The Anthrax Crucible
Leading boldly isn't always about breaking the rules. A bold leader's best moments often come from navigating a group through unknown territory, a threatening situation, or even an unpopular requirement. The story I'm about to share features all three. Although these events took place at the very end of the 20th Century, my story opens up with a topic that is very contemporary and very controversial - mandatory vaccinations.
It's often said that leadership is basically just influence. One definition I heard early in my career was "leadership is getting people to do something they don't want to do, and like doing it". Especially today, with the workforce in flux and facing new requirements amidst a deluge of conflicting and confusing information, it's crucial that leaders wield every skill in their repertoire to successfully navigate their teams through uncertain times.
In my coaching practice I help executives intentionally grow in ten crucial leadership skills - authenticity, competence, drive, courage, trustworthiness, integrity, openness, empathy, transparency and curiosity. You'll encounter good and bad examples of almost every one of these in this tale. I know, it's a story I participated in first-hand.
Disclaimer #1: This is a story about leadership in tough situations. It intentionally does not enter into the current public debate over COVID-19 vaccination policies. These experiences, observations and insights are passed along in the hope that leaders facing similar workplace requirements today can draw from them.
The Vaccination Mandate
It was 1999. Two Navy aviation squadrons were tasked with operational detachments to South Korea in the coming year. Tensions were high in that area of the world at the time and every bit as volatile as they are today, if not more so. Our North Korean adversary was believed to have weaponized Anthrax - a brutally destructive and infectious bacterial disease. At the time, and for several years to follow, Anthrax was considered the most serious biological threat to troops on the battlefield. In fact, the Department of Defense had embarked on a campaign to vaccinate every warrior in every branch of the service, but were having difficulty getting hold of enough vaccine to pull it off. Priority was being given to those bound for Southeast Asia.
As the order came down, word quickly spread at our two squadrons - Everyone operating in and around Korea would be required to have at least the first two shots in the full Anthrax vaccine series - 6 shots spaced out over several months.
The Anthrax vaccine had only recently received FDA approval, following reopening of the manufacturing facility after a closure, and was very controversial. Stories of horrible side effects were all over the news and popping up frequently on the fledgling Internet.
Citizen Sailors
There might be a tendency at this point, especially if you've never served in the armed forces, to consider this scenario a classic military situation - one in which the Commander simply orders "take that shot", then the Sailors dutifully line up with exposed arms to follow the order. In reality, the challenge faced by the leaders in this story bears a closer resemblance to one you might face in any company or organization in the private or social sectors.
The men and women of these two squadrons were mostly Reservists - citizen Sailors who had spent some time on active duty, then left to pursue full-time civilian careers, signing back on to wear the uniform, continue to serve and receive pay on a part-time basis. Every Reservist knew they could get called up in the event of wartime or national emergency but, barring such a historic event, their part-time service was completely voluntary. They served because they wanted to.
The Navy's rules, regulations and policies applied fully to Reservists, but only so long as they remained in uniform. Reserve officers, as well as those enlisted Sailors who had met their initial service obligation, could walk away from this part-time military employment any time they wanted to.
Or any time they felt compelled to by a requirement beyond what they had signed on for.
Disclaimer #2: The US Navy squadrons represented in this story were actual units, that have since been decommissioned or transitioned to other missions. I personally know dozens of superb Officers and Sailors who served in both units while they were operational. This story is about leadership culture, the behaviors it engenders and the consequences of those behaviors. It is not my intent to impugn the professionalism of the men and women who served honorably in both squadrons.
The Condors and the Liberty Bells
The Condors and the Liberty Bells were two of the seven squadrons that made up the US Navy's Reserve Patrol Wing. They flew the P-3C Orion, a large multi-place aircraft with four Allison turboprop engines and an operational crew of twelve, the vast majority Reservists.
