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.