Archives for planning

See all posts in the network tagged with planning

The Right Stuff

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.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on February 4, 2012 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, customer service, leadership • Tagged: association, behavior, change, chief, coaching, conditions, conflict, counseling, Cumberland Valley Fire, customer service, development, disaster, discipline, education, ego, EMS, environment, ethics, evaluation, failure, FHZ, fire, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, FirefighterBehavior.com, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, Ken Willette, leadership, management, mentoring, Mick Mayers, motivation, NFPA, officer, planning, positive, prevention, proactive, professionalism, progression, project, rescue, South Carolina, Task Force 1, Training, understanding, values, vision, zen, zen zone

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.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on January 28, 2012 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, Training & Development • Tagged: behavior, change, chief, coaching, conditions, conflict, counseling, customer service, development, disaster, discipline, education, ego, EMS, environment, evaluation, failure, FHZ, fire, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, integrity, leadership, management, mentoring, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, planning, positive, prevention, proactive, professionalism, progression, project, rescue, South Carolina, Task Force 1, Training, understanding, values, vision, zen, zen zone

Okay, Let’s Try This Again

No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fire Chief: "Ohhhh-kay…"

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on September 14, 2011 • Filed under: leadership • Tagged: angry, asset, Bastrop, brush fire, bystander, change, conflict, credentialing, disaster, education, FEMA, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, Fire SUV, FireEMSBlogs, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, incident command, incident management, leadership, Mick Mayers, NIMS, planning, politics, resources, responder, SC-TF1, South Carolina, TX, TX-TF1, US&R, vision

Not Lovin’ It

4 comments

Believe it or not, this post started out a lot longer, but I radically chopped it up and got to the point. And lest you think this blog has gone to the evaluation of restaurants, this is actually a discussion on customer service. So just keep reading and you can catch up later.

By the way, as a quick aside, this photo is of a "Gino's Giant". That has no bearing on the article except that Gino's isn't either of the two Fast Food Joints discussed here. And, of course, as a matter of disclosure, I worked for the Gino's corporation back in high school. But I digress…

There's this giant megacorporation I'll call Fast Food Joint "M". There's another Fast Food Joint we'll refer to as "C". Last week I went into "M"; Between eight people on duty, not a single one, not even the cashier, even acknowledged my existence. They made eye contact, but there was no effort to recognize that a customer was waiting alone at the counter. Ultimately, the cashier shuffled over to the register and looked up; not a "Thanks for coming, what's your order?" or even a grunt. Made my order, which required repeating twice. Then upon getting the order, of course, it was wrong. Returning to the counter, there was one person ahead of me. They were also getting the same treatment, but it was taking even longer. I stood there with my bag, hoping that just one of all of these people would realize, "Hey, we must have made a mistake, let me see what is going on", nope, nothing.

At "C", the place was packed; yet there are five employees. Everyone is hustling, taking orders and turning orders around. The manager is even involved and as customers come up to ask for refills, she is also covering those as well. I am spoken to by several of the employees, asked about my order, and thanked when the order is processed. But it takes a little longer than expected, as it appears they are training one of the people in back. The bag comes and it is correct, but I get an apology anyway.

Fast food management doesn't seem to encounter anything like this level of service at any "M" I have ever been to. At almost every "C" I have visited, however, I sense that they have a higher purpose and they pride themselves on what is turned out. At "M", there is plenty of hype from the corporate HQ and there are expensive promos and new restaurant styles. At "C", the store is nice enough, but the focus is on polite manners, courteous service, and good food. Personally, the experience at "C" is much more enjoyable.

I have gone to visit fire stations and when I walked in, other firefighters have stared at me like I was from Mars, but none ever took the time to ask me what they could help me with, or why I was there, or even to just say "Hi". I have been in some memorable houses where I have been given gold plated tours of the facilities, coffee, offered dinner, and all before I even identified myself as a firefighter. I realize that this last situation is pretty unreasonable, but I don't even expect that; I just ask that you address my being there, ask if there is anything you can help me with, and engage me if I happen to show an interest or have a question.

The "M" experience is not one I would ever tolerate in any of my stations. The "C" experience is more like it. The last time I checked the news, we, that is, the collective fire service, have a problem with getting the things we need to do our jobs. Our staffs are being cut, stations and companies are being closed, and funding chopped. Actually, the only thing that seems to be increasing for municipal fire departments is taxpayer frustration at what is considered an overfunded concept, coupled with what is perceived as having no tangible benefit.

Based on my consumer comparison between "M" and "C", if these were fire departments, which of these do you think I might choose to fund? The surly, uncooperative, and overstaffed "M"? Or the pleasant, courteous, and efficient "C"? You can polish your image all day long with fancy marketing and spiffy stores, but ultimately, if your own people don't get the concept, you are wasting your time and effort. As leaders, we need to focus on improving the attitude of our people. The culture of your organization, if you want to survive these lean times, should be focused on improving attitudes and making "service with a smile" the norm, not the exception.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on August 6, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, Funding & Staffing, leadership, Training & Development • Tagged: change, complacent, conflict, customer service, economy, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, FireRescue1.com, Gino's, Gino's Giant, government, Hilton Head Island, I'm Lovin' It, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, municipal funding, opportunity, planning, politics, privatization, professionalism, resources, restaurant, South Carolina, tea party, vigilance, vision

Zen Zone #12

No comments

The dichotomy of being "part of the gang" and being the leader the other day reminded me of a story: A student sought a teacher to instruct on the path to enlightenment. When the teacher agreed and indicated a meeting time, the student informed the teacher that he had a conflict, as he had another appointment with another teacher on that day.

The teacher then told the student he could not instruct him. "If you are hunting rabbits", the master told him, "and chase two, you can be sure to catch none."

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 27, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: backlash, boss, bravery, buddy, career, change, clown, conflict, customer service, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, hypocrisy, integrity, leadership, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, public trust, resources, South Carolina, virtue, vision, volunteer, voter

Zen Zone #8

No comments

I could make a case for purchasing snow removal equipment for our community based upon the "Blizzard of 1989". We had six inches of snowfall on sunny Hilton Head Island over the Christmas weekend. I could put chains on our apparatus. I could even purchase a snow blower for my home. Realistically, though, we never had such a significant snowfall before that day, nor have we seen it in over twenty years since.

We have to carefully balance risk versus the likelihood of occurrence. Of course, if it snows and I calculated that we didn't need snow removal gear, some will be quick to point out that I have no idea of what I'm doing. If I buy snow removal gear, those same individuals will be quick to point out again that I have no idea what I am doing. There are those who understand and there are those who do not. If you are going to be the Chief, it helps to have thick skin. But in the long run, do what is best for your customers; making decisions based on observation and experience is the key.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 19, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, leadership • Tagged: backlash, boss, bravery, career, change, chief, conflict, customer service, decision, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, hypocrisy, integrity, leadership, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, public trust, resources, risk, risk management, snow, South Carolina, thick skin, virtue, vision, voter, zen zone

Buddy or Boss?

3 comments

Occasionally in a new batch of officers, that dilemma is brought up. "How can I be that officer I always looked up to, yet not alienate my friends?" Well, here's the down and dirty; It can never be the same again. A friendship is built upon a foundation of equality and trust. And depending on the level of leadership you happen to be in, there are differences between the leader and the follower that transcend the ability to appreciate strategic vs. tactical decision making. On a day to day basis, this relationship may not be an issue. In the long run, however, I can guarantee you that you will be required to make a decision in the best interest of the whole that isn't going to sit well with a particular outlook, and that friendship will undergo some serious challenges.

