Blog Layout

Civilian Misconceptions of the Military

Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020

Comments by Randy Cadieux, Major, USMC, MS

There are many ideas and misconceptions about the United States military services and the way leadership is used to influence service members to accomplish the mission. High-Reliability Organizations (HROs) have existed for many years, and while the U.S. military components do not necessarily call themselves HROs, many military units may fall within the criteria which describe HRO’s. It may be helpful to study how the military implements many of its tools to accomplish high-risk missions under conditions of uncertainty while minimizing losses to personnel and equipment. Additionally, dispelling some of the misconceptions about military leadership and followership may remove some of the barriers which impede the transference of HRO behaviors to other sectors and industries.


HRO as a Military Model


Some may think that HRO is a military model. High Reliability Organizing by itself is not a military model. It is a set of principles which can enable exceptional performance and resilience under conditions of uncertainty.  While many military units seem to fit the definitions of High Reliability Organizations, as described by Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe in Managing the Unexpected, the military has not developed a unified HRO model. Many of the attitudes and behaviors used in the military are similar to HRO behaviors and are aligned with the 5 Principles of. By examining many military units, it is apparent that they are comprised of service members who are preoccupied with failure, reluctant to simplify, sensitive to operations, adept at deferring to expertise, and committed to developing resilience within their units and during operations.  Many service members enact these behaviors without even knowing the principles of HRO.


Command Structure in the Military


Some think that due to the hierarchical organizational structure of military units service members of lower ranks blindly obey commands from senior leaders at all costs. The military is a hierarchical structure with a command element. There are officers and enlisted personnel in place to make decisions and carry out orders, but effective leadership in the military includes being able to listen to trusted advisors. These are often subordinate personnel who possess a high degree of expertise in certain areas. Ultimately in a military unit, obedience to orders is required to maintain good order and discipline, but effective leaders will seek out the advice of their personnel who are experts in key areas. Additionally, commanders are put in place because they have proven themselves to be effective leaders and communicators who understand how to use effective communication skills and ethical leadership as they develop and deliver orders. 


Questioning Orders


There is often a misconception that equates military service with blind obedience and the lack of a questioning attitude. Many movies have portrayed military commanders as tyrants who bark orders and have portrayed military troops as nothing more than followers who do as they are told. Ultimately in the military when a lawful order is given by a senior officer it must be followed. The good order and discipline of the services depend on this precept. However, many effective leaders encourage subordinate personnel to speak up to determine if there is something missing from their plans, such as a critical aspect of the plan which is required for mission success. This highlights the trusted advisor role that many subordinate service members fill for unit commanders. This relationship is known as Special Trust and Confidence in the Marine Corps. Additionally, in Navy and Marine Corps aviation one of the 7 Critical Skills of Crew Resource Management (CRM) is Assertiveness. This critical skill (or attribute) which is trained and encouraged among all ranks, is required to help a crew perform effectively and safely as a team. If a junior aircrew member notices a problem or a dangerous situation he or she is expected to bring it to the attention of the aircraft commander.

Learning to Follow Orders Before Being Able to Give Orders


Most military training begins with learning to follow orders. This is true in recruit training and officer training. At Marine Corps Officer Candidate School officer candidates follow orders of the drill instructors, but are given opportunities to be evaluated as leaders. Peer leadership evaluations are conducted to assess an officer candidate’s ability to provide leadership, guidance, and direction to his or her team members. Additionally, candidates are placed in leadership roles and are evaluated by the drill instructors for potential leadership abilities. Commissioned officers are expected to be able to give orders early in their career. Junior enlisted personnel are expected to be technically and tactically proficient, follow orders, and provide feedback to their chain of command. As they gain rank they are normally given the opportunity to lead subordinate personnel.


Designated Leadership versus Functional Leadership


In non-military working environments sometimes leaders will use terms such as “being the captain of the ship”, thinking that in the military the captain is in ultimate control and that nobody questions his or her authority. While the captain of a ship is in charge and on Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, the Aircraft Commander or Mission Commander is in charge, he or she will often allow input from other crewmembers. The Aircraft Commander is assigned in writing and is the crewmember responsible for the safe conduct of the mission. In CRM terms, this is known as designated leadership. Oftentimes designated leaders will defer to the expertise of other crew positions to assist with decisionmaking. For example, when KC-130 Transport Plane Commanders must make a decision related to a cargo load, they will normally seek input from the aircraft loadmasters, who are the subject matter experts on cargo handling and loading. In CRM terms, this is known as functional leadership.


