Archives for dave-statter

See all posts in the network tagged with dave-statter

Listen To What You Are Saying

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.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on March 25, 2013 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: #FRED, activism, adaptive leadership, advice, advocacy, blame, change, clausewitz, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, Curt Varone, Dade, Dave Statter, education, effort, ego, EMS, EMS Topics, facts, FHZ, fire, Fire Law, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, just culture, just leadership, leadership, learning, management, media, Miami, Mick Mayers, mission, motivation, opportunity, politics, positive, professionalism, quote, rescue, resources, South Carolina, Statter911, teamwork, technical solutions, thought, Training, Twitter, values, vision, warfare, YouTube, zen zone

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.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on January 28, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, Funding & Staffing, leadership, News • Tagged: activism, adaptive leadership, advice, advocacy, altruism, Arizona, blame, change, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, Dave Statter, education, ego, EMS, EMS Topics, facts, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, firearm, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, gun, Hilton Head Island, integrity, just culture, just leadership, leadership, learning, management, media, Mick Mayers, mission, motivation, opportunity, politics, positive, professionalism, quote, resources, South Carolina, South Fulton County, teamwork, technical solutions, thought, Training, values, vision, volunteer, warfare, zen zone

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.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on January 21, 2013 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, blame, change, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, Dave Statter, education, ego, EMS, EMS Topics, EMS12Lead.com, facts, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, just culture, just leadership, leadership, learning, management, media, Mick Mayers, mission, motivation, opportunity, Phil LaDuke, politics, positive, professionalism, quote, resources, South Carolina, Statter911.com, teamwork, thought, Tom Bouthillet, Training, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Blame First

1 comment

Don't be this guy.

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.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on December 5, 2012 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, blame, change, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, Dave Statter, education, ego, EMS, EMS Topics, EMS12Lead.com, facts, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, just culture, just leadership, leadership, learning, management, media, Mick Mayers, mission, motivation, opportunity, Phil LaDuke, politics, positive, professionalism, quote, resources, South Carolina, Statter911.com, teamwork, thought, Tom Bouthillet, Training, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Too Much of a Good Thing

4 comments

I like oatmeal. I especially like oatmeal with brown sugar. The problem with brown sugar, however (other than the calories) is that it lumps up. So on days like today when even though it is sunny and 70 degrees here on Hilton Head Island, I made myself a nice bowl of oatmeal for lunch and began to add the brown sugar. Too lazy to grab a spoon to dole out some brown sugar, I tipped the bag up, and a lump the size of a Volkswagen dropped into my bowl.

Inspired, and having my laptop open in front of me when it occurred, I shook off the cobwebs and began to write.

A plethora, to those of you who care about such things, is not simply a large amount of something, but an amount so large it becomes undesirable. And in Detroit, Michigan, for those of you in the fire service, they seem to have a plethora of fires. A few fires every now and then, I suppose, is okay, because while we all got into this career for the huge salaries and the luxury box at the local stadium (note my tongue planted firmly in cheek), really, the challenge of fighting fires is not far away from the top of that list. It is battle against an enemy that nobody disputes is evil and therefore, it is honorable no matter what your creed, country, or calling.

But in Detroit, apparently, this plethora of fires has lent to a number of interesting decisions that cause me to question judgment, one of which is the "visiting firefighter" idea. Now while I consider taking people who wish to learn more about fighting fires fight them as a means of gaining experience, and I consider the notion that paying to have that experience is something some people consider a money-making venture, my secretly logical side thinks this is a bad idea. The main reason I think it is a bad idea, however, is not for any other reason than that while fighting fires in this context should be meant to be educational, I am fully aware that this is instead in more than a few cases, profiting from those who can't get enough fire in their own neighborhoods. This "tourist firefighting" has some other drawbacks as well, like when you put the tourists on a roof and the roof collapses under them. And they aren't wearing proper PPE. And there's the question of, do you put people you have only known for a few minutes in the most dangerous place of the fireground? Judgment, it seems, is lacking here.

I won't even go to the idea that this is the same city that is unable to keep companies open and has essentially gotten rid of great firefighters with years of experience. That all can be argued on its own merits. No, I am concerned that there are "leaders" in the DFD who aren't focused on the real issues- serving Mrs. Smith – and are rather just using questionable logic to run this organization.

Let's discuss the recent disciplinary action being rendered for a DFD paramedic, who is described by friends as being "saintly", and who is undergoing this action because he exercised judgment to give a cold, shivering, underdressed human being a blanket. A blanket that, frankly, wasn't even paid for by the City of Detroit.

I thought that the only department who could pull off a judgment call that I can't find any redeeming alternate viewpoint for was the DCFEMS. I mean, here's the department who has a prostitution ring running out of a firehouse getting trumped by a department whose leaders are worried that giving a homeless man a blanket will result in the downfall of mankind. I'm afraid I am seriously struggling with this kind of logic.

I must, in all good conscience, apologize to those members of both departments, and I would guess by my knowing a few of them to be largely in the majority, for the efforts of a few to cause people around the nation to just scratch their heads and wonder WTF is going on. I am not some lunatic who believes that the actions of a few define the motives of the many and my heart really does go out to the dedicated, well-intentioned, and competent members of the DFD and the DCFEMS (although my fingers keep wanting to type DCFD) who have to endure these idiots. But the perception is reality and when people make these kinds of judgment calls, the reality is that the public sees the entire organization as being flawed.

I don't have all the answers, but I can see serious problems as well as the next guy. When your organization has individuals who are so lacking in judgment that they make these kinds of decisions, how can they be trusted to make the really hard decisions, like how to manage a desperately shrinking budget in times where every aspect of our existence is being questioned?

Good judgment, I'm afraid, is something we can never have too much of. There are things that even the most materialistic and nihilistic individuals would eventually have to concede there can be too much of, but when it comes down to it, there are a number of things you just can't get enough of, like love, peace, compassion, justice, and mercy. And judgment really does fall into those ranks as well.

At the risk of stating the obvious, what has to happen in these communities aside from a total overhaul from the top to the bottom and starting over, to create a culture where good judgment is prized and sought? Strive for real leadership and remove the barriers to those who exercise good judgment. Let people serve and do the right things. If you can't see that we are slipping away from that ideal, then you probably have no reason to stay in this business.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on October 12, 2012 • Filed under: Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, blanket, change, Charlie LaDuff, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, Dave Statter, DCFD, DCFEMS, Detroit, DFD, District of Columbia, education, ego, EMS, EMS Topics, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, Fox News, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, judgment, leadership, learning, management, Mick Mayers, mission, motivation, opportunity, pay, politics, positive, professionalism, quote, resources, South Carolina, teamwork, thought, tourist, Training, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Connectivity

No comments

Over and over again, I discover how we are all connected and find it to be an amazing phenomenon. Too many events happen in this universe that are beyond being explained as coincidence and in social media, it just highlights that connectivity. From experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram and published as The Small World Problem to continued observations by Tom Shadyac in his documentary I Am, it is apparent, at least to me, that there is something spectacular about the greater network of our entire world. If anything, this is all the more reason why we should strive to live peacefully and with respect for one another.

As I continue to try to bring together our leaders, I also continue to realize that Firehouse Zen isn't written for people who aren't interested in the bigger picture. Thinking that you are living in your own isolated world and that poor behavior doesn't have some potential for karmic blowback is a pretty self-absorbed way to live and unfortunately, the common vision of those who aren't focused on leading doesn't include others. Given the fact that every action we take has a number of potential reactions, deluding yourself that your interactions with others will have no effect on your life or on others is just like going through existence with your head in the sand. Regardless of whether you want to act like a moron toward others because you feel like you can hide behind an anonymous pseudonym on the internet, the action still has some effect somewhere and if you can't see the echo, the ripple, that your actions create, then you are just living in a blind hole. The same thing goes with every other thing we do, like it or not.

Take for example some of the political rhetoric that seems to have escalated to the point where hate speech is considered "okay" by some of our elected officials and others running for office. While the zealots on either side of the debate clearly believe they are in the right and nothing harmful comes from their constant and annoying fights, the effect it has on the vast majority of Americans who are stuck between these idiots is that we are punished for their unwillingness to work together toward a better future. The people who push that kind of speech are clearly aware that those who only live for a sound bite feed voraciously on these tidbits and fail to see into the more global perspective. They realize this advances their own agenda, but at what cost?

As emergency responders, we have the same issues. We have those who fail to see how their actions could possibly effect the lives of others. Take another example here, this time the recent "tattoo" incident in Seattle. I'm going to admit something I probably shouldn't, but it illustrates the issue: Personally, I think it's a little funny. If this had happened to me, personally, I would have washed it off by now and we'd still be talking about it twenty years from now. Not everyone, however, shares my sense of humor, especially a public that sometimes is just itching to find another "something" to troll the internet with and claim what poor examples of community servants we are. Again, in another case, take the simulated gun incident in Macon: to me, not so funny. But these isolated incidents that someone, at the time they occurred, thought to be no big deal, have been trotted out as examples of everything that is wrong with the fire service. As leaders, we need to see where these things lead to and more often than not, they lead to no good.

Again, as in the other day, we bring to your attention the National Firefighter Code of Ethics as being delivered as a framework for guiding our daily conduct and in relation to what I repeated about "cleaning house" the other day. There is a reason that the Code of Ethics became necessary; because these events and many others recently have brought the name of the entire fire service into disrepute. If I were the CEO of a company, let's say, Firehouse Zen Industries, and one of my associate bloggers was creating opportunities that brought the name of Firehouse Zen into constantly embarrassing situations, I'd be forced to do SOMETHING to keep the brand name from becoming a joke. Likewise, the fire service leadership, myself included, have to look at these situations that "tarnish the badge" and treat them seriously, otherwise, all of our efforts over decades at advancing the professionalism of our industry will be for naught.

