Today's post is from Chad Clark, a Master Sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve. In this piece he reminds us of the importance of trust within our formations, especially from the top down. Disciplined initiative can only occur through mutual trust and respect, and Chad believes that this starts from the top down. Read on, share, and consider writing for us!
Technology has enhanced our ability to communicate in such a way that we expect nearly constant access to simultaneous video, voice, and graphic display in real-time all around the world. Within the United States Army we also have hundreds of digital systems of record for communicating training, manpower, and equipment conditions and needs. Technology has so enabled awareness up the chain of command that operational and strategic level leaders are listening to real-time, by-name lists on things such as flu shots, physical fitness test failures, and missed annual physicals. One has to ask if these are the appropriate things for senior leaders to be focused on. Company commanders have the appropriate tools to manage and enact punishment, if necessary, and we should leave it to them since they’re closest to the problem. According to Thomas Ricks in his book titled “The Generals,” a similar phenomenon occurred but in a different way in the Vietnam Conflict. Generals flying over units in contact would enter the unit’s net and start directing companies, platoons, and squads against the enemy. I do not think that they did this with malicious intent, rather, I am most certain they thought they were helping. While inserting themselves with the best of intentions, I’m positive the result was often more frustrating than helpful for ground forces. While the general flying overhead had a birds-eye view they had much less context as to how the situation developed over time, nuances of the area that the troops were familiar with, and the internal dynamics of the unit on the ground. They also did not share the risk of the unit on the ground in the same way. A table on a PowerPoint slide is a snapshot of measurable conditions with an assumption of accuracy, but numbers leave a lot of room for the imagination while lacking context. If a division commander were to tell a brigade commander to fix Private Snuffy then it is safe to say the battalion and company commanders will be getting that message soon. If Private Snuffy is on emergency leave then two courses of action exist. One is to send that message up to higher headquarters, which is an unpleasant action for some. The other is to call Private Snuffy and ‘encourage’ him while they are on leave to get it done somewhere nearby. Common between the two scenarios is distrust that results in disrespecting appropriate boundaries from the top down. In most circumstances this is known as micro-management. Whether engaged with the enemy in close combat or in garrison the leaders must enable agile and adaptive leaders in exercising disciplined initiative through the principles of Mission Command Philosophy.
Metrics measure compliance but not quality
When assessing the strength of any military numbers matter. High standards are also a good indication of a high-quality military. However, total compliance with arbitrary standards may not create the leaders necessary for success in the next large scale conflict with a near peer competitor. Tactical commanders have to make quick decisions with limited information. The best often have to trust their intuition and intuition is best shaped by ownership from gradually increased responsibility and authority.
Influence of careerism in relative peace
The best units that I have been a part of or observed always have always had a great culture. Without having the tangible goal of a common enemy’s defeat as the goal for some could become rank which could leave some viewing their peer as the competitor. Some consider a competitor an adversary. This could very well bring on careerism if it hasn’t already. According to Meriam-Webster, careerism is “the practice of advancing one’s own career often at the cost of one’s integrity.” Sacrificing one’s integrity does not occur in a vacuum, it comes at a significant cost; the loss of trust from others. Trust is the foundation of a cohesive culture, without it the potential of the unit suffers greatly and it takes time to rebuild. If you have seen this before then you know it takes a while for an organization to re-establish that foundation of mutual trust that enables a great culture. Trust is dependent upon commitment and commitment comes from caring. President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt said, “people don’t care how much you know till they know how much you care.”
Trust should start from the top down
After exiting an unpopular conflict where many leaders could not resist the temptation to control, trust was significantly eroded in to the Cold War Army of the 70s and 80s known for low morale and low standards. This is not where we should be headed in the decades that will followed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Trust enables communication and with good communication comes valuable buy-in. Buy-in from those above, below, and to our left and right. With buy-in leaders are better informed to make decisions with the free flow of information up and down the chain. If you are the leader of the organization you can passively mentor by setting a good example. One key component of setting a good example is authenticity. Intuitively, humans have a really hard time trusting people that they do not see as being authentic. The military promoted you and gave you some responsibility, be comfortable in your own skin and do the job. Another way of describing a buy-in culture would be a collaborative culture, aka, a learning culture. A learning culture enables 360-degree mentorship through real-time passive and active mentorship. As a leader, you must meet the capability of the unit in your charge with an appropriate level of training. Therefore, you have to show that you trust your unit first and provide opportunities to be challenged so they can grow.