I have heard all the arguments. While you may be saying, "I'm currently friends with my supervisor and everything is fine", my response is that if this is the case, you are doing well. Many bosses say they can remain objective, and fail miserably. If your "friend/boss" would still call you in the office and read you the riot act just like he or she would to anyone else when you deserve it, then perhaps you are onto something. And if you have that kind of relationship with your officer, I think it is great. But it's like I have alluded to in a number of posts, these three simple rules of supervisor/subordinate relations must come to bear:

I am your boss.
If we can maintain that relationship and we can both be objective when it comes time to be, great, I'll be your friend too.
If not, see Rule 1.

If you are the informal leader of a group and suddenly, you are the boss, it is going to put an amazing strain on your relationships with these individuals unless you are willing to stand back from the emotion and do your job.

Let's go back to a little comparison and contrast. Think about being a parent of young children. You can be a parent and make the occasionally tough decisions that leave your children angry with you and while it hurts, you know you are doing the right thing. But you can't be their friend and do that: friends are equals, contemporaries, peers. If you were to approach a sticky issue with your child as a friend, do you really believe for a second that they will respect your authority?

If you are a truly enlightened leader, the whole point in having authority is to use it to lead, coach, educate, and direct others. If you don't believe that to be true then maybe you should take a long look at your relationships in that regard. That's not to say, again, that you can't be a friend to your child. As individuals mature emotionally, they recognize logic and the difference between right and wrong. They have experiences that permit you to engage them and they can learn on their own. But in dealing with those who are ambivalent about the difference, or have immature tendencies, or simply lack experience in understanding the difference, if you act as a friend rather than as a parent, don't be overly surprised if your children make the wrong choices because you were overly permissive in the attempt to be their friend.

I have myself been guilty of allowing a friendly relationship to cloud my view of how an individual is performing, or in some cases, even in how I respond to their actions when I give them news they don't care to hear, or challenge them with a task they think is objectionable. I have a tremendous amount of respect for team cohesion and I understand and encourage cohesion as a force multiplier. But there is a delicate balancing point between cohesion and fraternization. In an emotionally mature adult, the lines can blur a little more because individuals can process the logic. In the less mature adult, sometimes what seems to be logical is instead addressed with a great deal of emotion.

As a boss, you will have to make decisions that are occasionally not well recieved by the troops, especially if you are the one who is pushing for change in organizational culture. As we have also said repeatedly, change is not something that comes easily in a lot of cases. If it were, it would happen all the time and without resistance. Consider the fact that you can be an honest, fair, and educated boss that people like to work with, have a lot of respect for, and consider a "friend". But ultimately, when the hard part of the job comes into view, part of having integrity as a leader is reaffirming to the troops that you will always act in the best interest not of the organization or the personnel, but in the interest of the customers you serve. If you can do that, no decision you make will be wrong, and people may disagree, but will have to do so respectfully, because service to the customers is the ultimate objective.

Do yourself a favor as well as your subordinates. Choose what is best to serve the customers you are charged with providing for.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 16, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, Command & Leadership, leadership • Tagged: backlash, boss, bravery, buddy, career, change, clown, conflict, customer service, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, fun, government, Hilton Head Island, hypocrisy, integrity, leadership, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, public trust, resources, South Carolina, virtue, vision, volunteer, voter

The Prankster As Leader – It Doesn’t Work

1 comment

As a follow up to some issues I discussed on my last post, I submit to you this case study: I have never called our Dispatch to have anyone sent to a false alarm. Years ago, however, I was prompted about the crew on one of our medic units at another station complaining all day about being the next on rotation for any out-of-town transports. When I called the station to ask a question on another matter, the officer asked me to call back and inform the medic crew that one of these transports were getting ready to go. Ultimately, when the prank was revealed, everyone had a good laugh.

A few shifts later, we did end up with one of these transports and the same crew was back on rotation. I called the station to let the crew know what was going on. I hung up from that and went back to my computer. After a few minutes, I still hadn't heard the medic unit check in on the radio. When I called the station to find out what was going on, I'll bet you know what the answer was. That day I learned a lesson the hard way. The lesson: Don't give someone an order and then, when something unusual comes up, expect your orders to be followed without question.

Individuals who become supervisors, and subsequently leaders, must understand that when they play pranks like that, the result is that people don't see you as credible. I do have examples of officers who have been able to be pranksters and be credible, but they are VERY far and few between. In retrospect, a friend and colleague who I consider one of the best officers I have ever worked with was one of those. But my observation is that he had the ability to pull off pranks that didn't require his active involvement. And while never calling attention to his ability to pull a fast one, he wasn't the class clown either.

Conversely, there are those who when they pull off the joke, they have to be in the middle of it. This obviously detracts from their respectability. They are not seen as credible. The crew just sees them as an extension of themselves, with some added paperwork responsibilities. When it comes to playtime, these characters are right there in the mix, setting someone up for a "bunny tail", throwing someone else's car keys into a bowl of water bound for the freezer, or throwing a bucket of cold water over top of the shower door on some unsuspecting boot. And what's even worse is that when the officer engages in this behavior, it also means that to be a good sport, you must be okay with being the mark in some of the practical jokes. Otherwise, the argument is that you can dish it out, but can't take it, and depending on how you react, you may very well end up looking foolish, which certainly isn't going to do anything for your respect.

There are ways to not be a prankster and not be seen as a tight-ass either. We have a long standing "tradition" of wetting individuals with ice cold buckets of water when they get promoted. The day I got the official letter, I overheard some of the crew debating the wisdom of wetting me, since I don't engage in that nonsense. But when all the work was done that day, I finished up a report, walked out into the kitchen and said, "Okay, if you're going to do this, let's do it and get it over with."

Each of the other six guys at Station 6 that day got a shot at pouring ice water on a newly minted chief officer (see the picture). I'll admit it was cold and that it took my breath away. But I sat there and when they exhausted their last bucket and they were all standing around, I shook the ice off my shirt and stood up. I then asked, "You guys done?" They all acknowledged that they were, I simply said "Thank You", went inside to my rack and changed into a dry uniform. Then I went back to my office to finish up my evening reports with a smile and a business as usual attitude.

Likewise, if you have that kind of attitude and someone does take a chance to pull one over on you, the best bet is to maintain a sense of humor about it, but remind the entire crew that it isn't smart to prank the chief. I've said something like, "Are you sure turning the heater on high in the chief's car is a good career move?", which gets some light laughter, but everyone gets the point. Later you can take the individual aside and actually use it to discuss this very same lesson here with them, so that perhaps they learn from it for when they become an officer.

When you are a leader, it requires you to not take yourself too seriously. But if you are busy dreaming up new practical jokes rather than dreaming up new training scenarios, the likelihood that you will be given the respect you desire as an officer is going to be slim. Officers who engage in practical joking with their subordinates are only asking for reciprocation; the biggest downside is that reaction may come at the time you least want it to. Best to leave the funny stuff to the kids and stick to being the responsible adult.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 5, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, News, Training & Development • Tagged: backlash, bravery, career, change, clown, Command & Leadership, conflict, customer service, economy, education, EMS, EMS Topics, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firefighter Safety & Health, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, fun, Funding & Staffing, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, news, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, public trust, resources, risk reduction, South Carolina, Training & Development, vision, volunteer, voter

Grow Up

1 comment

Let me begin by saying, I am the number one fan of Animal House. I would never do anything to disparage the film or any of its characters. And I am not being Dean Wormer here. But it's time to put that little part of our lives behind us for a moment, although it is a part of me I can never quite leave behind. So here's a little test.

