Leadership Training for Millennials within the …Millennials within the fire service prefer in their supervisors, (d) what are other fire departments currently doing to address generational

Running head: LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR MILLENNIALS 1

Leadership Training for Millennials within the Council Bluffs Fire Department

Richard Rodewald

Council Bluffs Fire Department, Council Bluffs, Iowa

LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR MILLENNIALS 2

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the

language of other is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given

where I used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

SIGNED:


Abstract

The problem was that it was unknown if the current leadership training program was meeting the

needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the Council Bluffs Fire Department

(CBFD). The purpose of this applied research project was to determine if the current leadership

training program was meeting the needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the

CBFD and, if not, to identify improvement opportunities. Descriptive research was used to

answer the following research questions; (a) what leadership styles and characteristics do current

generational groups within the CBFD identify with, (b) how do the current generational groups

within the CBFD rate their followership skills, (c) what leadership styles and characteristics do

Millennials within the fire service prefer in their supervisors, (d) what are other fire departments

currently doing to address generational characteristics found in Millennial fire suppression

personnel, and (e) what steps can be taken by the CBFD to adapt the existing leadership training

program to address the specific generational characteristics found among Millennial fire

suppression personnel? Procedures included a comprehensive literature review and three survey

instruments. The survey instruments included an external leadership and generational

differences survey, internal leadership and generational differences survey, and a followership

style questionnaire. The results established that the current leadership program was insufficient

in addressing the needs of Millennial firefighters and improvement opportunities were identified.

Recommendations included: (a) improve and expand the current CBFD leadership training

program; (b) formalize the mentoring process; (c) provide department-wide training on

leadership, followership, and generational topics; and (d) prepare a five-year plan that included a

program evaluation and revision schedule.


Table of Contents

Page

Certification Statement …………………………………………………………………….. 2

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….……………. 3

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………... 4

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Background and Significance ………………………………………………………………. 6

Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………….. 10

Procedures …………………………………………………………………………………. 24

Results …………………………………………………………………...………………… 29

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………. 41

Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………. 46

Reference List ……………………………………………………………………………… 50

List of Figures and Tables………………………………………………………………....…56

Appendices

Appendix A: CBFD Leadership Survey…………………………………………… 58

Appendix B: CBFD Followership Style Questionnaire……….…………………… 67

Appendix C: Fire Department Leadership Survey……………………….………… 75


Leadership Training for Millennials within the Council Bluffs Fire Department

The fire service relies on members demonstrating leadership attributes to provide timely

and effective services to our citizens. During the hiring process, fire departments seek out men

and women of strong character and then spend countless hours grooming them for future

leadership positions. Progressive fire service organizations continue to develop leadership skills

in their incumbent personnel to further hone their interpersonal and emergency scene

capabilities. Generational differences may necessitate a shift in leadership philosophy.

The problem is that it is unknown if the current leadership training program is meeting

the needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the Council Bluffs Fire Department

(CBFD). The purpose of this applied research project is to determine if the current leadership

training program is meeting the needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the CBFD

and, if not, to identify improvement opportunities.

Descriptive research will be used in order to answer five research questions; (a) what

leadership styles and characteristics do current generational groups within the CBFD identify

with, (b) how do the current generational groups within the CBFD rate their followership skills,

(c) what leadership styles and characteristics do Millennials within the fire service prefer in their

supervisors, (d) what are other fire departments currently doing to address generational

characteristics found in Millennial fire suppression personnel, and (e) what steps can be taken by

the CBFD to adapt the existing leadership training program to address the specific generational

characteristics found among Millennial fire suppression personnel?


Background and Significance

The Council Bluffs (IA) Fire Department is a career fire department with authorized

staffing of 107 personnel that provides all-hazards protection to an estimated population of

63,000 within a geographic area of 43.62 mi2 (70.2 km2). The city of Council Bluffs is the

largest city in Pottawattamie County and is situated on the western border of Iowa along the

Missouri River. The Omaha – Council Bluffs metro area encompasses eight counties in Iowa

and Nebraska with a population of approximately 950,000 citizens. The CBFD maintains mutual

aid agreements with numerous volunteer fire departments in Pottawattamie County as well as the

Omaha Fire Department in Nebraska.

The CBFD provides a wide range of services to the public, including; fire suppression,

advanced life support ambulance transport, swift water rescue, ice rescue, and high angle rope

rescue. The CBFD hazardous materials team is a regional response asset covering seven

counties in southwest Iowa and is part of the weapons of mass destruction team for the state of

Iowa. The highly trained staff works out of five fire stations and respond to over 9,000 calls per

year.

The current annual operating budget for the CBFD is approximately $14 million with

$77,000 allotted to training expense. The CBFD is currently rated by Insurance Services Office

(ISO) as a Class 2 fire department and is working toward accreditation through the Commission

on Fire Accreditation International.

The CBFD training division maintains two full-time personnel, a training coordinator and

technical rescue coordinator. They provide ongoing training for shift personnel and initial

training to newly hired probationary firefighters. Monthly training topics are organized within a

12-month training schedule and reflect minimum training requirements for fire, EMS, hazardous


materials, and technical rescue disciplines. All training is intended to meet the requirements of

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), and ISO as well as local needs.

Before 2009, the fire department training division did not provide formal leadership

training. Officer development training was occasionally provided using outside speakers or by

sending personnel to regional classes. Also, individuals preparing for promotional exams

received leadership training through self-study.

Self-study resources for members of the CBFD, during this period, consisted primarily of

books found in the library of each fire station. These station libraries included three textbooks

that addressed management and leadership philosophy: (a) Fire Department Company Officer,

International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) 1998; (b) Management in the Fire

Service, NFPA 1999; and (c) Managing Fire and Rescue Services, International City/County

Management Association (ICMA) 2002. None of these books examine specific generational

characteristics as they pertain to leadership or followership.

In 2009, the training division took steps to improve company officer development by

designing and implementing two new training programs; the Acting Company Officer Program

(ACOP), and the Officer Development Program (ODP). The ACOP was provided to personnel

within the engineer rank, and the ODP was designed for incumbent company officers.

The ACOP was a 24-hour, four-module program intended to prepare personnel for

promotion to the rank of captain and to provide the necessary tools to operate in an acting officer

capacity. Modules included; (a) officer orientation, (b) leadership, (c) emergency response, and

(d) mock assessment center. The leadership module consisted of two sections; (a) Leading Your

Team, and (b) Incident Leadership. Both topics included computer-based training and classroom


sessions based on a curriculum package developed by Action Training Systems. Action Training

Systems designed their Officer I curriculum to NFPA 1021, Standard for Fire Officer

Professional Qualifications. None of the Action Training Systems Officer I curriculum

discussed generational differences as they pertain to leadership.

The ODP was developed to serve as continuing education for company officers and

acting company officers who completed the ACOP. This quarterly training included topics in

four categories; (a) personnel management, (b) advanced strategies and tactics, (c) leadership,

and (d) incident management. Leadership training within the program was accomplished using

both computer-based training and classroom sessions. Lesson plans for ODP classes were

derived from the Action Training Systems Officer I curriculum. Like the ACOP training, the

ODP lacked substantive discussion of generational differences among leaders and followers.

The ACOP and ODP were removed from the ongoing training program in 2011 at the direction

of the fire chief based on lack of time within the training schedule and technology barriers to

effective delivery of the online portion of the programs.

In 2016, the CBFD implemented a new leadership program that centered on the book

Extreme Ownership, How U.S. Navy Seals Lead and Win by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin. The

book was made part of the curriculum for newly hired recruits as well as incumbent firefighters

of all ranks. Copies of the book were distributed to all department members, and reading

assignments were made monthly. Each month the assigned chapters were reviewed in a small

group discussion format. While the book did not outline specific generational characteristics

regarding leadership and followership, many of the small group discussions touched on

differences between older and younger members of the department.


The only reference to generational differences this author could find in textbooks found

in the station libraries was Fire and Emergency Services Instructor, seventh edition, IFSTA.

Chapter eight, Student Attributes and Behaviors, defines and discusses four generational groups;

(a) Traditionalists, (b) Baby Boomers, (c) Generation X, and (d) Millennials. This textbook

provides information needed to address the job performance requirements of NFPA 1041,

Standard for Fire Service Instructor Professional Qualifications, 2007 edition. All CBFD

personnel who completed the Instructor I certification would have studied this text as part of

their Instructor I course.

Generational demographics of the 107-member department include; eight (7.5%) Baby

Boomers, 60 (56.7%) Generation X (Gen Xers), and 38 (35.9%) Millennials (see Figure 1). The

last Baby Boomer on the CBFD will be eligible to retire in five years. Also, 14 Gen Xers will be

eligible to retire within the same period. It is safe to assume that Millennials will make up the

majority of the staff within the next five years. Within the next ten years, 56.7% of current Gen

Xers will be eligible to retire, and by 2038, the last Gen Xer will be ready for retirement.

Therefore, over the next 20 years, the CBFD will see a complete generational change within the

department making room for Millennials and Generation Z (born 2001 and later). Therefore, an

effective leadership program is essential for preparing Millennials for future leadership positions.

This applied research project (ARP) relates to the National Fire Academy Executive

Leadership (EL) course in several ways. Executive Leadership student manual, Unit 4, discussed

the concept of thinking politically (EL Manual, 2015). This unit emphasizes that “each

stakeholder has a viewpoint, interests, and expectations that shape his or her attitude toward the

adaptive challenge” (EL Manual, 2015, p. 4-4). These concepts relate directly to understanding

the diverse values, experiences, and beliefs of different generational groups. Also, the Executive


Leadership Assessment (ELA) report that was reviewed in Unit 5 provides students with an

analysis of their observed leadership abilities and self-assessed leadership abilities. The results

assist students in the EL class to understand their strengths and weaknesses as they relate to

leading members of different generational groups within their fire department.

This ARP is related to the United State Fire Administration’s Strategic Plan, Goal 3, Key

Initiative 1; “Enhance fire and emergency services capabilities to respond to and recover from all

hazards incidents through training, education, exercises, and evaluation” (USFA, 2014, p. 12).

Leadership is an important component of preparedness, response, and recovery. This ARP will

explore generational differences and similarities as they relate to leadership. Also, this ARP

relates to Goal 4, Key Initiative 2; “Develop and deliver courses that provide leadership skills for

accomplishing local change through effective policies, decision-making, financial management

and community engagement” (USFA, 2014, p. 13). For local polices and decision-making to be

effective, they must be relatable to a wide range of generational attributes. This ARP will

examine methods to maximize the effectiveness of leadership skills as they relate to Millennials.

Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review was to gain insight into the characteristics of

different generational groups; specifically, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. Also,

this author reviewed information on leadership and followership skills in the workplace, as well

as leadership and generational topics specific to the fire service.

Generation is defined as “a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of

descent from an ancestor” (“Generation,” 2004, p. 521). When discussing generational groups,

the divisions we commonly refer to are not only based on birth years but also common


experiences within the groups (Nisen, 2013). According to Carlson (2009), “by virtue of when

they were born, members of each generation live through unique times shaped by unexpected

historical events, changing political climates, and evolving socioeconomic conditions” (p. 2).

Nisen (2013) describes these groups as cohorts, or a “…grouping of people based on common

experiences” (para. 5). This author will focus on the three generational groups that encompass

the CBFD staff; Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials. The birth year ranges for each of

these three generational groups vary slightly from source to source. Therefore, this author will

establish the birth year range for each group based on the most commonly found descriptions;

Baby Boomers 1946 to 1964, Generation X 1965 to 1980, and Millennials 1981 to 2000.

