Integrity

[sovbob]

After reading through Bighouz107501's thread about a CTE cheating scandal onboard the USS Truman, I noticed that it sparked a lively debate regarding integrity.  The original posting wasn't about integrity, but rather about what Bighouz107501's options were in the aftermath of this scandal.  So I decided I would start a separate thread because I think it's an engaging and important topic to discuss.

You can read the original thread here:
http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,18370.0.html

[DLGN25]

You just relieved the RO for your 8 hour shutdown watch.  The engine room is staffed with just you and the MM at the charging station.  You are continuing the cool down cycle started earlier.  Half way through you watch you notice the plots for pressure and temperature are against the heat up curve, not the cool down.  The plant will be at the ordered temperature in a couple more hours.

What do you do?  No one but you know that the previous watch(s) started the mistake and you continued it.  So not from a technical point of view, but from one of integrity, how would you handle this situation?

[sovbob]

From the very beginning, nukes are taught that integrity is the cornerstone, the foundation of everything we do.  People aren't perfect (not even you, ELTs).  People make mistakes, and by admitting those mistakes we can address the problem.

I can think of two separate incidents in which I was faced with a difficult situation.  The first time, I improperly reassembled the bus rings on an SSMG.  The chief didn't catch it on his closeout inspection.  We started it up, and the one of the rings had a high resistance connection, causing an explosion inside the machine and about $250,000 worth of repairs.

At the critique, I admitted that it was in fact I who had messed up, as well as the chief.  In the end, nobody went to Captain's Mast, and nobody got disqualified.  But it was still a pretty unpleasant time.

The other incident involved me falling asleep on watch.  I was the containment watch during a grueling shiftwork period, in which I had not had even close to adequate sleep.  But I relieved the watch anyway.  I was found, relieved, and promptly sent up in front of the Old Man.  It was, to say the least, an extremely unpleasant time in my naval career.

In my statements, I was forthright and honest, claiming that I had not had adequate sleep (it had been several 16-hour days in a row).  In spite of this, I was standing in front of the green tablecloth.  The CO, recognizing the situation, gave me a slap on the wrist along with 45 days extra duty and a suspended bust.  I have no doubt in my mind that things would have turned out very differently if I had chosen a different path.

So I'm here to tell you that your fate will be better when you admit your mistakes.  Chalk one up for integrity.

But why do we have so many cases of people violating their integrity in the Navy?  Are these people sleazy?  Would they rather take the easy route?  I don't think it's as simple as that.  It's easy to say "They violated their integrity and so we should hammer them until they're a puddle of greasy black goo."  And they should be punished, rightly so.

But recognize that nobody shows up to their command with the intention of cheating.  Take, for example, an ELT.  His job (one of them anyway) is to sample and maintain chemistry within a tight specification.  That's fine, so he diligently samples the water and comes up with the results.  But when he presents these results to the officer, the officer scratches his head and says "Why is pH doing this?"  The ELT reaches into his magic chemistry hat and pulls out a reason.  "It's because we changed flugelbinders yesterday, and so our temperature corrected barflagett, which follows this graph is higher than it usually is.  It's still in spec, sir."  The officer scratches his head and says "Ehhh, I dunno.  Maybe you did the analysis wrong.  Go sample it again."  Now the ELT knows that chemistry is perfectly fine.  These analysis are inherently inaccurate, but the officer won't feel comfortable unless it comes out as he expects.  So the ELT can either sample the water three or four more times, or he can just fudge the numbers and go on with the rest of his business.

Now hold on a minute.  You might be thinking "So what if he samples it three or four more times?  It's more important to get it right than violate your integrity."  And you do make a point.  It is VERY important to get it right, because the consequences of getting it wrong can be dire.  But this chemistry result falls well within specification, it just doesn't follow the "expected" results, because the tests are inaccurate.

