Posted on Jun 29, 2021
Is a CSM also wrong if they start publicly chewing out a LT, and the LT then locks up the CSM?
35.3K
701
208
101
101
0
Edit:
I have received a lot of feedback and discussion, which is awesome!!! This was intended for a professional development discussion amongst senior leaders, and a whole bunch have chimed in, so thank you very much for that!
I think the scenario I was picturing in my head is a bit different than what others were picturing, but that is great, I left it a bit vague on purpose to get a wider array of responses and experiences.
Not that there has been a bit of discussion, here is kind of what I was picturing....
CSM is posted up someplace, kind of surveying things. A short distance (call it 25 feet) away, a SPC walks past an LT, renders a smart salute, accompanied by the greeting of the day, and the LT blows him off. SPC does what he is supposed to do, continues on for 6 paces, drops his salute, and carries on with life. CSM, however, is not going to let this go. In my experience, he also is not about to run after the LT to have a "private conversation." So, CSM bellows out for the LT, in the way that only CSMs can, and politely asks for the LT to come over. Something along the lines of "Hey, Lieutenant Smith, can I have a word?" The LT, now pissed off, stalks over to the CSM and before the CSM can even salute, the LT tells the CSM how important and busy he is, and the CSM should know better than to interrupt the LT.
At this point, the CSM, in my opinion, would be better served to bring the discussion *more* private, by asking the LT to step inside, or if he is "too busy" to come see him and the LTC at 1700. But in my experience, many CSMs would feel the need to be heard, and would take measures to do so.
That was the situation in my head. And I think most of your answers have addressed it in some manner or other.
Again, I appreciate the discussion. And for those who answered early and move on, I encourage you to read through some other responses. The entire intent was professional development, after all! (Even for those old codgers who have forgotten more about professionalism than I will ever know, we can all still keep growing!)
Thanks again!!!
Professional Development question for the senior leaders:
I am sure we have all seen, or at least read a couple stories of the CSM chewing out a young LT when the LT decides to assert rank and lock up the CSM. Inevitably these stories end with the young LT being called onto the BC's carpet (or sometimes the CG) and ripped a new one while the CSM looks on smugly.
And we all chuckle at the important life lesson the young LT learned about the difference between rank and authority.
But I got to thinking...........
If things get to the point where that LT is feeling disrespected, belittled, and/or intentionally intimidated, isn't the CSM already in the wrong? Especially if this is in front of troops? I absolutely understand the difference between rank and authority, but shouldn't that CSM be setting the example of tact and respect (s)he expects their Soldiers to follow? Should we be stopping to wonder what is that CSM's major malfunction is, such that they felt the need to publicly disrespect a Commissioned Officer?
In all of the stories I have read about this situation, I don't remember that ever being discussed. So.... discuss....
(Or don't).
EDIT: Admins changed the topic to "who is in the wrong." This is less a question of who is wrong. I am working off the assumption that the CSM is not lighting up the LT for no reason, so the LT is assumed to be in the wrong here. It is a question of, is not the CSM ALSO wrong?
I have received a lot of feedback and discussion, which is awesome!!! This was intended for a professional development discussion amongst senior leaders, and a whole bunch have chimed in, so thank you very much for that!
I think the scenario I was picturing in my head is a bit different than what others were picturing, but that is great, I left it a bit vague on purpose to get a wider array of responses and experiences.
Not that there has been a bit of discussion, here is kind of what I was picturing....
CSM is posted up someplace, kind of surveying things. A short distance (call it 25 feet) away, a SPC walks past an LT, renders a smart salute, accompanied by the greeting of the day, and the LT blows him off. SPC does what he is supposed to do, continues on for 6 paces, drops his salute, and carries on with life. CSM, however, is not going to let this go. In my experience, he also is not about to run after the LT to have a "private conversation." So, CSM bellows out for the LT, in the way that only CSMs can, and politely asks for the LT to come over. Something along the lines of "Hey, Lieutenant Smith, can I have a word?" The LT, now pissed off, stalks over to the CSM and before the CSM can even salute, the LT tells the CSM how important and busy he is, and the CSM should know better than to interrupt the LT.