The Baby Boomer generation frequently refers to those people born between 1946 and

1964 (Gostick & Elton, 2018; “Generations defined,” 2018; Stowell, 2006; “Selected

Characteristics of Baby Boomers,” 2009). The Baby Boomer moniker reflects the substantial

increase in births following the end of World War II. Boomers represent an estimated 75.4

million cohorts in the United States (U.S.) (Ryback, 2016). A general feeling of extreme

optimism and growth characterized this era (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000).

Defining cultural events for Baby Boomers include: assassinations of political and

spiritual leaders; the Korean and Vietnam Wars; the space age; Woodstock and hippie counter-

culture; and the civil rights movement (Nisen, 2013; Ryback, 2016)

The Baby Boomer generation generally feels that hard work and long hours are the prices

that must be paid to realize self-achievement (Mercado, 2016). According to Nisen (2013), Baby

Boomers center their lives around work and value work more than younger generations. “Since

they sacrificed a great deal to get where they are, this workaholic generation believes that Gen X

and Y should pay their dues and conform to their culture of overwork” (Warner & Sandberg,


2010, p. 6). Although many late Baby Boomers rejected authority and cultural norms early in

their lives, as they grew older, they were typically highly loyal to their employer, work well in

teams, and accept the chain of command as a path to a better position (Mercado, 2016).

Baby Boomers grew up in an era where communications were accomplished through

letter writing, phone calls, and face-to-face interaction. Ryback (2016) theorized that Baby

Boomer’s interpersonal skills were highly developed as a result of the relative lack of

communications technology. Growing up during simpler times does not mean Baby Boomers

have not embraced technology as they have gotten older. According to Rogers (2009), Boomers

enjoy learning new advancements and eagerly share their knowledge with their peers. A

research study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and

Microsoft found that Baby Boomers are utilizing technology in the same ways as later

generations; social connections, media, online banking, and health care (Rogers, 2009).

Generation X is generally considered to include those born between 1965 and 1980

(“Gen X,” 2018; Ryback, 2016; Tishma, 2018). This cohort group grew up in homes that were

much different than their predecessors; high divorce rates, both parents in the workforce, and a

general lack of parental supervision (Warner & Sandberg, 2010). Gen Xers were latch-key kids,

learning independence and skepticism as they grew up spending less time with their parents than

Boomers (“Gen X,” 2018).

Generation X has been labeled by some as being politically apathetic, uninspired slackers

with a lack of respect for authority (“World Book Gen X,” 2016). This group of cohorts is also

technologically savvy, resourceful, and individualistic (Zemke et al., 2000). In the workplace,

they desire feedback but prefer minimal supervision, creating a challenging dichotomy for

managers (Zemke et al., 2000). The economic downturn in the 1980s exposed Gen Xers to


employment hardships felt by their hard-working Boomer parents; unemployment, gasoline

shortages, loss of retirement investments, and inflation (Kane, 2018). As a result, Gen Xers

exhibit less loyalty to employers and show a willingness to change jobs, especially if they

perceive a move will improve their work-life balance (Kane, 2018; Zemke et al., 2000). Their

affinity for change may stem from the independence they developed early in life shuffling

between divorced parents, changing cities, and self-supervision (Zemke et al., 2000).

Defining cultural moments for Gen Xers include: political upheaval during the Watergate

scandal and the end of the Vietnam War; economic recession; the AIDS epidemic, ecological

disasters such as Three Mile Island and the Bhopal India chemical release; and the end of the

Cold War (Nisen, 2013; “World Book Gen X,” 2016; Kane, 2018; Ryback, 2016). Generation X

is expected to peak in 2018 at 65.8 million and will outnumber Baby Boomers by 2028; 64.6

million Gen Xers to 63.7 million Boomers (Fry, 2018; Kane, 2018).

The Millennial generation commonly refers to people born between 1981 and 2000

(Ryback, 2016; Zemke et al., 2000; West Midland Family Center [WMFC], 2018). Millennials

may also be referred to as Generation Y, Generation Next, and the Echo Boomers (“Gen Y,”

2018; Nisen, 2013; Crawford, 2015; Gostick & Elton, 2018; WMFC, 2018). Millennials are part

of a generation that saw a substantial increase in births in the U.S. compared to Generation X;

3.9 million births per year for Millennials to 3.5 million births per year for Gen Xers (Fry, 2018).

This increase was not as significant as the growth witnessed during the Baby Boomer generation,

but still earned Millennials the moniker of Echo Boomers (Fry, 2018). Also, Millennials are

currently the largest generational group in the U.S. with over 80 million cohorts (U.S. Chamber

of Commerce Foundation [U.S. Chamber], 2012; Main, 2017). Defining cultural events for


Millennials include; the terrorist attacks of September 11th, school shootings, the tech boom, and

the emergence of digital media (“Gen Y,” 2018; WMFC, 2018).

Several factors shaped the Millennial generations; the ubiquitous presence of technology,

a diverse and growing society, and close relationships with their parents (“Gen Y,” 2018; Nisen,

2013; WMFC, 2018). Millennials are the most technologically adept generation, having never

known a world without cell phones, video games, and computers (“Gen Y,” 2018; WMFC,

2018). Being the most tech-savvy generation has been both positive and negative for the group.

Millennials are highly educated, innovative, and desire to harness technology to create positive

change (WMFC, 2018). According to Patterson (2017), “learning is a faster and more flexible

endeavor for Millennials, and they are more versed in communications due to their affinity for

social media” (para. 8). Conversely, technological advancements in information sharing, real-

time news, and social communications have fueled Millennials need for immediacy, feedback,

and approval (“Gen Y,” 2018). According to Nisen (2013), Millennials can be impatient with

career advancement causing them to jump from one organization to another. Mercado (2018)

stated,

Millennials seek a feeling of self-achievement from their careers on day one. They don’t

simply want to work; they need to feel that they are doing something important. They

may move from one company to the next in order to seek this. (para. 6)

Also, Ryback (2016) states, “Millennials may be known as successful and driven, but their

marriage to technology has nearly destroyed their interpersonal skills…” (para. 11). Rashid

(2017) agrees with Ryback, stating. “it may seem surprising that a generation so digitally

connected to the world could struggle with communication” (para. 9). Rashid (2017) notes two


reasons why Millennials struggle with interpersonal skills; (a) Millennials are too dependent on

digital forms of communication, and (b) they avoid conflict.

They have gotten so good at communicating through screens and haven’t focused on

honing their face-to-face communication skills. Additionally, this generation is also

more likely to rely on their devices to escape social interactions – they’d rather bury their

heads in a screen than confront uncomfortable situations. (Rashid, 2017, para. 11)

The inability to effectively communicate is widespread within the fire service. Kastros (2014)

notes, “communication and accountability (easily correlated to conflict resolution) are the two

most commonly cited problems on the fireground. In fact, the National Institute of Occupational

Safety and Health list them among the top five causal factors in line-of-duty deaths” (para. 19).

The legitimate authority of fire department leaders is enhanced when effective communications

occur within the crew (International Association of Fire Chiefs [IAFC], n.d.). “Leaders who are

open and promote respectful communication with their personnel are more effective” (IAFC,

n.d., p. 7).

The Millennial generation is the most diverse group of cohorts in U.S. history. Nonwhite

Americans account for approximately 28% of Baby Boomers and 39% of Gen Xers; compared to

43% of Millennials (Raphelson, 2014). Millennials have grown up “…in a changing

demographic society where one in three classmates have been of a different racial, cultural or

ethnic background” (“Gen Y,” 2018, para. 8). This affinity for diversity plays a part in

Millennials preference for working in teams rather than individually. Millennial diversity

extends beyond simply ethnicity. Main (2017) describes Millennials as “…open-minded, and


more supportive of gay rights and equal rights for minorities” (para. 8). This group is extremely

accepting and identifies as members of a global community (WMFC, 2018).

Another unique characteristic of Millennials is their close relationships with their parents.

Parents of Millennials were generally less authoritative; fostering a partnership type of

relationship with their children that was nurturing and protective (Ryback, 2016; “Gen Y,”

2018). According to Wiley (2016), “Baby Boomers and Gen Xers weren’t coddled when they

were young, so now they over-coddle their children to overcompensate for what they didn’t

have” (para. 3). A common criticism of Millennials is that during their young, formative years,

they were praised and rewarded for participation rather than achievement (Wiley, 2016). This

need for approval has translated to the workplace. “As a result, these young workers have high

expectations of recognition and reward from others with minimal effort on their part” (“Gen Y,”

2018, para. 5).

Managing groups of people representing different cohort groups can be challenging;

regardless of which generation is leading and the mix of generations following. Generational

groups share common beliefs, principles, and attitudes that were shaped by both their age and

cultural experiences (Warner & Sandberg, 2010). Therefore, employing a leadership style that is

effective with Gen Xers may not be well received by Boomers and Millennials. Tishma (2018)

explains, “each generation has a preferred way it likes to be led and using these preferred

leadership styles managers are better able to build trust and communicate with employees in the

best possible way to boost understanding, motivation and results” (para. 3).

While individual leadership styles and characteristics will vary from person to person,

each generational group have shared experiences that shape their leadership philosophy. The


Baby Boomer generation strives for work environments that are collaborative, caring, and fair to

all members of the group (Zemke et al., 2000). Salahuddin (2010) describes Baby Boomer

management style as participative, valuing “…consensus, team building, and quality circles” (p.

3). Participative or democratic leadership is an effective way of gaining input from workers but

is not well suited for situations that are time critical (Duggan, n.d.). Zemke et al., (2000) agrees

that Baby Boomers profess to employ a participative management style, but sometimes fall short.

“The Boomers grew up, for the most part, with conservative parents and worked in their early

careers for command-and-control-style supervisors. Boomer managers sometimes have a hard

time actually practicing, day in and day out, the management style they profess” (Zemke et al.,

2000, p. 79).

Gen Xers in the workplace are creative, independent, informal, and may at times be

brutally honest (Warner & Sandberg, 2010). This straightforwardness is succinctly described by

Salahuddin (2010) as, “…they tend to lack people skills” (p. 4). Furthermore, Gen Xers feel the

traditional chain-of-command hierarchy slows down their productivity, and they excel in an

ever-changing environment (Zemke et al., 2000). According to Tishma (2018), Gen Xers

“…may not fit into one set traditional leadership style” (para. 17). A research study conducted

by Salahuddin (2010) concluded that Generation Xers considered their leadership style as

situational. If Gen Xers lead in the way they want to be led, then one could expect a hands-off

manager who expects workers to multitask, work in small groups, anticipate and adapt to change,

and accept direct, unvarnished instructions and feedback (WMFC, 2018). According to

Salahuddin (2010), “Generation Xers lead by challenging the thinking and ideas of others,

bringing in the masses to the decision-making process” (p. 4). Zemke et al. (2000) describe

Generation X managers as “…fair, competent, straightforward leaders” (p. 115).


