Fire services are built on tradition. Rank, hierarchy, physical capability, and long-established ways of working have shaped the service for generations. These traditions have fostered cohesion, pride, and operational reliability. They have also, often unintentionally (sometimes intentionally), created barriers to equity, inclusion, and change.
Over time, many fire services have acknowledged this tension and attempted to respond. Policies have been rewritten. Recruitment campaigns have shifted their language and imagery. Diversity and inclusion strategies have been introduced, reviewed, and revised. Progress has occurred. But the journey from tradition to equity has been slow, uneven, and frequently resisted.
“Fairness isn’t making everyone run the same race — it’s ensuring the track is clear, the hurdles are fair, and no one’s starting from a pothole.”
Early efforts and partial fixes
Initial attempts to address inequity focused largely on representation. The problem was framed as a pipeline issue. If more women and under-represented groups could be encouraged to apply, the system itself was assumed to be fit for purpose.
Outreach programmes followed. These efforts mattered. They widened the door and increased interest. But when women applied and did not succeed within recruitment processes designed around male norms, strengths, and histories, the focus quietly shifted.
Rather than questioning the design of those systems, attention often turned to the applicants themselves. Women were framed as under-prepared, under-qualified, or not physically strong enough for the role. The recruitment process remained the constant and the numbers remained static. Those who failed it were treated as evidence that the pipeline and the individuals, not the system, were still the problem.
In doing so, responsibility for exclusion was placed on individuals rather than on recruitment models that had never been neutral. Entry, it became clear, was only the first hurdle. Retention, safety, belonging, and progression were shaped by the same assumptions, and remained largely unaddressed.
What the evidence has shown, repeatedly
None of this is new. Fire service culture has been examined again and again through independent reviews, academic research, internal inquiries, and external audits across multiple jurisdictions. The findings are strikingly consistent.
Reports repeatedly identify exclusionary cultures, resistance to change, inequitable systems, and a gap between stated values and lived experience. Many note that earlier recommendations were only partially implemented, delayed, or quietly set aside.
The pattern is familiar. A review is commissioned in response to known concerns. Its findings echo those of earlier reports. The work is described as complex or long term. Change follows, but cautiously and often too slowly to materially improve conditions for those most affected.
Fire services are not short of evidence. They are among the most studied public institutions. The unresolved question is whether organisations are willing to confront entrenched norms, informal power structures, and the limits of incremental change.
When change meets resistance
As focus shifted from recruitment to internal systems, promotion pathways, physical standards, station culture, and leadership accountability came under scrutiny. This is where resistance often hardened.
Equity initiatives were framed as a threat to standards or tradition. Inclusion was treated as a competing priority rather than core business. Change was often tolerated only while it left existing hierarchies intact.
Resistance was not always overt. It appeared in delays, selective application of policy, informal gatekeeping, and the expectation that those experiencing exclusion should adapt to the organisation, rather than the organisation adapting to them.
Physical standards as a recurring fault line
Physical employment standards illustrate this tension clearly. While essential for safety, these standards have often been defended as neutral and untouchable, even where evidence suggests otherwise.
Internationally, physical standards have been challenged, reviewed, and reformed. Where they are not clearly job-related, evidence-based, and regularly reviewed, they can disproportionately exclude women without improving safety outcomes. Attempts to revisit them continue to attract strong resistance, despite growing global consensus that inclusive, task-based standards improve both fairness and operational performance.
The cost of moving too slowly
Sluggish change carries real consequences. Skilled firefighters leave. Recruitment gains are lost through poor retention. Trust in leadership erodes. Legal, reputational, and financial risks increase. Most critically, organisations fail to fully benefit from the capability, experience, and diversity of the workforce they claim to value.
Equity delayed is not neutral. It has operational, human, and institutional costs.
What comes next
The journey from tradition to equity is about being honest about which traditions serve safety, excellence, and public trust, and which continue to exclude.
Equity requires more than access. It requires redesign of systems, standards, and cultures. It requires treating lived experience as expertise and accepting that discomfort is often part of meaningful change.
Fire services understand risk, accountability, and continuous improvement. Applying those same principles inward, and acting on what decades of evidence already tell us, remains the work ahead.
Leave a Reply