I came to believe that a leader isn’t good because they are right; they’re good because they’re willing to learn and to trust.
—STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL1
During preparations for the US-led coalition attack into Iraq in February 1991, then lieutenant general Fred Franks, the Seventh Corps commander, launched into a detailed and passionate explanation of the corps’ attack plan to one of the units assigned to his command. General Franks felt it was imperative that everyone understand the mission and why he had chosen this concept of operation. As he wrapped up the presentation, Franks asked if there were questions. A noncommissioned officer (NCO) jumped in and said these simple words: “Don’t worry, General, we trust you.”
In that brief instant, that NCO illustrated the essence of what we seek when we are in command or in a leadership position. This soldier placed unwavering confidence in his commander from the essential trust built and fostered over time, and without that trust, the mission would crumble.
From years of leadership experience, we assert that trust is the most important element of effective leadership. The soldiers’ trust of their commander, General Franks, facilitated a historic victory for Seventh Corps during the ground war of Desert Storm.
It may seem obvious that trust is essential in war. But think about your best supervisor or manager and your worst supervisor or manager in your work experience. How would you describe your trust of each? How important is trust in your working relationships? If you are a supervisor or manager, do you think your subordinates trust you? What is trust, exactly? What happens when a bond of trust is broken? And can it be restored? Can I learn to be more trustworthy by understanding the elements of trust?
Psychologists have studied trust extensively, and leaders have learned a great deal about trust based on their experiences in leading and influencing others in military, corporate, and other settings. We believe that trust is an essential personal and leader attribute. It is hard to imagine any setting where humans may operate effectively without trust. Nevertheless, it seems that trust is under assault by politicians and others who believe they can achieve their goals by undermining trust in the media, the justice system, education, and other institutions. Social media does not help. People are prone to believe what they see, read, or hear on social media. News that does not support one’s views is dismissed as “fake news.” People do not vaccinate their children because they believe (without supporting evidence) that vaccinations cause autism or are a government plot to control their minds. Intentionally or not, once esteemed institutions are under attack with the net effect of an erosion of trust.
Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, in his book Radical Inclusion, discusses what he calls the “digital echo.” He maintains that social media have enabled anyone to post an idea regardless of how true it is. What matters is not the truth, but rather how many views or “likes” the post generates. And if views and “likes” are more important than truth, then truth no longer matters. When truth is distorted, then trust evaporates. This occurs daily and is a threat to trust that we should guard against.2
What may be the long-term impact of this erosion of trust? If law enforcement and the court system are not trusted and are viewed as illegitimate, people may not feel compelled to obey the law. If all news is fake news, then people make decisions on their personal biases and prejudices rather than on an analysis of facts. The movement to not vaccinate children is especially troubling. Measles, essentially eradicated, is once again on the rise. In Rockland County, New York, just outside New York City, 25 percent of children are unvaccinated.3 The result has been a resurgence of the disease, so bad that the county issued a ban against unvaccinated children visiting public places. If people don’t trust measles vaccinations, what about polio?
Trust is a relationship between two or more individuals characterized by the expectation that the other will behave in ways that are mutually beneficial. Digging in a bit more deeply, trust has two elements. First, trust requires predictability, that each person in the relationship will behave in consistent ways. Trust evaporates when predictability and consistency disappear. The spouse who cheats on his or her partner, even once, may never be trusted again. Second, trust involves risk. You expect the trusted person to do the right thing, but if the person does not, negative consequences may follow. A police officer trusts her partner to cover her while she conducts a vehicle search. If the partner fails to do so, the suspect may assault the officer or flee. Violations of trust have a cost.4
Trust is especially critical in dangerous contexts such as the military and law enforcement. Studying and understanding trust in these contexts not only aids in educating, training, and developing better soldiers and law enforcement officers, but also informs us how trust works in other contexts.
An especially intriguing field study of trust was conducted by military psychologist Patrick J. Sweeney. Sweeney (a lieutenant colonel at the time) was in graduate school pursuing his doctorate in social psychology when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Although Sweeney was slated for assignment to West Point to teach psychology and leadership upon completion of his doctoral studies, General David Petraeus (a major general at the time) asked him to suspend his graduate studies and assist in the initial military operations in Iraq in March of 2003. After agreeing to this request, Sweeney quickly designed a study that allowed him to conduct research on trust among soldiers in combat.
Sweeney devised a set of surveys and administered them to officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted soldiers during combat operations. It is an understatement to say that this methodology had high external validity. Following his stint in the war, Sweeney returned to his graduate studies, spent several months analyzing the data he had collected in Iraq, and successfully completed and defended his dissertation. We suspect that the University of North Carolina, where Sweeney obtained his doctorate in social psychology, had never seen a dissertation of this sort!
