How poor performing employees can use peer pressure to their benefit
Yes, you read that correctly. Peer pressure can sometimes benefit poor performing employees. How can that be? Doesn’t peer pressure help to get poor performing employees to conform? Isn’t peer pressure a positive?
Peer pressure has often been thought to be a positive force in firehouse culture, motivating personnel to “up their game,” so to speak, and become productive members of the team. However, in practice, we are seeing a troubling pattern. The sooner we recognize a problem exists, the sooner we can set about fixing it.
This is one of the more risky articles I have ever written for two reasons. First, those who are primed to find racism or gender discrimination will no doubt be able to take parts of what I am saying and conclude I am biased. Second, those who are primed to find reverse discrimination will claim I am suggesting we have to overhaul our culture simply because some protected class members cannot handle all that the job entails without throwing the proverbial gender, race, religion, disability, or age card.
My intent is to present the issues in a race-, ethnicity-, nationality-, gender-, religion-, disability- and age-neutral way, without implying any group, minority or majority, is less able or capable. On the contrary, poor performers know no racial, ethnic or gender bounds. Part of the challenge confronting us comes from the hypersensitivity of those with social-political agendas, and part comes from the historical reliance that fire service culture has placed upon peer pressure to get folks to conform.
It is the historical success of peer pressure that paradoxically makes what I am about to discuss all the more important. If you do something that seems to work, and its success has been observable for decades, why change? That “why” is the issue.
Example 1
Firefighter Smith is a white male firefighter with a difficult personality. His coworkers characterize him as lazy, abrasive and even somewhat manipulative. He tends to speak out of turn and is quick to blame others for his failures. He complains about any perceived injustice no matter how petty, and is the last to help out a brother/sister in need. He does the bare minimum and nothing more. Firefighter Smith has some borderline competency issues that are made all the more apparent by his attitude, which in turn alienates him from his coworkers. While others with similar competency issues get by because of their friendly disposition, Firefighter Smith is the last person anyone is willing to cut some slack for.
In this example, peer pressure will inevitably be applied to Firefighter Smith. It may start with nicknames that reflect his laziness, poor attitude or speaking out of turn. There may be some teasing, gradually ramping up over the course of time to be more malicious. If he continues his ways, the peer pressure could escalate to overt harassment and perhaps even bullying. In the end, Firefighter Smith either conforms or will likely transfer (voluntarily or otherwise). If his failure to conform continues at his next assignment, he will likely develop a reputation that will carry with him for the remainder of his career. He may even leave the service, bitter and frustrated.
Example 2
Firefighter Jones is a minority firefighter (note his/her exact minority status is irrelevant). Firefighter Jones has difficult personality. In fact, Firefighter Jones displays exactly the same traits that we saw in Firefighter Smith.
What are the consequences when the inevitable peer pressure that has historically been applied to Firefighter Smith is applied to Firefighter Jones? What if Firefighter Jones reacts to the peer pressure by attributing it to his/her minority status and files a formal compliant?
I wish the above example was merely a hypothetical of what could happen, but in truth, it is real and happens all too frequently. In the real-life cases, Firefighter Jones could attribute everything that has occurred to him/her to his/her minority status and will complain of a hostile workplace. The complaint could escalate the peer pressure even further, perhaps punctuated by some confrontational name-calling or harassment that for the first-time implicates the protected racial, gender, religion, disability or age status. Firefighter Jones has now a very easy case of retaliation on top of his/her original claim of discrimination. From an employment discrimination perspective, Firefighter Jones’ case is about as easy a case to make as ever occurs—so easy a first year law student could win it!
What went wrong?
To start with, it is important to recognize that the victim in a Firefighter Jones scenario may genuinely believe they are being discriminated against on account of their protected status. They don’t see the problems with their behavior/competency/personality, and no officer has bothered to document any issues with their performance. In the absence of another explanation, they perceive the peer pressure to be illegal harassment and discrimination.
