I have been following with interest the discussion of a National Firefighter Code of Ethics.  The other day I saw that Ken Willette, the Public Fire Protection Division Manager at NFPA, blogged about the one written by the Cumberland Valley Volunteer Firemen's Association this past year.  Being obtuse, like I often am, I had actually never gone to the FirefighterBehavior.com blog although I have seen some of the well-written articles that have come from posts on there.  Nothing like going to the source, huh?  Well, if you haven't done it, you need to go yourself, and when you are through, being the fire service leaders I sense you are, send your people there as well.

But this doesn't stop at the fire service.  In fact, as I have said many times before, there are lessons to be learned from a brotherhood of individuals who, as recently as a decade before, were considered to be the last bastion of integrity, honor, and valor in a society in which those values have been eroding daily.  The ever-decaying values in the fire service are an excellent case study, and many questions can come from how we went from where we were to where we are today.

And I am not suggesting that the entire fire service lacks these ideals; we just have not been very good at removing the elements from our midst who do not embrace those same values.  Well, our profession (and for the uninitiated, this refers to both career and volunteer professionals in the emergency services business) has been challenged by a number of external forces that, to the casual observer, seem to have affected the type of person we are getting to replace those who have gone on to other places.

Emergency response, paid or not, is very much a value-driven occupation.  Just because you show up and put out a fire or lug someone to the hospital, is irrelevant, despite the arguments that we are not customer oriented.  If anything, our business is all about the customer, because frankly, we tell people all the time that we can replace their material objects, but we can't replace the people.  We say this is the reason we rescue first and not salvage first.  But ironically, we have many of the same people saying that we shouldn't consult with our community in the spirit of partnership, or that we know better than they do what they need, or even more cynically, that their observations regarding our service and the way we do it doesn't even matter.

Therefore, there is a profound need to make sure the people we bring in not only have read and signed a memo telling them what our ethics happen to be, but that they LIVE these ethics.  That they BREATHE these ethics.  That they BELIEVE in these ethics and that they are proud to associate with others, a brotherhood of others, who feel the same way.

A while back, I happened upon a rollover in another jurisdiction while off-duty, and stopped to see if they needed any help. The driver was already on the way to the hospital, and the crews were just picking up debris, but I know a lot of firefighters in that jurisdiction, so I was really just chatting before heading on.  In the corner of my eye, I saw a firefighter pick up a phone on the ground.

I don't know about you, but my cell phone wasn't cheap, and they aren't indestructible either.  Plus, even if it is just damaged, you could still get the contacts off of it, etc.  But the firefighter opened up the phone, laughed to himself, and THREW the phone into the damaged car.  Not gently, mind you, but enough that it broke.  Since it wasn't my jurisdiction, but everyone there knew me, I walked over and picked up the now damaged phone, then handed it to a trooper.  I glared at the guy on the way by, but I didn't say anything. But I let him know that this was unacceptable, at least in my department.

I won't say that we don't have any of those types in our organization, but as Capt. Tom and I were saying the other day, the balance has been strongly tipped in favor of the "good guys" for a while now, and we continue to drum our organizational culture into those who don't get it.  But these values don't come naturally to some and frankly, do you even want to take the chance of trying to drag a member to that place, or should we look first for those with the right stuff, and then TEACH them to be a firefighter?

If I were advertising, I would say that if you revel in someone's misfortunes, or if you like the power of being a uniformed public official, or if driving in total disregard of others appeals to you because you have lights and siren, you probably shouldn't apply.  There's nothing at all wrong with chasing the adrenaline, but it certainly needs to be kept in the perspective that you will take on a challenge to help others, not to wish it on people so you can get your fix.

If we really believe in our brotherhood, our profession, as a calling rather than just a job, we need to take a look at who we introduce to the team. So long as we continue to permit those who are among us to soil our ranks because they fill a spot, we will continue to tarnish the image we used to be proud of.  I, for one, prefer that when I go to see my kids at school, they consider firefighters to be worthy of admiration, rather than another person they can't trust.  There's a lot of that going around lately, let's not let it happen to us.

I fell asleep at my computer last night.