Consider the events in Holyoke, MA over the past week or so. If the action you are about to take would cause undue embarrassment to you or your organization, or your family and loved ones, would you still do it? If your action was the cause of something that makes the front page, or the national news, and it's not something you are proud of, would you do it? If the action you are about to take would invoke criminal or civil penalties against you, would you still do it?

What happened here was a very innocent practical joke on the part of an interim chief. I feel badly for him and I really don't believe this chief to be an idiot (as some have stated) or a criminal (as others have), or even a bad guy. I don't even know the man. But what he did, especially in the anti-public servant climate within which we are currently suffering, was not exercising good judgment.

There is nothing about this incident that suggests that anything happened here other than an attempt at a little levity, albeit at the expense of violating the laws about calling in false alarms. Am I judging the man or his actions? No. I don't know all the facts, although they seem pretty apparent on their face. Do I understand the mentality? Yes. I have moved a fire engine parked at the supermarket to the other side of the parking lot along with a few other practical jokes. But the next blog post will be all about THAT angle regarding leadership, so stay tuned. I don't believe anything other than that this was a practical joke gone wrong.

But in light of this incident, maybe instead of testing someone's physical fitness, their aptitude for reading a sentence, or the many other things we should be testing and aren't, maybe we should put at the top of the priority list, a test for maturity. Because other than the only test that seems to be important in some departments these days – that would be the ability to fog a mirror – we insist on knowing all these important things about how much someone can lift, or how fast they can run stairs, or how fast can they calculate 2+2 and we miss out on what seems to be the heart of our industry's problem. If you haven't picked up on it, that would be a test for whether or not the individual we are about to hire or promote is capable of objectively separating their inner teenager from the responsibilities of adulthood.

Again, lest you think this is all about pranksterism, there are actually many examples of where a certain level of maturity is important, and why it's not a good idea to have people associate with us that think it is okay to video someone lighting fireworks out of your ass. The public perception these days is swinging toward the "bunch of overgrown kids pretending to be important" side and away from the "upstanding citizen who is here to keep us safe" side. While some of our colleagues might not see that as being important, the public, when choosing to spend their hard earned dollars, are really not interested in sending money in the direction of waste and frivolous behavior. They want to be reassured that the individuals to whom they are entrusting their tax dollars are responsible, thoughtful, and perceptive. People who are making the news wire for setting fires, calling in prank false alarms, stealing from treasuries, and any other number of violations of society, are NOT considered as being responsible, thoughtful or perceptive. In fact, if this is news to you, haven't you probably ALSO been the ones complaining because the public doesn't love you anymore? Acting like you are still a member of Delta Tau Chi is not okay when you pin bugles on your collar (and I am the number one Animal House fan, remember?) Sophomoric behavior is best left to sophomores.

There are a number of us who are frustrated with the eroding public trust that comes about when certain participants in our field act like a bunch of day care refugees. The failure for some to consider the ripple effect their actions have on others is incredible. We are in a real struggle to define the fire and emergency services. There are daily reports of communities downsizing departments, "renting" them out (that would be privatizing them), or simply reallocating funds that would have been spent on fire and emergency services to other competing interests. We are at war here for our very existence, and every negative report is used against us, implicitly or not, to give rationale as to why we (fire and emergency services) shouldn't get the support we need.

There is no need to comment that I'm sucking the fun out of the job. Right now, we need to be working harder than ever to save our standing in the community, be it as a career or volunteer professional. We definitely don't need our own people shooting our efforts in the feet. Fun is when we can come out of a good worker safely, with a smile on our face because we did a good job; or high-fiving in the nurse's lounge because we just pulled an asystolic patient out of their nose-dive and they are sitting up talking in Bed 2. Fun is when we are on the training ground joking around with each other while resting after a particularly challenging evolution.

Grow up. Fun doesn't come unless you earn it. It's not fun being a loser. You can have fun all day long, but in the end, if you haven't accomplished anything, you're just one more clown among many. When you are truly professional, you can work hard and have fun at it too.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on July 2, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Safety & Health, Funding & Staffing, leadership, News, Training & Development, Vehicle Operations & Apparatus • Tagged: animal house, backlash, bravery, career, change, clown, conflict, customer service, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firegeezer, Firehouse Zen, fun, government, Hilton Head Island, hypocrisy, leadership, loser, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, public trust, resources, risk reduction, South Carolina, virtue, vision, volunteer, voter

How Can You Know What Is “Better”?

1 comment

One of the best parts about my job is the view. On "A" shift mornings, I leave my home and drive to Hilton Head Island Fire & Rescue's Station 7 where the Line Battalion Chief's office is located. Since I live near the beach, I actually head to work opposite the commuter traffic, but at that time, traffic is still pretty light. My route takes me over the Cross Island Bridge traversing Broad Creek, a long, wide tidal creek and pristine salt marsh that comes within a 100 yards of splitting the Island in two.

At a little after 0600 most of the year, the sun is coming up in the East over Broad Creek at the exact same time as I cross the bridge. The result is a collection of some of the most spectacular sunrises I have ever seen. Almost every morning, the view is a little different in the sky, but with the lighting of the tidal marsh on that angle, as well as a marina and some other landmarks, it is a glorious sight.

One morning as I crossed the bridge, a car was stopped on the bike lane, the driver taking a picture. While this is pretty common, I remember the sunrise wasn't the most spectactular I had seen in a while and I thought, "Wow. He thinks that's a great sunrise and it's probably one of the least amazing of the year."

But in thinking about that idea, it occurred to me that while I got to see this great sunrise almost every morning, I knew that this wasn't a "keeper". For this poor guy it was one of the highlights of his trip, but because he might have been from somewhere that doesn't have these kinds of views, or for any number of reasons, he didn't know what he was missing.

Your own organization can be much the same way. You could be "the best". Your department could be a shining example of excellence in your area. But really, how do you know if you are doing anything significant, or innovative, or even RIGHT if you don't benchmark against other comparable organizations?

But similarly, what if you are choosing the wrong benchmarks? There are more than a few methods to measure your organization that can give you the snapshot you need for continual improvement. And there are those who provide no meaningful yardstick to measure against, especially since some of them have been used to prop up organizations who can meet their "standards" yet fail to achieve even the slightest dent in what is considered a modern emergency service organization.

When someone inquires about accreditation and wonders what an organization can possibly gain from such recognition, in many cases, it is not necessarily the acknowledgement of having met those standards, but the effort the people of the organization make in getting there. Members of an accredited organization that participate in the process find that they understand the strengths as well as the weaknesses of their organization much better than those who do not. The knowledge aquired about the organization isn't the most important benefit, though. More important is the process of examining the facets of running the department and understanding how each part is integral to the workings of the whole.

The challenge of seeking the perfect sunrise requires research to know when and where to find it. A little experimentation is necessary to see that sunrise from different vantage points and to understand the desired qualities. Some luck helps in that sometimes the solutions fall right into our laps and we just happen to be in the right place at the right time. But ultimately, we can't just look at one sunrise and say, "That's the best one", unless of course, it's the only one you ever see.

Stretch a little. Go out and see what you can see. Ask questions and open your mind. Learn and understand the nature of quality and how it presents itself in the efforts you make. And when you have seen more, you can see that your way might not be the only way, and likewise, someone else might see what you see and they might be enlightened as well.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on June 18, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, change, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership • Tagged: accreditation, broad creek, CFAI, change, conflict, credentialing, Cross Island, customer service, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, ISO, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, open minded, opportunity, organization, planning, politics, professionalism, research, resources, South Carolina, standards, sunrise, team, understanding, vision

Scary Rhetoric and Hypocrisy

1 comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complacency

4 comments

I have probably spoken before of complacency. Complacency is a subject that seems to surface repeatedly in our business, a business that requires constant vigilance. It strikes all of us at one point or another. The cure, sadly enough, seems to be getting stung. And in a further moment of unfortunate circumstance, on occasion the sting is accompanied by death, severe injury, or catastrophic loss.