The results of Sweeney’s research were enlightening. He found three factors central to trust by soldiers in their leaders. Sweeney calls these factors the three C’s of trust: competence, character, and caring.5 First and foremost, to be trusted, leaders must be viewed by their soldiers as competent. The leaders had to demonstrate to their subordinates that they possessed the knowledge and skills needed to get the job done. Incompetence could result in unnecessary deaths or injury to soldiers.
The second C, character, is also necessary to form bonds of trust. The Army espouses seven basic values that it believes are the essential ingredients of character. These are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Stemming from hundreds of years of military experience and culture, these values map directly to the strengths of the head, heart, and gut discussed already in this book. Sweeney found that competence is necessary but is not sufficient to engender trust. High character is also critical. A skilled and competent leader who is disloyal, shirks duty, is disrespectful, and so forth is simply not trusted by his or her soldiers. If you fail in character, you fail in leadership because you lose the trust of your subordinates and your superiors.
Sweeney’s third C of trust is a sense of genuine caring for the welfare of soldiers. Caring does not mean blindly catering to the whims of individuals, but rather a clear and heartfelt commitment to doing the right thing for the soldiers, under trying circumstances. A caring leader shows empathy, shares risk with his or her soldiers, and stands with his or her soldiers in the face of daunting challenges. In the direst case, the caring leader ensures that a soldier killed in action is treated with utmost respect, his or her remains retrieved and sent home, and the soldier’s family supported and consoled.
Sweeney emphasizes that each of the three C’s is necessary for trust, but none by itself is sufficient. Soldiers assigned to units led by officers and senior noncommissioned officers who exemplified competence, character, and caring were ultimately more effective. Morale was higher, and soldiers were more willing to give their all to complete assigned missions.
A significant engagement during the Battle of Gettysburg illustrates the timeless nature of the three C’s. As you read about this engagement, think to yourself how and where competence, character, and caring contributed to the successful completion of the battle. Also consider how these characteristics might apply in your own situation.
On July 1, 2, and 3, 1863, in the Battle of Gettysburg the Union persevered, defeating for the first time in two years a seemingly invincible Confederate Army. Among the units in the battle was the well-ordered Minnesota regiment commanded by Colonel William Colvill. Colvill’s corps commander, General Winfield Scott Hancock, saw that a massed Confederate attack toward the center of the Union line was gaining momentum, forcing a retreat by the Union line. Recognizing the potential disaster, Hancock ordered William Colvill to attack the Confederate line, knowing the deadly outcome that faced the Minnesotans. Colvill, fully aware of his impending fate and that of his men, complied with the order. The soldiers, knowing what was about to happen to them, dutifully obeyed the orders of their commander and attacked the Confederates, buying the time necessary to reorder the Union line. Although successful, the Minnesotans suffered catastrophic losses, with more than 80 percent of the regiment killed in the attack. This costly but successful move was an incredible example of duty, loyalty, and trust.
Neither side during these three days of battle showed any shortage of valor and courage. One of the more renowned and historic engagements occurred on the afternoon of the second day at Little Round Top, which was the leftmost flank of the Union line.
Confederate general Robert E. Lee ordered his corps commander James Longstreet to attack the Union forces on the left flank, directly in the path of Little Round Top. Adding to the complexity of the battle, Union general Daniel Sickles, who was in a mutually supporting position to the right of Little Round Top, had moved his forces forward in an attempt to occupy higher ground, leaving the forces on the Union left flank on their own and defenseless.
As Longstreet prepared to attack, the Union’s senior engineer, Brigadier General Gouverneur Warren, was sent to reconnoiter the key terrain on the left flank of the Union line. Recognizing Longstreet’s impending attack, and seeing no Union forces on this critical terrain, he immediately summoned troops to defend Little Round Top. Union brigade commander Colonel Strong Vincent ordered his forces to occupy Little Round Top, with the Twentieth Maine Regiment on the extreme left of the line. He ordered the Twentieth, “Hold that ground at all hazards.”
The Twentieth was commanded by Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, a former professor from Bowdoin College, who was revered and loved by his troops. Chamberlain moved his men into position just in time to repel General Longstreet’s attack, led by the Fifteenth Alabama Regiment. The Confederates attacked again and again and were repelled again and again.
