Why Our Military Should Consider a Don’t Care, Don’t Trust Policy

2017-05-15T11:21:29-04:00

In 1994, the military implemented a policy called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) that prohibited discrimination and harassment against LGBTQ personnel in the military. DADT was reversed in 2011. With LGBTQ personnel now fully integrated into the military, today we face a different challenge from an erosion of caring. Perhaps today, we should consider a Don’t Care, Don’t Trust (DCDT) policy that addresses the central issue of trust among Soldiers, trust in leaders, and trust in the Army as an institution. A DCDT policy might directly address leaders who don’t genuinely care for or about the soldiers, civilians, and families under their watch.

Have you ever trusted someone or something you didn’t care about? Of course not. Caring is the progenitor of trust. We care about our family and friends and we trust them; well, most of them anyway. We trust our doctors, but do we care about them? You probably should care about them if you want the best care and treatment from them. Although they took a Hippocratic Oath, the human side of them may spend more time with someone they have an emotional connection with. So what does caring have to do with Soldiers, leaders, and the Army as an institution?

Each year, the Army requires all units to take a command climate survey that measures the level of trust amongst Soldiers, trust in leaders and trust in the Army in general. Having completed this survey numerous times and viewed results over the last three decades, I have a few anecdotal observations.

First, trust among Soldiers is built on the “Band of Brothers” concept. If Soldiers don’t care about one another and they act as individuals who are out for themselves, then trust is low. If they build unit cohesion and start to really care about one another, then they look to their left and right and trust that those people will have their backs when the going gets tough. Second, trust in leaders is built on the foundation of leaders caring for and about their soldiers, civilians, and families in their units. If leaders are self-serving and place themselves ahead of those they lead, they are seen as uncaring and untrustworthy. On the other hand, if leaders truly care about their soldiers and look after their soldiers’ interests ahead of their own, they appear to be more genuine, caring, and trustworthy. Finally, for Soldiers to trust the Army as an institution, they must believe that they are being treated fairly and being cared for. When the institution fails, it is because Army leaders fail in caring for others and in applying Army rules, policies, and guidelines fairly and equitably across the ranks. The Army foundation of trust is built with bricks and mortar (caring) and it is only as strong as the degree to which a philosophy of caring permeates the institution.

So, why not consider a Don’t Care, Don’t Trust (DCDT) policy. If you don’t care, why should I trust you?

**
This editorial represents my opinion and does not reflect the views or policies of the United States Army Reserve, the US Army or the Department of Defense.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2017 11:28 AM

2017-05-15T11:28:59-04:00

MG Peter Bosse Holy Cats, sir! This should be military gospel! ESPECIALLY in areas where all leadership seems to do is just make sure the business stays afloat.
I think the AF (I'm sure in other branches, as well, but that's just the one I'm most familiar with) is suffering such staggering retention issues because a vast majority of leadership see themselves as some level of CEO, instead of a military leader. Pilots are leaving by the bushel because they are being sent on administrative TDYs, instead of flying birds. They are being shown that the leadership doesn't care about the mission, or their talent, in this manner.
The most trusted leaders are the ones that show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines are their top priority!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 15 at 2017 11:30 AM

2017-05-15T11:30:09-04:00

Damn right. The only reason I got involved in veterans organizations (VFW and AL) is because I care and you can trust that all I do is for my brothers and sisters who serve/served this nation I love. It took me a while when I was on active duty to learn what I believe are the basic rules of leadership: (1) A good leader is a good teacher. You want things done your way, teach your people how to do them your way (and make sure it's the best way). (2) Your job is to make sure that your subordinates have all they need (training, equipment, supplies, knowledge, etc) to accomplish the mission. (3) Your people will work for you only as hard as you work for them. To be honest, I didn't fully understand this until I was a captain. In other words, I cared, but it took me a while to learn how to care.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made May 15 at 2017 11:31 AM

2017-05-15T11:31:57-04:00

Not sure what, exactly, you are trying to get at here, but the basic notion, I think, is detrimental to good discipline. In most cases it does not matter if you trust your CoC, you must still obey their lawful orders. This hypothetical policy gives even the lowest ranking an excuse for not obeying lawful orders. If a commander, or senior NCO, does not have the trust of their subordinates, then they will not have their loyalty. Eventually it will show in the leader's inability to get anything done.

Response by SGT David T. made May 15 at 2017 11:43 AM

2017-05-15T11:43:00-04:00

I am unsure what the policy is that you are proposing. You do eloquently state how things actually are when leaders don't care. I experienced this first hand in my last unit before I got out. It was pretty clear that my chain of command didn't care, as such I didn't trust them. There were a couple of leaders in the chain that did care but by and far most did not. I did not trust them with my Soldiers' or my lives or anything else for that matter. As such, it became the largest reason I chose to ETS after 9 years of service.

Response by MSG Mark Million made May 15 at 2017 11:57 AM

2017-05-15T11:57:50-04:00

Bottom line, we need to look out for each other. Trust is something in the military that we take for granted, however it seems to be more common these days for that trust be on shaky ground.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made May 15 at 2017 12:14 PM

2017-05-15T12:14:55-04:00

Great post MG Peter Bosse! I agree that the idea of caring and trust go hand-in-hand. We, as humans, rather work with those that have given us the results we want rather than work this those that haven't. That is because they have demonstrated their care towards us and we then trust them again and again. RallyPoint is a great example of that. Here, with over 1.1 million members, we have built a truly caring and trustworthy community. I have seen the results I came here after because people truly care about getting the right information to the right people. I've built a large trust in people like SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" and SSG Carlos Madden. With these two, and many others, I know that if I need something, they have my back and they know I have theirs.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made May 15 at 2017 12:16 PM

2017-05-15T12:16:55-04:00

Sir, good points and I believe this already exists (though not formally). Kind of like the If I trust you I show up and visit with you and your Soldiers; if I don't I show up and inspect the piss out of you and your Soldiers concept.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2017 12:20 PM

2017-05-15T12:20:18-04:00

Being is gay is irrelevant to a job. I was in the military in the 70s. Being gay was a definite no-no. You got an Article 15, you were harassed and discharged. My roommate was gay. We trusted each other as friends. I made allowances and learned a person's proclivities made no difference.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made May 15 at 2017 12:30 PM

2017-05-15T12:30:10-04:00

A true leader could never abide with a "don't care, don't trust" policy for the essence of leadership is service of self making servant leadership axiomatic to all levels. A leader who has followers simply must demonstrate care for them at a level where the subordinates feel it despite that care being largely not vocalized. Dependence on rank to get subordinates to perform their jobs as the sole linchpin of authority guarantees compliance when being watched but those subordinates will not render loyalty during trying times. Lieutenants as the historic leaders of small but still substantial units that engage enemy units in combat have learned the need to inspire devotion from subordinates because their lives depend on the soldiers under their command. A good leader must become the norm because substandard leaders who portray themselves indifferent to their troops become battlefield casualties quickly.

Response by Sgt Tom Curtis made May 15 at 2017 12:30 PM

2017-05-15T12:30:50-04:00

I agree

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2017 1:28 PM

2017-05-15T13:28:00-04:00

I would recommend every leader to read the GOs article and then stay away from it. This is PC bait. You have Army Regulations to follow and enforce. Treat every Soldier with dignity and respect. Once you start to categorize your Soldiers into groupings you will become an easy mark to remove by the very GOs pushing this policy.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2017 1:41 PM

2017-05-15T13:41:20-04:00

MG Peter Bosse, Sir, I absolutely agree that demonstrating care begets trust -- or at the very least is a necessary progenitor in developing trust. What I don't see, however, is a cohesive model for how to instantiate that sense of caring among Army leaders that don't demonstrate it presently. It's one thing to call out caring as the root of the trust problem, but it's something all together different to have a plan of action to bootstrap that in where it isn't currently present. Existing leaders, unless at the earliest points in their career, may already be too far along to effectively change their management style to take the "care" factor fully into consideration. Do you have any thoughts, then, on how to account for that?

