Average is a word that we are all familiar with, we hear it all the time, and I think that most of the time it carries a negative connotation. I mean, who wants to be considered average?
If you like watching basketball then you understand that there are many average NBA players. In fact, the majority of NBA players are average; there are also many average Special Forces operators; lots of average Olympians; tons of average scientists working at NASA.
Yet the average person in the mentioned groups, or any elite group, is far better than a vast majority of the population in their specific craft. Actually, even the worst NBA player is probably 10 times better at basketball than the majority of the population. So why call them average?
Well, for the organizations they are a part of, they are "average." With the exception of the very best and the very worst in an organization, the majority of the group is some degree of average. What sets them apart from the rest of the population is that the standards in top performing organizations are set so high that average for them would be considered superior to most of us.
I believe that by redefining what we consider “average” in the fire service, we can effectively improve our entire organization without the dreaded backlash that so often curbs even the most valiant of efforts. Redefining average will work to pull low-level performers up, increase the effectiveness of the large group that occupies the middle, and help to empower those at the top. So to change average, we first have to define it. Once we have done that we can:
- 1. Set elevated expectations
- 2. Give people the tools and time to meet those expectations
- 3. Hold all members of the team accountable
Defining and then redefining average
If I were to tell you to pull a hose line fast, how fast would that be? Is it less than 1 minute? 2 minutes? The answer to the question is very subjective and can change drastically depending on the structure and variability of the department you work for. Is the standard structure in your district a house that is 30 feet from the road, or is it a multistory apartment complex?
An average response time of 4 minutes may be an acceptable expectation for a suburban fire department that has multiple stations that serve a community, but may be inconceivable for a rural department that has 1 station covering 20 square miles. So to understand what is appropriate for your department, you must first define standards for your department.
In statistics, there is a concept called the central limit theorem, often referred to as a bell curve. It states that when a random sample is collected from a population, then the distribution will often distribute itself into an organized pattern, even if the variables are not evenly distributed. So there will be a large cluster of people toward the middle and the population will taper off as you move in each direction.
This cluster will give you a definition of average, referred to as mean, for the set of numbers sampled. To get the mean, simply add all of the numbers together and divide by the total number in the population. It’s that simple (Tip: When dealing with time, it helps to figure out the total seconds. It makes the math easier).
What does this mean for us? Well, by taking samples from your organization and compiling them you can then define the standards of average for your department. If you have a smaller organization, or are a company officer or firefighter using this at your station, then it may be possible for you to sample everyone individually. For larger populations, it may be more difficult.
You could have someone test all the personnel and send in the information, or you could take a random sample from different parts of your department or battalion. Maybe 25 guys from each shift spread throughout the city. One way to get a random sample is to go down your roster and pick every fourth or fifth name and use them as a sample. If you simply ask the officer at the station to pick a guy, they may pick the best or newest guy, which could skew your measurements.
Also, we often have set standards for performance—minimum requirements that we expect everyone to be able to meet. Times that fall below those required standards should not be included when calculating the mean. This data, referred to as outliers, can affect the accuracy of the mean, and these individuals need to have their issues addressed in a different way than what is discussed here.
Once you compile all of the numbers and figure out the mean, and you know the best and worst times recorded, you have essentially distributed your population into a bell curve and you have defined average, as well as the parameters for lower and upper level performance.
Now that we know where we stand, we can move forward
Now that we have figured out what average, below average, and above average are for a specific task, how do we move forward? My argument is that by redefining what you consider average, or moving the central line of the bell curve toward the best time, you will shift the entire matrix over as a result.
For example, if you figured out that on average it took 2:30 to get bunked out and deploy a hose line to a front door, with the slowest time being 3 minutes and the fastest time being 2 minutes, then this would define your bell curve. The majority of the department would probably fall somewhere around the 2:30 mark, give or take 10 or 15 seconds.
So you know it can be done in 2 minutes flat, and the majority of people can do it between 2:15 and 2:45. So set the expectation at 2:20 or better. Tell everyone that the minimum standard is 3 minutes, but the goal is to be able to complete this drill in 2:20. Now this will shift your average, or mean, because people have a definable and pursuable goal, not just their idea of what is expected of them or what is considered a good time, and this goal is actually faster than what you figured out to be the average completion time currently.
By shifting the times to something better than the current average, you will shift the entire bell curve. By shifting the bell curve, your lower performers should improve significantly and your average performers should improve slightly.
Top performers will take care of themselves, and the bottom will be pulled along
In education, it is often the students that occupy the very top and the very bottom that receive the majority of the attention, leaving the middle group to mostly fend for themselves. For the fire department, I believe that we often direct our attention in training and education toward the bottom performers only, effectively moving the center line of performance down or holding it steady.
We are unable to move forward because their inability to perform becomes the main focus of training drills and education classes; we don’t want to leave them behind. I’ve also found that they are often the least receptive in a group, so each time we are repeating the same lessons. As a result, the bottom performers can act as an anchor for the organization and frustrate those top performers that are eager for a challenge.