I am working on a project that has pretty much occupied all of my time over the course of the last three shifts. I think, in retrospect, that the reason that I am having to embark on this dreaded project is simply that a great number of people failed to understand that their actions or inaction created a mess that someday would have to be unraveled.

The mess doesn't even go back a short while.  When I say a great number, I am talking about numbers probably nearing a hundred.  Anyone close to this project that knows that I am talking in circles and understands the scope of this project might disagree with me, but I see the failure in my own interface with the situation, and I see the failures in many others who permitted the condition to occur, knowingly or not.

In a microscope, closely examining one piece of the puzzle, you might not even notice the problem exists.  But when you step back and look at the larger picture, you can see it is definitely crooked.  There are warning signs printed all over this and frankly, they were ignored. But they are insignificant when you step back even farther and realize that any problems we face today could have been avoided had individuals assumed some responsibility and did the right thing early on.

One of the principals in this project called out everyone else on the team and with good reason.  I say that because he is absolutely right; the system failed us.  Or to be clear, we failed the system, because it wasn't all to be blamed on the way we manage these situations.  Instead, key stakeholders ignored critical information.  They felt like status quo was acceptable. Or perhaps they felt inadequate to address the most pressing challenges.  I told this individual that while the historical aspect of how we got to this place is important, just to put the picture in perspective, who to blame is irrelevant. The situation is what it is and you can't unring a bell.  We must look forward.

Those of you reading this might assume you know what I am referring to, but I am suggesting to you that you re-read it and ask yourself, "What am I doing that is creating this same situation today?"  Because if you are honest with yourself, there are any number of issues I have to deal with that follow this chain of events and I am sure I am not alone.

I have quoted my father on any number of occasions in this regard, probably the quote that will stick with me for the rest of my life: "Do it right the first time."  Had we addressed the issues when they were small, had we fixed the leak, had we prevented the spark, had we communicated the concerns, if we had done any of these things, would they have corrected the problem before we got to this disaster we now embrace?

Let go of your concerns for a moment and realize that a drop of water contributes to the flood that sweeps away your home.  Everything affects everything else and that ripple becomes a wave, given the right conditions to grow.  Don't be part of the problem; solve the issues before they become a nightmare to untangle. 

In June 2009, I blogged about spontaneous bystander response, or rather, the difference between that and a bunch of people jumping into their Fire SUV and driving to say, Bastrop, Texas, only to be turned away from the action.  I don't expect civilians to understand.  On the face of it, it looks like the Feds are turning away perfectly acceptable resources. The response community, however, obviously needs a big-ass brick dropped on their head with a note wrapped around it that says: "Don't go if you aren't invited."

Let's put some perspective on the issue AGAIN.  I've been dealing with disaster response for a very long time.  When I need additional resources, I have found that there is an electronic device in most response apparatus that I can use it to call for help.  In case you are wondering, this would be the radio.  In these days, however, a cell phone, e-mail or any other number of methods may be employed (in case you didn't know).

We are not discussing the desire for people to help their neighbors by bringing clothing, money, food, water, labor, etc.  We are talking about bringing yourself (and usually not much more) and saying, "I can fight fire".  We are talking about popping a sleeping bag in the car and going for a road trip, thinking that in a lot of these situations, it is going to be like camping, sans Kumbaya and S'mores, but with an extra helping of excitement.

As I and countless others have said, time after time after time:

The main problem faced by those of us in the disaster community when it comes to spontaneous response, is the fact that as the designated adult supervision at these events, we have a responsibility to insure not only mitigation (or depending on the complexity and scope, control) of the incident, but the safety of those who were not necessarily part of the problem before, but now are. 

My whole reason for saying this is that while most of us in the response community can certainly appreciate the altruism in bystander response to an emergency, there are cases upon cases in every aspect of disaster and technical rescue response where the spontaneous bystander response in and of itself became an additional rescue mission for us on our arrival.  If anyone wants to be bored to death, I can cite example after example, and even put you in touch with others who can do the same.  This has not changed for any emergency in decades.

You may say, "Hey, these guys were calling for help and nobody came."  That is YOUR perspective on the situation.  The reality is not that there is a true lack of resources.  At Katrina, for example, there were plenty of resources.  There was just a little problem of certain parties not knowing the plan for getting those resources, or not knowing how to deliver them, or sending them to the wrong places.  There isn't a lack of resources, there is a lack of knowledge on how to put them in place and make the work.

