# "Never Pass a Lie" and other moral/ethical scenarios



## Rifleman62 (5 Aug 2013)

> I intend to brief my NCOs that we may not have wanted this, but now we have it and they'll get on the pips and crowns bus with the rest of The Army



A lesson I learned a very long time ago was to always give orders (instructions) as if there were your own.  No crutches.

The other very important lesson was to never BS the troops about anything. If you don't know say so, find out, confirm then pass on the info. Once you lose your credibility, you may never get it back.


----------



## FJAG (5 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A lesson I learned a very long time ago was to always give orders (instructions) as if there were your own.  No crutches.
> 
> The other very important lesson was to never BS the troops about anything. If you don't know say so, find out, confirm then pass on the info. Once you lose your credibility, you may never get it back.



 X 2 :goodpost:


----------



## pbi (6 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A lesson I learned a very long time ago was to always give orders (instructions) as if there were your own.  No crutches.
> 
> The other very important lesson was to never BS the troops about anything. If you don't know say so, find out, confirm then pass on the info. Once you lose your credibility, you may never get it back.



Agree 100% with the second part: Canadian soldiers have a great ability to sort to detect BS and insincerity.

On the second part, I don't think it's 100% accurate: explaining higher commander's intent is important if we want mission command to work properly. So, it's not wrong to say "the CO wants to do "X", etc.  "Crutch" is when you present unpleasant orders in an apologetic halfhearted way, trying to distance yourself from them. Don't be surprised if you get halfhearted execution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> Agree 100% with the second part: Canadian soldiers have a great ability to sort to detect BS and insincerity.
> 
> On the second part, I don't think it's 100% accurate: explaining higher commander's intent is important if we want mission command to work properly. So, it's not wrong to say "the CO wants to do "X", etc.  "Crutch" is when you present unpleasant orders in an apologetic halfhearted way, trying to distance yourself from them. Don't be surprised if you get halfhearted execution.




We, and I assume this applies to Rifleman62, too, were taught one simple concept: loyalty is a two way street. We were meant to be equally loyal "up" and "down," to our superiors and our subordinates. The simple way to do this, as a junior NCO or subaltern officer was, as we were taught, to make each order - especially the unpopular ones - your own. We were told to never say, "the CSM wants us to ___task____," we aid, instead, "it's time to ____task____ and we're going to do it." Equally, we did not say, "the OC isn't happy with our fitness levels so we're going to do extra PT," we said, instead, "we're no as fit as we should be so I'm leading extra PT until we're all at the necessary standard."

It may seem like a small thing but in our day it was pretty important.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> we said, instead, "_*we're no as fit as we should be * _ so I'm leading extra PT until we're all at the necessary standard."



I never knew you were Scottish...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I never knew you were Scottish...




_Arrrrrgh!_  :-[


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Arrrrrgh!_  :-[



One recovered Scot at a time....  >

You're next Paterson.


----------



## pbi (7 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We, and I assume this applies to Rifleman62, too, were taught one simple concept: loyalty is a two way street...It may seem like a small thing but in our day it was pretty important.



Agree fully. However, I don't see where explaining a superior's intent necessarily undermines loyalty. (Assuming it isn't accompanied by distorted facial expressions, tone of voice and gestures...) I would say that demonstrating an understanding of your boss's intent actually reinforces loyalty.


----------



## ballz (7 Aug 2013)

I would say you've done your boss a disservice when you "pass the buck." Don't use the fact that its your boss's orders as a scapegoat. If the boss gave you a task to complete that you thought was unfair/stupid/(insert gripe here) and you had a problem with it, you should have brought your concerns forward to him. If you didn't have the courage to speak up, then you're a coward and disloyal to then turn around and go to your troops and say "hey, I don't want this but the boss is making us do it." Once you've taken that task from the boss, it is now your task and your orders, so go and own it.

Just my 2 cents on that, it is a very weak display to see someone pass the buck like that...


WRT explaining this whole rank thing to subordinates, I think there is an awful lot of thought being put behind something that isn't that important. They're not stupid, they know it came from Ottawa, a line of BS won't fool them but letting them know whether I/you/they/we like it or not is irrelevant. They will probably gripe about it for a bit (just as we all have here) and that's harmless. In the end, it will be adopted, accepted, become normal, and the sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west every day.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2013)

Seeing as how we have drifted into "moral dilemmas":

What is the DS solution when you are ordered to lie to your troops?

Some decades ago I was designated OPI for an unpopular tasking from Brigade.  Everyone passed it down the juniorest subby - ici.   The juniorest subby was told that if he told his troops what the real tasking was (supporting a Boy Scout jamboree by putting up Bell Tents) then nobody would show up.  Therefore tell them that it was a range day......