Perception that Recruits are Abused


Oftentimes it may appear to some outside observers that recruits, midshipmen, cadets, and officer candidates are abused during their training. Recruit, midshipmen, cadet, and officer candidate training programs are not designed to abuse service members. They are a way to indoctrinate trainees into a system which requires one to conform to the requirements of the team. This is a cultural change which takes American men and women and develops them into soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coastguardsmen. This does require some negative reinforcement at the early stages of training, and as the trainees improve at their tasks positive reinforcement increases. This has proven to be a highly effective way of indoctrinating civilians into military service. The process is overseen by numerous layers of command influence and oversight and the safety of the trainees is extremely important. The sense of accomplishment upon completing the training curriculum of recruit training, Officer Candidate School, or one of the service academies is immeasurable and this training regimen serves to forge a strong bond between peers and helps develop future leaders with a common background.


The Need for Service Members at All Ranks


One misconception regarding how the military treats its service members is that troops at the lowest ranks are considered expendable while senior ranking enlisted personnel and officers are not. This is simply not true. One of the reasons officers exist in the Marine Corps is to lead and support the Marines in the lower ranks. Without the individual Marine, the mission could not be accomplished. The strength of the Marine is with the team, and the strength of the team relies on its best asset (the individual Marine). Officers and staff non-commissioned officers are preoccupied with not only mission accomplishment, but also with the welfare of their Marines. In the Marine Corps there is no policy which states that enlisted Marines are more expendable than officers.


Being Placed Under Stress to Understand How to Handle Stress


Some people think that as a junior employee or trainee that they will not understand how to handle stress unless they have been placed under stress. Stress has its place in all levels of training, from officer to enlisted. A baseline exposure to stress in training is required. The increase in stress may be dependent on the type of follow-on training, and can vary. In aviation training student aviators must be exposed to stressful situations to help prepare them for potential emergency situations. Many of the technical aspects of military training include self-induced stress. This means that the trainees feel a certain sense of pressure due to the exposure to a new training environment or techniques. As training progresses, the level of stress is increased to help prepare student aviators for potential emergency situations which require rapid action and decisionmaking. This is not the application of stressful training simply for the sake of observing a trainee react, but the stress is a byproduct of the technical training. In U.S. Marine Corps and Navy aviation these levels of stress are optimized to help students achieve exceptional levels of performance.


Yelling and Intimidation as a Form of Control


Many people think that all military leaders use yelling, anger, and intimidation as the only way to influence subordinate personnel. Yelling, anger, and intimidation may be used in some instances, especially during recruit training. During this process the recruits’ attitudes are shaped by the drill instructors to help them understand what it means to follow orders and execute operations under pressure. One of bases for this is that in combat military personnel must be able to function rapidly with minimal direction in some circumstances due to the uncertain nature of combat. After recruit training mentoring and small unit leadership is used to train personnel and guide them through their tasks. In some cases yelling is used as a tool to motivate, but this is not necessarily an everyday occurrence in every unit.  In many technical fields of the military, such as in Marine Corps aviation it is necessary to get an aircraft crew to work together as a synchronous team and yelling is simply not an effective tool during most aviation operations. While the Marine Corps does not necessarily use the term just culture, there is an environment where mutual respect is shared between all members and the enforcement of this respect and fair treatment is driven throughout all levels within the organization. 

