Integrity

So, I know it's been a while since I blogged, thank you to real-life for making things go upside-down and backwards...
For your reading pleasure, I have transcribed another essay that I wrote as a part of my Army career.

Integrity
Integrity is a word that one hears a great deal about in the Army. In the seven pages that follow, I will attempt to explain not only what integrity is, but also why it is important that members of the Army display this characteristic. Case studies, real and illustrative, will be provided as space allows.
First of all, one must define the value of integrity. The NCO Guide defines integrity as: “your personal set of values. It is the thread that weaves throughout the fabric of the professional Army ethic. Integrity means honesty, uprightness, the avoidance of deception, and steadfast adherence to standards of behavior.” It goes on to explain that, in essence, integrity is doing what is right, even if no-one is looking. The author always finds cliché suspect, and in this case, doubly so. To imply that integrity is possible when superiors are present is so much drivel. Doing the right thing with one’s superiors watching isn’t integrity. It is simply covering one’s own career. The author respectfully submits that integrity should be defined more accurately as “doing what is right because no-one is looking”. This definition implies not only the knowledge that one is trusted, but that one should be actively seeking to earn the trust accorded them. Especially in the Army aviation field, too many pieces are moving, tasks being accomplished, and demands made on maintainers, for every task on every aircraft be monitored by a supervisor at all times. Integrity, then, would mandate that the maintainer, with the knowledge that they are essentially on their own, seek to do every task to the best of their knowledge and ability, for the sole reason that someone, sooner or later, will be relying on their competence and integrity. This is true in aviation, ground maintenance, and support elements.
To illustrate, two illustrations are offered. First, one from an aviation perspective. A maintainer is tasked to replace a link in the ammunition handling system. Within this system, there are certain tolerances. The maintainer in question faces a decision at this point: Do the right thing, and replace the bent or broken carrier with a new carrier, or to simply delete that carrier in the chain by connecting the link before and after the broken one. With the knowledge that the deletion of the bent carrier will most likely not affect the operation of the system, and knowing that a supervisor would have to look quite closely to discover the omission, it is on the soldier to do the ‘right thing’ and replace the carrier, one for one.
But, a look at the possible consequences of the action provides a different outlook. The omission of the carrier could cause the system to have excessive tension. In the best case under these circumstances, this situation would lead to a system that would display error messages frequently, be hard to rotate, and could well cause failsafes within the system to shut it down prematurely. Again, ‘best case’, this could cause a failure during a support mission, when troops in contact would be relying on that fire support. Worst case, on the other hand, presents a very grim picture indeed. Assume that the system continues to work ‘normally’ while short a carrier. This leads to increased wear on parts, including the carriers, carrier guides, cannon, and other parts. Worst case, when the system is actioned in combat, one of the aforementioned parts fails catastrophically, possibly causing not only the failure of the system, but a release of the tension in the chain. This release of tension could conceivably cause a fuel leak, fuel tank rupture, loss of flight control, or even the immediate wounding of the flight crew. All because one maintainer didn’t want to change a carrier. Whether or not the incident could, or would, be traced back to that maintainer, is irrelevant. The point is that the maintainer needs to be aware of the possible consequences of their actions, always.
Second, an example from the support group. A unit is in the field, whether in combat or in garrison is irrelevant. The unit goes out on maneuvers, and the foodservice section is tasked to set up and run a Mobile Kitchen Tent, or MKT. One of the foodservice specialists omits one of the locking pins while setting up the MKT, on the assumption that ‘it’s only one, and it’s not in a critical location anyway’. With a battalion-sized unit in the field, upwards of 400 soldiers will be using that MKT, three times daily. Also, a crew of eight to ten foodservice specialists will be back and forth over that surface for ten to twelve hours in the course of a day. When Army engineers designed that piece of equipment, they indicated that every part of it was important. They designed the MKT so that it would be able to accommodate the above unit size with ease, but only if properly set up. Best case in this situation would see a premature fatigue and failure of the segments around the pin. Worst case, once again, would be a catastrophic failure of the Kitchen Tent, with the best result a lot of hungry troops, and the worst several injured. Once again, this means that it is critical on the part of the individual to have the integrity, the will to do right, not because they ‘could get in trouble’, but because nothing in the Army is taken for granted. The right way is the right way because it keeps soldiers from getting needlessly injured or killed.
Integrity is one of the seven Core Army Values. These are things that sound much like lofty ideals that most soldiers pay little attention to in daily life. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. These are not things that the average soldier will wake up in the morning and say to themselves ‘I want to be all these things today’. They should be, but especially in garrison, most soldiers wake up and say ‘I hope I get off on time so I can go back to doing what I want to do’. What most soldiers don’t realize is that, while the Army Values relate to the major decisions in their lives, most if not all major decisions are made up of small ones, things that they choose every day. Integrity is one of those guiding principles that one either has, of one doesn’t. If one doesn’t, then it cannot be required, no matter what the threat is. The soldier will continue to take their punishments, whether it be loss of privileges, time, money, rank, or whatever punishment is deemed appropriate by their superiors. Conversely, no amount of punishment, tedium, or abuse should be able to shake a soldier’s basic integrity. The soldier must desire, must strive for this value in their daily life.