As the Fifteenth regrouped to prepare for one more attack, Chamberlain gathered his leaders to assess his own regiment’s situation. He found significant casualties, with the regiment nearly out of ammunition. Under these conditions almost any other commander would have ordered a withdrawal. But Chamberlain, remembering Colonel Vincent’s order to “Hold that ground at all hazards,” refused to consider withdrawing at such a critical time. Instead, Chamberlain ordered the remaining men in the regiment to “fix bayonets” and prepare to assault the Confederates down the hill.
The order to “fix bayonets” meant hand-to-hand combat, and certain injury and death. One can only imagine what went through the soldiers’ minds when they received the order. This is where trust between commander and soldiers truly mattered. Disregarding their own safety, they prepared to execute the commander’s order. In the absence of such trust, they would never have followed such a life-threatening command.
How did Chamberlain create such a trusting relationship with his troops? Chamberlain was always with his men, regardless of the conditions. He shared hardships and always led from the front. Before Gettysburg, he was given the remnants of another Maine regiment, in which a number of the troops had been arrested for mutiny, and ordered to shoot the mutineers if necessary. Rather than treating them as “excess baggage,” Chamberlain talked to them, reasoned with them, cared for them, and convinced them to fight with the Twentieth Maine. Given a leader of his caliber, you can see why his men revered and trusted him. That trust made the Twentieth Maine victorious against tremendous odds, helping the Union persevere through day two of Gettysburg and to fight and ultimately win at the end of day three. Chamberlain’s competence, his irreproachable character, and his genuine caring love for his soldiers enabled him to win the day.
Most of us work in jobs that are important, stressful, and demanding. It may be useful to reflect, from your own experience, on the validity of Sweeney’s three C’s in your own work experience. Do your leaders or managers possess and exemplify competence, character, and caring? What is the effect on your performance or morale if one or more of the C’s is absent? Were you satisfied to work for a leader who was competent, but who lacked character and/or did not express genuine concern for your well-being? Perhaps most important, what can you do to build your own three C’s?
Another factor critical to trust is communication—it may be thought of as the fourth C. Effective communication is a prerequisite for building and sustaining trust. And it is not one-directional. Lasting and rewarding relationships of all types depend on regular and honest communication. Marriages are hinged on lateral communication. Each partner must communicate with the other and listen to the other as well. One-way communication is a recipe for divorce court.
When Chamberlain was given the remnants of the other Maine regiment consisting of mutinous soldiers with morale as low as one can imagine, he communicated genuine respect, love, and purpose. Because of his communication skills, these men went from mutinous, disobedient soldiers, to men who agreed to put their lives at risk fighting with their fellow Mainers. Their morale and commitment were transforming and only occurred when their leader, Chamberlain, demonstrated caring leadership and did so by communicating respect and purpose.
In organizational settings, vertical communication is also critical. Workers must communicate clearly with coworkers and also with their managers and subordinates. This is particularly true in high-risk occupations, where members of a team must be clear and timely in their verbal interactions with team members in tactical situations. Watch a few episodes of Live PD and observe how law enforcement officers communicate with each other as well as with suspects in dangerous situations. In less dramatic work settings, written communication helps employees form a common operating picture of the work to be done.
General Caslen once watched a team-building activity called the mousetrap exercise, in which one person was blindfolded and had to navigate his hand through a minefield of mousetraps on a tabletop via the voice commands of his teammate. Knowing the pain of responding to a bad or misunderstood verbal command, the blindfolded teammate had to place complete trust in his teammate’s communication skills. Successful verbal commands resulted in a safe and nonpainful completion of the task. The goal of this exercise was to convey the importance of communication in building trust.
Failure to communicate may have immediate negative impacts on task and mission and, in the long run, erodes trust. Perhaps this fourth C may be considered part of competence, one of the three C’s identified by Sweeney. Wherever you classify it, a member of a team who does not communicate clearly both laterally and vertically puts others at risk and over time becomes less trusted.
General Caslen also observed the importance of communication on building trust while serving as an observer-controller at the Army’s Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), near Leesville, Louisiana, at Fort Polk. The mission of JRTC is to allow units that are about to deploy to combat zones the opportunity to practice skills in a realistic setting. The training is designed to resemble actual combat conditions.
JRTC training is stressful and tough. The three-week exercises are conducted against a formidable foe that is highly skilled and familiar with the terrain. It is as close to real combat as the Army can make it. Veteran soldiers often say that they prefer actual combat over the JRTC training exercises.