Why is this so important? The credibility we gain from professionalism creates good will and that good will translates directly into public support. The public support evolves into getting our agenda pushed forward: safer communities, better working conditions, more respect from the taxpayers, and better support for our programs, projects, and to keep us in the modern age with equipment and apparatus. Oh, pay and benefits for us career guys doesn't hurt either. So if performing a rattle-can tattoo on the outgoing Lieutenant doesn't seem inherently harmful, and as I said before, personally, to me, it wouldn't be, in the big picture it is an example of the horseplay and "Daycare for Men" perspective that many have of our business. So as a leader, I'm not willing to support it as being very smart.

My blogs are always pretty long and I understand that for some, they're probably a little hard to follow. I write like I speak. I know that those who really read my blog tend to have intelligence and are desirous of a better way to create our future. These posts aren't directed at the rank and file, but at those who see themselves as the current and future leadership of the international emergency response community. The things I say aren't always popular with the troops because I am trying to shine a light on the long view, not on what is occurring at our feet. I'm one of those people who are constantly being accused of "taking the fun" out of our jobs. If you are reading this, it is likely that you are one of the people who can see that big picture and like I said, as hard as it is sometimes to not laugh at some of the stupidity, there are consequences to all of these actions that we may not yet see coming around to bite us.

Everything we do connects us to others. Live responsibly and seek to lead in a manner that brings respect and admiration to you, not to make you a laughingstock. The better things in life come to those who can understand these workings and create positive change for everyone. A little self-discipline and moderation in our lives can go a long way, especially when you find that everything you do is being watched carefully, not just by the public, but by those who follow you.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on August 13, 2012 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, America, article, austerity, budget, cavalry, change, Command & Leadership, conflict, connection, consensus, cuts, Dave Statter, education, EMS, EMS Topics, Facebook, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, I Am, integrity, leadership, learning, management, Mick Mayers, Milgram, mission, motivation, MySpace, nation, opportunity, politics, poor, positive, professionalism, resources, sacrifice, Shadyac, Small World Problem, social media, South Carolina, STAT911, support, tea party, teamwork, thought, Training, Twitter, USA, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Dumpster Fire

No comments

We are all aware that the rhetoric right now is at a flashpoint. It's not an issue of conservatism or liberalism, it's an attitude that it is considered permissible to make inflammatory statements – often sweeping, generalistic assumptions – about others that very often border on the lunatic fringe. The tone expressed so often readily embraces this "us against them" mentality that has people choosing sides, whether or not there are even sides to choose.

It just so happens that I was reading the oft-commented-upon (and it seems often-trolled) Dave Statter site, specifically the recent car fire video. I was thinking; I watched the same video as the rest of these individuals and honestly, I didn't see anything going on that required so much debate. The comments from the "real" firemen were especially poignant, with all kinds of dubious tactical advice and criticism, and there were even a few on Facebook with similar "I could do this better with my eyes closed" comments.

Let me distill it into Dr. Seuss level logic:

There is a car fire. The car is in a trailer. The trailer is attached to a truck. The trailer is in the middle of an intersection. There is nobody in the trailer. There is nobody on the trailer. There is nobody near the trailer. There are no buildings near the trailer. If the car was not already a total loss, it wouldn't be long before it was. Despite all the yelling, this was a high-priced dumpster fire, in more ways than one.

There was nothing inside or near the fire to warrant risking firefighters' lives to get in and rub up against it. The reaction to the firefighting tactics, however, were a total dumpster fire in and of themselves, as defined in the Urban Dictionary:

dumpster fire

1. A complete disaster.

2. Something difficult that nobody wants to deal with.

3. Slightly better than a train wreck.

On mornings like these, when I read those kinds of comments, I am amazed that people who consider themselves firefighters would even bother to comment. But then I read the comments and think, maybe it is simply projection. Maybe these people WANT to believe they are firefighters, so much so that they would willingly imagine that they are so brave and courageous that they would go in and get after the Red Beast. I'm thinking these are the same ones who think Backdraft was a realistic portrayal of firehouse life. You know, the same guys with the "I fight what you fear" t-shirts and bumper stickers.

I reflect often on the culture some of us have created in places that are receptive to it. It's a quiet professionalism, not calling attention to one's self, but a reality of doing the job, being aggressive, being tough, but not having to brag about it. A culture that will gladly dig it out and get dirty if it is required, but isn't so gung ho that they have to roll around in the soot to prove their manhood, because really, that's what it is. A culture that will demonstrate the core values and heritage of firefighting by rescuing a victim and risk their life without hesitation to do that, but knows better than to crawl into a well-off building fire where there is no chance for victim survival.

There are plenty of individuals out there who should be given credit for inciting piss-poor performance, but we don't have to buy into it. It really is possible to mount an "aggressive" attack and not be stupid about it. Contrary to some of the opinions, being safe doesn't equal being a "pussy". It doesn't classify a soldier as "more valiant" to stand up in front of a machine gun nest with no purpose, it classifies you as suicidal. Ask any experienced warfighter and they'll tell you that real valor is gutting it out and rushing that machine gun nest at the right moment, where they can exert the most power in the fastest time. It doesn't make you more of a hero to stand up and run into that burning trailer, it just makes you stupid.

The only person that can right this path is you. If we participate responsibly in dialogue, avoid being dismissive of alternate views, and accept that we can learn from anyone, we can be the better for it. We must together demonstrate leadership among our peers by refusing to engage in the rhetoric, no matter how tempting it is sometimes. We all tell our kids it's not right to just go along with the crowd to look cool, especially if it is wrong, and as adults, when we fail to resist this pull, we are doing the same thing ourselves. And the part that we don't seem to tell our children is that yes, it is sometimes dangerous to step away from the pack to be the lead, it is a demonstration of true leadership to know the difference between right and wrong. If you don't want to set yourself away from the pack by speaking out against such conduct, the least you can do is just not engage in it yourselves.

Promote the right decisions for the right moments. Valor in the face of a hairy rescue, I can applaud. Bravery in fighting a car fire, not so much. Don't be a whacker, be a real firefighter and act like it. This fire wasn't going anywhere, so act like you have been to a real fire before and quit the preening. Most of us aren't impressed. The ones who are probably don't know anything about fighting a real fire anyway.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on August 7, 2012 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, America, article, car fire, change, Command & Leadership, conflict, Dave Statter, dumpster fire, education, EMS, EMS Topics, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, leadership, learning, macho, management, Mick Mayers, Monday Morning Quarterback, motivation, nation, opportunity, politics, poor, positive, professionalism, real, resources, second-guessing, South Carolina, teamwork, thought, Training, Urban Dictionary, USA, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Keep Your Adversary Close

No comments

I mentioned in my rant the other day that I had two parts of the Aurora tragedy to discuss. The issue is the increasing antagonism being projected toward public safety professionals. Our fire and EMS leaders must change their approach in how we interact with the public. Even if you are operating in an extraordinarily ethical environment, if you don't take to time to project that image to your stakeholders, you are leaving the opportunity to chance that your image will be shaped by others, especially if they have conflicting priorities.

Take for instance, the Aurora situation again. The first time I read the Post article, I felt Crummy and Murphy were insinuating that the AFD did not respond in a timely fashion. My inner cynic believed that the article was written with a slant intended to drive a negative reaction from readers. While I still have a little difficulty believing otherwise, my esteemed colleague Dave Statter very reasonably discussed other perspectives on the article. His most valuable point though, and the point I want to drive home here, is that time and again, even if you don't engage the media, the story will still be told. Therefore, if you want the story to be favorable to your perception of how things occurred, it's best that you do the telling and not leave it open for conjecture. In the Aurora case, fortunately, the public didn't bite. As the commentary was overwhelmingly supportive of the AFD, I'm assuming they do a pretty good job of engaging the public on a routine basis.

Conversely, check out this article from Philly.com, where a small volunteer fire company in Bensalem, PA managed to get a million-dollar fire boat through a Homeland Security grant. The reporter did a good job of not only obtaining perspectives from the individuals directly involved, but also some outside observations.

When I began to read this article, I began with a slight bias, a little defensive, having just engaged in a battle of our own over the purchase of a much-needed rescue boat, and expecting some of the same kinds of criticism we faced. But after reading the article, I found myself struggling with the notion of a department with a quarter-million dollar a year budget allocating that whole quarter of a million (plus some) in maintaining a piece of any equipment, much less a fire boat in an area where there is a limited use for it. The author was able to illustrate there is obviously a problem. There is real conflict here, not conjecture. The author didn't throw a statement out and leave it hanging. She performed research, she sought different perspectives, and she let you come to conclusions of your own. If the chief of that department didn't expect this story to be written someday, he was deluding himself.

Today's fire service leaders must understand their adversaries. I don't like to portray the media, politicians, other departments and agencies as "adversaries", but in the context of public opinion, if they aren't singing your song, they aren't necessarily on your side. The management of the "song being sung" at the 2012 London Olympic Games is a great example. In an article I heard on NPR's On The Media, Olympic organizers quickly realized after the Atlanta Games that non-accredited media were an uncontrolled force throughout that event. These days, there is even a strategy for providing a unified message though accredited AND non-accredited media, and organizers have even come up with methods by which non-accredited media is given access in different ways where that message is conveyed. This is particularly useful in guiding the message tactfully, and not waiting to see if whatever happens to pop into the heads of the media representatives ends up being the story.

