Skip to content


Leadership That Matters, Part 17

No comments

If your organization doesn’t value altruistic leadership, after a while, the enlightened will get so worn down from beating up against that wall that they will give up or move on.  There are plenty of places in which this environment exists, and while I like to think that eventually good triumphs over stupidity, I know plenty of cases where not only did the “leaders” fail, but they dragged down the whole organization in the process.

In one case I am familiar with, the CEO was not only beating down everyone around them, but performing criminal acts as well. His more worthwhile subordinates were trying to save the company but those whose interests were to save themselves only managed to prolong the inevitable.  In the real world, judgment doesn’t come swiftly from the heavens to reward the just and to punish evil.  This company slowly and painfully went into default and ultimately, the people hurt the most were those who tried to keep the place afloat to the bitter end.  Life isn’t always fair.

But if anything can benefit from transformational and altruistically motivated leadership, it is indeed the organization.  The reason is that regardless of how well you perform, crises will occur over time, and the organizations that weather those challenges best are ones that are value-centered to begin with.

Entities who are untrue to their expressed values find that when a storm arises, there is ambiguity in how to right the ship.  Those who see that integrity isn’t necessarily rewarded will lean toward the solutions that cover their asses the best.  There is discipline in transformational behavior, in that people take actions based on the greater good, or for the right reasons, rather than based on self-interest.  People enmeshed in a mercenary culture won’t be manning the lines when there isn’t anything left to reward them with, they’ll be sneaking onto the lifeboats.

When as a leader you can point at certain values and say, “This is what we expect you to do, regardless of the situation”, you can expect that the people who are on board will act accordingly, especially if you personally hold those values to be true.  If you don’t adhere to those values yourself, don’t be surprised if your followers act exactly as you do.

Morale, it is said, is the great force multiplier.  Transformational leadership can exist in a culture that doesn’t value it, but unfortunately, if it doesn’t get the chance to root, it dies on the vine.  If you say you value excellence but settle constantly for mediocrity, mediocrity is what you will get.  If you say that you value innovation and settle for the status quo, be prepared to see stasis.  If you say you value integrity, but the back stabbers and ass-kissers are the ones who get promoted, you can be reassured those will be the characteristics of those who desire promotion.

The only way to develop transformational leaders is to demonstrate that you value transformational leaders.  If individuals see that altruism is acknowledged and rewarded, they will act accordingly, and they will begin to develop those characteristics not because they are rewarded, but because they realize that it is the right thing to do.

Leadership That Matters, Part 16

No comments

I was giving Zach Green from MN8 Foxfire a tour of our department when I got a call from Lt. C down at Station 7.  There is some construction going on next door to the station.  The landscape contractors brought in some trees to be planted; in one of them, a nest had been built. Two baby birds were subsequently dropped onto the burgeoning garden forming in the shadow of the new cell phone tower.  

What do people do when they have a problem they can't readily solve? They call the fire department.  Since a fire station happened to be right next door, the contractors brought the helpless creatures to Engine 7's house.

Armed with their extraordinary problem solving skills, the crew came up with the right answer. They called a vet to get some advice and found that one was willing to take the birds in for us. The call to me was for  advice as to how they could carry out their plan, since the vet was in Bluffton, outside of our jurisdiction.  I told them to manage with what they had and to let me think about how to make things work out.  I was returning to my office at Station 7 anyway and told them I'd talk to them in person shortly.

When I arrived, the guys were huddled around their little project at the watch desk, feeding the birds worms.  They had a syringe and a catheter and were dripping warm milk gently into the two tiny birds mouths.  And they had a hot pack under a warm towel keeping the birds comfortable.  Solutions like these don't come readily to people who aren't engaged in their jobs.  These three firefighters, three guys who I wouldn't describe as "huggy", were tending these infant birds with all the gentleness of my 11 year old daughter, with real concern for their outcome.  

Was it their job to do this?  No.  Was it a challenge, especially since they didn't know what to do? Yes.  Did it fall into the scope of our mission?  No, but it was the right thing to do.

There are those who would argue that our resources are better spent elsewhere.  They might say that we have a responsibility to the community to provide fire and EMS coverage and this was detracting us from that responsibility.  I would argue that this was not the case.  I would also argue that the ability for our people to show compassion for even the most helpless of beings demonstrates to me a willingness to do the job we are charged with doing, while sharing our organizational values.

Transactional leadership has no place here.  What benefit did they get from these efforts?  What tangible bonus came as a result of taking in these birds?  There was none.  These firefighters did these things because they care.  And caring is an extraordinarily important part of leading altruistically.

Our organization has established integrity as one of our principal values.  Some describe integrity as the desire to do the right thing even when nobody is watching.  It would have been very easy to just get rid of these birds in the dumpster, or to tell the contractor it wasn't our job, or to tell them that they needed to call Animal Control, or any one of a number of excuses people can make for not doing what is right.  I wasn't around, I never would have known.  But that isn't the way we operate around here.  Our leaders, almost to a man, can be trusted to make good decisions even when they aren't popular or convenient or in the job description.  They know what we expect, they understand our shared values, and they set the example of leadership by demonstrating these values in their daily actions.

What examples of leadership tell you a person cares even when it hurts?  Can you look at yourself or at other leaders and say that the organizational value of integrity is continually upheld? When people act with integrity, it is often because their leaders have demonstrated their own insistence on acting with integrity.  When leaders don't demonstrate these values, the troops say, "Who cares?"  Of all the values an organization holds, it is the ones that the followers see their leaders demonstrating that they place importance on.  If you don't act like it means anything, you shouldn't be surprised if the troops don't feel the same way as well.

LTM, Part 15 Continued

No comments

I won't keep you in suspense that long, as I am not a suspense writer.  He ended up succeeding and retiring about ten years later on his own terms, more or less.  The reason why? Because after I had my conversation with him and outlined my expectations, he was surprised that nobody had ever really sat down and had a similar assessment of his contribution to the organization.

Here was somebody who in his early years did the things he needed to have done, he took his tests, he maintained his certifications, but he wasn't your superstar employee.  He wasn't the one showing up at a half-hour before clocking in, or joining special teams, but he was doing a decent enough job and I won't say he was simply filling a spot, because he was indeed better than that, but he wasn't a rock star either.

As it happens, our department back then, and in the form we are now, happened to have a lot of rock stars.  Not that there was or is a problem with that, but as supervisors, we have to be careful that while we have high expectations of individuals, we are reasonable in their ability, both physically and mentally, to manage and succeed at that level.  If not, we may need to adjust.  We might need to be a little more realistic and of course, we may need to go to the Bag O' Tricks and use a different means of motivating this individual.

He had a high sick leave ratio, simple enough; is the problem an actual medical problem, or does he need to go to employee assistance to seek solutions to personal problems?  Regardless, I was the first one to literally say: "You have a sick leave problem.  We need you here at work.  If there is a health problem, we need you to go to a doctor and get it resolved.  If there is another problem, we can help with that too.  But otherwise, we need you to be here on your assigned day for the assigned length of time. Period."

That might not translate into "altruistic" leadership to you, but remember, sometimes we are too close to our own problems and need to have someone else put it into perspective for us.  But if you fail to address the issue, don't be surprised if the issue keeps occurring.  Sometimes people need to be pointed gently in a direction, and in this case, he got help.

These issues also carried over to some of the other challenges as well and we were able to resolve those as well.  The issue of some of the previous leadership styles, which you might want to understand, involved having inconsistent supervisory expectations.

Department wide, and this has carried over into our current existence, we have always had very high expectations.  But what it really comes to, if you dig deeper, is not necessarily an expectation for "Supermen", but an expectation for others share our organizational values.  This doesn't translate well to all of us, and there are those of us, myself included, who get mixed up a little in what it is we want from our people.  It really comes down to this: I don't need you to be the best firefighter or best medic in the world.  I need you to have the attitude that while you may be the best, that we put others first and we work together as a team.

I can teach you to be a better firefighter.  I can teach you to be a better medic.  I can't teach you to have a better attitude.  

Either you are receptive to my teaching you, or you are not.  Either you are receptive to being nice to our customers, or you are not.  