And since we all understand that complacency in the fire service is a topic on which everyone is reminded to guard against, it happens routinely, and to the most unlikely of subjects. I myself have been shaken out of complacency, years ago, with a near miss, and vowed to never repeat it. But time after time, like water wearing away at a stone, repeated non-events lull us into the belief that the next one will just be one more in a long line of non-events. When the long shot pays off, it can be a doozy.

Just as we get complacent on alarms, the public sector fire service has become fat and happy in the belief that no one would dare upset our world by privatizing it, merging it, or re-sourcing it. We are firefighters! Everyone loves firefighters! No one would dare go against us. We are heroes, after all. Well, just read this article on FireRescue1.com. These issues, although we have been saying they were coming for years, are now upon us. If you don't believe it, look around. The public is sick of hearing about firefighters milking their pensions, taking questionable disability benefits, stealing from their organizations, and lighting fires. We are no longer pristine. We have permitted the scum bags to infiltrate our ranks. We are fair game.

Times are tough. People see us as having while they don't. If there is anything more energizing to the haters, it is the thought of "heroes" becoming the "anti-heroes". It is the foundation of expose and justice denied that calls for every Geraldo wannabe to man a video camera and find the next Watergate saga. If there is something delicious about failure, it is much more tasty when the shock of failure is accompanied by the role a trusted individual has in creating it.

Change is near on the horizon and while there are those of us shouting it from the rafters, it seems like there are many who continue to ignore the warnings. What you believe to be true today may very well be heresy tomorrow. If you fail to evolve, to get your stakeholders involved in your mission, or to understand the changing tide of support, you may well be clinging to the remains of what used to be while the rest go sailing down the road.

Just as we preach to our new firefighters that complacency kills, so should the vested leadership of our collective organizations be warned: complacency will be the demise of what you currently hold dear. You can appreciate change and master it, or let it master you. One way or another, it is on the way.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on May 19, 2011 • Filed under: administration-leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Funding & Staffing, News • Tagged: change, complacent, conflict, customer service, economy, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, FireRescue1.com, government, Hilton Head Island, Jamie Thompson, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, near miss, opportunity, planning, politics, privatization, professionalism, resources, South Carolina, vigilance, vision

The Capacity Building Exercise To Change All Exercises

No comments

We are all interconnected; how so remains to be examined. We are part of a bigger whole.

Our industry is in dire need to undergo extensive capacity building. Capacity building is the assistance provided to societies which have a need to develop a certain skill or competence. More recently, however, capacity building is being used to facilitate innovative approaches to social and environmental problems.

Capacity building can be defined as “activity which strengthens the knowledge, abilities, skills and behavior of individuals, while improving institutional structures and processes such that the organization can efficiently meet its mission and goals in a sustainable way.”

For organizations, capacity building may relate to almost any aspect of its work: improved governance, leadership, mission and strategy, administration, program development and implementation, identification of revenue streams, diversity, partnerships and collaboration, evaluation, advocacy and policy change, marketing, positioning, planning, etc.

For individuals, capacity building may relate to leadership development, advocacy skills, instructional abilities, technical skills, organizing skills, and other areas of personal and professional development.

When I began to write this article, I was thinking about a different direction than the one I shifted to this morning. I happened to be listening to Bob Edwards this morning, as I do routinely when I am driving around. He was interviewing Tom Shadyac, best known as the director behind movies like Ace Ventura. I’ll let the I Am video tell the story, but in short, he had a mind-opening experience as a result of a bike accident and the subsequent recovery, and it inspired him to make a documentary which seeks answers to deeper issues.

The point in his interview that really got me was this: We have been taught over the course of our lives when faced with a problem to ask “What is wrong?” when we should really be asking “Why is this wrong?” Shadyac suggests a more metaphysical approach to our cultural issues which revolve around more cooperation and supportiveness and less competition and strife.

When I applied this to what I had begun to write, it occurred to me that maybe we (emergency services and in society as a whole) are going about this all wrong. Our continual inability to work together to foster positive change is likely deeper than even we originally suspected. If we continue to go after each others’ throats in the vollies vs. career, East vs. West, Fire vs. EMS, safe vs. unsafe battles which rage daily in our business, how can we ever expect to achieve any respect from others outside emergency services, much less endorsement on issues we can all agree on.

It seems to me that the KSAs we need to teach are farther removed than basic operational issues, the KSAs we need to emphasize are our greater connection throughout the entire emergency services industry, how we need to get past the things that divide us and unite about things we can agree on and change.

We talk about “brotherhood”, but what really is brotherhood anymore? You have brothers in career shops bashing brothers in vollie houses because of a number of reasons. Shouldn’t we simply agree that we both do a dangerous job, made more dangerous by the bean-counters limiting our abilities to obtain cutting edge technologies, the best training, and sufficient staffing?

I realize that I have indeed been asking “why” things are wrong for a long time, while many of my brothers were and are still focused on “what” is wrong. I just guess I needed someone to point that out to me.
The capacity building in ourselves, in our organizations, and within our industry is essential for our continued survival. Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.”

I’m suggesting that a good place to start is in a society where there are those who have a core value of service to others, a society in which the greater good is supposed to be placed above that of the individual, and where characteristics of selflessness and courage are valued attributes, not hindrances. If there is any established society in which those morals are daily sought and in which we insist they are founded upon, it would be the society made up of fire and EMS professionals.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on April 4, 2011 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Nation, Firefighter Safety & Health, Fires, Funding & Staffing, leadership, motivation, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, Technology & Communications, Training & Development • Tagged: abilities, Ace Ventura, Bob Edwards, capacity building, change, conflict, cooperation, customer service, education, einstein, emergency service, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, I Am, knowledge, KSA, leadership, management, metaphysics, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, research, resources, risk reduction, safety, skills, South Carolina, team, teamwork, tom shadyac, vision

Saying Goodbye To A Friend

No comments

We best memorialize our brethren by remembering the lessons they teach us.

I actually started writing this post six months ago. It’s probably not like you’d think. I had my initial moments of grief when a friend and colleague passed away late last year. But after that, like one of us has said, “It’s like I keep expecting her to walk through the door any minute.” It’s like she went away and we haven’t really come to the belief that she’s gone.

Susan’s credentials as a leader were impressive. She came on board not long after our department was in the throes of a major overhaul of our command staff as a result of retirements and going on to bigger venues. But while her impact on our organization was large, her time with us was short and to be quite candid, the changes she endeavored to make didn’t quite stick the way they should have.

I guess one of the reasons I never finished posting (because the post actually went on from here) was that it kept sounding like a eulogy and that’s not what I wanted to do. This issue isn’t about me or anyone else who is still around picking up the pieces, but about moving forward, transitioning, living through a traumatic event and learning how to move on.

I dragged this back out again from my “drafts” pile because for the better part of yesterday, I was trying to catch up on my workload and making pretty decent progress. I think I’m only backlogged to November now (that’s LAST November). Things came to a crawl, however, when I began to tackle the next priority on the list, which was (is, because I’m not done) a “Line of Duty Death” guideline (LODD, for my non-fire readers). While Susan’s death was not an LODD, it was very much about a loss to our fire department family. I have always been impressed by our ability to rally, and of course, the amazing memorial that was virtually shot from the hip.