As more Millennials enter the labor force and move up through the ranks, it is essential to

understand their role as leader. Two critical factors illustrate the need for strategies to prepare

Millennials for leadership roles; (a) large numbers of Baby Boomers are leaving the workforce,

and (b) there are not enough Gen Xers to fill leadership roles. According to Heimlich (2010),

“roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today (January 1, 2011), and about 10,000 more will

cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years” (p. 1). While not all Boomers will retire at

age 65, the sharp reduction in the workforce will likely leave a gap in leadership (Brennan,

2018). The decline in births during the Generation X era (21 million less than Baby Boomers

and 7 million less than Millennials) has paved the way for Millennials to take over the U.S.

workforce (Fry, 2018) Pew Research Center data shows that Millennials represent a majority,

35% (56 million), of the American workforce compared to 53 million Gen Xers and 41 million

Baby Boomers (Fry, 2018). The number of Millennials in the labor force is expected to continue

to grow as more Millennials graduate from college and immigration among working-age

Millennials continues (Feeney, 2015).

As Millennials continue to join the ranks of management and enter formal leadership

roles within their organization, their leadership style will emerge. Salahuddin (2010) indicates

that his research has not revealed a preferred leadership style for Millennials. Brennan (2018)

describes Millennials as “emerging leaders” (para. 1), and organizations should be developing

Millennials for leadership responsibilities. Core values, work values, and ethics have shaped the

leadership styles of previous generations (Salahuddin, 2010). If you apply the same framework

(to forecast the leadership style) to Millennials, Salahuddin (2010) predicts “…they will lean

toward a leadership style of transformational and participative” (p. 4).


The important role of follower within an organization cannot be overstated. In the past,

the role of the follower has been framed as a negative attribute, a passive role that is somehow

sub-par or weak (Blackshear, 2004). Kelley (1988) explains the importance of followers,

“organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their leaders lead, but partly also on

the basis of how well their followers follow” (para. 2). The important relationship between

leaders and followers is further explained by Blackshear. “In actuality, followership is a

relationship between followers and leaders, one of co-dependent roles rather then (sic) dependent

ones” (Blackshear, 2004, p. 3). Development of followership skills among workers may affect

the future leadership styles they employ. “Valuing followers and their development is the first

step toward cultivating effective transformational leaders- people capable of motivating

followers to achieve mission requirements in the absence of hygienic or transactional rewards…”

(Latour & Rast, 2004, para. 4). According to Blackshear (2004), there are four main areas in

which followership is grounded: “belief in an organizations mission, vision or purpose;

willingness to subjugate personal interest for the greater good; loyalty; and, unity of focus” (p.

4).

McCallum (2013) describes followership roles as “…in organizations everybody is both a

leader and a follower depending on the circumstances…” (para. 6). He goes on to describe eight

attributes that enhance followership; “judgement, work ethic, competence, honesty, courage,

discretion, loyalty, and ego management” (McCallum, 2013, p. 2-3). Within the fire service,

followership skills include; “respect for authority, know the limits of your authority, desire to

make the leader succeed, possess good communication skills, develop and maintain a positive

learning attitude, establish an assertiveness/authority balance, and be flexible” (IAFC, n.d., p.

11).


Kelley (1988) describes different motivations for workers to play the role of the follower;

some get satisfaction in furthering the goals of the organization, others see followership as a

means to future promotion, some recognize the value in learning from their leaders. Noteworthy

attributes of followers, as explained by Kelley (1988), include; self-management, commitment to

the organization, competence, and courage.

Followership styles can be categorized into five different types (see Appendix B, Figure

B2); (a) alienated followers, (b) sheep, (c) yes people, (d) effective followers, and (e) survivors

(Kelley, 1988). Kelley (1988) describes alienated followers disgruntled, cynical, and passive in

their effort. These followers provide little feedback to their leaders or engagement. McCallum

(2013) notes that good followers possess a strong work ethic which is absent in alienated

followers and sheep. According to Kelley (1988), sheep represent workers who do little more

than the minimum to get by. “Sheep are passive and uncritical, lacking in initiative and sense of

responsibility” (Kelley, 1988, para. 13).

Yes people are more active than alienated and sheep follower groups but score low on

critical thinking attributes. As the name implies, these followers rarely challenge supervisors,

lack inspiration for change, and are dependent upon supervisors for direction (Kelley, 1988).

These characteristics are contrary to what McCallum (2013) identifies as a good follower,

specifically in the attribute of honesty. McCallum (2013) states, “the follower owes the leader

an honest and forthright assessment of what the leader is trying to achieve and how. This is

especially the case when the follower feels the leader’s agenda is seriously flawed” (para. 12).

Effective followers rank high in both critical thinking and active work style (Kelley,

1988). Latour and Rast (2004) suggest, “…successful leaders cite critical thinking as a behavior


they expect of their most valued followers. As for the concept of participation, a person engaged

actively and comprehensively brings to mind an image of someone ‘leaning forward’ into the

situation…” (para. 9). The follower group that shares characteristics of the previously described

four follower groups are the survivors. This group will, at times, display the positive

followership qualities of effective followers, but also fall short in areas of critical thinking and

active/passive effort in the workplace (Kelley, 1988). According to Kelley (1988), survivors

“…perpetually sample the wind and live by the slogan ‘better safe than sorry. They are adept at

surviving change” (para. 14).

According to Blackshear (2004), followership attributes are not static but move

(positively and negatively) along a followership continuum. “Based on workplace interactions

an exemplary follower could encounter negative influences that reduce followership output

levels. Moreover, persons below the exemplary followership stage could encounter positive

influences that increase output levels” (Blackshear, 2004, p. 6). Because followership skills are

dynamic and can be influenced and thus improved, there exists a strong case for active

development of followership skills. According to Latour and Rast (2004), mentoring is a critical

component when developing followership skills. “A mentoring culture is necessary to pass on

the obvious and subtle values, priorities, behaviors, and traditions in an organization” (Latour &

Rast, 2004, para. 25).

The quality of leadership seen in future fire service leaders is dependent upon the older

generations sharing their experiences with the younger generation; both our victories and defeats

(Cline, 2018). Cline (2018) emphasizes the importance of carefully planning mentoring

activities, “as we begin developing these new leaders we must assure that we are creating level

appropriate environments for their mentoring. Nothing can frustrate an individual more than to


be placed above their capabilities” (para. 11). Kastros (2014) agrees with the importance of

leaders mentoring role, stating, “many fire departments across the country have excellent leaders.

These individuals mentor, build other up, move their organizations forward…” (para. 2).

Kastros (2014) goes on to discuss the importance of not just talking about leadership but

providing “…systematic, modern, realistic, effective, continual, and hands-on leadership

training” (para. 2). This type of hands-on leadership training for future supervisors includes:

conflict resolution roleplays, fireground simulations, and communication drills (Kastros, 2014).

Alyn (2011), while discussing idealized influence, states, “the development of the follower

through mentoring, training, and coaching is a high priority for the leader” (para. 5).

Langan and Feuquay (2010) discuss the significance of identifying and developing

leadership skills in younger firefighters, stating; “…leadership characteristics normally

associated with higher ranks- strategic thinking, team development skills, community and

government relations, vision of the future, and incident management skills- are also important at

lower ranks” (p. 43). Furthermore, Langan and Feuquay (2010) note the importance of

promoting a departmental philosophy where mentoring is not only expected but rewarded.

“Mentoring is a fundamental function of any leadership position. Developing and supporting

prospective leadership ensures a department’s future. A sense of commitment from department

leadership to its members is fostered.” (IAFC, n.d., p. 8).

The leadership style employed by supervisors in the fire service is significantly affected

by their generational experiences and characteristics. Lines of authority within fire service

organizations have been traditionally established by a para-military style hierarchy (International

Association of Fire Chiefs [IAFC], n.d.). According to Shaw (2011), technological

advancements and changing generational characteristics effect on society have caused a shift


away from para-military hagiarchy within the fire service. “We are in a rush all of time. We

need instant access to information. We demand services and benefits. We want luxury working

conditions. And yet, we offer nothing in return to our employers for these creature comforts”

(Shaw, 2011, para. 6). Shaw’s (2011) description of current societal expectations closely reflects

the generational characteristics mostly attributed to Millennials.

A common leadership style utilized in the fire service is transactional leadership (Alyn,

2011). Transactional leadership is described as “…a give-and-take relationship between the

manager and the employee. This means that the manager and employee are predetermined to

meet goals together and the manager provides rewards or punishments to team members based

on their accomplishments…” (Tishma, 2018, p. 2) Alyn (2011) explains, “transactional

leadership is not a bad style of leadership, but it is not a style of leadership that causes people to

perform beyond their own expectations” (para. 2). Conversely, transformational leadership

promotes elevating all members of the organization through collaboration, inspiration, and

shared values (Alyn, 2011).

A research study on whether the perceived leadership styles among fire service leaders

affected organizational commitment conducted by Alyn (2011) found that when supervisors

employed transformational leadership, the result was higher levels of commitment to the

organization among firefighters. Transformational leaders inspire followers to exceed individual

and team expectations, and its use in the fire service may be valuable to leaders, followers, and

the organization.

Tishma (2018) contends that while transactional leadership “…is not the preferred style

for any generation, it includes aspects of each of the preferred leadership styles and is easiest to

relate across generations” (para. 21). Advantages of the transactional leadership style include;


clearly defined expectations and consequences, flexibility to work individually or in groups, and

the capacity to set and achieve short-range goals quickly (Tishma, 2018). Conversely, creativity

and initiative are stifled when goals and objectives are already established by transactional

leaders (Tishma, 2018).

The findings of the literation review influenced the project in many ways. A

comprehensive examination of the Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial generational

groups was conducted. Leadership styles were discussed within the context of generational

differences. The importance of followership and its close relationship to effective leadership

demonstrated the need for developing both in current and future leaders. A review of leadership

and followership characteristics within the fire service provided valuable insight into how they

relate to departmental culture and training programs. Mentoring was cited by numerous sources

as an essential component of leadership and followership development. All of these topics may

be utilized in the interpretation of research results and formulation of recommendations.

Procedures

The purpose of this ARP is to determine if the current leadership training program is

meeting the needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the CBFD and, if not, to

identify improvement opportunities. To achieve that purpose, research was conducted to answer

the following research questions; (a) what leadership styles and characteristics do current

generational groups within the CBFD identify with, (b) how do the current generational groups

within the CBFD rate their followership skills, (c) what leadership styles and characteristics do

Millennials within the fire service prefer in their supervisors, (d) what are other fire departments

currently doing to address generational characteristics found in Millennial fire suppression

personnel, (e) what steps can be taken by the CBFD to adapt the existing leadership training


program to address the specific generational characteristics found among Millennial fire

suppression personnel?

The descriptive research method was employed to assist in understanding the

organizational problem stated in this ARP. This author explored relevant topics, including;

leadership and followership attributes, characteristics of generational groups, and how leadership

training affects the Millennial generation of firefighters within the CBFD. Information was

gathered through a comprehensive literature review, distribution of two internal surveys and one

external survey to answer the research questions.

Research for this ARP began at the National Fire Academy (NFA) Learning Resource

Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Card catalog searches for keywords were conducted, that

included; generational leadership, firefighter leadership, Millennial leadership, and leadership

training in the fire service. This author obtained copies of the relevant sources while at the NFA.

Research continues at the Council Bluffs (IA) Public Library and CBFD station library utilizing

printed materials and internet sources.

Research Question 1: What leadership styles and characteristics do current generational

groups within the CBFD identify with? To answer Question 1, this author utilized a seven-

question survey designed using the Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com) platform.

Participants were selected based on their employment with the CBFD. All 107 members of the

CBFD were sent a request via interdepartmental email to participate in the survey. The email

message contained a brief overview of the project and instructions on how to participate.

Surveys were completed either through an internet hyperlink embedded in the email or by

scanning the attached QR code that would link the participant to the survey website. Survey

questions were written to determine (a) what generations group the survey participant identified


with, (b) if participants felt different generations groups working together had any impact on

both emergency and non-emergency activities, (c) perceived leadership styles of supervisors

during both emergency and non-emergency activities, and (d) preferred leadership styles of

supervisors during emergency and non-emergency activities. Survey results were then analyzed

using Microsoft Excel and summarized in Appendix A.

Research Question 2: How do the current generational groups within the CBFD rate their

followership skills? To answer Question 2, this author utilized a predesigned survey titled the

Followership Style Questionnaire. The survey was located using an internet search of the term

followership survey. The survey did not contain any copyright claims on any of the various sites

that it was found. As a courtesy, this author attempted to contact the author of the survey, Dr.

Robert Kelley, but did not receive a response. The survey contains a total of 20 questions; ten

questions that rate independent thinking skills, and ten questions that rate active engagement

skills. Each question is ranked on a 0 to 6 scale; Rarely = 0, Occasionally = 3, and Almost

Always = 6.

Total scores for independent thinking and active engagement are then plotted on a four-

quadrant graph with each quadrant representing a different followership style. An example of

the four-quadrant graph with followership styles can be found in Appendix B, Figure B1. Paper

copies of the questionnaire were distributed to all five CBFD fire station on each of the three

shifts. Survey participants were selected based on their employment with the CBFD.

Completion of the survey was proctored by a representative of the CBFD Training Division and

completed questionnaires given to this author for analysis. Survey results were segmented into

the three generational group representing the CBFD, and then a composite of all three


generational groups was tabulated. Survey results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and

developed into tables found in the Appendix B.

Research Question 3: What leadership styles and characteristics do Millennials within

the fire service prefer in their supervisors? To answer Question 3, this author utilized answers

from the seven-question survey described in Research Question 1. Specifically, participants

were asked what type of leadership style they prefer in their supervisor during both emergency

and non-emergency activities.

Research Question 4: What are other fire departments currently doing to address

generational characteristics found in Millennial fire suppression personnel? To answer Question

4, this author developed a ten-question survey utilized the Survey Monkey

(www.surveymonkey.com) platform. The survey was distributed via email to 50 fire service

colleagues from various states in the U.S. The email included a brief description of the project

and instructions on how to participate. Also, the email included an internet hyperlink and

scannable QR code that would link the participant to the survey website. Survey participants

were selected based on their role as instructors, training officers, chief officers or other

leadership positions within their fire departments.

Survey questions were developed to determine (a) the type and frequency of leadership

and followership training conducted by other fire departments, (b) which ranks receive

leadership and followership training, (c) if fire departments provide training on generational

differences, (d) if fire departments provide training that is specific to Millennials, and (e) how

important understanding generational differences is for fire service leaders. Survey results were

then analyzed using Microsoft Excel and summarized in Appendix C.


Research Question 5: What steps can be taken by the CBFD to adapt the existing

leadership training program to address the specific generational characteristics found among

Millennial fire suppression personnel? To answer Research Question 5, this author utilized

answers from the ten-question external survey (Fire Department Leadership Survey) described in

Research Question 4. Information from the two internal surveys (CBFD Leadership Survey and

Followership Style Questionnaire) described in Research Question 1 and Research Question 2

was also utilized to answer Research Question 5. In addition, information gathered in the

literature review provided insight on generational characteristics and leadership qualities and

needs specific to Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials. This authors knowledge of the

CBFD training schedule and current leadership training program also played a part in identifying

methods to adapt the existing training program to address the specific generational characteristics

of Millennial firefighters.

There were several limitations to this research. Less than 50% of the total members of

the CBFD completed the online survey intended to help answer Research Questions 1, 3 and 5.

A higher response to the survey would have yielded a more accurate interpretation of the views

of CBFD staff. Additionally, several limitations are inherent with anonymous, online surveys;

technical issues may occur that make surveys inaccessible or incomplete, the truthfulness of the

answers provided by participants, the inability to expand on answers outside of the online

format; and the inability of this author to clarify their responses and comments. Many of the

comments left by respondents were incomplete or vague. This made it difficult to determine the

exact methods other departments utilized to provide leadership training.


Results

Research Question 1. What leadership styles and characteristics do current generational

groups within the CBFD identify with? Data collected from an internal, online survey given to

CBFD personnel provided information necessary to answer Research Question 1. The seven-

question survey was sent to 107 CBFD personnel which represents all fire department staff

currently working. The completion rate for this survey was 41.5% with 44 personnel

participating.

Participants were asked to identify the generational group they belong to. Choices were

listed as: Baby Boomers, 1946 to 1964; Gen Xers, 1965 to 1980; and Millennials, 1981 to 2000.

Out of the 44 responses, two (4.55%) indicated Baby Boomers, 28 (63.64%) indicated Gen Xers,

and 14 (31.82%) indicated Millennials (see Appendix A, Question 1).

Participants were asked if they believed having personnel from different generations

groups working together have any impact on emergency scene activities. Three response choices

were provided; positive impact, negative impact, and no impact. Respondents indicating a

positive impact at emergency scenes included; 1 (50.00%) Baby Boomer, 15 (53.57%) Gen Xers,

and 6 (42.85%) Millennials. Overall, 22 (50.00%) of the 44 respondents feel having different

generational groups working together at emergency scenes has a positive impact. Respondents

indicating a negative impact at emergency scenes included; 1 (50.00%) baby boomer, 1 (3.57%)

Gen Xer, and 1 (7.14%) Millennial. Respondents indicating no impact were as follows; 0 (zero)

Baby Boomers; 12 (42.86%) Gen Xers, and 7 (50.00%) Millennials. Overall, 19 of 44

respondents (43.18%) felt that different generational groups working together at emergency

scenes had no impact.


Comments explaining respondents positive or negative impact selection included:

different views and different methods of approach can be beneficial; there seems to be a

language and work ethic barrier; mostly positive if everyone is willing to learn from each other;

and diversity is good. A complete listing of respondent comments can be found in Appendix A,

Question 2.

Respondents were asked what leadership style best describes their current supervisor at

emergency scenes. Five leadership styles with descriptions were provided for participants,

including; autocratic, democratic, laisse-faire, transactional, and transformational. There were

five respondents (11.36%) that selected autocratic leadership; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 1 (3.57%)

Gen Xer, and 4 (28.57%) Millennials. Eighteen (40.91%) of respondents indicated democratic

leadership; 1 (50.00%) Baby Boomer, 10 (35.71%) Gen Xers, and 7 (50.00%) Millennials.

Laisse-Faire Leadership was selected by 10 (22.73%) of all respondents; 1 (50.00%) baby

boomer, 7 (25.00%) Gen Xers, and 2 (14.29%) Millennials. Transactional leadership was

selected by 3 (10.71%) Gen Xers and no Baby Boomers or Millennials. Transformational

leadership was selected by 8 (18.18%) of all respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 7 (25.00%)

Gen Xers, and 1 (18.18%) Millennial (see Appendix A, Question 3).

Participants were asked what leadership style from their supervisor they would respond to

most favorably at emergency scenes. The same five leadership styles from Question 3 were

provided; autocratic, democratic, laisse-faire, transactional, and transformational. Autocratic

leadership was selected by 5 (11.35%) of all respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 4 (14.29%)

Gen Xers, and 1 (7.14%) Millennial. Fourteen (31.82%) of all respondents preferred democratic

leadership style at emergency scenes; 1 (50.00%) Baby Boomer, 7 (25.00%) Gen Xers, and 6

(42.86%) Millennials. Laisse-faire leadership was preferred by 6 (13.64%) of overall


respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 5 (17.86%) Gen Xers, and 1 (7.14%) Millennial.

Transactional leadership was selected by 7 (15.91%) of all respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers,

5 (17.86%) Gen Xers, and 2 (14.29%) Millennials. Transformational leadership was the second

highest preferred leadership style with 12 (27.27%) of all respondents making this selection; 1

(50.00%) Baby Boomer, 7 (25.00%) Gen Xers, and 4 (28.57%) Millennials. The most preferred

leadership style at emergency scenes overall was democratic being selected by 31.82% of

respondents (see Appendix A, Question 4).

Participants were asked if having different generational groups working together has any

impact on non-emergency activities or station culture. Three response choices were provided;

positive impact, negative impact, and no impact. Positive impact was selected by 17 (38.64%) of

overall respondents; 1 (50.00%) Baby Boomer, 11 (42.86%) Gen Xers, and 5 (35.71%)

Millennials. Negative impact during non-emergency activities was selected by 11 (25.00%) of

all respondents; 1 (50.00%) Baby Boomer, 7 (21.43%) Gen Xers, and 3 (21.42%) Millennials.

No impact was selected by 16 (36.36%) of overall respondents; 10 (35.71%) Gen Xers, 6

(42.86%) Millennials, and no Baby Boomers.

Comments explaining respondents positive or negative impact selection included:

different views and approach can be beneficial; it seems to be hard for each group to understand

the other at times; we learn from each other, mostly positive; older fellas are more stuck in their

ways and fight change; and some feel that doing station chores are beneath them and only do the

minimum to get by, entitled. A complete listing of respondent comments can be found in

Appendix A, Question 5.


Participants were asked to indicate the leadership style that best describes their current

supervisor during non-emergency activities. The same five leadership styles used in Question 3

and Question 4 were provided. Autocratic leadership was selected by 6 (13.64%) of overall

respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 3 (10.71%) Gen Xers, and 3 (21.42%) Millennials.

Democratic leadership was selected by 15 (34.09%) of all respondents; 1 (50.00%) Baby

Boomer, 9 (32.14%) Gen Xers, 5 (35.71%) Millennials. Laisse-faire was indicated by 12

(27.27%) of respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 8 (28.57%) Gen Xers, and 4 (28.57%)

Millennials. Only 2 (4.55%) of overall respondents selected transactional leadership; 1 (3.57%)

Gen Xer, and 1 (7.14%) Millennial, with no Baby Boomers making this selection.

Transformational leadership was selected by 9 (20.45%) of overall respondents; 1 (50.00%)

Baby Boomer, 7 (25.00%) Gen Xers, and 1 (7.14%) Millennial. Overall, most respondents

(34.09%) indicated their supervisor utilized democratic leadership during non-emergency

activities (see Appendix A, Question 6).

Participants were asked to indicate what leadership style they would prefer to see in their

supervisor during non-emergency activities. The same five leadership styles used in Questions

3, 4, and 6 were provided as response choices. Only 1 (3.57%) Gen Xer indicated a preference

for autocratic leadership with no Baby Boomers or Millennials making this selection.

Democratic leadership was selected by 18 (40.91%) of overall respondents; 1 (50.00%) Baby

Boomer, 12 (42.86%) Gen Xers, and 5 (35.71%) Millennials. Laisse-faire leadership was

selected by 6 (13.64%) of all respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 4 (14.29%) Gen Xers, and 2

(14.29%) Millennials. Transactional leadership was preferred by 5 (11.36%) of overall

respondents; 0 (zero) Baby Boomers, 3 (10.71%) Gen Xers, and 2 (14.29%) Millennials.

