Who is responsible when subordinates fail to do their jobs?

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:37:56 -0500

Although this topic has been initiated on RallyPoint in the past, a recent disclosure by a former aide to the President has encouraged me to raise it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDHireIp2Zk

I once read a book on leadership written by a major general and used in one of the war colleges (Sorry, I loaned it to a friend and never saw it again) in which the author espoused the concept that a good leader was a good teacher. If you want your subordinates to do a job a certain way, you must teach them how you want it done. I've wrestled with that for several years. In effect, the author expected the leader to know how every job should be accomplished.

Now there may be those who object to my turning to President Obama as an exemplar, but shouldn't we have a right to expect the Commander-in-Chief to be an exemplar, the prototypical great leader? When it is reported that he says to his staff "I could do every one of your jobs better" he should also be instructing them in how to do those jobs, as this author implied?

I was happily surprised to hear Gates report that Obama never faulted him for speaking his mind. That seems to be an admirable attribute for the President to have. However, Gates goes on to mention that other aides/counselors to the President have abstained from voicing their opinions, ostensibly because they were afraid(?) to incur his wrath. Or they believed that Obama really is "the smartest man in the room" and they should follow him slavishly? I would hate to think that my subordinates were so afraid or reticent while serving under me.

Thus, we come to the question? When a subordinate fails, is it a failure of the superior? Where does responsibility lie?

Gates: Obama Thinks He's Smartest Guy in Room

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 2:56 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:56:01 -0500

A good leader is one who motivates others to do better each time and to learn from mistakes. To higher they should always take blame for their subordinates failures.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 23 at 2016 2:57 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:57:23 -0500

It clearly depends on a situation. Sometimes it's the leader's fault, sometimes the subordinate, and sometimes both. You can't blame every leader for every subordinate's failure just like you can't blame every school teacher if just one of their students don't do well.

As soon as you put 100% of all blame on the leader, that frees subordinates to feel like they take on no responsibility, and clearly that's not right.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 23 at 2016 2:58 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:58:33 -0500

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

Commanders have staffs because plates can only get so big, and only be stacked so high.

It's great to believe that the commander will always be the smartest man in the room. It's far more likely that he will be the one with the most experience however, and is relying on "experts" to tell him things.

We use a Staff Structure of highly specialize areas. Administration, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, etc. If the commander misses one of those, it was because he made a "bad call" but if we dig deeper, he either ignored the Experts advice, or didn't get the Experts advice. If it was the former, that's on him. If it was the latter, it becomes even more complex.

We delve into management vs leadership theory at that point. As a manager there is no excuse why the Expert did not provide it. As a leader, the question arises as to whether "he" created an environment where it was not worth providing.

So, as you reported, Hon. Mr. Gates was able to speak his mind. That implies no failures on the subordinate's part. However that may just be a force of will issue. The follow on of "others were afraid" points to a greater issue.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 3:53 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:53:14 -0500

Responsibility rests where responsibility is assigned.
I am a firm believer that when responsibility is given to subordinates, they will rise to the occasion. The converse is also true; if you never delegate, not only will they not develop, but you risk the whole organization failing because of micromanagement.
It is their responsibility to do their duty. If they don't do their duty, it is on them.
It is my responsibility to train them in order to prepare them for duties of greater responsibility, get them resources they need, and check to ensure that they are on task. If I don't do that, it is on me.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 23 at 2016 3:58 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:58:26 -0500

Sometimes it's the bosses fault, sometimes it's the subordinates job. What we need are real campaign plans that are impactful, doable, and which will lead us to victory.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 4:18 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:18:27 -0500

I always asked myself what I did wrong or what I could have done better to HELP prevent a subordinate's failure.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 23 at 2016 6:28 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 18:28:47 -0500

A leader can delegate responsibility and is expected to do so, but they can not delegate accountability. If you want to know who the leader truly is, it's the person you blame when things go wrong. The person who is to be held responsible and blamed for mission failure is also the same person who deserves the credit for successful mission accomplishment. And, of course, a good leader will recognize the contributions of those under their command whom they tasked, and pass due credit on to them; they will also award those whose contributions were especially noteworthy and commendable.