Either you are receptive to seeing that I am willing to trust you, or you are not. It is all a matter of attitude.

As much as I want my people to exceed, they have somewhat different values.  But so long as their work values are the same ones shared by the rest of the team, they should be okay.  I didn't need this guy to be a member of Special Ops, or even come out to some of the things we did on the weekends together.  I would have liked that, but the reality is that this individual was not a high achiever, and yet he was willing to do everything we needed him to do.  He was not striving to be an officer, he didn't want to lead teams, he wanted to fight fire, work on the ill and injured, and drive fire trucks or ambulances.  He was also okay with doing all the other more mundane parts of the job and with a smile on his face.  But he wasn't lining up to be the next chief.

This individual needed an officer who understood that.  He did not, however, need the other type of officer either, the one who given an individual who was not a rising star, was the absolute opposite and expected NOTHING from him.  He was not challenged, he could call in sick regularly without any repercussions, he did not train and any number of other problems.  This individual needed a leader who could switch tools in the middle of the job if needed.

Ultimately, we got his situation straightened out.  His sick leave was reduced to perhaps once a quarter, or less.  He actually was inspired by his colleagues to obtain additional certifications and he even showed up to some of the non-mandatory things we do. But the difference was, when we had an issue, we communicated.  We worked together to solve the problems and we were both receptive to each others' perspectives.  When you can have a relationship where both individuals realize their similarities and their differences, and you can agree to work together, you can achieve much.

Everyone is different. Even family members raised in the same home bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table, and the result of those traits, running up against the challenges faced by living day to day, multiplied by the opportunities to learn something and divided by the blown chances, all factor into the individual's attitude.  Humans are much too complicated to have a rote method of managing.

To say that all individuals will respond to good leadership is unrealistic.  While we have those who inspire us when we see them excel, there are those that you can give chances to and they'll exploit them every time.  But that is when another trick must come out of the bag. 

Leadership That Matters, Part 15: The Bag of Tricks

No comments

Emma, my oldest, wants to know all the secret Daddy tricks to winning in Monopoly.  She is 11, so advising her on strategy probably isn't going to be really effective, but she is a smart girl.  She might even already understand strategy but doesn't realize it as such, after all, she is becoming a pretty good chess player.  I don't know that I want to teach her my outlook on it, though, because I can be quite the cynic.

The problem is that Monopoly is a game that relies on the roll of die, on the actions and inactions of others, and your intellect is maybe but a percentage of it all.  Don't get me wrong; you can blow it.  You can screw things up so badly that you are bankrupt before you have spent an hour on the game.  Others can sense your weaknesses and exploit them.  If Caroline or Honora were to play Emma (they are 8 and 6, respectively), she could have their money in minutes.  But if, for some wild chance, Emma were to roll badly and regularly enough, there is only a certain amount of control you would have and others, if they are perceptive enough, could eat you alive.

I have, however, played Monopoly before with people who were not interested in winning.  In fact, I have played before where the goal was to be the first one to blow all your money and interestingly enough, if everyone is giving you chances to make money, literally throwing it at you, it is still possible to "lose" the game.  But it sure takes a lot longer.

We all have employees, subordinates, or colleagues that no matter how hard we throw opportunities at them, they still manage to screw them up.  We all probably know of a few people who have been given a hundred second chances and they still manage to miss the boat. You really have to say to yourself, at some point, how many passes is this person going to get before someone pulls the plug?

I said before that transformational leadership really depends on the ability of the follower to understand it.  They have to see that they are being given opportunities to grow, you are willing to guide them, but to be transformational, they are going to have to do something with what they have got.  Altruistic behavior on your part is great, but for it to be transformational requires the recipient to have a clue.  In light of this kind of failure, you probably should have some ability to push them in a direction in which the lesson becomes apparent.

When you are a middle to upper level manager like a Battalion Chief or an Assistant Chief, you have to rely on your subordinate officers to do their jobs.  I have had varying degrees of enforcement apparent from one officer to the next before, and surprisingly enough, that degree of variance isn't obvious.  Likewise, just the nature of certain personalities sometimes are enough to provide compliance where another officer isn't able to achieve the same.

Case in point: Years ago, I had the opportunity to walk into our old administration building at the same time a firefighter was about to be let go.  I was a pretty new officer and I had seen how this individual wasn't a high performer, but I felt like I could at least give working on him a try.  I intervened with the Deputy Chief at the time and asked if I could have a shot at it, to which he agreed to permit.

We gave the individual a few days off without pay to reinforce their narrow escape from termination and I digested their personnel jacket.  I saw some patterns that were troubling, but I was young, full of energy, and I wanted to prove my ability to turn someone around.  I was also armed with a bag of tricks that come from a long enough period of observing leadership styles and lots of understanding of strategy.

When the individual returned and reported to me for the first time, I laid it all out for their benefit.  This individual had been on the department for a number of years before I had been hired, he was older, and he was skeptical.  I explained some of what had transpired, including the fact that they were very close to being sent packing.  I also reinforced that I was the only thing that was standing between him and the door at that point.

Granted, that kind of explanation for most people should trigger the reaction of gratitude, but in this case, it was more along the lines of resignation. "Why?" he asked me, "Do you want to 'save' me?  I don't even know you that well."  I told him the truth: I saw some of the "leadership" exhibited by his most recent officers and I felt like their approach was not very effective. I felt like my leadership style might make a difference and I was not interested in seeing someone lose their job for reasons not entirely their own.  "Plus", I said, deadpan, "If I pull this off, I'll probably be regarded as a star."  While I said it for a little shock value, he laughed pretty hard when I told him that.  He stopped laughing when I told him that I wasn't sure that I COULD pull it off.  I explained to him that without his efforts, I knew I would NOT pull it off.

And I wasn't sure, to be honest with you because in reality, it comes down to the effort of the individual.  But I was willing to try, so I expressed my views on what he needed to do to improve, I explained my rules and my modus operandi, and I laid out my expectations.  When I was done, I asked him if he thought he could manage all that.  He looked a little beat up, 

So I'll talk in the next post about how it went and hopefully you'll tune in for the outcome.  See you tomorrow.

Leadership That Matters, Part 14

No comments

I got to talk to Capt. Tom (EMS12Lead.com) the other day after his return from IAFC's Fire/Rescue Med 2012 Conference.  After congratulating him on bringing home our spiffy new 2012 IAFC Heart Safe Community Award, he gave me a recap of the conference and some of the outstanding moments. One speaker he was enthusiastic about was Paul LeSage, author of the book Crew Resource Management: Principles and Practice. Chief LeSage, who retired as an assistant chief from Tualatin Valley, Oregon, is also a publisher, a clinical professor, and has a consulting practice.  

Chief LeSage spoke of "Just Leadership", which has a lot of the hallmarks of what we have been discussing here.  According to LeSage, the values shared within a "highly reliable emergency medical system" include actively seeking continual improvement and creating a "Just Culture".  As Capt. Tom put it, a lot of what Chief LeSage advocates as being a good leadership model starts with eliminating the "blame" culture, instead, creating a culture where errors and mistakes are used constructively to create learning.

These characteristics are right along the same lines as what we are saying is best: leadership should be, to the extent possible, transformational.  People should be led, rather than dragged, into understanding how challenges occur within our agency, and instead of beating people up, we should get to the root of the problems and address them, hopefully preventing a future issue.  This kind of leadership relies on crew resource management (CRM) and the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) models, each of which look toward problem solving as being a cultural issue rather than purely as a performance issue.

Years ago, I was fortunate enough to be a participant in the United States Marine Corps' Total Quality Leadership program where many of W. Edwards Deming's theories on quality control were adopted.  While the CRM and HFACS models are different, in that they look toward behavior and communication, I find that there are aspects of quality improvement through the "zero defects" approach that  also are quite similar.  All three of these models really do look at taking the problems from a scenario and finding ways to solve for them, while putting the emotional side of the situation aside.  After all, if problems aren't "blame" and instead are "observations" with clearly defined factors, if we use logic to remove our hurdles, people should respond more constructively.  Errors or mistakes are discussed with the intent of solving the problem, and lessons learned can provide excellent lessons for others, hopefully avoiding the same mistakes again.