Transformational leadership was the second most preferred leadership style with 14 (31.82%) of


all respondents making this selection; 1 (50.00%) Baby Boomer, 8 (28.57%) Gen Xers, and 5

(35.71%) Millennials. Democratic leadership was the most preferred leadership style during

non-emergency activities among all respondents being selected by 40.91% of all participants (see

Appendix A, Question 7).

Specific answer to Research Question 1. A majority of respondents indicated that the

democratic leadership best described their current supervisor in both emergency and non-

emergency activities. The democratic leadership style was also most preferred by respondents in

both emergency and non-emergency activities. Transformational leadership was the second most

preferred leadership style.

Research Question 2. How do the current generational groups within the CBFD rate their

followership skills? Information collected from an internal, paper survey that was given to

CBFD personnel provided answers to Research Question 2. The survey titled Followership Style

Questionnaire was administered to 56 CBFD personnel with 100% participation rate. Reported

scores for the categories of independent thinking and active engagement represent the individual

answers and cohort averages to the questions. The total possible score in each of the two

categories was 60; 10 questions for each category, scored 1-6 by the respondent.

Results for Baby Boomers were gathered from three Baby Boomer participants. The

average score for independent thinking was 42.33. Baby Boomer participants averaged 43.67 in

the active engagement category. All three Baby Boomer participants scores showed an effective

followership style. There were no Baby Boomers who demonstrate alienated, sheep, or yes

people followership styles (see Appendix B, Table B1).


There were 31 Generation X participants in the followership questionnaire. The average

score in the category of independent thinking was 40.48. Gen X participants average score for

active engagement was 48.06. Fourteen Gen Xers submitted scores that placed them in the

survivor followership style category. The effective followership style was found in 17 Gen Xers.

There were no Gen Xers who demonstrate alienated, sheep, or yes people followership styles

(see Appendix B, Table B2).

Millennials participating in the survey were represented by 22 cohorts. The average

score for independent thinking in this group was 39.91. Millennials scored an average of 45.27

in the active engagement category. There were 13 Millennials who demonstrated survivor

followership style. Effective followership style was found in nine Millennials. There were no

Millennials showing alienated, sheep, or yes people followership styles (see Appendix B, Table

B3).

Specific answer to Research Question 2. Overall results for all 56 participants revealed

an average independent thinking score of 40.91 and an average active engagement score of

45.67. There were no survey participants who demonstrated alienated, sheep, or yes people

followership styles. Twenty-seven participants showed survivor followership tendencies, and 29

participants were categorized in the effective followership style (see Appendix B, Table B4).

Research Question 3. What leadership styles and characteristics do Millennials within

the fire service prefer in their supervisors? Data collected from the survey detailed in Research

Question 1 (Appendix A) provided information necessary to answer Research Question 3. The

seven-question survey was sent to 107 CBFD personnel which represents all fire department

staff currently working. The completion rate for this survey was 41.5% with 44 personnel


participating. Survey Question 4 and Question 7 specifically asked which leadership style they

prefer in both emergency and non-emergency activities, respectively.

Millennials were asked what leadership style from their supervisor would they respond to

most favorably at emergency scenes. Five leadership styles were provided with descriptions as

respondent choices; autocratic, democratic, laisse-faire, transactional, and transformational.

Millennials who participated in the survey selected their preferences as follows: democratic

leadership, 6 (42.86%); transformational leadership, 4 (28.57%); transactional leadership, 2

(14.29%); autocratic and laisse-faire leadership styles each were selected by 1 (7.14%)

respondent (see Appendix A, Question 4).

Millennials were asked what leadership style they preferred from their supervisor during

non-emergency activities. The same five leadership styles described in Question 4 were

provided. Millennials who participated in the survey were split between democratic leadership

and transformational leadership with each style being selected by 5 (35.71%) of respondents.

Laisse-faire leadership and transactional leadership both had 2 (14.29%) respondents select those

leadership styles (see Appendix A, Question 7).

Specific answer to Research Question 3. At emergency scenes, a majority of Millennial

respondents prefer the democratic leadership style from their supervisors. During non-

emergency activities, Millennials equally favor democratic and transformational leadership

styles.

Research Question 4. What are other fire departments currently doing to address

generational characteristics found in Millennial fire suppression personnel? To answer Research

Question 4, this author utilized data that was collected from a ten-question online survey. The


survey was sent to 50 fire service colleagues from around the U.S. that included training officers,

instructors, front-line officers, and chief officers. These individuals were chosen to participate

based on the diversity of fire department size, type, and region. The completion rate for this

survey was 62.00% as 31 of the 50 individuals responded to the survey request.

Participants were asked what type of fire department they associated with. Five response

choices were provided; volunteer, paid-on-call, combination, career, and other. Volunteer fire

departments were the highest represented with 12 (38.71%), followed by: combination, 9

(29.03%); career, 7 (22.58%); and other 3 (9.68%). No respondents indicated they were

associated with paid-on-call type departments. A comments section was included for those

participants responding as other. Comments included; both career and volunteer, retired from a

combination department, and retired volunteer (see Appendix C, Question 1).

Participants were asked to indicate the size of the department they were associated with.

Five response choices were provided; 20 or less, 21 to 50, 51 to 150, 151 to 300, 301 or more.

Five (16.13%) respondents indicated they represented departments of 20 members or less, 17

(54.84%) indicated 21 to 50 members, 7 (22.58%) selected 51 to 150 members, 1 (3.23%)

respondent selected 151 to 300, and 1 (3.23%) respondent was associated with a department with

more than 301 members (see Appendix C, Question 2).

Participants were asked if their department provided any type of leadership training for their

personnel. Response choices were yes or no. Twenty-one (67.74%) respondents indicated that

their department does provide leadership training. Ten (32.26%) participants represent

departments that do not provide any type of leadership training. Respondents who answered in

the affirmative were asked to describe the type of leadership training their department provides.


Comments included: fire schools; officers are encouraged to further their education

through certification and other learning opportunities; fire schools, FSTB (Fire Service Training

Bureau), and officer classes; leadership training is encouraged at local/regional fire schools;

and acting officer training development, continuing officer training for lieutenants and chiefs. A

full listing of comments can be found in Appendix C, Question 3.

Participants were asked which members receive leadership training when it is provided.

Six response choices were provided; firefighters, driver/operators, captains/lieutenants, chief

officers, all personnel, and none. There were 13 (41.94%) respondents that indicated none of

their personnel receive leadership training. Other ranks that receive leadership training as

indicated by respondent choices: firefighters, 4 (12.9%); driver/operators, 4 (12.90%);

captains/lieutenants, 10 (32.26%); and chief officers, 13 (41.94%). Also, 6 (19.36%)

respondents indicated that all personnel within their department receive leadership training (see

Appendix C, Question 4).

Participants were asked if their department provides any type of followership training for

personnel. Response choices were yes or no. A majority of respondents, 26 (83.87%), indicated

that their department does not provide followership training for their personnel. Five (16.13%)

respondents answered that their department provides followership training. Respondents who

indicated that they provide followership training were asked to provide details of the training in

the comments section.

Comments included: every quarter; nothing in-house, we send people to conferences and

NFA courses; all new members are assigned a sponsor for the first 6 months, the sponsor is an

active member who is supposed to go over the rules and expectations with new member, IE by-


laws and SOGs. Get familiar with trucks and day-to-day tasks; mentoring; and yearly upgrade

training (see Appendix C, Question 5).

As a follow up to Question 5, participants were asked which members receive

followership training if provided. Response choices were the same as those provided in

Question 4. A majority of respondents, 24 (80.00%), reported none of their personnel receive

followership training. In addition, none of the respondents reported including firefighters or

driver/operators in followership training. Other ranks reported to be included in followership

training include: captains/lieutenants, 4 (10.00%); and chief officers, 3 (6.67%). Only two

respondents (6.67%) indicated that all personnel receive followership training (see Appendix C,

Question 6).

Next, participants were asked to indicate which generational group they belong to.

Response choices included: Baby Boomers, 1946 to 1964; Gen Xers, 1965 to 1980; and

Millennials, 1981 to 2000. Baby Boomers represented 12 (38.71%) of respondents, Gen Xers 18

(58.06%), and Millennials 1 (3.23%) (see Appendix C, Question 7).

Participants were asked if their department provides any type of training on different

generational characteristics for members. Response choices were yes or no. Respondents

indicated that a majority, 25 (80.65%) do not provide this type of training. Six (19.35%) of the

respondents indicated that their department does provide generational characteristics training. A

comments section was provided for those respondents who answered in the affirmative.

Comments included: leadership training; fire schools; we train on all the different types

because we have some of all on our department. Sometimes it gets to be a little troublesome, but

we work through it; we teach that generational differences are irrelevant to leadership based on


James Hunter philosophy; and leadership qualities are the same across all generations. A full

listing of comments can be found in Appendix C, Question 8.

Participants were asked if their department provides any type of leadership and/or

followership training specifically geared toward Millennials. Response choices were yes or no.

Only two respondents (6.45%) indicated that they provide this type of training for Millennials.

Twenty-nine (93.55%) respondents answered no, they do not provide leadership/followership

training specifically geared toward Millennials. Comments included: on line; and our training is

given to all members. No generation is given special treatment (see Appendix C, Question 9).

Finally, participants were asked how important it is to understand generational

differences for fire service leaders. Response choices included; extremely important, very

important, somewhat important, not so important, and not at all important. A majority of

respondents, 12 (38.71%), felt that it was extremely important to understand generational

differences. Other responses included: very important, 7 (22.58%); somewhat important, 9

(29.03%); not so important, 1 (3.23%); and not at all important, 2 (6.45%; see Appendix C,

Question 10).

Specific answer to Research Question 4. The results show that 67.74% of respondents

provide leadership training for personnel through a variety of different sources. Generational

training is conducted by 19.35% of fire departments represented. Training specifically geared

towards Millennials is conducted by 6.45% of departments represented in this survey. Methods

to provide leadership, followership and generational characteristics training were described in the

comments of respondents, including; in-house, fire schools, NFA classes, mentoring, FDIC,


NFA Leadership series, Officer I and II certification training, acting officer training and

continuing training for captains and lieutenants.

Research Question 5. What steps can be taken by the CBFD to adapt the existing

leadership training program to address the specific generational characteristics found among

Millennial fire suppression personnel? To answer Research Question 5, this author utilized

information gathered in the external Fire Department Leadership Survey described in Research

Question 4.

Also, data and comments collected in the internal CBFD Leadership Survey described in

Research Question 1 and the Followership Style Questionnaire described in Research Question 2

were considered when formulating an answer to Research Question 5. Finally, information from

the literature review validated many of the findings of the research and was considered when

framing strategies to improve the existing leadership training program to address the Millennial

generation within the CBFD.

Specific answer to Research Question 5. The results of the research show that

generational differences have minimal impact on preferred leadership styles. Generational

differences may have some impact on non-emergency activities such as station culture and

duties. A majority of survey respondents indicated that leadership training on generational

differences is important to organizational success. Adding leadership and followership training

as well as training on generational differences could be accomplished through both internal and

external classes focusing on hands-on leadership drills. Mentoring is a vital component of

leadership and followership improvement.


Discussion

Results of the internal and external leadership surveys and the followership questionnaire

provided valuable information used to answer the five research questions. These findings were

compared to information on generational differences, leadership styles, and followership

concepts detailed in the literature review.

