Failure in navy command not death sentence

 

From Johnny Moi

It has been said that failure is not an option for those who command at sea. But, then again, those who do fail are not “broken warships”. The Navy should look at how it treats those who take on the challenge of command but fall from grace – and how others could learn from past mistakes and experiences.

Over the years, I have seen my colleagues in the Navy who did not make it to the end of their command positions. None of them committed treason or sexual assault, ran their ships aground beyond salvage, or suffered collisions that caused lives recklessly.

They did not break any civil laws or navy regulations. But their mistakes cost them the most precious thing a naval officer can aspire to — the confidence of their superiors in their ability to command.

This is about naval officers who took on the challenge of command, but fell from grace in the eyes of their superiors.

As I will put it: “We are treated like broken warships. The navy cannot decide whether to keep us or decommission us, but our presence may be a burden.”

It does not have to be this way.

Those who fail in command positions — having put in much effort to reach the top of their careers — should be treated better by the Navy. This is especially so when mistakes occur from circumstances beyond their control and not through acts of malice or jealousy.

The threat or perceived threat of being relieved for a single mistake leads to timid leadership at all levels.

Timid leadership creates leaders who fear risks and avoid them at all costs, knowing a single error may sink their careers. Before going further to look into someone who falls short in command, let us look into the career path that brought him to command and also the failure that has resulted from the command.

In short, we should investigate the selection process and individual’s history for signs of shortcomings that could be used to improve the selection, training and preparation processes for command.

Most navies simply plan for a commanding officer’s dismissal and move on.

Normally, an investigation is conducted by a board of inquiry, usually led by someone senior to the commander. The results are rarely shared within the Navy and rarely made public.

As a result, valuable learning opportunities are lost, preventing the Navy from becoming a true learning organisation where it matters most.

The suggested approach should be non-criminal. Unintended mistakes should allow for relief or restoration, and include a process that provides counselling, follow-up, and evaluation beyond the chain of command.

Remember, every former commanding officer is a person – with family, friends, colleagues and shipmates who will be curious about what happened. We can start with the acronym “COMMAND”:

• C — Consider “no more harm”: Unless there are criminal charges, the Navy should not eliminate the “show cause” process for non-criminal incidents that would not or do not result in non-judicial punishment or a court-martial for the individual. Once told he no longer has an upward promotion, the former commanding officer can be allowed to retire as soon as possible or begin another tour as a non-commanding officer at sea.
• O — Overhaul the investigation process: The Navy should have a team of well-trained officers prepared to conduct investigations into marine mishaps. Selected officers should be trained to attend formal mishap investigation programmes led by a Navy Safety Centre, the Coast Guard of well-known countries, and other similar entities in the world’s navies.
• M — Mental health counselling: Any commanding officer who is relieved of command will likely suffer from depression and feelings of guilt, shame, loneliness, and even grief. Sadly, most former commanding officers have had to seek help on their own. Mental health counselling must be facilitated.
• M — Mental health counselling for the family: Often, this is forgotten. The officer’s family is part of the Navy family. They will have challenges adjusting to the relief of command of their husband or father or both. The relief will likely play out in the news, meaning that the former commanding officer’s failures become public knowledge and will stay with them forever.
• A — Assistance of professional legal counsel: Dismissal affects an officer’s livelihood. More should be done to explain the process, the rights and the outcomes. These individuals deserve good legal assistance and this area must be looked into seriously.
• N — Nurture the overall process: The overall process (relief of command and show cause) should be more humane and structured, and include a process of appeal.
• D — Develop leverage from their experience: There are always learning opportunities in mistakes. Establish a process to capture these lessons and communicate them. Many relieved commanding officers built a career serving others, allowing them to use their unfortunate circumstances to help others.

Relieving commanding officers will always be challenging and we should not sail away from them.

As one First Sea Lord said about a commanding officer who experienced a minor collision at sea in an exercise with friendly navies: “You became a better naval officer today.”

On the “broken warships” analogy, we should insist on commending “proven warships” and if they suffer minor damage, we should get them repaired and put them back to service. This will be in order and the right thing to do in any command situation. - FMT

Johnny Moi is a former naval officer with the Royal Malaysian Navy.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.