The Dangers of Pride, Cowardice, and Groupthink — an Army Combat Uniform Retrospective

The adoption of the “Army Combat Uniform” (ACU) in the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) might seem an odd lens through which to view three aspects of multi-echelon organizational/leadership failure, so let’s review the history of this garment via the highlights of its fielding and use.

First, the pattern was a poor choice. It was so poor, in fact, that Congress felt compelled to act and direct the adoption of the Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) for deploying Soldiers because the constant negative feedback was too great to ignore.

Second, as fielded, the uniform lacked durability. Though it was only intended to have a service life of six months or so in the field, in practice it did not usually last even one. In particular, the pants were notorious for ripping apart at the crotch. However, the elastic bands and friction closures also performed poor and failed early. The desert sand proved an especially difficult challenge for the “hook and pile tape” (Velcro) closures festooning the uniform. In this, it was markedly inferior to the uniform it replaced.

Third, the “features” of the uniform, while of questionable value, substantially increased the cost. In fact, the price of a uniform nearly doubled. That is a substantial expense when you have the responsibility of outfitting something like one million Soldiers (including the Reserve and National Guard) with four uniforms each and a burden that the Soldiers themselves must bear as they buy new uniforms for themselves as the old ones wear (often all too quickly).

Fourth, if all this wasn’t enough, the change from a natural fiber (rip-stop cotton was used in both the Battle Dress Uniform and Desert Combat Uniform it replaced) to a synthetic fiber meant that the uniform would melt onto the skin of the Soldier wearing it when exposed to the heat of explosions (such as those from artillery or IEDs). The uniform itself became a mechanism of injury in combat and complicated medical care for wounded Soldiers. Thus, in operational use, the uniform was quickly replaced with an even more expensive fire retardant variation or Nomex flight suits.

The UCP ACU was unquestionably an massive, and very expensive, failure for the Army that endangered the lives of Soldiers. Yet, somehow, the Army jumped fully onboard, moving its substantial bureaucratic inertia behind one of its worst institutional decisions in recent memory. How is it that an organization already possessing a functional uniform, with decades of combat experience from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Desert Storm (and others), made such a catastrophically poor collective decision?

Pride, Cowardice, and Group Think.

It’s worth discussing pride first. The Marine Corps beat the Army to the punch, leading the way in adopting digital camouflage patterns for both woodland and desert environments. The Marines effectively replaced the BDU and DCU patterns then in use. Those uniforms were well received and continue in service as I type. The Marines also started a trend when they branded their new patterns, incorporating their distinctive Eagle, Globe and Anchor. The idea of a service specific camouflage is as absurd and illogical as it has proven popular. When services adopt different patterns for the same operating environment, all but one have a uniform that increases the risk to their service members as they are inferior to the best pattern for that environment. That did nothing to stop every service from adopting its own unique patterns, some of them with no practical purpose at all, in the wake of the Marines. The Army followed the Marines closely with a digital pattern of its own, attempting to create one pattern for every operating environment and pairing it with a new uniform design. The result was grossly inferior to the product put forth by the Marines. It cannot be ignored that a handful of leaders let their pride guide them, and Soldiers (Sailors, Airmen) paid — some with their lives.

If you review the rollout of the UCP ACU, you will see extensive testing and many publicity shots of the uniform in action with units as well renowned as the 75th Ranger Regiment. There can be absolutely no doubt that the testing and evaluation of the OCP ACU included a number of combat veterans and experienced Soldiers. There can be no doubt that at least some of them provided honest feedback concerning the obvious inferiority of the ACU. There can be no doubt that this feedback was summarily ignored, obfuscated, or hidden. It is the nature of bureaucracies to slavishly adhere to processes and ignore results, of course, but how matters. Cowardice and Group Think are kissing cousins. They take root together, and they did here.

Within groups and teams, individuals can feel a tremendous amount of pressure to conform, to be team players, not to rock the boat, not to cause too much trouble. Many cede their individual critical thinking and decision making to the group, to the process. As long as the process is followed and they are a good teammate, their performance will be rewarded — regardless of the results. The more egregious failing — Cowardice — occurs among those that have not fully given up their independent faculties to the group. They know what is happening is wrong, that the results will be poor, and they allow it to happen, even zealously participate. While these may be the hallmarks of, in some respects, a perfect bureaucrat, they are not desirable from a results (versus process) standpoint. Organizations need good leaders and skilled followers, not bureaucrats. The latter is ultimately a poison that weakens any organization in which they serve. If enough are present and the stakes high enough, the results are fatal — and so they were in the case of the ACU.

The Army’s adoption of the UCP ACU serves as an outstanding, and recent, reminder of how an organization can combine a tremendous amount of resources, knowledge, experience, and talent to produce sub-optimal results (in this case massive failure). It reinforces the need for leadership, at echelon, and highlights the important and crucial role that good followers play within an organization. It is essential to the success of organizations to start with a worthwhile vision, driven by their mission. It is the responsibility of leaders to create an environment in which individuals remain focused on that mission. Good leaders must constantly fight complexity with simplicity, remaining oriented on results and not a particular process to obtain them. Lastly, good leaders must be engaged with their subordinates and willing to entertain opinions differing from their own. Trust and honesty are the lifeblood of any high performing team. Teams succeed, or not, based on the ability of leaders to create and maintain a climate that nurtures both.