Command Responsibility and Accountability
2012; The MIT Press; Volume: 92; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0026-4148
Autores Tópico(s)Military and Defense Studies
Resumoprivilege of command is a fleeting sensation. Those who are commanded are the beneficiaries of the system, as their lives--their very existences--are placed uniquely in the care of the commanding officer. They have a right to expect that their leader will be held to exacting standards of professionalism and personal accountability. Their parents, husbands, wives, children, and friends should also expect this to be so, as the commander is entrusted with the treasured life of their loved-ones. --Bryan McGrath, Information Dissemination, 18 September 2010 TWO MAXIMS ARE inculcated into naval culture. The first is that if a ship runs aground, it is the captain's responsibility. The second is that the captain is always responsible, even if he or she isn't. These are not just words by the U.S. Navy--the Navy backs them up. Many skippers have been relieved of command for collisions or groundings. For example, according to the 17 September 2010 edition of Navy Times, two commanding officers, both holding the rank of commander (O-5), were relieved in 2010 for collisions. Being relieved under these circumstances is the norm in the Navy, part of their professional ethic. Navy ship and submarine commanders have an expectation that they should and will be relieved of their duties when incidents of this nature occur on their watch. This expectation is different than a performance or behavior standard. According to the same issue of Navy Times, 12 other commanders and captains (O-6s) were relieved for inappropriate conduct, temperament and demeanor, or loss of confidence in the ability to command. Everything the Unit Does or Fails to Do In the Army, there is an old saying that the commander is responsible for everything the unit does or fails to do. But are they accountable? Historically, the Army does not relieve commanders at the O-5/O-6 level at the same rate as the Navy, and maybe it shouldn't. Maybe the Navy is too quick to relieve ship commanders. However, for our Army to maintain a healthy professional ethic, commanders need to embrace the spirit of this saying as their command responsibility, and Army leadership should consider how they hold commanders accountable for what their units and soldiers do and fail to do. A few common themes permeate the two adages mentioned above: * A commander can delegate authority but not responsibility. Authority refers to who is in charge, while responsibility refers to who is accountable. * A commander is responsible but very often not in control. * Commanders have a responsibility to ensure their subordinates are trained and can operate independently based on the commander's intent. * Commanders have a responsibility to set a command climate wherein subordinates will act ethically in the absence of leaders. Former Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom brigade commanders commented on two of these themes: the commander is responsible for everything the unit does and fails to do, and a commander is responsible but not in control: * agree with first one, we can't step back from this, but expect senior echelons to exercise judgment in when/how to hold them accountable for a unit's actions. I disagree with the second, decentralization doesn't mean 'not in control.' We can train and educate for mission command and decentralized operations, I did this with my Brigade Combat Team and it worked. * think this idea of accountability is essential to success. This puts energy on the commander to develop subordinates, stay involved and take responsibility for operations, and manage risk. It is imperative in higher commanders to balance this. For example, in a detainee abuse case, we investigated and found it was not a systemic problem in command. We held those responsible accountable. As a result I changed the way I checked leaders and organizations. Since the Army is human, bad things will happen. …
Referência(s)