This is where the Feds come in, believe it or not.  Because the Feds have a few things going for them that in a lot of cases, the locals, the counties, and the state don't have.  Principally, that would be money and coordination.

Having been involved intimately with a few of these little dances, I have witnessed firsthand the dialogue going on in the command post with some of these elected officials:

Fire Chief: "Okay, we have fourteen houses burning over on XYZ Circle, but we don't have the engine companies necessary to cover that area. I need to have the authority to call the state and have them declare a state of emergency."

Mayor: "Well, that's your job, dammit!  Hell no, I don't want a bunch of people from Capital City over here telling us how to do things their way!  Don't you have a plan?  Why don't you just use those guys with the pickup trucks who showed up this morning?  Doesn't the state have a bunch of those thing-a-ma-jigs they can send over?  You know, strike forces, or task teams or something?"

Fire Chief: "Strike teams and task forces.  Yes, but this is the representative from the State here.  They are offering their help, but since this hasn't been declared a disaster by the Governor yet, before I agree to sign this Memorandum of Understanding, I needed to let you know this is going to cost us money…"

Mayor: "Is that all you are waiting on?  Dammit, sign whatever you need to sign!"

Fire Chief: "By ordinance, I am required to get your permission before creating a liability for the city over $100,000."

Mayor: "WHAT?  How much are we talking about here?"

Fire Chief:  "I don't know, but more than that.  So this guy says we can have the Governor declare a state of emergency…"

Mayor: "I don't want those a#$%$@*s from the Capital down here telling us what to do.  Just see what you can do for a little while."

Fire Chief: "Ohhhh-kay…"

Now, I have no idea if that's what is going on in this situation.  I would actually doubt it, because they declared a state of emergency pretty quickly.  But most localities are pretty reluctant to declare that they need help, because to them it is a loss of control, and when faced with that breakover point (where they can't control it, but don't want to release it), that's when the chaos thickens.  I actually wrote a paper a number of years ago on why local fire departments won't develop plans or call for help when they need it.

So let's cut to the chase.  Feel free to read the earlier article.  Feel free to hunt down any other number of articles I have written on the subject.  But while the dates have changed, the situation has not.  The system for deploying emergency response assets around the country, while not perfect, is better than it used to be.  And the situation is improving.  But if you are just dying to go somewhere and help out, instead of piling into the family roadster and hiking out for the unknown, instead, determine what equipment and apparatus you can send somewhere, decide who you will send, identify their capability using relatively well-known recommendations out there, and get with your state to find out where you can list your resource through mutual aid agreements.  Do this ahead of time and when the time comes, if your services are needed, they will call you.  

Or even better, establish "sister community" arrangements in advance: work with other agencies and communities out there on a special agreement that if your community is impacted, you will call them and likewise, they will call you.  Do this with communities who are in other regions or states that permit you to get assets no one else is likely to be drafting from.

The short story is this though: Although the sentiment is appreciated, drama is not something the locals need when chaos has come to call.  They need coordinated assistance of the right kind.  And they need an asset, not a liability.  If you are going to help, go to help, not to add to the problem.  And you may not like to hear that, but it's the truth.

Without a doubt, issues of mental health seem to  have always been one of those sensitive issues that no one would talk about.  However, there was an article in Sports Illustrated this past week about the Miami Dolphins' Brandon Marshall in which he has been candid about his mental health challenges.  His bravery in discussing the subject openly has been refreshing, as it is a message to others who have issues that they are not alone, and that seeking help is not a sign of weakness.

Any admission of mental incapacity is traditionally stigmatized but it really shouldn't be.  Mental health problems originate from a number of different sources, but especially now in our nation, everyone is subject to being overwhelmed.  The stress that I can personally sense with a number of people I know is higher than I have ever known it to be and I'm positive that anyone reading this probably knows their share of individuals who are struggling as well.  Between the roller coaster ride our economy is on, the overwhelming number of jobless, foreclosures, environmental disasters, terrorism, and other world wide concerns, even if you are normally pretty stable, in these times pretty much anything could be the final straw.

