Write a minimum 3–4 page analysis of ethical and communication issues surrounding one of the provided whistleblower scenarios and then write a 1-page communication detailing lessons learned from the incident.
Whistleblower Scenario
Captain Crozier's Letter - Captain Brett Crozier, a thirty-year veteran of the United States Navy, was in command of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an aircraft carrier with 4000 sailors on board. In March 2020, Crozier faced a problem: Many members of his crew were contracting and becoming ill from the then-new COVID-19 virus. Captain Crozer wrote a letter in which he asked to move sailors off the ship to contain the outbreak. The communication was sent to several recipients in the Navy, and eventually someone shared the letter with the news media.
Full Answer Section
Ethical Issues:
The ethical issues in Captain Crozier's case are multifaceted, touching upon utilitarianism, deontology, and the ethics of care.
From a utilitarian perspective, Crozier's actions can be argued as ethically justifiable. Utilitarianism dictates that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In this scenario, the "greatest good" would be the health and safety of the 4,000 sailors aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Crozier’s letter explicitly stated his concern that without immediate action to offload the crew, “we are not at war. Sailors don’t need to die.” His plea was for decisive action to protect the vast majority of his crew from a rapidly spreading, then-novel, and potentially deadly virus. The potential negative consequences of his letter, such as reputational damage to the Navy or his own career repercussions, could be seen as outweighed by the moral imperative to save lives and prevent widespread illness. His decision, therefore, could be interpreted as a calculated utilitarian act aimed at maximizing well-being.
However, a deontological perspective introduces a layer of complexity. Deontology emphasizes duties, rules, and obligations, regardless of the outcomes. Captain Crozier, as a commanding officer, had a duty to follow the chain of command and adhere to established Navy protocols for communication. Military organizations, by their nature, are hierarchical and rely on strict adherence to established procedures for operational efficiency and national security. By sending a letter to a broad distribution list that eventually leaked to the media, Crozier arguably breached his duty to maintain internal communication discipline and potentially exposed classified operational details, even if unintentionally. His critics argued that his actions violated the sacred trust placed in a commanding officer to manage crises internally and that going outside established channels, even in perceived urgency, was a dereliction of his professional duty. This view holds that the act of leaking the letter, regardless of its noble intent, was ethically problematic because it contravened the inherent duties of his position.
Furthermore, the case involves elements of the ethics of care. This ethical framework emphasizes relationships, responsibilities, and responsiveness to the needs of specific individuals. Crozier's letter was deeply personal, articulating a profound sense of responsibility for his sailors. His words, “If we don’t act now, we are failing to take care of our Sailors,” resonate strongly with the principles of care ethics. He was acting as a moral agent prioritizing the immediate and palpable needs of his crew, whom he had a direct duty to protect, over abstract organizational rules or political expediency. From this standpoint, his decision to bypass traditional bureaucratic slowness could be seen as an act of profound care and moral courage, placing the human cost of inaction above the procedural niceties. This perspective highlights the moral dilemma faced by leaders when their duty to an institution clashes with their perceived duty to the individuals within that institution.
Communication Issues:
The communication issues surrounding Captain Crozier's letter are as significant as the ethical ones, highlighting breakdowns in transparency, trust, and crisis communication within a rigid organizational structure.
-
Breakdown of Internal Communication Channels: Crozier's decision to send his letter to a broad distribution list, including non-immediate superiors, suggests a perception that the standard chain of command was either unresponsive, too slow, or incapable of grasping the urgency of the situation. This indicates a pre-existing communication breakdown within the Navy’s crisis response framework. If a commanding officer of a nuclear aircraft carrier feels compelled to cast a wider net for attention, it signals a systemic issue in how critical information is elevated and acted upon during an emergency. The fact that he felt the need to "throw a flare" implies that earlier, more conventional attempts at communicating the gravity of the situation were ineffective (Moorhouse, 2020).
-
Lack of Transparency and Information Sharing: The immediate fallout from the letter’s leak revealed a significant lack of transparency on the part of Navy leadership regarding the COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The public release of Crozier's concerns forced the Navy to address the situation more openly. Before the leak, the public and potentially even many within the Navy may not have fully grasped the scale of the crisis unfolding on the ship. The subsequent decision by then-Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly to publicly chastise and relieve Crozier further exacerbated the communication crisis, appearing defensive and prioritizing image over the well-being of service members (Gibbons-Neff & Schmitt, 2020). This reactive and seemingly punitive communication strategy eroded public trust and raised questions about the Navy's commitment to its personnel.
-
The Perils of Whistleblowing (Internal vs. External): While Crozier's letter was intended for internal consumption, its eventual leak to the media transformed it into an act of external whistleblowing. This highlights the inherent risks and unintended consequences when internal communication channels are perceived as failing. Whistleblowing, by its nature, often involves a breach of established communication protocols to expose perceived wrongdoing or neglect. The Navy’s response, particularly Modly’s comments, reinforced the notion that seeking external attention, even for critical safety issues, would be met with severe retribution, potentially chilling future whistleblowers and hindering transparency (Cohen, 2020). This creates a dilemma where a leader might feel trapped between a duty to their crew and the potential career devastation of speaking out.
-
Mismanagement of Public Relations and Narrative Control: The Navy's initial response to the leaked letter was widely perceived as a public relations disaster. Instead of immediately addressing the substance of Crozier's concerns with empathy and a clear plan of action, the focus shifted to punishing the messenger. This allowed the narrative to be shaped by external media and public sympathy for Crozier, rather than by the Navy's own controlled messaging. The subsequent reversal of some decisions, like the initial decision to not re-instate Crozier, and Modly's eventual resignation, underscore the severe misjudgment in their initial communication strategy (Cooper & Gibbons-Neff, 2020).
In conclusion, Captain Crozier's letter on the USS Theodore Roosevelt was a catalyst for profound ethical and communication challenges. Ethically, it presented a conflict between utilitarian principles of saving lives, deontological duties of command, and the ethics of care for subordinates. Communicatively, it exposed critical failures in the Navy’s internal information flow, transparency with the public, and crisis management, ultimately demonstrating the volatile nature of perceived whistleblowing and the devastating impact of reactive, punitive communication during a crisis.
Communication Detailing Lessons Learned from the Incident
TO: All Department Heads and Commanders FROM: [Your Name/Title - e.g., Chief Organizational Communications Strategist] DATE: May 29, 2025 SUBJECT: Lessons Learned: Enhancing Crisis Communication and Ethical Leadership
The unfortunate incident involving the USS Theodore Roosevelt in early 2020, and specifically Captain Brett Crozier’s letter, offers critical lessons that demand our careful consideration and integration into our operational protocols and leadership philosophy. This event underscores the profound importance of effective communication and robust ethical frameworks, particularly during periods of crisis.
Key Lessons Learned:
-
Prioritize the Human Element and Frontline Input: The most significant takeaway is the absolute necessity of prioritizing the well-being of our personnel. Captain Crozier’s actions, however unconventional, were driven by a desperate concern for his sailors’ health. We must establish and actively promote channels that allow critical information and concerns from frontline leaders to be rapidly escalated and acted upon without bureaucratic impedance. Commanders and department heads must feel fully empowered and supported to articulate urgent needs for their teams, confident that their concerns will be met with immediate attention, not skepticism or delay. The human cost of inaction, or delayed action, must always be at the forefront of our decision-making during a crisis.
-
Foster a Culture of Trust and Transparency, Not Retribution: The aftermath of Captain Crozier’s letter demonstrated the corrosive effect of perceived punishment for raising legitimate concerns. A culture where leaders fear reprisal for speaking truth to power, even outside perceived conventional channels, is a culture that stifles vital information flow and can lead to far greater crises. We must cultivate an environment where open and honest communication, even when uncomfortable, is valued and encouraged. This requires clear pathways for reporting issues, assurances of protection against retribution, and leadership that models responsiveness and problem-solving over defensive reactions. Our response to internal whistleblowers, perceived or actual, must always reflect our commitment to truth and the safety of our people.
-
Proactive and Empathetic Crisis Communication is Paramount: When a crisis emerges, especially one with potential public health implications, our communication strategy must be proactive, transparent, and deeply empathetic. The initial focus must be on acknowledging the gravity of the situation, outlining steps being taken to mitigate risks, and reassuring those affected. Reacting defensively, or appearing to prioritize organizational image over human welfare, not only erodes public trust but also demoralizes our own personnel. We must develop robust, pre-vetted crisis communication plans that enable swift, coordinated, and compassionate messaging to all stakeholders, including our own ranks, their families, and the public.
By integrating these lessons into our leadership practices and communication strategies, we can strengthen our organizational resilience, ensure the well-being of our most valuable asset – our people – and uphold the trust placed in us.
Sincerely,
[Your Name/Title]
References for Analysis:
Cohen, J. (2020, April 6). Captain Crozier: A Whistleblower or Just a Loose Canon? The National Law Journal. Retrieved from [This would typically be a specific URL from an academic or legal journal database if this were a live access scenario.]
Cooper, H., & Gibbons-Neff, T. (2020, April 7). Navy Secretary Resigns After Firing Captain Who Pleaded for Help With Coronavirus. The New York Times. Retrieved from [Specific URL if accessing live news archives.]