Research and analysis

Pathways and barriers to leadership in fire and rescue services

Updated 21 December 2022

Applies to England

Foreword

The government’s vision for reform of the fire and rescue service, as set out in the white paper, focusses on 3 themes: people, professionalism and governance. This research report brings to life why it is important to focus on people. It shows that by supporting the workforce through open and fair practices, by nurturing talent and by focussing on wellbeing we will be able to unlock talent and create a diverse pipeline of future leaders. This report was made possible by fire and rescue service staff giving up their time to provide us with valuable insights. We are grateful to them for supporting this important research.

It is vital that fire and rescue is seen as a public sector profession with great career development opportunities and progression pathways. There are many excellent people working across fire and rescue services who should be supported to achieve their full potential. Just as important is that services are open to new talent and that they value and nurture diversity in all its forms.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) found that some fire and rescue services are falling short on creating an inclusive culture that values diversity and that there are weaknesses in leadership development.

This research, carried out between December 2020 and April 2021, supports and builds on the inspectorate’s findings and highlights lived experiences and perceptions from fire and rescue professionals relating to the support and barriers to promotion within the workforce. We urge fire leaders, and their staff, to use the findings from this report to continue the work to deliver change in their organisations; this could range from:

• building on the positive changes already seen in some fire and rescue services to call out bad behaviour
• championing and continuing to embed the principles of the code of ethics to improve the working culture of fire and rescue services
• creating consistency in recruitment practices to ensure fairness
• identifying and providing opportunities and support for people who are striving to promote and accelerate their career in fire and rescue services

The Home Office has provided substantial funding to the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) to drive forward a people and leadership programme. As a result, the NFCC and independent Fire Standards Board have produced a code of ethics, national leadership framework, talent management toolkit, leadership products, coaching and mentoring networks and equality, diversity and inclusion products for services to adopt and embed within their policies and practices.

It is now up to every fire and rescue service to make use of the products available to address and overcome the barriers outlined in this research and to maximise the use of the highlighted positives. The NFCC and the Home Office play a crucial role in supporting national change for fire and rescue services. This report forms an important part in building evidence and providing guidance on how we can continue to deliver meaningful change in the sector.

Sarah Gawley, Interim Director of Fire

Executive summary

Research background

The Home Office developed this study following findings from HM Inspectorate of the Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Service (HMICFRS) State of Fire report (HMICFRS, 2020). In the report, HMICFRS highlighted various concerns linked to the fairness of the promotion system and the staff progression pathways in fire and rescue services (FRSs) across England. This study looks to unpick some of these issues by answering the following research questions:

Research question 1: What are the schemes and training in place to support progression and promotion across FRSs?

Research question 2: What do recent rounds of leadership recruitment tell us about how FRSs manage the leadership pipeline?

Research question 3: How are promotion systems perceived by staff?

Research question 4: What are staff experiences of training and schemes to support progression?

Research question 5: What are the perceived barriers to progression in FRSs among staff?

Methods

This research covered:

An online survey of FRSs on how they manage progression of their staff into leadership positions. Of the 45 FRSs in England at the time of the study, 35 responded to the survey.

Interviews with 40 members of FRS staff, covering a range of operational and non-operational (also known as grey book and green book, respectively) roles and ranks, on their experiences and perceptions of progression into leadership roles. We recruited participants via an online applicant survey circulated by brigade managers. Fieldwork ran between 18 December 2020 and 4 April 2021.

Findings from the survey of FRSs

What are the schemes and training in place to support progression and promotion across FRSs?

There is little consistency between FRSs in the schemes and training they offer to support progression and promotion of staff, as demonstrated by the different opportunities available and variations by role. Training schemes tend to be available in a higher proportion of FRSs for most managerial roles than non-managerial roles however, supervisory control staff do not appear to have the same opportunities available as the other managerial roles.

General development schemes aimed at enhancing leadership skills, such as appraisals (35 of 35, or 100%), are prevalent across FRSs. h However, fewer employ specific leadership schemes to accelerate leadership opportunities and non-managerial staff are offered fewer opportunities. This may also indicate an opportunity to offer more focused schemes to some groups.

All 35 FRSs offered temporary promotions, but staff mostly saw these as a resourcing tool (32 of 35, 91%) and to provide experience (31 of 35, or 89%), rather than direct staff progression (25 of 35, or 71%).

What do recent rounds of leadership recruitment tell us about how FRSs manage the leadership pipeline?

There is little consistency in approaches used in managing leadership recruitment rounds, as shown by the range of minimum standards FRSs require for leadership roles, the assessment processes they use, and the channels through which they advertise roles.

The most common places in which FRSs advertised new roles were the NFCC website (30 of 35, or 86%), their internal intranet (28 of 35, or 80%) and through external job adverts (24 of 35, or 69%). Externally facing advertisement channels, such as the NFCC website and external job adverts, were more prevalent for senior leadership roles (deputy and assistant brigade managers and above). Conversely, internal intranet or email were slightly more widely used for supervisory and middle managers.

The number of vacancies which had minimum qualification requirements varied by rank, with strategic leader vacancies (brigade manager and deputy/assistant brigade managers) more likely to require qualifications than middle and supervisory managers. For example, 22 of 27 (81%) brigade manager roles require a qualification, compared with 12 of 30 (40%) supervisory managers.

FRSs could do more to attract applicants from diverse backgrounds into leadership roles. The most recent applications to leadership positions show that the vast majority of applicants were white men, and a lack of applications from women and ethnic minority groups, which reflects wider trends in FRS workforce profiles. Yet, as most supervisory manager applications were internally recruited, FRSs could do more to utilise direct entry schemes and wider use of external advertising channels.

Findings from 40 in-depth interviews with FRS staff

Participants covered operational and non-operational ranks, from firefighter to brigade manager, and varied personal characteristics (outlined in Table 1). In interviews, participants were often passionate about working in fire and rescue, often citing public service and the practical and physical element of the role as motivating factors. The great majority of applicant survey respondents (37 of 40, or 93%) wanted to enhance their leadership skills.

What are the perceived barriers to progression in fire and rescue services?

Many (predominantly female) staff consider the workplace a very male-dominant, macho environment with some hostility towards women’s place in the service. There were also a couple of reports of hostile comments towards the ethnicity of some staff; some participants, however, mentioned that the culture in their service had improved in recent years with the recruitment of new staff.

Those who are well-connected among management were often perceived to be favoured in promotion rounds. Some non-managerial and supervisory participants felt that management often had several staff in mind, who they liked personally, to promote. FRSs could therefore ensure the processes leading to promotion are fairer and more transparent, with objective processes in place to remove the possibility of favouritism or bias.

A few operational participants with children described the challenges of family commitments and balancing work with their capacity to apply for promotion or fulfil a role once promoted.

A common theme, regardless of role, was a perceived lack of opportunities for promotion. Green book (non-operational) participants felt especially aggrieved by limited opportunities, citing no visible pathway within their specialism, and grey book (operational) roles they could not apply for, but felt suitable to fulfil.

Participants’ views varied substantially on opportunities for leadership development and promotion, with participants commenting on the more limited resources in smaller FRSs to develop staff. Equally, they viewed the culture and expectations between FRSs to differ markedly, making switching between FRSs difficult to achieve.

How are promotion systems perceived?

Participants often felt the promotion process is inflexible and too long for applicants, which they felt is demotivating, especially when coupled with the risk of being unsuccessful.

Assessment methods are perceived as rigid, with issues cited including limited flexibility in assessment methods for candidates with different learning needs.

Participants also considered assessments to be focused on a narrow set of criteria, tailored to those well-practiced at interviews, without enabling candidates to demonstrate their full experience and attributes for the role. Participants often felt assessors should consider candidates’ past performance.

What are staff experiences of training and schemes to support progression?

Most participants felt there was a lack of training available to support progression. They considered training to be too general and felt more could be delivered before potential leadership promotion.

While participants generally regarded schemes to aid leadership progression, such as shadowing, coaching, mentoring and secondments, as helpful, they want more training, particularly around leadership and on team and people management, with coaching on promotion considered desirable to help newly promoted leaders.

Although participants generally felt that temporary promotions provide a good opportunity to get experience prior to permanent promotion, expectations of temporary promotions are often unclear, leaving many temporarily promoted for an extended period and without the opportunity of permanent promotion. This potentially links to a need for clearer management of the temporary promotion process and expectation setting to ensure staff are clear on the purpose of their temporary promotion and what it means for them.

Conclusion

This report highlights a range of mechanisms in place for staff to potentially progress into leadership positions in FRSs, but also several barriers limiting opportunities. These barriers include a lack of clarity and consistency in promotion processes, differences in opportunities for leadership training and development and perceived cultural factors, which suggest more needs to be done to improve talent management. Despite some reports of improvement over time, this research suggests that FRSs and supporting bodies can better ensure systems are in place to identify and develop talent, as well as ensuring staff are confident that fair and transparent promotion processes are in place.

Acknowledgements

With special thanks to all fire and rescue participants who we interviewed as part of this research, to the fire and rescue service participants who took the time to complete the survey, and to the National Fire Chiefs’ Council, in particular Becci Bryant, for their assistance in designing and promoting the research.

The authors (Phoebe Maguire Hamblett and Victoria Dalton) would also like to thank Professor Peter Murphy and Dr Russ Glennon for peer reviewing the final report, and to Will Dawes, Molly Watts, Colleen Wall, Lucy Brett and Anna Richardson for their input into the study.

1. Introduction

1.1 Context and background

The Home Office developed this study following findings from HM Inspectorate of the Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Service (HMICFRS) State of Fire and Rescue report (HMICFRS, 2020), which outlined findings from its first round of inspections of fire and rescue services (FRSs). The report identified that only 12 of 45 FRSs scored ‘good’ against the question relating to how well the FRS develops leadership and capability, with the rest of the services (33 of 45) ‘requiring improvement’.

HMICFRS highlighted various issues in the management of staff progression in FRSs across England, including a lack of diversity in senior leadership positions, such as in gender and ethnicity. It was also noted that more needed to be done to support future leaders and, in some cases, FRSs lacked in any kind of talent management, or identification and development of high-potential staff. Many FRSs were found not to train their managers in people skills such as leadership and performance management. Furthermore, wider staff welfare issues were identified with some FRSs found to have poor cultures, with bullying, harassment or discrimination occurring. The inspectorate commented that many services don’t train their managers in people skills, such as leadership, motivation, challenging inappropriate behaviour and managing performance. As a result, staff and managers were found to be behaving and leading the same way they themselves have always been led. This research looks to unpick some of the issues raised in HMICFRS’s inspections to assess the leadership development opportunities, promotion processes and barriers to promotion across England’s FRSs. However, the research is not assessing leadership in FRSs or the views of leaders outside the context of progression pathways and barriers.

1.2 Research questions

This research primarily aimed to understand the pathways and barriers to leadership positions in England’s FRSs and sought to assess this by answering the following research questions:

Research question 1: What are the schemes and training in place to support progression and promotion across FRSs?

Research question 2: What do recent rounds of leadership recruitment tell us about how FRSs manage the leadership pipeline?

Research question 3: How are promotion systems perceived by staff?

Research question 4: What are staff experiences of training and schemes to support progression?

