Comments

'Better to ask forgiveness than permission' is a trait from which we can all gain. Can 'use your own best judgment' ever be over-rated? Of course - and I say we're still ultimately better for it.

So 'yay' to those who think for themselves and do what's right - even if it's only what they think is right. [It's how we learn. And in learning, we grow.]

And a resounding 'nay' to those who don't.

Posted by gulliver at September 8, 2005 11:36 AM

I heard on CNN last night that the Navy had reversed its earlier action, and they are calling the two pilots heroes now. That doesn't change the fact that the superior's first reaction was censure.

Posted by cathy at September 8, 2005 11:55 AM

At a time when the Federal Gov't is under frontal attack for insensitivity and non-responsiveness, the guy's first reaction shows incredible naivete, if not gross stupidity. Moreover, the kennel bit was plainly stark raving nuts. When I worked in DC years ago, my boss told me on Day #1, "Before you send an internal memo, assume you'll be reading it in the Washington Post tomorrow morning; if it passes that test, send it." A few of my memos did end up in the Post; one nearly cost me my job--in my subsequent opinion, it should have.

Posted by tom peters at September 8, 2005 12:14 PM

The military has a word for people like this CO; they call them "martinets". According to The FreeDictionary.com, a martinet is "someone who demands exact conformity to rules and forms" and alternatively "a person behaves in an tyrannical manner." Martinets are not uncommon in military organizations, but such people if they can't change have to be dismissed from the military.

By the way, I just discovered FreeDictionary.com and it has some nice features. The page for "martinet" included links to uses of the word in classic literature that is available on the web.
Nice!

Posted by Scott Peterson at September 8, 2005 1:21 PM

Interesting how the Navy taught that 1966-1980 is 4 years and not 14.

Posted by Bobu at September 8, 2005 2:07 PM

1970, 1980 ... what the heck!

Posted by tom peters at September 8, 2005 3:51 PM

1980, Oops! Long four years. I fixed it.

And Scott, thanks for pointing us toward freedictionary.com. I'll enjoy it, I'm sure.

Posted by cathy at September 8, 2005 3:58 PM

A little while back I was reading an interview of a former Colonel in the Israeli Army who after retiring, had gone into business for himself. He was asked why so many former Israeli soldiers became entrepreneurs, particularly in high tech industries. He said that the Israeli Army was structured differently to the armies of many other countries, contrasting it with the US Army. The difference between them he said was that in the Israeli Army, soldiers were specifically taught to act on their own initiative whereas in the US Army, command and control was very much centralized and its soldiers were actively discouraged from relying on their own initiative. The training Israeli soldiers received he said made them well suited to running their own business whereas in the US, most ex-service people were better suited to working in large commercial organizations.

Just thought it was an interesting observation because America has such a reputation for being a country of individuals.

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 8, 2005 4:50 PM

My individualism and nonconformity in the USAF during my 7 years was always rewarded, most significantly by my nomination as one of the 12 Outstanding Airmen in the entire US Air Force in 1995. Then again, the Air Force is much more advanced than the Navy or other branches would be ;) (I spent my last 3 years working with NATO and had the pleasure of working alongside some fine US and International Navy, Army, Marine and Air Force men and women!)

I do remember being told in Basic Training: "O'Leary, you're not paid to think!"

By the way, I did my technical training at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, and from what I hear, the base is all but completely wiped out. The Air Force is allowing 300 airmen from the gulf coast to return home from Iraq and Afghanistan to help their families. The Army, on the other hand, said that only those whose family members died or were injured could be sent home early. Understandably, the soldier's role in Iraq is more pressing than the Airman's at the moment.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at September 8, 2005 5:23 PM

Tom,
As fellow navy alum, I couldn't agree with you more. I was a mid when you spoke at Annapolis several years ago and this posting brought back memories of the advice you gave us back then- essentially be bold, make mistakes, and don't be afraid of failure. It's good to see J.O.'s at least taking this type of initiative.

Posted by Chris at September 8, 2005 6:35 PM

I agree with Gulliver. Sometimes, it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Kudos to Tom and the other Navy alums calling for the removal of Commander Holdner from the command of people.

Posted by Troy at September 8, 2005 7:12 PM

Cathy, it's actually www.thefreedictionary.com (not to be picky, but in this case 'the' makes all the difference!)

Posted by Jason Peterson at September 8, 2005 9:26 PM

Wait folks! The New York Times story is fatally flawed. Before pointing fingers, it is my understanding that the article is incorrect and its only substantiation is rumours and hearsay. In other words, the story is essentially fabricated and we've all been duped. See, the writer found someone to say something--anything to get people upset and sell papers. This person ends up as the "source" (totally bogus but still a "source") and the article got written and approved. The NYT editors and/or fact checkers have let a junk article pass muster. It's shameful.

Posted by Tom at September 8, 2005 11:58 PM

Noel Nice reference to the Israeli way of thinking.

May fav quote (can anyone tell me the source?) is from an Israeli commander whose was criticised when his troops had exceeded their original plans of advance. his response :

I would rather I had to restrain noble stallions than have to prod reluctant mules.

