0
-1
1
Is this being used as an excuse to punish an entire unit for the misdeeds of the few.
What are its real implications?
What are its real implications?
Posted in these groups: 
Esprit de Corps
Discipline
Esprit de Corps Discipline
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 5
I have only heard of "One Team, One Fight" used in positive context. Usually to represent that all elements of our unit, or the units that we work with, are all part of the same team, working toward the same goal. It helps provide unity and represents that we are all working to serve our country together, regardless of your rank, unit, specialty, or branch.
I have never heard of it used for punitive measures, though I wouldn't be shocked if that were the case. I've always been a heavy opponent of mass punishment. It seems like an easy way out, and a knee jerk reaction for those who lead by the whip and not through positive motivation. Putting out mass punishment for actions that individuals had nothing to do with is a quick way to deflate morale.
I have never heard of it used for punitive measures, though I wouldn't be shocked if that were the case. I've always been a heavy opponent of mass punishment. It seems like an easy way out, and a knee jerk reaction for those who lead by the whip and not through positive motivation. Putting out mass punishment for actions that individuals had nothing to do with is a quick way to deflate morale.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
I think the question could have been worded slightly less loaded, because it comes across as if you've already made up your mind, but I understand the intent I think, and it's a legitimate concern.
On the last few TDYs I've been on, once people get comfortable with each other after a few days, they start talking more frankly. By the end, this topic usually comes up. This is easily one of the top 5 complaints I've heard from airmen and junior CGOs the last few years, mass punishments for an entire unit over the actions of a few. I think the intent behind it is to encourage a unit's members to police themselves and each other, but here's the trick of it, that only works in certain environments. More cynically, it's meant to put an immediate stop to whatever the problem is and signal outsiders that "something is being done." So, sadly, it's often not meant for internal consumption but outside consumption. Doing something like this, a commander hopes that he or she will gain enough time and space to actually deal with the problem before someone bigger deals with it for him, and usually not in a way that could work with the unit itself.
How effective is it? It's one thing to take this kind of action in a training environment - tech school, commissioning source, BMT - there, folks are really "all in this together." They have no choice. They HAVE to police themselves. One broken link really does affect the rest. Overseas, in a deployed environment or a place where a unit lives together and maintains cohesiveness 24/7 or at least the majority of the time, it _can_ work, but it doesn't work as well as in the training environment. Besides, people are older, removed from that environment, more independent and autonomous.
In CONUS or overseas garrison versus deployment? I don't think it's very effective at all. Usually, I think it's even counterproductive. When people go home at the end of every day, when they don't live and work and train together - when they have lives independent of the organization, which most do, there's no way for mass punishment like to really work, especially not if mass punishment is THE ONLY action taken by the commander.
Are there circumstances where it's justifiable? Sure. But, it should be the option of last resort, not FIRST resort. If you've let things degrade to the point where this is even necessary, you're failing as a commander.
On the last few TDYs I've been on, once people get comfortable with each other after a few days, they start talking more frankly. By the end, this topic usually comes up. This is easily one of the top 5 complaints I've heard from airmen and junior CGOs the last few years, mass punishments for an entire unit over the actions of a few. I think the intent behind it is to encourage a unit's members to police themselves and each other, but here's the trick of it, that only works in certain environments. More cynically, it's meant to put an immediate stop to whatever the problem is and signal outsiders that "something is being done." So, sadly, it's often not meant for internal consumption but outside consumption. Doing something like this, a commander hopes that he or she will gain enough time and space to actually deal with the problem before someone bigger deals with it for him, and usually not in a way that could work with the unit itself.
How effective is it? It's one thing to take this kind of action in a training environment - tech school, commissioning source, BMT - there, folks are really "all in this together." They have no choice. They HAVE to police themselves. One broken link really does affect the rest. Overseas, in a deployed environment or a place where a unit lives together and maintains cohesiveness 24/7 or at least the majority of the time, it _can_ work, but it doesn't work as well as in the training environment. Besides, people are older, removed from that environment, more independent and autonomous.
In CONUS or overseas garrison versus deployment? I don't think it's very effective at all. Usually, I think it's even counterproductive. When people go home at the end of every day, when they don't live and work and train together - when they have lives independent of the organization, which most do, there's no way for mass punishment like to really work, especially not if mass punishment is THE ONLY action taken by the commander.
Are there circumstances where it's justifiable? Sure. But, it should be the option of last resort, not FIRST resort. If you've let things degrade to the point where this is even necessary, you're failing as a commander.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Thank you for the response , Sir.
The question is loaded. I've experienced it many times and seen it from the outside many times. In all the cases it was perceived as unfair and unnecessary.
I agree that in Tech school, BMT, or OTS it is a better tool than beyond in an operational unit. I am a proponent of its use in those places because it solidifies the message that, yes, we are a team, and yes, our actions affect the mission.
The question is loaded. I've experienced it many times and seen it from the outside many times. In all the cases it was perceived as unfair and unnecessary.
I agree that in Tech school, BMT, or OTS it is a better tool than beyond in an operational unit. I am a proponent of its use in those places because it solidifies the message that, yes, we are a team, and yes, our actions affect the mission.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
No worries. Like I said earlier too, I think if you've reached the point where a blanket punishment sounds like a good idea, you're already behind the power curve for fixing whatever it is that's wrecking the unit. Another problem with these kind of disciplinary moves, especially in an in-garrison/homestation setting, is that when they're done it's also usually too little too late.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have only heard "One Team, One Fight" used in a positive context to illustrate a team concept and unity of effort. I have not ever heard it used in a negative context to justify mass punishment. That is not to say the negative use has never happened, just that I am not aware of it during my service although I have seen mass punishment used. Mass punishment is a TTP but it is one that I consider to be ineffective at best. A better TTP is to take each case individually and punish appropriately using criteria of punishment, rehabilitation, deterence, and good order/discipline.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google