Nisen (2013) noted that generational groups are not based solely on birth year, but also

shared experiences within the groups. Examples of these shared experiences were described by

Carlson (2009) as “unexpected historical events, changing political climate, and evolving

socioeconomic conditions” (p. 2). Therefore, it should not be surprising that different

generational groups have different styles that they prefer to lead and be led. Tishma (2018)

discussed how each generational group has a preferred leadership style in which they like to be

led. Leadership preferences were examined in the CBFD Leadership Survey (Appendix A) for

both emergency incidents and non-emergency activities. The leadership style preferred by Gen

Xers at emergency incidents was split equally between democratic and transformational.

Millennials preferred democratic leadership at emergency scenes (see Appendix A, Question 4).

During non-emergency activities, most Gen Xers preferred democratic leadership from their

supervisors. Millennials were split equally between a preference for democratic and

transformational leadership from their supervisors (see Appendix A, Question 7).

This authors interpretation of the results was that leadership preferences at both

emergency incidents and non-emergency activities are more dependent on the individual rather

than a generational group. Both Generation X and Millennial respondents spread their selections

across all five leadership choices with no overwhelming choice by either. Results for Baby


Boomers were inconclusive as there were only two respondents in that generational group and

they were split on their preferences. Contrary to the information gathered in the literature

review, the interpretation of the results did not show a clear difference in leadership preferences

based on generational groups.

Zemke et al. (2000) and Salahuddin (2010) agree that Baby Boomers preferred leadership

style is participative, based on their desire for consensus, collaboration, and fairness. The two

Baby Boomers who participated in the CBFD Leadership Survey selected democratic and

transformational leadership styles for both emergency incidents and non-emergency activities

(see Appendix A, Questions 4 and 7). Duggan (n.d.) noted that that the participative and

democratic names are interchangeable for that leadership style. Also, participative leadership

includes some positive attributes found transformational leadership styles.

Tishma (2018) indicated that the characteristics of Gen Xers might not be defined by one

particular leadership style. Salahuddin (2010) concluded that Gen Xers define their leadership

style as situational. The results of the CBFD Leadership Survey reflected the ideas of Tishma

and Salahuddin; indicating that Gen Xer respondents were diverse in their preference of

leadership styles (see Appendix A, Questions 4 and 7).

Salahuddin (2010) indicated that Millennials would adopt a transformational and

participative (democratic) leadership style as they move into leadership ranks. The results of the

CBFD Leadership Survey reflect the assertion of Salahuddin. Millennial respondents preferred

democratic and transformational leadership styles in both emergency incidents and non-

emergency activities (see Appendix A, Questions 4 and 7).


The results of the CBFD Leadership Survey showed many similarities between

generational groups regarding preferred leadership styles. This is contrary to many of the

sources noted in the literature review. A larger sample group may have revealed more contrast

between the generational groups. Tishma (2018) noted that transactional leadership style might

be useful in situations where multiple generational groups are working together because it

incorporates aspects of many desirable leadership styles and translates well to multiple

generations. Alyn (2011) added that transactional leadership is widely used among fire service

leaders. In addition, Alyn (2011) stated that organizations that promoted the use of

transformational leadership style found greater levels of commitment among firefighters.

Therefore, it may be useful to teach both transactional and transformational leadership styles.

This author can see the benefits of transactional leadership during emergency incidents and

transformational leadership during non-emergency activities.

Brennan (2018) discussed a pending leadership gap caused by large numbers of Baby

Boomers leaving the workforce. Fry (2018) predicted that Millennials would take a prominent

role in the workforce given the decline of births during the Gen X era. These ideas are reflected

in the generational demographics of the CBFD (see Figure 1). Millennials will become the

majority generational groups within the CBFD by 2024 as the last Baby Boomer becomes

eligible to retire. Within the next ten years over half of the current Gen Xers will be eligible to

retire from the CBFD; leaving the CBFD represented by 75.70% Millennials or younger. This

author interprets these results as justification for improvement to the current leadership training

program within the CBFD.

Mercado (2016) described Baby Boomers affinity for hard work and long hours. Nisen

(2013) asserted that Boomers place more value on work than younger generations. “Gen X and


Y should pay their dues to conform to their culture of overwork” (p. 6) according to Warner &

Sandberg (2010). Ryback (2016) notes Millennials difficulty with communications, “it may

seem surprising that a generation so digitally connected to the world could struggle with

communication” (para. 9). The results of the CBFD Leadership Survey reflected these

references.

Comments from both Baby Boomers and Millennials in Questions 2 and 5 included:

there seems to be a language and work ethic barrier; it seems to be hard for each group to

understand the other at times; when asked to do something you shouldn’t have to explain it, just

get up and do it; some of the millennial generation, especially the latter end of the generation

have issues with authority and lack respect for their senior firefighter; too much ‘do your time’

talk, disrespect and lack of mentoring; and, some feel that doing station chores are beneath them.

The discord between generations within the CBFD appears more during non-emergency

activities as 11 (25.00%) respondents felt having personnel of different generations groups

working together had a negative impact verse only 3 (6.82%) respondents indicating a negative

impact at emergency scenes (see Appendix A, Questions 2 and 5). This author interprets these

results as justification for adding topics on generational differences to the existing CBFD

leadership training program. Improved understanding of generational differences may improve

relations between generations during non-emergency activities.

Cline (2018) discussed the importance of older generations of firefighters sharing their

experiences with younger generations to develop them as future leaders. Kastros (2014)

contends that excellent leaders mentor others in order to improve their organizations. Langan

and Feuquay (2010) indicated that leadership skills should be developed at all levels in the fire

service, especially through mentoring. In the external Fire Department Leadership Survey,


mentoring was mentioned in the comments section as a method to teach followership skills but

not leadership skills (see Appendix C, Questions 3 and 5). Also, leadership training was

provided to ranks below traditional supervisor ranks (firefighters and driver/operators) in only 8

(25.8%) respondent departments; leadership training provided to all department personnel was

reported in only 6 (19.36%) organizations (see Appendix C, Question 4).

The results clearly show that more departments should be providing leadership training to

all levels within the organization regardless of rank or position. In addition, this author feels that

mentoring programs should be developed as part of a comprehensive leadership training

program.

Mentoring is also a critical component of developing followership skills. Blackshear

(2004) described followership skills as dynamic and may be positively influenced. Latour and

Rast (2004) cite mentoring as a primary method necessary for advancing followership skills.

Mentoring was mentioned by only one respondent in the comments section of Question 5 of the

Fire Department Leadership Survey. This question asked respondents how followership training

was delivered. Langan and Feuquay (2010) promoted the idea that mentoring should not only be

expected but rewarded. The results of the Fire Department Leadership Survey show that few

respondents are providing mentoring for leadership or followership development.

There are several significant organizational implications of the ARP results and

interpretations. The CBFD is undergoing a generational change within the department that has

affected the culture within the organization. Recognizing and understanding the significance of

generational differences is vital to a positive succession of leadership roles within the

department. To prepare future leaders to fill these roles, comprehensive leadership and


followership programs must be established for all ranks. Implications to the organization by not

addressing the generational differences may include a lack of effective leaders as the older

generations retire.

Also, the current leadership training program should be modified and expanded to

include topics pertinent to generational considerations and effective mentoring. While the CBFD

faces a wide variety of challenges to improving the leadership and followership capabilities of its

members, the probable benefits make the potential costs and efforts worthwhile.

Recommendations

The purpose of this ARP was to determine if the current leadership training program was

meeting the needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the Council Bluffs Fire

Department (CBFD) and, if not, to identify improvement opportunities. The research conducted

for this ARP demonstrated that generational differences exist between the members of the

CBFD. The literature review highlighted common characteristics of Baby Boomers, Gen Xers,

and Millennials and the importance of mentoring younger cohort groups to ensure potential

leadership gaps are closed.

The literature review and survey tools employed by this author provided information that

demonstrates the value of promoting certain leadership and followership philosophies;

democratic, transactional, and transformational. Also, improvement opportunities were

developed based on the literature review and survey results. Therefore, this author formulated

both short-term and long-term goals and recommendations based on these findings.


Short-term Goal 1: Improve and expand the current CBFD leadership training program.

Reestablish and update the Acting Company Officer Program and Officer Development

Program. The CBFDs lack of a formal, ongoing leadership program is not unique to the fire

service. The external leadership survey revealed that while a majority of fire departments say

they provide leadership training, the source of that training was generally outside training

agencies such as fire schools, conferences, and NFA courses.

This author recommends finding an up-to-date source for officer training that includes

leadership, followership, and generational differences topics and providing that training using the

framework established by the ACOP and ODP. Also, additions to the training program should

include a hands-on component featuring conflict resolution roleplays, fireground simulations,

and communication drills. Modifications to the programs should include standardized methods

to benchmark knowledge, skills, and abilities of current members for comparison to future

evaluations.

Furthermore, the book review portion of the current leadership program should be

continued. Future book selection should focus on leadership styles, mentoring, followership, or

generational leadership topics. Lastly, encourage and incentivize attendance at outside

leadership training opportunities, including classes at the NFA and regional leadership classes.

Short-term Goal 2: Formalize the mentoring process.

Establish a formal mentoring program within the CBFD to provide for the development

of future leaders. Numerous sources in the literature review indicated that mentoring was a

critical component to successful leadership and followership programs. This author recommends


the establishment of a formal mentoring program for all levels within the organization. This

would include company officers mentoring their subordinates as well as chief officers mentoring

company officers. The mentoring program should include standardized methods to benchmark

the effectiveness of the program for comparison to future evaluations.

Short-term Goal 3: Provide department-wide training on leadership, followership, and

generational topics.

Include leadership, followership, and generational differences training in the annual

training schedule for all members. These training topics should not be limited the ACOP or

ODP participants. The followership questionnaire indicated that more Millennials were

categorized as survivors rather than effective followers. As a department nearly half of

participants in the followership questionnaire could be categorized as survivors, indicating room

for improvement. Numerous sources in the literature review indicated that leadership and

followership skills could be improved through training and should be taught to all ranks within

the organization.

Also, more than 90.00% of respondents to the external leadership survey felt that

understanding generational differences were at least somewhat important or greater. Any

programs that are established to teach leadership, followership, or generational differences

should include a standardized method to establish benchmarks of participants knowledge for

comparison to future evaluations.

Long-term Goal: Prepare a five-year plan that includes program evaluations and revision

schedule.


Establishing a five-year plan for addressing leadership, followership, and generational

issues within the CBFD will increase the chances of new programs taking root and succeeding.

All three generations groups within the CBFD should collaborate on the plan development. The

plan may include, but should not be limited to, the short-term goals presented in this section. To

gauge the effectiveness of the short-term goals, an evaluation element and revision schedule

should be included in the five-year plan. Those programs detailed in the short-term goals should

be evaluated and modified as needed to maximize effectiveness for future generations.

In conclusion, the problem was that it was unknown if the current leadership training

program was meeting the needs of Millennial fire suppression personnel within the CBFD.

Research results demonstrated that the current leadership training program needed improvement.

Implementation of the short- and long-term goals will bring positive change to the CBFD and

prepare it to meet the needs of Millennial personnel, as well as other generational groups. This

ARP has established that within five years the Millennial cohort will represent a majority within

the department. There is no better time than now to implement a plan that will ensure their

success as they enter company and chief officer positions within the CBFD.

