Tuesday, March 29, 2011

OK, let's talk accountability

In his discussion about the Kearns decision, Admiral Harvey said a few things I find interesting in a larger context.
“Nobody trusts or has confidence in leaders who believe they cannot be held accountable for what they do,” Harvey wrote.
“We have good, fair processes to hold commanders accountable to established standards,” he wrote. “We need to use them, you need to use them, and I intend to use them.”
OK. Notsomuch for ADM Harvey ... but up the chain a bit - where is the accountability for DDG-1000? LPD-17? How about "Optimal Manning" and refusing to give COs the personnel and resources they need to pass an INSURV or even get their ships underway? Not the sacrificial lamb O6/7 fired for the actions of others. No, those who made the decisions to begin with.

What about the outright fraud that took place at USNA as outlined in the IG report? Where is the accountability?

We have Flag Officers who not only encourage - but practice racial self-identification fraud for personal benefit. I know we won't question that - but when we accept such behavior in our most senior people --- do not expect everyone down the chain not to see that example and apply it elsewhere.

Instead of hiding (like classifying INSURV results) and happy-talk, why don't we hold our Flag Officers to the same level of professional expectation as we do our CDR and LCDR? That is a message that all will understand and will get you positive results down to the deckplates.

Programmatic failures are just as deadly as not carrying out procedures that don't exist ... I think.

Yes to accountability - but lead from the front.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I might have missed it, but what is the fraud of you speak at the naval academy?