McChrystal and Insubordination
The definition of insubordination is sometimes elusive. Everyone seems to agree that insubordination can result in a discharge. The question that causes disagreement is whether whatever the conduct in question is actually constitutes insubordination. I’m not in a position to judge what kind of job General Stanley McChrystal has been doing in Afghanistan, but I feel certain that what he said and did as reported in Rolling Stone amounts to insubordination. President Obama didn’t have to fire McChrystal, but he’s absolutely justified in doing so from an employment law standpoint. Employers who struggle with the meaning of insubordination should file this incident away as a good example of the offense.
Leave a Reply
About Chris Parker
Chris Parker's practice focuses on the representation and counseling of companies in matters pertaining to the workplace and the protection of their intellectual property and trade secrets. In addition to serving as an advocate for clients, Mr. Parker is also trained as a mediator and frequently serves as a third-party neutral.
Read more about Chris Parker
About Jimmy Daniel
Jimmy Daniel provides counseling to businesses of all sizes related to the employment relationship. He assists in the drafting of employment agreements, policies, and handbooks, as well as provides guidance related to compliance with federal, state, and local legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Read more about Jimmy Daniel
About Larry Bridgesmith
While serving in an Of Counsel relationship with the firm, Mr. Bridgesmith also serves as the Executive Director at the Institute for Conflict Resolution at Lipscomb University and as an officer and principal in Strategic Resolutions Group, LLC. In these roles, Mr. Bridgesmith brings over 30 years of legal experience in dispute resolution and innovative workplace strategies to clients, students and business entities alike.
Read more about Larry Bridgesmith
I have to disagree with you on this one John. I am no fan of the General (because of how he lied and covered up the Pat Tillman “fratricide.”) But how exactly was he insubordinate as he was portrayed in the article?
You read a couple of things from the Gen’s cronies, that “The Boss” was not happy…. yada yada yada.
I’ve always understood insubordination as failing to follow a lawful order given by a superior. I saw none of that in this article.
It’s Rolling Stone for God’s sake. The President of the U.S. used a RS article as justification to fire a General? Chicken Shit if you ask me.
I try to tell people that they should not view disrespect from a subordinate as insubordination. That’s unprofessionalism And I did not even pick up any evidence of even disrespect coming directly from McC.
Was it that he didn’t want to read an email from a diplomat the likes of Holbrook that was the straw that broke Obama’s back?
You might need to re-read kind sir. I’d love to here specific evidence from the text Counselor. E.
E,
Sorry to be late responding to your comment. I always appreciate your comments, even when they are critical.
I don’t think there is a specifically recognized definition for insubordination. The one you gave in your comment is often used. Another one that is often quoted with approval is something like the failure to recognize or submit to the authority of a superior. I would say that McChyrstal’s conduct falls into the definition I quoted more than the one you quoted, but again, there is no definition that captures everything that can fall within insubordination, in my opinion.
The quotes attributed to McChrystal and his aides in the presence of McChyrstal held the president and his administration up to ridicule. To me, that clearly is insubordination that justifies a discharge. I don’t know whether Obama should have discharged McChrystal, but he was within the rights of any employer to discharge a key employee who makes it possible for the public disdain of the person at the top to occur. It’s not necessary for the person in question, in this case McChrystal, to specifically say I don’t think the boss knows what he’s doing in order for insubordination to occur when that attitude is expressed by a series of quotes attributed to the person or his aides. I don’t think McChrystal has denied the truth of anything published in the Rolling Stone article, including McChrystal’s own quote that Obama had sent him to sell an unsellable position on the Afghanistan war. For a key employee to publicly say that about his CEO’s business strategy would surely justify the employee’s termination. McChrystal said it about the president’s position on an ongoing war.
I’m inclined to think that Rolling Stone has as much credibility as most mainline media outlets. What’s amazing is that McChrystal let a reporter from any media organization to hang around the discussions of him and his aides for five minutes. It seems to me that McChrystal wanted to once again publicly take on the president. He can do that, and the president can fire him for it.
When Truman sacked MacArthur for insubordination in Korea, Truman was pilloried, and MacArthur returned to the U.S. to sheer adulation. There were calls for Truman’s impeachment at the time. History has judged Truman’s decision to have been the right one. Truman made it clear that the Commander in Chief is superior to any general. Some still argue that Truman shouldn’t have fired MacArthur because of his superior skills and experience as a war-time general and commander. They may be right, but Truman needed to show MacArthur, the military and the public that it’s the president who decides whether generals go or stay.McChrystal can now write a book and get on the speaking circuit as MacArthur did and make a lot of money.
I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m a big believer in strong give and take between the boss and his subordinates behind closed doors. It’s essential for a healthy organization, and it results in better decisions. Once a decision is made, however, there can continue to be debate on the inside but not on the outside.
You and I usually agree. It’s interesting that on this one, you think there’s no question that Obama overstepped, and I think he absolutely had the right to do what he did. Just shows you that great minds can disagree.
Thanks again for weighing in.
John
Not sure about my great mind. I’m sure of yours though.
I appreciate your idea that the Gen. really wanted to take on the president publicly using the media. Since he gave the author a month to follow him around, that must have been part of his motivation. Not a good move. I see your point. I really do. It is clear that McC is a cowboy and wanted to be portrayed that way. The cowboy types did get beat in the last election, so not such a good way to play it these days. Thanks John! Keep up the good work. E.
Thanks, E. Let’s both keep on keeping on.
John
Considering McChrystal’s actions pale in comparison to the President’s misuse and abuse of his office and the law, how do we the people fire Obama for insubordination?
The_Pilgrim
Pilgrim,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t think insubordination would fall within treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. If you think some of the President’s other actions fall within that standard, you could try to get a member of the House to introduce articles of impeachment. That’s highly unlikely to happen, even more unlikely that the Senate would convict if articles of impeachment were voted out of the House. I’m sure you already know all of this and were just making a statement about your displeasure with the President.
Your comment does make a good point about trying to impeach, fire or remove a person at the top for insubordination. That’s never a reason for sacking the man or woman at the top — at least, I’ve never seen it used before.
Thanks again for your comment.
John
In the military, this is viewed as insubordination because no member of the armed forces is permitted to publicly criticize the Commander in Chief. As a veteran, I know that members of the armed forces are held to a higher standard than civilians when it comes to insubordination.
P.Russo,
Thanks for your comment. You’re right, generally speaking. Even in the civilian world, though, I think what McChrystal did would be considered by most as insubordination.
John
Having served in the military myself, I understand why the president removed the General. As soldiers we are trained to obey and respect our chian of command, which ultimately means recognising civilian control of the military. As a young soldier I was proud to serve under the hon. Dick Cheney and President Busch, all thouth I did not share all of thier beliefes. They were like gods to a lowwly private. I would have fought and died for them. Why did I feel this way? The Seargents and Officers appointed over me taught me to feel that way. To have that kind of respect for the chain of command is what allows soldiers to follow orders in combat without questioning the nature of the man that gave them the order.
If a general starts eroding that concept, he brings into question his own command.
A,
Thanks very much for your comment. Getting the point of view of someone who has been in the military is helpful in fleshing out this subject.
John