Future readers of this ARP should understand that fire departments are as unique as the

members on their roster. Department culture is driven by the generational characteristics that

each member brings. This ARP has revealed that to address leadership issues alone is

insufficient. Departments that confront followership and generational needs will be better able to

produce a comprehensive plan to improve all aspects of leadership. Also, plans should include

elements of evaluation and frequent revision to ensure each subsequent generation receives the

best possible instruction.


References

Alyn, K. (2011). Transformational leadership in the fire service. Retrieved from

https://www.firerescue1.com/cod-company-officer-development/articles/1117882-

Transformational-leadership-in-the-fire-service/

Blackshear, P. B. (2004). The followership continuum: A model for increasing organizational

productivity. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 9(1).

Retrieved from https://innovation.cc/discussion-papers/blackshear-emp.pdf

Brennan, M. (2018). Millennials, Boomers & the leadership gap. Retrieved from

https://www.hrtechnologist.com/articles/leadership-succession/millennials-boomers-amp-

the-leadership-gap/

Carlson, E. (2009). 20th-century U.S. generations [Special issue]. Population Reference Bureau,

64(1). Retrieved from www.prb.org

Cline, D. (2018). Fire officer 101: So what do these bugles really mean. Retrieved from

http://www.thecompanyofficer.com/leadership/ 10/10/18

Crawford, B. (2015). Adapting your leadership style for the Millennial generation. Retrieved

from https://aboutleaders.com/adapting-your-leadership-styles-for-the-millennial-

generation/#gs.Ekvb0aA

Duggan, T. (n.d.). Democratic vs. transformational leadership style. Retrieved from

https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/democratic-vs-transformational-leadership-style-

5228.html

Executive leadership: Student manual. (2015). Emmitsburg, MD: United States Fire

Administration.


Feeney, N. (2015). Millennials now largest generation in the U.S. workforce. Retrieved from

http://time.com/3854518/millennials-labor-force/

Fry, R. (2018). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Retrieved from

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-

labor-force/

Fry, R. (2018). Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation.

Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-

baby-boomers/

Generation. (2004). In F. C. Mish (Ed.), Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (11th ed., p.

521). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

Generation X. (2016). In World book: G 8 (1st ed., Vol. 8, p. 84). Chicago, Il: World Book

Encyclopedia.

Generation X: Born 1965 - 1980. (2018). Retrieved from

www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/gen_x.htm

Generation Y: Born 1980 - 1994. (2018). Retrieved from

www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/gen_y.htm

Gostick, A., & Elton, C. (2018). The best team wins: The new science of high performance. New

York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Heimlich, R. (2010). Baby Boomers retire. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2010/12/29/baby-boomers-

retire/?utm_source=hrt&utm_campaign=1393&utm_term=mollybrennan


International Association of Fire Chiefs. (n.d.). Crew resource management: A positive change

for the fire service. Retrieved from https://www.iafc.org/topics-and-

tools/resources/resource/crew-resource-management

Kane, S. (2018). The common characteristics of Generation X professionals. Retrieved from

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/common-characteristics-of-generation-x-

professionals-2164682

Kastros, A. (2014). The American fire service leadership pandemic. Retrieved from

https://www.fdic.com/articles/2014/09/the-american-fire-service-leadership-

pandemic.html

Kelley, R. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from

https://hbr.org/1988/11/in-praise-of-followers

Langan, S., & Feuquay, J. P. (2010). Leading the next generation. Fire Rescue Magazine, 42-44.

Retrieved from

https://www.cpshr.us/documents/resources/LanganFeuquayFireChiefJan2010.pdf

Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership: The prerequisite for effective

leadership. Retrieved from https://govleaders.org/dynamic-followership.htm

Main, D. (2017). Who are the Millennials. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/38061-

millennials-generation-y.html

McCallum, J. S. (2013). Followership: The other side of leadership. Ivey Business Journal.

Retrieved from https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/followership-the-other-side-

of-leadership/


Mercado, F. (2016). Leadership styles of baby boomers and millennials. Retrieved from

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-styles-baby-boomers-millennials-fred-

mercado-mba-pmp

Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force: The generations defined. (2018).

Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-

generation-us-labor-force/ft_15-05-11_millennialsdefined/

Nisen, M. (2013). How to know if you’re too old to call yourself a millennial. Retrieved from

https://www.businessinsider.com/definition-of-generational-cohorts-2013-5

Patterson, L. (2017). Technology and the Millennial generation. Retrieved from

https://www.alphagamma.eu/entrepreneurship/technology-millennial-generation/

Raphelson, S. (2014). Amid the stereotypes, some facts about Millennials. Retrieved from

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/18/354196302/amid-the-stereotypes-some-facts-about-

millennials

Rashid, B. (2017). Two reasons Millennials leaders struggle with communication and how to

help them. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianrashid/2017/05/04/two-

reasons-millennials-leaders-struggle-with-communication-and-how-to-help-

them/#d0161d3c6715

Rogers, M. (2009). Boomers and technology: An extended conversation. Retrieved from AARP

website:

https://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/computers/2009_boomers_and_technology

_final_report.pdf


Ryback, R. (2016). From baby boomers to generation z: The generational gaps and their roles in

society. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-truisms-

wellness/201602/baby-boomers-generation-z

Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style and

organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2). Retrieved from

http://clutejournals.com/index.php/JDM/article/view/805

Selected characteristics of baby boomers 42 to 60 years old in 2006. (2009). Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2009/demo/baby-boomers.html

Shaw, J. (2011). The rise and fall of the paramilitary structure: Can fire departments maintain

discipline on the fire ground if it’s absent in the halls? Retrieved from

https://www.firefightingincanada.com/news/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-paramilitary-

structure-10056?jjj=1546032805159

Stowell, F. M. (2006). Fire and emergency services instructor (7th ed.). Stillwater, OK: Fire

Protection Publications.

Tishma, M. (2018). Leading across the generations. Retrieved from

https://www.clomedia.com/2018/05/17/leading-across-generations/

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. (2012). The Millennial generation research review.

Retrieved from https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/reports/millennial-generation-

research-review

U.S. fire administration: Strategic plan fiscal years 2014-2018. (2014). Retrieved from

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/strategic_plan_2014-2018.pdf

Warner, J., & Sandberg, A. (2010). Generational leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.kiwata.com/pdf/Generational-Leadership.pdf


West Midland Family Center. (2018). Generational differences chart. Retrieved from

http://www.wmfc.org/uploads/GenerationalDifferencesChart.pdf

Wiley, F. (2016). Helicopter parents and Millennials. Retrieved from

https://averagemillennial.com/2016/04/13/helicopter-parents-and-millennials/

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of

veterans, boomers, Xers, and nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: Amacom.


List of Figures

Figure 1. Generational demographics and estimated retirement eligibility of the CBFD……..57 Figure B1. Five Followership Styles ………………………………………………………….70

List of Tables Table B1. CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Baby Boomers……………………………71 Table B2. CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Generation X ……………………………..72 Table B3. CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Millennials………………………………..73 Table B4. CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Composite of all generational groups…….74


Figure 1

Generational demographics and estimated retirement eligibility of the Council Bluffs Fire Department

Number of Millennials or later Number of Baby Boomers Number of Gen Xers generational groups Year

Percentage of cohort Percentage of cohort Percentage of cohort

8 60 38 2018 7.50% 56.60% 35.90%

46 60a 2024 Last Baby Boomer eligible to retire 43.00% 56.07%

25 81b 2028 23.36% 75.70%

107c 2038 Last Gen Xer eligible to retire 100.00%

2050 Last Millennial eligible to retire

Note. Data was collected from CBFD general hiring list and demographic data provided by

department administrative assistant. Members may work past retirement eligibility. aActual number of Millennials is an estimate given Generation Z (born 2000 or later) will be eligible for

employment by 2024 and some Gen Xers may still be young enough to be hired. bActual number of Millennials is an estimate based on newly hired firefighters being comprised of

both Millennials and Generation Z. cActual number of Millennials is an estimate based on the oldest Millennials being eligible to retire

in 2036 and the employment of younger generational groups.


Appendix A

CBFD Leadership Survey

Question 1

Based on your birth year, which generational group do you belong to?

Answer

choices

Response percentage

Number of

responses

Baby Boomers (1946 - 1964) Gen Xers (1965 - 1980) Millennials (1981 - 2000)

4.55% 63.64% 31.82%

2

28 14

Total responses 44

Question 2 In your opinion, does having personnel of different generational groups working together have any impact emergency scene activities?

on

Answer choices

Baby Boomers

Respondents

Percentage of cohort

Gen Xers

Respondents


Millennials

Respondents


Total

Respondents

Overall percentage

Positive Impact

Negative Impact

No Impact

1 50.00%

1 50.00%

0 0.00%

15 53.57%

1 3.57%

12 42.86%

6 42.85%

1 7.14%

7 50.00%

22 50.00%

3 6.82%

19 43.18%

Total responses 2 28 14 44


Question 2 comments

Baby Boomer respondents: There seems to be a language and work ethic barrier.

Different perspectives allowing for a more and potentially better solution. Older more

experienced personnel can also share insights and tricks of the trade which often have a

more positive impact and acceptance in real life practice as compared to sitting at the

kitchen table discussing an incident.

Generation X respondents: Diversity is good.

It can have negative impact if the IC is not versed in the different generations and their

traits.

Different ideas on how to accomplish a task, gives more options which may lead to more

effective work.

Different perspectives are sometimes good.

Communication on EMS scenes can be attempted from several angles.

Different generations will bring better customer service for the whole public.

Both generations will have positive and negative. If the crew has the right personalities,

they can properly synergize.

Mostly positive, if everyone is willing to learn from each other. Negative if crew

members only want to do it their way.

Makes you work with different personalities and to do so effectively you must

continually evolve your leadership and communications.

Completely situational and individual(s) dependent.

Different skill sets and focus can be positive but only if identified and utilized. If ignored

or disregarded, it can be detrimental.


Just a mix of new and old ideas.

Like having a translator, having different generations on scene can help relate to the

patient.

Different views and different methods of approach can be beneficial as long as it doesn’t

lead to conflict.

It can be positive or negative depending on individual and how they carry themselves on

scene.

Millennial respondents: Get different points of view and knowledge.

Each offer different experiences, decision making paradigms, and comfort with various

mechanical/technical applications.

Some of the millennial generation, especially the latter end of the generation have issues

with authority and lack of respect for their senior firefighters.

If offers different perspectives and ideas.

People have seen different things and generally the older generation has more experience

to work from.

There is a lot to learn from the older generation. It goes both ways though. Gives lots of

different perspectives.


Question 3 At emergency incidents, what leadership style best describes your current supervisor? (if you are a firefighter or engineer what do you see from your captain; if you are a captain what do you see from your assistant chief)

Answer choices

Baby Boomers

Respondents


Gen Xers

Respondents


Millennials

Respondents


Total

Respondents

Overall percentage

Autocratic Leadership: leader makes decisions alone without input from team members; strict adherence to procedures; communicates clear expectations for what needs to be done and how to do it.

Democratic Leadership: leader shares functions and power; team members are included in decision making; leader makes team members feel like they are an important part of the team.

Laisse-Faire Leadership: delegates tasks without much direction; allows team members to make decisions.

Transactional Leadership: leader is task-oriented; likes structure; rewards team members for success and punishes members for failures; impersonal relationships with team members.

