18 Ways to Mitigate Off-Duty Risk

Last week’s post, “The Leader’s Role in Preventing Off-Duty Risk,” tackled the varying perspectives surrounding the issue of how far leaders should involve themselves in subordinate lives to prevent off-duty risk. Too much involvement, and resentment and mistrust develop. Too little involvement, and potentially destructive problems grow unnoticed. Leaders hold passionate opinions on all sides of the discussion, but it’s a safe conclusion that this area is truly the art of leadership.

Today’s post is all about The How, the methods that leaders on every side of the discussion can use to achieve their intent. The mindful leader will devote time, organizational energy, and cognitive space to figuring out how to engage his or her people in this critical area of leadership.

Risk

ROTC cadets take a break from Leader Development and Assessment Course training to engage in a question and answer session with Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, commander of U.S. Army Accessions Command and Training and Doctrine Command’s deputy commanding general for initial military training, July 19, at Fort Lewis, Wash. Link to photo.

The Indirect Approach

These are methods for the “hands-off” leader. Maybe the organization’s members are mature and rarely have issues or incidents. They are also for the leader who values the subordinate’s privacy and individual responsibility above all else, even at the expense of incurring risk. The goal is to provide support without imposing guidance or restrictions, to show concern and a willingness to assist, but only at the subordinate’s request.

  • Display the resources. Research the assistance agencies and options available to the service members, and display them prominently in common areas. This is often required by regulation or law (i.e. sexual assault reporting, equal opportunity), but if the leader is not going to engage deeply into personal matters, it’s important to provide as many resources as possible.
  • Provide an easy out. Many units have successfully used a “Taxi Fund” to give Soldiers a way to get back to barracks if they’ve had too much alcohol to drive. Can your subordinates also call you for help? Have you made it clear that you’ll drop everything to get them out of trouble? Or, have you assumed that there won’t be any problems? Or worse, that they’ll just handle it themselves? Give out your number and make it clear that their safety is more important than your comfort.
  • Accentuate the positive. A subtle way to avoid the bad is to talk continually about the good. “Other units may get DUIs, but not this one. We’re better than that.” Positive reinforcement gives followers a frame of reference to live by and turns responsible behavior into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Direct Engagement

This is the middle ground between “hands-off” and “iron fist.” Most of us engage our units in this region of influence, fluctuating back and forth as incidents occur or chains of command implement their guidance. The key difference is that leaders have frank conversations with subordinates about risk. Without a conversation, you’re a “hands-off” leader.

  • Have the conversation. In this arena, leading by example is not enough. Subordinates aren’t looking to you for how to behave on the weekend and they aren’t going to initiate a conversation about their weekend plans and the inherent risks therein. Leaders must start the conversation and engage in a respectful way that shows true concern for the team’s safety and acknowledges the maturity of the individuals.
  • Explain the terrain. Talk openly about problems the unit is experiencing, as well as the successes that leaders achieve in reducing risk. It’s critical that team members know what terrain they’re fighting on.
  • Lead through your leaders. Young service members may more readily take advice from peers and immediate supervisors than from higher up the chain of command. If you are a leader, use the leaders at echelons below yours to communicate the message. Rank isn’t the most powerful aspect of this discussion; if it were, then generals would be giving the weekend safety briefs.
  • Bring in the experts. Invite professionals to teach and discuss methods that leaders can use to connect with Soldiers. Professional counselors, medical providers, law enforcement, financial advisors, and chaplains can be helpful.
  • Highlight courage and sacrifice. It’s tough to think about getting wasted on the weekend when the First Sergeant is recounting the heroics of the most recent Medal of Honor recipient. Talking frequently about the high duty and sacrifice of the profession inserts an attitude of responsibility into the formation, which leaves little room for apathy and immaturity.
  • Reward action. I had a battalion commander who gave out achievement medals to Soldiers who took action to mitigate off-duty risk. One such Soldier forced his drunk buddy (by almost physical means) to hand over the car keys outside a bar. Another called his platoon sergeant when he saw some poor decision-making in the works. The commander recognized them in public, sending a strong statement.
  • Draw insight from all levels. Ask the successful leaders to share their engagement techniques across the formation. This gives them credibility in public and shows that it’s “cool” to be thinking of ways to reduce risk.
  • Get personal. I once heard a speaker discuss the indiscriminate malice of the 9/11 attackers, saying, “The men who flew those planes into the Towers didn’t care who they were going to kill. If you and I were there that morning, we’d be dead. Doesn’t that make it more personal?” The statement resonated with me one Saturday while responding to a DUI the unit had the night before. Drunk drivers carry the same indiscriminate nature. They have made a willful decision to lethally threaten anyone who is on the road with them, which could be you and your family…or even their own family. For service members, there is the added violation in that we serve to protect our Nation’s citizens, not place them at risk. Most people don’t think about that aspect.
  • Plan for the worst scenario, not just the most likely. The typical culprits of off-duty incidents are driving while intoxicated, speeding, bar fights, and domestic violence. But a designated driver doesn’t do any good if the drunk Soldier is too intoxicated to find his way out of a burning night club or defend against a back-alley mugging. I’ve seen Soldiers try to cross train tracks and walk home in the freezing weather…both unsuccessfully. Identify and discuss those unlikely situations with your people. Emphasize that just a few moments of planning can mitigate lethal risk when it materializes.
  • AAR. We conduct After Action Reviews for training and the annual Christmas party…why not for weekend activities? Have a Monday chat with your team to find out if their weekend plans ended up the way you discussed it on Friday. See if they got into any situations they would’ve handled differently. How could they have better mitigated existing risk or prepared for an unexpected event.