We spoke of inordinate stress reactions before in this forum, like back with the massacre in Arizona where a firefighter failed to respond to this incident.  There were plenty of people who were quick to judge but had no idea what the basic issues were.  I don't even know that we still have all the answers.  But while today you may feel like you have a grip on things, tomorrow could be the beginning of the end of your current world.  I heard a figure the other day that said that one out of every seven Americans right now is on the food stamp program.  I'm watching Dateline NBC as I am writing this, where Lester Holt is doing a piece on three women in Millen, GA and the effect the economic recession is having on this small town.

It's easy to be smug about how good your life is when things are going well.  It's easy to think that someone who is having a major crisis should just suck it up, because really, how bad can it be? Well, it is a testament to the maturity level of some of the trolls who prowl the web as to how quick they question someone's integrity because, say, they aren't half the Superman they happen to be.  Frankly, I have met some of the individuals who make statements that parallel the "We fight what you fear" mentality and you know, I question their sanity and their ability to fight fire more than anyone who has the courage to admit they need some help.

There is a dividing line between those who need institutional care and those who are in the midst of a crisis.  And while the grand arena is "mental health" and I am in no way qualified or knowledgeable to discuss the differences, there is an obvious need for people to be compassionate and understanding, because today's bad day could be tomorrow's nightmare.  Don't be so quick to make statements that question someone's dignity just because they have hit a wall.  I hope to never face those challenges myself and I hope you don't ever have to either.  If you need help, get help. And if you know someone who needs help, be a real leader and do what you can do to compassionately point them in the right direction.

Now, I do read a lot and listen to podcasts, etc. and I will check my quotes with a deep internet search to make sure I haven't stolen someone else's ideas, but I'm pretty sure I said this stuff at one time or another.  I also left off anything I paraphrased (I hope) and added some stuff that exists in unpublished posts (there are a few dozen of those).  Believe it or not, we here at FHZ have standards.  They are low, but we do have standards.  

So here you are, from the beginning of FHZ, some of the more memorable ones:

• "When I give you an order, I want to see it done, or your dead body where you died trying to do it."
• "Never eat more than your mask can hold."
• "I am not your friend, I am your boss. If you want to be friends, that's okay, but that doesn't change the fact that I am your boss first."
• "The company officer is the designated adult supervision in the station. Act like it."
• "There won't be a group hug at the end of this. I don't do Kumbaya."
• "When I call for a resource I'm gonna give you type and kind. If I call for a Lincoln-ful of Panamanians, I don't care where you got it, just give me the closest one."
• "Let's put this in terms you can understand: Confined space rescue is nothing more than HAZMAT on a rope."
• "Being a truckie requires resourcefulness. You are presented with a problem no one else knows how to fix and you fix it with what you brought to the party or what you can swipe. After that, it's all magic."
• "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 the victim story is this week." (Okay, I just used that one again the other day).
• "The base cause of indignity is usually the result of inconsiderate behavior." (Oh, and that one is new. But I liked it).
• "Conflict in life is inevitable. Conflict escalation and intractability is not." (Alright, that one is new as well.  Back to the old stuff).
• "There's enough ugly going on around us right now without our own people bringing it down on us."
• "Each of us should be serving as a positive example of how to do the job, volunteer or career, and without acting like a bunch of amateurs and whackers."
• "The important part in our lives, really, isn't necessarily what we can fill up our minds with at every moment, but about creating space to let more in."
• "There are a few things that you should raise the stakes for, like your faith, your family, and your country.  But when faced with an unwinnable scenario and a profound lack of resources, sometimes it is best to save what you can save and live to fight on another day."
• "Where t = tempo, r = resources and f = frustration: increasing t multiplied by decreasing r = exponential increase in f."
• "The taxpayers in your community ultimately decide what level of service they want.  If they are insistent that giving you no resources is okay, then they have to be educated to what extent that investment will reap disaster.  Risk is proportionate to return."
• "There are other sides to every argument that get squashed by the rush of the ADD crowd to comment.  Don't fall into the trap of the unenlightened.  Think before you post."
• "I can think of no rational society that thinks it is okay to screw the disadvantaged for the benefit of the privileged.  Taking advantage of the less fortunate is simply bullying."
• "When we use the phrase 'customer service", if that's not appealing to you, try saying it like this: 'doing what is right for our neighbors and the people who visit and work in our community'.  That should be a little more pleasant."
• "Successful coaches match schemes to personnel, not vice-versa."
• "If you are going to successfully implement change in your organizational culture, there should be a reluctance to be where you were and a desire to get where you are going."
• "I'm pretty sure that when my ticket , I'm not going to be quoted saying something profound, poetic, or heroic.  It is likely going to be something that can't be repeated around children or the faint-hearted."
• "If we really want our industry to recognized as professional, it requires consistent conduct that is professional."
• 'Legitimate power, in the sense of leading others, is limited to the amount of leverage the followers will permit."
• "Tansformative leadership requires commitment, honesty to self, and an understanding of the world.  It's yours if you can embrace change, open yourself up to it, and set the example to others."
• "Our business is too dangerous to leave the teaching to amateurs."
• "Perhaps if you guys are going to fight fire like you are in the '70's, you should be paid like we were then too."
• "If as a team, you can't agree on the destination, someone needs to get out of the car. Ultimately, getting to the destination requires assessment, negotiation, understanding, cooperation, and ends with commitment."
• "More often than I care to, my 'command presence' comes out at inopportune times, like when I am talking to my wife (she doesn't like it), my kids (they're not crazy about it either), or my colleagues (they probably think I'm insufferable anyway)."
• "If you fail to illustrate a clear picture of who is in charge, someone else will come in and fill that drawing in for you."
• "Sometimes the best we can do is to pin it down to the neighborhood of origin, if that's what was burning when we got there."

