Merging two or more fire departments into a single successor department has been a hot trend in the last two decades; just search for “fire department merger” on the Internet and you will come up with nearly 600,000 hits. There are many fine examples of successful mergers and cooperative efforts to provide unified fire protection services throughout the United States, but serious conflict can and does occur, often quite predictably.

In Oregon one merger ultimately resulted in the chief resigning and the assistant chief taking over after the department broiled internally. In another, the chief of one of the merged departments became the assistant chief of the new organization and subsequently retired early; in the end he couldn't cope with the change to his status and position. In a different merger, a new outside chief was hired but was terminated by the board after 18 months.

These mergers have common threads and distinct similarities, especially when it comes to conflict. When we sifted through all our notes and pored over the material given us by interviewees, we began to see leadership — or a lack of it — emerge as the central issue in every case. With conflict the distinguishing feature, it seems to us now that all the issues we uncovered have their roots in leadership.

Make no mistake about it, chief officers aren't the only ones to have their careers disrupted as a direct result of unifying processes and efforts; discord ripples from the top down and back up again. The lessons learned from these mergers don't just apply to mergers, consolidations and cooperative agreements, but to everyday management of a fire department.

What not to do

Joining two or more fire departments or districts together usually comes after years of planning and discussion. And while the legal mechanics for combining departments can be detailed and varied, they're relatively straightforward. What's not so straightforward are the people issues that arise post-merger.

Lane County (Ore.) Fire District #1 is an amalgamation of five districts. It all began with the 1989 merger of the Veneta and Elmira-Noti rural fire protection districts. Combined, the two became Fernridge RFPD. Then in 1993, the Walton Rural Fire Protection District joined Fernridge, and in 1995 Fernridge and Crow Valley RFPD came together to form the new district, Lane County Fire District #1.

The reasons for these mergers, as is the case with most mergers, were to create more efficient service delivery and balanced budgets are the central reasons for combining organizations. Also, in every case there appears to be a lot of enthusiasm during the merger process and immediately afterward. Depending on the leadership, any problems that occur are dealt with right away. A 2002 Lane County report says: “In our early enthusiasm we … were confident that because we were smart, we could rise above any conflict and move forward.”

In a spirit of cooperation, the chief of Fernridge became the new chief of Lane County while the Crow Valley chief became the assistant chief. Because the Fernridge chief was an operations-oriented chief, he assumed that role in the new organization, while the administrative-oriented Crow Valley chief assumed those duties. Both were comfortable with their new roles in the new organization — at first.

Over time this spirit of cooperation led to trouble in the form of no one really taking charge of the department. Not wanting to step on each other's toes, the two chiefs unknowingly — and unintentionally — set the stage for irreconcilable differences between them. In 2001 the district board finally expressed its concerns and directed the chief to get the district some help with identifying and resolving the conflict that had now become the organization's norm. In the end the chief resigned and the board of directors appointed Asst. Chief Marty Nelson to the position of chief.

All too often we see trouble brew because problems were pushed aside while the new organization takes shape. The report went on to say that “because we did not construct a definitive plan to resolve differences or identify and enact necessary changes, conflict became the norm. Though conflict can be a healthy, creative environment contributing to the evolutionary development of an organization, our lack of process allowed unhealthy forms of conflict to fester.”

Another merger in Lane County involved the City of Cottage Grove and the Creswell and South Lane rural fire protection districts. The merger took place in 2003 and culminated with the hiring of a new chief, a fire service professional living far away in Portland who had no involvement in the merger nor any history with any of the departments.

What began as a genuine effort by all parties soon became mired in conflict. And although all involved did their best to solve the problems, in the end the board of directors terminated the new chief.

In another merger case, a very large consolidated metro district annexed a city department. The large district is one renowned for its merger success across the United States. After the merger, the station captain still was seen wearing a shoulder patch from the city department. Thinking that it was just an old shirt, someone asked why he was wearing it. He replied quickly and vehemently that he was never going to wear the new district's patch.

