Military Culture Question

[rhino]

Here is a question from this fat, lazy civilian to those among us who are military veterans or are currently serving in the military.

Why is so common to read about or hear enlisted people ridiculing officers, but so uncommon to read or hear officers ridiculing their enlisted colleagues?

I don't have a dog in the fight, so my interest is simple curiosity. I can't count the number of derisive (both joking and serious) things I've heard or read about officers from enlisted. Almost always it's targeting the officer's intellectual deficiency or inept job performance. I have actually never seen anything like that from an officer or retired officer about enlisted people.

I don't doubt that there are officers who are not that bright, who perform them duties poorly, and who are all around not the greatest specimens of achievement. At the same time, it's difficult for me to believe that the enlisted ranks don't have their own share of underachievers.

So what's the deal?

 

[HoughMade]

You punch up, not down.

Put another way, an officer should never ridicule a subordinate publically. It's horrible for morale and if you can't get your soldiers in shape without ridicule, that reflects poorly on you as the leader.

On the other hand, it is every soldier's right to complain and an officer's ineptitude does not reflect on his subordinates.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

[video]http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKbdE5LOGNQ[/video]

 

[Birds Away]

I can't speak for the other branches as I have little experience with them. But I have a lot of experience with Naval Officers. Naval Officers believe themselves to be superior in every possible way to enlisted personnel. To them, enlisted men/women are simply the tools they use to complete the tasks they are assigned. Why would someone so obviously superior compare themselves with people who are beneath them. Why would you even bother to mention an imperfect tool you had to utilize in the completion of your mission. Not all Officers act this way but the vast majority did.

 

[radar8756]

" Don't call me SIR ... My Parents were Married"

 

[Nazgul]

Was taught very early after enlisting in the Marines you took care of your troops first. They ate first, got paid first, got to rest first. left on leave before you. Officers, especially in the Navy were always first to leave the ship. Everybody else waited.

We showed respect but complained to each other all the time.

Don

 

[KellyinAvon]

Enlisted troops generally hold themselves and other Enlisted troops to a higher standard. We (I still say we) would rather handle things at our level. There is a separation between the E world and the O world, I'm guessing there's always been. Now? The worlds are getting closer. Where you're from, education level, the worlds can be completely different now opposed to a time the officers were the sons of aristocracy and the enlisted were the scum of the Earth (see the British Army, the one that occupied the Colonies and surrendered at Yorktown.) Now? The old Senior NCO might have the same graduate degree as does the officer.

 

[Mongo59]

As a marine I was afraid they would give me a "Big Chicken Dinner" if i didn't ***** and gripe all the time.

When I was in, the only way to tell if a Marine was asleep was if he had stopped complaining.

But when it came to officers there was only one I had nothing good to say, the rest were top notch.

 

[Trigger Time]

I can't speak for the other branches as I have little experience with them. But I have a lot of experience with Naval Officers. Naval Officers believe themselves to be superior in every possible way to enlisted personnel. To them, enlisted men/women are simply the tools they use to complete the tasks they are assigned. Why would someone so obviously superior compare themselves with people who are beneath them. Why would you even bother to mention an imperfect tool you had to utilize in the completion of your mission. Not all Officers act this way but the vast majority did.

Bingo.
If you are ever in doubt about your class in life, the military will clear that right up for you.
The best I could describe just how clearly that is made to you, is royalty in England compared to a commoner. Bow down peasants.
Officers get you killed. Lost first, then killed.

 

[actaeon277]

A less than optimal subordinate has a limited amount of damage they can do.
A less than optimal supervisor will affect the entire department.

 

[Vigilant]

Bingo.
If you are ever in doubt about your class in life, the military will clear that right up for you.
The best I could describe just how clearly that is made to you, is royalty in England compared to a commoner. Bow down peasants.
Officers get you killed. Lost first, then killed.

And, the only stupid question ever asked was by a Lieutenant.

 

[flatlander]

Officers tend to Not know ,what they don't know and are afraid to ask. Enlisted tend to know what the officers don't know but would be willing to teach if asked.
2 most dangerous things: Lieutenant with a compass or high explosives.
I, and several others, got bad frostbite in Alaska during training because a Lieutenant wanted to be the showoff to his superiors by pushing troops too hard for conditions. When we got back later, to go to training in Panama, we let it be known he wasn't welcome to go along. He didn't go with us and when we came back he was gone. Sometimes the higher ups listen

Bob

 

[rhino]

Thank you all for the comments. HoughMade's response actually answered the question!