On a fast-attack submarine, you are pulled in a hundred different directions.  There never seems to be enough time to get it all done.  There's a mountain of paperwork, field day, training, tests, corrective maintenance, preventative maintenance, standing watch, planning out schedules, qualifications, etc.  And oh yeah, you're short handed.  Needless to say, you're as busy as a one-armed octopus.  And so it comes down to a matter of prioritizing.

In a perfect world, everybody would be able to devote adequate attention to every task that is set before them.  Unfortunately, life on a submarine is far from perfect.  It's more like a long series of crisis management.  The most important thing on the ship was not training, not cleaning, not meals, not sleep, not quals.  It was getting the ship ready to go to sea and doing whatever it took to get there.

We worked hard, long hours.  We struggled to maintain a high standard of excellence.  And occasionally we got a few precious hours off the boat.  We tried to help our fellow shipmates.  But in the end, there was simply too much work, and not enough people.  And so you have to compromise.  Take the most important things, and do them right.  If your training suffers, so be it.  If the cleanliness of the ship suffers, so be it.  At least your ship is out at sea.

I don't think it's laziness that makes people violate their integrity.  I've seen some of the best, brightest, and hardest-working people in my life violate their integrity again and again in the name of getting work accomplished.  Should they have done it the right way?  Of course.  But when you're slogging through it day after day, far from the pristine white halls of Naval Reactors Offices, it's easy to stray from the path.

[JustinHEMI05]

You just relieved the RO for your 8 hour shutdown watch.  The engine room is staffed with just you and the MM at the charging station.  You are continuing the cool down cycle started earlier.  Half way through you watch you notice the plots for pressure and temperature are against the heat up curve, not the cool down.  The plant will be at the ordered temperature in a couple more hours.

What do you do?  No one but you know that the previous watch(s) started the mistake and you continued it.  So not from a technical point of view, but from one of integrity, how would you handle this situation?

I like this game.

You are SRW on a sat night around 1 am. You are out doing your rounds when you hear the distinct sounds of valves stroking. You run to the box to find out that the bored SRO wanted to play a game called "How far does the switch go before valves stroke." The SRO is in a panick.

What do you do?

Justin

[Khak-Hater]

Wikipedia [skyNet, the Borg, the assimilation of all knowledge] has an interesting discussion on Integrity at:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity

Without repeating the whole thing here, it seemed to focus on the completeness and consistency of a value system.  Here's an excerpt:

"The etymology of the word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity may comprise the personal inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from (say) honesty and consistency of character. As such, one can judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that one judges whether they behave according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold."  

I know how the khaks define Integrity, and not surprisingly, that definition ideally suits their needs, but I'm not sure that that's really it.  My idea of integrity is to always focus on team success, nurture and grow everyone who's willing to contribute, take responsability for all that you touch, and never throw anyone under the bus.  Having lived this code consistently has served me, the organizations that I've served, and those that served with me very well.  I'm not sure that that's not a good example of integrity.

I think the Navy Nuke definition of Integrity is closer to what we called "honor" at VMI:  "I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."  Although, I always thought that they missed the boat on that word too.  I knew plenty of cadets who never lied, cheated, or stole, but were far from honorable men.

I think that honor and integrity are very good things.  I'm just not sure that we all know what they really mean, and some rigid, dogmatic code is rarely the answer.

mgm

[sovbob]

I like this game.

You are SRW on a sat night around 1 am. You are out doing your rounds when you hear the distinct sounds of valves stroking. You run to the box to find out that the bored SRO wanted to play a game called "How far does the switch go before valves stroke." The SRO is in a panick.

What do you do?

Justin

I'll do you one better.

It's Saturday morning in port, 0640.  The EDO wants to get the primary sample done early in the morning and get it out of the way before duty section turnover at 0700.  So the ELT is in the lab, getting ready to head down to the primary sample sink.  The EDO orders the SRO (an EM1) to open the IX isolation valve.  The SRO says it's not necessary yet, and premature opening of the valve will unnecessarily cool down the plant.  The EDO orders the SRO to open the valve again.  The SRO says "You do it, sir."  The EDO, feeling particularly ballsy, walks over to the RPCP and defiantly turns the switch.