Needless to say by the time the subby had been tasked the whole armoury knew the nature of tasking.

Fast forward to last parade and dismissal - troops told by subby to show up on Saturday - troop sticks hand up and asks the nature of the task - CSM lurking in the doorway of the Coy Office intones "Go ahead, Sir.  Tell them".....


----------



## PanaEng (7 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Seeing as how we have drifted into "moral dilemmas":
> 
> What is the DS solution when you are ordered to lie to your troops?
> 
> ...


The cowards set you up. Maybe as a test - you must have passed I assume.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2013)

Well there wasn't much of a turn-out for the Boy Scouts.....but I kept my self-respect.


----------



## pbi (8 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Seeing as how we have drifted into "moral dilemmas":
> 
> What is the DS solution when you are ordered to lie to your troops?



If I hadn't experienced some of this kind of moronic, shortsighted behaviour myself, I wouldn't believe that anybody could be so stupid as to underestimate Canadian soldiers in this way.

Can you lie to the troops? Yes, of course.

Once.

This unhealthy desire to make unpleasant reality go away, regardless of the longer-term effects, can appear in different forms.

I recall during my tour as a unit RSS officer that the District COS returned the unit's Change of Command BofI report to me, expressing concern that it aired a bit too much dirty laundry. (It was a very blunt, accurate and complete summary of the state of the unit. And, I'm pretty sure, it wouldn't have been too different from many other Reserve units of the day, truth be told.)

As I listened to the COS express specific concerns to me on the phone, a realization crept over me as to what it was that District was really asking. I asked the COS "_So, sir, do you want me to change the BoFI?_" He quickly replied along the lines of "_Oh, my goodness, no, not at all, no,no,no...just have another look"._

I got the real message, quite clearly.

Being a coward, I threw the BofI report into my bottom drawer and left it there for a month or so. Then I mailed it back to District again, unedited. I never heard any more about it. This is not the only time that I was aware of people trying to make nasty things vanish. The desire for serenity and "smooth sailing" can sometimes overcome integrity and the courage to talk openly about what's wrong.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2013)

Interesting commentary on putting the best foot forward. Contrary to popular belief, the senior folks are not unaware that they are lied too far too often re the state of affairs. It must be frustrating but perhaps the culture works all the way up the chain of management. Some of you may reall the testimony of the Deputy Commander, Land Forces Command to the Somalia inquiry in which he said that the policy was to not bring bad news to the attention of the Commander, Land Forces Command as it made him feel bad. With that sort of attitude was there any wonder that things went horribly wrong 20 years ago?

Edit for clarity.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2013)

Good discussion on "what if?" and loyalty up/down - I'm breaking this off to keep it separate from the Royal/UK-ization/buttons & bows thread.

Please continue ....

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (8 Aug 2013)

To echo what many have said, loyalty is something that goes up and down.  If you lie in any direction then your credibility as a soldier and/or a leader is gone and you may never get it back.

When it comes to passing on an undesirable task or direction it's just like receiving orders I found.  You take the information the soldiers need to know and pass that on leaving the extra "not required" information back.  Your subordinates don't have to know the intimate details of how you disagreed with the CO or that you think the task is BS, they just need to know that you and they will carry on with the direction to the best of your abilities.  More often than not they will sense and figure out if you weren't on board with the direction, but regardless professional conduct has to take priority.

Like I said, most have already stated the points above, I just wanted to weigh in that I feel the same way.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Aug 2013)

I very much like this piece, which I used as a handout on a leaders safety course I ran for years. It is quote (Canadianized and first sentenced added cause it was a safety course!) taken from a Harold Coyle book.

THE CHALLENGE OF LEADERSHIP

Complacency and monotony inevitably lead to inattentiveness.  Inattentiveness inevitably leads to mistakes.  And mistakes in combat create what After Action reports sometimes wistfully refer to as "situations".

Being a leader does not make one immune to the stress or anxiety an incident can generate.  If anything, the rank and position a leader holds tends to magnify such feelings.  Unlike a rifleman, a leader is expected by those who follow him to lead them through each and every incident safely.  In and of itself, this is an awesome responsibility, one that few people care to take on, and even fewer are truly prepared for.  Yet this is not the only burden that a leader must carry with him.  By virtue of his appointment, a leader is also saddled with the responsibility of accomplishing tasks handed down to him by higher authority.  All too often these goals are in conflict.  For instance, each soldier has simple choices to make, and then only in response to orders.  In a crisis, each soldier, regardless of how professional or well trained he is, always has an option.  Either he follows the orders that have been handed down to him and sallies forth, or he opts to place self-preservation over duty, honour and country.  Like the simple computer binary coding, this equation is little more than a yes or no proposition.  What drives a man to risk life and limb is frequently determined by the trust that he has in the leader who is there, with him, issuing the order and sharing the risks.