You punch up, not down.

Put another way, an officer should never ridicule a subordinate publically. It's horrible for morale and if you can't get your soldiers in shape without ridicule, that reflects poorly on you as the leader.

On the other hand, it is every soldier's right to complain and an officer's ineptitude does not reflect on his subordinates.

That makes sense, but it raises another question. I can easily see why an officer ridiculing a subordinate would be very bad for morale. However, doesn't the clearly accepted practice of subordinates ridiculing their ostensible leaders do the same thing, perhaps even more so? If a few enlisted people continually ridicule their officer, won't that predispose all of the others to do the same thing, even if they have no experience or evidence to cause them to join the fray?

I clearly have no understanding of military culture, but in the civilian world, I would say it's equally bad both directions.

Another question is, how does that work for people who are no longer in the military? I can't see how such derision could affect morale of the unit since effectively there is no unit. Hearing former enlisted berating officers is common, but again, I've yet to have a former officer do the same thing.

In the civilian world, it flows freely in both directions. I've heard plenty of superiors belittling subordinates. In the academic world, it's rampant. Some administrators are brutal toward their subordinates. It's especially true if you include what some post-secondary teachers say about their students, which I maintain is a similar relationship.

So why is it only (or commonly) a one-way street for military people? Is it because officers are trained or encouraged to avoid that practice specifically as part of their behavior code, either explicitly or implicitly?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Officers tend to Not know ,what they don't know and are afraid to ask. Enlisted tend to know what the officers don't know but would be willing to teach if asked.
2 most dangerous things: Lieutenant with a compass or high explosives.
I, and several others, got bad frostbite in Alaska during training because a Lieutenant wanted to be the showoff to his superiors by pushing troops too hard for conditions. When we got back later, to go to training in Panama, we let it be known he wasn't welcome to go along. He didn't go with us and when we came back he was gone. Sometimes the higher ups listen

Bob

What's more dangerous than somebody from Alabama saying "hold my beer and watch this!"?? It's a Lieutenant saying, "Based on my experience..." What's more dangerous than that? A Captain saying, "I've been thinking."

 

[KellyinAvon]

Thank you all for the comments. HoughMade's response actually answered the question!






That makes sense, but it raises another question. I can easily see why an officer ridiculing a subordinate would be very bad for morale. However, doesn't the clearly accepted practice of subordinates ridiculing their ostensible leaders do the same thing, perhaps even more so? If a few enlisted people continually ridicule their officer, won't that predispose all of the others to do the same thing, even if they have no experience or evidence to cause them to join the fray?

I clearly have no understanding of military culture, but in the civilian world, I would say it's equally bad both directions.

Another question is, how does that work for people who are no longer in the military? I can't see how such derision could affect morale of the unit since effectively there is no unit. Hearing former enlisted berating officers is common, but again, I've yet to have a former officer do the same thing.

In the civilian world, it flows freely in both directions. I've heard plenty of superiors belittling subordinates. In the academic world, it's rampant. Some administrators are brutal toward their subordinates. It's especially true if you include what some post-secondary teachers say about their students, which I maintain is a similar relationship.

So why is it only (or commonly) a one-way street for military people? Is it because officers are trained or encouraged to avoid that practice specifically as part of their behavior code, either explicitly or implicitly?

Just out of curiosity, are you in a class? If yes, please cite me as KellyinAvon (one word)

The military is a large organization with a mission and the people who perform the mission. You can find the same types of people in all walks of life. After a couple days you can tell what kind of organization it is. I'm now civil service, my bosses manage the dysfunction quite well and make things work. Handling "issues" behind closed doors is why we have doors.

The most narcissistic bag of dog excrement I ever met wasn't in the USAF, it was at my current job (my boss's boss for about two years.) Being able to distinguish management styles from personality disorders isn't always a good thing. Toxic leaders are everywhere. Very little is ever done from what I've observed.

I've seen worthless people completely snow the upper management. Always go by what someones peers say is something I learned in the USAF. One of the worst I ever met? I remember my boss's exact words, "The only thing I hate worse than an a**-kissin b**** is a stupid a**-kissin b****."