Since at some point perhaps I'll add another page of these for the next years, if one of the sentences I uttered strikes a chord with you, point it out to me and I'll add it.  I'm all about customer service.  Until next time, thanks for reading.

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.

There is more to what we do than just "fighting fires".

In a fit of laziness, and believing fell well that I was smarter than any ol’ blogging software, I tried to use a previous blog to shortcut the addition of categories and tags.  Of course, this resulted in my changing forever the URL of that post and with my already poor memory, forgetting the previous one so I could revert to it once again.  And no, I already tried just going back to a previous version.

Thus our Zen lesson of the day: When it may seem like you are saving time, often, it costs more time to fix when you screw it up.  This, however, comes back around to the reason for the post to begin with.

As I said in “Hogs To The Trough“, we have been our own worst enemy.  We have failed, on any number of levels, to “sell” our message to the people who need to hear it most.  Getting the message out requires effort that some of our brothers and sisters simply don’t see as a priority.  We are, as I have heard so many times before, the “only show in town”.  I’m pretty sure the refrain to that is, “You have no choice but to call us when your house is on fire”.  This has been the argument of the Anti-Customer Service crowd for a very long time.  In fact, since before some of you little nippers were born.

If we were doing such a great job, this would be a no-brainer.  Cut emergency service spending, people die.  Well, if that were absolutely true, I’d bet we’d be hearing a lot more screaming from the public.  While I believe strongly that cutting emergency service spending does result in a greater flirtation with disaster and mortality, the realization from the public is, we cut emergency service spending and guess what?  No one died yet.

These are the same people who, when faced with the addition of a traffic light at the busiest intersection in town, cry and complain in the newspaper and at meetings about the inconvenience, only to cry and complain about the lack of public safety consideration when a family of four dies at said intersection.  Then, of course, that horse has already fled the barn, but by God, there’d better be a traffic light at that intersection before the weekend or heads will roll.

There are no switches for turning on the message or turning it off.  If you aren’t preaching the Gospel daily, the audience doesn’t hear the message when everyone is shouting and it’s too loud to hear.  Our presence in our communities has to be a daily event, so that when you are silenced, it is deathly quiet, and people realize, “Hey, something is wrong here.”  If you are saving homes and businesses from fire through your prevention message and excellent response and mitigation, you need to trumpet that to the rafters, and regularly.  If your community sees a benefit in early recognition of cardiac arrest, advantageous placement of AEDs, and the presence of a well-trained, well-equipped tiered medical response, you need to share that.