Research question 5: What are the perceived barriers to progression in FRSs among staff?

1.3 Existing literature and thematic analysis of HMICFRS inspection reports

1.3.1 HMICFRS inspection reports 2018/19

More recently, HMICFRS began inspecting FRSs within three ‘pillars’ of their work: effectiveness, efficiency and people. HMICFRS conducted a thematic analysis of the ‘people’ section of 45 inspection reports (2018/19) to understand in more detail the issues raised in State of Fire and Rescue (HMICFRS, 2020) and to inform the research design and materials. The inspection reports draw from a range of sources, including staff feedback, audit data and visits to stations. The inspections found that for the people pillar, two were rated ‘inadequate’, a further 25 FRSs ‘required improvement’, 18 were ‘good’ and none were ‘outstanding’. Scores for the ‘people’ pillar were lower than for ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’. The people section of all 45 inspection reports and the State of Fire and Rescue report were thematically analysed, by coding any text and quotes relevant to leadership and progression. These initial codes were later defined and grouped into key areas such as barriers to leadership and training to support leadership.

Mixed levels of access to quality training, appraisals and schemes to support progression

• although we identified many training courses and schemes to support staff progress into leadership roles, these opportunities varied across FRSs, and by factors such as rank and role; senior staff have the most training opportunities, such as the Executive Leadership Programme, while some FRSs have no specific training framework for middle managers or below
• many staff looking to progress found appraisals helpful, with clear and supportive processes; other participants, particularly those not seeking promotion, considered appraisals as a ‘tick box’ exercise, rather than a development opportunity
• appraisal completion rates varied by services and role; in some services, on-call staff were less likely than wholetime staff to have had a recent appraisal, with inconsistency in assessment and recording of appraisals

Staff were often unaware whether temporary promotions were intended to develop participants or fill vacancies

• staff sometimes found temporary promotions to be too long-lasting, leading to feelings of uncertainty about securing a permanent position; some services did not train temporary leaders, even those in post for long periods of time

Varying degrees of perceived fairness and trust in the promotion process

• staff considered promotion processes that align to a clear policy and focus on talent and values rather than length of service to be fairer and more open
• the promotion processes were inconsistent, including examples of managers signing-off participants for promotion without standard criteria, wider manager interference in the promotion process, and instances of limited HR oversight
• on-call staff and non-operational staff believed they had fewer promotion opportunities compared with wholetime staff; they felt progression opportunities were at the expense of moving station or taking a lower ranked wholetime role, and there were instances of non-operational staff seeking roles outside FRSs to progress in their careers

Barriers of challenging stereotypes and financial incentives

• while some services had made positive changes in challenging the stereotypical image of a firefighter through equality, diversity and inclusion training, levels of input into this area varied by service
• staff did not always believe that the pay for a promotion reflected the additional responsibilities, with the jump between firefighter and crew manager highlighted

Therefore, previous evidence shows that there are several barriers regarding progression within FRSs in England. This research will explore these issues further to provide recommendations to services where possible.

1.3.2 Existing literature on women in FRSs

Prior research has been conducted around the progression of women in FRSs. Research conducted in 2016 examining the case of women leaders in the FRSs, found that despite passing assessments to the same ability as men, many women still experienced comments from others regarding their gender and physical ability, with male firefighters still being characterised as the norm (Woodfield, 2016). Moreover, many women described experiencing difficulties in having their non-physical, management and leadership skills recognised, which was therefore a barrier to progressing at the same rate as men (Woodfield, 2016).

2. Research approach and design

The research outlined in this report comprises an online survey of each FRS in England and Wales and 40 qualitative interviews with FRS participants. Research materials were developed in collaboration with the National Fire Chiefs’ Council (NFCC) leadership board. Quantitative survey results provide a high-level overview of processes and initiatives FRSs have in place to develop their leadership pipeline. In contrast, the qualitative interviews allowed for a detailed exploration of staff experiences with leadership progression.

2.1 Online survey of FRSs

An online survey aimed to understand the processes FRSs have in place to identify, nurture and recruit leaders. A questionnaire was designed to understand the schemes and training in place to support progression and promotion across FRSs and to assess what the recruitment of leaders tells us about how FRSs manage the leadership pipeline (research questions 1 and 2).

The questionnaire covered FRS leadership development schemes, training opportunities to aid promotion prospects, temporary promotions and the processes used in the most recent recruitment rounds, including a breakdown of those who had applied for new roles (see Data Collection Tools 1.2.1 for the survey questionnaire).

A letter was sent to each brigade manager in England to outline the research and ask them to nominate a single point of contact in their service to complete the survey; this was often someone based within the HR department. Of the 45 FRSs in England at the time of the study, 35 responded to the survey (representing a response rate of 77%) with no identifiable response bias in the type of FRS that responded. Each single point of contact received an information pack with a link to the survey which was hosted on the online platform SmartSurvey. Fieldwork ran between 18 December 2020 and 4 April 2021.

The findings for each question are based on the number of FRSs that provided an answer, as respondents had the option to skip questions for which they were unable to provide information. For some questions, the number of FRSs that provided an answer is a small subset of FRSs that responded to the survey. The findings in this report reflect the services that participated in the study but cannot be generalised to all FRSs in England.

2.1.1 Quantitative analysis

The survey data collected in SmartSurvey were exported into two Excel data files. One contains the full raw data and the other included data tables which summarised the raw numbers and percentages for each question. The research team analysed these descriptive statistics and analysed the free text thematically. The team checked all calculations and outputs to provide quality assurance.

2.2 In-depth interviews with FRS participants

To understand in more detail how staff progress in FRSs, researchers conducted 40 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with a range of staff. These covered perceptions of promotion systems, staff experiences of training and schemes to support progression and the perceived barriers to progression in FRSs (addressing research questions 3, 4 and 5). A qualitative approach was most suitable for this element – the interview process enabled interviewers to thoroughly understand each topic area by probing participants to understand their perspective in greater detail. The findings are not intended to be statistically representative but reflect the breadth of views among the 40 participants.

2.3 Approach to sourcing interview participants – applicant survey

Staff across England were invited to engage with the research via a voluntary online survey (‘applicant survey’) and subsequent in-depth interview of a sample. The NFCC sent a letter on behalf of the Home Office to all brigade managers, asking them to forward a poster with details about completing the survey to their staff. The applicant survey asked respondents about their roles, how they viewed themselves as a leader and some demographic questions (see Data Collection Tools 1.2.2). Participants were then informed about the possibility of in-depth interviews and asked if they would be willing to participate. In total, 202 respondents from 23 FRSs completed the applicant survey, of which 172 (82%) agreed to be re-contacted for interview.

Staff were selected to ensure a representative range of FRSs (reflecting size, region and their FRS’s HMICFRS people score) as well as different roles, ranks and participant characteristics such as age, gender and ethnicity. Female staff were slightly over-represented compared with the FRS population as part of our interest in hearing more from underrepresented groups. However, few individuals from ethnic minority groups completed the applicant survey, so we could not interview as many individuals from this group as we would have preferred. Staff were invited by email to participate in a telephone interview which was recorded with the participant’s permission. Table 1 outlines some key participant characteristics, both personal and in terms of the FRS for which they work. For the complete participant breakdown see Appendix 1.

Table 1: In-depth interview participants

Participant characteristics	Interviews completed
Sex - Male	24
Sex - Female	16
Ethnicity - White British or Irish	33
Ethnicity - Any other white background	2
Ethnicity - Other ethnic minority	3
Ethnicity - Prefer not to say	2
Age - 17-35	8
Age - 36-45	12
Age - 46-55	17
Age - 55+	3
Staff rank - Brigade Manager	5
Staff rank - Area Manager	2
Staff rank - Group Manager	2
Staff rank - Station Manager	4
Staff rank - Watch Manager	5
Staff rank - Crew Manager	6
Staff rank - Firefighter	8
Staff rank - Control staff	3
Staff rank - Non-operational staff	5
HMICFRS people score of FRS - Outstanding	4
HMICFRS people score of FRS - Good	14
HMICFRS people score of FRS - Inadequate	0
HMICFRS people score of FRS - Required Improvement	22
Metropolitan FRS	4
Non-metropolitan FRS	36

2.4 Discussion guide development and fieldwork

A topic guide was used to help structure the interview and ensure key areas were discussed. It included participants’ careers, experiences, and perceptions of progression in FRSs; the promotion process; temporary promotions and training and schemes to develop leadership skills and promotion opportunities (see Data Collection Tools 1.2.3).

The first two interviews, conducted by separate members of the research team, piloted the topic guide to ensure questions were comprehensible and the interview flowed appropriately. The team made a couple of small amendments to ensure change over time was captured and questions which were found to elicit duplicate responses were removed.

The research team undertook the 40 interviews between December 2020 and March 2021: each lasting typically between 45-60 minutes. Each interview was recorded with the participant’s permission. The commencement of fieldwork was originally due to begin earlier in 2020 but was delayed due to the development of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as such a decision was made to conduct interviews remotely rather than face-to-face.

2.5 Qualitative analysis

The research team conducted a rigorous analysis of the qualitative data to ensure a systematically assessment of the depth and breadth of participants’ views and experiences of progressing into leadership roles. The analysis intended to understand participants’ views in detail, rather than to be representative or measure the prevalence of these views. Throughout the fieldwork period, interviewers discussed findings in a series of iterative analysis sessions. This helped to develop an understanding of common experiences and perspectives of the progression routes in FRSs that emerged throughout the interviews, and to highlight areas in which interviewers could use further probing in future interviews. The final qualitative data comprised detailed interviewer notes and recorded transcriptions of each interview.

A thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcriptions to help identify and organise common areas based on the data presented. This enabled the research team to systematically group and unpick repetitive issues and concerns around leadership progression. In addition, they could pinpoint nuances within the data and, where apparent, make connections between different roles, ranks and demographics. They conducted the thematic analysis in three stages to ensure data was thoroughly assessed and quality assured:

Stage 1: The project interviewers used analysis discussion sessions and their detailed written notes to identify and collate a core understanding of emerging data. Analysis was initially organised using a broad thematic framework, which was developed using the structure of the discussions, including participants’ career ambitions, overall experiences of promotion and access to training and development opportunities. Using Excel software, this framework provided the basis of data management and a structure from which the researchers could conduct detailed and rigorous coding of each relevant point to identify frequency.

Stage 2: The team conducted further iterative analysis by examining the codes sequentially to identify interrelated issues, develop categories and refine themes. This allowed for further connections to be made between different codes; for example, by looking at demographic or role-based issues collectively, and cultural or process-related themes. This inductive analysis resulted in a final comprehensive and structured thematic framework, which was useful, as many of the issues identified in the interviews cut across several aspects of participants’ career experiences.

Stage 3: Upon receipt of interview transcripts, the research team quality assured the interviewer notes and codes for accuracy and developed them further so the team could apply additional coding and identify additional or further develop themes. The transcripts also provided quotes to further evidence the findings.

2.6 Ethics and data protection

The Home Office conducted this research to inform policy development around leadership in FRSs. To ensure high ethics and safeguarding standards, this research was conducted in accordance with Government Social Research guidelines: GSR Professional Guidance - Ethical Assurance for Social Research in Government.

