[jyunwai]

I can't speak to how the ideas are implemented in practice within the US Marine Corps, but a few specifics are given in "Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications 1—Warfighting," which is likely a similar document that I've found to be helpful [1].

The following excerpt encourages respectful debate, instead of blindly going along with a leader's plans:

"Relations among all leaders—from corporal to general— should be based on honesty and frankness regardless of disparity between grades. Until a commander has reached and stated a decision, subordinates should consider it their duty to provide honest, professional opinions even though these may be in disagreement with the senior’s opinions.

"However, once the decision has been reached, juniors then must support it as if it were their own. Seniors must encourage candor among subordinates and must not hide behind their grade insignia. Ready compliance for the purpose of personal advancement—the behavior of “yes-men”—will not be tolerated.""

---

The idea of erring toward respectful disagreement when warranted with leaders, instead of being a yes-man, has helped me greatly with building trust in teams I've worked with in the past.

However, I don't believe that it's always the best approach that "juniors then must support [decisions they disagree with] as if it were their own." I get that you can seem less confident by saying "{My manager} wants us to take this approach," instead of saying "We're taking this approach."

But for decisions that you personally disagree with, the best approach would include an acknowledgement of the downsides. Phrasing might be: "We're doing this because of XYZ reasons from the leadership, while acknowledging the downsides ABC."

I believe that this phrase is balanced: it avoids directly saying that you disagree with the decision (which can lead to people implementing the decision poorly, possibly making it doomed even if it turns out to be the correct one), while also acknowledging potential downsides (because the juniors are likely to see them too). An expression as if the decision were truly your own might mean an enthusiastic delivery without acknowledging the downsides, which reduces your own credibility with your direct team.

---

In any case, I believe that reading about the approach—even if one doesn't agree with every idea—is a worthwhile exercise, as I've found that much of the principles remain relevant across vastly different organizational environments.

[1] (1997) https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...

[smcin]

Sounds like good training for the average Marine, but it doesn't apply to the higher-level scandals:

* the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse.

"Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies interfering." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter#Military_serv...

* the pattern of fatal accidents involving the Boeing V-22 Osprey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accide...

You made interesting comments about how to frame the narrative when people disagree-and-commit.

[jyunwai]

I read—but can't personally confirm—that the 1997 document is required reading for all officer candidates, so the key people involved in these incidents were likely aware of the principles prescribed in the document at some point.

But reality is always different in important ways from prescribed ideals. Real-life behaviour by bad actors gets in the way, which is a limitation of the 1997 document: it appears that it assumes all team members are acting earnestly without personal agendas and in good faith.

In practice, I believe that the involvement of external checks and controls are key to ensure good-faith behaviour, even if people within the system prefer to deal with it in-house. Interventions by independent government investigators and press coverage are important ways to add external pressure, when there is a lack of internal accountability.