Is risk aversion/mitigation getting out of control?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:50:56 -0400

One of the most frustrating things I see in today's military is this constant stench of avoiding any risks. If you want to do anything outside the box, it requires and act of God. This week our TM decided on cutting work early and heading out for a run to the lake, and going for a swim. We asked the CMDR and he simply said "have fun". I respect the fact he trust us to bring a small medic pac, hydration sources, and use sound judgment when swimming. Whats more, is it speaks to his ability to make decisions on the fly, improvise, think outside the norms, and trust our ability to be responsible. This rant is not directed at my unit at all, but some of the other more "conventional " units ive seen in my career

The redundant T.r.i.p.s you fill out before leave even if your driving to a local airport to catch a flight, risk assessment to take a vehicle from the Motorpool to HQ, pt belts when cutting grass in mid day all serve very little in practical sense, but are done non the less to check the block and cover ones ass. This has breed, in my opinion, a culture of scared leadership.

The point im trying to drive home is that mitigating unnecessary risks is a sound approach no one will question. However, it seems most of these layers of red tape are emplaced not for any actual risk mitigation other than leaving a paper trail. You want to mitigate risk? Have joe mow the grass for pt with his top off so doesn't collapse in the middle of the day in ft. Hood. He will break a nice sweat too. But i can already see the "but what if a.... Cuts his little arm" shpeel coming.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 7:53 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:53:23 -0400

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Response by SSG James Doherty made Jul 23 at 2015 7:55 PM

SSG James Doherty — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:55:30 -0400

How about eye pro, ear pro, Kevlar, and gloves to use a weed eater?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 7:59 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:59:30 -0400

We struggled with a zero-defect Army in the 1970s. It's dangerous. Safety is important, but a zero-defect mentality is a no-go in my book.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 23 at 2015 8:05 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:05:05 -0400

Risk aversion is the hallmark of the peacetime military. Show ponies come to the fore. War horses aren't in demand except in war.

Of course I'm only speaking of the far distant past with such notables as General McClellan vs Grant or Sherman. Surely history doesn't repeat itself.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 23 at 2015 8:30 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:30:42 -0400

Yes it is. Leaders are afraid to make mistakes because today's zero defect military will replace them. Leaders and people in general need to make mistakes in order to grow.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jul 23 at 2015 8:41 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:41:41 -0400

Well let's see here, I guess I have two very different responses.
1. As a former Anti-terrorism Officer I fully understand the need for both assessing and attempting to mitigate real risks / threats. Heck, in reality, it is my life now that I am a civilian. The problem the Army has is that mitigating the real "threat" costs money. The easy answer is attempting to mitigate all the perceived (made up) crap because it is easy, free and checks the block. However, when you attempt to implement measures that could save lives e.g. enforcement of standoff distances, eliminating or at least controlling access to parking areas used by those who most need protecting and on and on... You are being over the top, extreme if you will.
2. I liken the crap you speak of to the warning on a coffee cup that reads "contents may be hot". Meaning somebody did something stupid that got someone in trouble at some point. Therefore, commanders feel the need to cover their ass on the stupid stuff.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jul 23 at 2015 8:46 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:46:48 -0400

By the way anyone who thinks that a risk assessment or mitigation strategies are intended to eliminate the risk should be peeing in a cup immediatly. They are intended to implement measures that will reduce the risk to a level that may or may not be acceptable. The person that signs off on the risk assessment an proceeds is assuming the residual risk. It does not cover anyone's butt, it merely checks the block. Sorry I was venting.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 8:47 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:47:54 -0400

This IS NOT limited to the military. Fear of litigation drives way too many decisions.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 23 at 2015 8:49 PM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 20:49:38 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member If you think so, I am sure it has. In our effort(s) to do the right sometimes we get carried away. Risk management is part of planning and leadership, as is risk mitigation. But risk alone does not mean we don't do it. We weigh the requirements, the benefits, and the risks, then it is balance. I think you might be right on scared leadership, in times of cuts, leaders are more worried. Being a military leader is about taking necessary risks, not unnecessary ones, in both training and in combat. But, I would agree... and I am (was) a Colonel... and when I wanted to go on leave, pass, etc... the paperwork from our HHC was pretty silly. You can assume risk with many people, and should not have cookie cutter approach to everything... Or, we don't really need leaders who can think and make decisions.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Jul 23 at 2015 10:45 PM

MSgt Robert Pellam — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:45:57 -0400

Where to start on this one. My background. In my last 6 years in the Air Force I got to spend 4 of them with Maintenance Quality Assurance. We are the guys who enforce those risk mitigations you mentioned for aircraft maintainers. Let me tell you, some of them are quite ludicrous too. But others were well needed. I think the question is Where does common sense stop and stupidity start. Well honestly there is no answer.