There is huge requirement, then, to leave your ego at the door.  It is hard to admit you were wrong, or that you made an error, especially in cultures where there is an emphasis on competition and hierarchy. CRM says it is okay at crucial moments to question an order.  HFACS says that even the smallest mistakes have contributing factors that must be considered in the pursuit of solving them.  These are principles that are not fully embraced even to this day in the firehouse.  "You mean the Chief made a mistake? Nonsense!"

Take a moment and look over some of the links I have provided, because they give you a little perspective on the next issues we will cover.  There is an undercurrent present that you must understand.  

  • The boss is not always right. Ego needs to take a seat.
  • When safety or catastrophic failure is at stake, ANYONE should speak up.
  • More eyes on the problem mean more chances of coming up with a successful outcome.
  • The vast majority of people who make mistakes don't do so deliberately.  What can we change to insure success?
  • Our situation requires constant analysis and reaction to the facts.

These are not embraced among your basic "dinosaur" officer.  These are, in fact, counter to the authoritative, paternalistic approach to leading that has been said to be correct for most of my lifetime.  These issues require a leader to do what is right, to take the best approach (even if it isn't their own approach), and they require the leader to serve others and to educate them.

Our understanding of what moves people to act intuitively and appropriately is evolving as we continue to learn.  Hopefully this series is doing just that for you as well.

Leadership That Matters, Part 13: Ironies

No comments

The definition of irony is the use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning. Situational irony occurs when the actions someone takes have an effect exactly the opposite of what was intended. In some cases, irony is present when someone has a certain strong belief or is known for acting a certain way, and is faced with the dilemma of having to embrace the opposite.

I have friends from high school who at the time, were probably stoned more often than not, and now they represent the best and brightest of the conservative right.  That's ironic.  Our past Governor, Mark Sanford, ran on a platform of family values and was fast to tell people how they should live their lives, yet his on-going affair was the complete antithesis of having a moral life.  That's not ironic, that's hypocritical.  But then he got caught, he became a butt of late night television monologues, and forever his name will  be remembered for the embarrassment he caused his family and our State: that's irony.

You will not become a transformational leader overnight.  You can't flip a light switch and become an inspiration. It sure didn't for me. I might not even be a transformational leader now.  Like I said yesterday, it is contextual.  The perception of whether you can inspire change is totally dependent on the receiver, as to whether you cause them to feel differently enough to change.  This is its own irony: Transformational leadership depends on your actions, but those actions may not ever make a difference to certain individuals. You can't say, "I did this, now you need to do that." At that point it is no longer anything but an exchange. Altruistic leadership is different. You can't push it; you have to pull and hope they follow.

Like I said, though, in looking back at my career as a company officer I see the entire range of leadership styles. From the beginning, like anyone else, I wanted to be a successful leader.  I looked at other leaders with awe and wanted to be like them. I started as a young go-getter, competing with others, trying to impress my colleagues with my technical knowledge, knowing I didn't have the street cred to immediately expect my subordinates to trust me implicitly. Watching other officers, I became all about "fighting for my guys", sometimes at the risk of completely pushing back against management.  I wanted badly to head to the top, to be the authority everyone went to when they had a problem.  

This, however, evolved differently after having been burned a few times sticking my neck out for others, and in a huge life change, I took a job at another department and saw a whole other way of leading.  A few of the officers I got to know and whom I respected greatly, were icons in the department and in the fire service around the state.  Each of these officers had their personable side, but each of them were not individuals you wanted to get upset.  They were as close to being those inspirational leaders as I had ever been and they ruled their companies or divisions like Patton at the front of the column. In my return to officership, I made it clear there was my way or the highway.  I earned the nickname "The Hammer", ready to come down on whatever or whomever was in the way of our progress, and not afraid of being the hatchet man, so to speak.

But as time went on, I started learning more about myself and exploring my own faults, my own strengths, and understanding that I was trying to be someone I wasn't most of the time, unwilling to see myself for who I am.  Ironically (again), my personality type is none of those other things: my personality type is the extroverted thinker, the ENTJ. The ENTJ is called "The Field Marshal", the organizer, the strategist. As I grew, I began to understand more about what I was comfortable with and that which I needed help with. I also began to realize that the "leadership" I was modeling was often based on another person learning from someone else who might have ben as clueless as they were.

These realizations caused me to delve more into the aspect of how to lead people, and how to serve rather than to demand. Of all of the things I thought I was doing right, had I been true to my personality as I am now, had I followed my gut instead of what I saw from other "leaders", I might have come to that realization much earlier.  But then, the experiences I acquired while I "found myself" have proven to be invaluable in and of themselves.

The most valuable thing I learned about myself was that I was just fine being who I am.  I could put my ego aside, because I am comfortable being me.  I don't have a need to impress anyone.  If you want to hear what I have to say, great, if not, there are others who do. If I become a Chief of Department, it wouldn't be for me anymore, but because I would want to influence even more than I do now.  But I could be happy being a tailboard firefighter right now because I have come to an important place, the place where I learned that the harder you reach for something, the more it will elude you.  I don't need power.  Power comes from within. I have it already.

We have been told our whole lives that in order to succeed, you have to compete. Perhaps there is another way, in that perhaps the more people you help, the more you succeed. Wouldn't that be an amazing irony in our world, if instead of standing on the hands of the people below you, helping them up the ladder actually got you somewhere?  Success can be measured in many different ways and success in leadership may not necessarily involve the best promotion or the most money.  Those things are nice, but I have seen first hand that when you put other people first, oftentimes you rise to the top.  It is an interesting dichotomy and something we'll go into further.

Leadership That Matters, Part 12

No comments

I'll bet you didn't anticipate a Part 12.  Neither did I, but it seems to be a pretty popular discussion (from the hits aspect), although you wouldn't know it from the comments and likes.  So in order to see if I am engaging you, I'm proposing a question.

If altruistic leadership makes so much sense, if it would create goodwill and cause others to act positively, why is it so hard to do?  Why is it that we haven't just all jumped on the bandwagon and implemented these strategies?

I know it takes time to come up with an answer to some of these questions, so I don't necessarily expect a reply.  Perhaps that's the challenge of writing something that doesn't create a knee jerk reaction, that there is no spontaneous reply, no off the cuff comment that can be made.

It's like the difference between eating a donut and eating a steak.  The donut may taste good and cause a sudden jolt of energy in your body, but the steak tastes good in a different way, and will sustain you for at least a few hours.  This too, is the same analogy that can be used for the difference between transformational leadership and the others. Transformational leadership creates change.

I was questioned once about my leadership style in which an individual was simply not responding to my efforts, and as to whether my methods were truly transformational.  I can't say as to whether my methods are transformational: only the recipient can know that.  If my efforts at being a servant leader created the action I desired, then I guess we could say it was transformational, but even then, only if it created a sustained change in behavior.  Otherwise, my efforts were transactional: I was nice to the individual and they responded reciprocally- they were nice in return.  That doesn't indicate a sustained change.

Therefore, you may attempt to implement these changes in the way YOU lead, but it is the REACTION that says whether your efforts are transformational, transactional, or some other form of leadership.  Altruism should never be construed as enabling.  When my children want their milk at breakfast and demand it, and I respond by giving it to them, that isn't being altruistic. That is enabling poor behavior.  If my firefighters want a raise and they haven't earned it, giving it to them isn't looking out for their needs, giving it to them is reinforcing sub-par behavior.  The expectations are the same; the individual needs something, you are in a position to allocate that something, and you do so in an effort to develop a positive relationship.  The outcome, however, is completely contextual, and depends on the maturity, the competence, and the understanding of the recipient.

Back to when I was questioned about my leadership style: the person inquiring of me was making some pretty harsh statements about my ability to lead.  I was naturally not happy about it.  But whereas they KNEW what leadership was, or shall I say, they knew what defined it, they didn't UNDERSTAND it.  Just because you put good examples of leadership in front of someone, doesn't necessarily mean they are going to bite on it.  Some will and others won't.  You can work hard at modifying your approach, but if someone just doesn't automatically change, don't consider your attempts as failure.  YOU as the leader must make the first step of reaching out.  If the other person won't follow, or exploits your efforts, or fails to change, it certainly doesn't indicate you are a flawed leader.  It might very well indicate that you have a flawed follower.  And if your efforts result in success with you and don't for someone else, it also doesn't say that your leadership isn't transformational.  Followers will interact with the leader who inspires the change.  If they fail to respect their new leader, it doesn't say that they were incapable of change, it says that perhaps the new leader doesn't get what is needed to motivate that individual.

