Why are Army leaders failing so abysmally to implement a successful SHARP?

As a male soldier who has spent the majority of my time in a combat engineer company, take my thoughts with a grain of salt if you must, but here they are...

SHARP training as it stands is a joke. If the Army wants to change the culture, I believe that we must focus, on right/wrong, the Army values, etc., not an hour or two hour long lecture on what constitutes sexual harassment, and what is sexual assault. Forget the niceties about "Quid pro quo," and focus on the fact that such behavior is incompatible with who we are as soldiers! There are forms of sexual harassment that a soldier could commit innocently, through carelessness, or ignorance, but most violations DO NOT occur because a soldier doesn't know. It's because they don't care, or believe that they are above the rules. Or because they're drunk.

We've had a lot of talk on RP about Army leaders who are looking out for number one, toxic leaders, etc. I believe that the majority of the 62% falls into that category. Leaders don't want bad news on their watch, and some will do what they need to to cover it up, or try to make it go away.

The one company I was in that had females, had such a bad environment that I wouldn't have blamed anyone who didn't trust leadership enough to report a SHARP incident. In fact I said so on the command climate survey. The fact is, every bit of news traveled in that company. Good leaders squash gossip.

My takeaway: Revamp SHARP training, with a much sharper focus on the ethics, and promote leaders who lead, promote an environment of trust (kill gossip) and many of the problems will solve themselves with time. Focusing on SHARP, EO and other IMPORTANT issues, instead of focusing on the environment that CAUSES those issues kills morale, and causes the cycle of low quality leaders and poor environments to continue.

Sometime I should put my thoughts together, and try to find some research to back this up, but for now that's my thoughts.

Problem #1: Too often the accused and the victim are in the same chain of command. Then, what to do with the accused after the case hits the CoCO's desk? Include the 1stSgt, platoon commanders, the platoon sgts... etc. Everyone circles the wagons to protect their respective service member. Now let's introduce the "EEO Officer" (or, whatever the tittle may be). That person probably had a BBQ last weekend with one of the accused/victim chain of command as well. Oh yes, this EEO billet is probably collaterally assigned to someone who works in the -1 or -3 shop. In the civilian world, such cases would simply be turned over to law enforcement --an effective (and very detached) third party. Due to structure & mission, the military simply is not well equipped to deal with sexual harassment.

Problem #2: "Sensitivity Training" Everybody calls it something different. But, we used to call it a waste of our day. Twice a year, we filled a classroom, dimmed the lights, and took a nap as "Death by Powerpoint" took center stage. The presentation always reflected obtuse scenarios. Those that listened didn't need to hear it. Those that needed it said to stared at their watches. The command dutifully checked the requisite box... and we were released.

Why don't victims trust their chain of command? Unfortunately, they've been trained NOT to.

Sorry, CPT (Join to see), I'm only addressing the symptoms. Real solutions happen when we address the cause.

I don't think the Amy is failing. I moved from a line unit 1SG and with little experience leading or interacting with female soldiers I was given a BDE HHC. After fourteen months at the helm my commander and I had zero SHARP, IG, or EO complaints with 231 officers, warrants, and enlisted assigned. I attribute our success to having and building leaders that care and invest time and effort into their people. Making time for an effective NCO/Soldier development program that is dynamic and addresses weaknesses in the skill set of the unit is key to foster teamwork and responsibility to the unit. Blanket assessments of perceived issues are not a solution. It takes individual effort to make group success or improvement. As with everything in life to achieve success it takes effort and mandatory power point isn't cutting it.

My biggest beef with sharp is that is seems like I am being beaten with a foam bat. It basically tell us don't speak to female service members because it's a sharp/eo violation. I know that's not what it says but that's how it feels. That being said my unit is so sensitive to sharp it seems when ever one of our female attachments (I am in a infantry line company) gets with in 30 ft of us we just clam up, then we keep a 3ft buffer zone around them. Which I think is a disservice to them but with the way sharp is beaten into us it make it seem the we(male soldiers) are going to commit a sharp violation by just saying hello.