Biggest difference: lines on an organization chart mean a lot more in .mil. I was new in the VA and someone from the central office in DC sent out a change to a directive and I had a question. My boss says, "Just give him a call and ask." My reaction was something like stepping in dog poop. In the USAF the train would've left the tracks at this point. When I was at HQ Air Combat Command (echelon under Air Staff) in A5 (Plans and Programs) I had a Lt Col from an operational unit call me directly. I then called my counterparts at that base and said, "Why is this guy calling me? Make him stop." The train left the tracks at that point. He could've called my base-level counterparts or the HQ folks under A3 (Operations). Calling me?? NO!! Up, down, across, never diagonally.

One day a Colonel at Air Staff (the Director of Manpower Requirements for the USAF) emailed me directly. I was the guy with the info (it was adding more TACP troops IIRC), but he skipped a few boxes on the org chart in the process. Needless to say, SMSgt KellyinAvon didn't just hit the reply button without talking to my boss, his boss and adding several to the cc line on the email. In the VA? Just hit the reply button and call him by his nickname.

In both worlds there are people who are less than pleasant. If they know their stuff and take care of business? Chances are I get/got along with them. If you're just an a**hole to cover up the fact you don't know duck **** from apple butter? You'll fool some, not all and not me.

I worked at the VA for six months before I stopped looking for my hat when I was getting out of my car at work. I hadn't been in uniform for over 3 months at that point, but I'd needed my hat on getting out of the car at work for over 21 years.

Having to decide what to wear to work. Someone else made that decision for me for 21 years and there aren't adult-sized Garanimals. Which brings me to working with civilians (Civil Service.) I've seen adversarial relationships between mil and civ. I mean BAD. I've also seen very good working relations with civvies. Two of my favorite former bosses were old retired MSgts. They had the mission focus and looked out for their folks, they just dressed differently than the rest of us.

Looking at this I'm not sure if I answered your questions Rhino. Oops!

 

[Nazgul]

There are very good officers in the military. All are capable but personalities vary, just like civilians. When you are in charge of others and have a considerable amount of pressure to make them perform it can get messy. People react in different ways. Pretending to know what you are doing when you don't is always an opening to epic failure.

Consider a 1st Lieutenant in his new unit. The Staff Sgt, Sgt, Corporals and even the Privates have more experience in the way it works. Yet the new LT has the responsibility for their actions. A good one will listen to the Non Coms and heed their advice. Usually they learn quickly and all is well.

Don

 

[Alamo]

Thank you all for the comments. HoughMade's response actually answered the question!






That makes sense, but it raises another question. I can easily see why an officer ridiculing a subordinate would be very bad for morale. However, doesn't the clearly accepted practice of subordinates ridiculing their ostensible leaders do the same thing, perhaps even more so? If a few enlisted people continually ridicule their officer, won't that predispose all of the others to do the same thing, even if they have no experience or evidence to cause them to join the fray?

I clearly have no understanding of military culture, but in the civilian world, I would say it's equally bad both directions.

Another question is, how does that work for people who are no longer in the military? I can't see how such derision could affect morale of the unit since effectively there is no unit. Hearing former enlisted berating officers is common, but again, I've yet to have a former officer do the same thing.

In the civilian world, it flows freely in both directions. I've heard plenty of superiors belittling subordinates. In the academic world, it's rampant. Some administrators are brutal toward their subordinates. It's especially true if you include what some post-secondary teachers say about their students, which I maintain is a similar relationship.

So why is it only (or commonly) a one-way street for military people? Is it because officers are trained or encouraged to avoid that practice specifically as part of their behavior code, either explicitly or implicitly?

Perceptive observations.

Yes Houghmade has part of the answer. Officers have more formal, direct power, and using it pettily, to soothe your own personal bugaboos is a fast road to problems. Also officers are there to make decisions, seldom is everybody happy with it. Sometimes none of the enlisted troops are happy with it, but that does not necessarily make it a bad decision - sometimes getting the job done is just unpleasant. That is the real role of the officer, to make hard, sometimes unpleasant, sometimes dangerous decisions. Those kind of decisions are often temporarily unpopular.

It’s easy to get this wrong.

Most people understand and accept this, at least at an intellectual level, but this acceptance is rapidly undermined if the decision maker is perceived to be making decisions based on something other than what the mission requires. For example, see above referenced lieutenant in cold weather training.

If that officer publicly complains about his troops, or about individual troopers, then any unpopular decision is going to be interpreted as using his power to get even, or not caring about the troops — even if it is in fact the correct decision. Troops lose trust in the officer, and at best the unit becomes less effective, at worst gets someone(s) killed and a failed mission.

