Sunrise Report

[Stan Pipe]

Has anyone any thoughts on the Sunrise Report from APU. Specifically terms of address. I am all in favour of running a progressive course for initial trainees, in fact at my establishment we already do, but I have reservations at being on first name terms with trainees. What alternatives are people using at the moment? Should trainees call instructors mate, pal, tarquin or what? Any thoughts?

[fireftrm]

I have not read the report, nor can I find a free web-based copy and am not in a position to buy one. However, I am of the opinion that the more trainers connect with trainees the better the training input. The old style 'Sir!' and shouting did nothing to get the message across. It did great things for the ego of the instructor though. Pal, mate etc is inappropriate, but calling the trainer by their first name seems entirely sensible. What possible problem does this create?

There is a need for trainees to be made aware that certain situations will require a disciplined approach, but that does not need a full training course where they are treated as subordinates, or worse. I work in a service with no rank titles used, everyone uses the first name and it works. On the fireground the relevant rank/role respect is still given. Why should a trainee be any different. What training input prepares them for the fire station if all day the trainer is a mini-god, who can only be called by a title and not a name?

It seems to me that any trainer who needs a title to do their job is hiding behind that title. Out if interest when you attend an external course (FSC or other service, or private provider) you are a trainee, do you expect to have to call that trainer 'Sir' 'Station Manager' 'Training manager' 'Health and safety consultant' etc., or would Bob, Mary, Mick, Julia etc, be more appropriate and make you feel more comfortable? I doubt it is the former and so why should it be any different for any other training?

PS when I do any training, or deal with my staff I like to be called by my fiorst name, as I would like to call my trainers so. I find it works quite nicely thank you. On the fireground my name, my rank/role or my call sign are perfectly acceptable terms of salutation. The situation usually dictating which.

[fireftrm]

Found it on http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmodpm/1168/1168we16.htm

Having now read this I am greatly encouraged that my prior comments are mirrored in this section :

Trainees join the fire service to become firefighters, they are prepared to listen and learn. In the terms of McGregor (1985) they are Y type people who believe that they have the same goals as the organisation and will work hard to develop them. In effect the trainee is ready for initial training to facilitate their goal development to conjoin with the (official) ethos of a developing fire service.

  Training centres are different from each other, but the trainers in each form up as if they were a watch; they share joint norms, values and expectations.

  To operationalise our understanding of training centres we developed a model that moves from "regimented," through "transitional," to "progressive" according to if a training centre facilitates self-development and encourages trainees to join the official culture or if it imposes learning and teaches trainees to resist (official goals).

Those training centres judged as progressive would encourage trainees:

—  To develop as individuals (within a team) who want to succeed.
—  To join up their own expectations with the official goals of the organisation.
—  To ask questions at the appropriate time.
—  To take responsibility for their own actions.
  Trainees in progressive training centres recognise their trainers as role models. There were no gaps building between trainee and trainer and consequently no resentment or resistance.

  To achieve these outcomes progressive training centres employ trainers with sufficient confidence in their own abilities to do their job without resorting to a situation where "discipline is done to you." These trainers will want to make a difference—to move away from the regimented, hierarchal system they were trained under.

Trainers should be:

—  Chosen for their interest in promoting a developing fire service.
—  Properly trained.
—  Able to recognise their own area of expertise.
—  Fully signed up to equality and CFS agendas.
—  Encouraged by their senior officers paying an interest in what they are doing.
—  Provided with the necessary facilities and equipment.

Those training centres judged as regimented, directed and watched over trainees:

  Trainers use discipline as an underpinning factor in the training of firefighters and subsequently they:

—  Break down individuality and enforce group behaviour and control.
—  Mould trainees into trainers (conservative) image of a good firefighter.
—  Require extreme respect, standards of appearance and accommodation be cleaned to military standards.
—  Confuse trainees, who want to learn.
—  Make trainees vulnerable.
  One explanation for the continuing regimented training system is that trainers believe this system provides the best firefighters. It is as if they know best what the fire and rescue service needs (it was how they trained and it worked for them).

  When trainers fail to capture the hearts and minds of trainees there can be at least three outcomes, none of which are likely to help to develop the fire service (not all if any trainees will fit directly with any one of these categories).

  1.  Some trainees will:

—  Expect there to be a gap between officers and firefighters.
—  Recognise that training is a "game" and work according to the rules.
—  Have joined the fire service because they enjoy the "them and us game."
 
2.  Some trainees will:

—  Accept that "Sub O's know best".
—  Allow themselves to be put through the "sausage machine."
—  Learn to conform to the agendas they are given.
—  These trainees will then be vulnerable to watch culture, which may again exploit and fit probationers in with their informal cultural beliefs.
 
