Military Review English Edition September-October 2014 | Page 99

WARRIOR SPIRIT

subordinate knows that a performance evaluation
relies on one quantifiable measure valued by the boss,
enormous incentive is created to inflate the measure by
resorting to misleading means.
For example, leaders can cease using certain pieces
of reportable equipment in training for fear of breaking
them in order to create the appearance of operational
readiness in certain categories. Not using equipment
raises ratings artificially by assuring that equipment is
reported as operational on rating reports but in reality
reduces operator—as well as unit—readiness by eliminating the ability to train on the equipment. Ambitious
but short-sighted and ineffective leaders, who see only
the next evaluation or reporting period, may resort to
such a strategy to enhance individual chances for promotion. Subordinates to such leaders see such actions
too, which can cause them to either lose trust in their
leader and the system, emulate their leader’s behavior,
or both, especially if such leaders are in the end rewarded by the system. Obviously, people and systems that
reward superficial and unethical behavior eventually
will be exposed as incapable and untrustworthy—
hopefully, not in combat.

Trust in the Organization
Trust is the cornerstone of an effective organization
as well as a component of a leader’s competency. It
is critical that trust exists in an organization because
it is the “one specific component of the morale and
cohesiveness mosaic which appears crucial, and whose
absence or dilution is particularly detrimental to effectiveness over time and under stress.”30
Leaders who fail to build trust in their organizations, both up and down the chain of command, create
an environment of suspicion that stifles individual
initiative. Trust creates transparency in a unit, allowing
subordinates to provide constructive feedback on command decisions. In conjunction, seeking feedback or
opinions from subordinates prior to an official decision
is a greater builder of trust, as it creates buy-in to the
direction of the organization.
Moreover, trust is the cornerstone of the concept
of mission command. It requires commanders to know
the character and traits of subordinates and trust that
each can achieve the intent of the operation.31
Such trust tends to develop quickly in a combat
environment because of the amount of time leaders
MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2014

and soldiers spend together and the stress under which
they operate. In contrast, in the absence of a combat
environment, trust takes longer to develop. This is
problematic given the relaively short time frames that
govern officer moves.
Unfortunately, the vital importance of trust to an
organization is sometime highlighted by the actions
of the untrustworthy. The presence of an ineffective
or incompetent leader anywhere in the organization
has detrimental effects that are often quickly observable and which undermine the trust required to build
effective units.
The Army strives to identify such poor leaders and
rehabilitate them by training and mentorship, or, in
extreme cases, by dismissing them for the good of the
service. The acute problem with this methodology is
that subordinates must suffer through the training and
rehabilitation periods of leaders who are not performing at an acceptable level.
As the Army transitions to “a leaner, adaptive,
flexible and integrated force” it may be necessary to
remove poor leaders more quickly in order to maintain the necessary trust within the institution.32 The
removal of poor leaders is a matter of both institutional and personal accountability. Tolerating continued
employment of poor leaders violates the trust that “is
the bedrock of our honored profession.”33 Whether it
is the bureaucratic nature of the organization that does
not allow the rapid departure of poor leaders, or an
inability to identify poor leaders, the Army needs to
improve in this area.
One way to achieve early identification of deficient
leaders would be an improved evaluation system. The
current officer and noncommissioned officer evaluation
systems are tiered to take into account the perspective of
the rater and senior raters only. This method is inherently flawed because it gives no input to those personnel
most intimately knowledgeable of the leadership of the
rated individual. Subordinate feedback is not included
in the evaluation systems and it is against current Army
standards of conduct to seek subordinate feedback when
completing a performance evaluation.
Though a 360-Degree Leader Assessment is
now required by Army regulation for all field grade
officers, this assessment is not yet incorporated into
the evaluation process. In fact, the results of this
requirement are seldom used for any purpose other
97