We can always look back in amazement at what we instinctively got right and make notes about what we probably could have done better at. Her family asked us to coordinate the services and a few stalwart colleagues/friends jumped in there and did a pretty damn good job organizing and contacting and negotiating to create a memorial worthy of commemorating Susan’s impact on our lives. While there’s none of us that wouldn’t have wanted to fill Yankee Stadium for her, we did a good job of filling the venue we had, and the service was both tearful and funny, the way she probably would have wanted it.

But the moral of this story is that when we lose someone dear to us, we have a need to commemorate their life. The deceased are deceased and while it is my belief that we honor them by having a ceremony, and it is also my belief that they are taking in our feelings and understanding how much they meant to us from a better place, when it comes down to it, a lot of that may be more about us processing our own feelings and trying to get us to move on to the next phase of our lives.

I have said before, and again in this post as well, that if we really care about leaving a legacy, we should consider the culture we develop as a result of our leadership of others.

What better memorial to another than to recognize that our beloved was such an important part of our life that the traditions they instilled in us, the commitment to excellence, and the dedication to service so ingrained in our culture, that we refused to let that value die long after that person was gone from this mortal coil. Unfortunately, when I think back on it, I think maybe we might have failed Susan.

With some substantial challenges on our horizon and after talking to others within our organization about a renewed commitment to improvement and service, I have to meditate a little on what that truly means and how to go about facilitating that change among the people I am responsible for mentoring. As a chief officer, one of the hardest things you have to do sometimes is admit to yourself that you have let your vision be narrowed by petty issues. As a chief officer, your vision can’t be obscured by the trees; you need to view the entire landscape.

My job must be to focus on positive strategic change. I have company officers who must translate that change into daily tactical objectives. If they can’t do that, they have to do some soul searching themselves, because the purpose of the officer on a team isn’t to be one of the gang, it is to lead the team. It is the job of the officer to work with other officers to form an effective cadre of other leaders and to be above pettiness themselves. When you make the choice that your badge will have bugles on it, it’s time to leave the past behind and focus on the future. And if you ca’t do that, then you need to admit that it might be better to return to the gang. No one ever said leadership was easy.

We have many people in our lives whom we love in their own special ways. All of the assembled brothers and processions of fire apparatus, all of the pipes and crossed ladders and other powerful traditions are nothing if we can’t be true to ourselves and appreciate that our calling is to serve others. Service to others is the hallmark of our tradition. People would not revere firefighters if not for their long-standing tradition of selflessness, of commitment despite adversity, and of bravery in the face of death and destruction. If we truly want to memorialize our loved ones and our brothers, we need to re-dedicate our careers toward self-improvement, education, and dedication, as well as to teach and mentor those who are behind us in the ranks.

Don’t make saying goodbye a hollow promise of honoring the deceased. The funeral is just the beginning of a new life without that person standing next to us. If they really mean something to us, we will consider the lessons they taught us and create action instead of words.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on March 28, 2011 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, Firefighter Safety & Health, Fires, Funding & Staffing, In the Line of Duty, leadership, Line of Duty, LODD, motivation, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, revolution, safety, Training & Development • Tagged: change, conflict, customer service, death, education, EMS, FHZ, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, lessons, LODD, management, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, professionalism, South Carolina, Susan Williams, understanding, vision

But Wait! There’s More!

1 comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on February 11, 2011 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, firefighting, funding, Funding & Staffing, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, News, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, Training & Development • Tagged: budget, Camden, change, conflict, council, customer service, depression, disaster, economy, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, Gary, government, Hilton Head Island, layoffs, leadership, Lion King, management, marketing, media, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, past, planning, politics, professionalism, Pumbaa, resources, risk reduction, South Carolina, team, vision

Hogs To The Trough

10 comments

I have heard a constant refrain for a few years, as you have probably heard too. With the economy the way it is, the constant drum beat sounds from those who want to radically downsize government, and there is a certain irrational cry from those who resent firefighter pensions and salaries.

A while back, Captain Schmoe over at Report on Conditions spelled it out best (but for some reason I can’t find the specific post), illustrating that our collective hubris has signed our own death warrant. When Fred Taxpayer sees one of the brothers trucking down the road in his Gasguzzler 6000 pickup, towing a boat with three engines on it, laughing because he only works one day out of three, it doesn’t sit well. Especially when that same individual is scraping to make ends meet, can’t figure out where he’s going to get the money to feed the kids, and might not even have a retirement anymore. Do you really find their resentment unfounded?

Recent firefighter layoffs in Camden and Gary, while extraordinarily tragic, illustrate a fundamental issue: people generally aren’t lashing out at the politicians, they are blaming the Union. And while that may very well be unfounded, it is happening, and that is a tangible reality. Why should we care? Because we did it to ourselves.

It’s not a matter that we do or don’t deserve decent salaries and good benefits, it is a matter of our failure to educate the public, to work with them and include them as part of the solution. After all, it was their own elected officials that agreed to these contracts in the first place. They can argue that they did so at the point of a gun, but the reality there is actually that these benefits were often hard-fought for and given grudgingly, so whatever these individuals were able to obtain, it wasn’t exactly handed to them on a silver platter.

Furthermore, like those of us in departments that don’t enjoy the fruits of collective bargaining, we are all lumped in together with the stories like the one illustrated above as a prime example of why we don’t deserve this compensation. I, for one, live in a nice home. But its a home my wife and I ate a lot of waffles and PBJs to save for. We have three children to put through college, but so do a lot of people. I drive an eleven year old truck with 130,000 miles on it. In no way should this be construed as complaining. I don’t make a fortune, but I think it is a fair salary for what the community gets from me, and although I wish I made more, I also understand the realities of the situation. And I have friends that are firefighters who have the truck and boat and etc., but they have in one case invested wisely, in another case happened to parlay their talents into a lucrative side job. Yet another one though, has squandered his money and overextended himself. So it is, just as it is everywhere else, the same.

When we engage in bragging about how good we have it, we’d better consider the consequences. There is a backlash that still rages on against our existence, and it doesn’t stop at the career folks either. If the public percieves that your service doesn’t have value, they will cut it back to where they feel it deserves to be funded, plain and simple. The other parts of public service enjoy a certain paranoia about the public, where those emotions about losing those services are much more tangible. Lose the trash pickup? No cops? Sewer backing up? They will choose and what they will choose is to fund that which they are the most concerned about losing. Since you don’t have fires next door every day, nor does everyone in the neighborhood end up in the back of the ambo regularly, do you believe that when we’re lining up to get our share, that there’s a reluctance to cut our budgets? Not often. The public may complain a little when they see on the news that the Mayor shut down the fire station on the corner, but that sentiment is usually over by the time American Idol comes on.

We can’t continue to take for granted that the public knows why we are there or what we do, or what would happen if we lost manpower, equipment, or other tools. This is the time to insure that the buyer is aware of what they are being sold, and is happy with the return they continue to make on their investment. Yes, that’s called marketing and while that might be a dirty word to some of you, it too is a reality. You can choose to ignore the need or you can get up and do what is needed. We can’t wait until stations are being closed and people are being laid off to insure the message is shared. Anything after that is sour grapes. We can’t scream “people will die” if we didn’t do anything to reinforce it in the minds of the population ahead of that moment.