Leaders, on the other hand, are not only charged with doing the telling, they must generate the conditions that will motivate a soldier to execute that order.  It has always been that way, and so long as nations place the flower of their youth in harm's way, it always will be.  Leaders will have to initiate action by issuing sound, coherent orders.  They will need to motivate their soldiers to carry out those actions by using a combination of encouragement, threats and personal example.  Finally, the leader, be he officer, WO, or NCO, or simply the first guy to stand up and start something, will have to oversee the actions he put into motion.  And, since action can, and usually does, lead to a new, and sometimes unpredictable response by the opposition, the leader is faced with having to make new decisions, often before his previous one is carried through to completion.  Thus, even the simple, rather straightforward situation, is able to generate a level of stress that would unnerve an average person.  Yet leaders are expected to deal with these sorts of situations again and again.  Day in and day out, they are required to push aside whatever personal fears they harbor or self-doubts that burden them, and lead.  Needless to say, they must find a way of dealing with the stress and strains their decisions leave in their wake.


As quoted in God's Children
		   by Harold Coyle


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Well there wasn't much of a turn-out for the Boy Scouts.....but I kept my self-respect.



It always nice to reninded that in the Reserves when subordinates are tasked by the CO, they have an option to turn-out or up.  Dedication and commitment to leadership shows loyalty (as well as a chance to earn the Queen's pay), while hanging the old man out to dry for the sake of keeping face (self-respect) is short-sighted.  One day that could be you making a commitment to a community organization (as the CO) and your subbies use it (like you did) as a chance to be-friend the troops rather than lead them.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (8 Aug 2013)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> It always nice to reninded that in the Reserves when subordinates are tasked by the CO, they have an option to turn-out or up.  Dedication and commitment to leadership shows loyalty (as well as a chance to earn the Queen's pay), while hanging the old man out to dry for the sake of keeping face (self-respect) is short-sighted.  One day that could be you making a commitment to a community organization (as the CO) and your subbies use it (like you did) as a chance to be-friend the troops rather than lead them.


I didn't take Kirkhill's example of him be-friending the troops, I understood it that he didn't lie to them.  Honesty and integrity are vital to the job, and lying to your soldiers so that you can get a better turn-out at a community event tasking is no way to operate in the CAF.


----------



## ballz (8 Aug 2013)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> It always nice to reninded that in the Reserves when subordinates are tasked by the CO, they have an option to turn-out or up.  Dedication and commitment to leadership shows loyalty (as well as a chance to earn the Queen's pay), while hanging the old man out to dry for the sake of keeping face (self-respect) is short-sighted.  One day that could be you making a commitment to a community organization (as the CO) and your subbies use it (like you did) as a chance to be-friend the troops rather than lead them.



I take it you are of the opinion he should have told a blatant lie to the troops as the CO directed then?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Aug 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> I take it you are of the opinion he should have told a blatant lie to the troops as the CO directed then?



In fairness to the CO, the man that both put me forward for my commission and put me in my position in front of those troops, he personally never ordered me to lie.  The message came down through the Chain of Command.  At the time I was a MITCP officer and this was part of the OJT.  The order came from my supervising Senior Subaltern - verbally.

I remember wondering at the time, given that this was a Brigade tasking, how it was that I was the only officer on parade with his troops telling them to show up.   Everyone else seemed to have absconded to the mess early that evening.

A Coy, Unit or even Bde Parade (at least armoury parade) addressed by the appropriate level of command might have encouraged a larger turnout.

As it was the tasking was honoured.  I got a half-platoon turnout (ie most of the troops I addressed that evening).  I made a hash of the actual support but work was done on behalf of the Brigade for the Scouts.

Honestly, I put this point forward to highlight my personal sense that there are many instances where there are no DS solutions.  Leadership generates many opportunities to find out what you are made of.  I have come the conclusion that most, if not all, the decisions I have ever made have been the wrong ones.  At least judging from the advice I got after the fact.....  :nod:

Just one other point on Leadership:  I have never considered myself a leader - no doubt many would agree with that assessment - I prefer to work independently and be responsible for my own actions.    Having said that, there have been many occasions through my life and careers where I have had reason to turn around and find myself staring into a group of faces that have decided to follow me.....


