Challenges: 2025/2026 NWCG Leadership Campaign – Leadership Levels

Objectives

• Understand the importance of self-leadership in wildland firefighting.
• Learn about the “OODA” model and its components.

Reading Assignment:

• "Make Your Bed" by William McRaven: Read chapters one and two and think about the questions in the discussion guide.

Key Concepts: 

Familiarize yourself with the values of leadership in the wildland fire service.

• Duty: Commitment to responsibilities and tasks.
• Respect: Valuing others and oneself.
• Integrity: Upholding ethical standards and honesty.

Reference: Leading in the Wildland Fire Service, PMS 494-2

The “OODA” Decision Making Model: 

This mental model may be new to you. Study it and see if it could be useful to your decision making as a new leader.

• Observe: Gather information from the environment.
• Orient: Analyze the information gathered and make sense of it.
• Decide: Based on the analysis, choose a course of action.
• Act: Implement the chosen course of action.
• Reference: Wikipedia: OODA loop

Reflection Questions:

1. How do the values of duty, respect, and integrity apply to your role as a wildland firefighter?
2. Which component of the OODA model do you find most challenging, and why?
    

Objectives

• Apply self-leadership principles in daily tasks.
• Reflect on personal experiences and growth.

Reading Assignment:

• "You Don’t Need a Title to be a Leader" by Mark Sanborn: Read part one and review the questions in the discussion guide.

Reflection Questions:

1. How can you demonstrate leadership without a formal title?
2. What actions can you take to embody the values of duty, respect, and integrity in your daily work?
    

Objectives

• Practice self-leadership in hypothetical scenarios.
• Evaluate the impact of self-leadership on team dynamics.

Decision Game: Self-Leadership

Scenario: Your engine crew has been working in Division Mike all day, putting in line and mopping up. There’s now a meeting with all Crew Bosses, Engine Bosses, and the Division Supervisor to plan a potential burn operation, either later tonight or tomorrow morning, depending on the weather and available holding resources.
Back at the engine, nothing has been rehabbed yet. The crew is sitting in the truck, drinking water and relaxing. The Engine Boss, in a rush to get to the meeting, didn’t assign any specific tasks before leaving. Meanwhile, the Engine Operator is busy replacing hose that was damaged during today’s operations.

Response Options:

• A – Take Action: You take initiative. You begin rehabbing the tool you used, rehab your IA pack, and restock in preparation for the potential burn.
• B – Hang Out: You decide not to take initiative. You stay in the truck, drink a Gatorade, eat a snack, and joke around with the crew about what might be said when the bosses get back.
• For both options, imagine some possible outcomes. What would happen if you chose A and found yourself burning a half hour later? What would happen if you chose B and the burn was delayed until the next operational period? How would your Engine Boss respond to option A? What would your Engine Operator say about option B?
• Did you choose option A or option B? Be honest with yourself.

Reflection Questions:

Personal Reflection:

1. What factors influenced your decision to either take initiative or wait for direction?
2. How does your behavior during “downtime” reflect your standards for self-leadership?
3. What impact did your choice have on team readiness and trust—both among peers and with formal leadership?
4. In the absence of direct orders, what should guide your actions during transitional periods or slow points in operational tempo?

Team and Culture Reflection:

1. How do small acts of self-leadership (like rehabbing gear without being told) influence overall team culture and mission readiness?
2. What other examples of self-leadership can you think of?
3. What can leaders—at any level—do to foster a crew culture where self-leadership is expected and respected, not mocked or dismissed?

Experienced Leaders: Ask yourself these questions and discuss your reflections with new leaders in your program.

1. How has your approach to self-leadership evolved over the course of your career?
2. Can you share an example where your self-leadership positively impacted your team during a critical situation?
3. What strategies do you use to maintain your self-leadership skills amidst the pressures and demands of your role?
4. How do you balance self-leadership with the need to delegate and empower others on your team?
    

