This statement: "I struggle sometimes to keep track of why there always seems to be 2 steps forward, 1 step back progress around firefighting" ...makes me wonde

This statement: "I struggle sometimes to keep track of why there always seems to be 2 steps forward, 1 step back progress around firefighting" ...makes me wonder if you have as much understanding of the fundamentals of firefighting as you think. If you are actually getting 2 steps forward, 1 step back, you are doing better than most organizations. Firefighting is intrinsically (almost by definition) dealing with situations that are not well understood or in control. If you ARE able to deliver a well-organized response to a firefighting situation, then one has to wonder why that kind of fire has stuck around long enough for your organization to get good at fighting it. So "two steps forward, one step back" implies progress towards the next system, and if that is true you're doing well. Now, it's possible that the manager in question doesn't like being a manager, and only took it because they wanted the raise. But more reporting and "roadmaps" on firefighting sounds like a low-value-added response. The most important thing is whether or not any refactoring/improvement is happening in addition to the firefighting. Cutting scope from the team so they can make faster progress, does seem like a reasonable option to investigate. The main danger to look out for is that the time required to transfer that scope to other teams might end up requiring more meetings and firefighting to deal with the transfer itself. But if it can be done without too much of that, reduced scope might allow for a better result. Your comment on "criteria for firefighting" suggests that another possibility is that the manager doesn't feel empowered to say "we're not going to spend time fighting that fire", even when the problem is actually not big enough to be worth the distraction. In this case, some support from on high (you) to say that certain kinds of problems should not be considered urgent enough to derail development, might be a thing you consider. I don't know if any of the firefighting being done is actually something that could be ignored until the new system can be created, but it's one thing a second-level manager may feel more empowered to decide than the lowest level.