A decent officer/leader understands this, understands that his job is not to be popular or make friends, but neither is it to exercise power solely for his own benefit. Keeping your gripes to yourself or a very small, carefully selected group of peers (officers need to blow off steam too) is a requirement of the job. You don't lose this perspective leaving the military.

This is one reason for separate enlisted, NCO, and officer clubs and living quarters on posts and bases,

Now, while it is acceptable and even necessary for troops at the same level to blow off some steam by *****ing among themselves, it is no more acceptable to publicly denigrate leaders (of any level, officer or NCO) than the other way around. As you said, this is bad in both directions.

A healthy professional unit will self-police this kind of behavior. An officer or NCO cannot let this kind of behavior slide - and theres a line where peers should step in too. There’s different methods of dealing with it tho, depending on the situation.

Remember Band of Brothers, where one of the soldiers complained to Lt Winters, politely and formally but in front of the entire company, “Why does Captain Sobel hate Easy Company?”

Lt Winters deftly replied, “He doesn’t hate Easy Company, he just hates you.”

Lt Winters hit a lot of right notes there. He turned what could have been an ugly situation into a funny one, squelched the complainer without really tearing him down in public, effectively turned a “company” complaint into one person’s complaint (and told him to just deal with it), and defended his superior officer’s authority while subtly acknowledging that he could be a pain in the ass.

ETA: I noted that direct challenges to authority represented by open/unproductive complaining have to be directly addressed, but there’s room for leaders to have “selective hearing” as well. Band of Brothers has a great example of this too. One of the soldiers is grousing about something Winters did and disparagingly calls him a “Quaker.”. Not to his face, but in hearing of several soldiers. Winters overhears it and dies nothing. Later Winters is talking to the soldiers and seemingly as an afterthought says, “By the way [soldier’s name], I’m not a Quaker.” Again he diffused a potentially unpleasant situation, gently chastised the soldier without tearing him down, and let everyone know that the old man was more on the ball than they realized and they needed to be attentive to discipline.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Perceptive observations.

Yes Houghmade has part of the answer. Officers have more formal, direct power, and using it pettily, to soothe your own personal bugaboos is a fast road to problems. Also officers are there to make decisions, seldom is everybody happy with it. Sometimes none of the enlisted troops are happy with it, but that does not necessarily make it a bad decision - sometimes getting the job done is just unpleasant. That is the real role of the officer, to make hard, sometimes unpleasant, sometimes dangerous decisions. Those kind of decisions are often temporarily unpopular.

ItÂ’s easy to get this wrong.

Most people understand and accept this, at least at an intellectual level, but this acceptance is rapidly undermined if the decision maker is perceived to be making decisions based on something other than what the mission requires. For example, see above referenced lieutenant in cold weather training.

If that officer publicly complains about his troops, or about individual troopers, then any unpopular decision is going to be interpreted as using his power to get even, or not caring about the troops — even if it is in fact the correct decision. Troops lose trust in the officer, and at best the unit becomes less effective, at worst gets someone(s) killed and a failed mission.

A decent officer/leader understands this, understands that his job is not to be popular or make friends, but neither is it to exercise power solely for his own benefit. Keeping your gripes to yourself or a very small, carefully selected group of peers (officers need to blow off steam too) is a requirement of the job. You don't lose this perspective leaving the military.

This is one reason for separate enlisted, NCO, and officer clubs and living quarters on posts and bases,

Now, while it is acceptable and even necessary for troops at the same level to blow off some steam by *****ing among themselves, it is no more acceptable to publicly denigrate leaders (of any level, officer or NCO) than the other way around. As you said, this is bad in both directions.

A healthy professional unit will self-police this kind of behavior. An officer or NCO cannot let this kind of behavior slide - and theres a line where peers should step in too. ThereÂ’s different methods of dealing with it tho, depending on the situation.

Remember Band of Brothers, where one of the soldiers complained to Lt Winters, politely and formally but in front of the entire company, “Why does Captain Sobel hate Easy Company?”

Lt Winters deftly replied, “He doesn’t hate Easy Company, he just hates you.”

Lt Winters hit a lot of right notes there. He turned what could have been an ugly situation into a funny one, squelched the complainer without really tearing him down in public, effectively turned a “company” complaint into one person’s complaint (and told him to just deal with it), and defended his superior officer’s authority while subtly acknowledging that he could be a pain in the ass.