As a leader, you must understand what you are up against. If you go into a controversial situation with the attitude that everything will go your way because you are the fire department, and everyone loves the fire department, you will be putting yourself in a losing position when the court of public opinion swings away from you. In the fire boat scenario, a good strategy would have been to shape that story before it ever hit the paper, and herein lies the rub. It doesn't do you any good to spin your story positively if the real story is going to be that you are operating unethically or incompetently, because someone will eventually find that out. And when they do, the articles like these will seem tame; nobody likes being taken advantage of, especially the media. Not only must you project your commitment to the best practices of our industry, you must actually be doing those things, not just putting up a facade.

In warfare, if you underestimate your adversary, you are setting yourself up to fail. Likewise, in the arena of public opinion, if you think that media and other publicly accessible individuals won't shape your ability to succeed in fulfilling your mission, you are very much mistaken. But the core issue I think should be conveyed is not that we should be controlling the media and others through manipulation. The issue instead should be that if you conduct your organization transparently and ethically, you shouldn't have to worry about public perception. The perception should always be positive if you continually keep the public's best interests in mind.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 31, 2012 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership • Tagged: activism, adversary, advice, advocacy, America, article, Aurora, austerity, Bensalem, budget, cavalry, change, Colorado, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, cuts, Dave Statter, education, EMS, EMS Topics, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, leadership, learning, management, Mick Mayers, mission, Monday Morning Quarterback, motivation, nation, opinion, opportunity, Philly.com, politics, poor, positive, professionalism, public, resources, sacrifice, second-guessing, shortfall, South Carolina, STAT911, tea party, teamwork, The Denver Post, thought, Training, USA, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

The Important Part To Consider

2 comments

The first thing I feel compelled to share with you all is an apology. I am a writer, not an editor. After another look at my rant, I see I didn't do a very good job of writing or editing or even telling the story. As I spoke about how emotion is used to manipulate the reader sometimes, it is apparent that another problem with emotion is that it causes you to lose focus. After reading the article in the Denver Post, I was pretty angry, and my post showed it. I felt like they took a cheap shot at the AFD, and I felt it was uncalled for.

I still maintain that Crummy and Murphy's article, or at least the lead-in, was intended to cause a reaction. Shortly after, though, a discussion with my esteemed colleague Dave Statter did cause me to look at my reaction and admit that I violated two of my main rules: "Understand all sides of the argument" and "Don't get caught up in the drama". His post also caused me to look again at what was presented in their article. In doing so, I can see Dave's point that the issue of communications and interoperability were definitely an issue that the AFD faced, and were valid observations. The long and short of it, however, was that I failed to enlighten. I was ranting. And for that you have my sincerest apology.

Consequently, there is a glimmer of good in all of the bad. Just as the old man told me in the wake of Katrina, "You find out how many people love you." We have to take away that through all this pain and suffering, at least there is a requirement for everyone involved, and everyone surrounding the issue, to examine their relationships with others, and realize what we mean to one another. In this case, aside from one or two trolls, the reaction to the article was overwhelmingly supportive of Aurora's emergency response professionals.

The question now is, what can we learn from this incident? From an operational standpoint, as we can with any of our own incidents, we can make notes in regard to improving our own response plans. To me, however, one of the most important lessons really did get illustrated by the article, or shall I say, the reaction to the article, aside from everyone learning about their appreciation for these responders. The lesson I want to talk about is how the Aurora Fire Department must have had a good relationship with their community prior to this event, and therefore, any accusations of substandard performance were dismissed by a large number of people from the community.

Specifically, the problem is that our communities have to be engaged partners in risk management, and by that, I mean, that the buy-in on our method of operating must be one that we can all live with. When community "leaders" continually suggest that maintaining current staffing is unrealistic, or when these same people are engaged in de-funding necessary equipment or apparatus needs, it is a problem. The hypocrisy of the situation is that these same individuals who make broad statements about public safety being overfunded and overcapitalized are the same ones we seem to find screaming for action when there is a failure of the system because of the very resources they denied us. We can talk about issues like interoperability until we are blue in the face, but to be candid, the solutions require funding. Other initiatives that require attention, like unification of command, require wholesale cultural change which could also use funding, as could maintaining adequate numbers of resources. But the underlying challenge, and the real root of the problem, is that while we in emergency services can plan away, we need community support to make these changes happen.

This being said, of course, doesn't imply that the responders in Aurora got overwhelming support from their customers prior to this. It certainly doesn't suggest that they had all the resources necessary to deal with this kind of a situation. I, however, do not mean to suggest that each community must maintain staffing and equipment to handle events like this one available for daily response. We can't do this and be responsible to the taxpayers in our jurisdiction. We must maximize the resources we have, create regional partnerships, and call for the right help when we need it. But importantly, what we have now is an invitation to dialogue. This is now an opportunity to re-engage, to revisit automatic and mutual aid agreements, to reinforce joint planning, and to practice in case the next time happens. After Columbine, after Virginia Tech, and now after Aurora, who would have thought this might happen again? How many times have you heard someone say "That won't happen here"? You could probably ask the response agencies in Anne Arundel County, Maryland that question and I'm pretty sure they can give you a quick answer.

The challenge is ours to accept. You see, the haters who think emergency response is bloated and unreasonably funded get that perspective because their ideas formed in a vacuum. If we aren't actively getting the message out to the customers about what we do, the attitudes of those with at least a borderline grudge against public safety will prevail. We must get the citizens involved in determining the means and the method in which we provide our service. The idea is that while you provide the service, the people that you serve must understand that they need to support the people of your own agency: your progressively minded, forward thinking, efficient, engaged, transparent organization. The way to do this is through development of relationships with your community.

Fire and EMS leaders must reach out to the community activists, the families, the schools, the social clubs, and anyone else who will listen way in advance of a crisis. Throughout this outreach, it is imperative that we maintain accountability and transparency. But the status quo is not sufficient, not even in communities who think they have all the corners nailed down. As Dave points out in his letter to me, the method that has been employed traditionally is to wait until a crisis occurs and then try to handle it in the media.

Proactive emergency response organizations maintain positive relationships with the people they serve and the people they serve with. If there are lessons to be learned from this disaster, and there will be many, it is that we must continue to reach out to the community and solicit their assistance in determining acceptable service levels, in educating them on the necessity of having adequate staffing and other resources, and in helping us help them. We have to remain steadfast and even when we have those who can't say anything good about us, if we are doing the right things and doing so openly, there will be nobody who can be against us.

Please continue to keep the good people of Aurora in your thoughts and take the time to look around your own community, and see what you can do to be proactive, to understand the situation status in your own backyard, and to be ready if the time comes.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 29, 2012 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, America, article, Aurora, austerity, budget, cavalry, change, Colorado, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, cuts, Dave Statter, education, EMS, EMS Topics, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, leadership, learning, management, Mick Mayers, mission, Monday Morning Quarterback, motivation, nation, opportunity, politics, poor, positive, professionalism, resources, sacrifice, second-guessing, shortfall, South Carolina, STAT911, tea party, teamwork, The Denver Post, thought, Training, USA, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Integrity

1 comment

The Aurora tragedy has given me a lot to think about. Two subjects, though, I feel compelled to discuss in more detail. First, I want to talk about the article in the Denver Post and its contribution to the more widespread issue of journalistic integrity. Then, in the next part, I plan on discussing the overall situation of the public antagonism toward public safety and how it affects the nation's emergency services.

There's a dark side to the world of journalism that I hate. I have never professed to be a journalist; I am an author and a blogger. I don't report news. I, however, understand journalism as a science and as an art. I appreciate those who maintain objectivity and report the facts in an unbiased fashion. Journalism is supposed to be about shining bright lights on the facts. I am aware that journalists are trained to maintain a skeptical mind, in order to dig deeper, so they can extract the essence of the story and convey those elemental ideas to the reader.

I am also very aware of the role that journalism has in "keeping things honest". This relates to the responsibility of all of society to be open and truthful with one another, but even more so between government and the governed, where there is a constant flux of trust issues. I am of the belief that journalists have a very important, constitutionally protected role as part of our society to give us the real story, since there are those in power who constantly strive to manipulate information, or at least to present it in the best light to maintain that power. Therefore, the media has an important role in exposing governmental waste, failure, and truthlessness.

As a responsible leader, however, the side I detest is that journalists also have the ability to throw a grenade without any consideration of the damage it will do. Journalism as a industry has a tremendous responsibility to show integrity and to get the story straight. The paradox of journalism though is that there are a significant number of journalists who believe that it isn't their responsibility to get the whole story. This seems paradoxical simply because while presenting both sides of the story should be the goal, reporting ALL the facts doesn't generate conflict.

Thus, the whole point of my discussion today, the story written by Chuck Murphy and Karen Crummy, and printed in The Denver Post on July 24, 2012 with the title, "Some of the most injured in Aurora massacre waited for help". While I hate to point anyone toward this link for fear that the increase in hits might indicate approval, it really illustrates the discussion. Better yet, I'm not even going to discuss the whole article; let's just look at the beginning of the story, where the journalists involved led off with the following:

While Aurora police charged into a multiplex theater within three minutes of the first report of a shooting there, more than 20 additional minutes passed before medical personnel arrived at the epicenter, a period when at least one victim was still alive but in desperate need of medical attention,dispatch tapes from that night show.

As a writer, I understand the reason: conflict is important to a story, as it generates emotion.

You see, without emotion, readers, or shall I say, readers with no attention span, might not be compelled to read the story. As it is, I wonder how many readers of The Denver Post read the first paragraph and read nothing else of the story, and walked away thinking that the emergency response professionals of Aurora are incompetent. Regardless, the rest of the story, or shall I say, the rest of what was printed, never came back and discussed the other perspectives.

