Questioning authority

After reading some of the responses below as one who am now in the Retirement ranks, it's soothing to see that many have really addressed the question open minded without direct assumption of a challenge to authority.  NCO's we advise our Officers, mentor and develop NCOs and Soldiers without labeling them "Soldier"/ "Non-Soldier" according to personal perception, bias, or belief.  We diligently look for potential in every action for a since of sincerity as Soldiers define their direction.  We get them on point with Mission and Command Goals and those who aren't interested in Mission and Command goals, they clearly define themselves after opportunities to correct their misdirection.  Authority is law based and defined by regulation in the Department of Defense and broken down by our Branches of Service even further in regulation by our Branches of Service.  Some regulation refers us to DOD regulation only and DOD forms that aren't open for Branch interpretation.  In similar fashion, our Branch administers regulation and policy that is not open for further interpretation by subordinate elements. 

Make no mistake, no rank or self proclaimed authority of a person in uniform with any rank will stand above regulation or law.  NCO's, we enforce regulation, law and advise our Officers, mentor and develop NCOs and Soldiers in compliance with law and regulation.  This discussion brings my mind to times in the military where I  faced a misconceived authority of someone, versus authority back by law and regulation.  (Lawful order versus unlawful orders, lawful directives versus unlawful directives.)  As a Non-Commissioned Officer and Leader in cases of blatant unlawful orders or directives, law and regulation challenge that authority.  You're the vessel to stand in it's foundation or its establishment with fortitude against the grain of the misconceived.  Just as you stand in that general authority, any service member in the ranks who are perceived as questioning authority, their motive for standing to question should at least be acknowledge with your self check to see if you are the misconceived authority; with humility before you steam up to admonishment.  In any rank you hold, you may be enforcing or face correction and you'd really appreciate your superior acknowledging your concern versus preemptive assumption that you disrespectfully challenge.  We all sharpen each other on this team.  The time you are the misconceived with your superior because you misunderstood law and regulation, you'd appreciate that person mentoring you, versus labeling you a piece of the puzzle that can't fit.  Be that mentor for your subordinates and deal with true disrespect by definition versus perception or assumption.  In the end law and regulation should always win; then we all win.

Clearly, there are different styles of Leadership that are best utilized based on the situation and immediacy of the task.  Some forms are better used for more mundane tasks, while others require more immediate, and unquestioned action. 

In non-emergent situations, a good leader builds on his team by developing a sense of service, by ensuring their team understands their purpose, and are proficient in their field of responsibility.  This is why the concept of Commander's intent is so important.  It first empowers the individual to act in the absence of direct orders, or to adjust tactics in the face of uncertainty or adversity.  I have found that by developing the members of one's team, by ensuring they fully understand the mission of the team, of the next higher unit, and their responsibilities toward the accomplishment of the overall mission, the question "why" is rarely invoked. 

This concept of pushing responsibility down to developed, and proficient service members not only gives them confidence to make decisions, but empowers them to take and to collaborate for positive action. This empowers the competent members of our teams, the opportunity to solve, and resolve issues with solutions we as top-down leaders may have never even considered.  There is risk to this concept, but the payoff, if accomplished, can be incredibly beneficial.  See the book.  "Turn the Ship Around" by Cpt. David Marquet. USN

Regarding the immediacy required in a combat situation one would hope that through a thorough understanding of SOP's at all levels, through the competent repetition of immediate action drills should leave NO question as to "why" such an order is given.

I'm a simpleton.  Is it a legal order? Does it require you do something illegal, immoral or in conflict with the Army Values or previous orders given by your immediate chain of command?  Soldiers have the DUTY not to follow illegal orders. That being said, it doesn't mean you can't be punished for not initially following it. If the order is legal, and it passes the above test, it should be your duty to perform it....within reason. (The Reasonable Man approach).  As for the "Why".  Only if there is time to give purpose to the task.  Sometimes there is not, even when you are not in combat.

Simple solution, as long as the order isn't anything illegal why would I question it? Just because it's something that probably should be done by someone else doesn't mean I can't do it. If you act like you're too good to do a job, what reason should those under you have to obey your orders when you ask them to do something?

I think it is first important to know and understand the relationship between the two. If it is done in good faith and good intentions, yes. But I have seen that it was done to create doubt and done out of disrespect. The reason following orders is important is because on the battlefield when there is the fog of war, we don't have time to explain everything, we have to just do it and understand that our superiors may know things we don't know. We may hate it and it may suck, but hesitation can be the difference between a won or lost battle

There are many different ways to use the term Why.  Why are we doing this so close to the road? Why dont we wait until after lunch so we are not in a rush? Why dont we bring PT belts just in case? Why are we taking the truck with the least amount of fuel?  Most of these are not disrespectful they convey knowledge of the situation being discussed and most are offering possible better alternatives or seeking to understand a certain aspect of the command. In this case I would explain what needed explaining.

I think this is a case where context is key.  Like you said, if you're taking fire and your squad leader tells you to go left, you probably shouldn't be like "well gee Sarg, why do you want me to go over there?"  But if your back at Fort Anywhere USA and your squad leader tells you to fill your kevlar with Jell-O and take it over to your platoon leader, then perhaps you might ask what the hell for? 

I bet it can get frustrating for an NCO when some of his soldiers question some things, but from my experience some times it might have value.  Like if your telling them how to load a connex or something, and the soldier asks why you are having him do it a particular way, it might be a good opportunity for that soldier to learn something.  Or, GASP, he might know of a better way to do it. 

I would be very weary of any leader who answers this question in absolutes.