Career stages in wildland firefighting: implications for voice in risky situations

Abstract

Avoidance of injury and death on the fireline may depend on firefighters voicing their concerns, but often this does not occur. Reasons for employee reticence identified in the literature include a perception of various personal costs or a belief that raising concerns is futile. Additionally, the social context may play a significant role. In a qualitative study using in‐depth interviews with 36 wildland firefighters in the US, we explored reasons firefighters do or do not voice concerns. Findings revealed two primary themes related to initiating voice (limits to environmental perception and social influence) that vary considerably depending on a firefighter’s career stage. Additionally, the tactics that firefighters use similarly vary with career stage. Rookies (novice firefighters) often lack the ability to discern and interpret environmental cues, rely on others to ensure safety, fear being stigmatised if they voice worries, and may believe no one will listen to them. Veteran firefighters – both mid‐career experienced firefighters and expert veterans in high‐experience leadership roles – are better able than rookies to perceive and describe risky situations and feel more confident to raise concerns. However, experienced firefighters still face social pressures that may lead them to remain silent. Expert veterans face fewer social pressures, but their roles can put them in situations where they are either complacent or distracted. Implications of these findings for firefighter training and fire leadership are discussed.

Understanding the leadership perspective in wildland firefighting: gaps and opportunities for growth

“…Instead, feedback from fire personnel reported that rarely if ever do they turn down an assignment; instead, they commonly negotiate tactics and strategies. Lewis et al (2011) also found the same view on reputation and the same negotiating tactics of experienced wildland fire leaders. These negotiating tactics often do not occur in front of subordinates, and hence are not artifacts, or rather 'readily seen' (Schein 2016) parts of the culture.…”

“…The first factor -Fire Culture Competence -highlights items that emphasise operational competence and critical thinking. The wildland fire culture places high value on these qualities and they are readily identified as competence, confidence, and credibility or reputation (Desmond 2007;Lewis et al 2011).…”

“…Of those who completed the assessment, 224 were male (91%) and 21 were female (9%), with one counted as 'other'. Although the ratio is high, it reflects the large gender imbalance in wildland fire documented in Jahn (2012), Lewis et al (2011), Waldron and Ebbeck (2015b) and Waldron et al (2015). The age was distributed across four categories: 92 were 22-25 (38%), 6 were 26-30 (2.5%), 55 were 31-40 (22.5%) and 91 were 41-50 (37%) years old.…”

“…Because the culture has such a rich history, it has developed deep roots. The wildland firefighting service is a culture that champions competence, confidence, credibility and reputation (Desmond 2007;Lewis et al 2011), which is evident in early training (National Wildland Coordinating Group (NWCG) 2006) and is felt on the fireline (Desmond 2007;Lewis et al 2011;Waldron and Ebbeck 2015b). Although these are necessary qualities, they are not sufficient to prevent fatalities from occurring to elite-level firefighters (e.g.…”

The relationship of mindfulness and self-compassion to desired wildland fire leadership

“…These results demonstrate an intriguing model on how leadership appears to work in wildland firefighting as well as important directions on how to develop such leadership. In wildland firefighting, competence is consistently stressed in various documents including ones listed previously, and in other works such as Desmond's (2007) ethnographic study of wildland firefighting or in the study of Lewis et al (2011) on employee voice as a most prized possession. This was clearly seen in the present study as competence was the central hypothetical cause of how personally genuine supervisors were regarded by crewmembers and of how their integrity was regarded.…”