U.S. Army: Only Leaders Can Judge Other Leaders?

Do you have to be a leader to judge the effectiveness of other leaders?  At least one general in the U.S. Army thinks so.  Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a compelling front-page article by Greg Jaffe on a growing rift among Army officers over the military's Iraq strategy.  Jaffe's article focuses on the controversy surrounding Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, whose "blistering critique of the Army brass, 'A Failure in Generalship,' [was] published last month in Armed Forces Journal."

Yingling's article has provoked intense discussion throughout the military, and Jaffe reports that Maj. Gen. Jeff Hammond, commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood (where Yingling is based with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment) recently gathered all 200 of the captains on base to refute Yingling's critique.  Jaffe writes...

[Gen. Hammond] told the young captains that Col. Yingling wasn't competent to judge generals because he had never been one.  "He has never worn the shoes of a general," Gen. Hammond recalls saying.

The captains' reactions highlighted the growing gap between some junior officers and the generals.  "If we are not qualified to judge, who is?" says one Iraq veteran who was at the meeting.

I have no idea whether Hammond's comments reflect official policy, but to the extent that they accurately reflect any aspect of the military's organizational culture, I find them deeply dismaying.  It's unacceptable for any organization today--let alone one with as vital a mission as the U.S. Army--to restrict feedback on leaders' effectiveness to their colleagues.

To paraphrase the captain in Gen. Hammond's audience, if subordinates aren't qualified to judge leaders, who is?  (Ironically, the current Wikipedia entry for 360-degree feedback notes that the practice was initially employed by the U.S. military in the 1940s.)

Photo by myglesias.  Yay Creative Commons.

Comments

[Tom Carroll]

I agree with you Ed.

The suppression of feedback within any organization does nothing but undermine the inter-organization transparency. Maj. Gen. Jeff Hammond has demonstrated how not to handle critical feedback. The ramifications of Maj. Gen. Jeff Hammond actions will be felt in years to come when the those captains become the general staff of tomorrow.

In times of crisis and stress a leader may be forced to make difficult decisions. The ability to make those decisions is in part made possible by feedback. Situational awareness not only extends to the field but also to the back office.

[peter vajda]

Hi Ed,

I may be way off but Einstein's quote, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."tugs on my sleeve.

Too, when one's job description is to "make war" then I suppose those with that job description who go against the grain bring on ostricism in its varied veiled forms.

[Ed Batista]

Thanks, Tom--I agree that Hammond's sending precisely the wrong message to the Army's future leaders. It's a case study in how NOT to handle critical feedback.

And thanks, Peter--I certainly see a connection between this situation and your Einstein quote. It seems as though the Army is missing an important opportunity to learn from it's problems and instead is choosing to delegitimize the people who are best positioned to propose innovative solutions.

That said, I take issue with your second point. I have no doubt that the Army has many Gen. Hammonds, leaders who would prefer to sweep criticism under the rug and ignore uncomfortable realities. But the Army also has many Lt. Col. Yinglings, people of integrity who are willing to face difficult problems head on and challenge the established order in doing so. I just hope we have more of the latter than the former.

Ed