Donut or steak?  Immediate or sustained? You can tell people what the culture of your organization is, you can show them examples, you can print it on your business cards, but the moment the individual feels like they are in a different environment, they will change to react to that environment.  That is just a fact of life, that people reflect their surroundings as THEY perceive them, and if you don't get that, you don't get leadership.

One More Award at Hilton Head Island Fire & Rescue

1 comment

While Capt. Tom at EMS12Lead.com might not be trumpeting his success, I will do it for him, as well as for the rest of my colleagues at Hilton Head Island Fire & Rescue.  This week we received another honor, the IAFC's Annual Heart Safe Community Award.  With a lot of pushing and pulling from Capt. Tom Bouthillet, and a lot of support and cooperation from other notables, including Fire Chief Lavarn Lucas, Deputy Chiefs Brad Tadlock and Ed Boring, Capt. Eric Lainhart, our medical control docs, Bo Sherwood and Van Gaube, and of course, Kelly Arashin, we received the award in recognition of the system we have in place in our community.

Between our bystander CPR education efforts, placement of automated defibrillators in the community and our advanced life support response system, individuals experiencing a cardiac event have a significantly better chance of survival than in the past. If an arrest is in progress, we dispatch additional Fire/Rescue companies, where all the line personnel are trained in use of the "pit crew" concept, to maximize the efficiency of assigned resources and to deliver a very high standard of care.  

It doesn't end there: our Fire/Rescue personnel have a number of tools we can use, including 12-lead EKG monitoring with transmission capability and the ability to provide therapeutic hypothermia if indicated.  Our system is also capable of identifying possible STEMI patients in the field and setting off an additional chain of events.

Our delivery of the patient at the Hilton Head Hospital Emergency Department is just one more step.  There, they will have already been alerted by the teams in the field and depending on the situation, have either already brought in a cath lab team, or are prepared to continue therapeutic hypothermia through as needed.  We have a great relationship with our emergency department personnel and we all work together as a team to provide the best possible chances for a positive outcome.

What's more is that the pertinent information is documented and shared through the CARES Registry, where we will be able to extrapolate data needed to help us improve our service.  We have identified methods for communicating good performance as well as performance requiring remediation.  And above all, the system is delivered daily by nine Fire/Rescue companies with extremely professional, caring, and knowledgeable personnel, all of whom are aware of the importance of excellent public service.

When we factor this in with our recent CFAI accreditation, which we have maintained through three cycles, we are pretty proud.  But even more impressive is that our personnel have maintained their positive attitude and professionalism despite comments made about their integrity by certain individuals in our community, rather than those individuals stepping back and defending what they should have known to be true.  Our entire force maintained this very same quiet professionalism even when held to a 1% salary raise last year (and that was not across the board) and no increases in years before that, not because they were afraid to speak out, but because they heard the concern of the community, especially with the economic situation being what it was, and they were willing to accept that and soldier on, when they had every right to be vocal and upset about the situation.  These personnel have also maintained their quiet professionalism among other challenges as well, challenges that will remain unsaid by us, because that's the kind of people we have.

One of the primary things we say to guide our people is to always "do the right thing".  If that means stopping and helping someone change a tire, or picking you up off the floor for the seventh time that week, or loading up your kids in the rig to take them to the hospital when we are transporting you because you have no family available, we do what it takes to make our "customers" happy.  And we say customers because it isn't just the taxpayers; we serve the visitors, the workers, the homeless, anyone we deal with.  They may be patients today, or the may be the homeowner on another, or the occupant, but to us, they are people.

We have an extraordinary amount of pride in our department, but a lot of humility as well.  I talk about all of our personnel because I am proud of them, but they don't go around bragging about it, so I am happy to tell you all about them.  We have very high expectations of our people, but we have fun too.  And while there are plenty of bad moments, the good definitely outweigh the bad.  The difference is that we try to let everyone in on the decisions (to the extent possible), we listen, we try to get them the tools they need (but they aren't spoiled, our budget didn't budge but a single digit percentage from last year), and we do things safely, with a lot of common sense applied rather than emotion.

So while we will be celebrating this new award, we already realize, it is recognition for what we have done.  For us, what we have done so far is never good enough.  We will continue to push forward and improve from where we are today, to keep looking at ways we can tweak this or adjust that to make our organization that much better.  We do not rest on our laurels.

If you get a chance to come to our Island, make sure you stop by a station.  EVERY station and Headquarters is open to the public and we encourage visitors.  We will always take the time to show someone the trucks, or to take a blood pressure, or just to talk about what we do.  We are an all-hazards response agency who takes the job very seriously and we like sharing what we do. Thanks to all of you at HHIFR; you all make me proud to be affiliated with you. 

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.

Leadership That Matters, Part 10: In Someone Else’s Shoes

1 comment

Another excerpt I wrote a while back sat in my "draft" box, but it is appropriate for the discussion right now:

I said a while back that we all know what good customer service feels like and we all know what it’s like to have bad customer service. Professionalism begins at using our skills, abilities and past experience to improve service quality and to provide excellent service not just to the taxpayers, but to our colleagues.  If you don't like the thought of referring to these others as customers, that's okay.  Just think of them as human beings who need your help, because really, that's exactly what they are.  How you label them is your choice.

Our personal mission must be to exceed at helping people when they need help.  Why they call us is pretty much immaterial; if they didn't need help, they wouldn't have called for it.  It may not seem like an emergency to you, and in some cases, it may not even be an emergency to them.  But they had a problem, they didn't know how to solve it, and they turned to the one group of people in the community with a stellar reputation for helping people.  That would be the fire department, in case you hadn't guessed.

Our job is to come in with a fresh perspective and a certain amount of expertise to make things better.  I have heard from a number of people that this "customer service" attitude cheapens what we do.  I don't know a better way to put it, but to have the mentality that the service we provide is there and if you don't like it, too bad, is not doing right by the people you serve.  Regardless or not of whether it's the only show in town, that's certainly not the way we should be interacting with others.

You've probably heard it said a thousand times, "consider these people like you would if it were your mother" or "your son" or "your daughter".  That's not a bad way of looking at things either.  But maybe the best way of looking at it is, "What if it were you?"

The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", in case you don't know it) these days is more and more apropos.  Today's society as a whole seems to forget that maxim at every turn.  If anything, we in emergency services should be the examples of that message to anyone who sees us on a daily basis.

Leadership That Matter, Part 9

1 comment

The other day my wife sent me a link I thought appropriate to this conversation. Written by Geoffrey James at Inc.com, it is titled "8 Core Beliefs of Extraordinary Bosses". This compilation contains a number of the values I have already shared with you in this series.  While the article itself was interesting, when I read the comments, I found some of the reactions to be unbelievably negative.  

There are clearly those who don't believe altruism has a place in leading.  There are those who have learned in their lives that leadership requires you to wield tyrannical power, to make people uncomfortable, and to focus on profits over people.  Altruism, to them, is equated with weakness.  That works fine if you have an endless supply of bodies, but at some point, the battle will take a toll on the troops and you will find yourself in the position of trying to move forward and nobody wants to move with you.

What makes a leader?  What drives people to follow someone who was appointed to supervise them, to organize them, or to fill a position?  You can fill volumes with the definition of leadership, but here's a very poignant thought: one of the greatest institutions to study leadership, the United States Military Academy at West Point, infers that altruistic leadership is the ultimate measure of what makes a leader.  They promote it in the West Point Cadet Maxim:

Risk more than others think is safe. Care more than others think is wise. Dream more than others think is practical. Expect more than others think is possible.

Transformational leadership, though, only works on people who seek to attain higher levels of self-actualization. As expressed in Maslow's pyramid, if an individual is, for one reason or another, unable to meet their immediate needs, their focus will not be on self-actualization but on survival.  In order for transformational leadership to be of use, the challenges found in the lower echelons of the pyramid must be resolved.  Your efforts at servant leadership can provide the platform to show altruistic actions.