The question is a very simple one to answer. When leaders are also the perpetrators, it makes it hard to push downward. Just take a look at 2015, how many leaders have been fired for inappropriate relationships. One of the first things I learned about leadership is that you cannot push a rope. If you want to lead you have get out in front and lead by example. Also, as a leader you have to be above reproach. That is a challenge especially when you consider that male/female attractions are a basic need on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

A few points:
1. A commander has a dual responsibility to both the victim and alleged perpetrator (if a SM). This makes things tricky.
2. SHARP has become too broad and is including very low level harassment claims, it isn't just sexual assaults. The reality is with a lot of harassment claims after you do a thorough and fair investigation there just isn't enough to substantiate it. The substantiated ones their career is ended, but the other ones what can you really do, when the evidence isn't there?
3. If reprisal is occurring the commander should crush it or be relieved.

Easy, because the Army does not want an independent body to evaluate the issue and they rely on the immediate chain of Command. Canada, where I live, has the same exact problem but now they are moving toward an independent commission which is what many victims wish was available. The system is still broken but they are working toward a solution.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-forces-sexual-misconduct-response-team-promises-change-1.3067418

Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of defence staff, called the report disturbing and said the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to work well depends on trust. Lawson told reporters at a press conference Thursday the military has accepted two of Deschamps' 10 recommendations outright and the other eight in principle.

Here are the report's 10 recommendations:

1. Acknowledge that inappropriate sexual conduct is a serious problem that exists in the CAF and undertake to address it.

2. Establish a strategy to effect cultural change to eliminate the sexualized environment and to better integrate women, including by conducting a gender-based analysis of CAF policies.

3. Create an independent centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.

4. Allow members to report incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault to the centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, or simply to request support services without the obligation to trigger a formal complaint process.

5. With the participation of the centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment:

Develop a simple, broad definition of sexual harassment that effectively captures all dimensions of the member's relationship with the CAF.

Develop a definition of adverse personal relationship that specifically addresses relationships between members of different rank, and creates a presumption of an adverse personal relationship where the individuals involved are of different rank, unless the relationship is properly disclosed.

Define sexual assault in the policy as intentional, non-consensual touching of a sexual nature.

Give guidance on the requirement for consent, including by addressing the impact on genuine consent of a number of factors, including intoxication, differences in rank, and the chain of command.

6. With the participation of the centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, develop a unified policy approach to address inappropriate sexual conduct and include as many aspects as possible of inappropriate sexual conduct in a single policy using plain language.

7. Simplify the harassment process by:
■Directing formal complaints to COs acting as adjudicators in a grievance
■Reducing emphasis on ADR.

8. Allow victims of sexual assault to request, with the support of the centre for accountability sexual assault and harassment, transfer of the complaint to civilian authorities; provide information explaining the reasons when transfer is not effected.

9. Assign responsibility for providing, coordinating and monitoring victim support to the centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, including the responsibility for advocating on behalf of victims in the complaint and investigation processes.

10. Assign to the centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, in coordination with other CAF subject matter experts, responsibility for the development of the training curriculum, and the primary responsibility for monitoring training on matters related to inappropriate sexual conduct.

I've seen where the chain of command pushes to have the SHARP complaint resolved quickly, almost to the point of "brushing" the complaint. I have seen undue command influence used against commanders to this end. When this stops, then you'll have an effective SHARP program, and not when you have half of every drill dedicated to SHARP training.

Over the course of my career, I have conducted 6 AR 15-6 investigations over SHARP violation allegations. In every single case, when the truth came out, the alleged perpetrator was innocent and the alleged victim was upset over some perceived slight and filed a BS EO/SHARP complaint in an attempt to damage the career of the guy she got mad at. Not saying SHARP violations don't occur, but until people stop filing bogus accusations any complaint will be viewed with a heavy grain of salt.

Requires a culture change. That does not happen overnight. All the briefs and classes in the world are not the magic bullet for solving this problem. People that do wrong already know it's wrong and continue despite what they are told. Criminals don't obey laws.....duh!

We are stuck in P.C. hell right now so leaders can say "we tried" or can check a block because they honestly have no other realistic answer for this problem.. Bad people are going to continue to do bad things and no posters or AIM cards are going to stop them. It's going to take Soldiers looking after Soldiers and identifying those problem people quickly! It's also going to require non-panic action because honestly many males are afraid to even correct a female now. It might not be right but there is a genuine fear out there.

Sad to say but we've become a PR oriented Army. The line between reality and advertised results in very grey now. As long as there are no red blocks on the Command and Staff slides everything is good to go, right????? lol