The zero-defect philosophy or mentality has most likely occurred in your career if you have served in the military for over 10 years. Today’s buzzwords, such as Mission Command principles, innovation, commander’s intent and critical thinking, sound great, but it seems like some leaders don’t stand by them.

“Zero defect” was a term coined by quality management pioneer Philip Crosby in 1985. The concept is to get the job done right the first time. This seems simple enough, but when applied in an environment that does not tolerate mistakes, it could lead to a fear of allowing subordinates to operate independently or, worse, adverse outcomes for one’s career.

The Havok Journal laid out the question in an October 2020 article: “The army’s growing focus is on mission command as a philosophy, empowering junior leaders to make decisions independently while meeting their superior’s intent. One must ask, does the current mindset allow innovation and adaptation?” The Havok Journal is an online publication serving veterans.

Firsthand Experience

I spent four years as an instructor at the U.S. Army Sniper Course and as an observer coach/trainer with U.S. First Army. These assignments helped me learn Army doctrine. Typically, these positions allow a soldier to establish a foundation of skills through teaching, coaching, mentoring and instructing. One of the biggest lessons learned is the application of Mission Command principles, innovation and critical thinking to achieve a commander’s intent. These philosophies are outlined in Army Doctrine Publication 6-0: Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces.

Yet risk-averse commanders are becoming more common in today’s Army. Perhaps a zero-defect mentality was applied to them as junior officers, which ultimately causes dishonesty in the Army profession, according to a 2015 U.S. Army War College report by Leonard Wong and Stephen Gerras titled “Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession.”

The zero-defect mentality can cast a perceived shadow of failure if a leader is honest with data presented in a Unit Status Report, which includes unit readiness, maintenance faults, online training requirements, and height and weight screenings. Fear of being overlooked due to subpar metrics may be in the forefront of a leader’s mind.

As an infantry platoon sergeant, I am proud that the knowledge and insight gained as an instructor and observer coach/trainer have primed me for success. More importantly, this insight allows me to preserve Mission Command principles to achieve my commander’s intent. A valuable lesson learned is establishing a culture of critical thinkers and innovators. Soldiers establish trust in each other when junior leaders and junior lieutenants are empowered to become free thinkers to achieve success. Established trust leads to commanders being less risk-averse. Leaders operating in a zero-defect environment will be more likely to ignore standards by “fudging the numbers” so they do not receive a reprimand or poor evaluation rating.

Fail, No Fail

During a Ted Talk in 2011, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, “Leaders can let you fail and yet not let you be a failure.” This thinking counters a zero-defect mentality, and encourages learning and growth through trial and error.

In the armed forces, the most significant way to learn and grow both as individual leaders and as a unit is by visiting a combat training center. At combat training centers, soldiers test Army methods and systems in place, and learn more by losing than winning.

Consider a scenario where millions of dollars are spent on a training event with the indirect intent of losing. We have all heard stories or seen a lieutenant lose their leadership role due to a massive failure at a combat training center. In such instances, a senior leader with a zero-defect mentality would view this as a failure, plain and simple.

But instead of capitalizing on lessons learned and growing, this junior lieutenant has a blemish on their evaluation. The long-term effects of this often are overlooked, resulting in a risk-averse commander more concerned about avoiding failure. A fear of failure likely will produce the inability to accept calculated risks or exercise disciplined initiative in both training and combat.

The soldiers and officers currently entering service are more inclined to be critical thinkers and innovators. Application of commander’s intent is more attainable if senior leaders allow subordinates to make honest mistakes, learn and grow professionally. With generational gaps surfacing, the Army is facing a paradigm shift. While it may seem daunting, this shift offers new growth opportunities. The ways of a zero-defect philosophy may work in the short term, but the long-term effects are not worth it.

Army leaders can capitalize on this shift over the next few years by acknowledging a need for change. Junior leaders can learn new skills and develop new habits by focusing on benefits.

If another war involving the U.S. is to happen, these new habits will carry over, as today’s junior leaders will become tomorrow’s senior leaders. A lesson learned from the Russia-Ukraine war is that a large-scale combat operation environment requires more trust in junior leaders and a less risk-averse mindset.

Rigid Command Structure

Another lesson learned from the Russia-Ukraine war involves Russia’s apparent fear of failure. Some analysts suggest that Russia has begun to equate mistakes to failure. Russian generals are blamed by President Vladimir Putin for errors on the battlefield. This zero-defect mentality is rampant in Russia’s Soviet era-style of centralized leadership. Russian commanders continue to seek guidance and authorization from their chain of command before making battlefield decisions.

The Ukrainian military has taken advantage of Russian centralized operations and lack of flexible decision-making to execute their commander’s intent or adjust as needed on the battlefield. Despite Ukraine’s smaller military, its junior officers and sergeants can rally their troops to thwart Russian attacks.

Ukrainian journalist Lyudmila Klischuk states in a 2021 article, “Management for Young Commanders: How Civilians Teach Military Leaders,” that “An officer/sergeant must have authority; he must be a charismatic, thoughtful person with critical thinking who will take responsibility for himself in risky moments of battle.”

Ukrainian junior officers and sergeants can embody what they define as leaders through support from the Come Back Alive Foundation. The foundation, which provides training and assistance to Ukrainian armed forces leaders, teaches young commanders leadership skills, including personnel management, delegation, team-building and management processes.

In 2021, the foundation held classes for 20 brigades and taught over 700 people in Ukraine, according to Klischuk’s article. The leadership philosophy empowers battlefield leaders at all levels, directly contributing to Ukraine’s success.

U.S. Army leaders should note this success and how the Army can fully support junior leaders. American service branches use an excellent process to create leaders that shares similarities with the Come Back Alive Foundation.

The Army produces some of the best leaders in the world. It must embrace what it teaches and trust its leaders at all levels.

Sgt. 1st Class Andrew Dominguez is an infantry platoon sergeant with Company A, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. Previously, he was an observer coach/trainer with the 189th Infantry Brigade, U.S. First Army Division West. He deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan.