Skip to content


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.

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.

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.

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.

The Sword

2 comments

As I quoted Musashi recently, a warrior must “have a taste for both pen and sword”. And while there is a frequent need for statesmanship, the soft skills are sometimes not fully appreciated unless you can bring some smackdown to the table when pushed.  There is a very good reason why I don’t discuss the other aspect of leadership as much. The reason is because too many of us are familiar with that side of the house and frankly, too willing to lay it out there when things go wrong. There is a much more stringent call to educate disciples of enlightened leadership on the discipline of using the stick only when and where it is needed.

Clausewitz suggests famously, that prior to waging war, we must fully understand how we intend to wage war and to what extent we will go to achieve victory. A scorched earth mentality is fine for truly epic battles of wrong vs. right but you will eventually have to live with the outcome. If you choose to lay waste to someone’s career because they got on your wrong side, you must realize the consequences of that decision and as said before, use the power you have to help others, not to hurt them.

I would like to believe that extraordinary leadership will help you retain whatever role you have in your world, but the realities don’t always favor that outcome. Therefore, you must always consider that leadership is dangerous ground. Someone, someplace, is going to perceive that your victory is their loss, and they are going to want to defend their territory. You must be prepared to not lose, or know when not to engage so that you can live on for another fight.  Leading is not for the faint of heart.

A non-combatant leader must have some sort of a “sword” in order to be truly effective.  The prospect of dealing with adversaries can be likened to dealing with any other belligerent and while physical conflict isn’t an option, the strategies needed to survive even these kinds of battle require similar tactics.  Therefore, to succeed, you too must also cultivate your “weapons of war”.

In the business of leading others, that sword is often your reputation and your ability to make things happen, which is often the outward manifestation of political clout.  While the politics could be those of the community or your internal organizational politics, if you have none at all, let’s see how things fare for you the first time you do something unpopular and your adversaries decide they’re going after your head.  You’d better start off by having ground to fight for.

You can achieve political power in a number of different ways, but the one that is most utilized by ethical leaders and especially by those who are seeking to develop power (in the absence of having legitimate power) can be through networking.  The more allies you have in your corner, the less likely that someone with a beef is going to pick a fight. And when they do, it’s nice to know you have backup. Where can you obtain these kinds of friends? You can get involved in local nonprofits, you can volunteer to take on less than desirable projects that will help the organization along, you can teach, or you can get involved in public outreach for ypur organization. In all of these cases, you get out and get seen as a face for the organization and people begin to recognize you as a doer.

When you lead, you are often alone at the front of the pack.  Being alone and in front means you are a visible target as well.  And when things meet resistance, or trouble is found along the way, the leader is the one who has to deal with it first.  But knowing there is a pack behind you gives you strength and courage.  It makes you realize there are people to fight for.  And most of all, it is those individuals, who are in your corner, who cheer you on and remind you that you are indeed fighting the good fight.

Enlightened leadership requires open-mindedness.  But while you can be receptive to others, others will only be receptive to you if you have something they want.  The power you have is in your sword, the power of your team and the others who know you and support you.  It is up to you to use it wisely.