Twenty-three sailors died in the waters off the California coast on 8 September 1923. When Commodore Edward H. Watson errantly led his formation of 14

Bad Ideas Have No Rank: The Moral Imperative of Dissent in the Navy

submited by

Style Pass

2024-07-11 01:00:04

Twenty-three sailors died in the waters off the California coast on 8 September 1923. When Commodore Edward H. Watson errantly led his formation of 14 destroyers to disaster on the rocks of Honda Point, he initiated the largest-ever peacetime loss of U.S. Navy ships. Despite heavy fog, inconsistent navigational data, and a failure to take precautionary soundings, six captains followed his order to steam in close formation at high speed to exercise a wartime scenario. All of those ships were lost. Two captains disobeyed the order and managed to save their ships.1 In the end, the general courts-martial held each captain accountable for his decision to follow orders instead of trusting his own judgment.2

Commanding officers own the decision, and the risk, in naval operations, but absolute authority does not equate to perfect information or even perfect judgment. A commander unintentionally could be charting a course toward disaster, which could have lethal consequences. A bad idea in the technical operation of a ship may only damage equipment, but a strategic error could cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. The Navy’s hierarchical structure often makes junior personnel reticent to challenge the decisions of their superiors; however, junior personnel may possess subject matter expertise the commander lacks, or they simply may see another way forward based on their experience. Voicing dissent can be the difference between success and failure, and even life and death.

The Navy sometimes refers to dissent by junior personnel as “speaking truth to power.” This can be helpful because it dispels negative associations with words such as disloyalty, disobedience, defiance, and insubordination. Still, the idea of speaking truth tends to oversimplify dissent. Junior service members must recognize that they may have incomplete information or lack broader context. Their “truth” may be just one of many, and there always will be career peril in voicing dissenting opinions to senior leaders. However, that does not absolve them of the responsibility to speak up when they think things are going south.