“Don’t bring me a problem without a solution” isn’t always realistic
By Marc Revere

It’s not uncommon for chief officers to insist that when firefighters and developing officers have an issue, problem or concern, they should bring it to the next rank with a solution, preferably two. In fact, many experienced officers typically demand this of their subordinates—i.e., “Don’t bring me a problem without a solution.” When given clear problem-solving criteria, this approach ensures that the members’ decision-making skills are exercised, and they’re not just handing off the problem to someone else, which is an overt form of upward delegation.

However, what if a member is confronted with an issue for which they can’t think of a solution?

Make an Exception
The simple answer is that the “don’t bring me a problem without a solution” rule should have an exception. To avoid the above predicament, you may want to institute the following rule with the following exception: “Never delegate upward—you are responsible to critically think through each issue and provide possible solutions. However, if you’re unsure of what to do with an emerging issue, problem or concern, call the boss anytime.”

If a member doesn’t have solid methodology to form a solution and is therefore afraid to bring the issue forward, you’ll be unaware of potential threats or liabilities. Not knowing about the problem isn’t a defense. In legal terms (and we live in a litigious society), this is referred to as “could you have known or should you have known?” Wouldn’t you rather encourage personnel to bring it up when it’s smaller, even if they don’t have a solution?

Even with such an exception in place, however, organizations can do more to train line officers to solve problems or at least identify potential solutions. This begins with understanding the basic process of how decisions are made.

There are two levels of decision-making:

• Level 1 decision-making is effortless; it’s intuitive, fast, automatic, implicit and sometimes emotional, i.e., tactical.
• Level 2 decision-making requires effort; it’s slow, conscious, explicit and logical, i.e., strategic. It includes an assessment of the pros and cons and possible short- and long-term consequences.

Just as you wouldn’t expect a developing company officer to run a two-alarm fire, you can’t expect a tactical decision-maker to think strategically when faced with a problem. Strategic decision-making takes exposure, practice and time. But it’s critical to the effectiveness of your organization that officers on all levels are comfortable making decisions

Give Them a Process
Like most complex interactions, decision-making can be made more transparent and easier for developing officers if you give them a process to walk through. Officers should be encouraged to use this process themselves, but it also provides you with a systematic approach that you can walk them through if they come to you without a solution. This greatly enhances the development of Level 1 decision-makers into Level 2 decision-makers.

The process is actually a series of questions the decision-maker should ask themselves: The following is an adaption of the National Fire Academy Decision-Making Process.

• What are the facts, assumptions and (possible personal) bias?
• What exactly is the problem? Oftentimes, members who live with an issue for some time easily lock onto a solution long before the ultimate decision-maker is aware of or even understands the issue at hand.
• Can the problem be restated in other terms?
• What assumptions am I making about the problem?
• Whose problem is it? This is important, for we are in the business of solving problems and we naturally think most problems are our responsibility. Just asking this question may point you in the right direction.
• Is the information accurate?
• Does it have to be solved now? Can it wait? Is there urgency to it?
• What if we do nothing? This is analogous to hazmat operations—some situations are self-neutralizing. Most issues require some form of intervention; however, remaining silent on the issue or not acting should be considered.
• Do I have to make this decision or does someone else?
• Are there any political landmines or will there be any fall out (staff, labor, public, etc)?

Once the above questions are considered, the decision-maker should move through the following steps:

• Form a personal recommendation with options.
• Measure the recommendation against reasonableness, appropriateness, values and ethics when appropriate. It will help members to frame all concerns around what is best for your community (see “Common Ground,” FireRescue Jan. 2010, p. 56).
• List the consequences of each decision/recommendation.
• Encourage a peer to be the devil’s advocate (see “Playing Devil’s Advocate,” FireRescue, October 2010, p. 64).
• Listen to comments without commenting yourself.
• Seek (senior) staff feedback and recommendations.

When solutions have been fully vetted out, up and down the chain of command, what is left is a final question for you, the fire chief: “If necessary, how can we (I), back out of the decision we are about to make?” This last question will provide you with options.

Following this process is part of the professional development for your members, expanding their critical thinking skills and developing them for future leadership positions while also ensuring you are aware of critical issues within your organization. Remember: Unless you want to make all the decisions on your own, you must coach and assist them to do it first.
 
A Final Word
Identifying problems and finding potential solutions is the hallmark of any good leader. This type of problem-solving methodology will help you prepare your members to become better leaders. It will also move the decision down to the lowest level, where it will be made by people most familiar with the situation.

Marc Revere is the fire chief of the Novato Fire Protection District, an Internationally Accredited Agency in Marin County, Calif. He has 34 years in the fire service and is an EFO, CFO and a Harvard Fellow. In 2010, Chief Revere became the first recipient of the Ronny Jack Coleman Leadership and Legacy Award from the Commission on Public Safety Excellence.


Copyright © Elsevier Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE to FIRERESCUE