There are some for whom this type of leadership is truly wasted upon, those who simply live to be miserable.  I call these people "professional assholes".  No amount of servant leadership is going to convince them to come along and do what is best for the whole.  They see any effort directed toward making their lives better as simply that; a benefit for them and screw everyone else. There are any number of pathological issues at play and frankly, the behavior has many causes, none of which seem to be clearly addressed.  They may just really believe that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.  I'm sure there are places in the world where those people can be happy, but serving the public during their time of greatest need is not one of them.

And this is where it comes to: those who work in emergency services must have the desire to serve others. This job is not a job in which you can be a sociopath and things just sail along smoothly.  The whole point of the job, career or volunteer, is to care for others.  There may be some technical applications to the job, but if you struggle with interacting with others, perhaps you should consider another opportunity.  Likewise, if you are in the position of leading people who are wired to be helping others, your failure to help others is going to make you and everyone else miserable.  These situations, which even in this day and age where we have learned more about human psychology in regard to work interactions, are still prevalent. 

We may have a group of people, we may have the tools and other resources to do the job, and we may have a mission, but if we can't put all this together and work with it, we are no more an effective emergency services team than is dumping a load of building materials on a job and calling it a house.  The leader must identify the issues facing them, find a way to solve the challenges, and put the team together.

Leadership That Matters, Part 8

No comments

A good friend I have known since our teenage years is a writer (and a reader of FHZ, thanks!) and upon catching the Twitter link the other day re-tweeted with with the comment that what she loved about the post  was "the exhortation to THINK".  And really, it's what I am truly asking you to do when you read this series.  Not only that, it does no good for us to keep this to ourselves.  I am also exhorting you, to use this very appropriate word, to share it with others and to get THEM to think.

The only way you will achieve this ability to lead with altruistic values is to do it yourself and make it a hallmark of your leadership.  You alone must develop your own instinct as to what works and what does not, but as I tell my people all the time, "If you are caught between two alternatives and can't decide, choose the right one."

I can't tell you what the right alternative is.  Only you can know what is and isn't.  In the First Book of Kings, when Solomon was asked in a dream what he desired, his answer was not riches or fame, but an understanding mind, by which he might discern between good and evil.  With the knowledge of what is right and wrong, you can truly achieve greatness.  But what is right, like beauty, can often be in the eye of the beholder.

There are those subordinates, however, for whom altruistic leadership is poses challenges, in that they are either unable or unwilling to receive the message. We'll talk about the first one here today and the latter in the next post.

The new member of your team requires your empathy, your efforts to understand, and your patience.  Depending on their level of competence, however, your efforts at leading them must be more directorial in the tasks that keep them safe (and the rest of the team) and the soft skills, like dealing with people, can be handled in a more approachable manner.

Eight years ago, when I was still a Captain, I wrote an article for Withthecommand.com about the analogy of training your family pet as related to training your personnel.  A Dog's Lesson In Discipline was one of my first online articles and it was about the techniques I encountered in training our long since deceased Dalmation, Beau.  If you have firefighters who require closer supervision because they are new or they are learning a new facet of the job, the expectations must be made clear, the expectations must be appropriate for their skills or abilities, and if the subject fails to comply, either remediation or discipline is warranted, depending on the nature of the failure.  Like the article says, when you give an order, you should expect that it is followed.  If it is not, there MUST be consequences: either the order needs clarification, the subject requires more training, or the subject requires discipline.  Failure to comply must create a reciprocal action, or plan on never having your orders followed.

However, as people begin to become more competent, as they learn to understand exactly what you expect, and they learn to do these things with a minimum of conscious thought (actions become more automatic), you can start increasing the side-by-side type of guidance that altruistic leadership provides.

As a little analogy, if you just ran a long race yourself and found yourself exhausted, yet were running with a friend who is also exhausted, if one of you is too week to walk across the finish line a few feet away, what is the best way to do so?  If you have to do all the pushing, you won't make it.  If you have to do all the pulling, you won't make it. Likewise, it is so for your friend as well. But if you both work together, side by side, it becomes a force multiplier.  Two of you together can create the strength to move forward.

Working together implies sharing the load when it is necessary.  If we sit back and let someone else do all the work, the team gains nothing.  If we do all the work, same result.  If we work together, amazing things happen.  Try it and see.

Leadership That Matters, Part 7

1 comment

So here we are on Day Seven of this series; while I see my numbers are up, the comments are surprisingly few.  I’m always hesitant to say that you agree with me or disagree, but what I think I’m hearing from those of you who have commented or PM’ed me is that you appreciate the nod toward what is often termed “servant leadership”, as far as altruism is concerned. 

And really, altruistic leadership IS servant leadership, in that leaders who practice these ideas put others before self.  It takes a leader who is very secure in their own skin to serve rather than to flex their muscle and wield their power to get things done.  As we said much earlier, anyone who has something to offer in return can practice transactional leadership.  So long as you can pay, you will get.

Ultimately, however, there will come a time when you need your charges to dig deep, to exert themselves in a way you can’t compensate.  In a quid pro quo existence, when you really challenge your followers, if you can’t reward them now, you will have to pay them later.  It is in these situations where the balance now falls in favor of the ruled rather than to the ruler.  If you really believe this to be true, then you are at a serious disadvantage when you must ask them to take on yet another challenge.  In an office setting, this might work out.  In jobs like fighting fire or tending to the ill and injured, you will not be able to keep up with this tab.

I'm going to give you an example that isn’t for the faint of heart, so you will have to excuse me, but it serves to illustrate my point:

As a servant leader, I tell my troops that there is nothing I will ask them to do that I won’t do myself.  My job for a long time was to lead our special ops teams.  For those of you who aren't emergency service types, special operations involves work with a great deal of additional training to our normal emergency duties of fighting fire or practicing as EMTs.  Special operations often encompasses response to hazardous materials alarms or technical rescues, or other work that most people would find too terrifying, too dangerous, or beyond their own physical or mental capabilities.

One night we just finished dinner and got a phone call at the station.  An engine company and a medic were already out at a residence where they suspected a deceased patient was located.  The last time anyone had seen the deceased was several days before, and the statement was that the situation was beyond the capability of the personnel on scene.  As they even got close to the front door, the smell was overwhelming and the flies already swarming; nobody could even get into the house to determine what the issue was. 

I took my company down there and getting the face-to-face report, I brought my crew together.  I informed them of what the report was, I told them what I expected we would find.  And more importantly, I told them that while I was concerned about the entire situation, especially with the very real potential for a gruesome finding, if any of them were not comfortable with handling this situation, I would understand.  However, since the job needed to be done, I would personally lead the team in to investigate and solve the problem.

As it was, my team did go in, with the proper PPE, and in fact, the scene was entirely horrible.  Nothing in our training prepares you for things like that.  However, my relationship with the team members enabled us to get through the situation together.  One individual was struggling more than the rest of us; I asked him to stay back out of the room itself and help us with logistical support.  The rest of us performed our grim task in extraordinarily bad conditions, secured the remains, and brought them to a point where the coroner’s office could then retrieve the deceased.  We then exited the home, performed our decon, stowed our equipment, and returned to service.

Talking with the crew later, I asked them how they felt.  Even the most stoic of our team showed a little bit of stress over the event.  The thing that stuck with me, however, was their insistence that when they saw I was willing to do the job and I placed my concerns for their own well-being first, they were all willing to do whatever it took to get the job done, even if it meant challenging their own abilities beyond what they thought they were capable of.

No amount of reward would have changed the attitudes necessary to do this kind of task.  Many teams I know would have refused the job; it really isn’t OUR job to remove remains.  But someone had to do it, if it wasn’t me or my crew, it would have been someone else.  I trusted my crew to tell me what their limitations were and they trusted me to take them to the absolute limit and not put them in a situation that mentally or physically, they would not be capable of handling.  This required leadership from the heart; showing your subordinates that you placed their welfare above your own, but being firm about the job that had to be done, and motivating the team to do what it took.