Posted by PaulH at September 9, 2005 1:54 AM

Please don't give too much credence to the opinion of one Israeli officer. It may have been true for a short period during the early 1970s, but otherwise the United States military has always encouraged initiative and decision-making among lower echelon leaders. (Success during WWII largely attributed to this leadership model versus the German micro-control model.) During the later stages of the Cold War the US Army in Europe was in a very bad state regarding command, morale, equipment, etc. One of the principle assignments of the TRADOC command during the early 1980s was to bring back the initiative and daring of lower level leaders.

Remember also that the amount of independent leadership among "front line" leaders is directly related to the type of command and control they operate under. If they work for a micro-manager they are much less likely to display independent initiative.

I have had the privelege of working with many former military members over the years and they all have displayed initiative and leadership ability as well as drive, ambition, and integrity.

Posted by Mike at September 9, 2005 6:18 AM

Paul: Moshe Dayan?

Posted by Mark JF at September 9, 2005 6:48 AM

He wasn'nt trained in the Iraqi armed forces was he?

Posted by Caig Jones at September 9, 2005 7:11 AM

In fairness, there is a difference in terrain. The US Army does not operate under the same conditions as the Israeli Army; America is not constantly fighting for territorial survival surrounded by hostile neighbors. This is not an endorsement or criticism of Israel, only an observation. Because of those conditions, all Israeli soldiers have to be trained and encouraged to think on their feet and use their own initiative perhaps more so than the US Army does. I'm speaking generally. Within the US Army, as within any army, there are crack units of small teams where personal initiative is more prized than it would be among the regulars who are expected to move en masse and not do anything that would mess up central command's plans.

However, as Mike says, it all depends on who's leading. One of my friends in New York was in the Israeli Army. Several had been in the US Army. All of them told me that in the middle of action whoever could lead did lead. If the Captain wasn't capable, the Lieutenant stepped in. If the Lieutenant wasn't up to it, the Sergeant took over. And the men followed.

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 9, 2005 8:20 AM

I've mentioned General Fred Franks in this blog before. In his memoir of the first Gulf War he takes great pains to repeatedly credit the success of 7th Corps on the individual leadership and battlefield decision-making initiative displayed by the squad and platoon-level leaders.

Posted by Mike at September 9, 2005 8:57 AM

FYI: A quick Google search reveals but one problem with the story of the Navy pilots. The Navy denies that the Kennel assignment was a reprimand. Maybe the Navy ought to start a new officers' recruiting program: "Join the Navy. Run your own kennel!"

Posted by tom peters at September 9, 2005 9:14 AM

I'm afraid I'm going to play devils advocate on this one. I appreciate the fact that the two pilots who risked their lives and saved over a 100 people went above and beyond the call of their duty, and should be decorated - and not just made hero of the day..

But why would a guy such as Commander Michael Holdner do something like that? Is it possible that he may have had a good reason? We don't have all the information that he had when he made the decision, and only have hearsay and opinions to base our criticism on..

Give the "possibly dumb" commander a break.

AS :-))))

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at September 9, 2005 11:28 AM

For what it's worth, there's a famous (and fascinating) case study of WWII's Battle of Midway that argues that the decentralized leadership approach of the smaller US naval fleet was critical to their defeat of the larger and more experienced Japanese fleet — which was the turning point in the Pacific war. One more victory for empowered front line decision-making. The study is "When Giants Collide: Strategic Analysis and Application" by Ed Chung and Cam McLarney. (Lots of copies on the net, but apparently none free.)

Posted by John O'Leary at September 9, 2005 1:14 PM

Tom, it's nice to see an admiral at the helm of FEMA! I feel better already about our capacity to respond more swiftly and effectively tomorrow!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at September 9, 2005 4:25 PM

John O'Leary: Can't wait to wade into the Midway battle. (Nimitz was ill, and missed it as I recall--wonder if the outcome would have been different if he'd been there?)

Tom O'Leary: And our Admiral even looks the part--which doesn't hurt! (I was only half kidding when I suggested earlier that we ought to resurrect Bernie Kerik. At tough times, the bulldog look doesn't hurt. In 1776, this summer's incredible book-to-read, David McCullough makes the point that Washington's demeanor per se caused the Brits to take us far more seriously than the ragtag nature of our "army" merited.)

Posted by tom peters at September 10, 2005 9:04 AM

Tom, been reading Blue Highways. There's a reference in it to Chester Nimitz that I thought you might enjoy hearing again.

His grandfather, Charles Nimitz, a German immigrant, owned a hotel in Fredericksburg, Texas. In 1880 he built an extension onto it that was "shaped like a steamboat with a prow thrusting into the bounty of Main Street.

" ... The only thing resembling a ship young Nimitz saw on the Texas plains was the steamboat hotel, and all he knew of the sea (not counting the marine fossils in the native limestone) were his grandfather's stories about the German merchant fleet.

No wonder Chester, in his first command at sea, ran his destroyer aground and got court-martialled; that was natural for a boy who grew up steering a hotel across the prairie."

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 10, 2005 9:31 AM

Noel, lovely!

Posted by tom peters at September 11, 2005 1:11 PM