I think dissent channels have the possibility of serving all organizations beyond the military or governmental agencies. Unfortunately, people have to be taught to use them properly. Effective dissent has to be modeled and encouraged. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of anonymous people venting on chat boards to other anonymous unhappy people, none of whom who have power to change things.
Your basic premise is sound, but the application is seriously flawed.
I learned as a young officer that every lieutenant knows what needs to be changed to improve the system. However, one must go along with the system to become senior enough that anyone will listen. Then, by the time one is senior enough to affect change, one has become part of the system and no longer remembers or wants to change things.
By restricting the initial dissent channel to O6 / E9 and above you have already lost the most agile minds and ideas. Once in a while someone like an Gen. Al Gray will break through, but it seldom happens.
The Marine Corps already has a dissent channel, limited though as it is, the Marine Corps Gazette. The Gazette offers a forum for any Marine to submit ideas and arguments for Corps wide discussion.
My career illustrates this. I served in the communications field. During the 70s and 80s we constantly argued for major systematic changes in the communications and computer fields. They were mostly ignored or slow-rolled for "later." We continued to do our best, knowing that things would likely never change.
All this only got fixed during the lead-up to the Gulf war when the communication system totally failed. Because of the emergency situation, there was only one directive, "fix it!"
A group of experienced folks were given a pile of equipment in Germany with those instructions. Within 6 weeks they completely overhauled the military communication system. After that war, the "process" took over again and we have been plodding along with the original rules.
I recently read that a junior maintenance tech pointed out a flaw that saved the over $100 million. We need to be more flexible in our willingness to listen to junior members, not just the "we never did it that way before." attitude that permeates with the old salts.
Once a dissent channel is established for senior leaders, we can expand to all ranks. Before that occurs, senior leaders must provide meaningful dissent, and commanders must show that they are responding to thoughtful dissent. As I mentioned in my previous comments, battalion commanders can introduce a dissent channel to their units.
The Marine Corps Gazette is an excellent publication. Vic Ruble, the Gazette’s Deputy Editor, is expanding the magazine’s digital footprint and producing high quality content. The challenge with the Gazette (and all print magazines) is the latency from article submission to publication. Events can overtake a once-sound article. (Putting together a print magazine is a massive undertaking and those who do so fight the good fight.) This subtack, The Connecting File, The Lethal Minds Journal, and others now provide a forum for advocating for their ideas.
The NCO corps will continue to innovate, experiment, and adapt. The dissent channel can accelerate the adaptation process.
To your Gulf War example -- conflict drives change. Crisis and conflict have spurred and will spur needed change.
Good article. But I think Gordon Gekko might be wrong on information, at least some information, being a commodity. Often, very valuable information is closely held and is not interchangeable.
Gordan Gekko tells Bud Fox, “The most valuable commodity I know of is information.”
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services.
For a commander or leader, information can serve as an input for making a decision. Although, some pieces of information prove more valuable than others.
Great point—commanders can foster an environment for these contentious, pointed, and often difficult questions. They can also challenge their staff by inducing friction and imposing constraints to see how the staff reacts.
I guess the Corps has advanced beyond what I remember. It is an officer’s obligation to discuss until the point of decision. The honest superior takes this in stride, modifies or rejects. Then it is inherent on all to execute to the best of their ability. This is how trust and professionalism is developed and enhanced. Dissent is too strong a word. As subordinates understand their commanders their faith in their judgement grows. Commanders who arbitrarily dismiss the input of their subordinates are soon isolated and ineffective. Key here is the confidence and integrity of the leader. My commissioned active duty as an infantry officer stretched from platoon leader to Regimental Commander and I never feared telling my superiors my opinions, thoughts, insights or concerns face to face . I was never chastised or disrespected. But, I also did not pontificate on decisions made many echelons above my level of responsibility. The entire concept hedges on the integrity and motivations of those senior to you.
The deaf and blind boss is legion. I doubt that a dissent channel would change that. With the wrong leaders, and there must be plenty these days, it would only spark the witch hunt for the dissenters. Had there been a dissent channel would it have mattered to Gen Berger, Gen MacKenzie, Gen Milley or Gen Smith?
I defer to those in uniform about how you would engineer such a channel within the military, but with thirty years of service as a Foreign Service Officer I endorse the effort. State’s Dissent Channel has not been without its flaws and missteps and I recall that back in the 1990s concerns were expressed that it had become moribund and ignored by everyone. I have used State’s Channel myself on two occasions and cannot claim any major changes in policy but I have friends and colleagues who can.