For someone like me, who wants to understand the whole story, this is pretty frustrating, because I want to really understand the problems. But for your basic reader, if the article doesn't drag me in, if it doesn't make me FEEL something, I'm not likely to read it. And readership sells newspapers, drives ratings, and scores internet hits. Therefore, as a journalist who wants to remain employed, or as a journalist who has an ego that needs stroking, or as a journalist who has a strongly formed opinion, in order to keep you interested in my crayon-scribbled trolling, I need to make you feel the tension.

As a writer, I see it all the time. When I write an article that promotes open mindedness, reflection, and a value of other perspectives, I get a lot of nodding heads and agreement, but not a lot of comments. When I write a rant, or I vent about something, I get e-mail. I get comments. I get views from both sides of the story, but normally it's those who feel like their side hasn't been represented. It generates traffic on my page. Conflict motivates people to do something, except that when improperly done, it motivates them to do the wrong somethings. In our case, articles like this cause the misinformed to react to the people who are trying to help them. And that is irresponsible.

I can understand the compulsion for a journalist to write in a manner by which interest is generated, because frankly, if my articles generate interest, my editor will be happier, and the publisher will be even happier yet. But it is irresponsible journalism that I am railing against, and it is that kind of journalism that needs to end. It is the tabloid "journalism" that has seeped into mainstream media, the journalism of blame, the journalism that pours gasoline on a blazing fire, that throws out innuendo without offering any solutions and doesn't actually report the entire story, just the side that will create anger in people.

These journalists write stories based on half-truths, or they present only the side of the story that will generate the most raw emotion. I said it earlier: Conflict creates emotion. Emotion sells newspapers. People tune into emotion. The cynical side to the world of journalism understands this and embraces it. Blame is modus operandi for many a journalist these days. It seems like every journalist these days thinks they are the second coming of Woodward and Bernstein and instead, many of them come off as a poor imitation of Geraldo.

So, in the interest of fairness, let me provide some perspective.

If you have to have some tension to get you to read, here it is. If you need me to point you toward real conflict, this is it. And if you happen to be an aspiring journalist, or at least a journalist who can read past the first paragraph, there is the other side that Crummy and Murphy failed to capture, that of the responders. I wasn't there, but having been in charge of some pretty complex incidents, I actually have some perspective.

As we arrive on scene and into the middle of chaos, we realize, as always, we have to make decisions based on little or no facts. And although I have never commanded a scene like this one, I have been on some very rapidly cascading incidents. I have had bystanders screaming at me so loudly and hysterically that I had to roll up my window just so I could request the resources they were screaming at me to get. I have been literally dragged out of the seat of my truck by a crowd. And I have been at incidents where three blocks away, people were pointing in the direction of the scene as we passed them.

I know first hand what it is like to deal with a scene with multiple victims, emotional bystanders, weapons, explosions, weather, fire, no readily available resources, and many other perils, and dealing with the situation getting worse by the second. And yet, I have no idea what this incident commander was going through at this disaster.

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I listened to the audio and I resent the implications Crummy and Murphy made in their poorly presented article. I can state without being there, but seeing video and listening to witness reports, the IC was likely overwhelmed in the first few minutes, having been sent to a report of a single gunshot victim, only to arrive at a rapidly emptying theater with dozens of victims, screaming, chaos, and within seconds, a rapid escalation in resource needs. Picture it:

The engine company arrives to what is reported as a gunshot victim with a single ambulance and the duty officer responding. We go to these all the time; Someone got upset, words were exchanged, someone has a gun, someone gets shot. Many times it isn't even a serious call.

In this case, though, the engine pulls up out front and people are exiting the theater in a panic. The fire alarm is going off. Some are critically injured. Cars are leaving the parking lot, victims are wandering the lot as well, crying, screaming, moaning, begging for help. Someone reports there is an active shooter.

Anyone who says they have an immediate grip on this is, pardon my language, full of shit. So if you are still reading, or if you happen to know Crummy or Murphy, maybe you can pass this on.

From the aspect of victim interface, let's just say that yes, it took 20 additional minutes from the "Aurora police first charging into the theater" to get "medical personnel to the epicenter". To me, that isn't too bad, given what they had.

The "medical personnel" (as they are referred to in the article) engage frantic, rapidly exiting crowds going the other way. They are being stopped by many of the wounded victims, but while these are able to walk away, they are not the worst of the injuries. The medics also find tear gas present, darkness, and the film is still running. And to compound things, the fire alarm is blaring, making it impossible to communicate, and the alarm has resulted in the other fifteen theaters' patrons ALSO exiting the building. As these patrons exit, in a panic, they encounter dozens of wounded victims. This triggers even more emotion and things are spiraling out of control. Of course, there are also those who had to go gawk for a while or shoot video for their Twitter feed.

Okay, so let's just say that the "medical personnel" were able to deal with that quickly, although I don't know how. But if they were, they then must overcome the knowledge that it was unknown if the shooter was alone, and I could be wrong, but I'm not even sure if they believed they had the shooter in custody in the first 20 minutes. And of course, there was also the very real possibility that there were booby traps in place, after all, he laid a few at the feet of the cops in his apartment, hadn't he? Then they were able to get into the "epicenter", and what did they find there? Multiple victims, theater seating (try extricating someone from between those sometime), and lots and lots of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the known, fear of failing this challenge. Fear of just surviving the incident.

Blame is the first arena of the cowards. People blame others when they perceive themselves as helpless. People who blame do so often without looking in the mirror at what they brought to the problem. At what they fail to do to solve the problem. Blame is easy for those who can't do better. So, you know, the fact that Aurora's "medical personnel" got "to the epicenter" in 20 minutes at all is pretty amazing if you ask me. It's easy for those to point fingers when they have no idea what the issues are. And if you are a know-it-all civilian who thinks they can do better, I challenge you to come on and show me. I have that kind of confidence in what I have just related to you. Anyone who thinks they didn't do a great job, really, can just STFU.

Therefore, I challenge the public to actually obtain the other side of the events. For those of you out there who understand, I'd suggest praying for the people of Aurora, but not just the families and friends of the victims. Pray also for the police, fire and EMS responders who did an outstanding job with really challenging odds and yet will revisit this disaster over and over again, wondering if they could have done something different.

The point of my post here is this: Can we improve? Certainly. There are tons of lessons to be learned from this incident. I keep listening to the audio and making notes, thinking of things we can do to improve our response, not just to an active shooter scenario, but to any kind of mass casualty incident. Better ideas for casualty collection points. Better ideas for staging and recovery of units once they have transported. Many, many lessons can be learned from this. I would concede that even the Aurora responders are looking at the response and wishing they could have adjusted this or taken care of that. But those facts have to be presented not as a failure of the response but as a means to improve. For just as we did after Columbine, there were things we learned that helped us to change, and in this case, it will be the same. But to suggest that the responders to this incident were not performing to the necessary standard is not just in poor taste, it is reckless and irresponsible. If you haven't faced a situation like this yourself, you have no right to question the ability of someone who has to face life or death decisions every day, much less a scenario like this one. So just shut it.

To my colleagues; we must consistently seek improvement and we look to how we can better serve the public the next time. But I want to publicly say that these folks did an outstanding job and they make me proud to be on the job. They really underwent an amazing trial and were able to come out the other side. Even if the trolls can't admit it, take it from someone who knows: you all did one Hell of a job, and you guys make us proud.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 28, 2012 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: activism, advice, advocacy, America, article, Aurora, austerity, budget, cavalry, change, Colorado, Command & Leadership, conflict, consensus, cuts, Dave Statter, education, EMS, EMS Topics, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, forward, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, leadership, learning, management, Mick Mayers, mission, Monday Morning Quarterback, motivation, nation, opportunity, politics, poor, positive, professionalism, resources, sacrifice, second-guessing, shortfall, South Carolina, STAT911, tea party, teamwork, The Denver Post, thought, Training, USA, values, vision, warfare, zen zone

Leadership That Matters, Part 11

No comments

So yesterday's post asked you to walk a mile in the shoes of the person calling for help. We may joke amongst ourselves about some of the more ridiculous-seeming alarms we go on, but those wry comments on the failure of someone to be able to say, shut off the water to their house when there is a broken pipe, should be kept among us as much as possible. Just because we have been graced with some common sense doesn't mean everyone has and I'm sure there's a day when you'll need help and hope nobody is making jokes about you as well. Today, however, let's talk about when leaders fail to make good choices.

In keeping with the spirit of the lead paragraph, some people don't even realize they need help, and instead of pointing at them and laughing, we should be showing them the way toward enlightenment. I don't think that all people who make poor decisions do so out of maliciousness; I really think that poor decisions often come about because of feelings of insecurity (the subject is afraid they will look bad), ego (subject believes they are right), misinformation (subject does not have all the facts), and for other reasons.

Take, for example, this situation shared with us through Dave Statter's site at STAT911.com, where a non-firefighting Fire Commissioner is making a big deal out of not being permitted to use emergency warning lights on his POV. The decision was made to not renew the permit required for this commissioner to have warning lights on his personal vehicle. The commissioner made interesting comments to the media about the situation, basically threatening the officer, who happened to be exercising some common sense. The facts of the case are pretty much immaterial; this is an internal issue that has become widely publicized because one individual feels like he didn't get his way. From the website Courant.com:

The standoff started in January when Rickis, then acting chief, decided not to renew Davis' state-mandated permit to use flashing blue lights on his vehicle, even though he's had the lights for years. "It was against the law [for Davis] to have it," Rickis explained. "You have to be an active firefighter. It had to be done." Davis, 64, a Blue Hills Fire District commissioner for 13 years, acknowledges that he retaliated by taking away the department-issued SUV that Rickis uses to respond to fire calls. "My dumb-ass assistant chief took it upon himself to discontinue my permit," Davis said. "I took his vehicle away because he had no authorization to do what he did."

Just because you THINK you have power, doesn't mean that it is automatically so. Here is a Fire Commissioner, involved in a petty fight with an officer because he didn't get to leave the blue lights on his car. If this commissioner had REAL power, he would not have been in the position to have this happen. There would have been mutual respect between he and the Assistant Chief, good communication, and this may not have ever come to light. Instead, we have conflict.

Frustration is more often than not, borne of perceived powerlessness. Frustration leads to many problems, problems that cascade away in the opposite direction from sanity, while traveling through anger, retaliation, and often enough, violence. As a leader, by having mutual consideration for others includes engaging them in conversation, in understanding their situation, and being able to discuss differences with at least some respect or even just professional courtesy. The commissioner might very well have a good reason for having blue lights on his car (but aside from the "power" trip it sounds like he gets from having them, probably not). This guy sounds like he has a real problem with people "not respecting his authority".

While all challenges can be solved by communicating and working together, there are plenty of barriers to communication, and there are plenty of reasons people can give for being irrational. If you are dealing with someone who can work with you to solve problems, you can avoid issues like these pretty easily. If not, you have a lot of work ahead of you. In fact, it may even come down to your having to leave that environment if things get bad enough.

If you always make the "right" decision, you will always have the force of "right" on your side. This commissioner is so delusional that he thinks that people will listen to his ranting; the Assistant Chief has the power of reason on his side. Like I said, not all the facts are probably presented here, but even if the commissioner did have the ability to do something to the Assistant Chief, he certainly isn't going to be able to do so now.

Might does not make right. Doing what is best for the people you serve, your real bosses, does. If you make decisions based on what is truly good for the community, if tried in the court of public interest, you will always prevail. The challenge is that this can sometimes be a tricky line to walk.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on May 9, 2012 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership • Tagged: advice, altruism, Blue Hills, Bozo the Clown, change, Command & Leadership, commissioner, conflict, customer service, Dave Statter, disaster, discussion, education, ego, EMS, EMS Topics, engage, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hartford Courant, Hilton Head Island, integrity, lead, leaders, leadership, learning, lights, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, mindfulness, mission, motivation, officer, opportunity, philosophy, planning, politics, positive, POV, professionalism, resources, South Carolina, STAT911, thought, Training, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, understanding, values, vision, zen zone

Do It Right The First Time

3 comments

I can't remember if I blogged this before, but if so, it bears repeating. When my brother and I were very young, my father, who was also a fire chief, brought home from work some pencils with the phrase, "Do it right the first time" inscribed on them. This message was brought up by my father many times throughout my life, although I'll admit, there are days even today when something goes wrong and I think back to that message.

It may take extra time that you don't think you have. That time may seem very valuable. The shortcut you take may seem like it saves those precious seconds. But I have seen in my life, many times when those shortcuts have proven catastrophic, and in most of those situations, I look at them and wonder, had someone taken a few extra moments to do it right, what the outcome might have been.

While the historical issue between response to rescues in New York City is frustrating and sad, since it seems to me to be the confluence of a power struggle and turf battle, instead of celebrating a terrific save the other day, instead we have this tragedy to contend with, as shared with us by Dave Statter on his blog.

I have always learned and always taught that when lifting, we "crib to the lift". And while the spreaders are not the desired lifting tool, I have used them before and they have worked just fine. I preface that, however by explaining that I am also passionate about physics and when I have used spreaders, I also understood that the force applied must go somewhere, and if the load isn't stabilized, the force is going to create motion we don't want. In this case, the force displaced the object alright: lateral to the support (the spreader) and with nothing to support the load (cribbing) the load went to ground (and victim).

I don't care if you are FDNY, ESU, or anyone else. I have seen this very same shortcut taken before in departments that have had identically catastrophic results. I also recall other times when the load has shifted on the column, in one case, three stacked air bags. In this case, the firefighter, who happened to also be the salesman of the lift bags and should have a little expertise in their use, himself was killed.

There's a lesson to be learned in every tragedy. Aside from the physical principles that apply to all of us here on this planet, there's another very important one. Driving recklessly, failing to wear your seatbelt, not wearing proper PPE, not paying attention to overhead power lines, and in this case, not providing an alternate column to support the load via cribbing, all might seem like they are saving precious seconds, but failing to do the right thing the first time, ended instead in tragedy.

Take a moment to ditch the emotion and be the professionals you are. Do the right thing the first time.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on September 3, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, News, professionalism, rescue, safety, US&R • Tagged: car, change, conflict, crib, customer service, Dave Statter, EMS, ESU, fail, fall, FDNY, FHZ, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, lift, management, Mick Mayers, motivation, motorcycle, New York, opportunity, politics, professionalism, resources, risk reduction, safety, South Carolina, Task Force 1, Training, truck company, vision

The Antidote To Road Rage

1 comment

Being a reader of FHZ requires you to maintain an open mind. Even if you don't agree with both sides of the issues here, understanding the contrary view permits perspective and in some cases, deeper understanding of the root causes of things we consider trouble. For an example, consider the recent road rage incident that seems to have piqued a considerable amount of interest. While I in no way sanction what was done, nor think it was a mature or acceptable way to handle the situation, realize that in many cases, feelings of frustration manifest themselves in angry, retaliatory behavior.

Who among us has not experienced anger at the inconsiderate moron who fails to pull to the right when we are well behind them, permitting us a free lane on the way to some emergency? Even in your personal automobile, how about the idiot who not only signals they are going to take a right turn, but then shoots across to two lanes of traffic to make a left? Like he couldn't just make the wrong turn, make a u-turn, and make things right?

Individuals have given themselves the freedom to make poor decisions, then be let off the hook because we shouldn't "judge" them, or because their mommy didn't hug them as a child, or whatever victim story they happen to choose this week. The reality is that while reacting negatively to those who act in error is not acceptable, neither is the act that sparked the reaction in the first place. Perhaps if our nation's law enforcement would start hauling off people who run red lights; who make erratic and unanticipated turns without use of a signal; those who drive too slowly in the passing lane, who fly down the shoulder to cut to the head of a merging line, or those who fail to pull to the right when an emergency vehicle is asking for the right of way, perhaps you might see a considerable decrease in road rage.

The base cause of indignity is usually the result of inconsiderate behavior. Someone flaunts the rules and disregards the normal values of society, and the enraged individual is angry at the injustice of the situation. I would be willing to bet that if anyone could write a ticket (not that I am an advocate of that), you'd see a lot less road rage.

Why? Because if there were a non-violent method of resolving the conflict, I would be willing to bet that people would take that option. The problem is that there is no resolution. The enraged individual feels as if there is no way the situation will be resolved, they feel the injustice of the situation, and they act out in frustration, sometimes regardless of the consequences.

Now let's take this a step further. Think of a non-driving situation in which you were pushed to the edge…Was this reaction a result of powerlessness, of frustration evolved from conflict in which you were victimized and felt no method to resolve your issue? Perhaps it was an automatron manning the phone at your credit card company, or the cashier at Wally World, or the cable guy who doesn't show up when he says he will. You percieve a lack of power to change the situation and that lack of control becomes overwhelming. Over time, you may even be willing to act on it, in such a possibility, even inappropriately.

So what is the solution for our version of road rage? Education? Humorous attempts to enlighten the inconsiderate sometimes work, as in this fine example from the Tuscaloosa Fire Department. Other attempts like this one from Eugene, Oregon and this one from an agency I can't read on their final slide aren't as memorable (IMHO) but still get the message across.

But the more in-depth solution would be for individuals to maintain less distrations in their vehicles (phones, texting, and radios come to mind), and more overall awareness (simply paying attention to the fact that you SHARE the road with others). And likewise, the way for you to avoid conflict that cascades into an intractable situation would be to step back for a second and understand the other person's perspective, and recognize that your escalation of the incident, although it may very well be warranted, is pushing you and the other party toward a battle that someone is going to lose.

Conflict in life is inevitable. Conflict escalation and intractability is not. Be one of the first on your block to be the voice of sanity and work to understand, not to react.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on June 26, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, customer service, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Nation, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, politics, professionalism, rebellion, safety, Training & Development, Vehicle Operation & Ambulances, Videos • Tagged: anger, change, conflict, consideration, customer service, Dave Statter, driving, education, empathy, EMS, eugene, FHZ, finger, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, go right, government, Hilton Head Island, idiot, inconsiderate, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, moron, motivation, officer, opportunity, politics, professionalism, red lights, risk reduction, road rage, safety, South Carolina, STAT911, tips, Training, tuscaloosa, understanding

Scary Rhetoric and Hypocrisy

1 comment

I can't imagine that there are much louder events than the crashing noise a meteor makes when it is hitting a planetary object. To look at a crater made by a meteoric impact leads me to assume it is a horrible train wreck of an event. So when the high and mighty go to ground, the noise seems to be equally stunning, especially if you believe in the individual beforehand.

People love to hate hypocrites. When a person or a group allows their reputation to be portrayed as one of honor and good, and then that trust is betrayed, then their actions can be seen as patently hypocritical. Those are the people who do things like run on a platform of family values, only to be shacking up in South America on taxpayer funds. Or doggedly pursuing impeachment of a President for being adulterous while engaging in their own adulterous affair. Or the religious who rail about the wrongs of homosexuality, only to be having a few of those relationships on their own. One of my least favorite college football coaches, who has led under the premise of being forthright and wholesome after his claims that he knew nothing; Well, maybe he knew a little more than nothing. And of course, there is this Weiner saga that continues to keep playing.

Since the firefighter is held to be an example of virtue, bravery, and service in the name of the community good, when one of us fails, we can expect it to get serious play. And in this day and age where so many people are looking for heroes, when we get it wrong, we get it wrong in a big way. The backlash continues to flow as it seems like from one day to the next, one or more of our own pulls a new rabbit out of the hat and ends up with their mug shot splashed across the front page.

