Have you ever been caught in a quandary? No, a quandary is not a small Italian sports car. It is a dilemma in which you can be caught between two forces and can satisfy only one. It is a strong sense of being very unsure of what is the right thing to do. When you are in a quandary, no matter which of the two choices you select, you are likely to be wrong. The saying once used to convey this was, “being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Today, that phrase can describe differences between labor and management. I recently had a series of conversations with individuals who expressed frustration, and even anger, over being forced to make choices regarding labor and management issues. Some were chiefs and some were middle management officers. Several had served as a labor leaders for many years and now were caught up in a serious conflict between their elected officials and their department labor force. Several felt that this conflict was affecting their health.

Is it possible to satisfy both labor and management needs at the same time? Or, 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.

First, let's speak to the issue of loyalty. The fire service is a paramilitary organization that strongly identifies with an image of its membership. From the probie firefighter to the fire chief, there is a strong desire to be a member of the team. Our culture is heavily based on that sense of loyalty. We rely a great deal on one another. The phrase, “I will watch your back,” has special meaning to those who are in the firefighting industry.

Yet, loyalty also applies to institutions beyond the fire service. The community, city, state and even the nation can demand loyalty. As it goes up the hierarchy, loyalty solicits a greater price every time it is brought into a discussion. Loyalty demands that we respond to a higher calling. A huge gap can form when the loyalty of an individual is torn between a one-on-one loyalty versus one-on-many loyalties (protecting the few or protecting the many). This applies to both labor and management. For example, a local labor leader may or may not agree with the regional or even national leadership on a specific issue.

In a sense, loyalty comes in shades. One can be passionately loyal or one can be benignly loyal. Fire chiefs often are torn between being loyal to their profession and being loyal to their community. Conversely, firefighters sometimes can be torn between loyalty to their own fire department and their desire to change professions.

Similar to the turbulent flow of tidal water, loyalties often shift in the midst of controversial circumstances. The most severe dilemma that many fire chiefs face is to have their loyalty brought into question while they are trying to resolve issues that are essentially not of their own making. In other words, external influences have forced the decision-making process and loyalty is brought into question.

Thousands of barrels of ink have flowed through pens in trying to describe what leadership means. Leadership means sticking your neck out. Therefore, in situations in which loyalty and leadership are being demanded, there very easily can be a set of extremely stressful circumstances.

Organizational studies have many definitions of leadership theory, style and models that presumes that different leadership styles are better in different situations. In the late 1960s, leadership experts Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey pioneered the concept of situational leadership. They characterized leadership styles in terms of the amount of direction and support that leaders provide their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into these four behavior types:

• S1: Directing/telling leaders define the roles and tasks of the followers and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and are announced; communication is largely one-way.
• S2: Coaching/selling leaders still define roles and tasks, but seek ideas and suggestions from the followers. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication is much more two-way.
• S3: Supporting/participating leaders pass day-to-day decisions to the followers. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the follower.
• S4: Delegating leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the followers. The followers decides when and how the leader will be involved.

No one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use. 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 need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation. However, each leader tends to have a natural style, and in applying situational leadership, the leader must know his or her intrinsic style and be flexible enough to adapt the style to the situation. A good situational leader is one who quickly can change leadership styles as the situation changes. There are also other types of leadership styles such as charismatic and positional. But they often have a difficult time in adjusting to the types of pressure I am referring to here.

What many fail to recognize about the Hersey-Blanchard model is that the model rests on linking up two fundamental concepts: leadership style and development level.

The right leadership style depends on the person being led. Blanchard and Hersey extended their model to include the development level of the follower. They stated that the leader's chosen style should be based on the competence and commitment of the followers. They further categorized the possible development of followers into four levels, which they named D1 to D4:

• D1: Low competence, high commitment. They generally lack the specific skills for the job in hand. However, they are eager to learn and willing to take direction.
• D2: Some competence, low commitment. They may have some relevant skills, but won't be able to do the job without help. The task may be new to them.
• D3: High competence, variable commitment. They 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. They are experienced at the job and comfortable with their ability to do it well. They 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 would still drop into level D1 when faced with a task requiring skills he doesn't possess. For example, many managers are D4 when dealing with the day-to-day running of their department, but move to D1 or D2 when dealing with a sensitive employee issue.

In a labor-management conflict, both sides have leaders and followers, and the question of loyalty is going to be on both sides of the table. It often can lead to the perfect storm. Strong leadership and strong ties to value systems often can find themselves in a face off. It is virtually impossible to predict the winner without closely examining a bunch of other variables.

What leads to highly tenuous situations is not always the event itself. It is all the preceding conditions that go into the making of that event. Loyalty and leadership skills are characteristics and traits of individuals that take years to be developed to a level of sophistication that can handle conflict well.

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

When professional relationships deteriorate into bitter conflict, the personal relationships had probably long-since evaporated. Those in the fire service have made many attempts to improve labor and management relationships by conducting training and educational experiences. These are highly desirable and should be pursued. At another level, many labor and management leaders have found the opportunity to engage in dialogue without challenging each other's loyalties and leadership positions.

As the famous New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra once said, “You can hear a lot just by listening.” The establishment of a common exchange of communications is much more important than many people understand.

I am sure the officers who described their frustration to me believe that they are fairly good listeners. But looking at the actual process that led up to their frustration, it is possible that a series of smaller conflicts were allowed to escalate until the battle was a full-pitched war.

Not everything can be boiled down to a group hug and the proverbial singing of a feel-good song. However, it is counterproductive to allow conflicts between leaders at all levels. When the bell rings, everybody goes out the door with the same thought in mind. Our job is to go out there and protect our community. One does not have to look any further than Sept. 11, to realize that all levels in the fire service are eminently threatened by the possibility of bodily harm. Therefore, remaining civilized and remaining respectful of people on both sides of debate needs to be a part of our skill set.

In immature organizations, minor problems can result in shouting matches. In mature organizations, huge problems can be relegated to meaningful dialogue. Both are going to be stressful, but one is destructive and 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.