...Except it wasn't the IX isolation valve control, it was the RCLIV switch right next to it.

It's now 0645.  Duty section turnover is going to happen in 15 minutes.  What do you do?

Note:  I can neither confirm nor deny that I may have known an EM1 and an EDO at one time, nor can I confirm or deny the authenticity of this scenario.

[G-reg]

Let's not get too carried away with (hypothetical) kiss-and-tell stories here.  The walls have ears...

[sovbob]

You're absolutely right.

The precedeing story may or may not have happened years ago.

[DLGN25]

There seems to be a thought that things were different back then then now.  I do not think so.  From my experience in the fleet from 1968-70, many examples come to mind that would question the integrity of individuals in the crew.  That said, nothing I saw, or experienced, that went unreported would hazard the plant or the ship's mission.  What I did see was when mistakes were made, and they were big mistakes, they were reported.

Was this a lack of integrity or was it weighing the response to the admission to a mistake?   Forty years ago, I and my shipmates operated under fear of the command and retribution from ourselves.  (Note: by command I am not referring to the Chief Engineer or the MPA, they were hard driving and demanding, but fair men.  I am referring to the fear of having Rickover grilling you). This fear factor entered all the decisions we made and I do not think it made us better then then now.  For this reason, the hypothetical heat up curve vs cool down curve error I posed would not be reported.

In closing, I have not experienced what it is like "now", but the "back then" was not all that perfect or full of integrity as some may like to believe.

[JustinHEMI05]

I just wanted to clarify that my scenario is purely hypothetical.

Justin

[sovbob]

So is mine.   

[Fermi2]

Here,

I assign someone to go do a job and they go out, use procedures and if something goes wrong and even if it's due to their negligence they come up and say Mikey, I screwed up.

I leave a half complete test on a table. I walk away and those who were left in the room do not look at the exam, even though they know I've probably just written the key. That's integrity.

Someone is out working a job, they bring it back with all steps initialed and I know they initial only if the item was done correctly and their readings are correct. That's integrity.

It's the real world out there people, NOT a dictionary!

[JustinHEMI05]

+1. In my short commercial career, I have yet to see integrity as an issue out here. I am not saying there aren't integrity issues, just that I haven't seen them yet. In contrast, someone's integrity was always in question everywhere I went in the Navy. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out Mike.

Justin

[Marlin]

   This is a very dangerous subject and I will not use any first person stories but I will retell a story from WWII. As many may know the Navy had a problem early in the war with torpedo's that were not hitting their targets and not exploding on contact. The Navy (the bureaucrats) insisted that the problem was the operation of the weapons by the crews and forbid them to alter the settings made in the weapons depots. To ensure that the settings were not altered the depot would seal the openings with a spot of paint so that they would know if the panels were opened. The submarine crews were able to make modifications to the torpedo's anyway because the personnel in the depots would supply a small can of paint to the crew so that they could remark the weapon after adjustments. This fixed the problem with the torpedo's running depth but the problem of not exploding on contact was not solved until Admiral Lockwood fired a number of torpedo's into a cliff proving tho the Weapons group that there was a problem (he dissected diagnosed the problem as well).
  When I look at integrity I see the Barney Fife style of integrity and the Sherriff Taylor brand of integrity. I had a chief whom I respected who described the Navy career as having a lot of mud puddles you should avoid but there will come a time when you will have to step in one and hope it is not to deep. It all comes down to doing the right thing. Cheating on a test is not on the scope for integrity of any type but we know it happens even in the Naval Academy, a large part of the class was lost to this integrity violation in the 70s.

  Bottom line, do the right thing and be willing to take the consequences for any action. Some of our greatest leader's have stepped outside the lines when required.

[Fermi2]

Cheating or helping others to cheat isn't stepping outside the lines. It's a downright foul worth ejecting a player over.

