Military Leadership and Accountability
Military leadership often champions transparency as a hallmark of effective command. Yet, in reality, the officer corps often operates like an exclusive club—a “good ol’ boy” network with little accountability. The uncomfortable truth is that officers often protect one another.
- Bad DEOCs survey? Swept under the rug.
- A commander involved in a DUI? Given an emergency PCS.
- Multiple complaints about a commander’s misconduct to the Military Equal Opportunity Office? Nothing happens, while that commander is instead promoted.
Commanders only hold one another accountable when misconduct becomes public, forcing higher-ups to intervene.
The Problem with “Different Spanks for Different Ranks”
The outdated mindset of “different spanks for different ranks” epitomizes toxic leadership. If an officer gets a DUI, their punishment should match that of a lower-enlisted member because the standards should apply equally to all military personnel. The idea that rank diminishes accountability is flawed and perpetuates an environment where leaders—who need accountability the most—are left unchecked.
Why Commander Ratings Was Created
Commander Ratings was created to provide military personnel a secure platform to voice concerns about their leadership, without the risk of retaliation. It gives higher leadership an unfiltered view of commander effectiveness, straight from those most impacted by it. It allows you, the user, to see how others view a commander and identify the negatives or positives of their command.