Right from the time you enter basic training you are frequently directed and have little to known reason in developing a thought of action until you show initiative and responsibility. The military is based on routine and they tell you how, where, when, what, and why, so it becomes ingrained in your thought process. It is not until you gain experience and are promoted that critical thinking becomes more prevalent. This brings me to a situation that was brought to my attention regarding an operations officer within my command who unethically decided to sign and validate another Soldier’s Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) without having the Soldier take the test. Not only was it this action, but the operations officer approved additional pay for the Soldier required to take the APFT. Consequently, the operations officer has been placed on disciplinary action, removed from his unit, placed under supervision at another location until these issues can be investigated and if any additional action will be necessary. Evaluating this type of decision-making is based on the choice by the operations officer and knowing his intent. Was this to benefit the Soldier by undermining protocol, establish a different standard, or prove his authority and capabilities in the …show more content…
Consequently, the decision created by the operations officer falls also under egocentric righteousness, his tendency to feel superior and over confidence. Other pathological tendencies which come into play are, egocentric hypocrisy, oversimplification, blindness, immediacy, and largely absurdity. As the textbook articulates, process a situation in your own mind and you will conclude “not me!” think again (Paul & Elder, 2001, p. 247). When processing a thought through egocentric hypocrisy, the operations officer might have routinely acted in the same manner in other situations and thought he would not be caught but hold others to a different standard. As with oversimplification, the officer ignored an ethical standard because it was easier to do in lieu of the right thing. Same with blindness, the officer thought was one way, but acted the opposite. Again with immediacy, his thoughts were one way, no matter the outcome of the situation. Finally absurdity, who would challenge him on how he thought and the actions he took. In order to prevent situations from getting to this level develop a plan, establish steps to ensure pathological protocols are maintained to conclude the best action