Why has the fire service come to rely so heavily upon peer pressure? The problem is multi-faceted, but a key factor is that too many fire officers do not want to be perceived as the bad guy. Officers do not want to deal directly with Firefighter Smith, and they are terrified of being dragged into a discrimination suit by Firefighter Jones. I have seen officers request a transfer just to avoid dealing with potential discrimination-related issues. Other officers may try to get members transferred rather than deal with the real problem.
In the vacuum created by the absence of strong leadership, the Firefighter Jones problem will worsen as the peer pressure increases. Human resource professionals and attorneys will become involved, most of whom have no understanding of the complexity of firehouse culture.
In some departments, the focus will be on building a pre-textual case against Firefighter Jones to justify dismissal. In others, the focus will be on stopping the overt harassment of Firefighter Jones, creating the appearance that the fire department is coddling an incompetent malcontent that “everyone” knows has “issues.” Neither solution focuses on addressing the real problem—the behavior. Both scenarios will likely lead to litigation. In the mean time, Firefighter Jones may even seek medical treatment or find an excuse to stop coming to work.
Firefighters and officers throughout the department watch the Firefighter Jones case unfold over weeks, months and perhaps years. Resentment builds over the fact that someone with his/her faults is now untouchable. The result can be a frustrated, demotivated workforce where officers are even less inclined to address problems with future Firefighter Joneses.
What’s the solution?
The ultimate solution to the death grip that peer pressure has on firehouse culture is to ensure that officers act like officers. Peer pressure is strongest when the rank and file perceive that a problem is not being officially addressed.
That may seem like I am pointing an accusatory finger at company officers, but it is not the case. The training of company officers in most departments is woefully inadequate. Young officers are given no guidance on how to recognize and handle a Firefighter Smith or Firefighter Jones situation. In the absence of such formal guidance, firefighters default to doing what they have observed their predecessors do. The fire service has been handling Firefighter Smith problems for decades. It should come as no surprise that an officer’s default is to let peer pressure do its job, as it is perceived as the path of least resistance.
It is incumbent upon senior fire service leaders to recognize this problem and the role it is playing in all too many workplace disputes. Chief officers have to provide a leadership infrastructure that trains and supports company officers. When a company officer turns to the chain of command for help with a Firefighter Smith or Firefighter Jones problem, chief officers must be there to help.
Access to human resource professionals as well as legal counsel must be part of that support. It is vital that those providing such help have a firm understanding of fire service culture. HR “experts” experienced in other workplaces often meet their match when dealing with firehouse culture.
Conclusion
Let me be clear: There is illegal discrimination and harassment going on in the fire service, and that has to stop. My points in this article are in no way meant to trivialize the very real concerns over illegal discrimination and harassment. The problem is that in addition to these cases of illegal discrimination and harassment, we are seeing cases that are a function of allowing peer pressure to handle competency and personality problems. As a result, fire departments are being set up for lawsuits because to any objective observer, peer pressure is indistinguishable from illegal discrimination or harassment.
The result is that peer pressure can and unfortunately all too often does serve to protect and reward poor performing employees. It changes the discussion from whether the employee is poor performing to whether the employee can create a narrative that shows they are the victim of unlawful discrimination.
A poor performing employee who is able to characterize peer pressure as proof of discrimination sets the stage for organizational problems for which there is no defense. Once one employee is successful with a hostile work environment claim, a ripple effect can be expected as officers seek to avoid exposing themselves to such a situation. This is turn causes peer pressure to ramp up, setting the stage to have a second case, a third case, and so on.
Officers need training in how to identify, document and correct a subordinate’s weaknesses without reliance upon peer pressure, and without creating a hostile work environment themselves. It takes self-reflection and intellectual honesty to recognize that we all carry hidden biases with us. We see faults in those we dislike while simultaneously ignoring the same behavior in those we like, all without our conscious knowledge. Officers need a support structure to help them find a balance to apply their leadership responsibilities fairly on a daily basis.
By the way, how many fire departments offer this kind of training and support to their officers? Could that be part of the reason why over 70 percent of fire service litigation is employment related?
