Why do Senior Leaders feel that making restrictive policies are the solutions to serious problems?

2013-12-22T17:11:37-05:00

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>

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 22 at 2013 6:24 PM

2013-12-22T18:24:04-05:00

I honestly believe that sometimes it makes it worse, as we all know when you tell someone they can't do something they are going to test the waters, so to speak.

I think the leaders come up with it for the CYA purposes along the way.

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Dec 23 at 2013 1:55 AM

2013-12-23T01:55:09-05:00

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>

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Dec 23 at 2013 2:35 AM

2013-12-23T02:35:38-05:00

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2013 3:06 AM

2013-12-23T03:06:20-05:00

I believe over-regulation just leads to more elaborate ways around certain behaviors.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2013 3:37 AM

2013-12-23T03:37:46-05:00

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2013 8:24 AM

2013-12-23T08:24:02-05:00

The army’s reactive nature, nurtures this classic case of “one
does the harm, and another bears the blame.”

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 3:58 PM

2015-10-02T15:58:02-04:00

The attention and feedback for failing to meet the more restrictive guidelines set forth by segmented leadership, as opposed to post regulations, is far less severe than appearing on the blotter for failing to adhere to Post Regulations. While this may seem harsh, it can minimize the negative impact for a soldier who misses the hit time one time.