Captain Crozier's Covid 19 Dilemma

Communication, Ethics, and a Command Decision

Part 1: Analysis of the Scenario

The decision of Captain Crozier to disseminate a communication about the breakout of Covid-19 on the USS Theodore Roosevelt did not at all reflect the virtue, valor, collectedness, or understanding of that ship’s namesake. Teddy Roosevelt was as much a frontiersman as a leader of others; Crozier was rather like a town crier. Crozier, first, communicated his plea not up the chain of command as he should have done, but rather widely with the intention of having the content of the message gotten out into the open. As a Captain he should have known that the military does not look favorably upon this type of action. He should have trusted his superiors to know the right course of action—especially since discretion was still warranted regarding Covid-19 so as not to cause panic; no one knew at the time how deadly it really was, and time has since shown that it was little different from a bad flu, particularly for young people who were far less at risk of death than elderly people were. Yet Crozier did not give much thought to caution. He sent the message as a Captain via email, and as a Captain he attached a great deal of significance to the message, for he was a man of authority. Yet he cheapened that authority by using email and the media to spread his message; for authority requires hierarchy and order—otherwise it becomes soft and flimsy and disrespected. Crozier compromised his own authority when he stepped outside the chains of command to alert the public about something he himself knew very little about. He acted more out of hysteria than out of a position of knowledge. His intent might have been to help his crew, but he distrusted the chain of command and thus demonstrated poor leadership on his own part, and gave a bad example to his crew, himself potentially injuring them more than Covid ever could have.

In the letter, the content was hyperbolic and somewhat uninformed: Crozier wrote, “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die,” with regards to some sailors having flu-like symptoms and testing positive for Covid-19 (Simkins, 2020). How Crozier could have ever written such a thing after having attained the rank of Captain is perhaps the most shocking thing: soldiers may not be at war in the sense that they are fighting—but they must always be ready for war; and they must always be ready to die. The attitude of Crozier in this letter is not befitting a genuine military leader; it is rather an attitude of an anxious nanny who does not know how to think clearly but rather becomes emotionally disturbed at the slightest provocation. What did Crozier know about Covid-19 at the time of writing that would have justified such an attitude in his letter? Looking back, he must surely regret the content and tone, even though it was later reported that one sailor died from complications due to Covid (Stewart & Ali, 2020)—but even in that report there is partial knowledge; it is not known if the soldier had an underlying condition or what kind of care he received or anything else. Crozier assumed a great deal when he assumed his sailors were at risk of dying from Covid.

If this situation had occurred in the private sector rather than in the military about a ship containing a nuclear reactor, it is unlikely the reaction would have been any different. The private sector also has a chain of command, and when leaders go outside the chain of command to “blow the whistle” on something they feel is impactful but that in reality, when judged calmly and with reason, is not as significant as the person has believed it to be, such leaders are typically dealt with similarly: they are fired. Leadership is not something that can be taken lightly, and neither is the chain of command, even in the private sector (Kelchner, 2019).

Part 2: Written Communication

The medium for this message is an official letter from the commanding officer to the Public Affairs Officer, and it will be shared with all aboard the ship because the situation presents a learning opportunity for one and all. This is the most appropriate medium because this is a serious matter and a simple email would not do the matter justice. When grave lessons are to be taught, the medium should reflect the gravity of the situation. Captain Crozier’s foolish example of leadership is such that it constituted a grave matter and deserves an official letter from the commanding officer so that all may know where he stands and where they should stand.

Captain Crozier of the USS Theodore Roosevelt betrayed his position and the chain of command when he went outside the chain of command to air grievances that were based more on emotion and an ill-informed opinion than on anything else. The principles of command are such that they, of themselves, should have prevent Crozier from acting in this rash and unjust manner. Barring them, Crozier should have at least been prevented from acting thus by his respect for the chain of command. But even here he showed what type of mettle permeated his character when he decided instead to communicate with the whole world by sharing his email widely and in an unsecure manner.

Confidentiality, tone, and convention are all important aspects of communication in the military. Confidentiality is crucial in communication because not every message is meant for all eyes. The reason for confidentiality is simple: intelligence meant for specific individuals is meant for them for a specific reason—they are capable of being entrusted with that information and of acting appropriately in response to receiving that information. Not everyone has that capacity, and thus not all communications are meant for everyone. Confidentiality is based on confidence. In the military, one earns confidence through work, discipline and accomplishment. To step outside the zone of confidentiality and to communicate sensitive matters to the wider world is a demonstration of incompetence and extremely poor leadership.