Fighting the fire in our own house: how poor decisions are smoldering within the U.S. fire service

Abstract

This thesis examines how large organizations that routinely engage in high-risk activities-particularly the U.S. fire service-discover, interact with, and counteract deviant behaviors that latently influence safety-centric attitudes within organizational frameworks. To a larger extent, the thesis analyzes how sociological interactions in the workplace shape decision-making processes in dangerous situations. The research question specifically asks whether the U.S. fire service has normalized deviant behaviors that negatively influence firefighter safety. A policy analysis with recommendations was the methodology incorporated to validate the absence or presence of normalized deviance. This method required analyzing at a granular level the policies and procedures of a large metropolitan fire department, with the Dallas Fire Rescue Department (DFRD) chosen as a representative organization. While the thesis did not reveal widespread institutionalized deviance within DFRD’s emergency operation procedures, analysis of internal documents about specific emergency incidents signal a trend toward abnormalities in decision-making abilities in low-probability, high-risk incidents. Recommendations include capturing routine information for best-practices reinforcement in addition to comprehensive analysis of emerging deviance patterns. Additionally, a second recommendation suggests incorporating an anonymous near-miss reporting system to identify workplace incidents that fall short of an accident, but nonetheless contain pertinent educational information.