To the general population, our indifference to their situation while flaunting our current compensation packages is a lot like Marie Antoinette telling starving Parisians, “Let them eat cake”. And you know how that story ended. The backlash against government spending isn’t going away and if we don’t evolve, don’t be surprised to hear this story repeated over and over again until we do. Would you rather change under your own terms or change at the end of a pike? It’s your call.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on February 8, 2011 • Filed under: change, customer service, education, fire, fire service, funding, Funding & Staffing, government, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, News, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, Training & Development • Tagged: change, conflict, customer service, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, resources, South Carolina, vision

Article: Modern Approaches To Fire Suppression

1 comment

Picture from FireRescue1.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on February 2, 2011 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Nation, Firefighting Operations, General, leadership, motivation, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, safety, Training & Development • Tagged: CAFS, change, conflict, customer service, disaster, economy, education, Elkhart, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, FireRescue1.com, foam, force multiplier, Hilton Head Island, hose, innovation, invention, Jamie Thompson, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, nozzle, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, research, resources, risk reduction, safety, South Carolina, suppression, Training, vision

The New Year: The Object of Power

2 comments

Orwell said:

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Once empowered, as we discussed before in this blog, what would you do with it? Use it to beneficial means? Punish your detractors? Lift the world?

Legitimate power, in the sense of leading others, is limited to the amount of leverage your followers will permit you. Granted, you can dismiss those who don’t agree with you in some cases, but the shouting never goes away. The powerful may believe themselves to be so, but the mighty can at once be chopped down by the feeble. If you doubt that, there are hundreds of stories in which this can be shown to be true.

I’m not impressed because there’s a bridge named after you, or a building, or even a document. Maybe if your image is imprinted on currency, that might change things. But the truly powerful are so because they have empowered others and that lasting image of mentorship, of fostering knowledge, of truly leading others, because others have granted you that privilege, well, that is real power.

Only the truly transformative and engaging leaders can provide that kind of experience, where their vision is communicated and moved forward by others. This is a concept that transcends professionalism; it is embracing leadership as a calling. Do you want to be an ordinary leader, or one that is powerful? Leadership at this level requires commitment, honesty to self, and an understanding of the world. It’s yours if you can embrace change, open yourself up to it, and to set the example to others.

Happy New Year. Lead on. We’re watching.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on December 31, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, motivation, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, Training & Development • Tagged: change, conflict, dictator, education, empowerment, FHZ, fire service, Firehouse Zen, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, Mick Mayers, motivation, Orwell, planning, politics, power, professionalism, quote, South Carolina, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, vision

Credibility

4 comments

One of the biggest problems the fire service has is its credibility. I received multiple e-mails over the past few weeks about a confined space training near-miss that in reading the information, I found to be pretty troubling. Once again, it appears (at least from the published report) that training can get pretty hairy, especially when there is a certain amount of complacency among students and instructors. But it goes to a deeper question: When training, at what point do we raise our hand and say, “Hey, something doesn’t seem right here”?

When we engage in fire, EMS, and rescue activities, we are participating in what is considered to be an extraordinarily dangerous setting. In training, we have the ability to create scenarios that test our students, but we as course designers must consider the alternative outcome to successful completion of a task, and by that, I am referring to failure. When someone is unable to complete a task, or the environment becomes too daunting, or unforeseen events occur, there has the be the ability to directly swing into normalcy (read: safety).

In burn buildings we provide extra exits and in high-line rescue training we continually monitor redundant belays. Whatever the topic, we intentionally build our scenarios to consider the “what if?” events that might occur. While crawling through an active 18-inch pipe might provide a “confidence building” exercise, what is the plan if someone gets stuck? Or in the case at hand, weather creates a very real scenario? Thankfully a greater disaster didn’t occur. But while in confined space situations we must “train in representative spaces”, and nothing provides more realism than using the spaces themselves, we are also obligated to monitor those spaces and aggressively manage safety concerns for personnel.

When an instructor is telling you to do something that doesn’t seem right, there is also an obligation on the part of students to respectfully raise a hand and question the scenario. Unfortunately, not every instructor out there is experienced or dedicated enough to insure that the proper learning environment is provided and adequately managed. As real professionals, we need to not only do risk management on the emergency scene, but in training as well. There are plenty of instructors from whom I have taken a class, only to walk away shaking my head. If I am responsible for hiring instructors, I at least qualify them myself or seek the advice of colleagues who have worked with those people before. Our business, however, is too dangerous to leave the teaching to amateurs. Look for credible instructors with a history of work when you are trusting someone with the lives of your personnel. We kill and injure enough of our people in real situations. There’s no reason to do the same when the urgency doesn’t exist.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on December 1, 2010 • Filed under: change, customer service, education, EMS Topics, FEMA, Fire Prevention & Education, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Nation, government, leadership, motivation, National Fire Academy, planning, politics, professionalism, Training & Development • Tagged: change, education, executive fire officer, FEMA, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, Mick Mayers, motivation, National Fire Academy, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, research, risk reduction, South Carolina, Training

Successful Coaches Match Schemes to Personnel, Not Vice-Versa

No comments

Hilton Head and Bluffton, SC firefighters training on structural collapse.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on November 23, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Nation, Funding & Staffing, leadership, motivation, planning, politics, professionalism, revolution, Training & Development • Tagged: Bluffton, change, customer service, disaster, economy, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, football, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, professionalism, regional, resources, response, SC RRT-4, SC-TF1, South Carolina, team, Training, US&R

Increasing Tempo and Decreasing Resources Equals Frustration

1 comment

If we all pull together, there's no telling what we can achieve.

We have, in emergency services, always been in the business of doing more with less. It’s our creed. But there comes a point where we are expecting the outputs to exceed the inputs, or we are shoving more input in than we can possibly output, and in either case, something is going to blow. This can be written:

Where t = tempo, r = resources and f = frustration: ↑t + ↓r = ↑↑f.

When we reach the result ↑↑f, it has been often expressed with an expletive and a raised middle finger. To illustrate, let’s think about this like a mall parking lot, shall we?

In the preferred scenario, we have a goal and in order to achieve that, we have to put something into the process to make it occur. If we have our theoretical parking lot, so long as the number of cars that go into the lot are equal or less than the number of cars exiting the lot, there won’t be a lot of pain. However, when the balance tips and the number of cars entering the lot exceed the number of cars exiting, there will be quite a deal of anger, especially if the input of cars continues to exceed the available number of spaces and a bunch of mouth-breathing numbskulls drive around the lot aimlessly, exponentially adding to the confusion. In normally high-performing organizations, situations like these can evolve into frustrating moments when we continue to expect more and more for less and less, without considering that what we have is a definite resource issue. In those finite resources, of course, we are referring mainly to time and funding.

If I were to build you a house, and money was no object, time was no object, and you didn’t care what it looked like, I would have absolutely no problems putting you in a home. If money were no object I could buy what I want; pay myself what I want; I could hire people who have built homes before; and any number of resources I could possibly need, I could get, if you know what I mean. Likewise, if time were no object, I wouldn’t worry about how long it took for permits, or whether or not the subs were there on time. And of course, if you didn’t care what it looked like, I could build you a tent and charge you several million dollars.

When we begin to place limiting factors on the outputs, there occurs a correlating increase in pressure. As managers, it’s easy to delegate. There are plenty of managers out there, however, who delegate without consideration for the resources needed. It doesn’t do us any good to keep throwing more plates in the air for our subordinates and expect the outputs to remain consistent. It’s the theory of laminar flow: the more pressure you add, the more chaotic the environment and the less effective the output. You need to either decrease pressure, add capacity, or increase the size of the discharge.

The most challenging part, however, is remembering that the personnel you most trust with pulling off clutch moves are the same ones who tend to get loaded and loaded until they reach a snapping point. These are your high performers who won’t dare tell you “no” because they really want to succeed and to help you to succeed as well. It’s important to discuss the workload with these individuals and if you find you have to back off the heat for a while, make it happen. They’ll appreciate your recognizing the situation and in allowing them to adjust their pace, may be able to come back stronger in the long run. But keep beating that same horse and I can reassure you, it might take a while, but when it does go down, it won’t be peacefully.