Back in July of last year, I wrote about taking my daughter Caroline on a Ferris wheel for the first time:

She was tentative at first and I was watching her eyes as she was taking it all in.  She sat in my lap and clung to me in fear as we made the first few rounds.  While she was crying, it wasn't hysterical crying, and we all kept reassuring her until she finally turned around and saw the Ocean City Boardwalk's lights and sights trailing off to the north.  She dried her eyes and was immediately enthusiastic.  By the time she got off the ride, she was so excited she could hardly contain herself.

This is the heart of transformational leadership.  I could have bribed her with something to get her on there and in some cases, that's what it takes for us as parents to get our kids to try something.  But when you CAN pull off something like this, where you can convince them to trust you and it pays off with a positive experience, it pays off multifold.  They see they can trust you to look out for their interests and in return, they are willing to make the leap, even at the risk of failure sometimes.  That takes a very mature relationship and purely transactional leadership won't  get you there.  It requires a bond, sacrifice of your own comfort, and a willingness to work through the issues.

Leadership That Matters, Part 6

No comments

Altruism is not group-think and shouldn’t be confused as such. Altruism is considered what is better for others based upon societal norms, not on the populist vote.  And selfishness isn’t the absolute reason why others fail to consider the altruistic option when faced with a choice.  Many other factors can fall into play, but an important one to consider in our leadership context is that of the overwhelming desire to fit in, to be part of the “gang”.  Because if being part of a bigger whole is important for very primordial reasons, sometimes that urge to be part of the group supersedes what is really right as part of society.

A person’s maturity levels obviously factor in; their ability to stave off impulsiveness to do what is right for others as a whole compared to what seems to be right for themselves or for the group we happen to be in at the time.  Helping a fellow member of a criminal gang escape detection at risk of your own incarceration, for example, might seem to be altruistic. In the sense that self-sacrifice for the group might meet that definition, what about the rest of society?  Really, what is and isn’t altruistic, then, is entirely based upon what the individual considers to be right.  We have to really look at what is right by being fellow human beings, or int he context of your faith, or whatever values you happen to have.  Eating other humans, I think we all agree, is wrong.  But there are those who, in certain contexts, might legitimately argue otherwise.  I'm not trying to tell you here what is wrong or right.  The purpose of this series is to get you to THINk about what is wrong or right and PERSONALLY lead and set the example in the regard of what is right.

Take for example in World War II Germany, German citizens helping oppressed Jews escape, which at the time, would have been considered contrary to German law.  While we would all consider ignoring those laws and assisting escape to be demonstrating altruistic behavior, given the atrocities being conducted and the values of our society, there are things we also must consider in the scope of right and wrong.  While I certainly don't defend it, perhaps those who were “law abiding” members of German society might have considered those life-saving actions to be against the values of that society.  Given the importance in Germanic culture of  conformity to society and lawfulness, I can see, while I don't agree, that their perspective has some context worth discussing.  It is all very much contextual as to what is and isn’t valuable and sacrificial when it comes to the actions we consider altruistic.  What is for the good of man versus what is for the good of society, on a daily basis, causes us to disagree as to what actions are for the good.

So this conflict we endure is very real, very tangible, and while we personally may feel that the actions one takes are not necessarily “good”, one might reason otherwise in the context of for whom the good is being served.  Bad decisions sometimes don’t come about because someone is a sociopath, but because their judgment as to what is right is temporarily clouded for any number of reasons.

Take another recent example: the crying kid at the Yankees game and the “terrible” couple who wouldn’t give him the ball that had been tossed into their seat.  This story went rabidly viral.  People were shaming the couple.  Supposedly less than altruistic behavior, most of us thought, the selfishness, the greed.  What we didn’t know was this: the couple was to be married this weekend and they were celebrating at the game together.  According to the child’s PARENTS, who have gone on national news, the couple, in fact, offered to give the child the ball.  But the PARENTS, sensing a life lesson on not getting what you want through screaming and throwing a tantrum, opted NOT to take the ball.

We don’t always have the facts before we rush to judgment of another.  It takes a lot of discipline; discipline that I personally don’t always have, to take a step back, gather the information, and then make a determination of action or inaction. We have a spot detection of what is right and what is wrong.  So not every act that defies what we consider to be altruistic is.  It isn’t our place to say it is either.  But we can focus on ourselves and make better decisions in that manner.  And we can educate others in how to be better themselves.

Leadership That Matters, Part 5

No comments

My inner cynic reminds me that many people are selfish.  One trip to an amusement park, your local Walmart, or even trying to get out of the church parking lot, can reinforce that observation.  In western society, our philosophy has been to tell our children that they need to “look out for number one”.  Survival is attached to being the fittest.

This aspect of our culture has driven us to become bigger and better.  I certainly don't believe there is anything wrong with improving our situation, with developing and becoming a global leader in everything from innovation to education to any number of advances.  There is, however, balance that can be achieved, because the competition comes at a price.  Again, in the documentary I Am, Tom Shadyac discovered that  cooperation may be nature’s most fundamental operating principle.   As I brought up in LTM4, Professor Wilson's discussion regarding social behavior and the advancement of species, how altruism actually increased the propagation of humans and insects.  But consensus decision-making is not limited to these two either.  Altruistic behavior has been found amongst many species, including fish, birds, deer and primates. 

Competition implies conflict by its very nature.  A favorite line of mine in regard to competitive behavior (which I heard first in the movie Cars, but after searching, I have found attributed to Dale Earnhardt) is: "Only the winner wins; second place is the 'first loser'”. The call to be competitive has been drowning out the call to work together for a long time, but seems even more so in the last decade. The “Me” Generation has not left us and may not ever, unless a sea change occurs.  The attention span of the average citizen of Earth isn’t more than a few seconds.  "Why should I consider the effects of our actions on others?" one might ask. "All I care about is what is happening NOW."

Again, we return to context.  While one might not be inclined to do what is best for society because of their own selfish reasons, the facts illustrate that adversarial relationships within groups hinder success while altruistic behavior increases the chances for success.  From a purely objective outlook, there are more rewards for practicing altruism than not.  The question is, then, why won't people see this from that objective point of view?

Leadership That Matters, Part 4

1 comment

If we are interested in leading, we need to understand people.  We may not necessarily have to like people, but we need to understand them (a little humor there). And leading others implies there is more than one of us, so we need to understand a little sociology.

Altruism is an important aspect of social organization.  I was listening to an interview with E.O. Wilson, author of “The Social Conquest of Earth” on NPR's Science Friday.  Professor Wilson is an authority on sociobiology, and in particular his recent work on the comparisons of humans and insects in regard to socialization, and how socialization has allowed both to endure on the planet over the millennia.

Professor Wilson's book, from what I learned in the interview, discusses the scientific aspect of how altruism helps groups survive and prosper.  Yesterday's post, Leadership That Matters, Part 3, posed one  benefit of altruistic practice from a view of increasing efficiency.  We avoided the ethical and moral reasons for the success of altruistic groups, and looked at it from a completely pragmatic point of view.  Likewise, in this interview with Science Friday’s Ira Flatow , Professor Wilson clarified the Group Selection theory as such: "Within groups, selfish people tend to beat altruists.  But between groups, groups of altruists beat groups of selfish people."

There are many arguments and agreements to be made on this theory and the entire concept can’t begin to be justified or debated here.  Professor Wilson stated that this isn't his theory alone, but the points he made which I’d like to talk about are these:

1.       We are intensely interested in what other people are doing and thinking. 

2.       Humans as a whole are better at reading the intentions of other humans in order to get cooperation, to develop dominance, to bond, and so on, more so than other animals.

These two factors imply that we have an inherent curiosity, particularly about others, and usually eager to learn more about others.  This curiosity also aids us in understanding and empathizing with others, realizing what actions or inactions we must take to get people to do things for us, and helps us bond with others to create social organisms. The result is that our natural curiosity and desire to interact with others creates a force multiplier.  What is good for the team is good for us as individuals.  Alone, we may survive, but as a unit, we survive and lessen the effort on us all through cooperation.