As a Shift Manager I've had to step outside the lines when something wasn't clearly defined or no definition or procedural guidance was not available for something I KNEW (vice wanted) had to be done. I stepped outside the lines there, and in some cases it didn't work out so well. I raised my hand, said I made that decision and here is why, took whatever lumps needed to be taken and moved on. That's not cheating but would fall under stepping outside the lines.

Mike

[Marlin]

Cheating or helping others to cheat isn't stepping outside the lines. It's a downright foul worth ejecting a player over.

As a Shift Manager I've had to step outside the lines when something wasn't clearly defined or no definition or procedural guidance was not available for something I KNEW (vice wanted) had to be done. I stepped outside the lines there, and in some cases it didn't work out so well. I raised my hand, said I made that decision and here is why, took whatever lumps needed to be taken and moved on. That's not cheating but would fall under stepping outside the lines.

Mike

   I don't think we disagree on this point but the subject seemed to open to integrity beyond a classroom setting. I did say that "Cheating on a test is not on the scope for integrity of any type". The scenarios above were operational and open to judgement. In my opinion not up to the mudpuddle test that would make you much too dirty for benefit derived. While in the Navy, I was the watch on the charge/discharge station and took action outside of procedure without permission. This was a mudpuddle that earned me a commendation from the CO for quick action mitigating a potentially adverse condition. I acted within my training but outside of procedural compliance. I am just saying Integrity is not always black and white. A bureaucrat would view it much differently than someone in the trenches.

[RDTroja]

Here,

I assign someone to go do a job and they go out, use procedures and if something goes wrong and even if it's due to their negligence they come up and say Mikey, I screwed up.

I leave a half complete test on a table. I walk away and those who were left in the room do not look at the exam, even though they know I've probably just written the key. That's integrity.

Someone is out working a job, they bring it back with all steps initialed and I know they initial only if the item was done correctly and their readings are correct. That's integrity.

It's the real world out there people, NOT a dictionary!

If you left the test out uncontrolled, that is probably a procedural violation and at least a compromise of the test. If you then used that test, knowing it had been compromised, that is a violation of integrity... no matter who you trust.

[Fermi2]

I am fully allowed to leave a test on a table with a proctor present and yes even with a proctor it is possible for someone to look at your test. Even at that, there is nothing anywhere that says I am responsible for controlling my exam. Don't confuse an honest mistake with an integrity violation.
It's a moot point since it rarely takes me over 25 minutes to complete an exam so it'd never happen anyway.

Mike

[elwood]

I have to agree with everything BZ has said.  Integrity is everything in this busisness.  If you cheat on a test what other shortcuts are you going to take? If I can't trust your word then I don't want to work with you.  It is that simple.

[Khak-Hater]

It's the real world out there people, NOT a dictionary!

"Inconceivable"

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Yes, we all live in the real world too, but the discussion is on the word and/or concept of integrity.  I'm suggesting that the single-minded definition that's in your head may not be what it really is.  I'm sure that it's nice for some of you to have such certainty that you don't even have to consider the definition, but that kind of certainty can have negative effects.

For example, how would you define the word good?  What are some examples of good actions?
-  a Nazi might be certain that killing Jews is good.
-  a radical Islamic terrorist might be certain that killing infidels is good.
-  a sixtenth century Jesuit Inquisitor might be certain that torturing heretics until they confess and convert to Catholicism is good. 

All of these people lived in the real world and were very certain that they understood the definition of the word.  Personally, I think that they might've been slightly confused.

As a manager in this business, do I want to be able to trust an that an employees actions are trustworthy?  Yes.  I'd also like to know that they are loyal to our cause.  I'd also like to know that they're competent, but more importantly that they'll recognize it and ask for help when they're not.  I'd love for them to never make mistakes, but I kind of understand when they do.  I'd rather that they actually do some work than be so frightened of screwing up that they never do.  There are a lot of positive traits that I'd hope that they might exhibit, but I don't kid myself by thinking that there's some essential truth that they must understand exactly as I understand it for them to be useful employees for my organization.

I don't think that anyone is useless refuse because of a single mistake or period of weakness.  Personally, I've sinned more in what I've failed to do than in what I've done.  One way or another, we are all in need of grace. 

mgm

[LOKI RAD]

Well said. 

[Khak-Hater]

Not to belabor the point, but plenty of Nazis and terrorists, as well as most inquisitors, died with their integrity of conviction intact.  The ones who don't die for their cause (e.g., run and hide) lack the faith and fervor to do so.  Your logic would indicate that those who were so fanatical to have died for their cause were better men [or maybe that they simply had more integrity].  This only further illuminates the point that single-minded integrity based on a poorly founded or understood dogma isn't necessarily a good thing.  Personally, I've never believed in a cause so fervently that I intentionally gave my life for it, nor do I think that any of you have, unless you're posting from the other side [which begs the question "Do they have Nukeworker.com in heaven?].

Regarding our late pope, he has little in common with the inquisitors of old, other than nominally sharing catholicism.  He was the kind of man who stood up to inquisitors (e.g., Nazis, communists, etc.).  His reasonable consideration of the church's past sins is no reflection on the convictions of the "men of integrity" who committed those sins, most of whom who had the luxury of going to their graves certain of their virtue.

Ex nihilo nihil fit,

mgm

[RDTroja]

I am fully allowed to leave a test on a table with a proctor present and yes even with a proctor it is possible for someone to look at your test. Even at that, there is nothing anywhere that says I am responsible for controlling my exam. Don't confuse an honest mistake with an integrity violation.
It's a moot point since it rarely takes me over 25 minutes to complete an exam so it'd never happen anyway.

Mike

Nice dance.

Are you writing the test in the example or taking it? Your statement about 'writing the answer key' made me think you were writing the test, but your ego would allow for you to make that statement if you were taking the test, too. In your example, you said nothing about proctors and if there is a proctor there (doing his/her job), of course there is no violation but there is no test of integrity, either. Those without integrity who are left in the room don't get to look at the test because there is a proctor there... it is not an uncontrolled test.

Whether you are the test author or the test taker, you most certainly are responsible for controlling your test (which can include leaving it in the control of an authorized individual) and if you don't believe that you are a fool. I bet you sign a statement when you take a test stating (in effect) that you have not given or received unauthorized help during the exam. Leaving the test for others to see is giving help. That was not the point anyway. The integrity violation is not leaving the test uncontrolled, it is using the test after knowing it was compromised... and compromised means that it was left improperly controlled, not that you are sure that someone has seen it. Honest mistakes are fine if corrected. In the case of a compromised test, that means making another that is not compromised and not using the original.

I know you are a Mary Poppins clone ("Practically perfect in every way") because you so often point it out to the rest of us in your 'unwashed masses' category, but if you are writing tests and making answer keys in 25 minutes you are making lousy tests (or cutting and pasting from others.) If you are taking tests in 25 minutes, that is not hard to believe or unusual but go ahead and pat yourself on the back. As far as that rendering the point moot, then why did you use it as an example in the first place?

[heavymetal atom]

I leave a half complete test on a table. I walk away and those who were left in the room do not look at the exam, even though they know I've probably just written the key. That's integrity.

RDTroja, I have to admit that I got a chuckle from your post.  However, the Broadzilla bashing does seem a bit over the top.  All of this discussion about "controlling your test" is rather beside the point.  BZ never referred to the integrity (or lack thereof) inherent in leaving the test half complete in a room full of test takers.  That wasn't the point of the example.  The point was that the others in the room didn't cheat off of his test, and in doing so they displayed integrity.  Maybe it's not the best example ever given, but give the guy a break.  Making Mary Poppins references and questioning his test making skills seems a bit extreme when based solely on this one hypothetical scenario, am I right? 

-Tim     

[retired nuke]

RDTroja, I have to admit that I got a chuckle from your post.  However, the Broadzilla bashing does seem a bit over the top.  All of this discussion about "controlling your test" is rather beside the point.   

-Tim     

Is "controlling your test" anything like "mastering your domain"??