14th Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps
Alford L. McMichael

By Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Alford L. McMichael
Trust and tolerance have long been recognized as powerful qualities of Marine leadership. We trust our Marines to do what is right, and they trust that we will look out for their welfare and lead them to the best of our abilities. They also trust, as they should, that we will tolerate their mistakes, knowing that by learning from them they will become even better Marines.

In fact, trust is the basis for the way we operate. Marines have historically rewarded the trust we place in them by independently conducting missions and tasks with initiative, skill and maturity. Their performance has been exceptional, and our Corps' legacy is proof of their dedicated and capable service.

Unfortunately, we have strayed away from a purely trust-based system and now operate in an environment characterized by an expectation of "zero defects" supported by "micromanagement." As a result, we have jeopardized the traditional essence of our Corps' success—the initiative of the individual Marine.

Symptoms of the Problem
The nature of the current state of affairs can perhaps best be illustrated through the examination of the experiences of a fictitious Marine. Private First Class Hardcharger, who has been a superior performer through recruit training and his follow-on military occupational specialty qualifying school, arrives in his new unit and goes through the normal check-in process.

He begins to work in his section with justifiable confidence in his abilities. He then encounters a challenging situation where he knows that he can do his job, but is not permitted to do so. The unit's leaders, from his supervising corporal to the unit gunnery sergeant, do not give him the opportunity or so oversupervise him that it is stifling. Unfortunately, this lack of trust, both in the quality of the Corps' initial training and in the ability of the individual Marine, is something new members of our units experience all too often.

Another example—potentially more damaging—is what happens when our young PFC makes a mistake. Perhaps it is a night of drunkenness, or maybe he has damaged some equipment through inattention. Whatever the case, all too often, he is marked as "damaged goods" by the command and finds himself cast aside with the characterization that his discharge would improve the Corps. I will be the first to admit that in some cases, such an assessment is warranted, but in many others, we give up on our young Marines too soon.

How Does This Affect Our Corps?
In fairness, no leader in situations like those described above consciously recognizes his or her actions as a reflection of a lack of trust. They are more likely motivated by a desire to uphold our standards, or maybe they have succumbed to the pressure to take the expedient route.

Nevertheless, it is a problem detrimental to a healthy Corps. Some examples may help make this clearer to those who still doubt that this situation exists. It is a sad fact, but many Marines view their initial training as inadequate, a perception that is reinforced when their unit leaders prevent them from putting their knowledge to work. If we consider our own experiences, I think we can all agree that constant micromanagement can shake a Marine's confidence in his or her leaders.

If we examine unit operations, we will find that, as unit leaders devote time to tasks better handled at a lower level, operations become increasingly inefficient. This is made even more apparent when junior Marines are forced to wait for instructions when they already know what should be done. In each instance, Marines are left with the sense that exercising their initiative is discouraged.

The Cure? Trust and Tolerance
The continued success of the Corps depends upon getting this right. Today, our nation faces challenges that span the globe and the spectrum of conflict. From natural and man-made disasters to conflicts ranging in scale from terrorist acts to major international wars, Marines must be ready for any possible scenario.

This requirement for constant readiness is made that much more challenging by the changing nature of the modern "battlefield." Missions that were once done by a company are now accomplished by a platoon. The lethality of modern weaponry dictates that units increase their dispersion, expanding the requirement for small-unit leaders who can operate independently. The greater capability of communications and the resulting speed with which news travels creates an environment where the actions of an individual Marine can have an international or strategic impact.

The unrivaled flexibility of our Marines and their desire to seek responsibility make them ideally suited for this environment. Building the other skills necessary requires that we unleash their entire potential by "trusting them to do what is right." Through the use of tools such as mission-type orders, commander's intent and proper developmental counseling, we can ensure that they have the wherewithal to thrive in future contingencies.

After reading this, many Marines may say to themselves, "Trust and tolerance are just fine, but our Corps is known for discipline and accountability." Rest assured—trust, tolerance and accountability all have their places in the Corps. The simple solution is to trust Marines to do what is expected and then tolerate their mistakes, while at the same time holding them accountable so that they understand when they have missed the mark.

Let's consider a common situation that may seem minor to those of us with many miles behind us, but is a source of genuine frustration to junior Marines like PFC Hardcharger. Many units hold a formation at the end of the day to pass the word. Frequently, each level within the unit advances the time for the formation by five or 10 minutes so that the respective leaders can ensure that their Marines are on time for the one that really counts. We even have a phrase for it: "Ten minutes early is on time." The unfortunate result is that the unit ends up standing around waiting for half an hour to 45 minutes before the actual formation.

If we could change our perspective and emphasize trust and tolerance, this time management issue changes considerably. The unit commander would still set the time for the formation. The subordinate leaders would instill in their Marines the understanding that being on time is the standard for the unit. They would also ensure that all Marines understand they are expected to meet that standard and are trusted to do so. Finally, recognizing that mistakes will be made, the unit's leaders would stand ready to counsel or, if necessary, discipline Marines for failing to meet that standard. Simple, direct and fair, this approach more closely matches the leadership style that Marines anticipate, expect and deserve.

How Do We Get There?
Marines have recognized the need to address this situation for some time. Our 29th Commandant, General Alfred M. Gray, began the long march back through his efforts as a vocal advocate for change. More recently, our current Commandant, General James L. Jones' "Commandant's Guidance" specifically addresses trust and tolerance and how we should use them to counter the growth in what has been termed the "zero defects mentality." Consequently, many Marines have worked hard to instill these concepts into our Manpower system and our everyday orders, directives and actions.

This institutional effort from "the top down" should add momentum to the process and motivate Marines to include it in their daily lives. We have made great progress, but we are not done yet. Now we need to incorporate these traits into the area of the Corps where we need it most—from our gunnery sergeants on down.

This should not be difficult, as every noncommissioned officer and staff NCO was once a lance corporal (in some cases twice). This "been there, done that" aspect of our Corps ensures that we can all cite personal examples similar to those outlined above. It also punctuates the fact that to correct the situation, every Marine will have to make an effort to fix those things that he or she can personally affect. Leaders should strive to empower their Marines to be more independent. Those who follow should strive to make do with less supervision—living up to the trust placed in them. Through this "grass roots" effort, we can reverse the trend and make our Corps better.

The end product will be a Marine Corps that possesses a revitalized emphasis on one of its historic strengths: leadership. In the process, our leaders will learn more effective techniques to inspire their Marines, who in turn will have better role models from which to learn. And in the end, our Corps will be better prepared for whatever the future may hold. Can we afford to do anything less?

Sempers,

Roger