Conducting in-depth interviews with FRS staff about their career and life in the service meant that there was potential for discussion of sensitive topics. Therefore, to ensure that participants understood the research process entirely, the interviewers provided the participants with a detailed information sheet and privacy notice to provide fully informed consent to take part in the research, details of which is provided below.

Researchers collected and handled data in line with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Only researchers working on the project had access to the data gathered.

Survey of FRSs. Ahead of completing the online survey of FRSs, each participating FRSs received a privacy notice (see Data Collection Tools 1.2.4). This outlined the project aims, what would be required of participants, and how their data would be handled.

Interviews with FRS participants. Prior to conducting interviews, participants were emailed an information sheet and privacy notice reiterating the purpose of the research and a consent form (Data Collection Tools 1.2.5 and 1.2.6). These provided details of the interview, how their data would be used and stored, reassurance regarding anonymity and confidentially, and their right to withdraw. Interviewers reiterated this information to participants at the start of each interview, reassuring them that any information shared would not identify them in this report and that the team would destroy data gathered 12 months after publication.

2.7 Limitations of the research

While the study provides a rigorous assessment of leadership progression in FRSs, there are some methodological limitations to consider when reviewing the study.

• the quantitative survey is not based on all FRSs; although we contacted all 45 FRSs, only 35 FRSs completed the online survey, meaning findings from some services are not reflected in the results and patterns may have differed had all 45 services completed the survey; as the survey is based on 35 of the 45 FRSs, small differences in counts have a large effect on percentage changes; percentages presented should therefore be viewed with some caution; nevertheless, a response rate of 78% still represents a good level of response and insight can be drawn from the findings of the 35 participating FRSs
• the online survey generally comprised mostly closed questions about broad internal progression processes, but it is acknowledged that some of these processes are more nuanced and detailed than the survey could collect; the survey asks FRSs about the processes they use but could not validate the consistency or prevalence with which they apply them in practice
• the qualitative research explored the views and experiences of 40 FRS staff; it is important to note that compared to the total workforce of the FRSs, this sample is very small and therefore the views represent the individuals interviewed; however, we selected the participants to capture the views of a broad range of roles, ranks and personal characteristics; in addition, less staff, including those from ethnic minority groups, those from a metropolitan services and younger members of the workforce, volunteered to take part in the interviews than we hoped

2.8 Definition of roles and ranks used in this report

2.8.1 Progression pathways

Operational roles begin at a firefighter level and work up through to supervisory manager roles, middle manager roles and strategic manager roles. Control staff are operational staff who follow the same progression pathway as firefighter. Non-operational staff have FRS-specific progression pathways, and this may vary by different specialisms or service, although there is still typically a divide between non-managerial and managerial roles.

Throughout the report, ‘rank’ refers to the general level of management, such as supervisory manager, middle manager and strategic manager, which often includes several roles within them. While ‘role’ refers to the specific role within the rank; for example, a crew manager and watch manager both fall under the supervisory manager rank but are different roles.

FRSs received the definitions in Table 2 before the online survey for them to answer the questions. We have applied these definitions throughout the report when describing the findings.

Table 2: Definitions

Terms	Definition
The ‘workforce’, ‘participants’ or ‘employees’	Any employee of the FRS.
Leaders	Any member of staff (operational, non-operational and control participants) with managerial responsibilities (crew manager or equivalent, and above).
Promotion/progression	Refers to moving into a leadership/managerial role (supervisory manager / non-operational manager level or above).
RANK
Supervisory manager	Includes crew managers, watch managers, and station managers, or equivalents.
Middle manager	Includes group managers, and area managers or equivalents.
Strategic/ brigade manager	Includes assistant brigade manager, deputy brigade manager and/or brigade manager or equivalents.
Non-operational manager/directors	Includes managers in non-operational support functions e.g. finance, IT and HR.
ROLE CLASSIFICATION
Grey book	Operational roles and control roles
Green book	Non-operational roles
Gold book	Brigade managers or equivalent

3. Survey of fire and rescue services: exploring leadership development opportunities

This chapter covers findings from an online survey of 35 of the 45 FRSs in England at the time of the study. It describes high-level findings on leadership development opportunities to enhance promotion prospects; use of temporary promotions; schemes to enable entry into roles from outside FRSs; and the most recent leadership recruitment rounds. It is important to note that findings are based on a few responses, meaning small changes in individual figures have a large effect on percentages. This chapter covers the main findings, with some additional survey findings in Appendix 4.

3.1 Summary

What can be learnt about the schemes and training in place to support progression and promotion across FRSs?

• there is little consistency between FRSs in the schemes and training they offer to support progression and promotion of staff, as demonstrated by the different opportunities available and variations by role
• although general development schemes aimed to enhance leadership skills such as coaching were common across FRSs, fewer specific schemes were used to accelerate progression and non-managerial staff were offered fewer schemes; collectively, the findings suggest FRSs may want to consider opportunities for more focused leadership progression schemes or direct entry schemes to assist in the identification, nurturing and progression of high-potential talent across all roles and ranks

What do recent rounds of leadership recruitment tell us about how FRSs manage the leadership pipeline?

• there is little uniformity in approaches used in managing leadership recruitment rounds; this is illustrated by the different minimum standards required for leadership roles, the assessment processes used and the channels in which roles are advertised; these findings point to potential opportunities for services to learn more from each other about effective talent identification and recruitment
• for all roles, there is a lack of diversity in applicants for leadership positions; therefore, FRSs could do more to attract applications from diverse backgrounds into leadership roles; the most recent applications to leadership positions show that the great majority of applicants are white men, while there is a paucity of applications from women and ethnic minority groups, reflecting wider trends in FRS workforces; FRSs could therefore do more to attract talent from underrepresented backgrounds into leadership roles, potentially utilising direct entry schemes and making wider use of external advertising channels when filling vacancies

3.2 Support schemes to support progression in FRSs

The first part of this chapter looks to understand what we can learn about the schemes and training in place to support progression and promotion across services.

3.2.1 Schemes to support promotion opportunities

FRSs were asked to indicate the schemes they had in place to help staff progress into their first or a more senior leadership role. Figure 1 shows the number of FRSs that used each scheme for any role or rank.

Figure 1: Schemes to aid progression into leadership roles

Responding FRSs: 35 FRSs

Across FRSs, the most common schemes in place to support staff progress into leadership roles tended to be general development schemes, including appraisals (35 or 100%) and coaching (28 of 35, or 80%). Meanwhile, schemes directly aimed at accelerating the progress of staff into leadership positions, such as fast tracking, were less common. Overall, 15 FRSs did not provide any role hopping, fast tracking, the Aspiring Leader programme or high-potential training schemes.

Managerial roles had more access to leadership development schemes than non-managerial staff, especially the case with schemes aimed at roles closely linked to accelerating staff progression such as role hopping (see Appendix 3, Table A1 for a breakdown by role). These findings suggest that while FRSs sometimes target schemes towards specific ranks, this may result in a lack of targeted opportunities for non-managerial staff. FRSs could consider broadening access to development schemes to ensure further staff have opportunities to develop the skills needed for progressing into and through leadership roles.

3.2.2 Training to support those promoted into leadership roles

FRSs were asked what training opportunities they offer staff who are new into leadership positions (outlined in Appendix 2, Figure A1). This included:

• training focusing on personnel management, with health and safety training (35, or 100%), wellbeing training (31 of 35, or 89%) and absence management training (31 of 35, or 89%) the most common; meanwhile, training opportunities with an organisational focus, such as industrial relations training (10 of 35, or 29%) and financial training (26 of 35, or 74%) were least common
• each type of training was available in fewer FRSs for supervisory control staff than other managerial ranks, while training coverage was similar across other managerial ranks (please see Appendix 2, Figure A2 for a breakdown by role)

3.2.3 Temporary promotions

All 35 FRSs offered temporary promotions, in which staff are promoted for a period before either returning to their previous role or permanently promoted. FRSs most often said they use temporary promotions to cover a temporary staff absence (32 of 35, or 91%) and to provide experience (31 of 35, or 89%) but less frequently cited to give a member of the workforce the chance to progress into a permanent leadership position (25 of 35, or 71%).

Figure 2: Reasons why FRSs use temporary promotions

Responding FRSs: 35 FRSs

More than twice as many staff had been temporarily promoted than permanently promoted in the year prior to completing the survey (1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020). The mean number of participants temporarily promoted within that year was 76, while the mean number who transitioned from a temporary promotion to a permanent role was 28. This suggests that while opportunities for permanent promotions do emerge from temporary promotions, this transition is less common than the number of temporary promotions.

3.2.4 Direct entry schemes

Direct entry is a recruitment scheme in which roles are open to staff not already working in fire and rescue. Approximately a quarter of FRSs (8 of 35, or 23%) run a direct entry scheme at a leadership level.

Of the FRSs that use a direct entry scheme, it was most commonly in place for strategic managers (8 of 8 FRSs) and non-operational managers (6 of 8). It was less often in place for middle managers (3 of 8) and supervisory managers (1 of 8) (Appendix 2, Figure A5).

The most common reason cited for not running a direct entry scheme was that services are waiting for a national steer, such as from NFCC (11 of 27, or 41%). Other common reasons linked to a view that the required skills were already held within the FRS, including skills required for roles require a fire background (8 of 27, or 30%) the skills they need are in the current workforce (7 of 27, or 26%) and adequate skills within FRSs to recruit leaders internally (7 of 27, or 26%) (Appendix 2, Figure A7). Therefore, ongoing work by the NFCC People Programme, which is developing development schemes, such as direct entry, will support FRSs in their understanding and application of the schemes.

3.3 Most recent recruitment for leadership roles

This section covers online survey findings answering the research question on what the most recent leadership recruitment rounds tell us about how FRSs manage the leadership pipeline.

3.3.1 Promotion processes

To explore any similarities or differences between the way services run promotion processes, FRSs were asked which steps they generally have in place in recruitment rounds from a list of eight common steps. A list of eight common steps was provided, with the additional option to specify others used. Typically, FRSs used 6 or more steps within their promotion processes. All FRSs used an interview (35 of 35 or 100%), while most also use application forms (33 of 35, or 94%) and tests (31 of 35 or 91%).

Figure 3: Steps FRSs use as part of the promotion process

Responding FRSs: 35 FRSs

3.4 Recent rounds of promotion

Participating FRSs provided information about their most recent rounds of recruitment for four operational leadership ranks: brigade manager, deputy/assistant brigade manager (also known as a strategic leader), middle manager and supervisory manager. Figure 4 outlines the number of FRSs using each advertising channel in the most recent recruitment rounds for any of these leadership ranks.

3.4.1 Where leadership roles were advertised

Externally facing advertisement channels, such as the NFCC website and external job adverts, were more prevalent for strategic leadership roles. Conversely, internal advertising methods, such as an internal email, were slightly more widely used for supervisory and middle managers (Appendix 2, Figure A8).

Figure 4: Where FRSs advertise upcoming recruitment campaign

Responding FRSs: 35 FRSs

In addition, a higher proportion of supervisory and middle manager applicants applied internally, and a larger proportion of strategic leaders (assistant/deputy brigade managers) and brigade managers applied externally (either from another service or direct entry).