I also like to read the comments in the stories as Statter and Firegeezer where a number of our brethren sanctimoniously proclaim the fallen as garbage and a disgrace to the uniform. But really, here's where it really gets ugly. Check out the comments on this article from the Las Vegas Sun. You can also check out the whole story there as well, but one look at the comments and you can see that the idea of the public singing our praises as "heroes" has been replaced by angry, bitter tirades against what we do not only while not running alarms, but even while providing our service. And I don't even know what it is that these guys may or may not have done to draw this kind of fire. I don't know that they did anything wrong or they have just found themselves poorly positioned in the center of a taxpayer backlash against spending.

Just yesterday, my own organization happened to be fighting a decent sized brush fire in a residential area. With all of the coverage of the devastation in the Arizona wildfires you'd think citizens would be praising a fast, aggressive response; instead, at least one TV news report (not the one cited) pointed out the "inconvenience" of residents not being allowed to their homes until the fire was declared under control, and I corresponded and talked with a few people with very similar complaints. Fortunately, all of my interactions were positive and once explained, the individuals were at least a little more grateful. But what we have always taken for granted (that the citizens see us as positive, upstanding members of the community), has been replaced in many jurisdictions as our being selfish, lazy, and out-of-control.

There's enough ugly to go around right now without our own people bringing it down upon us. It is up to each and every one of us to weed out those who continue to give emergency service a bad name with their negative attitudes, their arrogant behavior, and their me-first mentalities. The good name and the "hero" portrait of emergency service, like it or not, came about because we put it on the line for our neighbors, we genuinely cared about our community and serving others, and because we were always seen as hard-working, blue collar people. When a firefighter said something, they shot straight, but it was said with concern and compassion. We have always been about getting the job done, no matter what, no matter how dirty or dangerous, but without bitching or complaining or pointing out each others' faults. This is not how we work today.

Let the politicians, TV preachers, Wall Street CEOs and the other scumbags be the hypocrites and punching bags. Each of us should be serving as a positive example of how to do this job, volunteer or career, and without acting like a bunch or amateurs and whackers. Man up (that includes our sister firefighters as well) and do the job, and while you need to educate the public in what we do and how they interact with us to provide a team approach, don't call attention to yourself for doing it. Just do the right thing and we'll all be fine.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on June 15, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Funding & Staffing, leadership, News, Wildland • Tagged: Arizona, backlash, bravery, change, conflict, customer service, Dave Statter, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, hypocrisy, Jim Tressel, Las Vegas Sun, leadership, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, Newt Gingrich, North Las Vegas, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, risk reduction, Sanford, South Carolina, virtue, vision, voter, Weiner, wildfire

Tuscon – There But For The Grace of God Go I

9 comments

We get facts before making knee-jerk decisions on the incident scene. Why do we fail to do this everywhere else?

I sat down to write this not to defend the man’s actions, but to reflect on the collective anger of the masses. I actually picked up the story of the firefighter refusing to respond to the Tuscon shooting incident not off of Statter, as many of you may have, but from a news aggregator on Twitter. I immediately went to the story and while I had to wince at what occurred, I was even more disappointed in the troll activity, which didn’t take long to build.

Before I even went to see what our beloved Fire News blogs like Statter, Fire Daily, Fire Critic, et al had to say (and what you all had to say), I felt it important to say this piece about what went on in that fire station that day.

Unless you are a Tuscon firefighter or officer who happened to be in the room at the time, YOU DON’T KNOW. You can speculate, you can imagine, you can insinuate, and you can opinionate, but the long and short of it is that YOU DON’T KNOW.

Was the firefighter wrong for not responding? Given what I have read so far, and in my opinion, yes, as I believe that it is important as a professional responder to put my personal feelings aside when called to duty. But I wasn’t there. I have no idea what was going on in the station. I don’t know what was going through the firefighter’s head when he got the call. I don’t know what he knew, or what he believed he knew, and I don’t profess to understand what he was going through. But we are dealing with human beings, and not machines, and on occasion, events transpire which cause even the most hardened “hero” to individualize the situation and for whatever reason, experience emotions that we can’t assume are rational or even explainable.

There have been many documented cases where someone froze in the heat of battle because of some emotional trigger. There is a great piece on the differences between choking and panicking that Malcolm Gladwell writes about in What The Dog Saw. Conversely, there are those who were emotionally triggered and acted WAY out of character when faced with a traumatic event, by charging suicidally up a hill to single-handedly take on a machine gun nest, or diving on a grenade, or lifting a heavy object off of someone, when none of those actions were really planned or even considered. The human mind is an amazing place; some of you should visit it sometime.

Those of you so quick to judge should consider walking a mile in someone else’s shoes sometime. For all we know, the individual involved may have been short-timing it. But you know, on the other hand, he might not have, either. When you know for sure what was going on, feel free to share it with us. Until then, maybe you should STFU in the hopes that if this, God forbid, happens to you someday, you won’t have your guts pulled out and spread to the four corners of the planet like some many of you are willing to do on a regular basis.

I’m willing to hear what happened and keep my opinion to myself instead of trying the guy on the World Wide Web. Kangaroo courts went out of vogue back around the time lynching was considered to be a crime against humanity. Get the facts before making a judgment. It’ll pay off in more ways than one.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on February 18, 2011 • Filed under: Command & Leadership, customer service, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, government, leadership, motivation, News, professionalism • Tagged: Arizona, conflict, Dave Statter, disaster, EMS, FHZ, Fire Critic, Fire Daily, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, firefighter, Firefighter Nation, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, Giffords, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, politics, professionalism, refusal, South Carolina, tuscon

A Little Safety Parable

2 comments

You too could be roadkill. Photo courtesy of aanimalcontrol.com

So I’m walking from our house to the beach with my three daughters. There’s a road we have to cross in between here and there that’s pretty busy. On occasion tourists come flying around the curve, not realizing that there’s an area where you have to cross (although it’s not a marked crosswalk). While no one has been hit at that spot in the 29 years I have been living on the Island (that I know of), I know it’s a bad section that you can’t see around. It occurred to me today when I was making that crossing that it’s a lot like the risk we endure as firefighters.

I had the opportunity this weekend to read a recent article on Stat911, that seems to have created some serious wailing and gnashing of the teeth between people who call themselves brothers. Honestly, it was pretty sad to me as I read these comments. I admit, it is a little bothersome when a video comes out and a number of people point out the obvious mistakes made, but as I mentioned in an earlier article here on FHZ, we should be looking at things that go wrong and learning, and resolving to keep from repeating events that maim and kill our brethren.

Conversely, instead of saying how stupid some of these people are, perhaps we should offer some constructive criticism and offer suggestions on methods that would help solve the problems, rather than lowering the bar into that angry pit of accusatory language. And when we generalize about whole departments or organizations based on a squirrely few, we aren’t doing anything other than trying to piss one another off. I agree 100% that some of the repeated actions (or inactions) taken by other firefighters that endanger themselves and their their colleagues are a little infuriating (like refusing to wear a seat belt), but like the point I have also made over and over again, people aren’t going to learn when you rub their nose in it, they will learn when they see the logic in changing.

But back to my story. There is, of course, risk in crossing the street, but we accept that risk when we go for a walk, don’t we? As a pedestrian, we take a calculated risk every time we go out in the road, but it doesn’t stop us from doing it. In fact, walking in the middle of a busy street is exhilarating. There’s a certain adrenaline rush when you run out in front of moving cars.

As a responsible father, however, I’d advise against running in front of a moving car. I’m sure I’d get in a little trouble with my wife, the law, and probably get a few death threats if I just let my children run out in front of cars. If my four-year-old got struck by a car there, after having just let her run out there, knowing the risks involved, wouldn’t that make me a little bit liable? But given the logic espoused by a few of my more enlightened colleagues, I suppose I am overreacting when I tell my girls it’s a wise idea to look both ways at that intersection. After all, no one has ever been struck or killed here. If I insisted on having the street marked with lines and a sign, I might be construed as overreacting if you ask some of these folks.

I eat risk for lunch. I eagerly chose to pursue a fire service career because it was exciting. Even more so, I focused my whole career to concentrate on special operations. I’m the Deputy Director of a US&R Task Force. I used to teach high-line rope rescue, and hold internationally recognized instructor certifications in SCUBA and water rescue. I hold NPQ and IFSAC certifications as a HAZMAT Technician. Two of my favorite hobbies are mountain biking and skiing. I’m not in the slightest bit worried about taking risks.

But there is a serious difference between taking stupid risks and calculated risks. Firefighting isn’t Jackass. We have a serious job to do that involves serving the public, and using our personnel as cannon fodder doesn’t do the job. If you take a risk and die trying to save a life in our job, I’ll be the first one to sing your praises. If you take a risk and die trying to save a burning trash pile, I’m sorry, I’m not impressed. If you get burned because you failed to use the safety equipment we provide you, I guess my first question will be, why wasn’t it used?

I think some of the plastic vests and hard-hats are a little much sometimes, but I can understand the effort to make ourselves more visible and to avoid having something clonk us on the head. But as a leader and chief officer, I also know what can go wrong, what can go seriously, seriously wrong, and to ignore it because I’ve never seen it first hand would be folly. And to just turn my back on personnel who fail to use good safety practices, knowing what the outcome could be, would be negligent.

