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?