Table 3: The proportion of applications to each role by application type

Applicant background	Brigade manager applicants	Deputy/ assistant brigade manager applicants	Middle manager applicants	Supervisory manager applicants
(Number of FRS responses)	(15 )	(33)	(33)	(33)
From another service	32%	53%	25%	11%
From your service	25%	19%	59%	71%
External recruitment/ direct entry	36%	23%	0%	0%
Unknown	7%	5%	17%	18%

These findings suggest FRSs could consider how they utilise external and internal advertisements for all roles to ensure complete fairness in progression opportunities.

3.4.2 Minimum qualifications

The proportion of vacancies which had minimum qualification requirements varied by rank. Strategic leader positions more commonly required qualifications than middle and supervisory managers. For example, 22 of 27 brigade manager roles required some form of qualification compared with 12 of 30 supervisory managers. However, there was variation in the qualification requirements of strategic leader roles between FRSs. Around a fifth of FRSs required a masters or doctorate level qualification (6 of 27), with a similar proportion not requiring a minimum qualification (5 of 27).

Table 4: Minimum academic qualification required for role vacancy, across different managerial roles

	Number of responding FRSs	No minimum qualification required	GCSE/ O-level / CSE	Vocational qualifications (NVQ1+2)	A-Level or equiv. (NVQ3)	Bachelor’s degree or equiv. (NVQ4)	Masters / PhD or equiv.
Brigade manager (or equiv.)	27	5	1	0	0	15	6
Deputy/ assistant brigade manager (or equiv.)	29	5	1	0	0	19	4
Middle manager (or equiv.)	31	14	1	0	7	9	0
Supervisory manager (or equiv.)	30	18	2	3	7	0	0

FRSs were asked about whether leaders needed to have completed the Executive Leadership Programme (ELP), a training programme intended to prepare staff for strategic leadership roles. A third of FRSs required brigade managers and deputy/assistant brigade managers to have completed the ELP (11 of 31, or 35%; and 10 of 32, or 31%, respectively), indicating that it is sometimes but not always a pre-requisite for a strategic leadership position. These findings suggest that there could be greater consistency in the requirements for strategic leaders nationally and that there could be work to develop these criteria.

3.4.3 Applicant avenues for applications in FRSs leadership recruitment rounds

For more senior roles, there is a lower number and proportion of applicants who get taken forward to interview than other leadership roles. In the most recent recruitment round for each role:

• strategic manager vacancies (deputy brigade managers and brigade managers) had fewer applications (7 and 8 average applications) than middle (10 average applications) and supervisory managers (29 average applications)
• on average, a higher proportion of supervisory manager (72%) and middle manager (70%) applicants were interviewed for their respective positions than assistant/deputy brigade managers (50%) and brigade managers (43%) (Appendix 3 Table A2)

To foster a more competitive process, FRSs could do more to attract suitable applicants to strategic manager positions and interview a greater number of candidates in strategic roles.

3.4.4 Applicant demographic characteristics for operational leadership roles

FRSs were asked about the demographic characteristics of applicants from their most recent recruitment round to each of the four operational leadership ranks. This helps understand the extent to which applicants reflected the population of England and could signal opportunities to improve demographic diversity in FRSs. While figures are based on a reasonable number of applicants, not all participating FRSs completed these questions and sometimes these figures are based on just a few FRSs; however, applicant numbers are still large enough to see variation.

These findings should be viewed considering figures from March 2021 that show that only 18% of the 40,029 staff in FRSs were female and only 5.3% of staff were from a minority ethnic group.

This section presents the gender and ethnicity breakdowns for the most recent recruitment rounds, with additional data shown in Appendix 3 due to the small number of FRSs providing this data (religion, disability, sexual orientation and age).

For all operational leadership roles, there was a much higher proportion of male than female applicants (around 1 in 10 (10%) applicants were women). While this is slightly higher than the current proportion of female firefighter (7% were women in 2020), it illustrates that this is still a lot of scope for FRSs to attract women into FRSs operational and leadership roles, so they more closely reflect the communities they serve.

Table 5: The number of applications to each role by gender

Role	total number of applicants (FRSs responses)	Proportion of female applicants	Proportion of male applicants
Brigade manager	27 applicants (8 FRSs)	11%	89%
Deputy/Assistant brigade manager	188 applicants (28 FRSs)	11%	89%
Middle manager	200 applicants (30 FRSs)	8%	92%
Supervisory manager	485 applicants (28 FRSs)	10%	90%

Across all roles, there very few applicants from an ethnic minority background, and for brigade manager roles, none of the applicants identified as being from a non-white background. This largely concurs with the 2020 published data on firefighters in England in which 4.4% are from an ethnic minority (compared with 14.6% in England in the 2011 Census) and again illustrates the need for FRSs to develop more representative leadership in FRSs.

For a substantial minority of applicants for each role, ethnicity data was either not known or not collected by the FRS (5 FRSs for brigade manager, 8 FRSs for deputy/assistant brigade manager, 7 FRSs for middle manager and 10 FRSs for supervisory manager).

Table 6: Number of applications to each role by ethnicity

Role	total number of applicants (FRSs responses)	Proportion of applicants from white background	Proportion of applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds	Data not collected by or provided to FRS
Brigade manager	20 applicants (7 FRSs)	75%	0%	25%
Deputy/Assistant brigade manager	163 applicants (26 FRSs)	82%	6%	12%
Middle manager	199 applicants (30 FRSs)	80%	2%	18%
Supervisory manager	563 applicants (28 FRSs)	68%	3%	29%

4. The views and experiences of 40 FRS staff on progression into leadership roles

This chapter outlines findings from 40 in-depth interviews FRS staff. The interview covered reasons for wanting to become a leader, experiences of promotion processes, leadership training and development opportunities, and current barriers to promotion.

The findings from these interviews reflect the views of a broad selection of FRS staff but are not representative of all FRS staff. Note also that the issues highlighted by participants were based on their personal career experience and therefore may not resonate widely among staff. As such, these interviews provide further insight into the breadth of experiences and perceptions of progression within FRSs rather than measure prevalence of issues related to leadership progression.

To describe the findings in this section certain terminology is used to highlight in how many interviews a topic was discussed. For reference:

• ‘most’ refers to 75% or more of the sample
• ‘many’ refers to 50% or more of the sample
• ‘some’ refers up to 30% of the sample
• ‘few’ up to 15% of the sample

Where only a few participants hold a point of view, these have been highlighted more clearly.

Finally, the terms ‘grey book’ staff is used interchangeably with operational staff, and ‘green book’ staff is used interchangeably with non-operational staff. Although mentioned less frequently, brigade managers (or equivalent) are also referred to as ‘gold book’ roles.

4.1 Summary

What were the perceived barriers to progression in fire and rescue services?

• the most highlighted barrier to leadership progression linked to personal characteristics, such as the improving but still negative attitudes towards women in general and as leaders, and issues of favouritism
• those who are well-connected among management were often perceived to be favoured in promotion rounds; in particular, some non-managerial and supervisory participants felt that management often had staff in mind, who they liked personally, to promote; a common theme, regardless of role, was a perceived lack of opportunities for promotion; green book (non-operational) participants felt especially aggrieved by limited opportunities, citing no visible pathway within their specialism, or grey book (operational) roles

How were current promotion systems perceived?

• participants often felt the promotion process to be too long and inflexible to progress through, and assessment methods considered too rigid; this was viewed both from a practical point of view, with issues such as recruitment window timing and assessment methods highlighted, and in a belief that the process was a very formulaic exercise
• participants seldom felt promotions assessed candidates in a rounded way, such as incorporating prior experience, and some queried the openness and transparency of the process; some participants noted improvements

What were participants’ experiences of training and schemes to support progression?

• most participants felt there was a lack of training available, including training on leadership skills and promotion opportunities; they considered training to be too general and could be delivered before promotion, with participants regularly highlighting a suite of options, particularly on team and people management they would find helpful to ensure they were prepared for leadership
• participants thought temporary promotions provide a good opportunity to get experience prior to permanent promotion, but expectations of temporary promotions were often unclear, leaving many of those temporarily promoted for an extended period, or without getting an opportunity for permanent promotion

4.2 Participant career backgrounds and their motivations for working and leading in fire and rescue

4.2.1 Leadership motivations

Before taking part in interviews, participants responded to an applicant survey which included questions on their views of themselves as leaders. Almost three-quarters of participants (29 of 40, or 73%) considered themselves a leader within their FRS (34 of the 40 held a supervisory role or were more senior). Eight participants did not see them themselves as leaders, but 6 of those (5 firefighters and a crew manager) wanted to become a leader within their FRS in the future (Appendix 3, Table A9). The great majority of participants (37 of 40, or 93%) agreed that they want to enhance their leadership skills, suggesting participants were generally motivated to become better leaders. The remaining findings in this chapter are based on the 40 in-depth interviews conducted with FRS staff.

4.2.2 Education and career backgrounds

Interview participants first described their prior work experience. Eight participants had worked in multiple FRSs throughout their career, so could share their experiences from across different fire and rescue organisations. Nine participants had joined an FRS as their first job, with 22 participants indicating they actively pursued a career in FRSs for a while prior to starting. A relatively common career background for those who had worked in other sectors was the armed forces (6 participants), although others with prior careers had worked in a wide range of other career backgrounds. Many participants had studied at university (14 participants). FRSs can therefore harness the range of experiences and skills that come with a workforce of diverse backgrounds.

Within the interviews, many different reasons were cited for deciding to work in fire and rescue. A few participants did not initially set out to work in FRSs but were influenced by advertising or the experiences of family and friends. Others had long-intended to work in fire and rescue with some whom it took time to secure a role. Regardless of their route into services, most participants, particularly those in operational roles, spoke with enthusiasm throughout the interview about working in fire and rescue and the delivery of FRSs. A key motivating factor was their role as a public service and firefighters enjoyed the practical and physical element of the job.

“It was something where I didn’t know what to do at all … And then I spoke to a friend, and they suggested the fire and rescue sector to me. And I thought it’s something I might do for a little while. So, I applied and got into the service.”
(Strategic leader)

“You work with some great people, it’s interesting, you make a difference and you’re serving the community, which is important to myself.”
(Male, operational station manager)

4.2.3 Future career plans

Most participants talked openly in interviews about their intentions and plans to move through leadership ranks, although the scale of ambition varied. Some set goals to become strategic leaders, while others hoped to settle at the next leadership rank. Leadership ambitions were typically coupled with a keenness to take on more responsibility and people management. A few participants who wanted to have influence organisationally were particularly motivated to progress to strategic ranks.

“To be able to suggest some ideas [about] the ways we can move as a fire service. And [have] people kindly listen to those thoughts and consider them, and to see things have been changed on the back of that … to really have the ability to influence you need to be higher up the chain.”
(Male, operational station manager)

However, not all participants aspired to secure leadership roles and were content in their existing roles. For a few operational staff, they did not want to lose the enjoyment they got from the practical part of their role with shifts towards more managerial responsibilities the more they progress. However, these participants were often keen to say that they held leadership responsibilities as firefighters. A couple of participants also felt they could still contribute to their FRS as non-leaders and the service should listen to them more.

