AUTHOR REVIEW DRAFT. DO NOT POST. The Hazy View from the Line: What Company Officers Sometimes Get Wrong about Executive Leadership

Ask the Chiefs

The Hazy View from the Line: What Company Officers Sometimes Get Wrong about Executive Leadership 

By Terry Garrison & John Vance
B Shifter Buckslip, Feb. 3, 2026

Dear Chiefs,
What do you believe most company officers misunderstand about leadership at the executive level?

Signed,
Curious about the C-Suite

This is a great question. It seems pretty straightforward, but the answer actually depends on what type of executive officer a person has worked for, or is working for. I am fortunate because Alan Brunacini was my fire chief for nearly 30 years. He was a servant leader who truly understood the work we did. Some other fire chiefs with 30-year careers have never worn out a pair of work gloves. You get my point.

Influence vs. Control

Let’s first look at what bosses at every level have in common—that effective leadership is more about relationships and influence than it is about position and power. The most respected leaders influence their teams through how they interact, communicate, and treat others. This is authentic leadership, which should not be confused with control. Control is one thing, and leadership through influence is something quite different. While control-based leadership is comparatively easy, controlling leaders create a culture of anxiety, competition, mistrust and fear. Influence-based leadership fosters trust, support, encouragement and empowerment. This is true at all levels of leadership, from company officer to battalion chief to executive officer.

I have seen leaders at all levels who use their position to control their workers through fear, bullying and intimidation, and it may seem like it works, but eventually those leaders fail. Bruno used to say about those types of leaders and their organizations, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” The problem with control-based leaders is that when things don’t go their way, they think the solution is to exert more control. They issue ultimatums and make threats to force compliance. But in the end, all they create is an organization full of unhappy, disempowered workers. In today’s fire service, firefighters will go to another fire station, battalion or department where the work is more enjoyable because the bosses value the workers and lead with positive, supportive engagement.

One of the most difficult things I had to deal with as a fire chief was basic reconnaissance—gathering valid information/feedback from the workers.

Bridging the Information Gap Isn’t Always Easy

Now back to the question. I believe the greatest misunderstanding that company officers have about the executive level is that the fire chief has all the answers at their fingertips. Heck, some of them don’t even know the questions. Sometimes, the information a fire chief needs to make a sound decision never makes it to their desk. One of the most difficult things I had to deal with as a fire chief was basic reconnaissance—gathering valid information/feedback from the workers. Ideally, the organizational chart also serves as a communication flow chart, with information moving in both directions from the line level to the executive level, but that does not always happen. By accident or on purpose, sometimes information is shared incorrectly or not at all. (Imagine the incident commander of a fire trying to make decisions without input from tactical bosses or company officers.) It takes time to gather information from the executive team, chief officers, company officers, firefighters, labor leaders and staff. The larger the fire department, the more difficult it is. I remember that as the fire chief in Houston (four shifts times 90-plus fire stations), it took longer to get information than it did in Oceanside or Glendale, which slowed down my decision-making process.

Truth, Trust & Reliable Feedback

Another major challenge at the executive level is knowing who to trust when gathering reliable information and feedback, with feedback presenting the biggest challenge. Executive leaders need people they can rely on to tell them when they are headed in the wrong direction or missing the point on a specific issue. They don’t need yes-men and women who nod in approval and then leave the room knowing the leader is going to fail. I always attempted to keep at least one person on my executive team who didn’t quite see the world the way that I did and was willing to share their perspective.

Stuck in the Middle

An additional misperception about executive-level bosses is that they are, for some reason, a different kind of person than company officers. Fire chiefs are not special. The position is special because of the inherent responsibilities. But in actuality, fire chiefs are just people, too, and they are trying to do the best they can (at least, that is my hope). They have good days and bad days, and they make mistakes. It may seem from a company officer’s perspective that they are the very top of the food chain, when in reality, they are in the middle of the municipal hierarchy, with the primary role of protecting our firefighters. (I have said it before, and I will say it again: the fire chief must support the firefighters in serving the customers, not the other way around.)