As if maintaining combat readiness with a corps of volunteers wasn't challenging enough, the rules for sustaining hard-earned qualifications were the same for both reserve and active duty squadrons. Aircrew earned quals together, as a team. If more than one name changed on the crew list, that crew lost its quals and the combat readiness of the entire squadron was reduced. Add to this the fact that virtually all the Reserve pilots were airline pilots by day. They're livelihood relied on staying healthy enough to pass a recurring airline flight physical - something an adverse reaction to the Anthrax vaccine could put in jeopardy.
It was definitely a tough position we were in - leading a corps of volunteers through a mandatory requirement that none of them were happy about, and many of them actually feared.
The Crucible
A P3C Orion flown by the Liberty Bells
The Condors and the Liberty Bells flew the same aircraft, had the same mission, and even co-occupied the same hangar. Both recruited their Reserve aircrew from the same demographic in the same geography. It would be hard to find a better basis of comparison than two equally equipped, identically staffed, collocated Navy squadrons flying the same mission. These squadrons entered the crucible identical in every way but two - leadership and the culture that leadership forged.
Once the orders were confirmed, the Condors and Liberty Bells got together to discuss ideas for handling the vaccination requirement. Each agreed they should have their own "All Hands" meeting to announce the requirement, set expectations and address concerns.
And that was the last thing they agreed on.
Disclaimer #3: As senior leaders we had our work cut out for us. What any of us personally thought about the vaccine mandate was irrelevant. Our collective job was to field Combat Air Crews to deploy to the Western Pacific and counter the North Korean threat - trained, certified ready ... and vaccinated. Accomplishing this goal was about duty. It also bore the requirement to overcome fear with trust. There is no "just in time" tactic for fostering trust. The foundation for success or failure had been laid in each squadron well before word of the mandate made it's way down the chain of command.
From the minute squadron leaders left that initial meeting and headed back to their ends of the long hangar passageway, their organizations began to move in very different directions - guided by the cultures nurtured over years of cascading leadership. In fact, there's a case to be made that culture alone would've yielded different results, even if the squadrons made all the same decisions and executed identically; the stronger squadron culture, grounded in proven trust and earned loyalty, having the advantage as Sailors responded to the vaccine requirement positively, so as to not let their team down. Such is the power of a consistent culture of trust, and this could very well have been the case in this story; but, as it happened, the uniqueness of their two cultures was also profoundly reflected in the decisions each made and the way they each executed on four key approaches - delivering the message, leadership's response and example, information transparency, and holding the line.
Condor Sailors loading ordnance for a dawn launch
Delivering the Message
Each squadron decided to address the mandate at a day-long All-Hands meeting. Condor and Liberty Bell leadership both looked at this meeting as a vitally important first step toward pulling this mandate off successfully while staying combat ready. Even from that mutually shared perspective, each teed it up in a completely different way.
Liberty Bells
With a call to Washington, the Liberty Bells booked a national expert in vaccine epidemiology to fly in and present information on the threat and the vaccine to their Sailors during the morning session of the All-Hands Meeting. The Commanding Officer would convene the meeting, then hand it over to the expert to brief the squadron on the vaccine's safety and efficacy.
The Condors
Condor leadership worked with the local Flight Surgeon to put together a brief for the morning session of the All-Hands meeting. The Commanding Officer would kick the meeting off by officially announcing the mandate, then the Flight Surgeon would present data on the threat and the vaccine's safety and efficacy.
How It Turned Out
The Condor's Flight Surgeon proved the better choice for presenter. He'd spent years building relationships and proving to the squadron's Sailors that he was trustworthy. He'd now be in a position to leverage that trust to credibly deliver difficult news. On top of that, after the Commanding Officer officially announced the vaccine requirement, the entire top level of leadership stood up, joined the CO on stage, rolled up their sleeves and took the shot from a medic as the Flight Surgeon filled in the rest of the squadron on facts and myths surrounding Anthrax and the vaccine. Dramatic? Maybe. Powerful? Big time.
Conversely, the expert from Washington was viewed as a dubious outsider. The Liberty Bell audience didn't care what he had to say because they didn't trust him. He was a "DC plant" and "part of the problem", here to "sell us" on the vaccine with cherry-picked facts and a slick presentation. There was no foundation of trust supporting this approach.
Leadership's Response and Example
Both squadron Commanding Officers kicked off their respective meetings, which isn't really surprising because this is just what Commanding Officers do. Walking up to the microphone first, however, was the extent of their similarities.
The Liberty Bells
The Liberty Bells set up microphones in the aisles for an open-mic Q&A session in the afternoon. After the morning session, Sailors would break for lunch, then come back to a public Q&A session, led by the Washington expert.
The Condors
The Condors placed a blank index card and a pencil on each seat and bins at the exits. Sailors were asked to write down their questions during the information session, then deposit them in the bins on the way to lunch. The squadron's leaders and the Flight Surgeon would spend their lunchtime going through the cards, consolidating the common questions, talking through answers and preparing presentation slides for the afternoon.
How It Turned Out
At the Liberty Bell's afternoon Q&A session, they had a near riot on their hands. The aisles filled with frustrated people wanting answers they could trust and not getting them from the Washington expert. The crowd grew more angry as the afternoon drug on; with one of the loudest voices of dissent coming from none other than the Commanding Officer.
Conversely, the Condor's afternoon was at least controlled, if not serene. The squadron had already witnessed where their leaders stood on the issue. Use of the cards had removed the element of emotion from the Sailors questions and provided leaders with awareness of the main issues of concern so they could consolidate their response in a concise, structured briefing. It was over early, giving Sailors back some of their time that afternoon.
Condor Sailors still had concerns, but they hadn't been whipped into a frenzy. They had gotten some stabilizing info, had some of their fears addressed by a trusted colleague and witnessed their leaders doing exactly what they were being asked to do, but doing it first. It was a decent start down what everyone expected to be a very rocky road.
Information Transparency
While both squadrons saw the need to provide a continuous flow of information to Sailors, the two disagreed on the types of information to include.
The Liberty Bells
The Liberty Bells culled through newspapers, periodicals and web posts to harvest all the positive info they could for dissemination to their Sailors. It was important to them not to give a voice to the dissent, so they left out any pieces that were not supportive of the vaccine and the mandate.
The Condors
The Condors set out to be completely transparent with Sailors, addressing the issue directly, but without giving it more than it's due level of concern. Condor leaders also figured Sailors would see the negative stuff somewhere else anyway, so leaving it out of the official information would likely yield distrust. Everything the squadron could find on the vaccine was published in an information library everyone had access to. In fact, Sailors were encouraged to add to the library if they found something that wasn't already there - positive or negative.
How It Turned Out
It proved ridiculous to expect that providing only positive info from the squadron would somehow engender a spirit of cooperation from them. Liberty Bell Sailors found the full spectrum of information from other sources, and leadership's efforts to control negative information came across as censorship, destroying their trustworthiness.
The Condors found that posting credible and crazy info side-by-side had the helpful effect of highlighting the stark difference between the two. More importantly, it demonstrated that their leaders would hide nothing from them. Condor leadership had earned the Sailors' trust through openness, integrity and transparency.
Holding the Line
So, what would each squadron do with the non-compliant? For the few active duty Sailors in the squadron, an administrative discharge would be pursued. Reservists faced immediate separation from the squadron. They could try to find another place to drill, but only in a non-deployable unit. Both squadrons realized the morale disaster that would result from retaining some aircrew on the rolls who weren't "worldwide deployable" - a requirement of maintaining status as readiness-holding aircrew - while others bore the full load of taking the vaccine series and receiving orders to overseas operations.
The Liberty Bells
The Liberty Bells put in place a policy for those refusing the vaccine. They would process active duty Sailors and obligated Reservists for administrative separation, and remove tenured Reservists from the squadron crew list, coding them as non-deployable and jeopardizing their ability to drill for pay.
The Condors
The Condors established a similar policy.
How It Turned Out
The Liberty Bells began to lose enough aircrew that they allowed some to continue in the squadron despite refusing the vaccine. This communicated a bias in treatment and eroded trust even more. The Condors resolve was never tested. They had one pilot leave the squadron during this timeframe. He didn't list the vaccination among the reasons for his departure, but he also didn't take the shot.
They didn't have a single refuser at any of the other 11 aircrew positions.
As the Western Pacific detachment approached, the Condors met it with a full complement of trained, qualified and ready Combat Air Crews. The Liberty Bells, having lost more than a dozen of their 32 Reserve pilots and a smattering of other key Aircrew positions, required augmentation from other squadrons to complete their tasking.
The Bottom Line
Looking back at the planning by each squadron, did you notice that all of the intended actions by both squadrons seemed responsible and feasible? Why not bring in an expert to help answer questions and alleviate concerns? An open mic communicates access and transparency, right?
Yet one squadron was successful and the other failed.
When it came down to executing the plan, each squadron's leaders reaped what they had sown with regard to their Sailors response to well-established culture. The deck was stacked, for them or against them, based on that foundation. Culture and execution, not strategy and planning, presented the sharpest contrast between the two squadrons.
Condor leadership had built a culture of trust over years, and then they kept the helm steady through rough waters. Had leaders succeeded in getting Condor Sailors to do something they didn't want to do and "like doing it"? No. This was a tough patch to lead the squadron through, but in getting through it successfully they reinforced the already high levels of pride, loyalty and trust enjoyed across their Combat Air Crews. In fact, the squadron was even stronger after successfully navigating through this challenge. In the following year - the first of the new Millennium, the Condors won several wing-wide awards, including the coveted "Battle E" - presented to the highest overall performing squadron.
The Condors Team Awards
The Condor team wrapped up some impressive awards and achievements. Clutched in the inverted talons of the Condor are representations of awards for overall excellence, torpedo attack accuracy and safety.
Epilogue
I tell this story a lot. It's a good story, with a lot of morals. I've shared it as part of American University's leadership curriculum, I've shared it with MBA students at Texas Christian University, I've shared it in my coaching and leadership development, and I've shared it over a beer. Whenever I tell this story, I never fail to include an important anecdote - a takeaway that isn't obvious from the rest of my story, but affected me very personally.
You may be wondering whether we had anyone contract one of those nasty side-effects after taking the shot. Well, yeah we did. One of my department heads and a life-long friend, developed a rare autoimmune disorder called Pemphigus Vulgaris shortly into the series. Navy medical officials denied correlation of the disorder to the shot, but the incident was entered into the Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System, or VAERS, and civilian doctors treating my friend considered the shot a potential trigger. He suffered for years with Pemphigus, a constant reminder to me of the high toll duty can take on those we serve as leaders. He's now fully recovered and out from under the shadow of Pemphigus. In fact, he contributed to this story - a story with a happy ending in this case.
About the time we got everyone through the second or third shot in the series, DoD reversed the mandate due to a short supply of the vaccine. As a leader at the tactical and operational levels, this was perhaps the first time I'd felt betrayed by senior leadership. I felt I had carried my end of the log - done my duty - only to be left with excuses for why I was forced to betray my Sailors' trust by not completing the journey I had led them to begin. We did operate in the Western Pacific; protected enough, I presume, in the eyes of the short-sighted bureaucrats who ordered officers like me to deliver on our duty without providing us the resources necessary for success.
In September, 2002, The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress about the impact the Anthrax requirement had on retention of Reserve and National Guard aircrew.
In 2004, a court injunction halted the military’s mandatory vaccination program, declaring the previous six years of vaccine administration to be illegal.
Later in 2004 the Condors transitioned from their maritime patrol mission to a logistics one, trading their "VP" designation for "VR" and their P-3C Orion aircraft for the C-130 Hercules. The current squadron patch very closely resembles the legacy patch used in this piece, but the inverted talons of the Condor hold a globe to symbolize their new mission of worldwide logistics.
The Liberty Bells were decommissioned that same year.