“For some people, they may not necessarily want to progress into more managerial roles, they may be happy, staying within a firefighter, crew manager role, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t have the ability to then progress. So, it is a shame that often views are just disregarded down to the perception of rank.”
(Male, operational station manager)

4.3 Personal characteristics as a barrier to progression

Throughout the interviews, participants often commented on factors that they believed underpinned their experiences of working in FRSs and which they felt posed barriers to progressing into leadership positions. It is important to note that participants spontaneously raised these factors which reflect their perceptions, and therefore may have been one of the main drivers behind their career pathways.

Barriers highlighted by participants included issues related to personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, family situation and age. Meanwhile, other wider barriers were linked to organisational cultures, such as issues related to perceived favouritism in leadership chains. These perceived barriers were typically considered to reflect the culture and attitudes within FRSs and leadership chains, and were often seen to impede staff progression.

Refer to Table 1 for the breakdown of the sample by personal characteristics.

4.3.1 Gender

Most women and some men in operational roles discussed how issues related to gender influenced their experience and opportunities for promotion. Generally, women interviewed regarded attitudes towards them from men as being a substantial barrier to establishing their careers and becoming leaders. Negative attitude towards them was apparent throughout their fire and rescue careers, even among leaders within their watch. Conversely, a few men felt that women had been progressed beyond their experience.

Female firefighters often felt that they were not taken as seriously as their male counterparts, citing instances of male staff and leaders implying that women were not fit to be firefighters. These experiences led many female firefighters to believe they had to work harder and get more experience to be respected as a firefighter and progress into leadership roles. Similarly, some female operational participants felt that men would be promoted quicker within operational roles than women, even when they felt men were not ready and lacked experience to progress. A few women who had been promoted were told by male colleagues that their progression was because of gender quotas, and not on merit; these comments sometimes led female participants to doubt themselves in their role or question whether they were ready for future promotion.

“It is always the element of [having] to go that bit further. As a woman you have to be able to go above and beyond … to be accepted by them.”
(Female, operational crew manager)

“For my first promotion within the service there was another member of staff, he was also going through the same process and before we could become crew managers, we had to have done … our safe to ride … I applied to do it several times over a period of years and each time been told there wasn’t enough spaces. Another member of staff from my station who happened to be male and worked on the watch where the role was going to become vacant requested at the last minute and was given the course over me. So, I put in a bit of a complaint and I managed to get onto the course and … I was successful and he was not, but he was given that role. Although I was successful, I was not able to access that role and I felt I felt that it was a male female thing.”
(Female, operational station manager)

“I feel that sometimes if I’m successful, people will only ever say, ‘Oh, you’re only successful because you’re female’ and ‘you only got that job because you’re female’ so it does put me off applying for promotion sometimes.”
(Female, firefighter)

A few women who work in operational roles reported that more established members of the watch were typically the least welcoming to women in FRSs. However, they felt that in general attitudes and comments related to gender had become less common, with newer recruits being much more open-minded to women in FRSs.

“A group of people retired locally within the station area … watch commanders were brought in, crew commanders were brought in. And I would say then culturally it started to change”.
(Female, crew manager)

Despite feeling that there were substantial barriers in front of them, most of the women interviewed were still keen on applying for promotion, and while they were conscious of the challenges they faced as women in FRSs, they were inspired by the increasing number in leadership positions.

“Being female going for promotion, it boosts it a bit more, almost to prove a point … There’s a female firefighter who is a crew manager at the moment. And she’s really, really good. So, if there’s any kind of hassle or anything, I can always go to her and she can talk me through things. I don’t see it as a daunting process.”
(Female, firefighter)

Although there were reports from women about attitudes towards their role improving over time, such as feeling more welcomed within the service by men, most women believed challenges remained. This included how they felt they were treated within their FRS and their personal development and progression opportunities.

Conversely, some male operational firefighters felt that women had enhanced opportunities for progression. While they supported the opportunities for women to progress, they felt roles opened for them before they had the required experience as a firefighter.

“I’ve got females that work with me, and I’ve got more trust and more belief in them than some males that I work with. I don’t care what gender you are, whether you’re male or female, if you can do the job, then crack on, I want to work with you. But at the moment, [the FRS] is pushing for more females to go for promotion. I just feel that they’re getting pushed too soon to go for the job.”
(Male, firefighter)

Finally, another challenge that a few women in operational roles reported was the inflexibility of promotion windows, including the impact of missing the opportunity to apply for promotion when on maternity leave.

“Surely the brigade will be able to make reasonable adjustments, to make it fair for somebody to come into work if they were in a situation like that, or to at least allow a couple of weeks leeway for them … that’s all I wanted.”
(Female, control group manager)

Despite slight improvements and accounts of positive changes, the findings continue to suggest that FRSs can do more to improve attitudes towards women within their services.

4.3.2 Family commitments

Another discussed barrier to progression was family commitments. A few operational participants with children described challenges of balancing work and family life commitments with their capacity to apply for promotion or fulfil a role once promoted. These participants sometimes reported a culture in their service in which participants had to work long and unsociable hours to show commitment to a role before being considered for promotion, and which was felt to be unachievable or unpalatable for those with children.

“If you’re a single parent and you don’t have childcare to work shifts from seven till seven then you’re automatically going to discount yourself out of promotion.”
( Female, firefighter)

Operational participants with children often mentioned that a barrier for them to go for promotion was a lack of flexibility around required working hours, such as requirements for working consecutive days or weekend shifts.

“Having to work 12-hour day shifts, 7am to 7pm through in, and one hour of travelling either side. Those shifts are so un-family friendly. Guys are leaving work before their children wake up and by the time they get home, the kids are already in bed. [The FRS] listened to what we said and didn’t do anything about it. If the training and the job and everything was more family friendly, you get more people staying.”
(Male, operational crew manager)

A couple of women highlighted issues they faced in the past with having children, including inconsistencies in maternity leave and challenges in returning to work. However, they acknowledged that improvements have been made over time and therefore these former experiences may not reflect the current situation. FRSs have an opportunity to establish a work culture which gives staff wanting to progress greater flexibility and which is accepted by peers.

4.3.3 Ethnicity

Fire statistics (Home Office, 2021) show that ethnic minority staff working for the FRSs are greatly underrepresented compared to the communities their FRSs serve. As such, we were keen to hear the experiences of each of the ethnic minority applicant survey respondents willing to be interviewed. The three participants highlighted some concerns related to a few examples of comments linked to race and wider concerns about the representation of ethnic minority employees in leadership positions. It is therefore important to consider the impact on participants who felt concerned by the prevailing white male environment and the need for more opportunities for ethnic minority staff to progress.

One participant of ethnic minority spoke of the underrepresentation of staff from diverse backgrounds during their career (being able to recall the few job roles in which they had seen women or ethnic minority staff), and reflected on the need for an organisational culture that would attract and retain more diverse staff. The participant also indicated that ethnic minority staff were often slower to progress through the ranks compared to white staff. They suggested that because white men dominate the current leadership chains, further specific opportunities were needed for underrepresented groups to progress and be better represented.

“If you’re a woman firefighter, or you are BAME firefighter … and you don’t have those development opportunities, how will you get to those middle manager level posts like watch manager, station manager and group manager? Because if those opportunities are only available for watch managers and station managers to then progress up to group manager, then the bulk of the staff who are, say 10% women, 1% or 2% BAME.”
(Male, operational group manager)

4.3.4 Age

Participants occasionally reflected on their career progress in terms of their age. A few older participants, both operational and non-operational, felt they had been overlooked for roles due to their age.

“You’re potentially losing good people because the retention isn’t there, because the only way to get promotion is to leave … even at 64, I would have considered getting another job at this stage.”
(Female, non-operational watch manager)

4.3.5 Favouritism

Another factor considered to influence progression opportunities was a widely perceived culture of favouritism, in which staff who were considered close and well liked in leadership chains were prioritised for promotion ahead of others who were equally or better placed for the role. This was believed to occur both in terms of those put forward for promotion, bias in the assessment process and the creation of roles for favoured staff. While these views were commonly mentioned during the interviews, it is important to note that they reflect participant perceptions rather than objective facts.

An example of favouritism that was a frequently mentioned view was those who were friends with senior leaders and had a type of character they preferred were more likely to be promoted, despite not having the required skills or experience or being most suited for the role.

“There seemed to be no attempt whatsoever to look around the rest of the patch and it was famous that they had brought all these people from their previous management group because they’ve been working together for so long.”
(Strategic leader)

Participants often mentioned that because of a belief that management effectively assigned jobs to a predetermined member of staff, they were reluctant to apply when new vacancies were posted.

“There’s probably about 20-25% of me still thinks, ‘but that is that job is ear marked for somebody else?’. There is a part of me still thinks ‘yes’.”
(Female, operational crew manager)

A brigade manager who identified issues with favouritism in services felt having the right processes and systems in place was an important part of overcoming the issue to ensure the most appropriate individuals both apply and are selected for roles.

“People have been doing that for centuries. But trying to make sure that these people who are not favourites to you, there’s a lot of people who come into your sphere, but you’ve got systems in place, so it’s becoming completely inclusive.”
(Strategic leader)

These findings suggest FRSs could do more to ensure the processes leading to promotion are viewed as fair and transparent, with objective processes in place to remove the possibility or perception of favouritism or bias.

4.4 Promotion process

This section covers participants’ views on the promotion structure and assessment processes. Participants raised several concerns around the promotion process, which they felt lowered appetite or ability to apply for promotion roles. This sometimes led to participants feeling stuck at a non-managerial level and feeling very frustrated with the process. However, not all participants had concerns about the promotion process and found it worked adequately for them.

4.4.1 Promotion process overview

Many firefighters and supervisory participants who had been through the promotion process felt it was too long and inflexible. Given the level of sustained input required to get promoted, some participants felt demotivated to go through the process in case they were unsuccessful. However, some participants commented that the assessment process is currently clearer compared to when they entered the service, due its more formal and consistent structure.

“It takes a lot of time and a lot of preparation … You’ve got to know your stuff on who everybody at the panel is. And that’s quite difficult … And you have to do various tasks … and you were timed like you’re in a class exam … I had a real headache when I came out, it took three hours to do it.”
(Female, area manager)

“We’ve adopted a career progression gateway. That’s an online run assessment and development centre, which is marked externally by psychologists. Every promotion is now run through this process, and it is definitely a step forward.”
(Male, operational watch manager)

Many cited the benefit of ‘pool’ recruitment systems, which involve successful candidates who pass a required level standard being later offered roles that arise. However, some mentioned they could be in a pool system for a long time without being offered a role. In some instances, participants had to repeat the application process as the pool reached an expiry date.

“They have a pool of people that are successful and then from that pool they either offer you temporary roles or substantive role as they come about that as part of the process … So, for me that was quite good to know that I don’t have to do the process again for another year because I’m still within that pool.”
(Female, operational station manager)

4.4.2 Assessment methods

Participants highlighted a variety of assessment methods, such as interviews, technical skills testing and presentations, used by FRSs to assess promotion applicants. Several concerns were raised about how applicants are assessed, which were often linked to a view that participants were not always measured in a consistent, robust, and fair way, often due to the assessment process changing frequently.