Quit the name calling and sand throwing and act like grown-ups. You can argue that it’s just “ragging”, but it’s not. The language some of you all out there are using is just plain wrong and malicious. And it certainly doesn’t represent your side of the argument professionally at all. I can give people crap all day long with the best of them, but that’s not what some of you are engaging in. What you are engaging in is simply destructive behavior, and it’s one of the reasons why our profession isn’t always taken very seriously. The only people we are hurting here is ourselves.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on August 7, 2010 • Filed under: "accident prevention", change, EMS Health & Safety, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firefighter Safety & Health, In the Line of Duty, leadership, Line of Duty, LODD, motivation, officership, professionalism, safety, seatbelts • Tagged: change, conflict, Dave Statter, education, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, Hilton Head Island, incident management, management, Mick Mayers, risk reduction, safety

Daily Values vs. Emergency Ops Values

2 comments

webDSC_0162 A while back, Chris Naum at TheCompanyOfficer.com discussed briefly the New Rules of Engagement for Structural Firefighting. This is, of course, a work in progress, but I urge you to read it and understand what these rules mean to us as practitioners. We are called to save lives and fight fires, but to do so safely and responsibly, understanding that our resources are finite (you just can’t keep throwing firefighters into fires until one comes out safely with the victim).

If you search this blog for discussion about leading with values (I even linked the search to make it easy for you), you’ll see that values were specifically mentioned in at least eight articles, not to mention all of the other times values were a peripheral part of the discussion. Like it or not, organizational values define organizational culture. These values help guide you in times when hard decisions must be made under ambiguous situations. When organizations lack defined values, or personnel don’t understand them as the gospel truth, they don’t always reflect those values when challenged. If you have never implicitly discussed your organizational values, your personnel will revert to whatever values conform with those of the group (think “B” Shift) or scarier, their own beliefs (which you have no ability to predict).

While the article by Chris suggests that the Rules should be concise and bulletized in format, it is in that suggestion related to firefighting that I see these “rules” as reflecting our values in considering the risky nature of engaging with a particularly dangerous enemy. I challenge each of you to read more about this and ask yourself, as well as your leaders, questions that help refine what to do in those emergency situations, especially as they involve our own organizations.

While we value the service we provide to our customers as being our highest calling, there comes a defining moment where we must place the welfare of our troops at a higher level, especially when it comes down to fighting a “lost cause”. I am willing to personally take a calculated risk to save lives, but I am NOT willing to take a risk personally, or to expose each of you to a risk for the sake of a body recovery or to fight a structure that will be written off anyway. I am as aggressive as they come when it comes to firefighting, but I value my personnel higher than any property, and I think we all need to think that way about how we choose to engage at these incidents.

But it is in this that the problem is apparent; we have made a decision to discuss our values in regard to emergency operations, but have we defined our organizational values when they come to day-to-day operations? In many departments, the over-arching statement seems to be, “Use common sense and logic when it comes to making decisions”.

While I agree one-hundred percent with that statement (and that approach may very well save your life some day on an emergency scene), when we have recruits (and in that, I’m lumping Juniors, new volunteer members, etc.) making value-based decisions on day-to-day things (like when they are unsupervised or in situations where they are asked to show initiative), have we really done a good job of reinforcing our belief system to them and demonstrating a positive example by living those values ourselves?

Take setting fires, for example. While we (and society) continually insist that firefighters setting fires is wrong, is the culture around your organization such that going to fires and “fighting the red devil” is more important than community service? Is it more apt to say that personnel walk around moping about the loss of call volume? Are members who seek to demonstrate their commitment to the community challenged by the lack of calls to demonstrate that commitment? Why is it that we are in this business, anyway? If the answer is to run around in a uniform and drive fast down the road with lights and sirens on, well, we all know that only represents a finite amount of our jobs (and it’s not like I want someone who thinks that’s a good reason to be an emergency service provider anyway).

While it seems pretty intuitive that setting fires is a bad thing, when you are dealing with people who already have a less-than-mature attitude and a challenge to their belief system, you set yourself up for disaster. If you really want to avoid this type of incident occurring in your organization, one of the basic things that should be done is to engage personnel in activities OTHER than fighting fires/running calls. If you want to find out how committed these personnel are to the community, give them day-to-day assignments that include non-emergency prevention or participation duties- just have them man an engine and go show the flag at the local high school football game, or go spray water for the kids on a hot day. Anything to have them prove their worth OTHER than running hot and exerting their “auth-or-it-tie” (it always loses something unless you hear Cartman saying it).

Organizations who find themselves struggling to recruit or to get people to do their jobs must evaluate if there is a gap between what the leadership defines as valued behavior and what the membership (or potential membership) defines as a valued behavior. If there is a gap, someone had better define the expectations, or the expectation will be that everyone is entitled to define the organizational mission according to his or her own needs. If that is the case, I’d expect to be reading about you on STAT911 or Firegeezer some morning soon, and not in a good way.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on April 16, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Fires, Funding & Staffing, leadership, motivation, News, officership, professionalism, Training & Development • Tagged: arson, B Shift, belief, change, Christopher Naum, community, culture, customer service, Dave Statter, define, education, emergency service, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firegeezer, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, organization, risk reduction, values

What Defines A Successful Outcome?

3 comments

Teams must get adequate direction to insure successful outcomes.

To begin with, let’s slide over to Dave Statter’s site for this embarrassing moment in Missouri. I have been in plenty of fires where the scene has had incredible damage and I have been to scenes where there is an awful lot of confusion, and while on the face it seems like a thorough search of the structure wasn’t completed, I have literally stepped on a deceased victim before, not realizing they were there because of the surrounding damage, debris, and the condition of the body. I wasn’t there, and my comments actually have to do with successful outcomes.

We all define what completes a job, or any task, I should say, differently. What makes a task complete has to do with your work ethic, your education level, and the amount of feedback you receive from supervisory personnel. When we perform a task that has been assigned to us, what I think is “complete” might be radically different from what you understand as “complete”. While performing a daily task, this might not be of any consequence. However, on the emergency scene, an error or omission might involve a seriously embarrassing (or worse, deadly) incident. Completion of any assigned task requires a series of elements: an objective, material resources, personnel resources, and time, to mention the key items. The clearer the objective, or the more well-defined an objective is, the more likelihood that the objective will be accomplished with the desired outcome.

In a situation like the Missouri incident, while extraordinarily tragic for ALL the parties involved, the discussion lends to the issues of the definition of a successful outcome. While the public has an expectation that NO MATTER WHAT, if someone is in a burned building, that we have all of the ability in the world to find ANYONE, they are sorely mistaken. Again, I don’t have all of the facts here, but I do know that I have been involved in fires where we literally had to sift through debris to find teeth or bones in order to determine (or rule out) the presence of a missing person. Likewise, not expecting to find someone in a bathtub, and with significant structural damage, I could see how someone might get missed.

However, there is a certain amount of thoroughness that we must apply to each job in accordance with the desired outcome. In this case, if there is an expectation that we have a missing individual, if they were reported to be at home, and the evidence is such that there might be a person in the building, then no stone must be left unturned to either find or rule out the presence of the victim. This is on one end of the spectrum; the other end is that we should not unreasonably expect a team to be so thorough that they are tied up for entire shifts working on projects that are of little importance because our expectations are so high and our definition of a successful outcome almost unreachable.

As leaders, we must do our best when assigning work to assess the competency levels of the personnel we are assigning the work to in order to gauge the amount of information we will need to provide. As leaders we must also provide the appropriate resources to get the job done, and even sometimes, we have to run interference for the team so they can get the task accomplished (scheduling, meddling Battalion Chiefs, you know what I mean). But supervising the crew doesn’t just involve telling someone to do something, then expecting some miraculous outcome.

When people are not given adequate tools, direction, or a defined outcome, you can’t expect the outcome to be consistent with your expectations. Too many times I have heard of company officers who are frustrated with the final outcome of something they have assigned, and my first question is, “Was the outcome adequately defined?” Nine times out of ten, that is the problem. I even say that to myself and if something hasn’t been done according to what I expected, I need to realize that I’m only going to get what I asked for in most cases, although some of you all surprise me (in a good way) with your extra effort and the excellent result you produce.

The Missouri incident illustrates that there are significant differences in the understanding of what constitutes a finished job. If there are haphazard approaches to gathering information, we can’t expect to assure the outcome will be as desired. And while successful leaders allow subordinates to learn through independent discovery, independent discovery with a chance of success requires that you at least give them the tools (material, education, personnel, and time) to achieve a positive outcome. Anything less and you shouldn’t be surprised. Insure that as leaders, you set your people up to succeed.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on April 9, 2010 • Filed under: Command & Leadership, customer service, fire, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, News, officership, planning, professionalism, Training & Development • Tagged: Dave Statter, definition, education, fire service, Hilton Head Island, incident management, leadership, Mick Mayers, Missouri, opportunity, risk reduction, SC-TF1, success

Get Your Facts Straight

No comments

As usual, Dave Statter is hard at work getting us News from the Beltway, where there always seems like something is going on (it’s a happening place). In this case, crews were on scene preparing to extricate a patient declared deceased when it was determined that the victim was in fact, alive. While I was not there, nor are all the facts out there for examination yet, it makes for a very graphic illustration of today’s discussion: What facts may seem to be in evidence right now may not always be accurate, thus the need for continual re-evaluation of your situation.

I’m not advocating continual monitoring of the “pre-hospital dead”, although I would hope that this is a good case for the medically affiliated that we need to insure pulslessness and apnea, and confirm asystole in three leads (and print it). That is called triangulating your facts and documenting them in the hopes things don’t change later (like the person is actually alive).