----------



## ballz (8 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In fairness to the CO, the man that both put me forward for my commission and put me in my position in front of those troops, he personally never ordered me to lie.  The message came down through the Chain of Command.  At the time I was a MITCP officer and this was part of the OJT.  The order came from my supervising Senior Subaltern - verbally.



So it never came down from your CoC then. Your senior subbie, who is not your CoC (unless he was your OC. which would probably be a first), just gave you some very poor advice, which you decided not to take (good on you).

I see no moral delimma here, the CoC never told you / suggested to you to lie. You had a task that would be hard to get a turnout for. The senior sub offered some poor advice and you didn't follow it. You accomplished the task in an honest manner, no disloyalty to the CoC or dishonesty to the troops required...


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Aug 2013)

If setting up Boy Scout tents presents a dilemma for the troops, how excited will they be when tasked to fight fires in an artillery range impact area.  I don't think you ever need to lie to troops and as has been stated, no lie in the military is unfounded for long.  You can never be a leader without followers, whether they are willing or curious, it is your job to execute the task, not be their friend or entertainer.  It is amazing what troops will do for an enthusiastic, respected leader without more than the normal amount of complaining.  Likewise it nto unusual for a cam net and poles to fall and bounce several times on a poor leader.  Sometimes we confuse self-respect for self-esteem:  "To esteem anything is to evaluate it positively and hold it in high regard, but evaluation gets us into trouble because while we sometimes win, we also sometimes lose. To respect something, on the other hand, is to accept it." http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/self-esteem-vs-self-respect


----------



## pbi (9 Aug 2013)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> If setting up Boy Scout tents presents a dilemma for the troops, how excited will they be when tasked to fight fires in an artillery range impact area.  I don't think you ever need to lie to troops and as has been stated, no lie in the military is unfounded for long.  You can never be a leader without followers, whether they are willing or curious, it is your job to execute the task, not be their friend or entertainer.  It is amazing what troops will do for an enthusiastic, respected leader without more than the normal amount of complaining.  Likewise it nto unusual for a cam net and poles to fall and bounce several times on a poor leader.  Sometimes we confuse self-respect for self-esteem:  "To esteem anything is to evaluate it positively and hold it in high regard, but evaluation gets us into trouble because while we sometimes win, we also sometimes lose. To respect something, on the other hand, is to accept it." http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/self-esteem-vs-self-respect


I'm a bit confused by your reasoning, between your two posts. Surely you're having us on, right? You don't really believe that lying to the troops was the way to handle an unpleasant job? I mean, you say: 





> I don't think you ever need to lie to troops and as has been stated, no lie in the military is unfounded for long.



OK: I'm with you 100%, although this isn't what I got out of your earlier post.  But then you say: 





> Likewise it nto unusual for a cam net and poles to fall and bounce several times on a poor leader.



In my experience as a soldier, NCO and officer, this type of "punishment" happens most often to people who have demonstrated a lack of integrity and respect in their dealings with their troops. So, isn't this a possible result of lying in the first place?

I don't understand what this next phrase means: 





> Sometimes we confuse self-respect for self-esteem:  "To esteem anything is to evaluate it positively and hold it in high regard, but evaluation gets us into trouble because while we sometimes win, we also sometimes lose. To respect something, on the other hand, is to accept it.



Can you expand a bit on this? I don't understand "respect" as being mere "acceptance". I have "accepted" all sorts of idiots because I couldn't do anything about them. I don't think this meant that I "respected" them.

Cheers


----------



## Pusser (9 Aug 2013)

I'm really confused as to why anyone would see the need to lie or sugar-coat the truth in this scenario.  As long as setting up tents for scouts has been properly approved as a community support activity (and, yes this can be legitimately done), I really don't see how anyone could object to it or feel it is beneath them.  Soldiers, sailors and air people are tasked to do many things that are not strictly in line with their occupation specifications (except for that one that says, "other duties as required").  Some are less pleasant than others.  Personally, I would happily set up tents rather than clean latrines (although as a young sailor I would volunteer to clean the heads because the tools I was allowed to use made it the easier job - allowed to use mops and a hose in an era when decks were scrubbed by hand).  When I was a young reservist, I would have jumped at the opportunity for an extra day's pay, not caring a whit about the job itself.  As a general rule, it would likely have also involved a little socializing with my buds afterwards.  Win win.


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Aug 2013)

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused
> 
> OK: I'm with you 100%, although this isn't what I got out of your earlier post.
> 
> I don't understand



pbi,

This all I am getting from your post.  

You are confused, but you are with me 100% but you don't understand! 

 So no, I am not sure I can explain at least until I have sobered up enough to make sense of my posts and your askance for clarity!


----------

