“Management is getting people to do what needs to be done. Leadership is getting people to want to do what needs to be done. Managers push. Leaders pull. Managers command. Leaders communicate.” -- Warren Bennis, “Leading Change, the Leaders as Chief Transformation Officer.”

How do these principles impact the command function in the incident management system? The answer is complex. To be effective, a balance between leading and managing must be struck, with human life as the deciding factor on which is more important.

In the field application of incident management (incident command), the command function sets strategic goals for the incident. Regardless of the type of incident, these priorities include:

1. Preservation of human life
2. Conservation of the environment
3.  Protection of personal property
4. Stabilization of the incident
   

No one priority should be sacrificed for a lower priority. Saving property is a lower priority than saving lives, so life should not be sacrificed to save property.

An incident commander must know that personnel operating at the scene -- especially the command and general staff -- are knowledgeable of the options available to accomplish the goals identified in the incident action plan.

The decision of whether to use leadership or managerial techniques to accomplish a strategic goal depends on the competency of the human resources used to pursue the goal. What is the perception of the knowledge, skills and abilities of those attempting to accomplish the goals? The effectiveness of the decision of whether to lead or to manage will depend on how closely that perception matches with the reality.

ICs who perceive a high level of competence of those they supervise will tend to lead the resources at the scene. ICs who lead tend to allow sections, branches and tactical level manager elements the latitude to make decisions they feel are in the course of competing the goals. ICs who manage will control and at times micro-manage the activities of as many functions at the scene as they can.

This is not to suggest that either situation is wrong. Both can be appropriate if the IC’s perception matches the reality at the scene. Each of these approaches can also become self-fulfilling prophesies. The more an IC leads, the more accustomed those operating become to following. The more an IC manages, the more those operating become dependant on being managed.

A problem arises when one leads or manages based on assumptions rather than fact. If the assumption of competence or lack thereof is incorrect, the completion of strategic goals can be severely compromised.

To make a clear assessment of the competence of responders, organizations need to train regularly to refine the skills of those who will serve in any IMS capacity. It is also important that interagency and inter-jurisdictional training occur on regular intervals. The more that those who will serve as ICs see others function in their prospective IMS roles, the more comfortable they will be with using their leadership skills at an incident.

Systems to normalize and categorize skills sets are important when it isn’t possible for responders to work together on a regular basis. This is especially important in a complex organization or in services that cover wide areas, which make direct interaction on a regular basis difficult.

Situations where lives are at stake -- especially the lives of responders due to an emergency situation within an incident -- require a high degree of management. When a responder is missing or trapped, resources must be very closely managed to ensure that not only the tactical goal of rescuing the trapped responder is completed, but that the emotions of the rescuers don’t overwhelm their ability to make effective decisions. Failure to do so can actually create a negatively cascading situation that will threaten even more of those on scene. This is a time when the close management of resources may actually be the strongest sign of the leadership.

An incident commander is both a leader and a manager and must be able to distinguish throughout the incident how much and when to lead, how much and when to manage and the balance needed between the two.

I. David Daniels is fire chief of the Fulton County (Ga.) Fire Department, a metro department surrounding the city of Atlanta. He holds a master’s degree in human resources management and is certified as a Safety and Health Specialist and Fire Service Health & Safety Officer. Daniels serves as interim chair of the International Association of Fire Chiefs’ Safety, Health and Survival Section.