Discipline: The Leader’s Best Training Tool

Over the years, I have devoted a great deal of time discussing control as an important organizational function. I have written and spoken of the need for a neat fit between individual and departmental goals. In most cases, it has been my experience that reasonable people tend to operate within the constraints of reasonably constituted organizations. These are not the problem areas we need to consider as part of this Command Post column.

This time around, I intend to discuss the use of discipline as a tool. Far too many people look at discipline as a matter of punishing the guilty for their sins and transgressions. I intend to share a different view of discipline with you. It is my view that discipline is a tremendous tool that can be used to line up the views of the unwilling organizational members with the official needs of their organization.

In Management in the Fire Service, 3rd ed., Carter and Rausch tell us that "most people are uncomfortable when they hear the word discipline. To many, the word is almost a synonym for punishment, as when it is used to describe … punishment."

Let's start with a definition of discipline. This definition will serve as the cornerstone of our shift in emphasis from the widely misunderstood negative connotations of discipline to a more modern, more positive style. According to Webster, there are three basic ways in which we can examine discipline:

• a. Subject to authority
• b. A form of instruction
• c. A form of self-control

I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on the so-called bad aspects, most of which are well known to us all. It is my intention to devote time here to the creation of a fire department environment wherein discipline is an accepted tool of organizational demarcation and delineation. This is what I propose to you that a good leader seeks to do.

Just what are the foundations of a solid model for positive discipline? Again, Carter and Rausch provide an appropriate set of guidelines for what constitutes a positive disciplinary environment within an organizational framework. The text shows us that "positive discipline rests on five foundations:

1. The culture supports open, two-way communications.
2. The same standards and norms apply to all.
3. Department members who deserve commendations and privileges receive them.
4. Those who violate accepted rules or fail to adhere to reasonable norms and standards, cooperatively determined, receive help at first and then gradually more stringent warnings until their behavior conforms or disciplinary steps are taken.
5. Counseling is used competently to reduce, to a minimum, the use of the organization's disciplinary procedure."

A great deal of the positive morale that we have seen in effective organizations derives from the concept of self-discipline. This positive attribute of an effective organization comes to be the norm of superior performance when established by organizational members themselves, and not demanded or imposed.

An excellent example of this form of self-discipline and teamwork came to the fore during the 2002 Super Bowl. The mighty St. Louis Rams were beaten by the New England Patriots, perennial doormats of the league. There was a great deal of talk about the poor pre-season performance of the Rams. What happened?

It would seem to me that the self-imposed aura of teamwork that Coach Bill Belichick created for his team worked to perfection. The discipline created by the team members set the standard for performance. It first manifested itself to those of us in TV Land when the team elected to be introduced as a team, not individually. They created an environment in which tough, solid playing was the expected norm. The individual will was sublimated to the team good. The players lived as a team, worked as a team and won as a team. I would also be willing to bet that the less-willing members of the team received an appropriate amount of counseling from the older, tougher, veteran players.

I believe that this example approaches the best sort of disciplinary scenario. The people involved knew the goals of the organization and the types of results that were needed to achieve group expectations. They then developed additional environmental incentives above and beyond the negative disciplinary format established by the organization itself.

I would strongly suggest that an effective leader must develop a team-based oriented approach to his or her organizational orientation. It must, of necessity, be one that favors strong self-directed compliance with departmental rules and regulations. Let me start by providing some age-old advice: you must set the example.

Some of the worst failures I have seen occurred when people were caught not following the posted rules. Why do things like this happen? Because many people feel that the rules were created to have an impact upon them.

As a sort of mea culpa, I want you to know that I too have had my share of trips to the supervisory woodshed. There were times when I thought I was too slick or too good to play by the same rules as everyone else. Of course, I was wrong. I know better now, but I do not want you to think that I am attempting to say that I have always been a good boy when it comes to the rules.

How, you may ask, did I come to the conclusion that it was more correct to follow the rules than to do my own thing? My flash of consciousness came from a combination of dedicated co-workers and selfless leaders who thought enough of me to help me see the light.

As I have written time and again, there are people who so thoroughly support you that would rather suffer physical pain than be found guilty of disappointing them. I was treated to a combination of an enlightened, learning environment combined with some excellent role models.

One of our former supervisors was a deputy chief, a true gentleman from the old school. In his 40-plus years of service, the man never took a sick day. Each order he received from headquarters was received and carried out in a straightforward, concerned manner. Never one to raise his voice, this man was always in complete control, no matter what the situation. Perhaps it was the confidence that he exuded that formed a great deal of the environment wherein we labored. Never once did he publicly speak against the department, nor did he ever conduct himself in anyway other than as a complete gentleman.

While I am personally a bit of a periodic backslider in the area of temper control, it was his example that frequently stimulated my instincts to be an obedient, willing member of the fire department team, despite my best efforts to the contrary.

It is my opinion that whatever type or manner of discipline exists within any organization, it is a direct outgrowth of the leadership style of the head of the fire department. As Tom Peters often stresses in his texts and lectures, the leader of any organization must form a cohesive picture of the direction in which he or she feels the organization should be headed, then pass that vision freely down throughout the organization. So it should be in the case of discipline.

It is the manner in which the leader envisions the mode of discipline that determines how that program of discipline is delivered through the organization. And let me stress at this point that the delivery of discipline must be evenly applied at all levels.

Those people who broke in under veterans of the Russian State Police will deliver a totally different approach to discipline than others who have been brought to maturity in a nurturing, supportive environment where obedience to the norms of fire department conduct was infused into the fire people as a matter of daily living. As with all things, teaching by example leaves the strongest impression on the troops.

What I am saying here is that the best way to work with people is to coach them in the desired direction. Much has been made of the fact that many of our greatest leaders have had the influence of a strong mentor. Such was the relationship between Dwight D. Eisenhower and General Fox Connor in the years between World War I and World War II.

Eisenhower was later to write about him that life with Connor was a sort of graduate school in military affairs. In a lifetime of associations with great and good men, Eisenhower stated that he was the one more or less invisible figure to whom he owed an incalculable debt. Eisenhower felt strongly about his mentor because Connor continually challenged and supported him through a conscious period of organizational, as well as personal growth and development. As has often been emphasized, mentors take risks with people and those people grow as a result of that challenge.

So it should be in the area of discipline. I would suggest to you that we must first spell out reasonable, common-sense guidelines for our people. We must then create in them an understanding of the organizational boundaries within which they are to function. Having done these two things, we must then allow them the freedom to try their wings at being a viable part of the team. When they succeed, we must be extremely supportive. When they fail, we must be even more supportive. The results will be well worth the effort.