“At one point they think it’s okay to do an interview or a presentation. And then somebody else will come along who’s in charge and decide that, ‘Oh, no, you should always do scenarios and practical assessment as well.’ And then, you know, another, another year, they might think, ‘Oh, we need to do assessment centres.’ And it changes as time goes on … I think a sort of national steer is needed.”
(Female, non-operational group manager)

Another suggested area for improvement raised in several interviews was to allow for greater flexibility in modes of assessment to account for the varying ways in which people can demonstrate their skills. This was particularly important when it was justified by genuine applicant needs. Participants with dyslexia reported finding traditional written assessments very difficult and felt that the provided support required improvement. For example, one participant said they would have needed more additional time to overcome the assessment mode challenges or would have preferred to be assessed via interviews or presentations.

“I can’t pass these interviews because of the way they are handled and the lack of understanding of my condition. Basically, their adjustments give you 25% extra [time], which is no good at all.”
(Male, operational watch manager)

Similarly, many felt that while applicants with strong written and verbal communication are well-positioned to pass assessments, they may not be most suitable for the role. Similarly, other staff who were generally proficient at passing assessments were seen to be promoted too soon. In addition, some participants felt that the assessment process was too generic and did not focus enough on the individual applicant and what they can bring to the role. As such, participants often viewed promotion assessments as being quite formulaic, in which applicants had to match criteria to pass, rather than properly evaluate applicants.

“You’re limited to how you can put yourself across on a bit of paper … if you score the best, you will get the job. Because you could be the best on paper, but not be good with people, for a managerial role you might not be the best person for the job.”
(Male, operational crew manager)

“The applications are quite wordy. Some people feel it is a tick box, buzzword exercise, and not necessarily taken on what you’ve done.”
(Male, operational watch manager)

A common view was that assessments were too focused on performance at a one-off interview. As such, interviews were not structured in a way in which the assessor could understand the candidate’s suitability for the role, as they do not assess the applicant in the whole. A few participants felt that interviews benefitted those who know the right things to say, such as ‘management speak’. Several operational participants suggested that assessment processes should objectively consider previous performance to get a rounded view of candidate suitability.

“I keep having to say to people, but you’ve had the best possible performance that we’ve got for 3 years, and you agreed to give the job to somebody we know isn’t such a good performer, because they performed better in interview. Are you nuts? We’ve got the best possible evidence and that’s past experience.”
(Strategic leader)

Despite many participants focusing on the barriers to the promotion process, this was not the experience of all participants, and it is important to note that a few felt the assessment processes were fair and transparent, including a strategic leader who had not always passed assessment processes straight away.

“I think the application process that we follow in terms of grading against essential criteria and then going through an interview process … is fair and accurate. And I think that that does work across both Green and Grey Book.”
(Female, non-operational supervisory manager)

“I think it’s always been fairly open … When I haven’t been successful in promotion processes, I’ve never felt it was unfair to me. I’ve always felt it just because of my lack of performance. So, I’ve been frustrated when I haven’t got the promotion that I’ve wanted. But I’ve never felt that was due to the process, I always, always felt that was due to my performance in the process.”
(Strategic leader)

Although some participants thought the recruitment process for promotion opportunities is fair, overall, the findings suggest there is scope for more consistent promotion processes, and greater flexibility to make assessments more inclusive.

4.5 Training and development opportunities

This section explores participants’ views on opportunities to assist leadership development skills, progression and promotion, including training, other development schemes and the role of temporary promotions as a lever to permanent promotion. Views on training and development opportunities were generally linked to wanting more specific leadership training and development, particularly among non-managerial staff and ahead of promotion, so that they were better prepared once promoted.

4.5.1 Experiences and perceptions of training

Most participants thought there was a lack of training opportunities in their FRS, including those focused on leadership skills and promotion opportunities. In addition, participants who had accessed leadership training were generally in managerial roles, with more focused leadership training available only to those in strategic leadership roles.

“Because I’ve been thinking of promotion, I’ve been looking into [training] personally. And, as far as I’m aware, there isn’t any [leadership training]. As long as you can pass the recruitment process, there is nothing that I can see where you go and do any management training. Which sounds absolutely mad.”
(Female, firefighter)

Most participants not in strategic leader roles felt that training they had received was too general and not tailored to their duties, with examples including ‘off-the-shelf’ online training that was not seen to be directly applicable to their role. However, participants who had worked in their service for many years often highlighted an improvement over time in the quantity and quality of training they had received.

“We’re not very good at having leadership courses that we could learn real leadership skills from each other within a fire service. A lot of these courses I mentioned are not really fire service organised work … It isn’t relevant to what we do.”
(Female, operational station manager)

“Most of the management training has been very good over the years. I think in the modern day, so probably the last 10 years that it’s been much more effective.”
(Male, operational area manager)

Leaders with reasonable levels of exposure to leadership-related training typically had a positive experience of it, describing a suite of available programmes which had enabled them to develop their skills and knowledge. The Executive Leadership Programme (ELP), a purposefully designed leadership programme for strategic level staff, was found to be useful in this regard, and generally considered it to be well-planned and executed.

“If you enter training you’ve got to immerse yourself in it, and you’ve got to be quite critical. You test your assumptions the whole way through. So, I think if you enter it with that mindset … I have got a positive experience from that.”
(Strategic leader)

4.5.2 Improving training opportunities

When asked about how FRSs could improve leadership and managerial training opportunities, suggestions included wanting more training, particularly on team and people management (but also on diversity, emotional resilience, management, conflict management and command for managing large incidents); being given dedicated, protected time to undertake training; and more online training, which was particularly pertinent due to COVID-19 restrictions.

“Emotional intelligence training, understanding others. I think that actually for the whole services generally would be very good if we did more training.”
(Male, operational watch manager)

“I look for training opportunity wherever I can … [but] because we’re all very much at capacity … and sometimes you are expected to do the training whilst continuing to work, it’s not always easily achievable.”
(Female, operational station manager)

Some participants spontaneously mentioned that entering a role by promotion with limited experience can be very challenging. The transition was considered especially testing from firefighter to crew manager, when newly promoted managers had not received formal leadership training. These participants wanted to receive leadership training and schemes earlier in their career so that they could develop some of the leadership and management skills needed ahead of promotion, rather than learning once promoted.

“I’d very much like to do the development and qualifications before achieving that role, so I would be in a position where I could fully dedicate my time to the role, rather than having to split it between the role and the course.”
(Male, non-operational watch manager)

4.5.3 Other development opportunities

When asked which schemes their FRS offered to assist with progression to the next role, many participants mentioned shadowing, coaching, mentoring and secondments. While they generally regarded these as helpful, participants typically wanted more opportunities to further their development while in post but also to prepare for future progression. One brigade manager interviewed acknowledged their station’s feedback on training and had started implementing more secondments for all staff.

“We always try and be very proactive about supporting people who want to do secondments. Currently a number of people are out of the service doing secondments for different organisations, because obviously that gives an opportunity to develop their skills, and to see outside of the Fire and Rescue Service.”
(Strategic leader)

Many participants indicated they would like to experience support schemes, such as through more frequent coaching and mentoring. This applied especially to those in operational roles who found they learnt the skills needed for the next role from their peers. Coaching was most frequently mentioned as something they would like to receive following promotion, while they were learning a new role and felt unsupported.

“I find [coaching] really rewarding. You learn a lot from coaching people as much as you do from being coached. It is a really key part to me to my role, and to my team.”
(Female, operational area manager)

Although some participants had regular conversations with managers and received encouragement regarding promotions, this was not consistent. A couple of participants indicated their managers were not forthcoming in offering development support, which made going through the promotion process more challenging.

“I don’t have confidence in my ability, even though I’ve never been put on a plan and told you need to improve in this area … and the watch manager wasn’t very proactive in helping me with my development.”
(Female, firefighter)

Besides line manager support, some participants noted the importance of informal support, such as mentoring, from their peers. This was also described as an important factor in encouraging them to progress into new roles.

“I think those people I work with respect me and having people tell me that has definitely inspired me to move forward. I think having a mentor is very important because sometimes you need that to give you encouragement.”
(Female, operational station manager)

Finally, a few felt that those who struggled with the academic aspects of the application process would benefit from training on making applications.

“Someone who left school at 18 to be a firefighter and doesn’t have the most academic [background] … could be one of the best crew commanders out there. However, they are going to struggle with the examinations due to the sort of engineering background for which it’s designed rather than the practical application of firefighters on the ground.”
(Male, operational crew manager)

Overall, most participants were positive about the training they had received, although often felt that they received training too late into their careers and that it was too general to their new role. Instead, they would rather undertake more focused training at all stages of their careers, especially at lower ranks. Collectively, these findings suggest there is a demand for FRSs to provide enhanced leadership training opportunities for all roles and ranks.

4.6 Temporary promotions

Participants were asked about their experiences and perceptions of temporary promotions, in which participants take on a higher ranked role for a set period, before becoming permanently promoted or returning to their previous rank. Of the 40 participants interviewed, 32 (80%) had been temporary promoted during their fire and rescue career. Selection for temporary promotions included those who missed out on permanent promotion rounds but were placed in a recruitment pool for future recruitment opportunities, direct applications through internal intranet systems, as well as recommendation by managers. While participants generally reported on the positive contribution of temporary promotions to career prospects, a range of issues were highlighted which caused a greater deal of dissatisfaction. In terms of improving temporary promotions, there was often a strong wish for greater clarity and expectation setting at their outset, such as in relation to their length and whether they could lead to a permanent position.

4.6.1 The impact of temporary promotions on progression prospects

Those who had been temporarily promoted generally felt they gained valuable experience and insight into a role that was previously unfamiliar. They typically thought temporary promotions provided a chance to take on more advanced leadership responsibilities and explore whether they wanted to progress to the next role.

“I think it’s a really good opportunity for people to experience the next rank above and see if it’s something that’s going to suit them … see if they actually enjoy the role. It’s a good chance to demonstrate to senior management that they can do it as well.”
(Female, non-operational group manager)

Some participants felt temporary promotions made them more prepared going into interviews for permanent promotions, as it provided them with relevant skills and experience. A few firefighters felt that progression into crew manager came with a significant change in responsibility and therefore really benefitted from the skills and experience acquired through temporary promotion. However, a few participants found temporary promotions had a limited impact on permanent promotion prospects, as applicants still had to pass written assessments which is a skill not acquired through the temporary promotion process.

“It’s a good chance to pick up a lot of skills and examples … of times when things have happened that you can refer back to in an interview situation and say, ‘well, I would deal with it this way, because I’ve already done it when I did X, Y, Z’.”
(Female, non-operational group manager (control))

“There have been temporary promotions for an extended period, that should really be made a permanent job, but they’re not eligible as they have not done the exam process.”
(Male, crew manager)

4.6.2 Temporary promotion expectations and length

Participants were often unsure from the outset whether the FRS intended for their temporary promotion to be converted into a permanent position or how long their temporary promotion would last. This led participants to feel unsettled and unclear about how long they would be in post. A few participants had experienced situations in which they had been initially told they would be given the opportunity to apply to be permanently promoted, but subsequently not offered the opportunity and returned to their previous post.

“To begin with, I was being told that there might be a potential [of a permanent promotion], but … as it went on, it was clear that no, it was purely temporary, and I’d always go back to my original role.”
(Male, non-supervisory control staff)

In addition, many participants reported substantial variation in the length of their temporary promotions, ranging from a couple of months to over five years. The general opinion was that temporary promotions often lasted too long, which was considered unfair to post-holders. As such, a recurrent suggestion was that temporary promotions should be time limited as well as having more clarity of purpose, with set objectives aligned to enable the post holder to secure a permanent promotion.

“[They] often go on for a significant period of time. I think temporary promotions for a short period of time can be really beneficial from a talent management perspective, from giving someone an opportunity to learn and grow in that role. But I’ve been in temporary roles for [several] years.”
(Male, operational strategic manager)

4.6.3 Temporary promotions as a resourcing tool

While participants generally recognised that resourcing was a purpose of temporary promotions, they felt they were not used enough to develop leaders and transition capable staff into permanent positions.

“They need to bridge the gap between a temp{orary} position and finding a permanent role as lots of the time when one temporary position is offered at a high up role this causes a domino effect of temp{orary} positions to open up in lower roles but no permanent jobs.”
(Male, operational crew manager)

One brigade manager felt FRSs should generally use temporary promotions in very specific, time-limited occasions, such as for a specific project or activity, rather than to backfill positions. They felt FRSs should plan more carefully to ensure they fill permanent vacancies quickly.

“Think our workforce gaps are coming 6 months ahead. And then go out to recruitment in enough time, mostly to make sure that we’re replacing in reasonable time. So, you haven’t got gaps where you have temporaries.”
(Strategic leader)

4.6.4 Lack of empowerment within temporary promotion

Lack of empowerment within temporary promotion roles was seen as an issue experienced by some participants who had been temporarily promoted. These participants did not feel as though they were viewed in the same regard as those in permanent roles, and as a result felt less empowered to ‘act up’ to the new role and make the most of the opportunity.

“It can be quite challenging to be held in a temporary role, knowing that feeling that maybe if they mess up one time, they’re going to get dropped back down.”
(Strategic leader)

The feedback suggests staff would consider temporary promotions as a more positive opportunity if they were more structured, in both length of post and role expectations, particularly in terms of opportunities to apply for a permanent position once a temporary promotion ends.

4.7 Variation in progression opportunities

Section 4.3 describes personal characteristics that were sometimes considered barriers to leadership opportunities in FRSs. This section moves on to describe a range of barriers linked to different FRS structure, resources and terms of employment that participants felt could limit progression opportunities. A range of themes emerged in interviews, relating to different levels of promotion opportunities, training and pay. Participants who had worked across multiple FRSs often observed differences in opportunities for staff to progress, linked to investment in people and an FRS’s specific culture.

4.7.1 Variation in promotion opportunities across roles, ranks and FRSs

A common theme that emerged in interviews across most roles and ranks was limited opportunities for promotion. This was often felt to be due to leaders holding roles for a long time and new positions not opening until incumbents retire, and because participants were unwilling to re-locate far or move FRSs to secure roles which were available.

“It’s very much you have to wait for somebody to retire before there’s any chance of a promotion becoming available. It’s very slow and difficult. And it’s hard to motivate people when they know there [are] very little opportunities.”
(Female, non-operational group manager)

Green book (non-operational staff) participants most strongly felt a lack of development and promotion opportunities, often citing the availability of more opportunities for grey book (operational and control staff participants), or a lack of opportunities for their professional specialism. Some green book participants explained that they were prohibited from grey book roles, but felt they had the skills required. For example, some green book participants said they had been immediately pushed back when enquiring about applying for other level transfers within the service or regarding a role primed for a grey book role. Some noted that they would have to drop ranks into a grey book role to ultimately progress. In addition, on-call participants felt they also had much less scope for progression than their wholetime counterparts, as they would generally first have to find wholetime firefighter positions to progress into a leadership role.

“I’m upset about that because there are roles [above me] that I could do. I have the skills and the knowledge to do the roles that are above me. But they are not offered [as] I’m on green book conditions. They’re only offered to grey book conditions who are basically trained firefighters wanting to get promotion.”
(Male, non-operational staff)

Green book participants often contextualised these experiences in terms of how they felt they were perceived by grey book staff and the service more generally. For example, one green book participant spoke about diminishing comments made about their role from a grey book member of staff, which was evident from observations made about their uniform.

Participants who had worked in multiple FRSs regularly highlighted substantial variation in the level of available leadership roles across FRSs and again, there was a view that smaller FRSs had fewer opportunities for mentoring and training. In contrast, large metropolitan FRSs were widely seen to have more resources and therefore equipped staff with greater access to development opportunities. A few participants felt that the inequity between opportunities was unfair and that FRSs which provided fewer opportunities should provide more development opportunities, such as training.

“I see a difference, again, between large fire and rescue services to smaller services, where there isn’t that consistency or ability for people to get the same growth. In my previous service, there was a large pot of money put aside for people to do development activities.”
(Strategic leader)

Some participants highlighted that due to limited internal vacancies in some FRSs, the only route into leadership roles was by moving FRSs, and therefore some had experience of being promoted outside of their previous service. However, other participants felt it was even more challenging to get promoted into another FRS, or had a poor experience of moving, due to markedly different, and negatively perceived, culture linked to leadership chains.

“We’re fortunate in that, if we want to, we can move around from fire service to fire service … for too long, too many of the fire services were insular in the way that they promoted … in order to have true diversity you need to bring in people with different mindsets and from different backgrounds.”
(Male, operational station manager)

“When you apply to a different service, that is challenge. You need to understand their cultures and values and trying to nail that into the application form … The internal candidate has advantages, because [they] know how they are and how it works … If I know there is a preferred candidate, or everyone expects Mr X and Mrs Y to get the job … I would not apply for it.”
(Male, operational area manager)

Collectively, these findings suggest FRSs could do more to learn from others’ best practice, and there might be an opportunity for NFCC to provide clearer expectations around the development opportunities provided across roles and services.

4.7.2 Pay and pensions

In a few interviews, participants raised differences in pay across FRSs and changes in pension terms as limiting the incentive of applying for promotion, especially among those in senior roles or closer to retirement. Given that all FRSs have their own pay structures, some participants highlighted that a promotion outside of their service may not be financially advantageous, especially regarding some strategic leadership roles. Participants also indicated that legacy pension schemes with preferable financial terms meant they were incentivised to retire after their 30 years’ service despite wanting to continue working.

“The job is currently being advertised for a Chief [fire officer], they’ve struggled to get applicants because there are some deputy fire chiefs who are getting paid more working in [another area] than they would be getting paid as a CFO in that service.”
(Strategic leader)

In addition, regarding specific roles, a few firefighters felt disincentivised to become crew managers as they felt the pay increase on promotion did not reflect the additional responsibility of the role.

“The other thing that comes up is the lack of pay rise, particularly from firefighter to crew manager, compared with the level of responsibility. You go from being a firefighter … to making quite critical decisions, in incidents that can have unbelievable consequences. That puts a lot of people off.”
(Female, firefighter)

Therefore, NFCC could do more to understand reasons behind any significant pay discrepancies and how to ensure consistency moving forward.

5. Discussion

While there was general recognition that there had been some improvements to both the recruitment of staff into leadership roles and the opportunities available to progress once in post, the findings from the survey and interviews show that more is needed to ensure all staff are confident that there are fair and transparent processes in place to progress in their careers. This research identified a considerable range of barriers and challenges that staff face in developing their careers as leaders in FRSs. The findings closely reflect the outcomes of the first round of independent inspections in 2018/19. HMICFRS were clear that most FRSs had more work to do to develop leaders and capability in the sector. Many of these issues are covered in this report, including mixed levels of access to development training dependant on role and rank, confusion around the purpose of temporary promotions and concerns around the promotion process. It is also important to note that although the findings from this research highlight areas that could be improved, 18 FRSs did receive a score of ‘good’ in the people section of the HMICFRS reports and therefore there are many services who do aptly demonstrate good practice. The findings of this report reflect a small sample and therefore do not apply to all services and staff experiences.

This report has expanded on some issues raised in the inspection reports, including:

• a range of barriers to progression linked to the challenges faced by those with certain personal or protected characteristics; despite reports of some progress in recent years, it is clear from the interviews that there is further to go to make sure that services and leaders are truly inclusive; the FRS survey highlighted that white males still dominate applications to leadership roles, and the interviews found that women and ethnic minority groups face barriers in becoming and, in the case of some supervisory managers, being accepted as leaders; FRSs may consider how they adopt the published Code of Ethics and associated standards effectively and consistently across all roles
• the interviews also flagged potential issues of nepotism in leadership chains; FRSs may want to consider their recruitment and talent management strategies, to ensure they are identifying, recruiting and retaining talent from a diverse pool of people and providing support and development consistently across roles and services
• the findings show that promotion opportunities are not equally available to staff across roles and services, but that there is a latent demand for training and development and for progression into leadership positions; as such, NFCC and FRSs could work together further to develop leadership pathways that are more inclusive of all roles and consistent across services
• with 32 out of 40 participants interviewed having been temporarily promoted, temporary promotions are a significant tool used by FRSs; however, the way FRSs use them are neither seen to be consistent nor clear; there is a need for clearer organisational processes and structures to ensure staff expectations are managed
• where services have made changes in recent years, this appears to be recognised and appreciated by FRS staff, and it is important to note that some participants were broadly happy with the promotion system and their progression opportunities; by using existing staff forums, FRSs may want to share lessons learnt with other services on the changes they are making

This research points to several areas in which FRSs could further focus their attention regarding talent management and progression, including:

• establishing and maintaining an organisational culture which gives all staff the opportunity to progress in FRSs; this includes providing an environment in which staff can challenge and tackle any discriminatory or partial processes or behaviour; this will help ensure talented staff from different demographic and career backgrounds can be leaders of the future
• building trust in leadership progression pathways to ensure staff are confident in the systems in place to support leadership progress; by providing and consistently delivering clear and robust progression and development programmes across services, NFCC and FRSs can help to establish and embed confidence among staff; there are signs that efforts are being made in this area, such as the NFCC’s talent management toolkit consultation in 2021
• providing greater levels of consistency in the delivery of development programmes, which may be fostered through nationally backed programmes to increase the consistency in delivery and access

With the continued need for improvement and suggestions as to how FRSs could start making changes, there is potential for this analysis to be repeated in the future to assess progress. In the shorter term, with the publication of HMICFRS inspection data, future thematic analysis of the ‘people’ section of reports could be undertaken to assess progress.

6. References

Government Social Research Unit (2011) GSR Professional Guidance - Ethical Assurance for Social Research in Government, Online: gov.uk.

HMICFRS (2020) State of Fire and Rescue: The Annual Assessment of Fire and Rescue Services in England 2019. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. Online: gov.uk

Home Office, 2021. Fire and rescue workforce and pensions statistics: England, April 2020 to March 2021, Online: gov.uk.

Woodfield, R. (2016) ‘Gender and the achievement of skilled status in the workplace: the case of women leaders in the UK Fire and Rescue Service’. Work, employment and society, vol. 30(2), pp. 237-255.