Transformational Leadership: leader appeals to shared values and common goals; empowers and inspires team members to exceed expectations.

0 0.00%

1 50.00%

1 50.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 3.57%

10 35.71%

7 25.00%

3 10.71%

7 25.00%

4 28.57%

7 50.00%

2 14.29%

0 0.00%

1 7.14%

5 11.36%

18 40.91%

10 22.73%

3 6.82%

8 18.18%



Question 4 At emergency incidents, what leadership style from your supervisor would you respond to most favorably? (may be the same or different leadership style selected in Question 3)

Baby Gen Xers Millennials Total Boomers

Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Answer choices Percentage Percentage Percentage Overall

of cohort of cohort of cohort percentage Autocratic Leadership: leader makes decisions alone without input from team members; strict adherence to 0 4 1 5 procedures; communicates clear expectations for what 0.00% 14.29% 7.14% 11.35% needs to be done and how to do it.

Democratic Leadership: leader shares functions and power; team members are included in decision making; 1 7 6 14 leader makes team members feel like they are an important 50.00% 25.00% 42.86% 31.82% part of the team.

Laisse-Faire Leadership: delegates tasks without much 0 5 1 6 direction; allows team members to make decisions. 0.00% 17.86% 7.14% 13.64%

Transactional Leadership: leader is task-oriented; likes structure; rewards team members for success and punishes 0 5 2 7 members for failures; impersonal relationships with team 0.00% 17.86% 14.29% 15.91% members.

Transformational Leadership: leader appeals to shared 1 7 4 12 values and common goals; empowers and inspires team 50.00% 25.00% 28.57% 27.27% members to exceed expectations.



Question 5 In your opinion, does having personnel of different generational groups working together have any impact non-emergency activities or station culture? (group dynamics, station life, communications, station duties)

on

Baby

Boomers Gen Xers Millennials Total

Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Answer choices Percentage Percentage Percentage Overall of cohort of cohort of cohort percentage

Positive Impact 1 50.00%

11 42.86%

5 35.71%

17 38.64%

Negative Impact 1 50.00%

7 21.43%

3 21.42%

11 25.00%

No Impact 0 0.00%

10 35.71%

6 42.86%

16 36.36%


Comments:

Baby Boomer respondents: It seems to be hard for each group to understand the other at times.

When asked to do something you shouldn’t have to explain it. Just get up and do it.

The cry of generations of firefighters has been that the young guys are ruining the fire

service, and this is not true. Each generation brings different values, work ethic, and

world views to the table but each successive generation wants the fire service to improve

and better serve our citizens.

Generation X respondents: Absence of shared experiences leads to natural separation of the

generational groupings.

Need constant positive reinforcement, the world is all about them not the greater good.


Helps with computer stuff.

Makes communications more difficult. Can lead to misunderstandings.

Have different experience levels.

Younger generation needs to be empowered and included to complete a team. Respect

will be gained for older generation and knowledge will be shared up and down the chain

without resistance. This starts in the firehouse.

You learn from each other and share experiences.

We learn from each other, mostly positive.

Communication is a must with the multi-generation firefighters because work ethic is

much different, and the overall view of the job and its benefits and negatives is much

different.

Dependent on individual(s)

Different views and approach can be beneficial. Some generational differences can cause

conflict.

Depends on the individual but typically I feel they are positive. Certain individuals can

have a negative impact.

Millennial respondents: Different knowledge to be passed around.

Can have both positive and negative impacts.

Older fellas are more stuck in their ways and fight change.

Some feel that doing station chores are beneath them and only do the bare minimum to

get by. Some seem to think they are entitled not to have to do chores the same as others

by virtue of who they are.

Tech savvy


Having different generational groups together in the station is positive. As a younger

guy, I look to the senior guys for advice, direction, and knowledge. If its’ all younger

guys, we might be gung-ho, but the real-world experience just isn’t there. Having a

variety of generations brings a balance. That’s very important.

Too much “do your time” talk, disrespect and lack of mentoring.

Question 6 During non-emergency activities (meetings, current supervisor?

training, station duties) what

leadership style best describes your

Answer choices

Baby Boomers

Respondents


Gen Xers

Respondents


Millennials

Respondents


Total

Respondents

Overall percentage






0 0.00%

1 50.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 50.00%

3 10.71%

9 32.14%

8 28.57%

1 3.57%

7 25.00%

3 21.42%

5 35.71%

4 28.57%

1 7.14%

1 7.14%

6 13.64%

15 34.09%

12 27.27%

2 4.55%

9 20.45%



Question 7 During non-emergency activities (meetings, training, station duties) what leadership style from your supervisor would you respond to most favorably? (may be the same or different leadership style selected in Question 6)

Answer choices

Baby Boomers

Respondents


Gen Xers

Respondents


Millennials

Respondents


Total

Respondents

Overall percentage






0 0.00%

1 50.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 50.00%

1 3.57

12 42.86

4 14.29%

3 10.71%

8 28.57%

0 0.00%

5 35.71%

2 14.29%

2 14.29%

5 35.71%

1 2.27%

18 40.91%

6 13.64%

5 11.36%

14 31.82%



Appendix B

CBFD Followership Style Questionnaire




Figure B1. Five followership styles

Note: Adapted from Robert Kelley’s In Praise of Followers (1988).


Table B1

CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Baby Boomers

Independent Active Respondent thinking engagement Alienated Sheep

Followership styles

“Yes” Survivors people Effective

1 39 46 1 2 41 41 1 3 47 44

Average 42.33 43.67

1

Totals 0 0 0 0 3


Table B2

CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Generation X

Respondent Independent thinking

Active engagement

Followership styles

Alienated Sheep “Yes” Survivors people Effective

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

27 33 46 45 40 33 43 39 50 37 37 47 49 46 32 34 35 47 45 24 26 31 40 42 54 51 55 29 40 51 47

27 39 47 48 45 43 57 57 47 48 55 58 56 49 43 42 59 53 53 37 30 48 53 39 54 51 56 54 39 46 57

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1

1 1 1

1 1 Average 40.48 48.06

Totals 0 0 0 14 17


Table B3

CBFD Followership style questionnaire:

Millennials

Respondent Independent thinking

Active engagement

Followership styles

Alienated Sheep “Yes” Survivors people Effective

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

45 39 47 35 41 35 47 43 38 36 35 37 38 42 29 33 39 41 41 45 38 54

49 41 48 54 48 49 44 39 40 42 41 47 46 50 36 49 36 53 48 48 38 50

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1

1 Average 39.91 45.27

Totals 0 0 0 13 9


Table B4

CBFD Followership style questionnaire: Composite of

all generational groups

Followership styles Generational

Group Independent thinking

average Active engagement

average Alienated Sheep “Yes” Survivors people Effective

Baby Boomers

Generation X

Millennials

42.33

40.48

39.91

43.67

48.06

45.27

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

13

3

17

9

Average 40.91 45.67

Totals 0 0 0 27 29


Appendix C

Fire Department Leadership Survey

Question 1

What type of fire department are you associated with?

Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of responses

Volunteer

Paid on-call

38.71%

0.00%

12

0

Combination

Career

Other (please specify)

29.03%

22.58%

9.68%

9

7

3

Total responses 31 Comments: Both career and volunteer.

Retired from a combination department.

Retired volunteer.

Question 2

How many members are

Answer choices

in your department?

Response percentage

Number of

responses

20 or less 16.13%

5

21 to 50 54.84% 17

51 to 150 22.58% 7

151 to 300 3.23% 1

301 or more 3.23% 1

Total responses

31


Question 3

Does your department provide any type of leadership training for personnel?

Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of responses

Yes

No

67.74%

32.26%

21

10

Total respondents 31

Comments: Development.

Fire Schools.

Officers are encouraged to further their education through certification and other learning

opportunities.

Pay for pretty much any conference or training I choose to attend.

Fire schools, FSTB, officer classes.

Leadership training is encouraged at local/regional fire schools.

Officer school must be taken and completed before eligible for promotion.

Only outside courses at the request of the member. Nothing required or offered directly

from the department.

Leadership style Self Awareness Human Interactions NFA courses.

Some in-house and little other classes. Most of it is if the officer wants to take the officer

class.

Fire schools are always offered to any member as well as Officer classes.

Company officer development.

Officer development program, leadership institute (1 year programs) Officer Candidate

school.


We send every company officer and those on the promotional list through IAFC

Company officer leadership Symposium- three levels.

Advanced school of leadership meets 1x a month for 9 months 0900 to 1400. Outside

company teaches it. All different ranks including civilian and sworn personnel.

Officer 1-4 NFA leadership series.

Informal, what not to do or how to treat people.

Members are offered the opportunity to take courses necessary to attain Officer I and II

certs. Members are taken to conferences where leadership courses are taught. FDIC

being the primary conf. Members selected based on aptitudes and leadership and

groomed from there to become future officers.

Question 4 If your department provides leadership training, who is given the group)

training? (you may select more

than one

Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of responses

Firefighters

Driver/operators, engineers

Captains, lieutenants

Chief officers

All personnel

None

12.90%

12.90%

32.26%

41.94%

19.36%

41.94%

4

4

10

13

6

13

Total respondents: 31


Question 5

Does your department provide any type of followership training for personnel?

Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of responses

Yes

No

16.13%

83.87%

5

26

Total respondents 31

Comments: Every quarter.

Nothing in-house. We send people to conferences and NFA courses.

All new members are assigned a sponsor for the first 6 months. The sponsor is an active

member who is supposed to go over the rules and expectations with new members. IE

by-laws and SOGs. Get them familiar with trucks and day-to-day tasks.

Yearly upgrade training.

Question 6 If your department provides followership training, who is given the training? (you may select more than one group) Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of responses

Firefighters

Driver/operators, engineers

Captains, lieutenants

Chief officers (BCs, AC, FC)

All personnel

None

0.00%

0.00%

13.33%

10.00%

6.67%

80.00%

0

0

4

3

2

24

Total respondents: 30


Question 7

Based on your birth year, which generational group do you belong to?

Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of

responses

Baby Boomers (1946 - 1964) Gen Xers (1965 - 1980) Millennials (1981 - 2000)

38.71% 58.06% 3.23%

12 18 1

Total responses 31

Question 8 Does your department provide any type of training on the different generational characteristics of your department members (Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials)? Answer choices

Response percentage

Number of responses

Yes

No

19.35%

80.65%

6

25

Total responses 31

Comments: Leadership training.

Fire schools.

We train on all the different types because we have some of all on our dept. Sometimes it

gets to be a little troublesome, but we work through it.

Some but nothing focused specifically.

We teach that generational differences is irrelevant to leadership based on James Hunter

philosophy. Which has been supported by other leadership experts. Leadership qualities

are the same across all generations.


Question 9 Does your department provide any type of leadership and/or followership training specifically geared towards Millennials?

Response Number of Answer choices percentage responses Yes 6.45% 2

No 93.55% 29 Total responses 31

Comments: On line.

Our training is given to all members. No generation is given special treatment.

Question 10

In your opinion, how important is understanding generational differences for fire service leaders? Response Number of Answer choices percentage responses

Extremely important 38.71% 12

Very important 22.58% 7

Somewhat important 29.03% 9

Not so important 3.23% 1

Not at all important 6.45% 2

Total responses 31

Documents

Leadership Training for Millennials within the …Millennials within the fire service prefer in their supervisors, (d) what are other fire departments currently doing to address generational