Posted on Dec 22, 2013
Why do Senior Leaders feel that making restrictive policies are the solutions to serious problems?
3.36K
18
11
1
1
0
For example in Korea, there is already a policy to be on post by 1 am...but some units are going a step further and requiring Soldiers to be in their rooms at 1am or people who live off post to be home. These policies are supposed to curb curfew violation and reduce sexual assault. So my question to the community, as leaders do you feel this is a necessary evil.<div><br></div>
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
Restrictive policies are necessary when leadership has failed. Policies are about risk elimination, not risk management.<div><br></div><div>They may reduce incidences, but they don't change behavior. And that's really what we should be focused on is changing behavior.</div>
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree whole heartedly CSM if you limit people to not being out after one then all the bad things will happen at midnight. Without addressing the behavior we are basically telling the soldiers that they did the wrong thing by being out too late and take some of the onus away from the bad people.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CSM Mike Maynard, I can't say it better. Thank you for putting it on words.
For example, there have been incidents on and off post. As usual, it is alcohol related. We have to check in and out with the SDO at the gate when we go on and off post. We have to have battle buddy. We have curfew. There are also some more miscellaneous rules. I am surprised that we didn't have to wear reflective belt and carrying weapon on amber status. These rules have already published for a long time. Evidently, these rules don't improve people's behavior nor self-discipline.
Is mass punishment the key to success? Sometimes, yes. Most of the time, if not all, you are penalizing those who are doing the right thing. IMHO, address those who fail directly. Plain and simple.
For example, there have been incidents on and off post. As usual, it is alcohol related. We have to check in and out with the SDO at the gate when we go on and off post. We have to have battle buddy. We have curfew. There are also some more miscellaneous rules. I am surprised that we didn't have to wear reflective belt and carrying weapon on amber status. These rules have already published for a long time. Evidently, these rules don't improve people's behavior nor self-discipline.
Is mass punishment the key to success? Sometimes, yes. Most of the time, if not all, you are penalizing those who are doing the right thing. IMHO, address those who fail directly. Plain and simple.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I have been in a unit that restricted us from carrying our weapons on AT and other training events where weapons familiarization would be appropriate. It is the soldiers belief that the unit is trying to limit the liability of losing or discharging a weapon. What it really does is make all the soldiers feel like children and they become less familiar with the weapons.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
We've had a couple of discussions along this line already, in particular the policy against IBA runs on Ft Hood.
The CSM is correct that restrictive policies are the result of leadership failure. Risk elimination because risk management has failed.
We eliminate the opportunity for stoopid to be stoopid, rather than allowing stoopid to be trained to be smart.
There use to be policies in places like Korea where there was a courtesy patrol that kept most bad behavior in the ville in check, at least to acceptable levels for the locals. This allowed us to curtail stoopid and police it up, giving the collective group an opportunity to learn. Part of the problem over the years, is we get used to a cadre that is relatively trouble free and we slack off til things get out of hand again. If it degenerates too fast, the local commander has to impose risk elimination policies to appease local nationals and prevent the rogues from giving the local command a political black eye.
If you want the policy of restriction lifted, you need to have a valid risk management plan (courtesy patrols, cultural sensitivity courses, restrictions for high risk individuals i.e. first 30 days in country, ASAP graduates) that local commanders can agree on, supervise and enforce.
Elimination policies are usually the policies of last resort and it's because an alternative solution to the problem is not offered or cannot be agreed upon.
The CSM is correct that restrictive policies are the result of leadership failure. Risk elimination because risk management has failed.
We eliminate the opportunity for stoopid to be stoopid, rather than allowing stoopid to be trained to be smart.
There use to be policies in places like Korea where there was a courtesy patrol that kept most bad behavior in the ville in check, at least to acceptable levels for the locals. This allowed us to curtail stoopid and police it up, giving the collective group an opportunity to learn. Part of the problem over the years, is we get used to a cadre that is relatively trouble free and we slack off til things get out of hand again. If it degenerates too fast, the local commander has to impose risk elimination policies to appease local nationals and prevent the rogues from giving the local command a political black eye.
If you want the policy of restriction lifted, you need to have a valid risk management plan (courtesy patrols, cultural sensitivity courses, restrictions for high risk individuals i.e. first 30 days in country, ASAP graduates) that local commanders can agree on, supervise and enforce.
Elimination policies are usually the policies of last resort and it's because an alternative solution to the problem is not offered or cannot be agreed upon.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google