A Draconian Environment

Leaders on this end of the scale tend to believe that they are responsible for individual failures and try to control their subordinates’ off-duty behavior. Units (and duty stations) with frequent serious incidents exert more control in an effort to protect the population. At some point, however, the control measures undermine trust and subordinates become personally divested from the command’s efforts.

  • Group punishment.Whenever a Soldier gets a DUI, the entire company will report the next morning for extra training.” I’ve implemented that guidance…implemented, not created. It’s not fun for anyone. Group punishment is a tenuous argument because no one in the command has the ability (or authority) to control the individual actions of every Soldier. The idea is that the team members will dislike the punishment enough to correct the problem from within. Hopefully they do so in a way that conforms to your intent.
  • Make it relevant. If you do have to shell out group punishment, put a moment of thought into the process and make it relevant. In the above reference, I was able to narrow the reporting formation from company to platoon and we went for a “little” jog on Saturday morning. We departed post and ran around the country roads until arriving at the exact bar the Soldier was drinking at before he got his DUI. The platoon lined up shoulder to shoulder and the Soldier had to walk down the line retraining the act of handing his car keys to his buddy. “I’m too drunk to drive, can you get me back to post?”…”Anytime, Smith.” “I’m too drunk to drive, can you get me back to post?”…”Sure, and you’d better call me next time!” The exercise was profoundly effective and relevant to the infraction.
  • Backbrief and verify. We’ve all asked our subordinates what they plan on doing over the weekend, but how many times have we followed up to verify? For the hands-on approach, consider making a late night phone call to that Soldier who said he’d be at a bar on Saturday night. Sure, he probably stopped at one beer before thinking about driving home. But maybe he didn’t and got lost in the good time. Maybe hearing his leader’s voice will snap him back into a frame of mind to make a smart decision.
  • Weekend patrolling. I was a company commander in a brigade that restationed from Washington to Germany…all 4,000 Soldiers, families, and equipment. It was a fascinating social experiment to watch underage Soldiers displace to an environment where it was now legal for them to drink. The serious incidents flourished, across all ranks, not just junior enlisted. The commander cracked down with a risk mitigation “operation” that put every officer and NCO leader out in the local towns in uniform to prevent incidents. It was painful for all, but it worked.
  • Sign on the dotted line. In extreme situations, I’ve heard of leaders forming an agreement with their team members about risk activity, even to the point of signing a contract. It’s demeaning and it’s probably against regulation, but it’s a method.

More Important than Policy

Whatever you chose to do, subordinates have to know you care. Or more directly, you have to care about your people! Approach the discussion from that standpoint, not from a position of policy and guidance. How would you help your own adult son or daughter mitigate this risk?

There is but one way to do more — Honestly Care about them.
Everything, yes, everything else is technique.

– Colonel Ross Coffman, “Ready First” Commander

Questions for Leaders

  • In what ways could you show more care and concern in your approach to off-duty risk?
  • Is this topic important enough to gather your leader team and validate your engagement strategy? Why not do so this week?
  • What other ways have you used to mitigate off-duty risk? [Leave a comment below!]

Subscribe to The Military Leader

Complete Archive of Military Leader Posts

Back to Home Page