Defence’s shameful but laudable lessons are for everyone
You don’t have to be at the top to demand that your organisation delivers. Hold yourself, your colleagues and your leaders accountable.
As published in The Mandarin September 17, 2024 by John Glenn
Last week was a tough one for the Defence sector. But there are lessons for everyone in public service.
I get told to tone down what I say so that I don’t upset people, and I generally do. Sometimes, though, we really need to look at ourselves honestly so that we can get better.
The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is extraordinarily confronting. There’s the direct impact on those who lost loved ones, their colleagues, current serving members, or the half a million living veterans whose brains are (according to the commission) irrevocably wired to the nature of service — sublimating their wellbeing for the benefit of others.
Real distress also arises from politicians, bureaucrats and the ADF leadership knowing of the crisis for more than 20 years. More than 50 inquiries and over 750 recommendations — with no effect. It ended in a royal commission that took three years to consider, explore and draw its conclusions.
The royal commission is an insight into our political and public sector leadership.
The conclusions are as much an insight into the state of our political and public sector leadership as it is into the causes of veteran suicide. They either did little, chose to avoid doing something, or were just incapable. At an extraordinary cost.
Take, for example, DVA who state their purpose as being “to support the wellbeing of those who serve or have served in the defence of our nation, and their families.” They then immediately limit that purpose by confining their role to managing legislation. By choice and design the leadership chose to limit their responsibility.
Heads of personnel and the services stated they were grateful that the commission had made it clear to them that a problem existed within Defence. What HR department in any company would not see the loss of their workforce to suicide as an issue? What CEO would ignore this? What board would let them?
Where are our politicians? They knew about the problem and were charged with oversight and governance of the department. In the past few years, departments have been required to produce a corporate plan along with performance standards they commit to achieve. Their annual report details the achievement, or otherwise. It is a good governance.
DVA was at least honest. It reports it has never even gotten close to its own declared performance standards. Defence’s standards and annual report are without meaningful measure and full of gobbledygook.
Our politicians are simply absent. Senate estimates ought to be having a riot digging into these issues but chooses to chase the inane. Theatre over effect, letting everyone down. Oversight, governance, and accountability are the job.
We have a problem when the overseers don’t oversee, and the performers don’t perform.
The commission was focused on Defence and DVA. But the lessons are broader. The obligation is to deliver the outcome, not the activity. Performance and success matters, and leaders need to be accountable for their actions, and inaction.
Accountability in extreme
This brings us to the second issue, the withdrawal of awards made to some veterans. This is challenging and confronting and comes with many mixed emotions. There is no claim that these officers were involved in war crimes, nor does it diminish their bravery.
They have lost their awards because it was determined that they either didn’t know what was occurring in their units or didn’t deal with it, and they should have. It’s a tough call, but ultimately it is the right thing. The duty owed isn’t just to them, it is to those whom they led then and those who now follow.
There is enough evidence to be confident that they were not exemplary in command, allowing or condoning poor behaviour.
The illegal bar and associated behaviours, for example, are representative of a lack of discipline and control. I would be confident that the decision to withdraw their awards was not made lightly or due to a single incident.
Contrary to many, I don’t think it’s woke. I think the decision is correct and consistent with the standard we should expect of the ADF. I’m not sure it has reached quite far enough.
With responsibility comes accountability — and it should be linked with consequence. As sad as the issue is, by dealing with it this way the military should hold its head high.
However, ponder for a moment that the public sector equates these middle-level officers, who have been held to account, with APS6 and EL1. I see the outcomes of robodebt have finally been released, with some found to have transgressed APS values but no consequences. It all seems too little too late.
The future matters
What matters now is what we do now. We should learn from this. I’ve never met anyone not wanting to do a good job.
This is an excerpt from a post by one of our interns, just after she attended the National Leadership Forum:
“One of the core ideas the forum discussed was the idea of leading from the middle, leading by influence, not letting leadership be constrained by simply the requirements of the role you are in. I could go on for days, but this idea really struck a chord for me.”
Accepting less from those you lead or those who lead you is to perpetuate the past. You don’t have to be at the top to demand that your organisation delivers. Hold yourself, your colleagues and your leaders accountable.
For those in the privileged position of leadership, responsibility and accountability form a two-legged stool, useless without the third leg of consequence.
There is a lot for everyone to learn from last week.