Caslen’s role was to observe the brigade combat team. He had free rein to go wherever he wanted on the battlefield and to attend any of the team’s meetings, engagements, operations, or activities. JRTC is a laboratory of leadership. Of the many commanders who had gone through the exercise, Caslen observed both incredibly gifted leaders and others who did not deserve to be in command. He came to recognize traits of outstanding leaders and could likewise recognize bad traits of poor, ineffective leaders.
Caslen recalls walking into an exercise unit’s command headquarters and recognizing right away if it was going to be a successful exercise, where learning would occur at all levels. Entering the headquarters, you immediately notice a buzz of activity, with formal and informal communication. Junior leaders engage senior leaders, and senior leaders stop and listen to them. When the staff updated the commander at the end of the day, staff officers clamored to be the one to brief the commander. They were proud of their work and accomplishments and wanted to show off their skills to the boss. The culture of learning, growth, and teamwork was tangible. People exercised initiative and were stretching, making mistakes and learning from them. Supervisors underwrote mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow. As a result, the staff, commander, and entire unit improved with every operation. The staff trusted the boss; the boss trusted the staff; and everyone within the staff trusted each other.
But it was not that way with every unit. When you entered the headquarters of a unit that did not do well, it was quiet, cold as ice, with all sitting staring at their computers without engaging with one another. The dynamic engagement that was evident in the strong learning units was absent. When it came time to brief the commander at the end of the day, no one within the staff volunteered, leaving it to the senior staff officer to conduct the briefing. As soon as the commander opened his mouth, you knew right away why no one wanted to brief him. Rather than being uplifting and edifying, he would criticize and ridicule, in front of a soldier’s peers. No one exercised any initiative. People did only what they were told to do, fearing criticism for exercising initiative and risking a mistake. There was no learning and no growth. Overall the exercise was a terrible experience for the soldiers.
You may be thinking about your own workplace as you read this. What kind of work climate does your boss prepare? How does it measure up in communication? What is the impact on trust? If you are a supervisor or manager, maybe you can do some things to improve communication within your work unit. Make communication a priority and set aside time each day to reflect on whether you have communicated to your team—both laterally and vertically—the information they need to maximize effectiveness. You should also practice your listening skills. Doing so will increase vertical communication. Simply put, communication is critical to trust, so make it a priority.
The culture of an organization is critical to its growth, values, morale, learning, development, and mission success. The person responsible for that culture is the commander, the CEO, or the leader. Critical to that culture is its character as defined by the values it embraces. Trust is critical to effective leadership.
Failures of trust may come in many ways. Leaders may be incompetent, of questionable character, or fail to demonstrate caring for those in their organization. Or followers may, for a host of reasons, fail to do the same. Let’s look at three case studies and see the impact on an organization of a failure of trust.
Our first example comes from the world of business. In 2017, Kate McClure and her boyfriend, Mark D’Amico, set up a GoFundMe page seeking donations to assist a homeless veteran living in Philadelphia, Johnny Bobbitt. They pitched a story about the terrible plight Bobbitt was in and, via social media, solicited donations to help provide for Bobbitt’s needs. Kindhearted people from around the world responded generously, eventually donating $400,000. This seemingly kind effort by McClure and D’Amico received wide attention in both traditional and social media, no doubt adding to the amount of the donations. It was a feel-good story at its best, two Americans helping a veteran who had served his country in war. What is not to like?
There was much not to like. McClure and D’Amico did purchase a camper for Bobbitt and gave him $25,000, but they pocketed most of the rest of the money and used it for personal purchases and vacations. In 2019, Bobbitt pleaded guilty to conspiring with McClure and D’Amico to defraud donors. McClure also pleaded guilty to wire fraud.6
As reprehensible as this fraud case is for the individuals involved, the impact on GoFundMe was significant. A crowdfunding enterprise, GoFundMe is a for-profit website designed to help people raise money for a variety of reasons. GoFundMe campaigns often help people pay for medical costs, replace or repair damaged homes or property, or, as in the Bobbitt case, assist those in need. But trust is an essential piece of the GoFundMe enterprise. When the site is used to defraud donors, and especially when it is as widely publicized as the Bobbitt case, trust in the company may be eroded. This may result in a decrease in contributions, thus adversely affecting the many cases where a true need exists.
How did GoFundMe respond to this crisis? They had to address the three C’s. First, they needed to affirm their competence. Company officials publicly asserted their efforts to identify fraudulent campaigns.7 By establishing a policy that defrauded donors would receive a full refund, the company bolstered its character by showing its commitment to honesty and integrity. Addressing the third C, caring, the company continues to regularly assert the positive impact its services have for those in need. Based on Sweeney’s model of trust, GoFundMe is taking the right actions to restore the public’s perception of their corporate three C’s.
Our second example, from another major social institution, is the child-abuse crisis facing the Catholic Church. Reports of sexual abuse of children by priests are widespread. This has resulted in a host of criminal and civil investigations. In October of 2018, for example, former priest David Poulson pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two boys from his church in Pennsylvania.8 In January of 2019 he was sentenced to up to fourteen years in prison. The abuse spanned an eight-year period. Poulson, who began work at the church in 1979, was defrocked in 2018.9
Unfortunately, this is just one of many well-publicized cases facing the Catholic Church, nor are they just a recent phenomenon. Allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests, and sometimes nuns, have been widespread for decades.10 Numerous media stories have documented these cases, which have been reported across the globe. The failure, in the eyes of many, of the Church to address this crisis has led to an erosion of trust among parishioners. It may even have contributed to a decrease in belief of Catholic doctrine. In the United States, for example, a Gallup poll in 2019 indicated that more than a third of American Catholics questioned their Church membership because of its continued inaction on addressing the abuse openly and effectively.11 The impact may extend beyond the Catholic Church. A CNN report in April of 2019 summarizing results from the General Social Survey revealed that as many Americans identify as having “no religion” as do those who say they are Catholic or evangelical, with all three representing just fewer than a fourth of all Americans.12 The number of nonbelievers began to spike in the early 1990s, when child sex abuse in the Catholic Church began surfacing.
An analysis based on the three C’s model suggests that besides the perception of failing in character, the Church may be perceived as failing in competence and caring. A failure in competence is manifested by the inability of Church leadership to effectively address the child sex abuse scandal over a long period. And in its failure to take meaningful and effective action, the Church may be perceived by many as uncaring. When it comes to trust, “three strikes and you’re out” may apply. Fail at competence, character, and caring, and a price will be paid.
The Catholic Church could take a lesson from the GoFundMe case. Although occurring in a different social institution (religion versus business) and on a global scale, the Church could base its response to the child sex abuse crisis on the three C’s. If it could demonstrate competence, character, and caring in a genuine and consistent way, over time the negative impacts of the scandal could be overcome. After all, religion plays a central role in the well-being and sense of meaning and purpose of many people, and a systematic effort to address the scandal following the three C’s model would likely be well received by alienated Church members. Thus, restoring faith in the Church is very much a matter of restoring trust in the Church, and the three C’s supply a framework for doing just that.
Our final example of organizational failure in trust comes from a third major social institution, education. Between 1992 and 2005 Michigan State University sports-medicine physician Larry G. Nassar abused as many as 250 girls, some reportedly as young as six years of age.13 From 1996 to 2014, Nassar also served as the national medical coordinator for USA Gymnastics, a position in which he had regular contact with young, aspiring female gymnasts. Following an investigation stemming from widely publicized reports from former gymnasts, Nassar was eventually charged with twenty-two counts of criminal sexual misconduct with minors. He was also charged with receiving child pornography. Nassar pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison.
Nassar’s actions had impacts not only on those victimized by him, and on his own status and reputation. In the months following the revelation of the charges against him, dozens of lawsuits were filed against Michigan State University, the United States Olympic Committee, and USA Gymnastics. These organizations stand accused of not doing enough to police their own ranks, of not heeding signs of abuse, and of not listening to and following up on complaints of misconduct. Besides the obvious monetary consequences (Michigan State has agreed to pay $500 million to the victims), the damage to the reputation of these institutions is significant. Michigan State University’s president, Lou Anna K. Simon, resigned in January of 2018 following severe criticism of her stewardship of the university in the face of the crisis. Former Michigan governor John M. Engler was then appointed interim president and resigned under pressure just a year later.14 The consequences of the scandal were not confined to Michigan State University. Besides civil action, USA Gymnastics faced severe public scrutiny, and all of its board members resigned.15 The overall impact on the reputation of these institutions is difficult to assess but continues to be substantial. And the impact on the organizations pales in comparison to the lasting effects of Nassar’s criminal behavior on his many victims and their families. As in the case of the Catholic Church, the institutions involved here failed in all three of the C’s.
These cases, in diverse types of institutions, underscore the impact of loss of trust on an organization’s reputation. If an organization such as the Catholic Church, with centuries of efforts of doing good in the world, can be damaged by the loss of institutional trust, then all organizations are equally vulnerable. Similarly, Michigan State University, founded in 1855 as a land-grant university, must now fight hard to regain lost trust. No matter how venerable the institution, the loss of trust resulting from character failures among its members (or in the case of GoFundMe, its customers) is a clear and present danger to the institution’s reputation and viability.