As an aside, Sir, I was with the 335th for several years, including deploying with them, nearly a decade ago (~2007-2010), and the lack of feeling like the unit and its leaders gave a damn beyond lip-service really hurt morale for many. I saw quite a few troops decide to leave the Army altogether because of the 335th's leadership style -- one that at the time exhibited the exact problem you spoke about -- and people went so far as to be ashamed to wear the patch. By now, pretty much everyone I once knew has long-since shifted out, but I wonder what your take is on how the unit has changed since.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made May 15 at 2017 1:51 PM

2017-05-15T13:51:20-04:00

Trust and respect is earned, it flows both directions.
If the leader does not trust and respect the subordinate, they will care less or not at all for them.
The same is true for the led to the leader.
When subordinates do conduct them selfs in a manner that fosters "earns" trust and respect, they should take personal responsibility for that lack of "care" from their leadership.

But I was not hurting anyone else, ya I got drunk and arrested for disorderly conduct, but it did not hurt the unit, why does my Coc "hate me and not care about me?"

Lack of self respect and discipline.
Lack of respect from the SM to fellow SM's and the unit that must now cover down on a missing SM who is at legal appointments, court dates, jail time. = less respect and care from the unit to the SM.

Lack of respect for the unit by sitting in the officer dry and warm, sipping coffee and surfing porn while the platoon is in the MP breaking track, in the freezing office without heat and and valid work orders to get it fixed, going down town to eat, taking the TMP van, leaving the company to eat nasty, cold, sandy T Rats the night before moving to the box at NTC..all foster a lack of respect from SM to leadership and yup, they don't care about supporting, helping those unit leaders now.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2017 5:16 PM

2017-05-15T17:16:56-04:00

MG Peter Bosse I would love to serve underneath you. It is your type of thinking and leadership that is a no-nonsense take care of Soldiers and they will take care of you that we need. I recently visited my old company and I told stories of what I remembered most about each of them when I talked to them one-on-one. It was not for the sake of hearing my voice but to share an individual memory with them and show that they truly were and are important and cared about. It is that genuine concern for my Soldiers that I feel helps me lead effectively. Without the genuine concern (they know if you are asking just to ask or asking because you actually care) you are just someone who is distant and unable to relate to your troops and therefore unable to truly assess their abilities and apply them to execute the mission in the most effective and efficient way.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2017 2:54 AM

2017-05-16T02:54:05-04:00

MG Bosse; I would agree with everything you have commented on, however the line of care and trust needs to be across the board. I have noticed in the last few years that upper echelon leaders are failing to care for their Soldiers of a lower capacity. When a leader in the trenches fight for their Soldiers a lot of them are being targeted by their superiors. A lot of military leaders have the "It's not me attitude" and only care about what directly affects them. Toxic leadership is becoming more prevalent across the military due to a lot of failed policies. I remember a time when a SFC could fight for his Soldiers and there was little that could be done to them, however that is changing now and senior NCO's are being disrespected and not valued by the officer appointed over them.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2017 7:11 AM

2017-05-16T07:11:27-04:00

I don't trust command climate surveys to have any influence. They're completely worthless.
A better approach would be to conduct an external evaluation, similar to what we used to do in the field. Won't happen, though, as that would reveal all the holes in the system.

Response by SSgt Estanislado Quiñones made May 18 at 2017 1:45 PM

2017-05-18T13:45:12-04:00

The first thing I can say is that every commander needs to work with the top enlisted to start building a climate for cohesion within the unit. Second you need leadership by example and always being a professional. Unfortunately some units don't have that luxury because accomplishing the mission should be paramount. You accomplish the mission and then you take care of your people. There is no other way around that. If you take care of your men and when the decision comes that you need to send them to war and they need to follow orders and they don't do it,what is going to happen? Are you still going to take care of them? The military is an organization where you have to grow up quick or you are going to get washed out. You are a full grown man/woman or other. If you are doing the right things and learning from you upper ranks and do what you are supposed to be
doing people are going to take care of you but you have to hold up your side of the bargain as well like following regulations, showing up on time to formations, showing a positive attitude, willing to learn and just showing some initiative and motivation. If you are an individual that has all kinds of problems like bouncing checks, always being late fro formations not caring about your job always complaining about everything and bad mouthing you NCO's. They are only going to take care of you for a while and then they are going to cut the strings and send you on your way by counseling you all the time until they force you out.