At this point, the CSM, in my opinion, would be better served to bring the discussion *more* private, by asking the LT to step inside, or if he is "too busy" to come see him and the LTC at 1700. But in my experience, many CSMs would feel the need to be heard, and would take measures to do so.
That was the situation in my head. And I think most of your answers have addressed it in some manner or other.
Again, I appreciate the discussion. And for those who answered early and move on, I encourage you to read through some other responses. The entire intent was professional development, after all! (Even for those old codgers who have forgotten more about professionalism than I will ever know, we can all still keep growing!)
Thanks again!!!
Professional Development question for the senior leaders:
I am sure we have all seen, or at least read a couple stories of the CSM chewing out a young LT when the LT decides to assert rank and lock up the CSM. Inevitably these stories end with the young LT being called onto the BC's carpet (or sometimes the CG) and ripped a new one while the CSM looks on smugly.
And we all chuckle at the important life lesson the young LT learned about the difference between rank and authority.
But I got to thinking...........
If things get to the point where that LT is feeling disrespected, belittled, and/or intentionally intimidated, isn't the CSM already in the wrong? Especially if this is in front of troops? I absolutely understand the difference between rank and authority, but shouldn't that CSM be setting the example of tact and respect (s)he expects their Soldiers to follow? Should we be stopping to wonder what is that CSM's major malfunction is, such that they felt the need to publicly disrespect a Commissioned Officer?
In all of the stories I have read about this situation, I don't remember that ever being discussed. So.... discuss....
(Or don't).
EDIT: Admins changed the topic to "who is in the wrong." This is less a question of who is wrong. I am working off the assumption that the CSM is not lighting up the LT for no reason, so the LT is assumed to be in the wrong here. It is a question of, is not the CSM ALSO wrong?
Posted in these groups: 
Professional Development
Respect
Professional Development Respect
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 128
0
0
0
0
0
0
That CSM was definitely in the wrong. (I smell the strong scent of egotism here).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Is the LT Prior service? I've seen a few transitions that act like enlisted and step outside of their lane. As for the topic, no NCO or officer should be disrespectful toward one another in public. Like they say punish in private praise in public. Everyone wants to be the best leader, and everyone wants their opinions to be heard but regardless of personal opinions there are orders that we must all follow. Unless it's life,limb, or eyesight, immoral, or unethical. Then we are bound to follow those orders.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When I was a brand new 2Lt Admin Officer I had many occasions to be "mentored" by SNCO's. I learned very quickly it was in my best interest to listen to them but I never had any of them be overtly disrespectful to me in front of subordinates or peers. As I became more experienced and established my own credibility, I learned to discern between which NCOs I should listen to and those who had their own agendas. When I became a Tech School Squadron Commander (as a 1LT) my First Shirt and I operated as a team. He was invaluable to me and I learned a lot about not just how to manage people, but also about how to use my authority to both help my airmen and make my squadron more efficient. However, he expected me to take responsibility and act my part as a commander. When he left for another assignment my next First Sgt taught me how much damage a bad NCO could do. By then, I had developed the confidence to fire him. That's one of the great things about officer development. You start off not knowing which way is up and you have NCOs and other officers who are there to mentor you. If you're smart, you listen and learn. At some point, though, the training wheels come off and you're expected to pull your weight and fulfill your role as an officer. I have nothing but respect for the NCOs I worked with, and who worked for me.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was in Baumholder Germany in 1969. On my way to the mess I was passing a Jr officer, I smartly render an "All The Way Salute". The officer didn't return the salute. The Brigade CSM was behind the Officer on the sidewalk, He tore him a new button right their and rightfully so! Airborne All The Way!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In any case, no matter the ranks, I would try to hold to the maxim of "Praise in public criticize in private." Doubly so in the case of someone in a leadership position, UNLESS there was a serious safety issue involved.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The first parameter is officer and enlisted. Second is whether there is an imminent factor involved such as safety of personnel and/or equipment. An enlisted member is normally incorrect to publicly or privately chew out an officer. That is not their prerogative. A prompt warning from the officer that the CSM is out line would defuse the issue. That would also defuse the issue of the CSM being locked up. The secondary parameter comes into play when a safety issue can occur. It necessarily calls for prompt action. It can mean the CSM may need to address the officer to prevent any losses to people and material. But only to the extent to correct the issue at hand. That's it. What is also wrong in this situation is the BC or CG dressing down a subordinate officer in front of the CSM. That is wholly inappropriate leadership behavior. It puts the CSM being part of the wrong show. The CSM should quietly excuse themself and bring up the matter latter with the superior officer. In this case, all the players have some degree of poor behavior.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is wrong. I had a platoon sergeant in Crete who chewed out our XO and accused him of stealing and sabotaging our equipment. He put his finger in our XO's chest and called him M*****f***er right in front of about half the battery. Our XO locked him up and s**t down his throat. My platoon daddy admitted he was wrong and said of our XO, "He locked my a$$ up!"
