Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby's comments to reporters "come amid recent reports of service members and some high-ranking officers accused of cheating, fraud, drug use, alcohol abuse, gambling and sexual misconduct."
Kirby continued, "What worries the Secretary is that maybe ... he doesn’t have the full grasp of the depth of the issue. ... He is generally concerned that there could be, at least at some level, a breakdown in ethical behavior and in the demonstration of moral courage."
I believe the Secretary is right to worry. After all the years of deployments, I think the Army's internal regulatory system has broken down. It doesn't surprise me to hear about leaders who think the rules don't apply to them. They've had years of experience where -- effectively -- they didn't.
Though the Army has no shortage of regulations (and they're all available on the Army Publishing Directorate website), there's a generation of Army leadership that has grown up in a culture where they weren't a priority. Rather, it's "mission first," i.e. "get the job done." And if you want to get a good evaluation from your boss, it pays to be a team player.
In retrospect, I can see how this mindset contributed to my battalion commander getting relieved in November. Having come from a Special Forces background, he had very little regard for the rules.
Take the Blackberry issue, for instance. Though budgetary restrictions limited the number of Blackberries we could issue, and to whom, he pushed the envelope to have one issued to someone outside our organization. If an officer with the moral courage to resist confronted him, he would berate them. In fact, my initial supervisor left a month after I got here because of an issue related to his treatment of staff officers.
There are some officers in my brigade's headquarters who have a similar perspective on rules. Though there are clear guidelines that require periodic inspections of subordinate staff, these inspections fall by the wayside if there are higher priorities. If your boss has certain goals like "I want bigger numbers for my annual evaluation," as a staff officer you don't get points for saying, "Whoah, we can't do that right now." It's in your interests to pull in the same direction.
Part of it is the high turnover here in Korea. With so many personnel here for only one year, no one wants to learn the rules and go by the book. Like Louis XIV's "après moi, le deluge," the culture around here is "Just get the job done -- I won't be here if there's an audit anyway."
Another constraint is that we really don't have time to learn, study, or develop. As soon as we arrive, we're put in a position where we have to perform. Back in June, for example, I was running the S-3 shop a mere two weeks after I changed positions. I had been on staff for all of two months by that point. With most people only around for one year (and few with families), there's little incentive for a commander to invest in subordinates' professional development.
Though there's not often a case of deliberate negligence, I believe there's a general disregard for knowing rules and regulations. I remember when I first arrived, units were carrying ammunition "dirty" (without a clearance number) to go to the off-post qualification ranges. Though the ranges were only about a mile off-post, and the risk of an accident was very low, this represented a violation of USFK 55-37 §3-4c. Once I moved to the S-3 shop, I made sure to order the companies to request clearance numbers.
I made it a point to cite the regulation, but it still met with some resistance at first ("we've never had to do that before"). I explained that the small inconvenience of getting a clearance number insured commanders against the *catastrophic* international incident that would happen if they got into an accident without one. Put that way, they complied. But not everyone is like that.
At this point, as I'm getting ready to take over the S-4 position later this month, I am very concerned about the downside risk of the position. There are a lot of ways to break rules, and most of them have to do with blindly accepting what other people tell me to do.
I can "demonstrate moral courage," as Secretary Hagel wants, but will my superiors recognize that as such, or view it as disloyal opposition?
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Tip of the iceberg
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel "is 'deeply troubled' by a spate of military scandals in recent months," the Army Times reported today. [Source]
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby's comments to reporters "come amid recent reports of service members and some high-ranking officers accused of cheating, fraud, drug use, alcohol abuse, gambling and sexual misconduct."
Kirby continued, "What worries the Secretary is that maybe ... he doesn’t have the full grasp of the depth of the issue. ... He is generally concerned that there could be, at least at some level, a breakdown in ethical behavior and in the demonstration of moral courage."
I believe the Secretary is right to worry. After all the years of deployments, I think the Army's internal regulatory system has broken down. It doesn't surprise me to hear about leaders who think the rules don't apply to them. They've had years of experience where -- effectively -- they didn't.
Though the Army has no shortage of regulations (and they're all available on the Army Publishing Directorate website), there's a generation of Army leadership that has grown up in a culture where they weren't a priority. Rather, it's "mission first," i.e. "get the job done." And if you want to get a good evaluation from your boss, it pays to be a team player.
In retrospect, I can see how this mindset contributed to my battalion commander getting relieved in November. Having come from a Special Forces background, he had very little regard for the rules.
Take the Blackberry issue, for instance. Though budgetary restrictions limited the number of Blackberries we could issue, and to whom, he pushed the envelope to have one issued to someone outside our organization. If an officer with the moral courage to resist confronted him, he would berate them. In fact, my initial supervisor left a month after I got here because of an issue related to his treatment of staff officers.
There are some officers in my brigade's headquarters who have a similar perspective on rules. Though there are clear guidelines that require periodic inspections of subordinate staff, these inspections fall by the wayside if there are higher priorities. If your boss has certain goals like "I want bigger numbers for my annual evaluation," as a staff officer you don't get points for saying, "Whoah, we can't do that right now." It's in your interests to pull in the same direction.
Part of it is the high turnover here in Korea. With so many personnel here for only one year, no one wants to learn the rules and go by the book. Like Louis XIV's "après moi, le deluge," the culture around here is "Just get the job done -- I won't be here if there's an audit anyway."
Another constraint is that we really don't have time to learn, study, or develop. As soon as we arrive, we're put in a position where we have to perform. Back in June, for example, I was running the S-3 shop a mere two weeks after I changed positions. I had been on staff for all of two months by that point. With most people only around for one year (and few with families), there's little incentive for a commander to invest in subordinates' professional development.
Though there's not often a case of deliberate negligence, I believe there's a general disregard for knowing rules and regulations. I remember when I first arrived, units were carrying ammunition "dirty" (without a clearance number) to go to the off-post qualification ranges. Though the ranges were only about a mile off-post, and the risk of an accident was very low, this represented a violation of USFK 55-37 §3-4c. Once I moved to the S-3 shop, I made sure to order the companies to request clearance numbers.
I made it a point to cite the regulation, but it still met with some resistance at first ("we've never had to do that before"). I explained that the small inconvenience of getting a clearance number insured commanders against the *catastrophic* international incident that would happen if they got into an accident without one. Put that way, they complied. But not everyone is like that.
At this point, as I'm getting ready to take over the S-4 position later this month, I am very concerned about the downside risk of the position. There are a lot of ways to break rules, and most of them have to do with blindly accepting what other people tell me to do.
I can "demonstrate moral courage," as Secretary Hagel wants, but will my superiors recognize that as such, or view it as disloyal opposition?
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby's comments to reporters "come amid recent reports of service members and some high-ranking officers accused of cheating, fraud, drug use, alcohol abuse, gambling and sexual misconduct."
Kirby continued, "What worries the Secretary is that maybe ... he doesn’t have the full grasp of the depth of the issue. ... He is generally concerned that there could be, at least at some level, a breakdown in ethical behavior and in the demonstration of moral courage."
I believe the Secretary is right to worry. After all the years of deployments, I think the Army's internal regulatory system has broken down. It doesn't surprise me to hear about leaders who think the rules don't apply to them. They've had years of experience where -- effectively -- they didn't.
Though the Army has no shortage of regulations (and they're all available on the Army Publishing Directorate website), there's a generation of Army leadership that has grown up in a culture where they weren't a priority. Rather, it's "mission first," i.e. "get the job done." And if you want to get a good evaluation from your boss, it pays to be a team player.
In retrospect, I can see how this mindset contributed to my battalion commander getting relieved in November. Having come from a Special Forces background, he had very little regard for the rules.
Take the Blackberry issue, for instance. Though budgetary restrictions limited the number of Blackberries we could issue, and to whom, he pushed the envelope to have one issued to someone outside our organization. If an officer with the moral courage to resist confronted him, he would berate them. In fact, my initial supervisor left a month after I got here because of an issue related to his treatment of staff officers.
There are some officers in my brigade's headquarters who have a similar perspective on rules. Though there are clear guidelines that require periodic inspections of subordinate staff, these inspections fall by the wayside if there are higher priorities. If your boss has certain goals like "I want bigger numbers for my annual evaluation," as a staff officer you don't get points for saying, "Whoah, we can't do that right now." It's in your interests to pull in the same direction.
Part of it is the high turnover here in Korea. With so many personnel here for only one year, no one wants to learn the rules and go by the book. Like Louis XIV's "après moi, le deluge," the culture around here is "Just get the job done -- I won't be here if there's an audit anyway."
Another constraint is that we really don't have time to learn, study, or develop. As soon as we arrive, we're put in a position where we have to perform. Back in June, for example, I was running the S-3 shop a mere two weeks after I changed positions. I had been on staff for all of two months by that point. With most people only around for one year (and few with families), there's little incentive for a commander to invest in subordinates' professional development.
Though there's not often a case of deliberate negligence, I believe there's a general disregard for knowing rules and regulations. I remember when I first arrived, units were carrying ammunition "dirty" (without a clearance number) to go to the off-post qualification ranges. Though the ranges were only about a mile off-post, and the risk of an accident was very low, this represented a violation of USFK 55-37 §3-4c. Once I moved to the S-3 shop, I made sure to order the companies to request clearance numbers.
I made it a point to cite the regulation, but it still met with some resistance at first ("we've never had to do that before"). I explained that the small inconvenience of getting a clearance number insured commanders against the *catastrophic* international incident that would happen if they got into an accident without one. Put that way, they complied. But not everyone is like that.
At this point, as I'm getting ready to take over the S-4 position later this month, I am very concerned about the downside risk of the position. There are a lot of ways to break rules, and most of them have to do with blindly accepting what other people tell me to do.
I can "demonstrate moral courage," as Secretary Hagel wants, but will my superiors recognize that as such, or view it as disloyal opposition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment