It has never been more important for local government managers and fire chiefs to collaborate. With terrorist threats to our communities, chief executives and fire chiefs need to work together seamlessly to ensure a high level of emergency preparedness and protection. Understandably, the current focus in many communities is on such critical matters as hazardous materials training and evacuation procedures. But the authors would argue that a more fundamental issue needs attention: the underlying relationship between  managers and fire chiefs.

There always has been some tension between managers, or chief executives, and fire chiefs, given their different roles. Such measures as the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) 1710 Standard, however, are only the latest in a series of developments that have undercut an effective relationship between city and county managers and their fire chiefs.

Traditionally, both parties have tried to keep out of each other’s way when not struggling with budget or union problems. Given a much more difficult environment, though, it now is more urgent than ever to focus attention on the relationship to promote more effective collaboration in addressing mutual challenges.

A Difficult Context
From different perspectives, chief executives and fire chiefs both face challenging new demands. Fire services are increasingly costly, especially as fire departments expand their core services into emergency medical services, ambulance transport, hazardous materials procedures, emergency preparedness, and other environmental and safety areas.

With stricter building codes, improved fire prevention technologies, required sprinkler systems, and enhanced public education, fighting fires is no longer the primary service demand of most fire departments. In many communities, seeing fire suppression as the primary paradigm for fire service is simply an outmoded view.

Yet fire suppression requires a costly staffing model and infrastructure, at the very point when other costly programs are being added on in the name of promoting life and property safety. In spite of these increased cost burdens, few observers can deny that our communities have become a lot safer because of today’s broader vision of fire service.

At the same time, fire unions have become even more demanding and aggressive. Salary and benefit contracts, new minimum staffing and response-time mandates, and other work rules are overwhelming local government budgets. Yet, even before the events of September 11, firefighters enjoyed the highest community approval rating of all public employee groups (as documented in a recent Wall Street Journal survey), giving them added leverage at the bargaining table.

In California, for example, city and county managers and fire chiefs are confronted with a triple whammy. First, under intense lobbying by the fire unions, the state legislature has approved binding arbitration for fire and police contract disputes at the local government level.

Second, the legislature has authorized negotiation of an even more costly retirement benefit (“3 percent at 50” years) for fire and police personnel. Finally, NFPA now is in the process of approving the 1710 Standard, which establishes a “one-size-fits-all” minimum staffing and response-time standard. Under the guise of firefighter and community safety, this new guideline soon will be used as a “prevailing industry standard” in binding arbitration cases. All these costly developments are occurring as local governments in the United States face an economic downturn and thus declining revenues.

Conflicting Demands and Perceptions
Managers and fire chiefs come to their positions with different professional experiences, educational backgrounds, and world views. Given their job responsibilities, they also face different demands.

Managers come from a variety of local government disciplines, like finance, community development, parks and recreation, and general management, and increasingly have earned master’s degrees in public administration. These chief executives hold big-picture views and are forced to respond to political demands from many quarters, as well as to balance service and budget requests from all departments and their constituencies.

Of course, chief executives are cost-conscious, given their overall budget responsibilities. While cost-conscious, however, managers also recognize that fire unions have allies on most councils or boards of supervisors, as unions often contribute to political campaigns.

Fire chiefs come up through the ranks, having gained their experience and expertise as line-level firefighters. Most of them have earned fire service degrees and/or fire management certificates, and virtually all have had advanced training of one kind or another. Chiefs are proud of the rich history of the fire service. They are committed advocates for life safety, which is also a community expectation.

Often, chiefs have served as union officers at one point or another in their careers. Given the power of fire unions, chiefs work hard to minimize conflict with unions while trying to build strong teams, maintain high morale, and deliver high-quality service to their communities.

Besides different professional world views and responsibilities, both chief executives and fire chiefs often entertain negative perceptions of each other. These images undercut their working relationship and limit their effective collaboration.

In fact, when the authors surveyed manager and fire chief colleagues in California regarding their perceptions of each other, chiefs expressed the following negative images or stereotypes of managers:
 

• Managers “don’t get it.” (Chief executives do not understand fire service and undervalue the “real work” of fire personnel.)
• Managers are “political” animals.
• They have no backbone in the face of political controversy.
• They have no ethics.
• They have a short attention span and are “frenetic.”
• They are short-sighted regarding labor relations.
• Managers are overly concerned about numbers and dollars, not quality.
• They are “cheap.” (Chief executives resist spending to improve the safety of the community or of employees.)

Managers, in turn, tended to view fire chiefs in equally negative ways:
 

• The chief is “one of the boys.” (Fire chiefs are part of some fraternity.)
• Chiefs are not management-oriented. (They know more about fighting fires than managing people.)
• They are insulated, isolated. (Chiefs are poor collaborators outside of their departments.)
• They are traditionalists with white-male attitudes. (Fire chiefs are change-resistant, do not promote diversity, and are stuck on the “firefighting” paradigm.)
• Chiefs are focused on the chain of command yet have a high need to be liked by their “troops” and by the community.
• They “don’t do much.”
• They are not politically savvy.
• They lack a global perspective.
• Chiefs love expensive “male toys.”

Obviously, such overblown and stereotypic images color and undermine an effective collaboration against mutual challenges.

Sixteen Ideas to Enhance the Relationship
Here are some ideas and strategies that can be used to forge a better partnership between chief executives and fire chiefs.