The USS Carl Vinson, CVN 70

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
This is a discussion with Thomas A. Mercer, RAdm, USN, (retired) RAdm Mercer, as Captain of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), requested an evaluation by academics from the University of California, Berkeley, to improve his crew's performance. He also desired to have an MBA program available for his crew. The academics did offer some suggestions but the end result was the codification of RAdm. Mercer’s command philosophy and modern leadership techniques as the High Reliability Organization. CVN 70 was the third of Nimitz class aircraft carrier, commissioned in March of 1982. The crew did an around the world cruise and reported to Alameda, California, a year later. This was unusual because they were not getting the normal support from their support command on the west coast before they departed. RAdm. Mercer reported one-third of the way into the cruise as the ship was transiting to the Indian Ocean (where the support from the west coast for spare parts and replacement aircraft engines dramatically improved). The accident rates as far back as the 1950s and 1960s were 17 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Accidents, embarked and shore-based, are down now to less than 1 accident per 100,000 flight hours. The entire carrier force is now nuclear powered, which brings more capability and professionalism, appreciation for training and culture of doing things "right" that was not so before. The USS Nimitz was commissioned in 1975 while the fighting in Viet Nam was largely over in 1973. Throughout the Viet Nam war, most of the super carriers were conventionally powered starting with the USS Forrestal. The USS Enterprise was commissioned in 1961. All the carriers were "driven hard" because of the Viet Nam war. The USS Enterprise had a major fire off Hawaii, killed about 100 people, bombs cooked off (burned or exploded) after being hit by a rocket fired on the flight deck. The USS Enterprise had 8 reactors. All Nimitz class carriers have just two large reactors. Safety and readiness is a full system approach. The primary component of safety are the people, it is a people system with a very low authority gradient. Anyone can, and should, question what is being done. [Aside: VADM (ret) Gene Wilkinson, was the first CO of the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear powered warship. He passed away this year (2013). He originated the famous phrase (at least in the Navy) "underway on nuclear power" in January 1959.] All nuclear trained officers, particularly the CO, are personally selected by the Director of Naval Nuclear Power. The first was ADM Rickover, the longest tenure of any four star flag officer in the US military. Nuclear operators are very technically competent. The CO sets the tone for the entire organization. Always on duty. Low authority gradient, anyone can stop an operation and question what is being done and is encouraged to do so. In the USS Enterprise grounding off of Bishop Rock, California, no one questioned the CO because he had trained each person on the bridge. A carrier’s Executive Officer is also nuclear trained and aviator. All COs of nuclear aircraft carriers must be aviators; they have not driven ships their entire career. The CO must rely on all his post-command department heads (Air Boss, Navigator, Operations Officer, Reactor Officer), senior Medical Officer and Supply Officer. The Navy's Chief Petty Officers (CPO), the senior enlisted officers, have become stronger and stronger during Tom's career. There is a lot of technical training and expertise, they make things happen on a daily basis with cross coordination with their counterparts throughout the ship. It has been said that the Navy is run by the CPOs. One of their most important roles is training the junior officers. In aviation squadrons, all the junior officers have many collateral duties in addition to flying so the officers depend on the Chiefs to get the work done. Some of the most junior people are the plane Captains, the enlisted person in charge of individual aircraft maintenance. There have been many improvements in the carrier (the ship), too. We have moved to angled flight decks to allow simultaneous launch and recovery. Planes touch down 92% on final and 100% on landing, four arresting wires and other barriers and pilots would sometime amiss and hit, have glide slope indicators and Landing Signals Officer to guide the pilots in, steam catapults instead of hydraulic catapults, just enough night lighting to keep you from having to sit in ready room in night goggles for 30 min to be night acclimated for night flying, still try to keep lights from casting to submarines and others, we have automated carrier landing systems so you can make hands off landing, he had in his career, but not perfected. Comment on responsibility toward the other person, to help and protect others on the ship. This is part of the sense of duty we discussed. Overall level of training and the culture are key components. People know they are top line people doing important work for the Navy. The formal training has become more and more detailed and viable. The Navy has an all volunteer force now as opposed to the draft during the Viet Nam War when we did not always have the highest caliber people. Many people want to enlist or reenlist and we don't allow it because they don't meet our standards. People feel like their trainee is their responsibility and would be very embarrassed if anything that happened to them. Always looking out for their buddy on the flight deck and throughout the rank structure people always have the philosophy and attitude that they are training their relief as they move up in responsibility. At an EMS conference 20 years ago, and EMS veteran with 40 years of experience remarked that he missed the camaraderie between EMS personnel and hospital staff. There was pride not only in the organization but also in the system. The other person's welfare is part of the training. In the Navy is this part of recruit training or is it emphasized later? Yes, it is part of recruit training but it is also part of unit policies and cultivated unit pride to build camaraderie and professionalism. You see a problem and you own it until someone gives you help. You teach people that everyone's job is valuable, trying to make sure that no one messes up another person's work, feeling that we are all in this together, there are few special privileges. Every person has worth no matter how menial his or her job. In healthcare people tend to look down on rookies and novices yet in the 1970s on the ambulance and