What can organizations do to guard themselves against character failures? An important first step is recognizing that organizations have attributes, positive or negative, just like individuals. Sweeney’s notion of the three C’s can therefore be looked at both as attributes of individuals and as attributes of organizations. Organizations that are high in competence, character, and caring tend to promote these same attributes among their individual members.
Sports teams provide an interesting case study of organizational excellence. Matthews consults with professional sports franchises on how to achieve this continuity of excellence in the face of regular turnover among players and senior leadership. Professional sports teams bear many similarities to the military. Both are highly competitive, the pressure to win is immense, and separation from family and friends is frequent. Players are traded or sign as free agents with new teams. Senior management and sometimes ownership changes. Despite this, a few select teams are successful year in and year out.
A big part of Matthews’s message to professional sports teams is to educate them about the three C’s. Teams that are owned and managed by leaders who are competent, who are of high character, and who care about the welfare of players tend to succeed. Perennially successful teams take an active role in promoting high performance and character by establishing an organizational culture that embraces the three C’s. They have clear mission and vision statements. They communicate clearly with players and other staff. These successful teams have high standards of conduct and character, model and reward adherence to these standards, and punish deviations from these common values. The outcome is an organization that is robust and capable of maintaining continuity across the inevitable changes in leadership, management, and players.
Successfully sustaining achievement in the military, sports, or other institutional settings requires that organizations take a proactive role in promoting the three C’s and establishing a culture that nurtures and supports competence, character, and caring. Even individuals of high character may find it challenging to consistently behave in an ethical manner if the organization in which they work does not adhere to positive values and practices. To have a successful team one must begin with an organizational commitment to provide a consistent, positive work environment. In such organizations, newly arriving members learn these values, which in turn motivate and guide exemplary character, thus allowing a continuity of excellence in the face of personnel change. B. F. Skinner’s widely quoted adage “The rat is always right” captures this idea. Before blaming the rat, look to the organization in which the rat is behaving. Good organizations breed and sustain excellence, and organizations with poorly articulated or practiced values sustain failure.
Managers and leaders may build trust within their teams and organizations by assessing where they stand on the three C’s. Consider how intimidating it must be to a West Point cadet, knowing he or she will become a platoon leader soon after graduation and receiving a commission as an officer in the US Army. Platoon leaders are in charge of about thirty soldiers. This includes an experienced NCO who serves as the platoon sergeant, and three junior NCOs who serve as squad leaders. The platoon leader is responsible for training the platoon and preparing it for combat and other duties. The platoon sergeant may have ten or more years of experience in the Army, much of it in combat. Except for the most junior enlisted privates, the platoon leader is usually the least experienced member of his or her team.
As graduation draws near, this looming responsibility begins to weigh heavily on the minds of cadets. The authors of this book, like everyone else at West Point, spend considerable time mentoring cadets to prepare them for what lies ahead. In our mentoring, we discuss the three C’s and what new lieutenants can do to ensure they meet standards on all three.
In the months preceding graduation, West Point brings in lieutenants and sergeants from operational units across the Army to spend time mentoring the soon-to-graduate seniors. These lieutenants and NCOs tell stories of how they took command, and the issues they faced. The cadets are eager to soak up every lesson. And what do they hear from these experienced lieutenants and NCOs? Mostly stories of the three C’s.
Competence may be the easiest challenge. A new infantry lieutenant will benefit immensely by knowing the skills required by subordinate soldiers. It is not the job of the platoon leader to operate a machine gun in combat. But when a junior soldier is learning how to use the weapon, the lieutenant may gain instant credibility by showing the soldier how to properly operate it. The Army builds the new lieutenant’s competence by sending the officer to a series of schools before he or she arrives at his or her first unit. Soldiers have high expectations for the new lieutenant. They will expect their lieutenant to be a skilled and competent leader because their lives may depend on the lieutenant’s competence. For the new lieutenant it is a great way to quickly build trust. But a lack of competence is an equally quick way to lose trust.
The second C, character, is less tangible. We discuss with our future lieutenants how members of their platoon will look to them to set the standard. We explain how seemingly minor words or actions may affect judgments of character, either positively or negatively. Our cadets listen intently, hungry to learn from our experiences and to think about how they will respond when assigned to lead a platoon.
Caring, the third C, may seem like a quality that one either naturally has or not. You may not consider yourself to be the most caring person in the world, but you can behave in ways that reassure others that you do care for their well-being. Simple actions such as remembering birthdays or knowing about a challenge a soldier is facing in his or her personal life and offering support and assistance do a lot to establish a caring relationship. Spend time with soldiers, we tell our cadets. Make an effort each day to make each one feel special.
