Have you ever been caught in a quandary? No, a quandary is not a small Italian sports car. It is when you are caught between two forces and you can only satisfy one — even though there are consequences from failing to satisfy both sides. It creates a strong sense of uncertainly over what is the right thing to do. No matter what you choose, you are likely to be wrong. This phenomena once was described as being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Today that term might be used in viewing differences between labor and management. I recently spoke with several individuals who expressed frustration and even anger over being forced to make choices regarding labor and management issues. Some were middle-management officers and a couple were labor leaders. Some were fire chiefs, and several of them had served as labor leaders for many years. Now they have been caught up in a serious conflict between their elected officials and their department's labor force. Several felt that this conflict was affecting their health.

This department's specific issues aren't important here; what's important for our purposes is the dilemma itself. Is it possible to satisfy both labor and management needs at the same time? If you succeed in representing one position, does the other group have to lose? These are relatively serious questions because loyalty, leadership and the stability of long-term relationships could be at stake.

The fire service is paramilitary in structure with a strong sense of identity. Everyone from the probie firefighter to the fire chief has a strong desire to be a member of the team. The fire service culture is based heavily on that sense of loyalty, where members have to watch each other's backs.

And loyalty extends beyond the fire service. Communities, cities, states and even nations can demand loyalty — responding to a higher calling, if you will. When an individual is torn between a one-on-one loyalty and one-on-many loyalties, (i.e., protecting the few or protecting the many), a huge gap can be created. This applies to both labor and management.

In a sense, loyalty comes in shades. One can be passionately loyal or one can be benignly loyal. Fire chiefs often are torn between the concepts of loyalty to the profession and loyalty to the community they serve. Similarly, firefighters can be torn between loyalty to the department and the desire to change the profession overall.

Not unlike tidal waters, loyalties often shift in the midst of controversial circumstances. The most severe dilemma that faces most fire chiefs is to have their loyalty be brought into question at the same time they are trying to resolve issues not of their own making. In other words, external influences have forced the decision-making process, bringing loyalty and leadership into question.

In the context of the devil in the deep blue sea, leaders are people who are up front on either side of an issue, sticking their necks out.

There are many definitions of leadership theory and style in organizational studies. They presume that different leadership styles are better in different situations. Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey characterized leadership styles in terms of the amount of direction and support that leaders provide to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types:

• S1: Directing/telling leaders, who define the roles and tasks of their followers and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication largely is one way.

• S2: Coaching/selling leaders, who define roles and tasks, but seek ideas and suggestions from their followers. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication flows in both directions.

• S3: Supporting/participating leaders, who pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but gives control to the follower.

• S4: Delegating leaders, who still are involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower, who decides when and how the leader will be involved.

Of these, no one style is considered optimal or desired for all leaders to possess. Read between the lines on these types. Which one do you think will suffer the most angst when there is a labor-management conflict?

Effective leaders must adapt themselves to the situation. While leaders tend to have natural styles, they must be flexible enough to adapt their style to the situation they are in. It's called situational leadership.

A good situational leader can change leadership styles as the situation changes. And the model doesn't apply only to those in leadership or management positions; all people lead others, whether at work, play or home.

What most people fail to recognize about the Blanchard-Hershey model is that it depends on linking two fundamental concepts — leadership style and development level. The right leadership style will depend on the person being led.

Blanchard and Hersey stated that the leader's chosen style should be based on the followers' competence and commitment. They further categorized the possible development of followers into four levels:

• D1: Low competence, high commitment. These followers generally lack the specific skills required for the job at hand. However, they are eager to learn and willing to take direction.

• D2: Some competence, low commitment. These followers may have some relevant skills, but won't be able to do the job without help. The task or the situation may be new to them.

• D3: High competence, variable commitment. These followers are experienced and capable, but may lack the confidence to go it alone or the motivation to do it well or quickly.

• D4: High competence, high commitment. These followers are experienced at the job and comfortable with their ability to do it well. They even may be more skilled than the leader.

Development levels also are situational. A person might be generally skilled, confident and motivated in their job, but still be a D1 when faced with a task requiring skills they don't possess. For example, many managers are D4 when dealing with the day-to-day running of their departments, but are D1 or D2 when dealing with a sensitive employee issue.

In a labor-management conflict, both sides have leaders and followers who question loyalty. It can become a perfect storm. Strong leaders with strong ties to value systems can find themselves in a face off. Who is going to win? Well, the answer to that question is virtually impossible to predict without closely examining many other variables.

And that is why I felt compelled to write about the conflict process. One event doesn't lead to highly tenuous situations — all the preceding conditions that go into the making of that event do. Loyalty and leadership skills can take years to develop to a level of sophistication that can handle conflict well.

Immature organizations don't have effective means of resolving conflicts when they are relatively small, and small conflicts can turn into very large ones. Mature organizations often can have a great deal of difference in opinion without it destroying relationships.

When professional relationships deteriorate into bitter conflict, the personal relationships probably evaporated long before that. There have been many attempts in the fire service to improve on labor and management relationships by conducting training and educational experiences. These are highly desirable and should be pursued. At another level, many individual leaders on both sides of the labor and management issue have found the opportunity to engage in dialogue without challenging each other's loyalties and leadership.

To paraphrase New York Yankees catcher Yogi Barra, you can hear a lot just by listening. A common exchange of communications is probably a lot more important than most people understand.

I am sure that most of the officers I wrote of earlier believe that they are fairly good listeners. But if I looked at the actual process that led to their frustrations, I'd probably find a series of smaller conflicts that escalated until the battle was a full-pitched war.

I am not suggesting that everything can be solved with a group hug and the proverbial singing of a feel-good song. But it's counterproductive to allow such conflicts between labor and management to continue when everyone has the same goal in mind — protect our residents. Remaining civilized and respectful of people on both sides of debatable processes needs to be a part of our long-term skill set.

Just because a firefighter doesn't think the way a fire chief thinks doesn't make him a bad person. Conversely, just because a fire chief has to take an unpopular position based economic factors doesn't make him a malevolent human being.

In immature organizations, minor problems can result in shouting matches. In mature organizations, huge problems can be relegated to meaningful dialogue. If you could choose which side of that ledger to be on, I can assure you that both are going to be stressful but one of them is destructive while the other is constructive. It is a matter of choosing to think in terms of principle rather than choosing sides on positions.

---

With more than 40 years in the fire service, Ronny J. Coleman has served as fire chief in Fullerton and San Clemente, Calif., and was the fire marshal of the state of California from 1992 to 1999. He is a certified fire chief and a master instructor in the California Fire Service Training and Education System. A Fellow of the Institution of Fire Engineers, he has an associate's degree in fire science, a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in vocational education.

Related Stories

• The Self-Directed Leader
• The sky's the limit for leadership examples