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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fell asleep at my computer last night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fire Chief: "Ohhhh-kay…"

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

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

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

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

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. 

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."

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.

 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:

1. I am your boss.
2. 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.  
3. 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.

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. 

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.

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.