Objectives:

• Understand the foundational principles of leadership and intent as defined within the wildland fire service doctrine.
• Learn how clear communication of intent fosters initiative, trust, and adaptability in a firefighting environment.
• Familiarize oneself with the "Conveying Intent" section of Leading in the Wildland Fire Service.

Reading Assignment:

• Review the publication: Leading in the Wildland Fire Service, PMS 494-2 (specifically the "Conveying Intent" sections throughout the document).

Key Concepts:

• Leader’s Intent: A clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired end state, provided by the Incident Commander or line supervisor to their subordinates. It is the "why" behind the "what."
• Task, Purpose, End State: A method to arrange the critical elements of the assignment.  When an intent statement includes task, purpose, and end state followers have generally been provided all they need to accomplish a task.
  • Task: What is the objective or goal of the assignment.
  • Purpose: Why the assignment needs to be done.
  • End State: How the situation should look when the assignment is successfully completed. 

Reflection Questions:

1. Based on your reading of PMS 494-2, why is simply giving an order ("go cut line here") less effective than conveying intent ("we are cutting line here to protect the structures on this flank, with the goal of tying into the road by 1800 hours")?
2. Describe a situation you have experienced where a lack of clear intent led to confusion or an action that didn't support the overall goal.
3. How can you, as an individual contributor, seek clarification of intent from your supervisor if it hasn't been clearly communicated?
    

Objectives:

• Apply Simon Sinek’s "Start With Why" principles to briefings and communications.
• Practice giving the purpose before the process or expected outcome.
• Evaluate methods of translating task-focused orders into intent-based orders.

Reading Assignment/Media:

• Watch Simon Sinek's TED Talk: How great leaders inspire action (approx. 18 minutes).
• Review the core concepts of the "Golden Circle" (Why, How, What).

Key Concepts:

• The Golden Circle: Sinek's model emphasizes that inspiring leaders communicate from the inside out:
  • Why: The core purpose, cause, or belief (The intent).
  • How: The processes or specific actions taken (The plan).
  • What: The results or specific tasks performed (The order).
• Inspiration vs. Manipulation: Leading with "Why" inspires commitment and ownership, whereas leading only with "What" often relies on compliance and external motivation.

Reflection Questions:

1. How does Sinek’s concept of "starting with why" align with the wildland firefighting principle of "Commander’s Intent"?
2. Think about a recent operational brief you received. Did the leader start with "What" or "Why"? How did that affect your motivation and understanding of the task?
3. In a high-stress, rapidly evolving situation, is it still possible to start with "Why"? How might you adapt the message for brevity while retaining intent?
    

Scenario: Leading Others

Your squad has been working in Division Sierra for the last 10 days. The first two days were spent mopping up, and the following eight days have been filled with cleaning out drainages, digging water bars, and pulling progressive hose lays. The crew is worn down – frustration and negativity are building. Complaints are frequent, tempers are short, and crew cohesion is breaking down.

Back at the buggies, today has been the worst day so far. Attitudes have bottomed out, small cliques have formed, and arguments are breaking out. Some crew members are openly talking about turning down assignments just to get demobbed and go home.

The Crew Boss and Assistants are away, working as trainees in Division and Task Force Leader roles, leaving you in charge of managing the crew. Seeing the situation deteriorating, you decide to pull everyone together for a motivational talk to reset attitudes and reinforce the importance of the assignment.

Response Options

A – Explain the Bigger Picture
You remind the crew that building strong relationships with adjacent crews and overhead matters. You also explain that supporting leadership in their trainee positions benefits the crew in the long run.

• Outcome: Some crew members openly complain, saying the work feels meaningless compared to divisions with active fire. Frustration remains, though a few acknowledge the value of helping leadership.

B – Appeal to Crew Pride and Professionalism
You highlight the crew’s reputation for doing hard work well, and how finishing strong—even on unglamorous assignments—reflects on them as professionals. You challenge them to prove they can be counted on no matter what the task.

• Outcome: Pride is stirred in some, who push back on the negativity. The tone improves somewhat, though fatigue still lingers.