Caring does not mean that you will baby your subordinates. It means that you will develop them to meet the highest standards and that you will take the time to personally get them there. It means that their training will be tough, realistic, and well resourced. It means that you will prepare them physically to operate in the harshest of environments, and that those who cannot meet these standards will be given remedial programs to help them do so. It means you walk through their barracks during off-duty hours to ensure they have acceptable living conditions. It means listening to their opinion of how things are going. It is amazing what a soldier will tell you on his or her time and turf. When you see something that is not right, you must take the time and energy to fix it. Instead of babying your subordinates you hold them to a high standard, personally help them develop their skills, and spend time listening to them so that you know as much about their personal lives as you do their professional lives. When subordinates know you will do whatever you can for them, they will want to never let you down. Said another way, they will trust you with their lives.
In the military, turnover of both leaders and followers is a constant. Commanders and other leaders remain in their positions for short periods—eighteen months to two years as a rule—before being reassigned to other duties. Similarly, subordinates remain in specific jobs for periods of four years or fewer. This organizational churn gives soldiers and their leaders opportunities to develop greater technical and leadership skills by moving them to new positions with greater responsibilities. Frequently, by the time an Army colonel assumes the command of a brigade, he or she will have had half a dozen or more prior commands and assignments. Senior enlisted personnel experience the same sequence of new jobs, promotions, and frequent relocations.
Frequent reassignments also have negative consequences. In some ways, military members become “jacks of all trades, and masters of none.” About the time they feel competent and comfortable in a particular position, it is time to move again. The incoming, replacement leader will have had a variety of previous command and leadership positions, but will be a novice at the level of their new appointment. For subordinates, losing a competent and experienced leader increases stress, requiring them to “train another commander” and get used to new ways of doing things. Enlisted soldiers carry their basic skills with them to new assignments, but must also experience a period of integration before being ready to perform at their best capacity in their new unit. But sometimes a poor commander is replaced by a competent one. Even so, both the leader and his or her subordinates require a period of adjustment.
Because of this regular inflow and outflow of personnel, the military has developed strategies to both speed up and to ease the transition between leaders, and among new personnel. Military psychologist Paul Lester talks about “swift trust.”16 Military awards and decorations, besides honoring members for exemplary performance, publicly display a military member’s assignment history. You can tell at a glance that a newly arrived commander has completed Ranger School, served in combat, and/or has been assigned previously to elite units. Military units also have explicit mission and organizational vision statements that allow new commanders and soldiers to adapt more quickly to their new job.
Swift trust is not just a military thing. Civilian institutions may experience similar challenges from personnel churn. The new school principal or a newly hired manager won’t be wearing a uniform, but the need for swift trust may exist. The organization may make efforts to establish trust by properly introducing the leader to the organization. New leaders may facilitate trust by quickly demonstrating the three C’s and getting to know others in the organization with whom they will interact daily.
It is one thing when bad actors behave in ways that undermine trust in an institution. It is yet another when legitimately elected or appointed individuals do so. We are bombarded with accusations of “fake news,” and government officials and other “leaders” portray long-standing and reputable institutions such as law enforcement and the judicial system as incompetent or worse. Individuals in these institutions do, and always have, failed, but the institutions themselves have been resilient. In today’s 24/7/365 news and social media environment, it seems the extent and impact of these failures are magnified. Acts or events that would barely make it into print in traditional newspapers now jump out at us as “breaking news!”
The institutions of the judiciary, law enforcement, journalism, education, business, religion, and the military are the foundation upon which a functional democracy depends. This erosion of trust undermines the legitimacy of these institutions. These accusations are often made to bolster a particular political point of view or to rally voters behind a candidate. The immediate gain of more votes is weighted more heavily than the long-term consequences from a loss of trust in major social institutions. Braying “witch hunt” or “fake news” at every institution or person that presents a view inconsistent with one’s own can only, in the long run, reduce trust in our long-valued institutions.
We maintain that human nature with all of its imperfections has not changed over the millennia. What has changed is the instant access to all manner of information and, yes, misinformation. Until recent times public figures kept their thoughts private and only revealed them to others with due deliberation. But social media enable people to share these thoughts in 280 characters or fewer, instantly with everyone in the world who has a smartphone. We have not learned how to separate the wheat from the chaff in social media. And there is a lot more chaff than wheat. This is the essence of General Dempsey’s concept of digital echoes.
