If you can read those words without hearing the voice of Aretha Franklin, you are a better person than I. Then, as now, this word has special meaning and comes into sharp focus for some during Black History Month. The word itself reaches far beyond this singular area of inclusion; in fact it extends to the entire force in terms of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation.
In January 2021, Task Force One Navy (TF1N) submitted its final report to the Secretary of the Navy and made a recommendation to add “Respect” to Navy and Marine Corps Core Values. The rationale was that it directly addresses issues highlighted by the task force and aligns with the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO’s) message on Signature Behaviors. One year has passed; why has it not been added?
Let’s try a short “thought inversion” exercise: Turn Aretha’s song on its head and consider a few behaviors that do not belong in an organization that values respect as a core value for its members:
Racism
Extremism
Sexism
Prejudice
Exclusion
Condescension
Taunting
Why Add “Respect”?
Well, there are some indications that the above behaviors are still occurring. Let’s look at some other things that happened in 2021 and ask ourselves if the Navy needs to focus on respect:
- August 2021: The Department of Defense (DoD) Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault report stated that 24 percent of women report being harassed in the workplace.
- January 2021: A DoD report stated that nearly a third (33 percent) of Black U.S. military service members reported experiencing racial discrimination, harassment or both during a 12-month period.
- Both of these reports found “high levels of dissatisfaction with the complaint process and largely did not report it.”
- Much of this data was either previously unreported, or lacked updated information.
In the context of these reports, an important caveat: One frequent use of the term “respect” in a military context often implies that it is a one way street (up the chain of command) such as when a junior salutes or walks behind a senior. In the diversity, equality, and inclusion context, however, respect in the other direction—of peers and subordinates—is even more important. When leaders do not respect their subordinates and peers, who also do not respect each other, there is a deleterious and tangible impact on key warfighting areas that we hold dear and are quite central to success in any military organization: Teamwork, Trust, and Readiness.
Why not add “Respect”?
Maybe there are good reasons for not adding it. No reason to assume or assign blame in this forum—the argument could be that core values cannot be changed. I would submit that even the Constitution has been amended a few times when the times demanded it—perhaps a slightly higher bar.
One final thought is that a tangible act such as adding “Respect” to the core values would add tremendous credibility to the results of the Task Force One Navy process. Respect is a cornerstone of inclusion; why ask a highly qualified committee to investigate this area and make recommendations and then not implement them? The recommendations did not occur in a vacuum—the report states that they (and in particular this one) were “socialized (with concurrence) with senior Navy flag officers and the [Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy’s] Senior Enlisted Leadership Mess.” So this should be easy! Some senior leaders I engaged felt the core values should not be changed; but that begs a question, are the Navy’s core values a top-down initiative or should they reflect the core values of the individuals who join and serve the organization, to reinforce the things that they hold dear? If we were to ask the sailors and Marines mentioned the 2021 reports listed above, what would they say? I bet they would tell us exactly what was missing while they were being sexually or racially harassed by their peers or supervisors: Respect.
