Posted on May 15, 2017
Why Our Military Should Consider a Don’t Care, Don’t Trust Policy
47.8K
233
36
73
73
0
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.
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.
Leadership
Service
Teamwork
Policy
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 28
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MG Peter Bosse
That's why the Army wants leaders of character, competence, commitment and I believe Caring!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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."
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."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Shane Couch
MSG Mark Million do you think that some MOS tend to lend less trust/caring within a unit? Like an infantry unit for example, they are constantly performing training exercises and building the bond between each other. Admin or Supply positions not so much in field exercises or trust building functions. This is just me guessing. I was a Motor Transport Operator, that was lucky enough to be stationed with 2 units that did participate in a lot of training and field exercises and I feel that brought our platoon very close and even close with other MOS's throughout the Company and even Battalion.
(0)
(0)
MSG Mark Million
I would definitely say that those whose job relies on trust and looking out for each other share a tighter bond. If soldiers don't trust their medics, the unit suffers efficiency due to lack of trust and confidence that they will be taken care of if things go bad. If infantry soldiers lack trust in each other, they can't operate effectively. If soldiers don't trust leadership, the unit suffers. For certain jobs, trust reflects life and is held in higher regard.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Maybe I am just stupid, but I really don't get the point of this article. Is this just verbose sarcasm?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The LGBTQ group is a subgroup that works often in secrecy and have issues beyond my comprehension. Best to avoid them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google