Study: 'U.S. Army officers lie' routinely

[daftandbarmy]

The US military is always good for a cheerful report or two like this, the results of which could probably be applied to senior leadership in many big organizations these days: military or civilian.  :nod:


Study: 'U.S. Army officers lie' routinely

U.S. Army officers often resort to "evasion and deception," and everyone at the Pentagon knows it, according to a new study conducted by the U.S. Army War College.

"In other words, in the routine performance of their duties as leaders and commanders, U.S. Army officers lie," reads the study, which was conducted by the War College's Strategic Studies Institute.

The 33-page report, compiled following interviews with officers across the Army, concluded that the Army's culture is rife with "dishonesty and deception" at all levels of the institution -- from the most junior members to senior Army officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/army-ethics-lying-report/index.html

 

[tomahawk6]

Too bad.Integrity used to mean something.

 

[Jed]

Too bad.Integrity used to mean something.

Yes it did. Political Correctness has been murder on Integrity.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yes it did. Political Correctness has been murder on Integrity.

That is what I wanted to say yesterday but didn't know how to word it...............obviously too many people who'd, instead of using mistakes by subordinates to be learning tools for them, use them to further either their own careers or those who's careers  they wish to further.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

when your process require you to do many small white lies to keep things moving, then they are surprised that it erodes honesty?

 

[Lightguns]

It would be impossible to recruit officers from a middle class society and not get a majority of recruits who share the society's ethos.  Canadians lie, frequently and routinely.  I suspect Americans do to.  In fact, I suspect we/they always have to a situational extent, now it is just a cultural norm. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

People lie?  Say it ain't so, Joe!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There are lies and then there are real lies. I often get a call starting out with "I have a friend who did such and such, what will the fallout be?" We both know there is almost never a "friend" involved, but it allows us to discuss a "hypothetical situation" which does not require me to act in my official capacity and they aren't tying a noose around their neck.

or check off a box on a form that you did so and so, even when you didn't, but it does not apply to your situation, but the computer program/bureaucrat/admin clerk can not move forward without that box checked. You can be forced to lie just because the process never considered your situation and cannot adapt your truthful info into it.

then there is "Service Excellence" or any coined phrase with "excellence" in it, which is an official lie because the program goal is never about being "excellent" at that task.

 

[mariomike]

People lie?  Say it ain't so, Joe!

“The main trouble with being an honest man was that it lost you all your illusions.”
― James Jones, From Here to Eternity

 

[FJAG]

I think that rather than focusing on whether we had higher ethical standards in the past we should focus on what the study's authors point to as the cause of this situation. The following quote from the CNN article touch on this:

"But Army officers are faced with an increasing number of requirements and bureaucratic hoops, according to the study, and rather than work with a rigid military brass to reform a burdensome bureaucracy, officers will simply sidestep those requirements, lying on forms and often rationalizing their answers.

The result? "Officers become ethically numb," explains the study, which was conducted by Leonard Wong, a research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute and retired Army officer, and behavioral sciences Professor Stephen Gerras, who held company and battalion command roles during his 25 years in the Army.

"Eventually, their signature and word become tools to maneuver through the Army bureaucracy rather than symbols of integrity and honesty," the researchers wrote. "This desensitization dilutes the seriousness of an officer's word and allows what should be an ethical decision to fade into just another way the Army does business.""

In other words, the bureaucratic structure itself creates a situation where "lying" becomes necessary and is seen by others as an acceptable response to the problem that the system has created.

I'm not condoning "lying" but I do think the response to the wake-up call should be aimed at reforming the bureacratic jungle that causes the problem.

:cheers:

 

[hotei]

I'm not condoning "lying" but I do think the response to the wake-up call should be aimed at reforming the bureacratic jungle that causes the problem.

:cheers:

According to the Maple Leaf the CAF is establishing a committee to reduce red tape....  :facepalm:

 

[FJAG]

According to the Maple Leaf the CAF is establishing a committee to reduce red tape....  :facepalm:

:rofl:

 

[Old Sweat]

Presumably the committee would then set itself up as an agency to review and comment on all reports, returns and requirements documents, oh and UCRs. Soon, in the best Canadian tradition, it would then become a command headquarters with an upgrade in rank for all its members and a tripling of its establishment.

 

[medicineman]

Presumably the committee would then set itself up as an agency to review and comment on all reports, returns and requirements documents, oh and UCRs. Soon, in the best Canadian tradition, it would then become a command headquarters with an upgrade in rank for all its members and a tripling of its establishment.