C – Shift Focus to Purpose and Safety
You stress how critical drainage and water bars are for preventing erosion and protecting communities long after the fire is gone. You remind them that the public depends on crews like theirs for this work, even if it’s not flashy.

• Outcome: A few crew members gain perspective and show renewed effort. Others remain skeptical but the open bickering lessens.

D – Acknowledge Fatigue
You openly recognize the crew’s frustration and fatigue, validating their feelings. You admit to your own fatigue and frustration and then ask for feedback.

• Outcome: Outspoken crew members voice their frustration, and it turns into anger.  You watch as quieter crew members withdraw.  Some feel better after the opportunity to vent, but the frustration persists and effort declines.

Personal Reflection:

1. When morale is low, what leadership tools do you lean on first: explanation, pride, purpose, or empathy? Why?
2. How do you decide when to push the crew versus when to listen and validate their frustrations?
3. Which motivational approach in this scenario feels most natural to you—and which feels most uncomfortable? What does that say about your leadership style?
4. How does your ability to motivate others affect both immediate performance and your credibility as a leader?

Team and Culture Reflection:

1. How do different motivational approaches (big picture, pride, purpose, ownership) change the crew’s energy and cohesion?
2. What risks do leaders face if they ignore frustration and let negativity spread unchecked?
3. How can small leadership choices in low-morale situations shape the long-term culture of a crew?
4. What role does shared ownership of the mission play in sustaining motivation during repetitive or “unglamorous” work?
    

Objectives:

• Develop an understanding of authenticity as it pertains to leading people.
• Identify opportunities to apply authenticity in your daily interactions. 

Reading Assignment:

The Art of Authenticity – Karissa Thacker: read the book Preface and Part One (Chapters 1-3), then review the Professional Reading Program Lesson Plan.

Key Concepts:

• Authentic leadership:
  • “Being an authentic leader is not just about making the right ethical decision when the heat is on. It is primarily about doing the work every day to bring your best self forward into the world so that you are in shape when the heat is on and the pressure is high. Being authentic is just like being in shape physically. It is a daily decision and there is no substitute for doing the work.”
  • “Truly authentic leaders are people who know how to make sure the stuff that really matters gets done and raise the performance of thousands of people (including themselves) to a higher standard through their presence, impact, and well-chosen actions.”
• Self-Reflection: The process of assessing your behaviors, opinions, and actions in relation to the system you operate in. This assessment increases your situational awareness of, and impact upon your system. Self-reflection is the key to building authentic leadership quality.
• Personal Quirks: Traits or attributes that make you unique and those for which you can leverage to increase your authentic quality.
  • “People who are authentic are willing to rebel against conformity and be themselves, quirks and all.”
• Meaning-Making System: Being your authentic self and telling lies are NOT mutually exclusive. Because of this, knowing when and how to bend truth is imperative for authentic leaders. Your “meaning-making” system is essentially your moral compass in this regard.
  • “We all have our own meaning-making systems and they are part of our authentic selves, sometimes they are productive and sometimes they aren’t.”

Reflection Questions:

1. Answer the question posed in the Preface of “The Art of Authenticity” by Karissa Thacker: how could you become more authentic through those small daily struggles in real, pressure filled situations? Or practically speaking, how could you up your percentage of authentic actions?
2. How do you employ self-reflective practice? If you currently do not, what opportunities can you identify to reflect on your behaviors, opinions, and actions?
3. What are your personal quirks? Make a list of the unique things that make you, you.
4. How attuned is your meaning-making system? Describe how you can navigate the topography of truth and lie, and how that relates to your personal authentic quality.
    

Objectives:

• Use case studies to analyze the authentic quality of other wildland fire leaders.
• Identify opportunities where you could “take a page from someone else’s book” when it comes to strategies for leading with authenticity. 

Reading Assignment:

Review two of the Leaders We Would Like to Meet, Influential Leaders interviews found in the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Toolbox. 

Reflection Questions:

1. What can you identify as evidence from the leadership interview narratives that indicate authentic quality and character of the interview subjects?
2. Can you identify similarities or differences between the two leaders’ methods and how they lead with authenticity and show up for their teams? Speculate on how each leader’s method would, or would not, create a strong team dynamic.
3. Can you see any authentic character aspects that you read about in the interviews that you could employ in your organization? If yes, describe what that would look like. If not, perhaps there are character aspects of these leaders that stand in contrast to your own. These contrasts can help highlight how you could be more authentic in your own way. Describe.
    

Objectives:

• Practice Leadership Level 3 in a hypothetical scenario.
• Record your scenario response and evaluate your ability as an authentic leader of people.

Decision Game: Leading People

Scenario:

You are the strike team leader for five Type 6 engines. You have been working together for a week and have developed strong rapport. It is 0645 on day 8, and you are conducting the morning briefing. After covering weather, hazards, and safety factors, you assign the strike team the following mission:

• Cut and plumb a handline.
• Establish a progressive hose lay for structure protection.
• Protect a square box of four houses at the end of a rural street.

Each engine receives a specific task and all agree they understand your intent and desired end state. The goal is to complete the work before lunch in preparation for a possible firing operation that evening, for which the strike team will be responsible for holding the houses.
Later, after attending a firing meeting with Division Lima (supervisor and trainee) and Interagency Hotshot Crew (IHC) overhead—who will be conducting the burn—you leave to pick up fuel and chainsaw supplies. You return to the houses around 11:30 and discover that none of the assigned work has been completed, and the location is not prepared for the firing operation.

Response Options:

Upon returning to the houses, how do you harness your authentic leadership to address the strike team?
A – React with authentic anger.
You lose control of your temper. You throw a hose roll and begin yelling at the engines about their lack of effort and what you see as a poor work ethic. You publicly single out one engine, accusing them of being lazy. You point out that the firing operation will now likely be cancelled.
Outcome: Some engines immediately jump into action, working at a frantic pace to complete the assignment. However, the firing operation is delayed until 18:00 and is not completed until midnight. The IHC crew works a swing shift, and your strike team spends the next four days mopping up due to poor burn quality around the houses.

B – React with authentic disappointment. 
You pause, take a long slow blink, and exhale deeply, clearly showing disappointment. You state: “I don’t understand why this couldn’t get done. I truly thought you all were a dialed-in, hard-working strike team.”
Outcome: The engines immediately get to work, trying to make up for lost time. The IHC works a swing shift, and the strike team works until 22:00 to complete the burn. The strike team then conducts two days of highly effective mop-up, driven by remorse over failing to meet the original expectation.

C – Approach with authentic curiosity of why nothing has been completed.
You look around at the unfinished work with visible surprise and ask: “What happened that you weren’t able to get this finished? Did you have an injury or a safety issue that stopped operations?”

• Outcome: An engine reports that they had an IWI in which a lookout fell onto a scree pile and fractured their ankle. As a result, the entire strike team assisted with patient stabilization and extraction to the road for EMS transport. No work is completed that day, and the entire burn operation is delayed until the following night.

Reflection Questions:

Personal Reflection: 

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each reaction to how the job was completed?
2. What reaction would you have chosen to utilize as a reaction? Do you think that it would be authentic and/or effective?
3. Think about your personal abilities, attributes, or quirks that led you to choose a specific response. Did that response line up with your style of authentic leadership? What other reactions could you have used as a response?

Team and Culture Reflection:

1. How did each leadership response (anger, disappointment, and curiosity) impact the motivation, trust, and performance of the strike team?
2. How did each leadership approach affect fire operations, firefighter safety, resource fatigue, and overall mission success, and which response best balanced accountability with situational awarenes
3. Which leadership response relies most on positional authority, and which relies more on trust and influence? How does that difference shape long-term team effectiveness?
4. Think about leaders you have had in the past. What abilities, attributes, or quirks would lead them to a specific reaction? What would be their authentic reaction to the situation? Would you ask them to have another style of reaction to the situation?

Objectives:

• Explore the relationship between vision, intent, and delegation in a multitiered command structure.
• Examine your own command climate and how it influences subordinate leaders.

