Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Published on February 22, 2005 By greywar In Business

            One of the first things I was taught as I prepared to become a Non-Commissioned Officer was that I should strive to avoid creating ethical dilemmas for my soldiers. This means that I shouldn’t issue orders whose fulfillment would require my soldiers to do unethical things such as “Lay out your gear in one hour. If you don’t have X then you will be punished.” When you give orders like this with no legitimate outlet (like giving them enough warning so thy can buy what they need) you promote a lawless atmosphere in which your soldiers will resort to theft from others to keep from being punished.

            Officers (and leaders in general) seem to forget this quite often.  Barracks life is a great example. About 90% of the barracks I have lived in or had soldiers living in have had a “No Sex” policy. Now when a commander drafts this policy letter and is signing it on his desk he has to know (unless he is a complete chimp) that even before the ink is dry on the paper the order has been violated (likely more than once). So why issue it?

            Issuing this type of order simply undermines a leaders authority. Parents understand this (the good ones). After all if you have a rule you know will be broken then you have laid the groundwork for further disobedience. Once you have refused one order why not more?

            When a leader makes a habit of issuing meaningless edicts it is a guarantee of inevitable failure and poor unit performance. It isn’t pretty. This is why private businesses with “morality” rules tend toward abysmal failure. You simply can’t legislate some things and trying to do so simply creates entire classes of lawbreakers who move closer to utter disdain for all of the rules. Doesn’t work for soldiers, doesn’t work for kids, and doesn’t work for business. Set your soldiers (or workers/kids) up for success not preordained failure.

Site Meter
Comments
on Feb 22, 2005
Besides, sex is more fun in the barracks. Silly Commanders.
on Feb 22, 2005
Besides, sex is more fun in the barracks.
Thats true now that you mention it.
on Feb 22, 2005
Memories.....
on Feb 22, 2005
In Hawaii, shortly after a change of command we had a new order drafted, signed off on by JAG, and the commander had the 1SG read it aloud to the company at the end of day formation on a Thursday before a long weekend. They then distributed copies to every Soldier to post in their rooms on the back of the door. They also told everyone that they would be checking on this in the very near future and not to take this warning lightly. The 1SG even did the left foot stomp three times and hinted that Tuesday would be an early morning for the company (even though there was nothing on the training schedule that morning).

At the end of the long weekend, we had a health and welfare. We caught no less then six Soldiers sharing rooms/beds with others. Some were NCO-Junior Enlisted.

Now, I'll agree with you that people will do what people do and issuing orders like this are often counter-productive to their intent. But, in this case, I lay all blame on the Soldiers that were caught, honestly. The commander ordered the health and welfare hoping people would be smart and take the warning, at least for that weekend, and then she'd let sleeping dogs (haha) lie. She figured she'd probably catch one pair of idiots at the most, but not six pairs.

If you take an obvious warning and piss on it, you deserve what you get.

On a side note, this little episode did let the company know that there was a new sheriff in town and not to take her lightly. She did turn out to be a good commander and officer, if a little opinionated on the "not in my barracks" policy.

That reminds me of 1SG Kalbrenner - "What are you going to do this weekend Alpha Company?"

Entire company in gleeful amusement - "Wrap that rascal, 1SG!"

1SG - "Not in my barracks!"
on Feb 22, 2005
There is yet another reason for making rules. That would be to keep that disapproved of activity at a minimum, thus reducing the risidual problems that come from the "disapproved of" activity.

Another example of this kind of policy strategy is the "no drinking on deployments" policies. Do commanders actually think that "beer, beer, beer, said the private" is confined only to cadences? Everyone from God down knows that troops will drink, and being on deployment won't change that (even with a "policy" against it).

So, what good is served by such policies? Plenty actually. What it does do is reduce the amount of drinking that does go on, and more importantly, it reduces the incidents that happen while troops on deployments drink. It also gives the commander bullets for the "paper trail" against a troop. If troops get drunk and get in a fight, the commander can go after them more harshly because "drinking against policy" AND "fighting" goes a lot further in the arena of article 15s than merely "fighting".

It's the same with "no sex" policies. On the surface they don't seem to make sense, but as long as there is a policy against it, there is recourse for commanders when residual problems arise.
on Feb 22, 2005
Chiprj and Parated - Tose are good examples of hard rules but they are coupled with regular checks and penalties. The difference here is enforcement guys. Any rule is ok for the military when enforced. Rules that tempt breakage and are not ruthlessly enforced in the manners Chiprj and ParaTed are the bad ones. Make a rule and enforce it = great! Make a rule and only enforce it once in a great while = retarded. 
on Feb 22, 2005
It was easier for commanders back in the days of open bay barracks. Where there is no privacy expected, not much sex can go on. ;~D

I'd rather see troops in dorm style barracks myself, but when much is given, much is expected, and it is my experience that, the more that is given, the more complaining occurs.
on Feb 22, 2005
I would have prefered it in korea, if it'd just been no Noisy sex in the barracks. I'd never turn my neighbors in and get them busted for that shit, but damn, the walls were so thin, you could hear their innermost doubts.
on Feb 23, 2005
I agree with Spc Nobody Special. I remember a time in 1223 walking down the hall and hearing (through a closed paper-thin door) some Sgt telling his girl what he wanted. 'Course, he was sort of a noisy guy anyhow.
As for the barracks in Texas, I would remind EL that the memories were more fun for some than for others. At least the walls were more sound absorbent than in Korea.
on Feb 24, 2005
I would have prefered it in korea, if it'd just been no Noisy sex in the barracks. I'd never turn my neighbors in and get them busted for that shit, but damn, the walls were so thin, you could hear their innermost doubts.


HAHA! Doesn't matter how thick the walls are if they don't actually run all the way up to the ceiling. In Hawaii, we had rooms that were built from old platoon bays. So the walls stopped about two feet short of the real ceiling and we had one of those drop tile ceilings. I could sneeze and here the person in the room next to me say "Bless you" in a normal tone of voice. Private coupling was nigh impossible.

The other double edged sword of having our rooms set up that way was that if you locked yourself out, you were only 5 seconds from getting back in your room. Down side, none of your stuff was ever truly safe because it was an easy climb and drop away from every other person on the floor.
on Feb 24, 2005
At least the walls were more sound absorbent than in Korea.
I never complained about the bleating of the sheep in your room....