Mergers, by their very nature of combining two or more dissimilar organizations, are prone to conflict. Steps must be taken to curb it. How? Through good leadership.

Inspiring tale

Quite possibly one of the greatest leadership stories ever told is of the Antarctic journey by Ernest Shackleton and the crew of the Endurance. The tale and Shackleton's leadership during this most remarkable human survival experience have direct parallels to the successful combining of two or more fire departments and even to managing any department day to day.

From 1914 to 1916, Shackleton attempted to be the first to travel 1,800 miles across Antarctica, the first half of which had not been walked on by another human being. His ship, the Endurance, unfortunately became stuck in ice and was ultimately crushed by ice in the Weddell Sea, just a few miles short of the crew's planned disembarkation point on Antarctica. The 27-member crew trekked 600 miles to Elephant Island, then Shackleton and four others journeyed 700 more miles in an open life boat to South Georgia, where they successfully hiked in horrific conditions over unmapped mountains to a whaling station. At South Georgia, Shackleton and his small party were supplied with a crew and a rescue ship and returned to Elephant Island; everyone survived.

That all 27 survived the freezing weather, with the often wet-for-weeks clothing and neverending hunger for nearly two years goes beyond extraordinary. Many unsuccessful expeditions during that period suffered mutiny, cannibalism, and death from freezing and from malnutrition. Shackleton had to bring together workers of diverse backgrounds and talents and keep everyone focused on a goal, putting down challengers, helping those falling behind, battling boredom and fatigue, working with limited resources, and in general bringing order to a chaotic environment — much like fire chiefs today, especially those leading new organizations created by merging departments.

Shackleton built his success on camaraderie, loyalty, responsibility, determination and, especially, optimism. Those are exactly the same leadership skills it takes to lead today's modern fire department in these chaotic times. They are also the same skills needed to lead the way through the turbulent waters of merging or consolidating fire departments.

Mutual respect

Camaraderie is built first through respect for each person on a team, and then through teamwork itself. Camaraderie is also built through equal participation and friendships. Shackleton, the ship's physician and the deck hands all shared in scrubbing the decks. It all begins with the leader.

Loyalty also is top-down and it has many faces. There isn't a leader anywhere who can command respect and loyalty if she or he isn't the first to extend it, practice it and live it. Responsibility begins again with the leader; it can't be abdicated nor delegated. Our 33rd president, Harry Truman, had a little placard that sat atop his desk in the Oval Office that said, “The Buck Stops Here.” He meant every word.

As consultants dealing with conflict in fire departments, we have seen time after time examples of chief officers not accepting full responsibility for everything that goes on in their organizations. Recent trials have held corporate leaders responsible for activities in their organizations even though they claimed to be unaware of illegalities.

Determination manifests itself beginning with the leadership of an organization. The determination to succeed, not necessarily at all costs but at reasonable costs, comes to the table with the leader. No one else has that capacity or influence.

Optimism, like with Shackleton, is often the deciding factor for leadership success. It's certainly the single most important success factor we find with chiefs leading people through change, crisis or even everyday existence. Optimism, or the view to see and drive the organization toward positive outcomes — with enthusiasm — rests solely on the shoulders of the leader. As Goethe wrote, “In all things it is better to hope than to despair.”

If you're working toward merging your organization with your neighbor or have recently done so, remember that conflict is the norm, but it doesn't have to cause serious dysfunction. Leadership is the way to get beyond conflict and avoid it. And leadership begins with the chief of the new organization taking charge — nothing more, nothing less.

If you're that chief, you will no doubt be swayed by wanting to maintain an air of cooperation. You will not want to step on your colleagues toes, nor should you. But there are times when you have to just lead. Conflict — serious conflict — is likely to occur. Predict it, then lead.