Most of those Risk mitigation rules, were put in place because some bone head did something stupid. (Oh the stories I could tell, or even you could tell). After that Supervision has to fine a way to "Mitigate" it from happening again. Knee jerk in place you get someone writing up that because Airmen Snuffy pushed a lawnmower into traffic and got hit by Airmen Heartbreaker texting their love interest. Well what do we do for Snuffy. OH how about make them wear Disco belts while they mow, that way Airmen Heartbreaker will see them.

I wish that scenario was made up, but you know and I know it happens all the time. Stupid people do stupid things and everyone else has to feel it. But then again some of those things save lives. I have personally helped implement Risk Mitigations that if not followed would have lead to the maiming or loss of a human life. I know most people are responsible, but there are people out there, having a bad day, dealing with family problems, or maybe the party last night went a little to long. Either way they are going to do something stupid. Hopefully we have pounded enough risk mitigation in their head, they avoid the big stuff.

While some of them are really silly, most of them are there for a reason. You may never be that reason, and that is a good thing.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 18 at 2019 7:19 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:19:46 -0400

I have become risk adverse after being a tanker.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2019 9:23 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:23:41 -0400

I get the reflective belt for those in PT uniform, or when the Soldier is working in an environment where that high visibility device may help reduce some risk.
It is my understanding that some installations/units have different color reflective belts for enlisted, NCOs, and officers. Training posts may have different colors for IET Soldiers.
I get the need to be able to rapidly identify IET Soldiers, based on all the craziness I witnessed as a DS. Maybe some of the other wear requirements are to make it easy to determine if an NCO is present supervising a group of Soldiers. Maybe someone wasn't recognized with the proper military courtesy in PT uniform, so color coded reflective belts became the policy.
A risk assessment to dispatch a vehicle from the MP to HQ is interesting, and would likely have gotten a WTF you talking about, the first time I would've heard it.
And, no, I wouldn't buy the it's a training opportunity, because it will result in brains shutting off and checking the block by recycling templated risk assessments, which I'm certain is the case. Soldiers won't learn to go through the thought process to identify risks, and how to mitigate them.
Hell, on my recent vacation in Hawaii, a convoy from a FA unit was passing where we had stopped. It was a beach, so there was heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic. One HMMWV slammed on his brakes momentarily, and a LMTV failed to stop in time and gave the HMMWV a good push. I expected them to pull over and assess any damage. They didn't even pause like they were considering it. Maybe their risk assessment said to keep going as if nothing happened.

Response by SCPO Jason McLaughlin made Jul 19 at 2019 8:33 AM

SCPO Jason McLaughlin — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:33:23 -0400

Risk aversion/mitigation has increased as a direct result of social media. There was a time when, so long as no one got killed, no one cared. Enter the age of pinning ceremony videos being posted online, and all of a sudden military traditions came under civilian scrutiny. Giving the service a black eye is a quick way to ensure an early "retirement". Now every person carries a video recorder. In todays highly-charged political climate, it is no wonder that the aversion to anything that can result in public outcry is on the rise.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2019 11:48 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:48:40 -0400

Some of the nonsense was cut out by SecDef Mattis before he left. Commander's (top down) delegate what risk decisions that are comfortable with to what their subordinate commanders have purview over. This provides structure to hopefully curtail both the micromanager that is too risk averse to the point Soldiers are bored because of excessive limitations and the rogue agent that disregards safety to do the "really cool" stuff.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2019 2:29 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:29:10 -0400

last deployment: DIV CSM policy was body armor, elbow and knee pads, ACH and eye pro at all times INSIDE the wire because you never know when we might get indirect fire. The really stupid part was you had to wear a PT belt over your body armor. So, you know, a sniper could see you better at night.