A Question of Accountability and Initiative

On patrol in Afghanistan - that's a lot of weight!

Last week Marine colleagues on Linked In called my attention to this article.  There are several good leadership lessons to be gleaned from this article – but I just want to focus on the issues of accountability and initiative – two traits all leaders must have. 

For those too lazy to click on the link, this article is an editorial by a female Marine lieutenant, Lt. Sage Santangelo, who failed the Combat Endurance Test required for admission to the Infantry Officers Course (IOC).

Historically, the infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) has been a male-only profession.  As we have seen women’s role in the military evolve over the past decade of conflicts, the administration is having the Department of Defense determine if historically male-only combat MOS’s can be opened to women.  As part of this initiative, the Marine Corps is allowing women to attend infantry training – if they can pass the screening tests.  Thirteen female enlisted Marines have completed the enlisted infantry training course – non-of the fourteen women who have attempted the IOC screening test have passed – hence Lt. Santangelo’s editorial. 

This posting is not going to address the issue of women in combat units – that is not necessarily a “leadership” topic. 

After the jump, I am going to call out Lt. Santangelo for her lack of initiative and accountability – those are leadership issues. 

Not for the weak 

Initiative is a Marine Corps leadership trait which is defined roughly as taking action without specific orders.  Good leaders see problems and solve them; they do not wait for instructions. 

Accountability means taking responsibility for what you did or didn’t do.  Taking responsibility for your actions is a Marine Leadership principle. 

Now, let’s see what Lt. Santangelo wrote:

It would be especially helpful if the Marines allowed people to decide on an infantry career earlier and offered some infantry-oriented training earlier, too. Basic training doesn’t include enough physical gruntwork under a combat load. More exercises such as running, jumping and climbing while wearing a flak jacket, Kevlar and a pack would help build strength and endurance. They would also help prevent injuries by increasing bone density. My class had only a month between the end of the Basic School and the start of the Infantry Officer Course. I wish there’d been more time to train to the endurance test’s demands.

Nowhere in this paragraph or anywhere in the article does Lt. Santangelo say “I should have worked harder.”  Instead, she says the system should have demanded more of her.  That is not the attitude of a leader. 

Leaders do not let others set the standard and the path.  They look at the minimum and do more.  Lt. Santangelo fails to mention that The Basic School is a six month course with plenty of evenings and weekends free.  She had ample time to workout on her own – how many times did she exercise with her gear on?  If the answer is not “as often as I could,” then the system did not fail her, she failed herself. 

What is most troubling about this young lieutenant’s attitude is her wholesale lack of individual accountability.  We all can blame dozens of external factors for our myriad failures and short-comings, but until we do a self-assessment and hold our self accountable for our failings, we cannot improve.  This is what separates a leader from a follower. A leader will honestly assess his shortcomings, hold himself accountable for his actions or lack thereof, and work to improve.  A follower will look outside himself and blame others for his failures. 

While this young lieutenant has some good points in her article, the entire thing is lost on me because she fails to hold herself accountable.  The entire tone of her article should have been I failed because I did not work hard enough, but here are some ways the system could help others.  That would have been leadership.