---

Scott Lochard is currently an adjunct instructor in the fire administration programs at both Eastern and Western Oregon Universities. He has held several fire chief positions in Oregon during his career and now is a professional speaker and fire service consultant. He may be contacted toll-free at 866-698-2438 or at scott@lifeordeathleadership.com.

Dan Olsen is a 30-year fire-rescue veteran progressively serving in ranks from firefighter to chief of department. During his career he has served with six fire agencies and was chief in three of them. He is a co-author of Recruiting, Training and Maintaining Volunteer Firefighters. His career also includes work as a trainer, lecturer, facilitator and consultant with a variety of public agencies and private companies. He can be contacted at 541-767-9657 or at danolsen@netscape.com.

14 Merger Watch-Out Situations

When planning a merger, there are some situations that are particularly problematic and should be dealt with before moving forward.

1. More than one “operating system” is running prior to and during the planning process. Bring together all the parties and conduct orientation and training that covers all processes to be used for planning the merger and development of the new organization. Hold everyone to the plan unless adjustments need to be made.

2. A conflict-resolution plan is absent. When conflict occurs — and it will — it's essential to have a conflict-resolution plan in place. Have everyone sign the plan. Your conflict resolution plan must also address how acts of sabotage, insubordination and “malicious compliance” will be handled.

   Some people, in an attempt to adjust to being uncomfortable in the new organization, may avoid conflict or cave in to pressure rather than work through it to participate in a successful resolution.

3. A rumor-control plan is not in place. There will be rumors, gossip and misinformation. Malicious rumors can be used to slow down your process or promote personal agendas at the expense of the merger.

4. Members of the senior leadership team are selected for reasons other than competency and character. There are political reasons for placing people in top staff positions in the new department, but such appointments can be dangerous. In an ideal world, it's absolutely essential that the new chief be able to choose his top people, including office assistants.

5. Subcultures within the organizations aren't identified or acknowledged. When a merger takes place there can be a clash of cultures. Don't let your new organization become us versus them.

6. Detailed plans and agreements are hard to find. Developing the plan for a merger involves collaborative negotiations and agreements that are fair, beneficial and enforceable. These agreements must be signed-off on by the participants. Don't let them get buried somewhere.

7. “Deal-killers” are only superficially noted or are ignored. What are the really tough issues? If these ugly issues aren't revealed and resolved prior to the merger, they will likely resurface later and become destructive.

8. Senior leadership does not acknowledge obstacles and challenges that present themselves. Creative problem-solving when these obstacles and challenges appear will become defining moments.

9. No written, agreed-on transition plan is in place prior to the merger. The transition period is a time for members to mourn the loss of their old and comfortable department, but it must have a clearly defined end. This period must be carefully planned and managed; ceremony involving customs and traditions are tools that can and should be used.

10. Reasons for the merger are not fully disclosed. The reasons for your merger must be fully disclosed to everyone. Too often we see the underlying (and unstated) reason for merging is for staff to work in a larger organization with more responsibility, status and pay. Be honest with yourself and all involved: Are you doing this for the right reasons? Minimize what might later become buyer's remorse.

11. Elected officials are reluctant about the merger or demonstrate only lukewarm support of it. If they show only lukewarm support when things are going well, there's a good possibility that support will become ice cold when obstacles or problems are encountered. This includes their support for the fire chief.

12. Elected officials get actively involved in operational issues. Elected officials have a vital role in sound policy development. It's a recipe for disaster when elected officials stray from policy development and begin to micro-manage operational issues.

13. Elected officials entertain “end-runs” by dissident groups within the organization. Partisan politics and violations of the chain of command exacerbate any simmering dissension within the new organization. End running not only violates the chain of command but encourages dissident groups to undermine the merger and its success.

14. The merger is rushed. A “don't worry about it now, we'll fix it later” attitude is a guarantee for merger meltdown or big trouble in the future. Another version of this is “we've got to do it now or else,” which may really be saying “take it or leave it, right now.” The best advice here is to just walk away.