There are no shortcuts to this.  Communicating the message of the value of your organization must be done constantly.  This isn’t a one-individual task either; it has to be at the very heart of your organizational culture, that service to the community isn’t just a good idea, it is the core of our existence.  When we fail to provide an excellent service, the taxpayers will remember it come budget time.  If we piss off the masses, they will be the first to stand silent when we are losing personnel, apparatus, equipment, training, and every other enhancement, because frankly, your existence is invisible to them.  Given the choice between funding you and not funding you, if the effect is only a subjective loss (just because you SAY people will die, doesn’t mean they will), they are more willing to take the chance of not funding your needs.

My wife owns a flooring retail and installation company, KPM Flooring, here on Hilton Head Island.  She is the sole proprietor. She has a vision of what the organization represents to her customers.  She doesn’t wait for you to read her mind to find out what that vision is.  She doesn’t wait for you to come in looking for tile or a beautiful area rug to show you what things could be like in your home.  She creates (herself, I might add) advertisement that portrays her company as being “sophisticated”, “classy”, “exclusive’, “original”, and “innovative”.  Those words are in quotes because these are comments we have gotten from people who have viewed her website or her print advertisement.  And you know what?  They have found this to be true and have told their neighbors, families, friends, etc.  We probably advertise less than Brand X, but where we advertise and the message we send says: If I want a really classy look to my home or business, I need to go to KPM Flooring.

Getting your message out requires you to have an idea what you want your message to be, first.  Many emergency service organizations haven’t even decided upon that concept yet.  They are happy with the status quo.  The status quo doesn’t require a bunch of effort.  There’s a certain comfort to saying, “We’re okay with the idea the public thinks we are a tax burden, but they don’t have a choice.  You know, because PEOPLE WILL DIE.”

We don’t want to change.  If we did, we would do it willingly.  As Pumbaa said, “You have to put your behind in your past“.  Or something like that.  If we really do care about serving the public, we will get on board in getting them involved to find out what it is they need, and providing service for that need.  When we can do this, the community won’t PERCEIVE that they have a need for us, they will KNOW they have a need for us.  And when they do, you won’t have to worry about budget cuts again.

Picture from FireRescue1.com

Not long ago I was asked by Jamie Thompson over at FireRescue1.com to write an article on fire suppression.  While I wrote it a few weeks before, it published yesterday.  But yesterday morning, before the newsletter with my article  came out, I was reading the FireRescue1 article on the Chinese water cannon and this inspired my morning “message to the troops” to be about innovation and change.  Of course, the point of my article was about innovation and change, so it was good timing.

I have been having some pretty in-depth discussions lately regarding change as related to technology.  There are people who feel like all of this technology is overwhelming and distressing and changes should be avoided.  There are those who think technology will solve all the ills of the world.  And then there are many who see technology as being a useful tool that when applied to the right situation, can produce wonderful results, and conversely, be misapplied and create major disaster.  Some think that there should be more emphasis on the basics, which would supplant the need for technological shifts.  And there are those like me who see potential in these changes and wonder how we could harness the power of both to provide safer and more effective service.

While the water cannon discussion illustrates an interesting discussion on technology, the comments reflected several differing opinions, and while I noted that there was a lot of discussion about what it wouldn’t do, I only saw one serious commenter reflecting on what it might be able to do.  Many think that innovation stops at invention.  In fact, innovation can really be considered having a new birth there.  Because once something is invented, there are usually a few individuals out there testing it, finding out its limits, and trying to envision what this new development might mean to them.  And they tweak and refine and experiment, and then, voila, we have a new way of doing things.

Innovation has plenty of effect on your daily life, but you have to take some time and appreciate that effect, because we tend to take it for granted.  How many things were invented that aren’t necessarily used for the original intent?  In the fire service, we take things all day long and make them do things they probably weren’t designed to do (which isn’t always good).  How much better would our organizations be if, instead of looking at the problems, we saw the challenges and rose to solve those issues instead?  If we took into consideration the changes we have made and came up with ways to even improve farther on those ideas?

While honing our technique is desirable to improve performance, as one commenter on my article suggested, and he goes on to suggest that CAFS and other fancy things can’t overcome poor technique, I agree in part and principle.  But I disagree on a different level, that is, from the aspect that if we have good technique AND technological improvement, we can have an exponentially beneficial effect on solving problems.  Good technique AND good tools create a force multiplier.

