When you say "firewall" to a firefighter it means one thing; when you say "firewall" to a computer person it means quite another. Which definition is the right one? They both are. In our language using one word to mean two different things is not only acceptable, it's practically the American thing to do. We delight in confusing the uninitiated over technical jargon.

The fire service has developed quite a vocabulary over the years. In fact, we can carry on an entire conversation in front of people with no fire service backgrounds, and they wouldn't have a clue as to the meaning of our discussion.

For example: "When we were 10-97, we immediately took a preconnect in the front door, backed up by a deuce and a half. Meanwhile, the bc set up the ics. The truckies were beginning to bag the lower floor of the building when we had a flashover in the attic. The building blew up on us. The chief made a second and third in short order. Pretty soon we had a header in the air that could be seen for miles."

We in the fire service could hear that story and have a million images in our minds. A civilian might hear it and wonder what the heck we're talking about. Almost all professions have their own jargon; that's part of the mystique of belonging to a culture. Cops talk like cops. Doctors talk like doctors. You might conclude that this is a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

I've had my fair share of fun with our vocabulary over the years, but I've begun to see where it can hurt us, also. I'm referring to the phenomenon of becoming so specialized that the people we're working for feel that they don't understand us.

While there is merit in the creation of a specialized language, there's also a danger in failing to ensure that it's used in a fashion that isn't counterproductive to the profession's image. Perhaps we should revisit the old biblical story which shows that language can be an asset or a liability. Witness the fate of the Tower of Babel when the builders' efforts were demolished after they all began to speak different languages.

We have a lot of opportunities to create a colorful vocabulary, because a great deal of what we do in the fire service involves special technology and dramatic circumstances. But to get the community's financial support to purchase that technology and other things we need to perform under those dramatic conditions, we need others to understand what we're doing. When dealing with those people, we need to translate.

I'm also starting to see that the various fire service specializations are creating their own vertical vocabularies, which don't cross the horizontal lines of communication within the fire department. Paramedics have a specific language, hazmat workers have another, fire prevention has its own code and, in some cases, even administration has insider target words that mean one thing within the department and quite another elsewhere.

When organizations speak internally, they often create what are called information silos, the main feature of stovepipe organizations. From the top to the bottom of the organization, there's cohesion in the structure and exchange of information. There's very little external exchange. The obvious problem with being a siloed organization is that no one from the outside knows what you're talking about.

According to some of our critics on the outside, the fire service exhibits many characteristics of a siloed profession. I believe that we've done a pretty good job of avoiding the worst of the scenarios, but there are also cases where fire agencies have isolated themselves from their constituencies by failing to build a common vocabulary.

In fact, we may be creating separate silos within our own departments as we continue the specialization of the past few decades. This has occurred most often between the fields of fire prevention and fire suppression. While we need to be aware of this possibility, I want to focus on the relationship between a fire agency and those with whom it has to communicate, such as the rest of city government.

The best overall strategy to prevent creating a silo organization is to expand on two elements of any relationship: trust and cooperation. When there's neither trust nor cooperation with other agencies, the ability to exchange information is non-existent. As you raise the level of either element, you improve the exchange. Obviously, this tactic works best when trust and cooperation are balanced between your agency and outside organizations. You can't be so trusting that you're vulnerable, and you can't cooperate to the degree that you're disarmed.

A short version of this is "Give a little, get a little." Slowly build both trust and cooperation by exchanging either information or confidences. A siloed organization can almost always be identified by the fact that few people on the outside know what's going on inside. Siloed organizations not only have a vocabulary that's difficult to understand, they also have a culture that's a mystery to others. Siloed organization have a lot of secrets and insider exchanges, too.

Among the first things fire officers should do to avoid the silo situation is to ensure that they're involved in the community. Get out of the firehouse and into the social fabric of the community and its leadership. While there are limits to how much time you can spend in someone else's backyard, there are some clear consequences to not being there at all, such as being perceived as a stranger.

What I'm referring to here is the development of working relationships beyond the scope of the department's duties. I'm not going to suggest that a person must become a leader or even join organizations outside of the fire department. What I'm talking about is plain and simple: Get to know people beyond the basic recognition of who they are and what they do.

I don't mean to suggest that you give in to people just because you're acquainted with them. Familiarity can breed more than contempt; it can also breed empathy. For example, my fire prevention team had found a problem with the exits for a local fund-raising event. This could have become pretty contentious, but because I had served on a board of directors with one of the event planners, I was able to bring that person into the discussion. The basic problem didn't change, but the relationship did. We were eventually able to work out the requirements with a minimum of conflict.

Silo organizations never go outside to see what other people are thinking or saying. They live in a closed loop that never warns them of either danger or disagreement. On the other hand, organizations that have respect for their customers and clientele usually avoid becoming silos. The choice to be either is a conscious one.

A question that might be worth exploring on your part is, "To what degree do you have the ability to receive feedback from outside the organization regarding what's going on inside?" Another question you might want to consider is, "To what degree do you provide feedback to processes outside of the fire department that have an effect on the the community's quality of life?" This process is a two-way street - you have to give feedback to receive it.