Posted on Oct 21, 2014
Are we as leaders failing our Soldiers and ourselves by not allowing others to fail?
8.23K
59
16
6
6
0
Throughout my career I have seen all ranks step in to avoid mission failure. From a 1SG taking over a platoon to finish a project to the S3 taking over S1 and/or S4 functions to avoid mission failure. Is this causing an overall failure of the system? We preach that the time to learn is stateside and to allow our Soldiers to fail as failure is the best learning tool. However, we do not truly let our Soldiers, sections, or units fail.
In most cases the Soldier, section, or unit is not properly taught how to fix it and achieve success or given the opportunity to learn. Even worse, in some cases they come to expect others to do their job for them and do not worry about it because someone else will pick up their slack.
Additionally, this causes others to do the workload for them. Not only does this put more strain on the Soldier, leader, section, or unit that is covering down for them but it has multiple effects after that. They are taken away from other missions, time off, family time, school work, etc. Is this fair?
Lastly, as leaders we cannot be everywhere so we do not always see when this happens and when the mission does not fail we assume that the individual, section, or unit responsible was responsible for the mission success. Sometimes the are then recognized for doing so, though it was not their doing at all. This leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth who knows the truth and was part of the "solution" to avoid mission failure. It is an integrity violation for those who input Soldiers in for awards if they knew that they did not do the work that they are being put in for an award and a violation for those who accept such an award. Evaluations roll the same way. And this may lead to the Soldiers and leaders who should not be promoted to be promoted as they have awards and glowing evaluations which are false.
What are your thoughts? Are we too focused on mission success to not allow our subordinates to fail and learn from it?
In most cases the Soldier, section, or unit is not properly taught how to fix it and achieve success or given the opportunity to learn. Even worse, in some cases they come to expect others to do their job for them and do not worry about it because someone else will pick up their slack.
Additionally, this causes others to do the workload for them. Not only does this put more strain on the Soldier, leader, section, or unit that is covering down for them but it has multiple effects after that. They are taken away from other missions, time off, family time, school work, etc. Is this fair?
Lastly, as leaders we cannot be everywhere so we do not always see when this happens and when the mission does not fail we assume that the individual, section, or unit responsible was responsible for the mission success. Sometimes the are then recognized for doing so, though it was not their doing at all. This leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth who knows the truth and was part of the "solution" to avoid mission failure. It is an integrity violation for those who input Soldiers in for awards if they knew that they did not do the work that they are being put in for an award and a violation for those who accept such an award. Evaluations roll the same way. And this may lead to the Soldiers and leaders who should not be promoted to be promoted as they have awards and glowing evaluations which are false.
What are your thoughts? Are we too focused on mission success to not allow our subordinates to fail and learn from it?
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Failure
Leadership Failure
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
6
6
0
Sir,
I believe the answer is yes and not just because we are to focused on mission success. Also because you are never allowed to let a Soldier fail because then everyone wants to ask what you did to prevent it. Some of life's best learning experiences come from failing. People learn the value of money by purchasing something stupid and then having to regret it. People learn the value of proper life and career management by missing an opportunity because they failed to be prepared. In the military if any of these situations happen we start pointing fingers at who is responsible. Personal accountability is never a part a failure anymore. I am a firm believer that sometimes you need to fall flat and get back up. Its called resilience; teaching it in a classroom by powerpoint is nothing compared to living it and learning from it.
I believe the answer is yes and not just because we are to focused on mission success. Also because you are never allowed to let a Soldier fail because then everyone wants to ask what you did to prevent it. Some of life's best learning experiences come from failing. People learn the value of money by purchasing something stupid and then having to regret it. People learn the value of proper life and career management by missing an opportunity because they failed to be prepared. In the military if any of these situations happen we start pointing fingers at who is responsible. Personal accountability is never a part a failure anymore. I am a firm believer that sometimes you need to fall flat and get back up. Its called resilience; teaching it in a classroom by powerpoint is nothing compared to living it and learning from it.
(6)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) perfect example is non-participants. We have to explain all the actions that we did to try to recover them. Well at what point does it become the Soldier's fault for not showing up and hold them accountable? If the chain reaches out all the way up to the commander multiple times at some point you need to trust the chain of command and cut your losses and let them go. At other times you need a new chain of command.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Hastings
I totally agree. The importance of the mission often is more important than following orders that either changes in the situation afterwards invalidate or were just wrong from the start but weren't clear until the situation unfolded. When you override a command you realize the consequences to you and shouldn't accept that responsibility unless you strongly feel that to follow the original orders may result in unnecessarily losing lives or failing the mission or both.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
LTC (Join to see) Maybe it's not just a Army problem, perhaps it's larger than that. Parents often don't let their children fail, hence the term "Helicopter parent", in sports especially in the youth leagues everyone gets a trophy (just for participating) or member recognition award, a student receiving a "C" is viewed substandard in some school systems. I think we're robbing those we don't allow to fail from the experience of learning, of coming up with their own creative solutions to the problem, of learning the ethic of hard work and pride because of real accomplishment. Not allowing failure robs them of having confidence in themselves and their own capabilities. It robs them of learning to trust themselves and their own instincts and of building true trust of team partners. I think it's not just about leadership not allowing failure, it's about society's idea that everyone has to succeed. Yes there is value in allowing Soldiers to fail. It's training, that's where you're suppose to fail so you can learn to succeed. AARs are for discussing what went wrong, why and how to do better.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I've seen just what you describe, LTC (Join to see), over and over throughout my Army career. And then the folks who succeed get more work dumped on them because they are proven performers who get things done, while others slide by. Your scenarios are spot-on.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google