Solutions for problems are all around us; we just need to take the time to find them.  Knowing where we come from is important, because it helps us to understand where we want to be.  But abandoning good technique for promotion of good technology is NOT the answer.  The answer lies in both, and knowing that in order to improve our condition, we must take advantage of all of the opportunities that come our way, if not to stretch out from that point, to know that this is NOT the way to go.  We all must experiment and learn and understand.  But most of all, we have to be open to the ideas and see them with clear vision.

When you don't have the resources internally, develop partnerships.

Successful coaches don’t force a system down the throats of their personnel without a very good reason. Instead, through careful evaluation of skill sets, they point their personnel toward positions in which they will have the greatest impact.

I’m a huge football fan. I’m impressed by teams that are able to recruit and develop personnel to fit their particular schema.  But there are also those who try to take a scheme they have bought into wholesale and refuse to adjust based on what their personnel can and can’t do.

If you wonder about what I’m getting at, look at it like this: If you are a fire chief in a small town or suburban department and insist that your department uses tactics employed in the big urban departments, I would suggest that you objectively evaluate the success you have with that and consider using different tactics.  Truly urban fire departments can bring resources to bear quickly. Urbanized areas often have great water supply and relatively short response times.  In a lot of departments around our nation, we don’t have an unlimited amount of companies to throw at an incident. We don’t have great water supplies everywhere.  As a result, we must find alternative delivery methods.

If you fail to admit this to yourself and choose to ignore the need to develop other abilities, you will continue fighting the same battles with the same results.  Develop vision and understand that there are other ways to do the job you do and to provide the service desired by your community, by getting them to help solve some of these issues.  Open up some planning sessions to the public and solicit ideas.  See if the people you serve have ideas that can provide resources you didn’t think were available.  If anything, the participants will enjoy learning more about what it is we do, as well as to educate the public on the things we really need.

Take a deep breath. There, that's better, isn't it?

I don’t even know where to begin with this discussion except to offer my apologies for using a derogatory term to describe one side of the issue and failing to come up with a sufficiently derogatory term for the other side. When I decide to offend, I think I’m an equal opportunity offender, because like I stated, I’m not a proponent of either camp. I think for myself.  And for the comment from one individual who suggested, “This and the many attempts to drag the tea party into the mud show how desperate you guys are”.  I am not “you guys“, because I certainly don’t believe in the alternatives either side has presented me as being responsible or for the good of the people.  Given the rhetoric on both sides, I’d be embarrassed to be in either camp.

Likewise, it appears I have been the subject of misinformation. While I am well-versed (and abhor) the quid pro quo tax-and-spend mentality of the liberals and bureaucrats in government, the extreme in the other direction, given discussion I have had with friends and colleagues who have expressed to me their support of their ultra-conservative views (and defending the Tea Party Movement) has been one of scorched-earth budget management and widespread privatization of almost every aspect of governmental service. However, as has been expressed in comments regarding my last post, that is not the platform of the Tea Party Movement. Of course, this is pretty difficult for me to embrace, because there doesn’t seem to be anyone who can consistently state anything to me about the Tea Party Movement other than their anger at the status quo. So other than, “Vote the bums out” and “Obamacare is going to cost us jobs and decent healthcare”, both statements of which I think are pretty extreme in themselves, I haven’t heard anything that causes me to get warm and fuzzy when I think about these individuals taking office.

So since I now have your rapt attention and expect to get plenty of hate mail from the OTHER side of the fence, maybe the two poles will come together to listen to what I have to say without finding it necessary to accuse me of unprofessional or crass behavior.

When I speak of “lock-step” marching to the party line on EITHER side, it is the mindless reliance on sound-bites and partial information because I think many people have become too lazy to think for themselves.  Thus, this article.  Because like I said, the fault I had in the last article was 1) not coming up with an equally sensitive descriptor of another point of view and 2) not having an accurate view of the platform of the other side I chose to illustrate my case.  Because really, there are many more than two points of view and to suggest that these extremes were the only extremes would be grossly oversimplifying the issue.