When we shift the expectation, in theory we will draw those underperformers up closer to the old expectation—what we considered to be a normal performance before. When they are forced to work toward a goal that is defined, and a strong culture of personal and team responsibility give them the tools they need, they will improve without actually being aware of it. But remember, it can’t be through harsh criticism and bully tactics; these will cause them to shut down. Building people up is hard work, but ultimately will build a stronger team relationship.
So why don’t the top performers move very much? Most of the people that occupy the top 15% are already very self-motivated and often find opportunities to improve themselves, requiring only minimal guidance. Their performance is already very good and their improvement may not be as drastic. I’m not saying that they won’t improve, or that they should be ignored. In fact, they are often the catalysts for change, so use these individuals to help pull the others up.
Empowering these individuals to help teach classes, mentor, or coach those that are struggling can improve their skill set and knowledge, as well as the person they are teaching. At every level, empowering people to improve themselves and their peers will only benefit the group as a whole and help to build a team-first atmosphere based around performance.
A culture of learning, not of punishment
The fear of most organizations is that they will isolate those individuals that are underperformers and receive a lot of pushback and noise that will hinder efforts to improve. Again, I believe this is focusing your attention on the bottom. I’ve heard the arguments before: “You know some people won’t be able to do that" or "Why do I need to know this/do this?" People are afraid that if standards are set high, then there will be punishment if they are unable to reach them.
The trick is to convince everyone why the standards are what they are, and then help your staff achieve the goals. Develop leaders at every level that can help to empower members, this makes training fun and goal-oriented, makes learning approachable, and takes the dread and misery out of drills and education. When people are not afraid that every mistake they make in training will result in public humiliation or punishment, then they will try harder, ask more questions, and work outside of their comfort zone.
We have all participated in training that made you so afraid of the process, whether through “manhood test” type training or humiliation, or training that seemed to exist solely to check a box or look busy, that all you wanted was for it to be over. Did you learn anything in those instances? Did the training make you better? Were you eager to get out there and do it again? I would bet that the answer to those questions is a resounding "No."
So building a culture of learning and not a culture of punishment helps everyone in the organization, both physically and mentally. It empowers and cultivates growth. And as new members are recruited into the organization, they will know nothing else except this culture and these high expectations. They will be drafted into a performance culture.
Once you know where you stand, write it down and reevaluate
No one likes to be left in the dark, and as an organization when people are left in the dark about what is expected of them and what is happening, performance and morale suffer. So once you figure out what expectations you would like to meet, put them out there for everyone to see, whatever they may be. We did this with EMS reports, getting people together and deciding what should be included in a good EMS report based on the nature of the call, put it in a book, and distributed the information to every station.
Now, when someone is writing a report, they can refer to the guidelines and there is no question to whether the report meets expectations. And as a whole, the reports got better and more accurate, and there is less subjectivity in reviewing. People are also less defensive when their reports are found to be lacking.
You could do this not just for written reports, but for everything. How long should it take a person to stretch a hose line to a door? How fast should someone deploy a 24 foot ladder for VEIS operations? Or force entry? Or search a bedroom? Put on your mask? The list is endless. Once you have defined are group of skills that you think are crucial to the job at hand, make the drills and the expectations available to all the members in your organization, and allow guys to input tips and tricks that they figured out that could improve everyone’s performance. This allows for members to know where their strengths and weaknesses are, share useful information to the entire organization, and helps to give a grab bag of training that can be reached into at any time.
Mastery is in the details
Top performers are always looking at ways to improve themselves, even by small percentages. Those small improvements can be the difference between being a champion or not. By dividing complex actions up in pieces and focusing on improving the details, the overall performance will improve.
Think of it this way: If you are working to get dressed for a fire faster, then saving 10 seconds getting your turnout gear on, 10 seconds getting your mask on, and 10 seconds getting your gloves on and getting on air, then you are able to get interior for a search or fire attack 30 seconds faster. Those 10 second improvements collectively could make all the difference for a person that is trapped inside the structure and is counting on you.
And those are just three small pieces. Imagine if you apply that same idea to multiple elements of your preparation and response. We use lights and sirens to save time, why not work to save time in getting ready or once we are on scene.
Efficiency, effectiveness, and safety are the key points to improving, not recklessness. The danger in focusing on speed only, and not mastering the details, is that the likelihood of failure under stress is increased. Speed is a byproduct of efficiency and effectiveness. And improvement is not just about speed. It could also be about knowledge, so working to improve the knowledge of personnel will have an impact on the effectiveness of the organization.
So teach people outside their comfort zones, reach out to experts in fields outside the fire service for information, and challenge all members to come up with new drills and classes to improve the organization, no matter how short or informal they may be.
There will always be average performers in your organization, but how that looks will depend on what your expectations are. We set high standards for other less important tasks, like cleaning toilets, but there seems to be a fear in doing the same for fitness and performance.
High expectations, strong leaders and mentors, and a culture built around improvement and learning push the standard. So you have to ask yourself, do you want your organization to be rec-league average or pro-league?
___
Adam Parkhurst is a Firefighter/Paramedic Field Training Officer in Euless, TX. He has been in the fire service for 13 years, has a Master’s degree in Sociology, works as a Medical Specialist for a FEMA US&R team, and is an Adjunct EMS instructor for Tarrant County College.