Response by LCpl Donald Faucett made May 21 at 2017 10:22 AM

2017-05-21T10:22:38-04:00

The ones with shit attitude are prone to friendly fire because broken teams and lack of trust. The recruiting just going for bodies and quotas. Screening recruits could be refined.

Response by SSG Howard Dennard made May 30 at 2017 7:13 AM

2017-05-30T07:13:39-04:00

I believe the true problem started in the mid-'70's when DOD instituted the "management" program for the military. A military unit can not be managed, it must be lead. This management program has lead to the discontent of today's Military. I saw it happening towards the end of my active service, Officers became managers and CEO's with little if any leadership training. The Military must reverse course and return to "Leaders" with a thorough understanding of the term. These leaders must also have the Military training for their positions, a degree in Business Administration does nothing for an Artillery Officer

Response by TSgt Melissa Post made Jun 18 at 2017 11:42 AM

2017-06-18T11:42:12-04:00

So true sir!! And I would recommend not just for the Army but for all branches. I have gone from leadership that didn't give two hoots about all their people just the ones in the good ole boys club to a new unit that seems to genuinely take an interest in their people. However, recently I had the honor to meet one of our few four star generals. I was genuinely excited. This is the leader that I chose to stay under when I cross trained. I came to work prepared to pull a super long shift to come in early the next day for another 12 hour shift, excited to meet someone that high ranking. I waited all day until he showed up and when he got here he shook all of our hands and then left. Nothing else. How anti-climactic was that? I made sure I looked top notch that day, and another Amn said to me "I ironed my uniform for this...". We were both severely disappointed because what this General showed us, whether he meant to or not, was that he didn't really care.

When talking to one of our staff sergeants about it, she said well maybe he was tired. Ok, let's say he was tired. That is still no excuse to not spend a couple of minutes to ask how are things going, do you need anything, or heck give a piece of General wisdom from your twenty plus years of service that will help the younger generation grow. I told her that this is what is expected of him because of his position of not just a General but also our Leader. I also told her that now when I walk past his picture in the hallway, I no longer think "Yes that is my boss" because all I can think is "Yeah, you didn't have time to invest into your Airmen. Not even one minute to spare." Although I know it isn't the right mentality to have I can't seem to help it. After all how many times does an E-4 or below get the opportunity to meet the highest rank in the military? Not very often in my six years experience.

So yes "Don't Care, Don't Trust" should definitely be a new policy all across the board. Because younger ranks need to know that their leaders care about them if the leaders what their followers to trust them. Someone once said "If you want people to care, show them that you do first."

Response by CPT Jim Gillcrist made Jun 22 at 2017 9:20 PM

2017-06-22T21:20:15-04:00

I agree to a point. Trust can be eroded by through uncaring leadership, but caring leadership is not sufficient for trust. Often what is lacking is competence and/or a clear trustworthy cause/mission/purpose or simply the expectation that lying (aka, pencil whipping) is standard procedure and acceptable.

I'm pretty positive my BN command team didn't care about the soldiers under them. However, that would have been only a small problem compared to their incompetence, habitual mission-drift, and their falsifying of Intel and reports.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2017 1:01 PM

2017-06-28T13:01:16-04:00

Interesting Reading

Response by LTC Bill Koski made Jul 12 at 2017 5:28 AM

2017-07-12T05:28:15-04:00

Interesting take on ta king care of Soldiers

Response by SPC John Chambers made Jul 24 at 2017 6:31 PM

2017-07-24T18:31:43-04:00

I had some really good leaders and some really bad leaders. The best leader I ever had was a Platoon Leader who did everything he could to keep us safe in Iraq. He even stuck his own neck and career on the line to make sure we were not "cannon fodder". The worst leader was the exact opposite, put us on a 9-5 schedule like a regular job and left the insurgents plenty of time to set up nice little IEDs for us to run over the following morning. I think the military needs to look at their own history and realize we are not a political organization but a combat organization and politics has never helped us do our jobs.

Response by SPC Jeffrey Moore made Jul 29 at 2017 12:06 PM

2017-07-29T12:06:28-04:00

That's a good question, how can you trust someone you don't care about? And can the person you don't care about trust you? Do you think they REALLY got your six?

