When two individuals marry, they probably have as much affection for each as they possibly can muster. It would make absolutely no sense, whatsoever, to engage in the marriage process if both parties didn't feel an exchange of affection, respect and admiration at the outset. There might be some slight trepidation on the part of one or both of the parties, but generally once they're married it's anticipated that things will go fairly well — at least through the honeymoon.

Just how long does the honeymoon last? In most cases the honeymoon ends when spouses begin to see things they dislike about each other. A common phenomenon in a relationship is for people to pretend to be something they aren't until they get married, after which they lapse back into bad habits. When that occurs the honeymoon is pretty brief. It ends not because of a loss of affection, but rather a reversal of behavior and disappointment of expectation.

This adjustment period is true of any relationship, not just marriage, which is why the word “honeymoon” is often applied when someone takes on a new job, such as becoming a supervisor, leader, manager or fire chief. That honeymoon can be between the appointing authority and the appointee, or it could be between the appointee and subordinates. Because these relationships are different, one honeymoon may last longer than the other.

As I have examined the process of individuals getting promoted to the rank of fire chief, I have discovered that the concept of the honeymoon ranges from absolute zero to infinity. Some people are never given the opportunity to enjoy any degree of positive working relationship and others seem to cultivate it until the day they walk off the job. Which one are you?

More than 10 years ago I wrote about the concept of the 100-day war, which is the period of time that it takes to gain a foothold in a new fire department while earning respect and maintaining credibility. [Ed: See Chief's Clipboard, February 1996.] The 100-day war is not the same as the honeymoon, as the terms themselves declare. The honeymoon is that period of time when you can make mistakes and be forgiven. One of the things that determines how much forgiveness an organization has is how great the level of expectations was prior to tying the hiring knot.

Differing expectations often are the reason why former labor leaders suffer so miserably at the hands of their former followers when they cross that final line to become the chief of a department. Only a few weeks separate the union leader-turned-chief from knight in shining armor to sworn enemy. Generally, labor expects the new chief officer to continue the behavior that marked his or her leadership role in the union, but that often doesn't happen. Without belaboring the intricacies of why that doesn't happen, it should be noted that the difference between affection and disaffection is often just some minor changes in the behavior of one of the two parties.

For example, if a person who always had been responsive to input suddenly starts to withdraw from receiving that input, that person's subordinates are likely to become disenchanted. When a strong advocate for a particular course of action suddenly has to be more circumspect about that action, subordinates have a legitimate reason for concern. Despite appearances, most people don't change their entire outlook at once, but rather they respond to new stimuli in the organizational environment that derive from a shift in responsibility.

Another factor of the honeymoon period is that the time is never up to the new chief. It's always up to others. I have heard individuals say that they were going to do certain things because they were “still in their honeymoon,” when in fact the honeymoon was already over. The more loudly you extol the fact that you're in the honeymoon period, the more likely it is about to come to a screeching halt. This is especially true for chief officers who have cultivated the idea that because they're the new kids on the block, they can somehow achieve levels of success beyond their predecessors simply because they're still on their honeymoon. This strategy can work for a short period of time, but it definitely has its limitations.

What gets new chiefs into trouble the quickest is when they start making promises they can't fulfill. Raising expectations and under-delivering may not even be in the chief's control; sometimes it is a direct result of provocation coming from either direction. Upper management — the council or the board of directors — may want to see some things done, and you promised to make them happen when you accepted the job. Labor may want to see some things done, and you promised to make something happen that you can't control. New chiefs should be incredibly conservative when making commitments regarding what will be achieved. It's far better to agree that upper management or labor has a point, saying that you will address the causes and the consequences rather than predict a specific outcome.

Not unlike the chemistry between two individuals who become distanced from one another, a new fire chief who's nearing the end of the honeymoon may feel a certain degree of alienation. There are many physical signs that the honeymoon is over. One of them is not just disagreement but outright dissension. A chief is traveling down a pretty rocky road when individuals begin to discredit those ideas that should be mutually beneficial.

Once the honeymoon ends, chiefs should strive for a good marriage: the establishment of a working relationship that leads to long-term success as partners. If you expect the honeymoon to last forever, you may push your luck by insisting that your agenda is the only one that ought to prevail. More pragmatic fire officers usually find that a long-term working relationship requires listening to input and evaluating options before announcing a course of action. Those who do not see the wisdom of this process may view the honeymoon's end as the beginning of divorce proceedings — the termination process.

