“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”

— Heraclitus

Most fire departments can be broken down into three camps of people: high performers, middle grounders, and low performers. This isn’t a measure of potential or ability, but more related to internal motivation and drive. High performers are not inherently better employees than low performers, they simply have the internal drive to push their performance beyond the minimum standards of the department. But, how do we know who falls into which group? Since humans are naturally poor at self-assessment, we need an objective way to see where we stand. A simple indicator is the effort put into daily tasks and skill development and our sentiment toward them. High performers put more effort than required into work and training yet feel as if they aren’t doing enough. Middle grounders do exactly what’s expected, but rarely take the initiative to do more, and feel content with their efforts and performance. Low performers do the minimum or less, and still complain because they feel like the organization is asking too much of them. Middle grounders will also lean toward the status quo of their company. One high performer in a company of middle-grounders will improve the overall performance of the company. Likewise, one low performer can bring everyone else down.

As a leader, especially at administrative levels, you must understand these groups and their values. High performers value higher standards of performance and the opportunity to challenge themselves and improve their performance. Low performers value lower standards and as few changes as possible to operations, not for simplicity, but because it avoids having to learn new methods and expose their weaknesses. Policies and department priorities will usually only please one of these groups. One side will always be upset. As a department leader, you must choose which one to cater to.

It’s easy to listen to the pushback from low performers and prioritize their demands. Lowering or eliminating fitness standards or eliminating performance reviews in promotional processes. They are the squeakiest wheels, so why not give them the grease. However, let’s consider the long-term effects of both approaches. Catering to the low performers will result in lower standards, mediocre performance, and a decrease in morale among motivated, higher performing employees who feel alienated by their department’s values. In today’s job market, where even the largest departments are begging for quality employees, alienated high performing firefighters are a commodity. High performers who are unsatisfied long enough will eventually move on to a department with values that match their own, and in many cases those departments are actively seeking out and recruiting those personnel. However, if we take the opposite approach, cater to the high performers, and let the motivated boots on the ground shape the department’s priorities and values, we only alienate the low performers. The difference is that, if you have a decent hiring process, most low performers are quality people who are entirely capable of performing at a higher level if the department requires it. They will work to perform at the minimum standard, regardless of how high that standard is set. They aren’t typically poor employees; they just lack the ability to hold themselves accountable to a higher standard.

Competition breeds excellence and by letting the high performers set the example, the department as a whole improves, the service to the citizens is increased, and the risk to retention is lowered. It certainly isn’t the easy route, but leadership never is. However, a steadfast leader who leans on their best performers and lets them set the pace of the department can quickly change the organizational culture for the better. In a world where departments are struggling to recruit and retain good people, it could make all the difference.