These new battalion commanders could establish the dissent channel within their command for E-5s and above. The commander must then explain its purpose and how the commander intends to incorporate the feedback from the dissent channel. When done correctly, the establishment of the dissent channel builds trust.
Establishing a channel also acknowledges that some unit members are more comfortable expressing their ideas in writing than speaking. Too often in the military, extroverts crowd out introverts. The dissent channel gives extroverts a direct line to the command and the commander.
My experience with the State Dissent channel mirrors yours. I’d add that the system works best in prompting leadership to pull back from the brink of implementing policies that might prompt IG or Congressional interest. These usually aren’t “earth shattering” matters like policy toward the war in Bosnia or Gaza. They usually are indications of a deeply flawed command climate. Dealing with that is worthwhile in and of itself. That said, I think we all benefit from more junior personnel not turning off their brains when they come to work. Anything we can do to prevent that is probably a good thing.
There have been excellent discussions about military grievances on completely anonymous websites such as the chan websites. In one such discussion they revealed that having a single woman in a fighting group adds a ton of extra work, another restroom to build, guards for the women as they move about to avoid sexual misconduct, major hygiene maintenance issues, infighting with the men, resentment with men who aren't getting any, commanders careful not to get any accusation, how easily an accusation can derail a career, etc.
It turns out that if you let people speak anonymously and in a big enough crowd that you don't know who they are they are very honest about the problems going on.
Anywhere with your name one it the authority sanctioned haters always get a free pass while the dissident haters get repercussions. See: BLM Riots and discussions
I think dissent channels have the possibility of serving all organizations beyond the military or governmental agencies. Unfortunately, people have to be taught to use them properly. Effective dissent has to be modeled and encouraged. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of anonymous people venting on chat boards to other anonymous unhappy people, none of whom who have power to change things.
Your basic premise is sound, but the application is seriously flawed.
I learned as a young officer that every lieutenant knows what needs to be changed to improve the system. However, one must go along with the system to become senior enough that anyone will listen. Then, by the time one is senior enough to affect change, one has become part of the system and no longer remembers or wants to change things.
By restricting the initial dissent channel to O6 / E9 and above you have already lost the most agile minds and ideas. Once in a while someone like an Gen. Al Gray will break through, but it seldom happens.
The Marine Corps already has a dissent channel, limited though as it is, the Marine Corps Gazette. The Gazette offers a forum for any Marine to submit ideas and arguments for Corps wide discussion.
My career illustrates this. I served in the communications field. During the 70s and 80s we constantly argued for major systematic changes in the communications and computer fields. They were mostly ignored or slow-rolled for "later." We continued to do our best, knowing that things would likely never change.
All this only got fixed during the lead-up to the Gulf war when the communication system totally failed. Because of the emergency situation, there was only one directive, "fix it!"
A group of experienced folks were given a pile of equipment in Germany with those instructions. Within 6 weeks they completely overhauled the military communication system. After that war, the "process" took over again and we have been plodding along with the original rules.
I recently read that a junior maintenance tech pointed out a flaw that saved the over $100 million. We need to be more flexible in our willingness to listen to junior members, not just the "we never did it that way before." attitude that permeates with the old salts.
Frederic,
I appreciate your comments.
Once a dissent channel is established for senior leaders, we can expand to all ranks. Before that occurs, senior leaders must provide meaningful dissent, and commanders must show that they are responding to thoughtful dissent. As I mentioned in my previous comments, battalion commanders can introduce a dissent channel to their units.
The Marine Corps Gazette is an excellent publication. Vic Ruble, the Gazette’s Deputy Editor, is expanding the magazine’s digital footprint and producing high quality content. The challenge with the Gazette (and all print magazines) is the latency from article submission to publication. Events can overtake a once-sound article. (Putting together a print magazine is a massive undertaking and those who do so fight the good fight.) This subtack, The Connecting File, The Lethal Minds Journal, and others now provide a forum for advocating for their ideas.
The NCO corps will continue to innovate, experiment, and adapt. The dissent channel can accelerate the adaptation process.
To your Gulf War example -- conflict drives change. Crisis and conflict have spurred and will spur needed change.
Good article. But I think Gordon Gekko might be wrong on information, at least some information, being a commodity. Often, very valuable information is closely held and is not interchangeable.
Gordan Gekko tells Bud Fox, “The most valuable commodity I know of is information.”
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services.