As a fire chief, I felt caught in the middle of an organizational tug of war. Management—mayors, elected officials, city managers and fire boards—wanted a fire chief to be part of their team by holding the line, doing more with less, retaining management control, representing the “party line” and holding members accountable. The workers wanted the fire chief to be part of their team by supporting them, understanding them, defending them, advocating for them and holding other members accountable. Being torn between priorities doesn’t make the fire chief a different kind of person, but it does influence their perspective. The good news is that a fire chief can serve both groups by making sound leadership decisions based on their values. My consistent values, which I got from Bruno, are to deliver the highest level of service to our customers while ensuring firefighter safety. Every conversation I had with management or firefighters would highlight these values. It didn’t always make either group happy all the time, but it sure made me feel satisfied because I knew I was trying to do my best for our firefighters and our customers. (Just so you know, looking back, there were times I could have done better.)

I could go on and on about this topic because I think it’s critical. By better understanding each other’s roles, we can improve how we communicate, support, and assist one another. I remember in grade school we would have career swap day, where students were selected to be the principal, administrators and teachers, and the adults would sit in class as students. Perhaps there are some fire departments that could use this type of role reversal. Or not—remember, they are not all good ideas! I am just another old firefighter trying to do the best I can to help.

—Terry Garrison

Lately, after observing several chiefs being asked to leave their organizations before their planned retirement date (ahem, fired), I made myself a note: “Fire chiefs get hammered from both sides, the workforce and administration/politics.”

There is a sad reality, an ever-widening gap between how leadership looks from the kitchen table and how it actually functions from the chief’s office.

Company officers are some of the most influential leaders in any department. They set daily culture, manage risk in real time, ensure great customer service delivery, and translate policy into action on the fireground. But many company officers carry persistent misunderstandings about leadership at the executive level—misunderstandings that can quietly erode trust, fuel cynicism and limit their own growth as leaders.

This isn’t a criticism. I’m just noting a difference in perspective.

Here are some of the most common things company officers misunderstand about executive leadership—and why understanding them matters.

1. “If the Chief Cared, This Would Be Fixed by Now.”

From the company level, it often looks simple: a broken policy, a staffing issue, a discipline problem, outdated equipment. The assumption is that awareness equals authority—that if a chief knows about a problem and hasn’t fixed it, they must not care.
The reality is very different.

Executive leaders operate in a system of constraints that company officers rarely see: labor agreements, municipal budgets, political oversight, legal exposure, timing, and competing priorities across the organization. Many issues are not unresolved because of indifference—they’re unresolved because fixing them requires sequencing, leverage or patience.

Chiefs don’t just decide what to fix. They decide when, how and at what cost to everything else.
A good executive leader is constantly asking:

If I push this now, what breaks somewhere else?
Will this decision hold up legally, financially and culturally?
Am I solving the problem—or creating a bigger one six months from now?
What you see as a delay might actually be discipline.

2. “They’re Too Removed from the Street.”

This is one of the most common and emotionally charged beliefs: “Once you get to the top, you forget what it’s like.”
Sometimes that’s true. Chiefs are human. Some misuse the trappings of the chief’s office for their own gain or agenda. But often, what looks like distance is actually intentional restraint.
At the executive level, leadership is less about doing and more about designing systems that allow others to do well. Chiefs who jump into every issue, override every officer or micromanage operations may feel relatable—but they’re often weakening the organization.
Strong executive leadership requires:

Letting officers lead.
Allowing mistakes to be corrected at the lowest effective level.
Avoiding the temptation to be the smartest firefighter in the room.
Distance is not always disconnection. Sometimes it’s trust.

3. “They Don’t See the Real Impact of Their Decisions.”

Company officers feel decisions immediately: staffing changes, training mandates, reporting requirements, policy updates. When something makes life harder at the company level, it’s easy to assume the decision-makers didn’t think it through.

In reality, good executive leaders are thinking about impact constantly—just across a much wider field. A single decision might affect line personnel, labor relations, city leadership, legal liability, community/customer expectations, and the department’s long-term sustainability.

What company officers often miss is that most decisions have winners and losers, and chiefs rarely get to choose an option where everyone wins. Leadership at that level is often about choosing the least damaging option—not the most popular one.

4. “Leadership Is About Rank & Authority.”

Many officers assume executive leadership is mostly about positional power: issuing directives, enforcing policy, setting rules. But by the time you reach the chief level, authority matters far less than influence. Executive leaders succeed or fail based on credibility, consistency, relationships, and their ability to align people with a shared purpose.

