There are, in some circumstances, certain words that should never be said aloud. There are specific words considered profane by definition and viewed as rude and unacceptable. In the name of good taste, these words often are referred to by the first letter of the word. There are other words that, though not necessarily profane, are objectionable and often treated the same way. In that context, please consider the “C” word — consolidation.

Consolidation often is touted as the ultimate solution to resolve all of the fire service's economic problems. It also has been characterized as the death of culture and tradition when existing organizations begin to work together to solve problems. It is possible that neither of these scenarios are as true as their reputations make them seem.

If you are in a department that has never been exposed to consolidation, you might think that this amount of anxiety is a little paranoid. Yet, the idea of combining resources to form larger organizations is very much a part of American culture. For example, at one point the city of New York was served by a collage of small volunteer fire organizations. They were all amalgamated to create the FDNY, now among the world's largest fire organizations.

One only has to look at the business world to realize that a common way big companies got big was to gobble up a lot of little companies. When it comes to government, consolidation is more complex. It involves more interaction than merely buying the other guy's stock and engaging in a hostile takeover. But money is involved.

I do not believe that any two fire departments that want to consolidate should be hampered. Let them do it. However, if any two fire departments do not want to consolidate, leave them alone.

Consolidation is very much like marriage: good ones last forever and bad ones end up in court. When viewing a fire agency as an autonomous, freestanding entity, the primary emphasis is on the department's capacity to do its job. However, when viewing multiple fire departments in a geographical or politically defined area, the question then becomes what is the total capacity of all of the fire agencies. This raises the question as to whether there are economies of scale by combining efforts.

The argument for consolidation is based on the idea that many hands make light work. Many organizations have difficulty coping with consolidation for fear that some of those hands will be removed as part of the process — those economies of scale.

Consolidation advocates often say that it saves a lot of money. I doubt that is true all of the time. If saving money means spending less after the consolidation than was spent before it, almost all consolidations eventually overcome any temporary reductions fairly quickly. The combined forces often cost more in a couple of years than they did when they were going in separate ways. If you believe that one reason behind consolidation is to enjoy the economies of scale to avoid future costs, you might be on the scent of something. But avoiding costs is not the same as saving money. Not having to build a new station because of consolidation might save money, but merely joining forces without considering what the actual cost benefits are going to be is not necessarily true savings.

There also is the myth that simply consolidating two agencies makes them stronger overnight. That only is true if they were both strong in the first place. If you combine two weak organizations, then you have one larger weak organization that still needs to be fixed. If you combine a weak one and a strong one, the weaker often diminishes the strong one.

Consolidation is not a panacea; it is a process. As such, it has strengths and weaknesses. Those who wish to engage in consolidation need to pay very close attention to both attributes.

There is a worst-possible scenario. It can occur when two political bodies with a wide range of issues suddenly force their fire departments to operate as one because they might save a dollar or two in the first year. Elected officials overseeing a consolidation often behave like in-laws — they don't have to live with the day-to-day conflict and are more than willing to keep it alive.

When the word consolidation comes up in a conversation, the initial reaction is almost always negative. That is because it is introduced as an end result rather than a process of understanding. Examining the facts must be the first step of any consolidation effort. If a consolidation is handled by extremists, regardless of their point of view, it almost always is doomed to failure.

When a strong and dominating organization serves as a successor to a smaller, more-vulnerable organization, there is almost always a cultural undertow that remains in existence for years — in some cases, for decades.

The best-case scenario is that over time two organizations begin to know each other so well that they ultimately decide that it is in their best interest to join.

In the diagram to the right, the vertical axis represents the trust that goes on between entities, and the horizontal axis shows the type of behavior that is manifested as a result of that trust. Organizations that fall in the lower left-hand corner, where there is zero relationship and zero trust, often can find themselves almost out of touch. There is no chance that anything is going to happen between these groups. At the other corner there is 100% trust and 100% acceptance of the direction and then subsequently there is a merger of resources.

In between there is a spectrum of behaviors that includes conflict, confrontation, communication of intent, cooperative efforts, collaborative efforts and consolidated efforts.

Conflict is manifested by the behavior on the part of any two organizations that refuse to agree on any points of a discussion. The organizations position themselves opposite one another and there is little or no attempt by either to be in agreement. Often people from organizations at this level won't even talk to one another.

Confrontation is similar to conflict except that is more out in the open. When organizations are in confrontational mode, they often challenge each other on the simplest of issues and find reasons why things cannot be made to work. Confrontational behavior is looking for things to go wrong as opposed to looking for things to go right.

Communication of intent is when organizations begin to communicate by being actively engaged in both listening and talking.

Cooperation is when two organizations decide that they can do something together that neither of them can do successfully on their own. This is an extension of trust and often results in one of the two organizations taking a leadership role through consensus. A classic example of cooperation is an automatic aid agreement.

Collaboration is essentially a decision by two organizations to mutually invest in some level of activity without giving up their own autonomy. A good example of a collaborative effort is building a joint training facility.

Consolidation is when the two organizations give up their individual identities to become one entity. This takes advantage of the ability to leverage the organization and especially be able to reduce the amount of overhead associated with service delivery.

Two organizations that wish to find reasons to work more closely together have to start at whatever point on that spectrum where things are working today. Communications and day-to-day exchange of candid information is not just an ambiguous concept, it is an essential element in making sure that any future consolidated efforts are successful. One cannot go from conflict to consolidation by forcing two parties to act as if they were one. Going back to our marriage analogy, that is a shotgun wedding.

Consolidations will occur — you have my word on that. In examining the trends and patterns of fire protection, there is no question that regionalization is taking hold. I have witnessed ones that have performed magnificently and some that have been just so-so. The hallmark of the successful ones has been the degree of commitment by the management and labor leaders to increase trust and seek cooperative behaviors before taking the wedding vow.

Following this progression, using the “C” word won't require a good oral scrubbing with a bar of soap. Instead, the word can be used in polite conversation as an expression of agreement between two equally capable entities.

---

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.