Believe me or not, I had no intention of pushing anyone’s buttons and I’m sorry for doing that.  It did, however, reveal to me the obvious.  There is a disincentive for responsible reporting and you all have unpleasantly illustrated my argument with a gold frame.

I have been writing on the internet since before there were blogs.  I am not, however, a reporter.  Much of what I speak of on the internet is anecdotal or observational.  I do, however, write technical articles and papers independent of FHZ, and my expertise is in research and strategic planning.  So while one of you chose to express your feelings about my “lame” article, I’d say that I’m not hurt, in fact, I’m smiling a little to myself because the only comments I ever hear about how lame something is happens to be when I’ve tweaked someone.

Since I can view the number of “hits” on my page, I take a particular interest in my “outlier” posts: those which show me wild spikes in readership.  I take great pains to present both sides of many issues.  Anyone who actually KNOWS me knows that I am very concerned in getting multiple points of view and understanding the entire issue.  I am not an “emotional poster”, or one of these clowns that has a conspiracy theory about anything coming down the pike.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it), I have a pretty stable and respectful readership that makes rational and sound comments based on their own experiences.

With the exception of the “Roto-Ray” article several months ago, those outlier posts have consistently occurred when the headlines or lead paragraphs have involved controversy.  It is clear: rational and reasonable discussion is not what people want to read.  With few exceptions, people want sensationalism and anger.  It’s no wonder the internet isn’t safe anymore.  People are willing to post damn-near fiction in order to get traffic.  What does THAT say about society?

I don’t have any interest in writing titillating articles and reveling in a flock of readers who are only coming by to see what awful thing I have to say about someone or something.  I don’t rant.  And this is neither MSNBC nor Fox.  When I talk about balance, I mean it.  But I would like to have more readers, if anything, because what I have to say, I think, should be said.  I would like to think that when I write, instead of creating hate, readers say, “Wow, that’s something to think about”.

I don’t apologize at all for suggesting that both extremes are wrong.  There are many more of us in the middle than on the fringes.  We are not all zealots and we certainly don’t all believe in the vast right or left wing conspiracies.  Those of you who do are often just unhappy people itching for a fight.  Those of us in the middle lean to the left or the right because we do see some values in one or the other direction of thought, but most sensible individuals realize there’s a certain value in compromise and consensus.  Let’s go back to the sandbox, shall we?

Any of you who have ever played in a sandbox know that there are sandboxes where personalities dominate.  In some cases, a bully has taken over the whole sandbox.  In some cases there are two opposing forces.  In many cases there is one force, the force of sharing and collaboration.  If you had three sandboxes side-by-side and you were choosing which sandbox to put your children in, I’d be willing to bet that none of you would choose to put your children in sandbox one or two.  So why would you choose to live in a society that encourages those behaviors and a grander scale?

Firehouse Zen is not for the weak-minded.  I am calling my readers to be responsible and ethical and balanced.  I ask you to take other points of view into account, if for any reason, it may reinforce your own beliefs.  I’m not asking you to embrace opposition, I’m asking you understand it.  In doing so, is where we grow.

Since I have the attention of those who just want sound-bites, let me tell you, there is a wealth of information on the internet that will make you a better person.  We don’t all have to flock to these negative sites and we don’t all have to be at war with each other.  Just as in the situation in South Fulton, there are other sides to the argument that never came out when the ADD bloggers began blasting out accusations and rhetoric.  Don’t fall into the trap of the unenlightened.

If you read the first article and still hate me, I’m okay with that.  But I ask you to re-read it and see that it wasn’t directed one way or another, and admit that to yourself.  If you don’t care to come back, I’m okay with that too.  And if you think I’m unprofessional or crass, I ask you to read my other articles and see if you still believe that to be true.   But I’m not about to apologize for telling you all, it’s not always about winning or losing, sometimes it’s about surviving the game.  Instead of fighting with each other, we should be pulling together to solve our most pressing challenges.  There are too many awful things going on out there that we could solve together and maybe we’d feel just a little better about one another.  Of course, if you choose to stay, I’d like that too.

Let’s reward insightful and responsible discussion and avoid the lunatic fringe.  Let’s work together rather than apart, and let’s step away from the negativity.  I’d just as soon do that myself and it’s my hope that you would too.