Playing the Game

     

            I once found myself in a tough situation.  A senior of mine, in my direct chain of command was providing me guidance that was:  

               1.  In some cases unethical

               2.  In some cases directly violated regulations

               3.  In some cases was simply unreasonable

     The unethical and regulation issues were very cut and dry, and in hindsight the ‘unreasonable’ direction came after a few weeks of me pushing back on the ethics and regulations.  The problem was, in the military there is little recourse for a junior whose boss is being unreasonable, after all … this is the military.  I don’t have to like my boss to know I am required by regulations to obey lawful orders, even if they are not reasonable.  I tried to tactfully let my senior know that their newest guidance was going to cause extreme hardship on their people for no good reason other than to ... cause hardship ... and that it was unreasonable.  My senior responded by stating there was an obvious disconnect between their style and my style and wanted to know what the issue was, so I honestly answered that I was not comfortable with the history of unethical direction and the direction to violate regulations.  My boss was obviously surprised with my candor.  Near the end of what was a really uncomfortable situation I was advised that I needed to learn to “play the game”, my simple response was that my understanding of things is that … at this stage in my career I thought I was expected to be a professional and not play games.

     Looking back on the situation in hindsight, I find myself wondering about that statement:  “play the game.” How does this statement relate to my status as an officer, my status as a leader?  How does this align with my personal ethics?

     How many people exhibit an overt sense of loyalty to an individual vice their oath?  How many people demonstrate a self-preserving desire to not rock the boat and as a result do not stand up and exhibit character?  What is the point of the authority of a commissioned officer or the authority of our senior enlisted if the people filling those billets are more concerned about their next evaluation and upward mobility than doing the right thing, for the right reasons … even when no one is watching?  Are you willing to compromise rules for simple expediency or to gain favor with your boss?  Are you “playing the game” to advance your career? 

     I recently read the report on the relief of the Commanding Officer of the USS COWPENS (http://www.scribd.com/doc/235869122/Cowpens-Gombert-Combined-Min) and see that officers and senior enlisted on that ship ignored their duties for the sake of getting things done and not rocking the boat.  Yes, they completed the deployment without incident, in some cases a testament to the dedication of the people, and in some cases due to blind luck.  Do the ends, above all, justify the means?  I would argue they do not.  While the primary focus of military leadership is mission accomplishment immediately followed by troop welfare (“Mission first, Sailors always”) unless we are in a ‘rounds impacting my position’ or a ‘water rushing through the bulkhead’ type situation, a ‘git ‘er done’ mentality can be problematic and how we get things done is vitally important.  Aboard subs, ships and planes I picked up the phrase “procedural compliance."  My earnest question to any leader:   are you overly concerned with procedural compliance in logs, maintenance records and/or uniforms but not in your own ethical conduct or the ethics of your subordinate leaders?  Do you expect your subordinates to “play the game” so that they get things done and move along?

     I do not argue nor endorse the systematic extinction of the creative risk-taker or pushing the limits to accomplish hard tasks.  I do however argue that at some point, we should expect that leaders – of all ranks -- are ethical.  If we are willing in the relative comfort of a garrison environment, with bake sales and lattes … when lives are not on the line … to be loose with our personal ethics how can we expect that we will suddenly step up to the proverbial plate when the situation is truly a hard & tough situation that may result in our own injury or death or that of our personnel?  It may be a harsh comparison, it may be one that most people will never have to make; I have been there and had to make those decisions and can attest that hard times do not suddenly develop character; hard times test character.  Hard times will beat you down, hard times will physically and mentally exhaust you and you may even question why you are staying the course … but I have yet to see a sudden epiphany of principled ethical dogma when the going is truly rough.  Are you “playing the game” because the situation is not “life and death” and you tell yourself you will do the right thing when the situation really needs you to?

     Does concern for your career make you pause when a senior is going the wrong way or about to make a really bad call?  Are you more willing to tactfully correct a senior that is not your immediate supervisor or evaluator?  If so, you are allowing careerism to get in the way of your role as an adviser and a leader and ultimately of your oath.  I want to succeed and hate to fail, but are you adding to a surplus of people who are addicted to success when you should be addicted to integrity?