in the fire department it was a source of pride by how much the rookie learned. How much the rookie learned reflected the quality and performance of the crew. In healthcare, the novice or rookie seems to be in the way. How do you encourage people to look after the new guys? Some personalities of course do not fit in, but there are ways to shuffle them off to the side or weed them out quickly. The demands for people and advancement make it necessary to ensure the new people learn as much as possible. People are always new in something. We know they will have to step in in an emergency and have a role to play in keeping the aircraft carrier or submarine running. The quicker you can get the person trained and reliable, trained like you are, the better it makes your quality of life. Every person can save the boat. Numerous groups want to bring High Reliability into their organization. It is easy to say but it is hard to do. You said that you always encounter opposition. You advised to move forward despite the opposition not in spite of the opposition. How do you work despite or with the opposition? You do get the feeling that it is you against the world. People try to take it as a matter of pride and good discipline. A book came out five to six years ago, It's Your Ship, by Michael Abrashoff. He happened to be the junior skipper in the destroyer group. He prided himself on not cooperating with other COs, to try to one up them. This banter must be friendly and not get out of hand. In some systems this type of friendly competition can further each other’s performance and make people better. You raise the bar for others. If you come in and change what they are doing there is resentment. Rather, tell them what is good, then, ask what else we can do? If it is not working, then in private discuss how we can do better. You are going to get resistance when you tell people they are not doing things the right way or need to improve so you have to be careful about appealing to their sense of pride and professionalism. We are designing out the hazards of a system, which may lead up as to designing out the capacities of the individual. For example, the use of auto landing systems in aircraft is such a system. Will this result in an effort to drive out risk and human reliability. As part of an High Reliability Organization, you have to have systems that are designed to allow humans to adapt to changing conditions that could be lost if we rely on more automation. A doctor he met at a conference at USC had the impression that the automated systems and air traffic controllers should be held accountable for accidents and that accountability had shifted away from pilots. While the academics from Berkeley focused on flight decks the piece de resistance of what you did involved kitchen duty. Some loved it, some hated it, and for some that was the best they were going to do yet you instilled in them pride in their job. As you said, “If you can take care of the ship below decks the flight deck takes care of itself.” In hospitals, no one pays attention to the lower ranks. How do you instill pride in in the lower ranks and acceptance by the higher ranks? Everyone does kitchen duty or compartment cleaning. When they report to the ship no matter what their technical training is (with only few exceptions), the first cruise in the summer at the naval academy is in the role of an enlisted man. Everyone in the organization has had to do their fair share of the "menial" work. Even the military academy must learn the job from the ground up. In medical school and residency this is called “scut work” and everyone is assigned these duties. However, it has the reputation of being meaningless, that it has no useful purpose. As a novice in many organizations you get free pass to ask any questions you wanted. This is a golden opportunity to learn. Health care does not seem to value this period. Is it to learn how the system works or because you are the lowest on the totem pole? You described a lot of technology that was implemented at the same time as you were involved with cultural dynamics and personal leadership. What kind of change accounted for what kind of improvements? Did things ever get less safe when you were introducing technology? Transition to some of the technologies was often not as smooth as you might think. His predecessor on CVN70 had a lot of time to work with marine architecture people at MIT and Carnegie Mellon in 1981 and 1982. They had a Wang beta email system throughout the ship. It had a very colorful and interesting map display system on the bridge and other areas of the ship well before GPS. It had a high-speed printer for generating all the paperwork the ship needed and some expert systems to improve air operations (fuel management, etc.). They had tried to automate many of the pre-underway checklists. All ship instructions automated and electronic. The problem was that no one was used to using them, computers were not strong enough to handle the load, checklists not easily updated when things needed to be changed. It did well in REFTRA, but it did not do well in the Operational Readiness Exam that followed. Many of these systems were detriments to the tried-and-true ways of doing things. Now the aircraft handler that manages plane status, arming, and fuel, and maintenance has automated systems to support him, but the automated systems cannot do all the thinking and coordination needed. Right now the LA water system is putting in system called Safe Start: mind on task, eyes on task, behavioral safety . The real problem is just keeping people motivated to do things they don't want to do. How do you motivate people to do those things they don't want to do? Make those basic unpleasant things universal so people know they cannot escape them. On the carrier, it is a test of how well you internally communicate, how much do you let people off at these training events know that they are still part of the team? Need them to know that someone is looking out for them and to return to their real job When people are sent off for training in tasks not relevant to their job, we must convey that they own the material. We must let them know they are not going off just to do something. People have to feel a sense of owning something or vision of how these things they don't want to do are important It seems like the sustainability of the motivation falls back to leadership to make it clear to front line staff that what they are doing is of value to leadership. They will see the value as well this way. What are we modeling when we say one thing and do another? The staff pays a lot of attention to the signals the leadership send.