One of the observations, however, was that while group selection pressure (the desire to conform and be part of a group) makes us what we are, it can also be dangerous because although it makes us altruistic within a specified group, it also makes groups very easily turn against other groups.  It is the basis for that "us against them" mentality.  As a leader, we need to not only understand that mentality, but use it to our advantage sparingly, because the repercussions can be disastrous. Just as competition can make us stronger and competition between units or groups can result in a certain amount of unit pride and cohesion, that same emotion can divide the larger unit and set groups apart from the rest.  This is a particularly negative aspect of special teams development.

It is not easy to be an altruist. There is always pressure not to be. We have been raised from birth to excel, to be the best.  There is nothing we can do to change that inner conflict. We can learn to work with it and understand it.  By studying how humans have dealt with these conflicts through history, in reading the humanities, in digesting information about strategic living and group dynamics, we can better understand when and where to appropriately use the competitive spirit, and when and where to promote altruistic behavior.

For every decision, no matter how inconsequential it seems, we have to choose between what is best for us or what is best for all.  We have to play these decisions out contextually and we need to consider short term and long term consequences.  Ultimately, it comes to context, which is something we will have to discuss further in the next post.

Leadership That Matters, Part 3

1 comment

We can absolutely take altruism to be an effective form of leading, because if practiced to a certain extent, there are benefits in doing so.  There is a documentary I have referenced in Firehouse Zen several times: I Am. The movie, by Tom Shadyac, makes the point that we are all interconnected, and by that very reason, stand to benefit by practicing more understanding behavior toward others.  What benefits all of us, benefits every one of us.  But this might be a little too zen for you all, and since the thoughts I share here are nothing new, just my own take on interpreting them, let's try illustrating the efficiency of altruistic behavior though more concrete means.

Every now and then, it is my responsibility to take Caroline, my middle daughter, to school.  For many reasons I could get into, but won't because I have my own reasons as well, there are a large number of children who are driven to school by parents in the morning.  And while we could discuss any number of other methods to make things more effective, it is the behavior of the adults in this particular scenario that I want to use for illustration (so while I know there are many other solutions, I'm just trying to show you something).

Picture this: The driveway in front of the school causes you to pull up past the front doors, then the "drop off zone" angles away at 90 degrees from that spot for about 300 feet. At the end it doubles back and you drive out the way you came in.  Therefore, the drop off zone, which is on the side going away from the front of the building, can accomodate at least 10 cars, if not more.  The idea is that the first car pulls to the end of the zone and nine other cars pull in behind it and discharge their passengers.  Then the first car pulls away and everyone follws, permitting the next ten cars in line to pull up.  Pretty easy directions to follow if you do it every day.

While this seems to be pretty easy, it must not be.  Without fail, every morning I happen to be in the line, I observe that virtually every parent will stop at the first point (at the front doors) and discharge their child.  Subsequently, none of the other nine spaces are being used.  Car after car discharges their children in this method one or two or three at a time at the front door. Frequently, as the morning progresses, parents get fed up with waiting in the line and discharge their children even earlier than at the front doors.  In this area there is no sidewalk, so to complicate things, now there are young children weaving in and out of cars, and further disrupting the process. It so happens that to drop your kids off this way means a shorter walk for young Spaulding: from Point A (the stop at the front door) to Point B (the front door).  The result, however, is a very long line of impatient, self-important, thoughtless parents.

One afternoon I gave up on the line and parked a block away and walked to get my daughter, passing all the angry, fed-up parents. As I got to where all the children were awaiting pickup, one of the teachers recognized me. While waving another car toward the special spot (that was being ignored) she said, "You know, you are probably one of the only parents who actually drives to the end of the drop off zone.  Caroline doesn't need to walk that far."  I am probably THE ONLY parent who goes to the end of the drop off zone, but therein lies my point.   Lets' look at this situation from the perspective that if we sacrifice a little, a lot can be gained.

Look at this from a simple equation: If "x" equals the number of available spots to discharge passengers, and "y" equals the average number of passengers discharged at each spot, doesn't it make sense that increasing the number of spots also increases the number of discharged passengers?  So if we can say:

xy = number of passengers discharged per minute

any increase in x will increase the total number of people being discharged per minute.  Therefore, if we used ALL TEN SPOTS, we would have a TEN-FOLD INCREASE in the number of people being discharged per minute.  Most of us would look at that and say, "Wow, that's a pretty substantial increase!" In fact, this would then result in everyone getting out of this drop off zone a lot quicker.  However, there's where the selfishness kicks in: young Spaulding shouldn't have to walk an extra 250 feet, the parent rationalizes.  "Why if I let him out right here in front, it doesn't inconvenience me, as he is out of my hair that much quicker, and who cares about those other schmucks behind me?" So we get one car at a time, putting their kids out directly in front of the doors.

See what I mean?  And we can complain about how long it takes (parents do), we could post signs (the school has), we could have someone out there to tell people to move up (they do), and none of it would make a difference, because it doesn't already.  This isn't brain surgery we are talking about here.  This is simple logic.

Unfortunately, people don't respond to logic.  And while I hate to be wasting your valuable day laying out this scenario, it will come into play throughout this series.  So take notes, comprehend the situation, and we'll see where altruism takes us.

Leadership That Matters, Part 2

No comments

I would hope that we practice altruism for the sake of simply helping our fellow man, but there are entire studies of thought that suggest even our existence defies altruism. Others suffer because we survive.  If we were truly and purely altruistic, we would just lie down and die. After all, every action and interaction we incur causes suffering for some other being.  One could argue that pure altruism would require us to stop breathing, lest we kill the bacteria and other microorganisms carried in the air we breathe.

Let’s not be so fixed on those issues, however, and for our discussion, let’s take altruism for face value.  Let’s just say that altruism will be defined for the purposes of our discussion as doing the right thing for another for no obvious reason other than it is the right thing to do.  Being mindful of our actions in an effort to alleviate the suffering of others, or just to be considerate of their own situation, requires us to be more thoughtful.  And given my observations of human behavior on a regular basis, ANY effort at being more thoughtful would be better than what we are getting right now.

But even "thoughfulness" doesn't wrap itself around what we need to practice.  Really, when I see a homeless person, I am certainly moved by their plight, I feel empathy, and I try to be compassionate.  But the realities of each situation don't always permit me to practice what I preach, I guess.  If I did, I would likely be homeless myself, as I would share everything I have to eliminate the suffering of another.  I found this quote to be interesting, although the website does not give the author’s name:

Altruism and compassion are not synonyms. Compassion is an emotion, sharing the suffering of another. Altruism involves acting to help another. Not all compassion leads to altruism, and not all altruistic acts are performed because of compassion.

There is no reason why we can not at least attempt to be more considerate of others, especially since it doesn't cost anything. We can refrain from being mean; We can make eye contact and acknowledge their existence; We can offer a prayer; and none of these things cost us any more than the personal feeling of embarrassment and uncomfortability.  I use those descriptions of our emotions because we are faced with the reality of someone else's suffering and we don't have the facts as to why they are in that situation.  It is the awkwardness of knowing we are being asked for help and for whatever reason, we choose not to answer.

We may rationalize that the individual squandered their opportunities, or we may realize that there are those with mental illness that provide profound challenges that resources don't readily exist for, or we may simply think they are a drunk or a drug addict. In any case, we don't know unless we ask, and even then, we may not get the truth anyway. But to use this as an analogy, how often have you been confronted with a situation where a fellow worker needed assistance and you failed to give it?  

I would bet nearly all of you reading would say they would never do that.  However, I suggest to you that as leaders, we often fail our followers for the most mundane of reasons. We are tired, or we have problems at home.  Or we have a report due.  Or we just don't feel up to training today.  Likewise, when we have experience to share, do we seek those out who could use it, or do we wait for those people to come to us?  I would suggest that there are probably plenty of people you work with who could use that kind of mentoring.

Leadership implies that we have something that others don't have.  We may have funds, tools, supplies, knowledge, or other things that others need.  Or we may have a position that creates power.  In all of this, the person who is leading has some advantage, in that they can bring together others to create a change in our existence, however that leverage came about, and use it for good.  Or they can use it to their own advantage.  And in that, it requires a choice.

Creating a culture of transformational change requires interaction and trust.  It certainly requires sacrifice, but even more so, it requires you as the leader to sacrifice, to demonstrate that example of altruistic leadership.  Nobody ever said transformational leadership was easy.  It might be the reason why there are so few truly transformational leaders.