To preserve trust in the major social institutions, it is incumbent upon individuals to become wiser and more selective interpreters of the media storm we face every day. Perhaps more important, leaders must assume responsibility for what they portray in the news and social media. Leaders must also better understand the potentially devastating second- and third-order effects of irresponsible messaging. The cost to our institutions and therefore our way of life is too great to do otherwise.
Can you imagine a leader being effective if his or her subordinates do not trust him or her? Or can you imagine a leader trying to lead if his or her boss does not trust him or her? If you work in a hostile environment where you are constantly belittled and demeaned, even in front of your peers, can you have a trusting relationship with your boss? If I’m working for you and you’re my boss, and I don’t trust you, finding the motivation to work for you will be difficult. Likewise, if I’m your subordinate, and you as my boss do not trust me, then for you to sustain an effective relationship with me will be difficult. You would obviously refrain from assigning me any tasks of importance if you do not trust me. The likely outcome is that I’ll be looking for another job.17
In any profession, a unique service is afforded the clients of the profession. In the profession of arms, the unique service the military provides is the ethical application of lethal force wherein service members are prepared to give their lives. The client in the profession of arms is the nation, because the use of ethical lethal force is for its security and protection. As with any profession, developing a relationship with your client is critical, and that relationship is built on trust.
Reflecting on his time as a West Point cadet in the 1970s, General Caslen recalls:
When I was a cadet at West Point during the Vietnam era, anytime I wore my uniform off post, I would find myself ridiculed, spit on, and harassed, simply because I was in the Army. I also recall some of my high school teachers who found ways to not go to Vietnam encouraged me not to go to West Point because I would be a “baby killer.” It is a terrible indictment to have a relationship with your client when the client fails to trust you and fails to trust your institution as was the case during the Vietnam era. We never want to go back to something like that again. Trust is a critical component of leadership, and it is worth studying what creates trust and what destroys trust.
A critical element of our profession is our commitment to it. In our profession, we choose to hold ourselves accountable. If we do not, then someone will, whether it is Congress, other agencies, or even the American people. If one within our profession exhibits behavior that is outside our values and norms, and that person’s behavior goes uncorrected, it will usually catch up with the soldier. However, the damage that can occur between our client, the American people, and our profession goes much further than the damage to the individual leader. I call this the Bank of Public Trust.
Our relationship with the American people is built on trust. If a member of our profession, especially a senior officer with high visibility, commits egregious acts outside our values, it not only brings harm to himself or herself, but to the entire profession. It also puts a chink into the trust between our client and our profession. Continued bad behavior can ultimately drain the trust, where eventually the American people no longer have any trust or confidence in our profession. Those of us who served in the Army during Vietnam know all too well what it feels like to serve in an Army that is not trusted by the American people.
It is hard to earn America’s trust. It takes consistent behavior and performance of the highest values and standards, always meeting the expectations of the American people. Even when we do, it will almost always go unnoticed. But hundreds of valued acts will slowly increase that trust. Unfortunately, one egregious act by a senior leader, or even a misaligned junior soldier, can and will eradicate the entire trust deposit within the Bank of Public Trust. How this works has a funny dynamic, but it is tremendously important for all of us to realize the potential damage and consequences in public trust created by the misaligned acts of a single soldier or officer. It is a terrible indictment to lose the trust of our client. We never want to go back to that again.
This underscores the importance of holding ourselves accountable. If we see our teammates conducting themselves in a substandard way, our responsibility is to hold them to standard. If we fail to do so, we will have set a new standard, which is now lower than the first. And if we again fail to correct substandard behavior, we continue to set a lower standard, and as this occurs, discipline erodes, thus forfeiting the glue that holds our organization together.
In the same way, individuals and organizations in other walks of life also build banks of trust. Students will more surely place their trust in the teacher who is competent, has higher character, and genuinely cares about students. This same principle is behind the concept of community policing, where individual officers are assigned to beats and told to get out of their patrol cars and get to know the people they serve. The idea is to build trust, and the hope is that as citizens come to personally know the officers patrolling their neighborhood, they will build trust not just in those particular officers but in the law enforcement agency itself. Indeed, the Police Officer’s Creed concludes with “I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself to my chosen profession … law enforcement.”18
The trust account builds incrementally with deposits of competence, character, and caring. When an individual or an organization violates the bonds of trust, essentially making a withdrawal from the trust bank, restoring the account to its original value is a long and difficult task—and in some cases impossible. Trust is the straw that stirs the drink in human interactions, small and large. It should be nurtured and treasured above all else.