I was going to say it would turn into a Calian think tank for all those involved so they can continue the same useless job for more pay, encouraging the company to extend the mandates and contracts etc ad infinitum...

 

[Pusser]

Part of the problem is that we've also created a culture of zero-tolerance for anything less than perfection.  There is a real fear of making mistakes and so we find ways to make them look not so bad.  Why would a junior officer tell the truth about any situation where he knows he's going to be yelled at and that his PER will suffer?  We frequently punish people for mistakes, but seldom reward them for being honest.

I give the example of a friend of mine, who was the Confidential Books Officer in a ship years ago.  He inherited a pile of crap that required considerable work to correct.  Upon taking over the role, the XO had told him that if he, "needed any help, just ask."  He quickly realized that he was overwhelmed and needed some assistance.  His reward was a reproof and to be confined to the ship until the situation was resolved.  He would have been better off to say that everything was fine and just continue working to fix it in hope that he could finish it before the next audit.

Another example was the commander of the Airborne Regiment just prior to Somalia.  He stood up and told the truth (the regiment was not ready to deploy on that mission).  His reward was to be relieved of his command.

Honesty may be the best policy, but it frequently seems that folks suffer for it.

 

[dapaterson]

Presumably the committee would then set itself up as an agency to review and comment on all reports, returns and requirements documents, oh and UCRs. Soon, in the best Canadian tradition, it would then become a command headquarters with an upgrade in rank for all its members and a tripling of its establishment.

So you've met the Defence Renewal Team, then?

 

[Sigs Pig]

So you've met the Defence Renewal Team, then?

Bingo!

Defence Renewal Charter Summary... and more

"3. Openness and Trust - Summary

A culture of openness and trust is defined by the presence of honesty, transparency, and open dialogue. It is an essential component for organizations where separate elements are expected to operate independently, yet be mutually supporting. It relies on information being readily shared, and having a common commitment to serve the interests of the greater organization over personal or localized interests. It is particularly important to renewal when initiatives require cross-functional coordination and support in order to succeed."

ME

 

[tomahawk6]

I do agree that zero tolerance for mistakes has cost many an officer his career,at least in the US Army and definitely the USN.The old Army of post WW2 tolerated mistakes and used them as a teaching point.I knew of a LT who was a platoon leader,during an exercise his unit was to attack a hill.He divided his platoon,despite the advice of his Platoon Sgt.The Company CO was orbiting overhead in a chopper and watched the entire fiasco.He relieved the PL via radio while still flying over the scene.It could have been a learning experience instead it ended a career.An FA battalion commander took command of a howitzer battalion during the post Vietnam period.He was short experienced NCO's and junior officers.There was an operational readiness test which is done annually to determine the combat readiness of Army units.The battalion failed and the commander was relieved.He had only been in command a month or two.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I do agree that zero tolerance for mistakes has cost many an officer his career,at least in the US Army and definitely the USN.The old Army of post WW2 tolerated mistakes and used them as a teaching point.I knew of a LT who was a platoon leader,during an exercise his unit was to attack a hill.He divided his platoon,despite the advice of his Platoon Sgt.The Company CO was orbiting overhead in a chopper and watched the entire fiasco.He relieved the PL via radio while still flying over the scene.It could have been a learning experience instead it ended a career.An FA battalion commander took command of a howitzer battalion during the post Vietnam period.He was short experienced NCO's and junior officers.There was an operational readiness test which is done annually to determine the combat readiness of Army units.The battalion failed and the commander was relieved.He had only been in command a month or two.

Thus explaining my (and apparently Norman's) approach to learning about leadership:

"You learn far more from negative leadership than from positive leadership. Because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it."

Norman Schwarzkopf

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/norman_schwarzkopf.html#bxE9y4F6QQ7oDDXj.99

 

[NSDreamer]

Thus explaining my (and apparently Norman's) approach to learning about leadership:

"You learn far more from negative leadership than from positive leadership. Because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it."

Norman Schwarzkopf

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/norman_schwarzkopf.html#bxE9y4F6QQ7oDDXj.99

Only if you want to, I've watched plenty of officers follow the example of "Bad Leadership" imitating poor leadership, because it made their lives easier rather then standing up and doing the right thing. As a senior subbie, it's hard to chew out the 2lts, when the shitty example they are following is a Incentive 10 capt for life riding out til retirement if you don't have support of your OC because gosh darn it, that capt gets results...by breaking half the rules in the books...