Reading Assignment:

Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet: Read Parts One and Two. Review the discussion guide.

Key Concepts:

Vision versus Intent: Vision is an organization or a leader’s long range, strategic picture of the future — the desired end state that guides organizational direction over time (e.g., safer operations, stronger crews, resilient landscapes). Intent is the leader’s operational direction that translates the long range vision into clear, actionable guidance for subordinates during planning and execution. In the wildland fire environment, leaders must communicate both vision and intent clearly. They require vision to align the organization with a clear objective, and intent to ensure crews understand what must be accomplished. This allows decentralized decision making under dynamic conditions.

Command climate is the environment a leader creates through their values, decisions, and behaviors. In a leaders of leaders’ context, it is the responsibility to ensure those values and expectations are carried throughout the organization, including layers they cannot directly observe. In the wildland fire environment, command climate shapes how teams operate under pressure, and influences the trust and initiative shown by followers.

Delegation is the deliberate transfer of tasks and decision space from a leader to those in their charge. Viewing delegation as development builds future leaders, strengthens adaptability on the line, and distributes workload in a way that keeps crews resilient during stressful operational periods.

Reflection Questions:

1. How does clearly communicating intent — rather than issuing tasks — change the way you expect subordinate leaders to think and act?  How do you ensure that your intent matches the organization’s vision?
   For new leaders: How do you tell the difference between a leader giving you a task and a leader telling you their intent? How does each make you feel about your role?
2. Think about your subordinate leaders. Do they come to you with “I intend to…” or do they wait for direction? What does their behavior tell you about the culture you’ve built?  
   For new leaders: How do you personally recognize whether the command climate above you in the organization is one of trust or control? What behaviors tell you that?
3. Marquet argues that “taking control” is a sign of leadership failure at the senior level. Where in your organization are you still holding control that you should be pushing down? What’s stopping you?  
   For new leaders: What behavior indicates that your supervisor trusts you to “take control” when telling you their intent, even when conditions shift?
    

Objectives:

• Explore the role of emotional intelligence in shaping leadership presence, decision making, and command climate across layers of wildland fire operations.
• Develop strategies for managing conflict across a distributed team.
• Explore how a leader’s self-awareness shapes organizational outcomes they may never directly witness.

Media and Reading Assignment:

Watch Daniel Goleman’s BitThink Interview on emotional intelligence and leadership.  

Review the *Briefing and Intent* resources on the WFLDP Toolbox, specifically “Communicating Intent and Imparting Presence” by Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence G. Shattuck.

Key Concepts:

Emotional intelligence includes a leader’s ability to recognize their own emotional state, understand how it affects their thinking and behavior, and manage those emotions in a way that supports clear communication and effective relationships. At this level of leadership, emotional intelligence also includes the capacity to read the emotional signals of your followers and the organizational leaders to whom you report.  It considers your ability to adjust one’s presence under stress, and maintain a command climate that supports trust, clarity, and sound decision making during dynamic fire operations. 

Moral courage is the willingness to act according to core values and sound judgment, even when the decision is uncomfortable, unpopular, or contrary to external pressures. In wildland fire leadership, moral courage is shown through transparent communication, identifying unacceptable risk, and making choices that protect people and align with the vision for the organization — even when those choices carry professional or interpersonal cost. Demonstrating moral courage strengthens team trust and defines a leader’s character more noticeably than any technical skill.

Conflict will occur in high stress environments. Interpersonal friction heightens when tempo, uncertainty, and risk elevate on the fireground. That friction leads to emotional responses and can reduce cognitive bandwidth for everyone. Effective leaders recognize conflict early, understand the styles people default to under stress, and use deliberate techniques — including coaching, mentoring, and reframing — to resolve issues directly rather than avoiding them.

Reflection Questions:

1. As a leader of other leaders, the information you receive is often filtered through your subordinates and their teams. How can you create a command climate where people trust you and the organization enough to convey the unvarnished truth, especially when things are going wrong?
   For new leaders: what are some ways you can be self-aware of your emotional state and how it affects your communication and decision making? Why is that important when growing as a leader?
2. Think of a moment when organizational pressure, short timelines, or reputation pulled you toward a decision you knew wasn’t right. What made you push back, and what does that say about the systems and culture in your immediate organization? 
   For new leaders: think about a significant decision (that you made or witnessed) where emotional factors (fear, pride, loyalty, fatigue) were driving the decisions instead of doing what was right. How could you do things differently in the future?
3. High-consequence environments reward decisiveness, but they can also normalize suppressing emotion as weakness. How do you model healthy emotional regulation (not emotional suppression) during periods of stress or conflict for the leaders you’re developing? What’s the difference, and why does it matter on the fireline?
   For new leaders: why do you think being emotionally aware is a valuable tool for decision-making in stressful situations?
    

Objectives:

• Practice Leadership Level 4 decision-making in a multileader, geographically distributed scenario.
• Evaluate your ability to provide direction, maintain a common operating picture, and develop subordinate leaders under pressure.

Decision Exercise: Leader of Leaders

Scenario: You are a division supervisor on a large Type 1 incident. You have three task force leaders working under you, each managing their own resources across a wide geographic division. It is day 5 of a 14-day assignment. Weather has been favorable and operations have gone smoothly. 

At the morning briefing, the Operations Section Chief (OSC) announces a significant tactical shift: the division will transition from direct attack to structure protection, effective immediately. The change is complex, the reasoning is not fully explained at briefing, and you have only 30 minutes before your Task Force Leaders (TFLD) depart to their areas. 

You know that one of your TFLD subordinates is technically strong but struggles to clearly brief his resources. Another is newer to the role and tends to overcheck with you rather than make independent calls. The third is experienced but has been visibly frustrated with incident overhead all week.

Response Options:

A – Deliver a unified briefing to all three task force leaders together.
You pull all three together, thoroughly explain the tactical shift, provide your intent and desired end state, and field questions as a group before they depart.
Outcome: The experienced TFLD pushes back on the tactical change in front of the others, and the briefing runs long. The newer TFLD leaves without a clear picture of what independent decisions they can make. The OSC calls you before lunch asking why your division is behind.

B – Tailor individual direction to each TFLD based on their style of receiving information.
You give each TFLD a one-on-one briefing based on what you know about them. You walk the technically strong but poor communicator through a sample brief, give the newer TFLD explicit decision authorities and clear boundaries, and address the frustrated TFLD's concerns directly before they depart.
Outcome: The individual approach takes your full 30 minutes. One TFLD leaves twenty minutes late; however, all three arrive in their areas with clear intent and the confidence to act. The division finishes ahead of schedule.

C – Directly pass the information from the OSC without adding your own framing.
You relay the new mission as received, adding no additional context or intent. You tell your TFLDs to contact you if they have questions.
Outcome: Two of the three TFLDs implement the change in ways that are technically compliant but operationally misaligned. One calls you four times in the first hour. You spend most of the morning managing confusion rather than your division.

Personal Reflection:

1. How did each response reflect the Leader of Leaders’ responsibility to act as a conduit between the organization and the people on the ground — translating abstract direction into actionable intent?
2. Which response felt most natural to you, and which exposed a gap in your current leadership style?
3. How does the ability to focus on team success over personal success — even when it costs you time or comfort — show up in this scenario?

Team and Culture Reflection:

1. How does a Leader of Leaders maintain a common operating picture and shared understanding across a distributed team when face-to-face communication isn't always possible?
2. What is the long-term cost to organizational culture when Leaders of Leaders pass direction downward without adding their own interpretation, context, or presence?
3. How does the way you develop your subordinate leaders today shape the organizational resilience of the wildland fire service tomorrow?

Experienced leaders, discuss with emerging leaders:

1. How has your approach to delegation evolved as you've moved further from direct supervision of field resources?
2. Describe a time when your intent was accurately executed by a subordinate leader who had to make a significant independent call. What had you done to prepare them for that moment?
3. How do you build organizational resilience — and what does that concept mean to you at this level of the organization?