Leadership That Matters, Part 1

No comments

Altruism is the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.  Another definition of altruism is the behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense. 

We in emergency service like to believe that our work is done for the betterment of mankind.  We talk about the “supreme sacrifice” and wear shirts that say, “We fight what you fear.” We tell people that our bond is based on “brotherhood’. These are all words that suggest a higher calling, something more about us and our comrades that perhaps places us above others in a moral hierarchy, short of sainthood but above the common man.

There are those among us that throw these statements out there pretty casually, considering actions we hear about routinely. Firefighters using their positions to steal from a fire company treasury.  EMTs who are charged and convicted of preying on the vulnerable. Officers who permit subordinates to misuse their community trust.  Too many heartbreaking stories in a group of people who pride themselves on being honorable, valorous, and having a great deal of integrity.

In our business, in emergency service, we have many who state emphatically that they are on this job for purely altruistic reasons.  While volunteerism, perhaps, places a subject closer to that definition, I suggest that there are still benefits of volunteerism that we don’t think of, that don’t keep us in that category.  Conversely, there are those who suggest that as a career emergency responder that we do not embrace altruistic behavior, that our efforts are mercenary.  And while the reward is a paycheck, I suggest that this also does not limit us from the category either.

The definitions of altruism escape conventional thinking.  We don’t know what is in the hearts of others.  We don’t know what drives and motivates those who serve along with us.  We know what we are told, and we may have reason to believe those reasons.  I do, know people, however, who would wordlessly “step in front of a bullet” for a stranger; and I know people who talk a good talk, but are the first to run when any mention of even menial sacrifice surfaces.  There are big differences, then, in what we say and what we do in regard to altruism.

What drives you?  What about our job inspires you to continue, day to day, to perform dangerous, distasteful, uncomfortable tasks that challenge your own limits?

I wanted to begin a discussion on leadership that matters, focusing on the merits and drawbacks of transformational leadership as it relates to our job and to society as a whole.  I can't put a number on the conversations that will come from this, but I can say that we could focus on the subject for years and only scratch the surface.  The idea, however, is that there are too many out there who are like zombies, walking along from point to point, disengaged from others, and singly focused on their own comfort, their own needs, and on making their lives more comfortable on the backs of others.  For these reasons, maybe if I can reach a few, I can create an avalanche.  One can only hope.  Feel free to comment at any time and share what you see.

Perfect Alignment

No comments

A few weeks ago, there was a tragic sequence of events that occurred in a community in our county. While working a medical alarm, a City of Beaufort fire engine was stolen by a man, who in his flight, killed a pedestrian as well as struck a number of cars.  Talk about your "Swiss cheese modeling"; short of an astronomical syzygy, I'm pretty sure you can't find a better alignment of factors to recreate that event again. If you saw that in a movie, you'd think, "How stupid!  A man escapes from a military hospital, finds an idling fire engine, and escapes his pursuers. It isn't likely to happen."  But it did.

Things happen every day that defy logic.  Truth, as it is said, is often stranger than fiction.

Deep down inside, we might say to ourselves, "That could never happen here."  Or we feel it coming up and we suppress it, because we know, if we were ever to actually verbalize that, it WOULD happen.  But we are all guilty of seeing something happen and thinking that we are either too good, too well-trained, too attentive to the details, too big of a department, or even too remotely disconnected from "big city" problems for certain events to transpire. It just won't happen to us.

This is something that happens in families as well.  I know people who are perfect parents and their children defy any reasonable expectation of success.  I know parents who have no business reproducing who have amazing children.  I know fire or EMS agencies that I can't believe, due to their ineptness, that they haven't facilitated some major catastrophe. And I know the most professional organizations ever who have had arsonists surface among their ranks, or they lose firefighters, or they burn down an entire zip code. 

Unfortunately, right now public servants have a target drawn on their back.  Some of our brothers have actually drawn it on there for us.  We are in a profession (career and volunteer alike) that used to be considered trustworthy, honorable, valiant, and courageous.  We have a few mutts in our midst who have caused people to think otherwise.  The job hasn't changed, nor has the opinion MOST people have of public servants, but the fact is that when someone can paint "firefighters" or "EMTs" in a convenient picture and wrap it up in an emotional context, they gain attention.  And so long as we tolerate membership from those who give us a black eye, we continue to enable that perception.

Our business has enough danger, innuendo, drama, and everything else that we don't need to add to it by tolerating personnel with bad attitudes, carelessness, or poor morale.  We have to seek the causes of these problems and root them out.  We have to be positive and focused on the service we provide and how we improve that delivery daily.  We must reward people for doing things right and remediate those who do things wrong.  But even when we do all these things right, our team might have someone swimming below the surface, counter to our culture or our expectations, who is intentionally or unintentionally, just waiting to pop to the surface.

If you really want to change the minds of others, the first step in doing so is by exuding professionalism yourself.  Nobody is going to follow your advice if you aren't in front leading the charge. If everyone in emergency service had that mentality, it would be a lot easier to bring the rest of the world forward.  But remember, even in the best of situations, even with thorough planning and training and coaching, sometimes things go wrong with no real expectation.  Our job as leaders is to minimize the risk of those events occurring, be proactive and engaged, and to present alternatives that eliminate those bodies from lining up.

Zen Zone #42

No comments

In zen, some precepts, like taking up the way of not killing, is almost impossible to do.  You can’t walk on a path through the woods without killing insects under your feet. Even breathing draws in bacteria and those organisms perish.  The idea, however, is that we should not cause unnecessary suffering in life, yet we understand that we can’t help it sometimes. Our life on this earth is dependent upon a chain of others, and we depend on each element of that chain.

Even we only ate vegetables, workers toil to harvest those plants.  We clear the fields and animals lose their homes. We eliminate pests to promote growth of the plants, and so, others are always giving their lives for us. We acknowledge these sacrifices when we take the precepts and we acknowledge that we have a certain obligation of service. Gratitude and mindfulness of these sacrifices is appropriate. We have to give back to show that we value the world around us.

Zen helps us to develop integrity. By becoming more introspective, the conflict turns inward.  Even if the challenge really does come from others and their imperfections, we have to see that, perceive it, and decide what attitude to have toward it.  When we can live with that, the persecution will change.  You may still be living through persecution, but your attitude towards it will be really quite different.  You'll be free.

Know Your Enemy

No comments

Who is your enemy? In the study of conflict, an adversary should be understood.  Adversary is, believe it or not, a better term for your opposition.  While in some cases it may SEEM like constant opposition, there are moments in which your adversary may be able to teach you a lesson. Instead of spending time hating our enemy, we should channel that energy to see if it can make us stronger.  By looking at oursleves from the eyes of an adversary, you can examine weaknesses and vulnerabilities.  Having identified those, you can grow from there.

It takes a strong will, sometimes, to stomach some of what your adversary might say.  But even in their eyes, there is probably a glimmer of truth.  In regard to competing interests, my wife likes to say there are three sides to the story: Person X's story, Person Y's story, and the truth in between.  Your own perspective is sometimes clouded by self-interest, ego, experience, or just pure, raw emotion.  When faced with conflict, the best place to examine for a solution starts in examining your own heart.

I have mentioned before that knowing your enemy has advantages, not just because you might be able to anticipate their actions and reactions, but because by looking at challenges with a different set of eyes, you might see your way toward a peaceful resolution that is win-win for all involved.

Open your mind, listen, and learn.  You can spend all day hating after you get all the facts, but when faced with conflict, the time to make things work is before things get bad, not after they escalate. 

The Right Stuff

5 comments

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.

A Waste Of Time

No comments

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. 

Zen Zone #40

2 comments

I read a blog about the "7 Habits of Highly Incompetent People" on Chris Voss, written by Eric Allen Bell.  We all know people like this.  We all should read these also so we don't fall into these traps ourselves.

Half of the battle in leading is knowing ourselves best. If we know ourselves, we can know how we naturally react to certain situations and if our repsonses aren't helping, how to modify our behavior.

What traits do you realize you have that you have had to modify?  How can we best point the people we are mentoring into recognizing their weaknesses and learning to work within those traits to be better leaders?