily cynical.  I want to know how and why something works so I can better apply it myself, and I am absolutely NOT a sheep, driving along in the fast lane below the speed limit, mouth agape, oblivious to the line of traffic behind them.

To those of you who would label me a cheerleader by way of the positivity I espouse, I say to you that you completely miss the mark.  I am a cheerleader of best practices.  I am a cheerleader of just leadership.  I am a cheerleader of strong values and ethical decision-making.  I embrace positivity because it is the right way to be.  But as usual, I give to you my disclaimer: While there are those who are optimists and are constantly dismayed by the selfishness of society, I maintain my skepticism and thus am pleasantly surprised on the infrequent occasion someone rises to greatness.  Or just does something for the right reasons.

My struggle is actually in the willingness of society to ignore the bigger issues of our world as a whole.  I think our leaders at all levels of government are more engrained in meeting their own personal enrichment and extravagant egos rather than leading the people who sincerely need their guidance in these times.  I see this ego-driven leadership from the top to the bottom; from those who govern our superpowers down to the lowest firefighter, cop, or EMT.  But since we are charged with serving others, and our missions in every single one of the organizations you are affiliated with involve serving others, I find it hypocritical that many of the "leaders" we seem to have turned to for the answer on how to do this are more concerned with protecting the status quo.

Lest you think this is some grand indictment of everyone on the planet who provides the service we do, it is not. I see daily the efforts of those who rise above the pettiness and the hurdles placed in front of them to do the right things.  I try to let them know whenever I see these actions that these are right and just actions they are taking.  I encourage their efforts.  But they are in many cases the exception to the rule.  In fact, if you have read this far, I think one of the most important things you can do as a brother firefighter, law enforcement officer, or EMT is to actively encourage those who you see as making right and just decisions, making efforts to alleviate the suffering of others, and those who use their legitimate power to make things better for others.  If we at least take the time to recognize these examples, maybe it will cause others to emulate those qualities.

So this actually begins a little change in the discussion about my issues with the delivery of service to our communities and all its history, tradition, and strongly held beliefs.  Since I have over thirty years in the business, I guess that enables me to speak to the subject, since I have seen the wide scope of how we have "done the job" and I can certainly say things that will quickly become controversial. But again, my purpose isn't to say these things are anything other than values we need to question, because in questioning, we either better understand them for their accuracy, or we expose them to be fallacies.

This should be an interesting ride, so I would say to spread the word and invite everyone to watch (and participate), and let's have a healthy discussion about what makes our industry tick.  Who knows?  You might be the one who convinces me of something I otherwise held to be true.

Blame First

1 comment

Blame then find out the facts.  It’s become the American way. We all get it: reaching for a headline, individuals are indicted in the media, who then are leapt upon by the masses.  Time after time, this scenario continues to pop up and with the anonymity of the internet, what used to be bad journalism has become blood sport.  Being tried in the media is one thing, but you know, we don’t have to buy into it.  No matter how sensational the headline, there is always more to the story.

Lest you think this is some scathing review of my buddy Dave's chosen profession, think again.  I am simply using it as a convenient analogy to focus on a leadership issue we are probably all familiar with. This would be the situation in which as officers or leaders, we find a problem, and in our haste to rain shit down on the heads of the offenders, fail to consider there might be a plausible explanation for the "error".

As usual, don't think that I am without blame.  Most of the things I write about I have myself engaged in throughout my career.  But I use this blog as a means to educate you all on things I have seen and see over thirty years on the job and hopefully, maybe, I can make a difference in your own careers.

So back from the disclaimer, I just want to make sure you understand that being appreciative of all the facts doesn't make you a weak leader.  In fact, your judicious use of power strengthens your hand.  If you strike a dog too many times, it will eventually turn on you.  Likewise, if you are too heavy-handed with the troops, they eventually come to resent you.  This can have farther reaching implications than you may ever realize, especially when there is that position you have always wanted and you don't get it because the people you supervise won't support you.  But that being said, the real reason for considering all sides before rushing to judgment is because it is a hallmark of "Just Leadership".

I said a while back that Capt. Tom over at EMS12Lead.com pointed me in the direction of the concept of "Just Leadership" as the root of a just organizational culture.  Phil LaDuke, who has a blog on the subject, really explains it well and I think this is a subject that a lot of leaders simply don't get.  From his blog:

Just leaders share characteristics that set them apart from the pack. These leaders see themselves as leaders first and foremost and they live their lives by a code of conduct that is set not be some artificial external criteria but by their personal values…A just leader is able to clearly articulate his or her values and institutionalize  those values into a work culture that is fair and just.

An integral part of just leadership requires an appreciation for the whole story, not just the part you want to hear.  Just leaders get to the heart of the matter in a rational, unemotional way and approach the development of solutions via time-honored means, like getting the people involved in the problem to solve the problem.  In doing so, they can understand the root cause better and they can learn to "fish for themselves".  This is truly transformational leadership.

I highly recommend looking further into each situation deeper before rushing to judgment.  At first you may find it to move slower than you choose, but ultimately, you will see that the outcomes are much fairer and better received by all involved, especially when your charges see that you aren't going to go off half-cocked at every challenge that comes along. And even better, the example you set will hopefully be seen and adhered to by others aspiring to lead, and they too will govern in a similar manner.  THAT is how we change our organizational culture for the better.