No, what I want to discuss is that in all kinds of places where we need to make a decision, even though something appears to be true right now, it might not be in a few minutes, a few hours, or a few days. Conditions change and regardless of the origin of the facts you hold dear, they might not always be accurate facts. The response to this ever-changing environment isn’t to throw up your hands in frustration (like my children and firefighters seem to do sometimes), but to re-evaluate your situation and to flex with the new conditions. There’s a quote attributed to Whitey Ford I heard years ago (and of course, I can’t find my source now) and I have to paraphrase it because I don’t remember it exactly: “Don’t make up your mind about something until the moment you absolutely have to; it may be that by the time for coming to a conclusion occurs, the conditions may have changed.”

People who worked with me closely before I made Chief probably recall my frustration with schedule changes, personnel changes, equipment and apparatus changes that occurred over the course of a shift, often with no warning. Now as a Chief Officer, I have a different perspective on the situation because I now have to step back and look at “the whole forest”. I now understand how and why some of those “course changes” have come about and I also see why frustration with those changes is counterproductive.

As firefighters, we deal with changing conditions on scene without too much drama. We know Murphy is a constant companion and if anything, we are surprised if everything goes RIGHT on a scene. No incident is “textbook”. But because we are good at our jobs, we flex with the new situation, understand it, and make whatever we have work. Why we can’t do that in our daily operations, I guess, is my question.

If there’s anything I know about myself, it’s that I know I am not a patient man. In fact, I’m probably one of the least patient people I know. I also know I don’t have a lot of tolerance for less-than-excellent performance. But part of maturing and growing involves experience, and experience shows us that there are many changing elements that occur over the course of a day, and a life, and reacting to them rather than soaking them in and understanding them (and then solving the problem) isn’t productive. In fact, it is stressful and irritating to those who we have to live with.

I have a lot of personal growth and understanding to continue working toward and I wish some of this stuff would have been shared with me when I was a firefighter and a young officer, but it wasn’t. I now have that benefit of experience, though, and it is my responsibility to share it with you all. Take the time to understand the situation and instead of criticizing, find benefit in the lessons we learn and resolve not to let mistakes happen again, or at least in the environment we personally control.

Get facts before making critical decisions and don’t dwell on them too long, because in many cases, the facts will change before you even get a chance to decide on them. Take decisive action when necessary, and when not, take considered action, and always, always, continue to re-evaluate the situation. By understanding your surroundings, you will be safer and your life richer for it.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on January 28, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, Firefighter Nation, leadership, News, officership, Patient Management, planning, professionalism, Rescues, revolution, safety, training-fire-rescue-topics • Tagged: change, Dave Statter, deceased, education, EMS, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, incident management, leadership, management, Mick Mayers, motivation, opportunity, planning, risk reduction, Whitey Ford

Being On The Top

2 comments

While reading the ongoing saga in PG County last week, Dave Statter’s interview with Jerry Engle brought forth a quote that honestly, made me cringe: “When you are the best fireman in the county and you come from Kentland, I mean, yeah, everyone’s going to try to knock you off the pedestal.”

Although I have a lot of pride in my contributions to the fire service and I continuously strive to be as good as I can be, I certainly have no delusions that I am the best, and even if I were, I certainly wouldn’t make a quote like that, knowing what kind of fire that will draw on you. Although I am no psychoanalyst, it is this type of personality who we see from time to time in our business that really worries me. These types seem to exhibit a serious need for being the center of attention, just like with the clown haircut, the clown car, and the clown attitude. But there’s a big difference from being “on top” and being “over the top”.

There’s a reason why people can’t stand showboating. It’s a graphic statement of “it’s my world and you are just living in it.” Maybe some of you love Chad Ochocinco and T.O. Most of us (like I do) think it would be nice if they just disappear. Especially when you consider for as much talent as they might have, if not for the blocking of the line, the accuracy of the pass, and the playcalling of the coach, that talent is useless. If you think you’re a fire service God, think again. This job is as much about team as any job, if not much, much, more. A lack of teamwork on the field means someone doesn’t succeed. Lack of teamwork on our part might mean that one of us dies.

Personally, I’d rather be a good player on a team of good players, where our collective efforts produce excellent results. I like sharing that feeling of accomplishment with others. But being on top alone is, well, lonely. And when things go bad, if you are alone on top, regardless of how good you are, people are a lot less likely to throw you a rope on your way to the bottom. After all, you’re the best, remember? Let’s see how you get out of this one alone.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on November 9, 2009 • Filed under: Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, News • Tagged: Dave Statter, fire service, Jerry Engle, Kentland, leadership, management, motivation, Prince George County

Balance In Power

No comments

Right now there is an interesting discussion on Dave Statter’s blog, STATter911 (in the comments) on orders given by a commissioner to remove a flag sticker from a locker. Despite the conversation outlining the age-old struggle between being too harsh and too lenient, the underlying issue is one of conflict: the escalation of events to the point in which the conflict is intractable and neither side is willing to give in.

The leadership in this case appears to have been addressing a critical issue (the issue of racially charged material on a locker). The firefighter is interested in leaving an icon of his beliefs and values in place. Both sides have a point and both sides can be seen as being right. Both sides have issues that can be argued as being uncooperative and counterproductive. So who is right?

In emergency services, those who have power have a need to maintain discipline for a number of reasons. I’m assuming anyone reading this understands that. Likewise, individuals have a need to be individuals, and even the most uniform of organizations can’t hope to suppress individuality. From the soldier who keeps a religious medal tucked under his helmet to the police officer with a picture of her family in her protective vest, people will find ways to insert their individual values into whatever it is they do.

The most effective way to handle the problem of the offensive material on the locker would be to reason with the individual as to why the offensive material should be removed. Barring that, punishment of the individual who is operating contrary to the desired values of the organization seems to be the appropriate move. Unfortunately, the easy way (and the wrong way, and also the way it seems that discipline is most commonly utilized) is to punish everyone for the poor judgement of a few.

As a chief officer, I know as well as anyone that discipline is essential to the effective delivery of service, given the type of service we are providing. And while I insist on a certain degree of uniformity, the best way to handle that and to maintain morale is to seek alternative ways for people to express themselves. Be it a unit patch, or a special pin, or something like that, these icons have the ability to make us feel special while being part of a team. Conversely, and it might be the case here (and it might not), some employees choose to express their individuality or express their “values” as a form of undesirable protest or as a means of “fighting the system”.

There is a certain amount of tongue-biting I have to endure over the course of each day when someone does something counter to my own values and beliefs. As a parent, it is something that happens daily in one degree or another, and with firefighters it seems that the same motivations exist there as well. It is difficult sometimes to separate what is truly an issue versus what is petty. Sometimes we as leaders must pick our battles and be willing to give on an issue so that we have some bargaining room later when we need it. Regular conflict for the sake of conflict is just being a jerk. Power isn’t worth anything if you don’t let it go once in a while. If you use your power like a stick every time someone goes counter to your ideas, don’t be surprised when someone eventually turns on you and snaps back.

I believe in my right to express my support of this Nation, the God I pray to, and a number of other causes. Likewise, I believe there is a need for uniformity and order when we are serving the public. We have an image to portray in an effort to inspire confidence in our service and people respect uniformity. It signifies order and that’s what we are trying to achieve when we roll onto the scene. In both cases, I think there is a little space for understanding the opposing points of view and achieving cooperation.

When you are a leader, you need to act like a responsible adult. As a follower, if you want to be treated with respect, you also need to act like a responsible adult. Giving someone a suspension for leaving an American flag sticker on their locker, regardless of orders, is being inflexible and unreasonable. Treating everyone with a broad brush when it is not indicated is never a good idea. But failing to comply with an order from the leadership who is trying do their job by creating some uniform and objective rules isn’t a good idea either. The established order was to remove “everything”. But upon realizing that “everything” included an American flag, the rules should be amended either to specifically permit valued and acceptable items, or try to work together to a possible solution.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on October 17, 2009 • Filed under: Command & Leadership, News • Tagged: change, conflict, Dave Statter, education, fire service, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, motivation, opportunity, politics, South Carolina, STAT911

Although I am affiliated or employed by certain entities, I in no way speak in this forum or others on behalf of those entities unless I have specifically stated such. Any implication otherwise is doing so contrary to my agreements with those entities. The result is that the observations and opinions by myself or on behalf of Firehouse Zen are not sanctioned by any other entity other than Graffiti Train Sherpa Publications and are protected by the copyright laws of the United States of America.

Archives for dave-statter

Listen To What You Are Saying

Your Altruism Is Hereby Noted

Next Man Up

Blame First

Too Much of a Good Thing

Dumpster Fire

Keep Your Adversary Close

The Important Part To Consider

Integrity

Leadership That Matters, Part 11

Do It Right The First Time

The Antidote To Road Rage

Scary Rhetoric and Hypocrisy

Tuscon – There But For The Grace of God Go I

A Little Safety Parable

Daily Values vs. Emergency Ops Values

What Defines A Successful Outcome?

Get Your Facts Straight

Being On The Top

Balance In Power

Follow Firehouse Zen on Twitter!

Follow Firehouse Zen on Facebook

Firehouse Zen - Brain food for Mongo.

About

Connect With Mick

Fire & EMS Blogroll

Fire & EMS Destinations

Recent Posts

DISCLAIMER

Previous Rantings

Recent Comments

FireEMSBlogs.com Community

Featured from across Fire/EMS

Solar Panel Cause of Fire at Webster Groves…

2 Dead in UK House Ka-Boom…

Arrival video: Adrian, MI house fire.…

Dallas & Phoenix LODD info, Vote For…

Archives for dave-statter

Follow Firehouse Zen on Twitter!

Follow Firehouse Zen on Facebook

Firehouse Zen - Brain food for Mongo.

About

Connect With Mick

Fire & EMS Blogroll

Fire & EMS Destinations

Recent Posts

DISCLAIMER

Previous Rantings

Recent Comments

Tags Across FireEMSBlogs.com

FireEMSBlogs.com Community

Featured from across Fire/EMS