addressing the issue identified

Case Study

University of Maryland Global Campus

HMLS 495

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the leadership of the Department of Public Safety was on show for all to witness. We observed many examples of both the good and the terrible within the United State Federal Government, specifically the United States Military. Military personnel recognize that the task must be fulfilled even in the most difficult of situations. Military members are expected to be deployed at the anytime at the utmost dangerous place in the world such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other dangerous countries. Soldiers are trained to sleep in dug out holes or vehicles, eat MRE’s for days at the time and often wears heavy equipment during a scorching weather all in the name of Public Safety. Although, these are the few of the examples, every single soldiers have signed up to serve our country knowing that these are the condition we must live on day to day basis. While situations like these are exactly what we signed up for, living in the enclosed place with thousands of others during a pandemic was not something most of us had anticipated.

In March of 2020, Capt. Brett Crozier a commanding officer of the aircraft carrier were removed from his command when he broke protocol and sent out a email warning of possible sailor death due to COVID-19. “Crozier, the former commanding officer of the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, was hailed as a hero after pleading with this leaders to send his carrier to port in an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19” (Military News, 2021). While the Navy was already planning to remove almost 5,000 sailors from Guam, Capt. Crozier was concerned about the deteriorating condition and did everything he could to safeguard the health and safety of his soldiers. In total, 1,200 servicemen, including himself, had contracted the illness, with one soldier losing his life. This resulted in months of quarantine for each of the virus-infected relatives. Without prompt evacuation of enclosed quarters within a naval ship, this might have resulted in even more members testing positive for the virus, as well as reduced operational usage of the ship due to the need to use space for quarantine. As a leader, Capt. Crozier understood that without ensuring the safety and well-being of his crew members, the ship would not be operationally ready to complete any upcoming mission.

Captain. Crozier’s action show both the qualities of a great leader and those of a bad leader. In some ways, his actions in sending out the message show that he cared about the welfare of his soldiers. He was worried about his crew’s safety and wellbeing, but he also realized that the mission would fail if the virus continued to spread. In his concern for his crew, he neglected to consider the general safety of US Forces in the area where the ship was stationed China, and Russia have demonstrated in that section of the Pacific that they are ready to challenge the Navy at the first sign of weakness. The fact that the memo was made public, indicating that one of the Navy’s most formidable strategic assets could be pulled from service without a clear and concise replacement, put the military members’ and the surrounding community’s safety at jeopardy. Other US Forces were also on edge due to the possibility of having to cover the operational gap on short notice as a result of the exposure. Depending on the lens you’re looking through, Capt. Crozier’s conduct might be interpreted in a variety of ways. “Relative to the moral obligations of the profession he is articulating care for his ship and crew, which is also consistent with moral understandings of his roles as a captain” (Stars and Stripes, 2020). On the one hand, he was protecting his people, but he also had the ability to do more harm than good.

The Captain’s removal brings us to the next stage of leadership failures. Senior military authorities above Captain. Crozier would be involved in making the decision regarding what personnel actions to take in a normal chain of command. Rather, against the advice of senior military leadership, Moldy moved quickly to remove Capt. Crozier. Molly’s involvement in the current issue can only be speculated upon. Some of the reasons for his involvement could be the public perception of the situation, the need to rapidly stop the narrative, and the desire to avoid involving the president. “I will not reassign Capt. Brett Crozier as the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, nor will he be eligible for future command,” (Adm. Michael Gilday, 2020). This goes to say, that he did not believe Capt. Crozier’s reasoning was an issue but that the way he went about distributing the memo was against military chain of command practice.

His ability to “Lead by Example” was one of his greatest flaws. Crozier’s reaction to the matter, which went against military chain of command regulations, caused his actions, according to his statement, says volumes about his leadership expectations of himself. He also went against military chain of command protocol in his handling of the matter. Croziers top leadership should have considered and carried out the standard process to any personnel action taken against a military member. When he came aboard the Roosevelt to address the crew, he not only displayed a double standard in his approach to dealing with the crisis, but he also instilled suspicion and reduced the morale.

In conclusion, there were many flaw that our leaders have taken. The issue were professional competence, led by example, develops personnel, and organizational leadership. His resignation finally led to the search for a fourth civilian to lead the Navy in just five months, demonstrating inadequate leadership. Kenneth Braithwaite claimed during his testimony before the senate Armed Services Committee that “It saddens me to say that the Department of the Navy is in rough waters due to many factors but primarily the failure of leadership”. (The Hill, 2020). From the public’s perspective, this indicates that the leadership failings were not limited to the conduct of the Captain and Secretary of the Navy, but extended farther up the chain of command. As things stands, there were numerous layers of failures inside this government organization’s hierarchy. That is to say, if a team is failing, blaming the individuals inside it is pointless. Always keep an eye on the leader’s ability.

References

Doornbos, C. (2020, October 22). Removal of fired USS Theodore Roosevelt commander's name from plaque causes uproar. Stars and Stripes. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/removal-of-fired-uss-theodore-roosevelt-commander-s-name-from-plaque-causes-uproar-1.649471 .

Harkins, G. (2021, March 10). As the Navy moved to fire capt. crozier, other leaders rallied around him. Military.com. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/10/navy-moved-fire-capt-crozier-other-leaders-rallied-around-him.html .

Kheel, R. (2020, May 7). Navy secretary Nominee: Service in 'rough waters' after 'failure of leadership'. TheHill. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://thehill.com/policy/defense/496568-navy-secretary-nominee-service-in-rough-waters-after-failure-of-leadership .

Welna, D. (2020, June 19). In a reversal by Navy, sacked captain of USS Roosevelt will not be reinstated. NPR. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2020/06/19/881039090/in-a-reversal-by-navy-sacked-captain-of-uss-roosevelt-will-not-be-reinstated .