This is a concept that apparently went over our Cmdr-in-Chief's head when he had Admiral McRaven sign a piece of paper in which Obama delegated full operational control and accountability for the Bin Laden raid to him. You see, if things went wrong, Obama wanted someone to blame... but seeing as things went right, he told the military not to spike the football and instead he and Biden crowed and spiked it as if they had pulled the trigger themselves! What a slap in the face to our military men and women who worked together to pull that mission off! Where was Obama and what was he doing during the mission? Playing 15 rounds of Spades with [his boyfriend] Reggie Love? That is what you call "Lead from Behind" leadership... which really isn't leadership at all. You lead from the front; you follow from the rear. Enough said.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 23 at 2016 6:51 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 18:51:47 -0500

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It also depends on the responsibility. If that responsibility was delegated to me, then it's mine and no one else's.

I'm also not a fan of "I can do everyone's job better than they can." Good and great leaders don't necessarily know how to do everything themselves, but they are smart enough to appoint the right person for the job, and also listen to that person when they give inputs/make suggestions. In fact, that reason right there is why I personally don't think that it should be mandatory that a President be required to have served in the military, just so long as they follow my suggestion.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 7:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:21:16 -0500

Responsibility is normally given to the leader. Fault is a whole different discussion

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Jan 23 at 2016 8:00 PM

PO1 Kerry French — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:00:13 -0500

Responsibility cannot be delegated.

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Jan 23 at 2016 8:27 PM

CW2 Michael Mullikin — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:27:31 -0500

I'm sorry Captain, but this seems to be a very simple question—when a subordinate fails, for whatever reason, the superior is responsible. This is one of the cornerstones of military discipline (its also why superiors get the big bucks and percs). Is this policy fair? Frequently not, but that is irrelevant. Could Admiral Kimmel or BG Short done anything to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor? The honest answer is "no;" however they were both relieved because the responsibility for the protection of the base was theirs. There are many instances of a junior officer running a ship aground, however it is the captain who is relieved and faces a board of inquiry because the responsibility for all aspects of his ships safety belongs only to him. When I was a tanker, my unit was going through annual tank gunnery. One of the platoon leaders became ill and was replaced by a brand new 2LT who had just arrived on station. He had a litle more than a week before they fired for qualification (including him). I watched as they lined up to go down-range. All five tanks, one after another, failed to qualify; the brigade commander relieved the lieutenant on the spot, without objection. Was this unfair? Probably, for many reasons, but the responsibility for his tanks qualifying was his.

For most of my career I operated alone, as either a counterintelligence special agent or as a human intelligence collection officer. I preferred working this way but something I always lived with was if something really went south with one of this sensitive operations I knew that there would be no need to call in Sherlock Holmes, army counterintelligence, CID or anyone else. Their was no doubt in anyones mind that the responsibility was mine.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 24 at 2016 10:10 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:10:50 -0500

This makes sense. The POTUS is making tactical decisions.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 7:17 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:17:35 -0500

I'm a firm believer that all successes and failures are due to leadership, if you unit has a problem then leadership is to blame. Please don't confuse leadership being an issue with meaning that the commander is to blame. What I mean is we are expected to lead at every level and if that leadership does not happen people don't get the job done. If we trickle responsibility upwards then yes the CC is ultimately to blame because for what every reason they did not engage at the appropriate level. This is in essence why we have a rank structure, if everyone could function on their own we would have no leaders or need for leaders.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Jan 25 at 2016 1:31 PM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:31:20 -0500

I always considered it a personal failure unless the individual proved himself totally without socially redeeming qualities. Otherwise, did I see he was provided with the appropriate first level supervision, did I put him in a different billet where he might have succeeded etc, etc

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Jan 28 at 2016 1:20 PM

CW2 Michael Mullikin — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:20:31 -0500

It seems to me that the key principle to understand is that authority may be delegated, responsibility may not.