Your job as a leader is to continually evaluate the situation and adjust. If additional resources exist, you can add these, but unfortunately, that isn’t a likely scenario. So it comes down to heat if we want to increase the outputs. As leaders, we have to constantly assess whether the heat we add to the problems is sufficient, or too much. If it is not enough, things will go at their own pace and may never be accomplished. Too much heat and you run the risk of backlash. But the right amount of heat creates change. And if change is what is required, you are going to be the one with your hand on the throttle. Manage it wisely; it’s a temperamental machine sometimes.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on October 12, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, leadership, motivation, officership, planning, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, Training & Development • Tagged: burnout, challenge, change, conflict, customer service, education, EMS, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firehouse Zen, frustration, girls lacrosse, heat, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, motivation, officer, opportunity, parking lot, planning, politics, professionalism, resources, risk reduction, safety, South Carolina, team, tempo, work

The Disincentive for Responsible Reporting (Tax and Spend Socialists)

7 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on October 9, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, Firefighter Nation, Funding & Staffing, government, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution • Tagged: change, chaos organization, customer service, disaster, disaster management, economy, EMS, EMS Topics, failure, FHZ, fire rescue topics, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firehouse Zen, Funding & Staffing, government, Hilton Head Island, insurance, Kirschenbaum, leadership, management, marketing, Media Relations, Mick Mayers, motivation, news, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, resources, risk reduction, South Fulton, subscription

Subscription Emergency Services – Your Classic Tea Bag Scenario

11 comments

These aren't free.

In one corner, the people who think that what the South Fulton Fire Department did was reprehensible. In the other, those who think that you need to “pay to spray“. In the classic Firehouse Zen outlook, let’s go to the root of the problem. Here we are in a brand new age of doing more with less. It’s our creed in emergency services.

The beauty of this all is that while there are those who want to limit the “reach” of government, we have to remember that the point of having government involvement in the first place is to protect us in our vulnerable moments. I am neither a tax-and-spender nor a teabagger. I don’t march in lockstep to anyone’s platform. I have an open mind and I evaluate where things are beneficial to my community and things detrimental, and balance the risk vs. a reasonable cost. It doesn’t seem to me that either of the extremes are acceptable answers.

This is a complicated issue and it can’t be solved by just glossing over the sound-bite material. There are departments who have been doing the subscription thing for years. Personally, I suggested to some funding-challenged departments a number of years ago that perhaps you could do a “soft-landing” subscription: you pay (in advance) for spray, but if you don’t pay (in advance), you REALLY pay. Like 500% of the subscription rate, charged to the insurance company. Something tells me the insurance companies would be insisting you pay or you don’t get insurance. Something also tells me that if you fail to pay in this scenario, they WON’T be paying anyway. But subscription service, while it seems like a logical solution, is fraught with peril. There are just too many “what-ifs” to make it a workable solution to the whole.

We do have a responsibility to the community to protect life, property and the environment. But we are painted into a corner when we can’t raise revenue to sustain our operations, be it a fairly low cost solution or the full-on urban response solution. Thus we return to the risk vs. benefit assessment each community must undertake before deciding, “Okay, we don’t want paid providers” or “We are going to shut down companies”, or “Our risk is low enough that we can make it with an all-volunteer force”. This is something that has to be decided locally, but by responsible individuals who aren’t just looking at the bottom line. There is nothing wrong with any of these scenarios if they can be applied effectively. The problem is that when they are not, and the decision is made to do this anyway, it is often done with catastrophic results. You know, of course, who gets left holding the bag in that case, don’t you? (That would be us, in case you didn’t get that hint.)

The elected officials of your community are charged with more than just appearing ad nauseum on your TV screen for several months leading up to November, although for some, it’s the only time I ever see them. They are charged with making decisions that benefit the community and uphold societal standards. I know of no society who thinks it’s okay to screw the vulnerable at the benefit of the privileged. Well, I take that back- I know of no RESPONSIBLE society who thinks that’s okay. For any “leader” of a community to say, we’re going to go with a subscription fee for service and it’s okay to opt out of it at the risk of losing everything you have, it seems to me like you are taking a chance that this could go terribly wrong. Sending someone a letter to confirm they are “not in” doesn’t sound too cool either (I have had too many personal experiences with undelivered registered mail to have confidence in that solution). I think if everyone was paying the fee and suddenly, someone wasn’t, I’d have someone give them a call and make a face-to-face confirmation to find out what the problem was. Can you not afford it now? Are you saying you are okay if we don’t respond? I really think some follow-up is required here before saying, you are now on your own.

What may have seemed like a good solution has become national news, but it didn’t have to be. Kirschenbaum in Chaos Organization and Disaster Management suggests that the whole social aspect of disaster response was overtaken by a bureaucracy concerned with job protection and cost reimbursement years ago anyway and this whole event pretty much emphasizes his point. But when the community insists on having service but is unwilling to pay for it, other solutions must be found for funding. In this context, “helping neighbors” for purely altruistic reasons has been trumped with who is paying for service and who is not. This takes the whole emergency services as a business concept to a very predictable level. But there really is balance to be achieved in every situation. The challenges facing us in communities like Oak Park, IL and Xenia, OH illustrate there is such a thing as when the “fiscally conservative” become unreasonable, but compelling. When we insist on the gold standard and our community can only afford the aluminum version, we expose ourselves to this kind of rhetoric. I’m not saying that’s the case in these communities, but the situations making national headlines there only encourage community activists elsewhere who already think a scorched-earth approach to cutting the municipal budget is appropriate. Our job as leaders is to foster innovative and efficient organizations while maintaining a responsible budget. Again, balance is in order.

While we use the words “customer service” as a way to describe our efforts, it again goes back to doing what’s right for our neighbors and people who visit and work in our community. While there are those of us who are paid to do this, we have to remember that it is a service we are paid to do often because the volume and type of emergencies we are called to solve exceed the community’s readily available resources. Or maybe it’s because we don’t care enough about our neighbors anymore because we’re so wrapped up in “me”. Regardless, until people begin to give away fire apparatus, permit us to operate without insurance, and clothe us in turnouts out of the kindness of their hearts, we have to pay for this stuff. Therefore, every community, like it or not, has to endure funding these endeavors, through taxes, donations or subscriptions. It’s up to you how you do it. But it’s a requirement that it be done.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on October 8, 2010 • Filed under: change, customer service, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Funding & Staffing, government, insurance, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, News, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution • Tagged: change, chaos organization, customer service, disaster, disaster management, economy, EMS, failure, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, Kirschenbaum, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, planning, politics, professionalism, resources, risk reduction, South Fulton, subscription

How Far Outside Your Box? Frontiers Around You

5 comments

When this was new, do you think they were saying, "It can't get more modern than this!"

I hate to borrow a line from a commercial, but it got my attention the other day: “People say there aren’t any more frontiers; but there are frontiers all around you.” The challenge to “think outside the box” was a unique way to describe innovative thinking in the ’80′s, and it was so overdone that everyone cringes when you say that phrase now. But when you are considering paradigm shifts and defining stretch goals, what better way to say that you are reaching out of the walls that confine your thought?

I was driving down the road the other day and thinking to myself, if there were a way to simply will ourselves from Point A to Point B, like the “Transporter” does on Star Trek, what need for roads? We wouldn’t need a car. We wouldn’t need sidewalks, or bridges, or doors for that matter. Think about being in the road construction business or the bridge building business, or in the auto industry, and one day, there were no need for your service. Your skill set, once valuable, was useless. What then?