Response by Lt Col Daniel McNally made Aug 15 at 2017 11:38 PM

2017-08-15T23:38:59-04:00

The LGBTQ group is a subgroup that works often in secrecy and have issues beyond my comprehension. Best to avoid them.

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Nov 21 at 2017 4:24 PM

2017-11-21T16:24:14-05:00

Maybe I am just stupid, but I really don't get the point of this article. Is this just verbose sarcasm?

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Aug 18 at 2020 4:01 PM

2020-08-18T16:01:06-04:00

Oh My God!!!! Sometimes I wonder if the Army, and military as a whole, has become a social petri dish for the "touchy feely crowd" and forgotten what we are about. The military is an extension of foreign policy to protect our national interest. We, as our nation's warriors, are expected to be ready to kill and demoralize opposing forces and destroy their stuff. Maybe I'm a neanderthal who belongs in another age, but to build warriors and forge them into a "band of brothers" (and sisters) there has to be some crucible event they collectively have to overcome. There can not be "safe places" and other new age dribble.

So forgive me if I am repulsed by another "feel good" idea like this "Don't Care Don't Trust" being bantered about. As a BC when DADT came about I though that policy/program was a band-aid approach to poor leadership from the top down. The Army values found in Gen Abram's LDRSHIP was a good start of correcting the leadership flaws systemic within the service. Tied to those values were the Warrior's Creed and setting standards for performance and conduct. As a BC, I felt every soldiers' eyes on me and knew I was being evaluated by them...but I was not driven by a popularity contest but by a set of principles and ethics drilled into me throughout my career.

For me and many of my peers, the chain of command and NCO chain of communication, were sacrosanct. Yet as I progressed and became a "senior staff officer" I was troubled by the "creeping careerism" at each possessive grade. The alphabet soup programs of DADT, DCDT, etc. are just a symptom where some staff officer or general wanted a bullet point on an evaluation. The problem is that, with every special program/policy, we kept drifting from the "fundamentals of leadership and command" which some of us "old soldiers" were taught by those who were fading away before us. CPT Jack Durish in his response did a good job summarizing those fundamentals.

Bottom line....We do not need any more stinking programs but senior leaders who are out and about making sure both chains (command and communication) are working and standards are met.

Response by PO1 Todd McMillin made Aug 26 at 2021 4:23 PM

2021-08-26T16:23:50-04:00

The fact that this here is why after I got out of the Navy to work for the VA has always been central to my beliefs, morals, and values. Hell, my family's motto says it too: Miseris succurrere disco (I learn to succour the unfortunate) "Not myself being unacquainted with difficulty, I learn to succour the distressed". is the modern translation for helping those less fortunate than ourselves. In fact my family have an ecclesiastical origin with a large number of Chaplains, Medical Providers and Philanthropists; falling from the family tree branches.

So I can totally understand why we need to have all the Military and even the VA engage in a DCDT Policy. There's plenty of folks both in the Military and the VA who are just counting clocks until retirement and should be fired, forced out or mandatory retirement to get rid of the "Dead Weight" they bring to our world in the Military and the VA as well.

In fact the whole Government should be restructured to be this way; to fix the problem of having completely disconnected leadership at the top as major levels of Government across the board. Clearly as the folks in the highest office in the land really never have cared about the Lives of the Military; unless it was for "Political Pawns and Chess Games with the lives of those in uniform, their families and the lives of the American public in general.

In fact there's a reason why I voted for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 Primaries over Biden or Trump because of this very thing. Sanders has said "If You Can't Take Care of Our Veterans, Then Don't Go To War." This has always been his stance as both a Congressman and Senator; as well as a Leading Member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

It's better to have a 'Conscientious Objector' in the Oval Office; who won't go into any unnecessary or needless wars for profit. Rather than any Draft Dodging War Chickens who have no business being our "Commander in Chief" if they're not willing to put themselves or their families in harms way as Military members. They're only interested in fattening portfolios of corporate shareholders of the Military Industrial Complex and Private Mercenary Forces that area a discredit to the members of any military who served.