Thanks for bringing the O-side of the perspective Alamo. Don't get me wrong, the officer-bashing will continue but it is good to hear from your side of the issues. Did you know chaos is an acronym? It stands for (the) Colonel Has Another Outstanding Suggestion

Making hard decisions is part of the gig. Nobody notices the easy ones.

 

[JeepHammer]

" Don't call me SIR ... My Parents were Married"

LMFAO! THAT'S FUNNY!

--------

I spanned two & a half evolutions of military in my career (16 years).

From the old 'Form Up And Charge', 'Heavy Steel & Wood' mindset through the stripping down, light & fast, into the 'High Tech' trend.
Like anything else, you have to drag the older generation into the current situation kicking, screaming, biting & clawing.
They like 'Tradition', and they aren't above rigging weapons testing to get *Their* way/ideal.

The second part of that is, they forgot long ago how damned HEAVY everything gets when they are recommending what was state of the art 50 years ago...
They always remember themselves being taller, stronger, faster, etc than they really were, and they expect troops to live up to what they falsely remember. Nostalgia will get you killed when it's YOU being shot at instead of them.

They ALWAYS fight the LAST war over again...
They tried to fight WWI (trenches) over again in WWII and Europe was almost lost before they FINALLY got a clue,
They tried to fight WWII over again in Korea, and nearly got pushed into the sea before they got a clue, which ended in a tie,
They tried to fight WWII & Korea in Viet-Nam and we lost,

The US lost again in central/south America. (Contras)

If it hadn't been for such superior numbers/fire power, and sheer numbers the first gulf war could have gone a lot differently,
Two generals that got the crap kicked out of them in Viet-Nam completely disregard the Pentagon, and kicked off in the ass of the 4th largest military in the world at the time.
They REFUSED to repeat the mistakes of fighting the last war, and since they won with minimal casualties, they were QUIETLY retired instead of outright fired for refusing to line up in one on one battle.

--------

The rank & file troops get junior collage officers that did a 90 day course (Officers Candidate School) and his English literature or art degree doesn't exactly make him command material,
So with three months of basic training, they get command of a platoon, or maybe a company...
The troops spent 3 months in boot camp, then an advanced course in their particular military job, then have On the Job Training when the newly minted officer arrives to take 'Command'...

Nothing like a guy that went to summer camp showing up to take command of a combat outfit that's been in country for 6 or 8 months.
The NCOs (non-commissioned officers) try to keep their people alive, but when you get a 90 day wonder that INSISTS on formations with snipers & mortar tubes around, pounding through the middle of ambush kill zones, concerned more about how close your shave is than sending squads/platoons into the middle of ambush zones,
It's REAL hard to have any respect.

Been there two days, doesn't know the terrain, doesn't know enemy positions, doesn't know where the crapper is, but INSISTS we do exactly what his text book says is 'Correct Procedure', no variation allowed.
WE want to pound the bad actor with 155 rounds,
WE want to sneak up BEHIND the ambush waiting for us, put the bad actors in the kill box,
WE want to get correct gear for the situation, not try to make due with 'Standard' TOE (Tools, Operational Equipment, read something that gives us at least equal firepower to the enemy).

--------------

THEY want conservation of ammo, bullets cost money.
WE want target saturation, I'd squirt every one of the bad guys with a mini-gun if I could.

THEY want a stand up, face to face war with rules, regulations, starched uniforms & polished boots.
WE want to find as many as possible, in what ever rat hole they are hiding in, dispatch them as quickly as possible and get home safe & sound.
Do the dispatching with 500 pound bombs and you carry pictures back instead of bodies.

THEY want 'Compartmentalization' so THEIR branch/department continues to get funding...
Which leads to pissing contests and turf wars.
WE want direct communication with other units, timely intelligence, and support from other units since that produces the best possible outcome for the guys producing results instead of reports.

--------

LEADERSHIP is done from the FRONT, by definition.
When your 'LEADER' won't get out of a dug in bunker, in the middle of a fire base or a heavily armored/guarded vehicle, it doesn't foster much respect.

The officers you respect are the ones that patrol with you EVERY TIME, they lead from the front, they do the sweating bleeding right along with you.
... Everyone else is just a pompous ass in a clown suit that more or less looks like a military uniform that keeps getting in the way of the mission...

 

[Alamo]

...Did you know chaos is an acronym? It stands for (the) Colonel Has Another Outstanding Suggestion .

Oh yeah!

Im in volunteer fire dept now. CHAOS stands for “Chief Has Arrived On Scene.”

Thus be it ever.