The longer you've been in office, the further you are from the day you were received with open arms. During your tenure you either will gain the confidence and trust of the members of your organization, or the relationship will begin to deteriorate and create opportunities for misunderstandings and disenchantment. A chief's swearing-in ceremony is not unlike a marriage vow. In accepting a badge to serve in a particular community, you promise to uphold many things.

Perhaps you also need to remember that as you raise your right hand, your vow is being observed and interpreted by a large number of people who are trying to determine if they will feel as good about you in six months as you feel about yourself that day. In this life you often don't get what you deserve; you get what you can sustain. Some also say you don't get in life what you want, but rather what you can negotiate. Either saying implies that hoping to get something is the worst strategy, unless it is backed up by skills in either negotiation or justification.

Chiefs who are lucky enough to have an extended honeymoon often see it end during the annual budget battle. There are many things that fire departments wish they had and often feel they deserve to have but don't. You may have been hired to get those things because in the past, those needed items weren't able to obtain adequate public support or continually came in second in the competition for public funds.

Neither situation is desirable for a fire chief, and this may be where the honeymoon ends. The budget process is not just about sitting down and making a laundry list of what the department wants; it also includes delivering them. Part of the budgeting process that many chiefs completely fail to pay attention to is the long and somewhat arduous task of understanding why something is needed in the first place. If you can't justify it and you can't negotiate it, then the only time you are going to get it is when there's either an excess of funds or a person who's just feeling downright benevolent toward the fire department.

Unfortunately, the justification and negotiation skill set isn't found between the pages of Fire Chiefing 101, and it certainly doesn't get a lot of play at the annual fire academy. There are hundreds — maybe thousands — of fire departments out there that are under-funded, inadequately supported, poorly staffed, poorly trained and under capacity compared to what they need to protect their communities.

Unfortunately, the fire service has acquired a bad rap in the budget battle because many of its requests are based on the possible consequences of a fire. City managers and mayors often characterize this argument as the “burning baby” speech, used either to justify an expense or to embarrass upper management into making an investment to avoid public criticism. When it works, it works. When it doesn't work, the fire department's reputation suffers.

The justification portion of the budgeting process is just as important as calculating columns of figures. It requires two skills that the fire service needs to emphasize more: building a case and debating the consequences of not following through.

Writing up specifications for a new piece of equipment or a new fire station is relatively simple. In some cases it's little more than starting with the old set of specifications and ensuring that the latest technological changes have been considered. There's not much creativity, and it doesn't build a case for why the purchase is needed. Building a case for a decision that is going to cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of dollars starts with a much more fundamental question. Why should any money be spent at all?

There are probably a million different reasons to justify a fire department's needs; however, most people start off by looking at the price tag of something instead of its justification. In other words, tactical errors are being made. Buying a new fire truck when funds are readily available isn't much of a challenge. The challenge begins when a community sees that fire truck as being very, very expensive and doesn't understand why it needs to replace a truck that worked last year. Thousands of fire trucks currently sitting in fire stations ought to be replaced, but the justification for doing so has been obscured by the emphasis on how much a new truck will cost.

Building a case means to stop thinking about the obvious and start penetrating the possible. For example, if a fire truck reaches a certain age of antiquity, it begins to increase a community's liability. When a fire truck begins to break down more frequently than it has in the past, it may be taken out of service more often than is desirable. The justification for a piece of equipment is not inherent in its specification. Instead, the justification is based on a matter of public policy.

Once justification has been developed, we need to be able to debate the consequences of failing to meet that justification. This is where compromise — or gradual implementation, to choose a less loaded term — enters the picture. If you can't always get what you want, then the name of the game is to try to get as much of something that builds toward it. For example, if you don't have all the money to replace a fire truck in one year, you might need to look at an amortization program or other alternative funding schemes, such as lease-purchase. Debating the consequences is asking “What if?” How will today's decision affect the department 10 years from now?

In addition to learning how to properly apply justification and gradual implementation to their budget proposals, fire chiefs need to become much more knowledgeable about revenue streams than expenditure columns. Timing, coordination and leveraged opportunities often allow fire departments to acquire something that they desperately want without their entire argument being bogged down by the emphasis on how desperate they are.

Of course, this particular collection of skills also works much better within the context of a long-range acquisition plan. Nothing beats having a sense of where you are, where you've been and where you want to be. Laying out those parameters requires an organization to value the process instead of the product. If you wish to maximize your time at the top of the fire service pyramid, it's important to know that performance is more important than pride.

Just remember this when you think the honeymoon is still going on: “Nobody builds a reputation by talking about what he is going to do tomorrow.”

---

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.