Just a bit of dissent.
Roger,
A bit of dissent is not a bad thing.
For a commander or leader, information can serve as an input for making a decision. Although, some pieces of information prove more valuable than others.
We need to embrace the divergents and pull in their insights. Nothing raises the hair on my neck more than zero questions or concerns.
Michael,
Great point—commanders can foster an environment for these contentious, pointed, and often difficult questions. They can also challenge their staff by inducing friction and imposing constraints to see how the staff reacts.
Questions and concerns are sure to follow.
Sometimes I'll devil's advocate my own plan in front of them to invite disagreement.
I guess the Corps has advanced beyond what I remember. It is an officer’s obligation to discuss until the point of decision. The honest superior takes this in stride, modifies or rejects. Then it is inherent on all to execute to the best of their ability. This is how trust and professionalism is developed and enhanced. Dissent is too strong a word. As subordinates understand their commanders their faith in their judgement grows. Commanders who arbitrarily dismiss the input of their subordinates are soon isolated and ineffective. Key here is the confidence and integrity of the leader. My commissioned active duty as an infantry officer stretched from platoon leader to Regimental Commander and I never feared telling my superiors my opinions, thoughts, insights or concerns face to face . I was never chastised or disrespected. But, I also did not pontificate on decisions made many echelons above my level of responsibility. The entire concept hedges on the integrity and motivations of those senior to you.
The deaf and blind boss is legion. I doubt that a dissent channel would change that. With the wrong leaders, and there must be plenty these days, it would only spark the witch hunt for the dissenters. Had there been a dissent channel would it have mattered to Gen Berger, Gen MacKenzie, Gen Milley or Gen Smith?
I defer to those in uniform about how you would engineer such a channel within the military, but with thirty years of service as a Foreign Service Officer I endorse the effort. State’s Dissent Channel has not been without its flaws and missteps and I recall that back in the 1990s concerns were expressed that it had become moribund and ignored by everyone. I have used State’s Channel myself on two occasions and cannot claim any major changes in policy but I have friends and colleagues who can.
Robert,
These new battalion commanders could establish the dissent channel within their command for E-5s and above. The commander must then explain its purpose and how the commander intends to incorporate the feedback from the dissent channel. When done correctly, the establishment of the dissent channel builds trust.
Establishing a channel also acknowledges that some unit members are more comfortable expressing their ideas in writing than speaking. Too often in the military, extroverts crowd out introverts. The dissent channel gives extroverts a direct line to the command and the commander.
Gives *introverts* a direct line to the command and the commander?
Austin,
That is correct - Gives introverts a direct line to the command and the commander
My experience with the State Dissent channel mirrors yours. I’d add that the system works best in prompting leadership to pull back from the brink of implementing policies that might prompt IG or Congressional interest. These usually aren’t “earth shattering” matters like policy toward the war in Bosnia or Gaza. They usually are indications of a deeply flawed command climate. Dealing with that is worthwhile in and of itself. That said, I think we all benefit from more junior personnel not turning off their brains when they come to work. Anything we can do to prevent that is probably a good thing.
Ted,
I appreciate your feedback on the article. Mental engagement at the lowest ranks, in particular, is a massive challenge.
A dissent channel can give a command an offramp before making a poor decision.
Based on feedback, the commander can also clarify their intent and guidance based on new information.
Dissent can lead to a course correction.
Are you a member of the American Foreign Service Association? Each year, the AFSA presents an award for constructive dissent.
https://afsa.org/constructive-dissent-awards#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20AFSA%20calls%20for,as%20a%20%244%2C000%20cash%20prize.
Indeed I am (but I need to check if my membership is current)!
Thanks for the perspective Ted! Hearing that it was generally useful (thought not perfect) at the state department is encouraging.
There have been excellent discussions about military grievances on completely anonymous websites such as the chan websites. In one such discussion they revealed that having a single woman in a fighting group adds a ton of extra work, another restroom to build, guards for the women as they move about to avoid sexual misconduct, major hygiene maintenance issues, infighting with the men, resentment with men who aren't getting any, commanders careful not to get any accusation, how easily an accusation can derail a career, etc.
It turns out that if you let people speak anonymously and in a big enough crowd that you don't know who they are they are very honest about the problems going on.
Or, hypothetically, you’ve given the haters a space in which to spew without repercussions.
Anywhere with your name one it the authority sanctioned haters always get a free pass while the dissident haters get repercussions. See: BLM Riots and discussions