Ideas for Both Partners
Acknowledge the difference in roles. Both parties must first acknowledge that they have different roles, responsibilities, and world views, as well as face different kinds of daily pressures.

Put aside negative perceptions. While there is some truth in all stereotypes, both the manager and the chief need to put aside the overblown, negative perceptions that often get in the way of effective collaboration. Only then can the parties focus on the mutual problems that challenge them both.

Get to know each other. Chief executives and fire chiefs need to spend time with each other, perhaps—yes—even informally. Getting to know each other will help shed some of these negative stereotypes.

Look at the relationship as a partnership. Often, chief executives and fire chiefs see themselves as adversaries with impossibly divergent interests and needs. We suggest that managers and chiefs redefine their relationships as partnerships. Partners in an enterprise need each other. Each partner contributes an otherwise unobtainable combination of talents, skills, and perspectives.

Partners do not always agree: there is give-and-take on a daily basis. Each partner may question and even argue with the other; most of the time, however, one defers to the expertise of the other. And, at the end of the day, the enterprise is usually stronger and more successful because of the good partnership gained.

Suggestions for Chief Executives
For the partnership to succeed, chief executives must take some steps to improve the relationship.

Acknowledge the benefits of improved fire services. Chief executives need to acknowledge that their communities have often benefited from the increased funding for and expanded mission of the fire service.

Support the advocacy of fire chiefs. Even though managers may sometimes find the advocacy of fire chiefs tiresome, advocacy is, after all, part of the chiefs’ role. It is their professional responsibility to promote life safety issues and continued improvements in  community safety, even though some of their proposals may be costly and put an additional strain on the total local government budget. Before the partnership can work, managers must respect and in fact value the advocacy of fire chiefs.

Do not demonize the union. It is easy for managers to demonize the firefighters’ union, given its costly demands, relatively narrow perspectives, involvement in local and state elections, and strong political influence. It is the role of unions, however, to support the interests (however narrow) of their members.

If we demonize the fire union, it will be difficult to negotiate labor contracts successfully or to solve operational problems with its cooperation, or even to minimize its opposition. It also is important to acknowledge any legitimate firefighter safety concerns.

Appreciate the fire chief, who must contend with an active union. Dealing with fire unions is difficult. Managers need to be understanding and supportive of chiefs.

Reach out to fire employees. While the chief should serve as the primary advocate for the fire service, it is important for the manager to visit fire stations, participate in ride-alongs, share a meal or two, listen, and share concerns along with the burgers and salad. The manager thus will develop an understanding for the issues challenging the fire chief, as well as help the chief, who must constantly try to broaden the vision of the often-isolated fire personnel.

Insist that fire chiefs develop wider perspectives. Chief executives need to ensure that fire chiefs integrate themselves into the larger organization and develop broader perspectives on issues. For example, the chief executive can assign the fire chief (and other fire personnel) to participate in multidepartmental teams dealing with such cross-cutting issues as housing, transportation, support for at-risk youth or families, and redevelopment.

Promote a “little city manager” role for the fire chief. Not only should fire chiefs, as well as other department directors, develop larger organizational viewpoints, but also they need to become “little city managers” (or ”little county managers”). While fire chiefs are not the chief executives, they must serve as members of the executive team and help lead and manage the total organization, not just the fire department.

Suggestions for the Fire Chief
Fire chiefs also must proactively enhance the partnership.

Educate the manager. The job of the fire chief is to sensitize the manager to significant life safety issues. Consequently, in spite of the manager’s busy schedule, chiefs need to insist on regular meetings, or at least periodic ones, and should encourage the manager to get out of the office and interact with fire personnel.

Pick your battles. Managers are human. They will tune out the fire chief who advocates for every little need or concern. The chief must focus on the most important fire service needs, given all the demands of the total organization.

Distinguish between facts and perceptions. Fire chiefs should be the experts and exercise good judgment in distinguishing for the manager between facts and perceptions on life safety issues. This is especially true in dealing with union concerns, staffing proposals, business and developer fire codes, traffic-calming projects, and other politically sensitive issues.

Proactively become an asset to the larger organization. Chiefs should not wait to be pushed into larger roles. They ought to take the initiative and volunteer for multidepartmental teams and contribute to problem-solving efforts outside the fire service.

Broaden the world view of fire personnel. Fire chiefs can enhance their relationships with managers if they take the time and make the effort to “translate” top management issues for their own employees.

A Larger Professional Exchange
Not only are local government managers often isolated from their chiefs but so are the two professions isolated at the state and national levels. For this reason, professional organizations need to reach out to each other to enhance their relationships.

In California, the authors currently serve as, respectively, the president of the City Managers’ Department and head of the Fire Chief’s Department of the League of California Cities. We have decided that each organization shall, for the first time, assign an official liaison to the other organization. Each liaison will be responsible for sharing concerns and perspectives, facilitating communication, and, we hope, reaching common positions on state and national issues. We encourage ICMA and the International Association of Fire Chiefs to do the same.

A Critical Juncture
Chief executives and fire chiefs can no longer let their relationships drift. We are at a critical juncture. Both parties must contend with new paradigms of fire service, burgeoning costs, and the extraordinary political strengths of firefighers’ unions.

Yes, managers and fire chiefs have different roles, training, professional demands, and world views. Yet now is precisely the time to consciously promote collaboration and to create a much stronger working partnership.