 3.  Some firefighters will:

—  Learn about the job in a "them and us" culture.
—  Resent what the trainer is able to make them do
—  Put up with this behaviour because they recognise that at the station things will change.
—  Look for ways to preserve their individuality.
—  Alienated from the official goals of the organisation, develop their own goals about what they want the fire service to be for them.
—  Learn to resist when all they wanted to do was comply.
  In outcome 1 and 3 above are likely to fit-in with the informal agendas of the current cohort of firefighters. Those labelled 1 do so because that is how they originally expected the fire service to be. Those labelled 3 join to be part of the official culture but recognise that to follow their trainers' requirements means giving up too much of their own personality, so they learnt to resist. Those labelled 2, are less interested in being individuals and will comply with whoever holds authority at the time.


I am heartened by the conclusions but depressed that some of you may disagree. I do hope that you will come round to this way of thinking and if not at least accept the inevitable. If neither is the case then that a career change beckons?

[pugh]

:evil:
By 'eck, lad.  Tha's gone too far wi' all this matey malarkey.  And when you post your reply, call me 'Sir' or I'll 'ave your guts for garters!  And shine your shoes before you come on to my station.  And get your bloody 'air cut.

 

That was my basic intro' to the fire service, many, MANY years ago.  Then I became an instructor at a national training school and saw (and found) that you just make a pillock of yourself with all that shouting and stomping about, and give yourself an anuerism to boot.  I found it much more beneficial to speak in a normal voice to my trainees (other than when they were on the third floor of the tower and I was on the ground) and to develop a mentor relationship whereby I passed on my knowledge, skills and experience to them. My door was always open and was available to discuss any problem they had, be it personal or professional.

Training school standards did not allow for first name terms so it was always Mr Recruit (or Ms) and they called me Mr or Sir in public.  The point was, we all got on and got the job done in the time allowed and had some good laughs along the way.  I hope my trainees enjoyed it as much as I did.  If they didn't then I was probably doing something wrong.

It must always be remebered though that the aim is to turn out trained, competent people who can be depended upon to get things right, first time  and every time because lives depend on it, and if being matey and calling your instructor by his first name helps achieve this then I'm all for it.  However, the recruit instructor is NOT a friend and should not be there if he wants to be popular.  There are hard decisions to be made regarding peoples lives and futures and if getting too friendly gets in the way of objectivity then the status quo must prevail for the benefit of the public who expect the highest standards and the fire service who expect even better.

Whilst the report is well intended, we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

[dave bev]

anyone got a full copy - the hoc link seems to be cut short

id like to read it all before i comment

dave bev

[anderson]

Sunrise research project info including the full text report can be found at www.apu.ac.uk/fire/sunrise.html
Personally speaking i agree with much of the recommendations except for the emphasis during initial training being directed more toward CFS. Although CFS/ Community Based Activity (CBA) may make up for say 75% of the 21st century Firefighters workload there will always need to be an over emphasis on risk critical training compared with CFS in order to maintain the safety of the individual and the organisation. How we could continue to make progress on the H&S of operational staff is in question when one reads the reports recommendations for the future role of the Ff being predominantly CFS centred (not a problem) with the changing role being reflected in a higher volume of CFS training and a reduced emphasis on training for intervention/suppression (here is a problem).
Irrespective of the so-called 'macho' image of fire and rescue a reduction in risk critical training will lead to increased numbers of injuries to both female and male firefighters at the point of service delivery. Recruiting Firefighters with the recommended over emphasis on 'soft'skills could only in my view potentially incease the frequency and seriousness of such occurrences and as such i feel the present selection process is satisfactory. What i do agree with is that the system and the culture for training such individuals must change in order to direct the intrinsic qualities of these individuals towards the achievement of organisational goals. Its not our current crop of recruit Firefighters that should be seen as deficient its the system for developing them.
In reply to the original post i am a trainer who has no problem with the issue of being addressed as Mike by any student. My only contentious point is that if trainers and trainees are expected to break barriers then the same must apply to the whole  of the British Fire Service culture. In particular the relationship between Senior Management and the crews on the pumps which continues in some areas to rely heavily on a hierarchical rank based structure where the 'Chief or the Minister knows best' and they do things not because they are right but 'because they can'.
These are my views and not those of my department or employer.

[anderson]

I am disappointed that an issue of such far reaching consequences is generating such a poor response. Is this in part due to the fact that anonymous posters can no longer contribute to the forum.