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Online survey and interview sampling quota framework

Characteristics		Ideal minimum number to interview	Interviews	Applicant survey responses
Gender	Male	15	24	127
	Female	15	16	44
	Prefer not to say	0	0	1
Ethnicity	White British or Irish	15	33	160
	Any other white background	4	2	4
	Other ethnicity minority	6	3	3
	Prefer not to say	0	2	5
Age	17-35	7	8	25
	36-45	7	12	53
	46-55	7	17	77
	55+	7	3	16
	Prefer not to say	0	0	1
HMICFRS score	Outstanding	4	4	23
	Good	14	16	52
	Required improvement	20	22	97
	Inadequate	7	0	0
Met / Non-met	Metropolitan	8	4	8
	Non-metropolitan	12	36	164
Religion	Christian	19	18	84
	Other religion	6	3	6
	None	6	17	73
	Prefer not to say	0	2	9
Disability	Yes – long-standing illness	6	3	8
Disability	Yes – long-standing disability or infirmity	6	7	17
	None	6	29	143
	Prefer not to say	0	1	4
Sexuality	Heterosexual	10	35	154
	Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Other	10	4	8
	Prefer not to say	0	1	10
Rank	Brigade Manager	2	5	11
	Area Manager	2	2	8
	Group Manager	2	2	11
	Station Manager	2	4	27
	Watch Manager	2	5	41
	Crew Manager	2	6	22
	Firefighter	15	8	18
	Control staff	2	3	4
	Non-operational staff	6	5	30
Rural / Urban	Predominantly urban	8	16	64
	Predominantly rural	8	14	77
	Significantly rural	8	10	31
FRS Geography	East Midlands	2	5	36
	East of England	2	1	2
	London	2	0	0
	North East	2	3	21
	North West	2	5	29
	South East	2	15	55
	South West	2	2	2
	West Midlands	2	4	19
	Yorkshire & Humberside	2	5	8

Appendix 2 - Charts

Figure A1: Training opportunities FRSs have in place to progress into leadership roles

Source: 35 FRSs responding

Figure A2: Training opportunities FRSs have in place to progress into leadership roles, by role

Source: 35 FRSs responding

Figure A3: Number of FRSs offering a high-potential management scheme by roles

Source: 35 FRSs responding

Figure A4: How FRSs select people for temporary promotion

Source: 35 FRSs responding

Figure A5: Number of FRSs running direct entry schemes by rank

Source: 8 FRSs responding

Figure A6: Reasons why FRSs run a direct entry scheme

Source: 8 FRSs responding

Figure A7: Reasons why FRSs do not run a direct entry scheme

Source: 27 FRSs responding

Figure A8: Where FRSs advertise upcoming recruitment campaign, by role

Source: 32 FRSs responding

Appendix 3 – Tables

Table A1: Number of FRSs that offer each development scheme, by role

	Appraisals/ personal reviews	Coaching	Mentoring	Shadowing	Role hopping	Fast tracking	Secondments	Aspiring leader programme	High-potential training	Executive leadership programme
Wholetime firefighter	33	20	24	9	2	1	13	10	3	0
On-call firefighter	32	19	21	8	2	1	8	9	2	0
Supervisory control staff	27	17	20	8	1	1	10	8	1	0
Non-supervisory control staff	27	16	20	7	1	0	10	8	1	0
Non-operational staff	33	23	25	9	2	1	19	13	1	0
Non-operational manager	33	27	26	10	3	2	21	13	1	6
Supervisory manager	35	28	26	11	3	1	20	14	3	0
Middle manager	35	28	28	17	4	1	27	11	4	17
Strategic / brigade manager	35	38	25	12	4	0	19	53	3	33

Table A2: Number of applications and interviews of the most recent recruitment rounds, by role

Roles	Average number of applicants	Average number of applicants interviewed	Average proportion of applicants interviewed
Brigade manager (n=7, n=6)	7	3	43%
Assistant/deputy brigade manager (n=25, n=28)	8	4	50%
Middle manager (n=28, n=27)	10	7	70%
Supervisory manager (n=28)	29	21	72%

Table A3: Skills required for each managerial role

Roles	FRSs responded	Skills required
Brigade manager	7	Leadership and management, operational experience, innovation, resilience, commitment to diversity
Deputy/Assistant brigade manager	27	Leadership and management, experienced, innovation, commitment to diversity and inclusion, communication
Middle manager	27	Leadership and management, interpersonal skills, resilient, previous experience in leadership, good communication
Supervisory manager	24	Previous experience as a watch manager, strong communication, commitment to diversity

Table A4: Number of applications to each role, by age

Age band	Proportion of applicants for brigade manager	Proportion of applications for deputy/assistant brigade manager	Proportion of applicants for middle manager	Proportion of applicants for supervisory manager
16-24	0%	0%	1%	0%
25-35	0%	3%	3%	12%
36-45	5%	28%	33%	33%
46-55	60%	52%	40%	23%
56-65	10%	4%	1%	2%
66+	0%	1%	0%	0%
Unknown	25%	13%	22%	30%
FRSs responses (total number of applicants)	7 FRSs (20 applicants)	26 FRSs (163 applicants)	28 FRSs (176 applicants)	28 FRSs (492 applicants)

Table A5: Number of applications to each role of those with a disability

Role	Disabled applicants average	Unknown applicants
Brigade manager	0	1
Deputy/Assistant brigade manager	2	2
Middle manager	4	2
Supervisory manager	1	9

Table A6: Number of applications to each role, by religion

	Brigade manager (6 FRS responses)	Deputy/assistant brigade manager (26 FRS responses)	Middle manager (28 FRS responses)	Supervisory manager (28 FRS responses)
Christian	3	12	15	15
Buddhist	1	2	1	2
Hindu	1	3	2	1
Jewish	1	3	1	1
Muslim	1	4	2	1
Sikh	1	2	1	2
Other	1	3	2	2
None	1	10	11	13

Table A7: Number of applications to each role, by sexual orientation

	Brigade manager (7 FRS responses)	Deputy/ assistant brigade manager (26 FRS responses)	Middle manager (29 FRS responses)	Supervisory manager (27 FRS responses)
Bisexual	1	2	2	5
Gay/lesbian	2	2	1	5
Heterosexual	3	14	17	16
Other	1	2	1	1
Not stated by applicant	1	8	12	13

Table A8: Number of participants who considered themselves a leader within their FRSs

Base: All survey participants (40)	Yes	No	Don’t know
Do you consider yourself to be a leader within your FRS?	29	8	3

Table A9: Number of participants who agreed/disagreed that they want to become a leader in their FRS / want to enhance their leadership skills

Base: All survey participants (40)	To what extent do you agree or disagree that you want to become a leader in the future?	To what extent do you agree or disagree that you want to enhance your leadership skills?
Strongly agree	26	34
Tend to agree	11	3
Neither agree/ disagree	1	2
Tend to disagree	1	1
Strongly disagree	1	0
TOTAL Agree	37	37
TOTAL Disagree	2	1

Appendix 4 – Further FRS survey findings

This section showcases further findings from the survey sent to FRSs, as described in section 3. These findings include more detail on the processes used as well as summarising recent recruitment rounds by different personal characteristics. These findings did not appear in the main body of the report due to small response rates.

Direct entry

The FRSs that run a direct entry scheme said they used it as new managers can bring fresh ideas, offer a different working perspective, widen skills in the service and increase diversity within the workforce (8 of 8 FRSs). Other reasons given to run them were that they maximise applicant competition (7 of 8) and because the skills required for the role do not require a fire background (5 of 8) (Appendix 2, Figure A6).

Temporary promotions

Services were asked which of three methods they use to select someone for temporary promotion and 30 of 35 (86%) used at least two of them. The most common process was using a development pool of participants who have been unsuccessful in a permanent promotion process (31 of 35, or 89%), indicating that FRSs often seek candidates who may have previously demonstrated an aptitude for a promotion, but who may have narrowly missed out on a permanent position (see Appendix 2, Figure A4 for a full breakdown).

Recruitment processes

Most responding FRSs did not report any differences in recruitment processes between roles and ranks (23 of 34, or 68%), suggesting that generally the overall method of identifying successful candidates was consistent within the FRS. Similarly, 31 of 35 FRSs (89%) said there were no differences between internal and direct entry candidates. FRSs which reported differences between internal and direct entry recruitment highlighted in free text for the need for fitness tests, Disclosure and Barring Service checks and a skills gap analysis.

All roles are split into grey book (operational and control participants), green book (non-operational participants) and gold book (brigade managers or equivalent). When recruiting brigade managers and assistant/deputy brigade managers, most FRSs categorised these as gold book roles (69% and 61% respectively). This contrasts with supervisory and middle manager roles, which were all defined as grey book. Data Collection Tools 1.2.4 includes the job types recruited for each rank.

When recruiting for each of these roles, there were more specific roles that were being applied for. At deputy brigade manager level, there was a relatively even split of those who advertised the deputy brigade manager (42%) and assistant brigade manager (58%). The split was more drastic at middle manager level, with 87% of the roles being for wholetime firefighters, with none being on-call firefighters and control participants. This was the same as supervisory managers, with 86% being wholetime firefighters; of this almost half (47%) were station manager roles, followed by the same number of crew manager (8) and watch manager (8) posts.

Recruitment: by role

In most cases (69%) when recruiting brigade managers, FRSs did not have more than three applicants, and most FRSs did their last recruitment round for brigade managers (41%) 1 to 3 years ago. This was followed by almost a quarter (24%) of FRSs last recruiting 4 to 6 years ago.

FRSs were then asked an open question about what skills and characteristics they specified in their job adverts.

Most of the core skills required often overlapped for all roles with communication, innovation, resilience and commitment to diversity frequently cited (Appendix 3, Table A3).

In addition, the skills required of brigade managers, assistant brigade managers and middle manager were typically orientated towards leadership and management experience. Meanwhile, some supervisory roles sought specific watch manager experience.

Recruitment: by age, disability, religion and sexual orientation

The age profile of applicants does not differ across roles. The most common age band for applicants across all roles except supervisory manager was 46-55, with 36-45 making up the highest proportion of applicants for supervisory manager. Senior leadership roles had a higher average age of applicant than supervisory management roles, likely due to the experience and qualifications required to be ready for the role. There were very few applicants in the 16-24 age range. These findings align with the 2020 published workforce data on staff, where a third (33%,11,750) of firefighters were aged 46-55 as at 31 March 2020, as well as only 4% of firefighters aged 16-24.

In all roles, there were very few applicants who had a long-standing disability on average across all ranks; there were no applicants with a long-standing disability in the role of brigade manager for any of the 6 responding FRSs (Appendix 3, Table A5).

For each of the four roles, the greatest proportion of applicants stated they identified their religion as Christian. The next most common religion or belief category selected by applicants was ‘none’. (Appendix 3, Table A6).

When looking at sexual orientation, there was a large proportion of respondents where the sexual orientation of applicants was unknown, either due to not being stated or not being collected by FRSs. Of those where it was collected, for all roles, heterosexuality was the most common sexual orientation. For all roles except deputy/assistant brigade manager, there was at least one applicant that did not identify as heterosexual (Appendix 3, Table A7).