Leaders,
No matter our position of assignment, we operate with three intertwined elements – responsibility, authority and latitude. To keep this short and sweet, I’m going to ask you to consider “latitude”.
We understand we have the responsibility to “do the right thing”. We, as commanders, have the authority to “do the right thing.”. Or, as staff officers, we have the obligation to advise the commander about “the right thing.”. That said, we rarely discuss “latitude” and we really should.
Accomplished and seasoned leaders refuse to enter into a debate between the “right thing to do” and the “wrong thing to do”. This kind of discussion serves no purpose other than to reveal weak leaders who remain incapable locking their integrity and selfless service value-based mind-set into the default setting of “do the right thing” and “do it the right way” as well as “do it to standard.”
Leaders don’t debate about “doing the right thing.”
If leaders levels below ours do their jobs well, leaders at our level should be faced with deciding between a “right” course of action and another distinctly different “right” course of action.
Here’s where the real leadership challenge resides – between “right” and “right”.
So how do you choose? How do you decide? How do you exercise your latitude?
Course of Action A (Good for one Soldier, but not the unit): This COA is absolutely correct. It does benefit the Soldier more than the unit, but legally, there’s nothing wrong with it. If we take this decision, we will likely face this situation again six months or a year from now. Then again, this decision may pan out to prove the benefited Soldier will once again be a productive member of the organization (but perhaps there is long track record of performance which doesn’t seem to support that outcome). No matter. Four Soldiers junior to the benefited Soldier will operate a pay-grade above their current level, but will not be promoted during this time.
Course of Action B (Good for the Soldier, good for the unit): This COA is absolutely correct. It does benefit both the Soldier and the unit. Legally, there’s nothing wrong with it. Easy. Right? However, often times this COA may not present itself for a number of reasons. Also, some solid analysis needs to be done to accurately determine positive impact in the way we expect it. We don’t want to falsely rationalize our way into a course of action.
Course of Action C (Good for the unit, seemingly not so good for one Soldier). This COA is absolutely correct. It does benefit the unit more than the Soldier, but legally, there’s nothing wrong with it. This COA allows for increased unit readiness, fairly takes into account the impact to four Soldiers over just one and accounts for respectful treatment of the Soldier impacted.
Which COA should you choose? Which one should you choose if COA B isn’t possible? Why should you chose one COA over another COA. Both or all three are “right”.
How will you choose to exercise latitude in this case?
Be careful. Be deliberate…
Another trait of an accomplished leader is careful, considered consistency. If you set down a path, you’ll only be able to depart from it a few, very justifiable, times before your subordinate and higher-level leaders lose confidence in you. Accomplished leaders know confidence is the coin of the realm when it comes to effective leadership.
Let me know your thoughts.
V/r
COL Hagler
“Mission first. Soldiers always.”
Sir, I enjoyed this blog.
I believe in choosing between “right” and “right” that we have a tendency to make critical failures. Occasionally, we fail to look at the secondary, tertiary and quaternary (second, third and fourth order) effects of our decisions. This is rare and generally is corrected immediately.
The real problem is when we look at those effects and fail to look at the final orders of effect which I consider to be “precedence” and “training” effects. While we may see no issue with some things further down the road, that does not mean we have negated setting precedence or negated training our soldiers on the proper way to do things.
Prime example is mandatory training. In the Army’s efforts to maintain up-to-date training, the mandatory training is constantly being revised to ensure it reflects the latest trends and best information. This changes the training and as it is mandatory, often becomes a last minute push if the changes come at the end of the FY. From the top of the food chain comes this mandate and the units respond by easily chopping something off of the training schedule and fitting it in. This is good. It shows we are a capable force with the ability to respond to rapidly changing environments.
I submit that it also sets precedence that our training schedules (signed by a CPT and LTC) are easily changed and are not hard documents that require great efforts to change. The secondary effects of which are uncertainty of soldiers as to what is happening because every time they show up to drill, the training schedule they had (which tells them when and where to be and what uniform) is useless. The “training” effect of this is we have now trained our Soldiers to not care about a training schedule as it is only a document used to cover our butts if someone comes to inspect. It also has the “training” effect of teaching them training does not need to be planned more than 30 days out and executed according to the plan. My fear is this kind of thought process could bleed over to an operational environment where the Soldiers feel that the Execution paragraph is a rough guideline and is easily changed.
Therefore I pose to the group (I think there are only a few of us) in choosing between “right” and “right” we need to include these questions:
“Will this set a negative precedence?”
“Am I teaching my soldiers what ‘right’ looks like?”
Everything we do, we do for our country.
Everything we do sets the example.
Everything we do impacts a Private.
1SG,
These are attentive and thoughtful comments that show a capacity for critical thinking and strategic planning.
Who helped you with the big words?
Point: Waldock.
In all seriousness, I think you bring up good points (as you always do, although typically at my expense), but I also think there is something to be said for not “overthinking” things too much. I’m picturing several bleary-eyed officers wearily emerging from a coffee stained conference room somewhere and announcing that, after several focus groups, exhaustive research, countless Soldier-level surveys, and hours and hours of written documentation, they are happy to announce that we will now officially be pronouncing the word “coupon” as “koo-pon” instead of “kyoo-pon.”
Disaster averted.
For now…
To your second question, I think I would reply that you are teaching Soldiers what right looks like by doing right. You’re not going to make all Soldiers happy (as you and I well know), but you can satisfy your conscious with the knowledge that you are maintaining a generally unbroken line of consistently fair decision making.
Your thoughts?
CPT W
Everything we do as leaders requires us to think in 3rd and 4th order affect of things. Sir, you asked if COA B is not available and all courses seem right, which one should we choose. While we always keep our Soldiers well being and their best interest in consideration, you can’t always please everyone. As a team player in this organization who has served in a leadership position, I have always assisted my Soldiers to be the very best, but always knowing that the success of the team is what outweighs everything else. Soldiers have to learn flexibility just as I did when I was up and coming in the MP Corps. While 1SG Walling uses a good example about training coming down at the last minute and Soldiers feeling uncertain about what they are supposed to be doing, if your Soldiers can see that you as the leader can adapt (and they see it on a consistent basis)they will learn to adapt as well no matter what the circumstances are. In summary, the overall right answer in my opinion is COA C (when B isn’t available). If you are always firm, fair and consistent in your decision making, your Soldiers will respect and trust your leadership.