Firefighter Misconduct vs. Incompetence: Distinguishing Between the Two

Two distinct yet often overlapping areas of disciplinary concern in the fire service are misconduct and incompetence. Although they share certain characteristics, including the need for corrective action and in some cases termination, they have fundamentally different causes and require different approaches from fire service leaders. Failing to recognize these differences can result in unfair treatment, legal complications, and unintended consequences for both individual firefighters and the department as a whole.

Misconduct vs. incompetence

Misconduct occurs when a firefighter chooses to engage in behavior that violates department policies, ethical standards or legal requirements. It involves a willful decision where the firefighter knows what is expected but acts in a way that breaches those expectations. Misconduct can range from insubordination and dishonesty to harassment, theft, substance abuse on duty or even criminal behavior. The key element in misconduct is intent—an individual knowingly violates a rule, regulation, order or expectation.

In contrast, incompetence is not about intent. Rather, it involves an inability to meet performance expectations due to a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment. It occurs when firefighters want to perform their duties correctly but fail to do so because of insufficient training, cognitive limitations, physical inabilities or other factors that prevent the individuals from meeting required standards. Unlike misconduct, incompetence does not involve a conscious decision to disregard policies or expectations. Instead, it is a performance issue that often manifests in repeated mistakes, failure to follow proper procedures despite good faith efforts or difficulty adapting to evolving job demands. Incompetent firefighters may disagree about whether the requirement is appropriate or fair or whether the requirement can be met, period. However, the firefighters lack a desire to fail to meet what is required. A challenging area for fire officers is distinguishing between carelessness and incompetence. If a firefighter knowingly ignores safety protocols despite having been trained, that is misconduct. However, if the firefighter received proper training and fails a task due to lack of skill or failure to recall proper procedure, that is incompetence. The distinction affects how the department should proceed.

Real-world examples

Consider a firefighter who falsifies training records to appear qualified for a technical rescue team. This is a clear case of misconduct, as it involves deception and a willful violation of department policies. On the other hand, if a firefighter who is assigned to a technical rescue team has the requisite training but struggles with certain tasks, that person’s inability to perform those tasks would be incompetence.

Another example: If a firefighter refuses to wear proper PPE because of a dislike for the gear, that is misconduct. However, if a firefighter repeatedly fails to properly don PPE due to it taking too long, that is incompetence. The distinction is important in terms of how the department should address the firefighter’s shortcomings.

Disciplinary approaches

When a firefighter engages in misconduct, the purpose of discipline is to change the offending behavior, deter future violations and uphold department standards. The response typically follows principles of progressive discipline, which include:

Verbal or written warnings. For minor infractions, a documented warning may suffice.
Suspension without pay. A temporary removal from duty to reinforce the seriousness of the violation.
Demotion. Reduction in rank for severe or repeated misconduct.
Termination. If the misconduct is egregious or if prior disciplinary efforts failed, termination may be necessary.

Misconduct investigations typically lead to written notice of charges, an opportunity for the firefighter to respond, documentation of findings and issuance of discipline. Because misconduct cases involve intent, counseling or training is unlikely to resolve persistent behavior problems, hence the need for punishment.

Because incompetence stems from an inability rather than an unwillingness to perform, corrective measures should be developmental rather than punitive. In fact, punishment will not improve a competency problem. The primary objective must be to improve the firefighter’s skills through:

Additional training and mentorship. Assigning a mentor or scheduling targeted training to address deficiencies.
Performance Improvement Plans (PIP). Creating a structured plan with clear expectations, goals and timelines for improvement.
Temporary reassignment. Placing the firefighter in a less critical role while the individual develops necessary skills.
Medical or psychological evaluation. If the incompetence may be linked to a medical or cognitive condition, an evaluation may be warranted.
Termination for inability to perform. If all remediation efforts fail and the firefighter remains unable to meet job requirements, termination may be the last resort.

Unlike misconduct, incompetence should not be viewed as disciplinary in the traditional sense. It is a performance issue, meaning that legal standards, such as “just cause” for termination, may require the department to exhaust reasonable efforts to support improvement before taking an adverse action.

Fair & consistent application

Fire service leaders must be careful to evaluate each situation fairly, ensuring that firefighters are not wrongly accused of misconduct when incompetence is the issue or vice versa. Mistakes can lead to improper discipline, grievances, legal challenges and damage to department morale.

For instance, if a firefighter struggles with a new piece of equipment due to inadequate training, treating that individual’s difficulty as insubordination rather than a training gap would be unfair and counterproductive. Likewise, if a firefighter disregards safety protocols out of defiance rather than lack of understanding, it would be inappropriate to treat the issue as a mere training deficiency or incompetence.

Legal implications

From a legal standpoint, differentiating between misconduct and incompetence is critical. Termination for incompetence requires documentation of performance deficiencies and evidence that the firefighter was given opportunities to improve. Conversely, termination for misconduct generally requires evidence of willful violations.

Fire officers have a responsibility to ensure that firefighters receive the training and support that’s necessary for them to succeed. Rushing to punish those who lack the necessary skills, rather than providing education and mentorship, undermines the integrity of the department and can lead to unnecessary turnover and low morale.

Integrity & growth

Understanding the difference between misconduct and incompetence is essential for fire service leaders when addressing personnel issues. Departments that clearly distinguish between these two issues can maintain high standards while ensuring fairness and supporting the development of their personnel.

This approach not only protects the integrity of the fire service but also fosters a culture of growth and professionalism, ensuring that firefighters have the tools and knowledge necessary to serve their communities effectively.