A chief who relies solely on rank will eventually lose the room. Chiefs spend far more time negotiating, persuading, explaining and aligning than commanding. Leadership at the top is less “because I said so” and more “help me help the organization move in this direction.”

Here’s the truth that matters most: Most misunderstandings between company officers & executive leadership don’t come from bad intent—they come from different leadership realities.

5. “If It Were Important, It Would Be Operational.”

Here at B Shifter, we are definitely operationally focused. However, once at the fire chief level, you have to see the big picture.
Company officers live in the operational world. If it doesn’t affect today’s response, today’s staffing or today’s training, it can feel secondary—or even unnecessary.

Executive leaders, however, spend much of their time on issues that don’t burn today but will burn the organization later if ignored. Things like:

Policy language
Documentation
Succession planning
Political relationships
Budget forecasting
Legal compliance
Organizational culture

These are not distractions from the mission. They are what protect the mission long-term.
The fireground is where outcomes are immediately visible. The executive level is where long-term conditions are created.

Company officers live in the operational world. If it doesn’t affect today’s response, today’s staffing or today’s training, it can feel secondary—or even unnecessary.

6. “They Don’t Feel the Same Pressure We Do.”

Company officers feel pressure in the moment: lives at risk, crews depending on them, decisions that can’t be undone. That pressure is real—and it’s intense. As chiefs, we need to acknowledge that. But executive pressure is different, not lighter.
Chiefs face:

Organizational risk.
Career-ending consequences.
Legal exposure.
Moral responsibility for decisions they didn’t personally make.
The weight of every tragedy, near miss, and failure—publicly and privately.

They don’t get the release valve of the end of shift. Many don’t sleep well. Many replay decisions for years. The pressure doesn’t go away—it just changes shape.

7. “They Should Explain Everything.”

Transparency matters. Communication matters. But total transparency is not always possible or responsible—something I had to learn the hard way when I became chief.
Executive leaders often deal with:

Personnel matters they legally cannot discuss.
Negotiations still in progress.
Incomplete information.
Political realities that would undermine trust if prematurely shared.

Silence is often interpreted as secrecy. Sometimes it’s simply professionalism. Good chiefs work hard to communicate what they can, when they can, without damaging people or the organization in the process.

The Leadership Bridge

Here’s the truth that matters most: Most misunderstandings between company officers and executive leadership don’t come from bad intent—they come from different leadership realities.
Company officers lead close to the work. Executive leaders support the work by leading through systems.
Both matter. Both are hard. And neither works well without the other.

In the best departments:

Company officers seek to understand the constraints above them.
Executive leaders stay grounded in the realities below them.
Everyone remembers that leadership is not about position—it’s about responsibility.

If you want to prepare yourself for executive leadership, start by questioning the assumptions you hold about it. The view changes dramatically when you climb the hill. And when it does, you’ll realize something important: Most good chiefs aren’t trying to make your job harder. They’re trying to make the organization survive.

That’s leadership at the executive level.

—John Vance

In 2007, Terry Garrison retired from the Phoenix Fire Department after serving more than 30 years. Working for Alan Brunacini and reaching the rank of assistant chief of operations helped shape Terry’s consistent values: firefighter safety and customer service. After a quick retirement, Terry served as the fire chief of the Oceanside (Calif.) Fire Department for almost three years. He then served as the chief of the Houston Fire Department for more than five years. Terry eventually moved back to where he was raised and served as the fire chief for the Glendale (Ariz.) Fire Department for more than six years before officially retiring from government service. Including his two years in the U.S. Army, Terry has worked for the government and worn a nametag and a helmet for more than 47 years. (Thank goodness for helmets.) In addition, he has traveled throughout the world teaching Fire Command, utilizing his master’s degree in education. Today, Terry and his wife, Annette, live in Phoenix. He will continue to stay connected to the fire service by working with B Shifter.

John Vance recently retired as a fire chief after 22 years in the front office. He is currently a battalion chief with the Chanhassen (Minn.) Fire Department; he has been a chief officer since 2002. He is a proud Blue Card lead instructor and an accredited chief officer through the Center for Public Safety Excellence. John has a bachelor’s degree in fire service management from Southern Illinois University and a certificate in executive management from the University of Notre Dame. He is the host of the B Shifter Podcast.