The purpose of this paper is to argue the poor, bad and ineffective leadership of Fire Chief Rusty Thomas. This includes highlighting one particular incident, discussing the impact of the outcome of his actions, evaluating his performance, and describing the identifiable outcomes of his leadership.
Fire Chief Rusty Thomas served for 32 years at the Charleston Fire Department. His poor, bad and ineffective leadership meant that his department was: “overconfident in its ability to aggressively extinguish fires and totally lacking in modern tactics and equipment” (Menchaca and Smith, 2008). One particular tragic incident which was to touch the entire community, involved the loss of nine fire fighter’s lives, and was the result of a huge fire at an enormous furniture store which operated in violation of building and fire codes. As recorded in a report by a city-nominated panel of specialists in firefighting, the combination of both of these aspects, namely: the fire station’s policy and the furniture store’s gross neglect was shown to be a fatal combination at the fire in the Sofa Super Store.The report was given to the media, Charleston City Council, the families of the victims, and the firefighters (Menchaca and Smith, 2008).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Poor Leadership: Fire Chief Rusty Thomas".
The report which consisted of 272 pages, and is linked to the identifiable outcomes of Thomas’ leadership, stated that the handling of the fire at the Sofa Super Store by the Charleston Fire Department exhibited: “Insufficient training, inadequate staffing, obsolete equipment and outdated tactics contributed to an ineffective response and effort to control the June 18 fire in its early stages” (Menchaca and Smith, 2008). Evidence highlighted the fact that the hoses used by the firefighters were undersized, and that this, along with other difficulties meant that they could not access the water which they required as the fire burned above their heads hidden in the ceiling (Menchaca and Smith, 2008).
The Charleston Fire Department’s policies were down to the poor, bad and ineffective leadership of Thomas: their strategy of a one size fits all, time tested approach to fighting fires in Charleston’s downtown buildings and historic homes was far too inadequate for the furniture store’s raging inferno which was made far worse due its lack of building and fire regulations, as well as its huge number of flammable couches and flammable solvents. This extreme error of fire station planning, that is to say, ensuring they had the necessary and up-to-date equipment was solely down to Thomas (Menchaca and Smith, 2008).
The report also stated that the Fire Department’s attitude revolved around promoting offensive and aggressive maneuvers which opened firefighters up to preventable and unreasonable risks. Moreover, the fundamental safety practices for firefighters had not been applied. Furthermore, in response to the fire, the report stated that water problems and failures in command were overriding aspects in the Fire Department’s “unstructured and uncoordinated” actions (Menchaca and Smith, 2008). This is concrete evidence against the leadership of Thomas. Clearly, Thomas did not value 1. having up to date equipment, 2. training for all eventualities, which should include tackling blazes in buildings of all sizes within the region, and 3. have having a procedure to follow. Excellence in leadership involves leaders who display good character, in the case of Thomas, he cut corners, and this risked peoples’ lives. He had to insure that the equipment was up to date, and that training and procedures for all potential instances was first class. His values and skills were severely lacking, and his actions were not ethical.
Within 40 minutes of the first request to 911, the roof of the furniture store crashed into some of the firefighters. The latter had charged into a chaotic scene without a clear strategy for how the raging fire should be dealt with, and they were totally unprepared for controlling it. This shows that they had not received the appropriate training under Thomas. Further, the report stated that the analysis of the operations carried out by the firefighters showed that the prevailing factor in the tragedy was the omission to deal with the fire using accepted practices. The crucial duties of an Incident Commander were not carried out, and there was no structured incident command system in place (Menchaca and Smith, 2008). Once again, this was down to the poor leadership of Thomas.
When discussing the terrible event, Thomas stated “I put the fire department in front of my family” (Firehouse, 2008), and said how much he loved the men who died – but the evidence shows that his gross outweighed his duty of care. He stepped down from his post after 32 years, just prior to the report coming out (Firehouse, 2008). In my view, he should have been prosecuted.
In summary, clearly the central issues show beyond any reasonable doubt that Fire Chief Rusty Thomas displayed poor, bad and ineffective leadership which cost nine firefighters lives. The detailed report and analysis by firefighting specialists has backed up this argument.