There are a certain amount of people who advocate EMS as a method to save firefighter jobs when fires cease to happen. Conversely, there are those who say there will always be a need for firefighters, because fire will always be a problem. Perhaps instead of limiting our vision to these options, consideration must be made for what will we do to reinvent our industry wholesale. What if robots could be trained to do our jobs? I’d bet that as late as ten or twenty years ago there were people in the auto industry who thought that there was no way a robot could produce a decent automobile: Now we have robot-assisted surgery. How much father off do you think it will be before they are making interior attacks?

Anyone who demonstrates an obsession for the status quo and fails to think about the future with an open mind is only setting the table for their eventual obsolescence. Even what might sound like a stupid idea isn’t always too far-fetched. If you fail to consider the opportunities, you are missing a piece of the puzzle.

From the technical aspect, you might be able to guess at any number of possible eventualities. I’m interested in the nuances of leadership and command and what changes are in store for us there. While many think about the possibility of fighting fire without water or providing radical prehospital medical interventions, perhaps you should consider what would happen if we turned the way we lead upside down. Or if we were MORE of a military-style agency, like if we were brought into a branch of federal government. Or if everyone was paid. Or if everyone was volunteer. There’s no end to “what if…” because while the first few answers might not be plausible ones, they may lead to a prize-winning innovation.

Instead of making statements, every day you should be asking questions. And while not all change is good, if you don’t consider the effects of certain factors on your organization as they might occur, you might be surprised when they change despite all your best efforts. As leaders, if we fail to keep an open mind and reconsider every approach to what it is we do, while we may not fail today, we do a disservice to our organization. Doing things the same way day after day may seem “good enough”, but if you are caught flatfooted when things change overnight, don’t be surprised if you are left standing in your box while everyone else is running around outside it. Where are the new frontiers? They surround you, if you reach far enough.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on September 14, 2010 • Filed under: change, command, Command & Leadership, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, firefighting, Funding & Staffing, government, leadership, motivation, officership, Patient Management, planning, politics, professionalism, rebellion, revolution, Technology & Communications, Training & Development, US&R • Tagged: change, conflict, customer service, education, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, frontiers, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, obsolescence, open mind, opportunity, paradigm, planning, politics, professionalism, research, resources, robot, short-sightedness, South Carolina, status quo

Customer Service: A Bad Concept?

10 comments

I was thinking about customer service in our profession and considering recent conversations by some of our colleagues recently who reject the term. A bit of enlightenment came to me while listening to a reading to a segment of the radio program This I Believe.

The subject was Ruth Cranston, author of World Faith: The Story of the Religions of the United Nations. She spoke of achieving the insight that all of the world’s religions, despite their differences, were united in very similar tenets of how to live with our fellow man. Even when there is constant disagreement with how we go about our daily lives, she posited this about the commonalities of religious belief:

They [the world’s religions] taught the unity of all life; the interdependence of all men; love and service to fellow man; help, not exploitation, of the weak and backward. They taught nonviolence and non-injury. They all taught purity of life and of motive, simplicity of life too, and that true riches are within. They taught the worth of individual man and the ability of every man to rise to higher states of development than we are now experiencing. They taught the immortality of the soul and the building of the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.

Her suggestion was that despite the worship or belief in which we practice, we experience several common denominators that should bring us closer together rather than farther apart. While a lot can be taken from that paragraph, it seems that like I say constantly in my forum here is that we as emergency service providers have more commonalities than differences. In fact, those of us who are true believers in what we do as a profession probably understand that the phrase “customer service” is just a name we put on a concept in order to define it.

Of course, the belief of a higher calling to serve is about those who are truly in this and believe in this as a profession of service and enjoying the benefits of the occasional adrenaline rush, in contrast to those who are in this for the adrenaline rush and enjoy the occasional effort to serve, and even then, if that subject comes up at all. I say that because it is my observation that a majority (if not all) of the problems we have in emergency service can be traced back to those who fail to see this career, whether you are paid or volunteer, as one in which we should serve rather than to be served. It is this entitled mindset, that we are automatically due respect because we wear the badge, which causes problems.

The term customer service is probably pretty cynical, when you think about it, because it might suggest to the casual reader that the ideal we seek is all about making sure our profession enjoys the financial benefit of such service. In fact, as emergency response personnel, the term “customer service” embraces the concept of all that is considered good in mankind, in that we realize the worth of others and we seek to serve those in need of help, despite their social status. While we can quantitatively point out that having a customer service attitude benefits us in public support, there should be a much more altruistic reason for our embracing that belief.

There are two schools of thought in the “anti-customer service” camp. One, of course, is that the public doesn’t have a choice, therefore they are not customers. The second goes along with my statement that what we do is so much more than a client relationship. I have argued that the public does have a choice, as Chief Alan Brunacini did much more so before I have here. But the latter discussion bears some serious consideration. Is the concept of customer service too simplistic? Customer service could be construed as providing a real effort only when we stand to gain from that interaction. It might be perceived that the service we provide is done only because we expect a return on investment.

While remembering conversations with Chief Brunacini as he advocated the benefits of customer service mentality as a method for obtaining taxpayer support, I also recall that he never said that the concept was exclusive to that expectation. If you remember, the overarching mission was to “Be Nice”. While that’s good for marketing, it’s not something you can force down people’s throats and expect it to happen magically. He advocated a cultural shift in his leadership that was summed up in two simple words, therefore easy to remember and easy to implement. The customer service mentality, likewise, was easy to relate to.

Our job as leaders is to communicate our mission. That communication requires not only our shouting it out there, but the return acknowledgment that understanding has been achieved. The mindset of “customer service” is palpable. We understand it and we know what is good customer service and what is bad. We can easily empathize with a customer who is frustrated with a certain way in which their matter is being handled or appreciate the sincere gratitude experienced by a customer who is receiving excellent service. For the purposes of defining an accepted approach to interaction with the community, it helps to be able to frame those interactions in a manner in which we are familiar. So while, yes, our delivery of service is much more than the interaction of a salesperson and a client, it provides us with concrete objectives by which we can measure our outputs. It is pretty easy to say, “Fire Went Out” and check the “Good” box. It is much more difficult to say, “Obtained Confidence of Taxpayer”.

Our job can be seen from a purely pragmatic standpoint, one in which we have been tasked to provide a service and we must efficiently produce results. Or we can say that our job is that of serving humankind with compassionate and ethical assistance when they are most vulnerable. In either case, the ultimate measurement is the same; as Cranston implied, reinforcing “the interdependence of all men”; loving and serving fellow man; and helping, not exploiting, the weak and needy. It is our charge to insure whichever path we choose, we do so with the understanding that we are there to serve.

Posted by Michael "Mick" Mayers on August 30, 2010 • Filed under: change, Command & Leadership, customer service, education, EMS Topics, Fire Rescue Topics, fire service, Firefighter Nation, funding, Funding & Staffing, government, leadership, Media Relations, motivation, officership, planning, politics, professionalism, Training & Development • Tagged: Alan Brunacini, Be Nice, change, customer service, disaster, education, FHZ, fire service, FireEMSBlogs, Firefighter Nation, Firehouse Zen, government, Hilton Head Island, leadership, management, marketing, Mick Mayers, motivation, officer, opportunity, planning, politics, Ruth Cranston, This I Believe, World Faith

Archives for planning

+1 Firehouse Zen on Google+

Firehouse Zen - Brain food for Mongo.

About

Connect With Mick

Fire & EMS Blogroll

Fire & EMS Destinations

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Previous Rantings

Tags Across FireEMSBlogs.com

FireEMSBlogs.com Community

Featured from across Fire/EMS