A subordinate is one who is “submissive to or controlled by authority”—so says the dictionary. In the military each of us is a subordinate, and it would be well for us to concentrate on the concerns and responsibilities of that status for a few moments. While leadership is the catchword of the day and many volumes have been written about it, the position of the subordinate—and what makes up a successful subordinate—is much less discussed.
The key words and central ideas that ought to motivate the subordinate are reliability and dependability-Whether one is a chief of staff, division officer, or chief petty officer, the quality of work and the way that job is viewed from above are greatly influenced by how completely and how consistently it gets done. Any leader with subordinates of his own can quickly attest that his most-valued men are those he can trust—those who are reliable and dependable.
Why is this? A simple look at the chain of command tells the story. Superiors are where they are in the chain because of demonstrated competence, technical proficiency, and experience. Their responsibilities are to use those attributes at their level to solve problems, manage projects, and drive ships. They are not in the business of details; their work is decision-making. The job of their subordinates is to prepare the ground for those decisions.
The responsibility of the junior, be he staff member, division officer, or leading petty officer, is to study and assess the problem and present a solution or choice of solutions to his superior. What remains for the supervisor to do is to make the final decision, thus indicating his approval or disapproval of the completed work. When viewed in this light, the concept of the chain of command mentioned above becomes very clear. The subordinate who is consistent, precise, and reliable in defining, researching, and organizing the problem and solution(s) before making a presentation to the boss is the valued performer. Why? Because he made his senior’s job easier by spending his efforts in pursuit of the best possible solutions to problems.
There are some significant benefits to be gained from viewing almost any military task in this way. First, the freedom of action gained by a subordinate who has established himself firmly in his superior’s confidence is the foundation of job satisfaction. Since the job is accomplished well, the superior doesn’t feel he has to watch it so closely—which allows him an added degree of freedom. The subordinate is accordingly allowed to organize his own priorities and therefore can better manage his time and work. This in turn breaks down that old war horse crisis management,” because fewer situations slip up to the deadline undetected. (Such a pattern of performance also allows the subordinate to formulate, research, and present new ideas more readily and with a much greater probability of a fair hearing.)
It is a common failing, particularly prevalent among more junior personnel, that in many cases subordinates are not attuned to their superior’s priorities. Make no mistake here: superiors are paid for making the right decisions; subordinates are paid to present the case for the required action, and then to support the decision fully and completely. Yet, inevitably, the degree of support given by the subordinate is related to how much he agrees with the decision made—even though it is not his prerogative. The Junior is a member of the team, and the name of the game is command unity. There can be no compromise in the case of moral questions, of course, hut apart from this, the subordinate cannot consider himself an effective aide if he does not back his boss completely. The best leaders will grant their staff members a full and fair opportunity to present all sides of an issue when possible. But their responsibility is not to operate a democracy, it is to make correct decisions. The successful subordinate believes that his superior tries to do this, and expresses this confidence through full support.
A further effect of this kind of approach is, undoubtedly, an increase in command efficiency and effectiveness. Given a reasonable degree of competence at the decision-making level, the full and unqualified support of a dedicated staff will go far to ensure the success of the command. This logically follows from the foundation of reasonable goals set forth by the superior and a sincere interest on the part of command subordinates in best meeting the needs of the unit. When effort expended is increasingly related to realization of command goals, efficiency is increased, which results in greater command unity and effectiveness. Combined, these elements spell success both at the command level and for each subordinate so dedicated.
There is a valuable training lesson in all of this as well. Few juniors have not been faced with the most frustrating of tasks: solving an undefined problem. Nothing is as detrimental to one’s view of his job as to have a general- task given in unspecific terms, spend countless hours pursuing a solution, and then find the finished product sent back for rework because the problem solved was not the problem intended. But by being efficient and reliable, today’s subordinate will be tomorrow’s superior with a sure grasp of exactly what he needs to do a job and how much detail he requires. He will go far in increasing the efficiency and productivity of his staff by ensuring against guesswork, undesired detail, and wasted time. He will also contribute to overall morale by providing an objective base against which each of his men can measure his worth. When no such basis exists, talk of thankless work, lack of recognition, and vascillating standards arise.
Finally, the obvious advantage: if performance is consistent, thorough, and reliable, the result will be better performance evaluations.
If the advantages of this approach are so obvious, why is the successful subordinate the exception rather than the rule? There may be no pat answer to this, but there are some faults that characterize the majority which can be summarized in the phrase "completed action.” Completed action occurs when all forseeable actions on a project or problem have been either finished or well enough defined and researched to allow the superior to make an intelligent, informed decision on the matter. The unsuccessful subordinate either does not understand or does not care to achieve this goal.
To elaborate, one aspect of the concept of completed action deals with some of the common pitfalls in pursuing that end. It points out the natural tendency to present the problem to the supervisor in piecemeal fashion to effect the illusion of progress. It deals with the impulse to immediately ask the supervisor what to do and rely on his experience to make the task easier—which draws him into doing the job rather than keeping it at the subordinate level where it was assigned. It further discusses the unsatisfactory practice of submitting half-baked ideas and partial memos as an intentional unfinished product, counting on the superior to draft the final copy in the format he wants. This idea presupposes that the subordinate is not going to be able to satisfy the requirements of the initial assignment. And this constitutes default, which is no more appreciated in the areas of leadership and management than it is in sports.
In summary, this overview approach to the responsibilities of the subordinate provides valuable insight into the mechanics of success. Those characteristics most valued in subordinates are the very traits that make the superiors’ jobs more enjoyable and, to a certain extent, easier. It ought to be a subordinate’s goal to be that valuable to his superiors. And the result from such an approach will bear rich professional and personal dividends.
Donut Duty
Members of our Naval Reserve unit rotated the unofficial—but nonetheless important—duty of providing donuts at our Monthly drills. Since we had trouble remembering whose turn it was each month, we found a way to slip a reminder into our highly official Plan of the Day so that our members would understand, while no eyebrows would be raised higher up the chain of command. Our solution was the entry: ROLL CALL . . . Lt. Gonzales.
Commander Nat B. Read, Jr., USNR