Having explored both the consequences for lack of integrity, as well as the basic definition of integrity, it is necessary to also discuss what all of the above means to the average soldier, as well as NCOs. Integrity is something that must be striven for at all times, but it is something that is elusive as far as application. Soldiers fail in this value all the time, but unless something comes of it, then they will continue to do what they believe they can get away with. This applies to NCOs as well. If an NCO believes that they can use their rank and privilege to get away with something, and they are not called on it, they will continue to do so.
It is incumbent upon both NCOs and soldiers to not only assess their own actions, but also to bring up to their peers and subordinates observed failings in integrity. If a soldier observes a fellow soldier doing just what is necessary to ‘get by’, rather than doing the right thing, the soldier doing the observing is just as at fault for the lapse in judgment as the soldier lacking in integrity. Integrity is not just about doing the right thing, but standing up for the right thing as well. Sometimes this accountability of soldiers to their peers and chain of command is difficult, as when a soldier gets chastised for something that an NCO does with impunity, sometimes by the very NCO that the soldier is modeling themselves after. In this instance, it is on the soldier to, in a very tactful manner, remind the NCO that the soldier is just following an example. It is therefore the responsibility of all NCOs and soldiers to continually improve themselves, and their understanding of the Army values, both through formal classes like Common Task Training and NCODPs, as well as constant and thorough self-examination of their actions and motives.
If, for instance, an NCO and a soldier are working on a task, and the NCO takes a short-cut that is a ‘gray area’, this encourages the soldier to take the same short-cut, and risks treading outside that gray area into something that is wrong. If that NCO then punishes the soldier for doing the wrong thing, both the soldier and the NCO are failing in integrity. The soldier fails themselves and their NCO by neither asking their NCO for clarification, nor completing the task in the approved manner. The NCO fails by first setting a bad example in job performance, as well as not taking responsibility for their informal teaching of the wrong way to do things. This example shows quite clearly how small decisions make up larger ones. The NCO decided to do something borderline, especially in the presence of a subordinate. The subordinate decided not to question the NCO on their methods. The soldier then decided to use this borderline method without understanding either the pitfalls or possible consequences of such a method. And finally, the NCO chose to ignore their own shortcomings in teaching the soldier, and chastised the soldier for something that the NCO did. At any point in the previous decision tree, a change in decision would have changed the outcome.
The previous is not meant to imply that all NCOs do the wrong thing, nor that soldiers should question every move that an NCO makes. It is also not meant to say that the manual always has the best way to perform a task. What the NCO did is not necessarily wrong, on the face of the matter. They performed a task to the best of their ability. Where they erred was when they did not explain the risks of using that method to the soldier who was working with them. Some tasks in any manual can be improved upon. But changes in job performance should always be measured against the effort required to do the job ‘by the book’. The manual, no matter how time-consuming, should always have a safe and effective method to accomplish a task. It is dependant on the experience of the maintainer to say whether a short-cut risks causing more harm than good.
Everything in the Army is based on integrity, when it comes right down to it. Soldiers and NCOs rely on their chain of command to do the right thing when it comes to not only providing technical expertise, but to do the right thing when it comes to merit and discipline of soldiers. It is the responsibility of the senior leadership to see that their soldiers are properly trained and equipped to do the jobs asked of them, whether it is changing a tire on a vehicle, cooking a meal, or repairing a battle-damaged aircraft. It is also the responsibility of the senior leadership to see that soldiers are properly cared for, be it legal matters, finances, awards, or disciplinary action. The soldiers and junior NCOs are relying on those in senior leadership positions to do the right thing, whether it would be popular or not. No matter how much junior enlisted disagree with a fellow soldier being considered for an award, or early promotion, or even for disciplinary action, these decisions are dependant solely on the leadership’s fair, unbiased judgment of the merit of the soldier or NCO under consideration.
Conversely, it is incumbent upon the enlisted and junior NCOs to make the senior leadership aware of concerns, issues, and merit of their fellow soldiers. If a platoon leader is unaware that a soldier has an issue, then that platoon leader can do nothing to address that issue. In this case, it is on both the platoon leader to make themselves aware of what is occurring in their platoon, as well as the NCOs to ‘up-channel’ their issues and concerns for consideration. Unless issues are broached, they cannot be resolved. Any soldier that hides an issue from their leadership is failing in integrity, and has no recourse if the concern causes other issues that could have been avoided had their initial problem been resolved in a timely manner. While NCOs and leaders must do their best not to set soldiers up for failure, it is not possible for NCOs to be everywhere at once, so it is on the junior soldiers to make their concerns known before they become insurmountable.
Integrity is one of the foundations upon which this Army is built. It is doing the right thing, because no-one is watching, and always, the lowest level is the soldier. NCOs and leaders share the burden of a ‘do-right’ atmosphere, not only through checking on their soldiers, but by setting a ‘do as I do’ example. NCOs were enlisted once, and they are only human, but their goal needs to be a good example for soldiers.