The Colonel should have the CSM's back and the Lt should fear repercussions from the Colonel if he ever shows disrespect to a CSM.
The Colonel should have the CSM's back and the Lt should fear repercussions from the Colonel if he ever shows disrespect to a CSM.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I find this question very real...... and I will put a Real spin on it.....
If the American people can physically see that "some" of our politicians are committing treason against the Constitution of the United States and against the rights of Americans....
Is it not wrong for them to turn it around some how and give us another public lie, and why can't we just simply prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, for destroying our great nation????
In your question, some people need to be publicly humiliated for them to see the error of there ways, if they still have to fight against it then they are either delusional or maybe truly not in the wrong, or if the CSM is just being a bully and taking it out on the Lt. , or if there is a major safety concern at that moment and a severe divertive tactic is needed to stop the unsafe action from happening then action is to be taken whether the other person agrees or disagrees with it. There are more than several reasons to consider, and both sides should be heard by a neutral party to help make that determination. To many people now a days think they are the Chief, even when using their own opinions. When in fact if they used: common sense, facts, experiences, and tactfulness and also the willingness to get a second opinion before acting as judge, jury and executioner, we as a nation would not be tolerating the nonsense we are seeing unfold today. I would hope to think that we would be a more United Nation if people just treated others as they would expect to be treated. I feel respect has lost it's meaning and has been thrown out the door with the trash these days. The days of the buddy buddy system should be thrown away, and actions should speak louder than bullshit. The question is: which action will each individual take, to prove how worthy of the respect they "actually" deserve and not what they "think" they deserve. There is not enough information here to process whether which one was in the right and which one was in the wrong. I have seen my share of good commands and I have also seen my share of selfish commands in my military experience.
If the American people can physically see that "some" of our politicians are committing treason against the Constitution of the United States and against the rights of Americans....
Is it not wrong for them to turn it around some how and give us another public lie, and why can't we just simply prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, for destroying our great nation????
In your question, some people need to be publicly humiliated for them to see the error of there ways, if they still have to fight against it then they are either delusional or maybe truly not in the wrong, or if the CSM is just being a bully and taking it out on the Lt. , or if there is a major safety concern at that moment and a severe divertive tactic is needed to stop the unsafe action from happening then action is to be taken whether the other person agrees or disagrees with it. There are more than several reasons to consider, and both sides should be heard by a neutral party to help make that determination. To many people now a days think they are the Chief, even when using their own opinions. When in fact if they used: common sense, facts, experiences, and tactfulness and also the willingness to get a second opinion before acting as judge, jury and executioner, we as a nation would not be tolerating the nonsense we are seeing unfold today. I would hope to think that we would be a more United Nation if people just treated others as they would expect to be treated. I feel respect has lost it's meaning and has been thrown out the door with the trash these days. The days of the buddy buddy system should be thrown away, and actions should speak louder than bullshit. The question is: which action will each individual take, to prove how worthy of the respect they "actually" deserve and not what they "think" they deserve. There is not enough information here to process whether which one was in the right and which one was in the wrong. I have seen my share of good commands and I have also seen my share of selfish commands in my military experience.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Unless there is a safety threat, always praise in public and discipline in private. The train wreck unit that I retired out of, I saw a young-ish Major dress down a CW5 in a packet tent during Warfighter. Didn't end well, and showed a gross lack of maturity and leadership to younger troops.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google