Deferring to Expertise, Part I

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
Minutes from a meeting to discuss Weick and Sutcliffe’s Five Principles of HRO

Deferring to Expertise, Part II

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
Minutes from a meeting to discuss Weick and Sutcliffe’s Five Principles of HRO

How do we commit to resilience?

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
Notes from a panel of people experienced in HRO

Sensitivity to Operations II

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
Minutes from a meeting to discuss Weick and Sutcliffe’s Five Principles of HRO

Sensitivity to Operations I

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
Minutes from a meeting to discuss Weick and Sutcliffe’s Five Principles of HRO

Reluctance to Simplify

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
Minutes from a meeting to discuss Weick and Sutcliffe’s Five Principles of HRO

The Five Principles of Weick & Sutcliffe

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
What is preoccupation with failure? For the Individual:

High Reliability

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
What is High Reliability?

Duty

By Tracy Pyke • November 9, 2020
[Note, this is Duty and not referring to Duties.] Duty is the moral commitment that results in action. High Reliability is a choice. You choose to want to do well. Duty is willingly accepted, it is not an external motivation. Duty is intangible but it keeps drawing you back into your job. Dharma is duty or character, an essential truth in Hinduism. People may work at a job for money (utilitarian employee) but Dharma, duty or pathway, is why people perform well on the job. With duty you evolve personally while you are evolving the organization. Duty is the global overview of the mission; where the organization needs to go. The most direct quote regarding military duty is from Lord Nelson, “England expects that everyman will do his duty.” In an HRO they do their duty and then one step more. This brings relief to the team or organization when you do your duty. The Lord Nelson quote is also alignment – as with England. There is alignment between individual values and the country’s values. Duty is an ethical relationship to others; you are your brothers’/sisters’ keeper. Duty is responsibility for the welfare of others. In Crew Resource Management (CRM ) if you see something abnormal you must bring it to the attention of the crew. There is an individual sense of agency in the organization. This is part of who you are and you are a part of the organization. Duty is related to purpose – why you are doing it; not the what of your actions. Duty is why the organization exists; the values are real and they are used. Duty must be in relation to the mission and vision statements. “I am agreeing to do this as I like what the organization does. This is different from individual responsibilities; this is beyond the tasks of the organization. Duty has emphasis that certain things are required but HRO has a voluntary piece to it. You are required to do duty and this seems opposite of what HRO is. In reliability they range widely to see and do things you might not have thought of. [We are beginning to differentiate duty as task responsibility from duty as sense of duty or character trait aligned with mission of organization.] Duty is related to cause; what is the cause of an organization? You believe in the cause of the organization therefore you help it move forward. Alignment the culture of the organization between the person and the organization; then the sense of duty is profound. Alignment between organizational culture and the individual is through the belief/value system. Duty may not be appropriate for civilian organizations. Individual responsibility to the organization as a whole is seen in the uniformed services. They understand that their action and inaction can harm or help the organization. Duty comes from that. Duty of the individual – show up on the job; be responsible for yourself; you have responsibility for things in an HRO; all these are instilled and then branch out to make you prepared for the next big job when you can contribute (not getting by). Individual duties and higher level group duties exist. “In the presence of avoid, move forward,” Jim Denney. In High Reliability people move forward. Every individual believes it is their job even if others are also problem solving. Make duty infectious – don’t tell them to do it but they want to do it on their own, it is infectious to others who will then do it. An infectious attitude toward the cause and purpose, then each person will flourish and want to participate. They will self-sacrifice and go beyond their ego. Infectious or contagious – these are good in an HRO. You set the reputation of the ship when you go into a foreign port for five days after being as sea for 75-80 days. When a 6,000 member crew can leave without a significant liberty incident then you see the infectious nature of duty.
More Posts
Share by: