This month we celebrate the birth of President George Washington, the first leader of our Army, the preeminent example of American civil-military relations, and the Father of our Nation – a true professional. Recognizing the new strategic realities of the 21st century, and following a decade of sustained combat, we will use his example to appropriately focus Army leader development programs and strengthen our Soldiers’ understanding and adherence to our Profession of Arms. Primarily, this will require us to re-establish meaning and value to our core professional attributes, defined as “Competence,” “Character,” and “Commitment.” This means we must focus our education and training (Competence), reinforce personal character through our standards and discipline (Character), and develop a stronger bond of trust between our Soldiers and the American public (Commitment).
Though our current force is the most combat experienced in decades, without education and training to put those experiences in context our Soldiers and leaders will not make the critical connections required for advanced understanding. A lack of time for reflection prevents professional development and preparation for future conflicts. To address this we are developing a learning continuum for all our Soldiers that focus on balancing education, training, and experience throughout their careers. At entry levels, primarily initial military training and basic officer courses, training will predominate with the support of some education. This includes field problems, in-person instruction, and structured self-development. At intermediate levels, where there is currently a larger amount of combat experience, education with training support will leverage those experiences to increase understanding of military doctrine, inculcate our professional standards and discipline, develop critical thinking and communication skills, and describe the position of the military and its personnel in American society.
There has been a lot written recently about an increased focus on standards and discipline, mostly about superficial details like military haircuts, the wear of jewelry, and tattoos. However, standards and discipline are more than merely how a Soldier appears on the outside. It is a personal and institutional adherence to a professional ethic and personal character with a focus on integrity, accountability and self-regulation. This includes taking care of our Soldiers – men and women that have become more used to combat deployments than life at home. We owe it to these Soldiers, our Profession, and the American people to reintegrate them into the primarily US-based military and society as a whole. While this includes providing health and family services to maintain the health of our men and women, more important for the future of our Soldiers and the Army is empowering them to understand and enforce a professional standard, providing them the education to frame their combat experiences, and creating realistic and stimulating training to prepare them for future conflicts.
The position of the military in American society is probably the most important aspect of our Profession and requires the development of trust; between Soldiers and their leaders, and between the Army and the American people. Unlike any other profession, military members swear to defend our system of government and its people with our lives. This begins with our oath of office. When we take this oath, we are committing ourselves to the values and interests of the American people and working for them through their elected officials. This arrangement cannot work without trust.
As President Washington stated in his farewell address, “The Constitution…is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” This is even truer for members of the Profession of Arms. To be professionals and discharge our duty to serve the American people, we must develop a relationship focused on the subordination to civilian authority and providing our best military advice.
In developing our Profession into the future, we will take a page from the book of our first military officer and President. We will increase our Competence by focusing the education and training of our Soldiers, reinforce our professional Character through increased awareness and enforcement of our standards and discipline, and re-energize our Commitment to the nation by developing a stronger bond of trust between the Army and the American public. These are not merely initiatives to improve the appearance of America’s oldest military Service, but a concerted effort to improve one of the pillars of a profession – the investment in the future of our institution and its people.
DAVID G. PERKINS
Lieutenant General, USA
Commanding
5 Comments on "Leading a Profession"
Sir,
The focus of your thesis, the effects of Competence, Character, and Commitment on the military profession of arms, highlights important aspects of how we need to transform/protect our military during the next four years. In the light of recent high visible leadership indiscretions, the potential for a degradation of society’s opinion of our military is real as the focus of our nation turns away from Afghanistan. The resulting decrease in society’s focus on our military could combine with society questioning our character, resulting in a lack of support for the military force during changing budgetary conditions. While I do not believe our nation would challenge our Competency today, we are allowing cracks in our defense in regards to our Character and Commitment to standards that matter. I would challenge the leaders of today to remember your thesis and bring it forward in their leadership development of our officers and NCOs.
MAJ Ken Darnall
Student
Command and General Staff College
Redstone Arsenal, AL
Sir,
This is a great article that raises several good points on developing our profession as we progress into the future. The most important component to developing our profession is the education of Soldiers, NCOs, and officers at all levels. The Army has traditionally excelled in developing military competency within young NCOs and officers, but the emergence of hybrid threats and Globalization requires leader development in areas not traditionally considered within the prevue of military professionals.
The U.S. Army enjoys the benefits of the strongest, most competent NCO Corps in the world. The NCO Corps’ development of competence and leadership in young Soldiers and NCOs is the base of the NCO Corps’ strengths. This development consists of grade and specialty specific PME, schools to develop specialized professional competence, and an emphasis on civilian education.
The officer corps replicates the grade specific PME quite well, and strives to send officers to specialized schools when possible. Where the officer corps differs from the NCO Corps is the emphasis on civilian education. If an officer wants to earn a masters’ degree the officer has only a few options; compete for one of the few Advanced Civil Schooling (ACS) positions, take classes at a local college during non-duty hours, or take an on-line program during non-duty hours.
With the competitiveness of the ACS program and the need for the program to fit within the needs of the officer’s branch, too few officers have the opportunity to take advantage of the program. Similarly, many officers do not take advantage of local colleges or on-line education opportunities because the time required distracts from Family time, a precious commodity for the past several years.
The Army needs to expand the ACS program, allowing more officers to attend civilian schooling. The expansion of the ACS program will create an officer corps with a more diverse education background and develop skills needed to combat the hybrid threats the military will face in future conflicts. Civilian education will also provide officers with the knowledge to operate in the environment created by Globalization, a skill set not traditionally contained within PME. The Army is seeking opportunities to strengthen its ties to the civilian population; ACS provides an excellent venue for that interaction. Finally, ACS is a program the effectively retains the best officers because of their desire to continue their education both inside and outside their profession.
The expansion of ACS will require support from Human Resources Command (HRC) and DA G8, both difficult within the current budget and personnel requirements. HRC’s support is especially critical because the additional ACS requests will require branch managers to leave some assignments unfilled and they will have to work with DA G8 to fund the additional schooling. HRC will also have to work to reduce the negative impact that attending ACS sometimes has on an officers career because the officer needs to stay on their branch’s “timeline.”
While the expansion of ACS will cost the Army money and personnel resources, it will develop skills within the officer corps needed to address future threats. It will also allow officers to operate more efficiently within the complex, ambiguous environments the Army will operate within in future operations. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom both proved the necessity of leaders with a breadth of knowledge and experience outside the traditional realm of military education. The United States has the best higher education system in the world, and the NCO Corps leverages that education system to develop its leaders. The officer corps needs to expand its use of higher education opportunities through the ACS system to develop the leaders that will lead the Army into the future.
MAJ Jay D. Sterrett
Student
Command and General Staff College
Fort Belvoir, VA
“The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”
The 2012 pamphlet Army: Profession of Arms states on page 7 that “The Army Profession Campaign is an Army initiative to inspire and engage our Soldiers and Civilians in an introspective analysis and professional dialog to make our Profession stronger.” The Pamphlet generates self-reflection and discussion, but it could go a step further towards strengthening our profession.
Generally, professions seek to increase their credibility in the eyes of the public and improve the quality of service they provide to the public. Two ways that have historically been successful in achieving these objectives are a) refining values, beliefs and principles into a unified set of ethical rules, and b) adhering to those ethical rules. By consolidating the primary elements of our Ethic into a single document, the 2012 Pamphlet helps Soldiers focus on our Ethic. The Pamphlet will also increase the profession’s credibility in the eyes of the public and improve the quality of service this profession provides. The 2012 Pamphlet, however, lacks indication of real self-regulation. The Pamphlet acknowledges the necessity of self-regulation, and states in several places that the Army will self-regulate. Real self regulation, however, requires some form of codification of rules and consequences for violations of those rules.
Just as the sources of our Ethic are currently found in various unconnected documents, enforcement mechanisms of our Ethic are similarly found in various sources. To the extent ethical violations are violations of law or regulation, they are of course enforced by our military justice system. But not all of the values, beliefs and principles are expressed in law or regulation, and thus are not enforced by our military justice system. This is not to say that these outliers should be enforced by our justice system, but some type of enforcement is necessary. For example, some violations of Army Values may not rise to the level of a violation of law or regulation. Nonetheless, such Army Values are enforced on the first page of officers’ and non-commissioned officers’ evaluations.
The 2012 Pamphlet describes certification as an element of the Army profession, but it doesn’t describe any negative impacts on certification for failure to comply with the ethical standards. Other professions leverage certification to influence members to comply with the profession’s ethical rules. Certification is required to practice the profession. Practicing the profession without certification is unlawful and could result in criminal prosecution. Thus, professionals are motivated to maintain their certifications. Failure to comply with the ethical rules may result in varying degrees of negative impact upon certification. Thus, professionals are motivated to comply with their professional ethical rules.
Certainly, it is important that Soldiers believe the Army Ethic and adopt it as their own guiding framework for conducting the profession. The Pamphlet is a great step in that direction, because it unifies our understanding of our Ethic. Our profession will be further strengthened if we actually self-regulate ourselves by our Ethic, and it is actually apparent to the civilian public that we are self-regulating ourselves by our Ethic.
MAJ Robert Nelson, CGSC/ILE 12-02, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama
Sir, as you stated “our current force is the most combat experienced in a (sic) decade . . .” However, I believe you missed the mark. It is about retaining the knowledge gained from a decades’ worth of warfare and applying it to the future war the United States may encounter. The U.S. Army transitioned into a learning organization, in my view, within the last 60 years. The Army owns a beginning to conceptually gain the experiences found through consistent conflict with differing forums (mainly CALL and through some interviewing agencies). This only matters if the lessons learned are taught within the academic environments the Army teaches (both Officer and NCO schools) and even more so throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) if we foresee another insurgent heavy conflict. However, with current budgetary constrictions and the proposed reduction of forces throughout all of DoD, I believe the bigger concern is how do we retain the right Officers and NCOs that have the appropriate knowledge base to instruct the new recruits as they enter the Army and go through basic, advance, and intermediate training. Tying in with your thoughts on leadership competencies (Competence, Character, and Commitment) the Army should focus on those individuals who can display those leadership aspects, retain combat knowledge and pass that information on, and then excel in a traditional mindset of conventional warfare. The kind of Officers and NCOs that both obtain and exudes the above ideals will help reduce the type of Army the U.S. garrisoned after Vietnam. This means the U.S. Army is transitioning to a garrison organization that owns a different frame of thought, but keeps the warrior spirit alive. I believe we have come a long way from the Army that is post-Vietnam. We learned to live and breathe with instantaneous reports that the world can see moments after an action occurs. Knowing this we have forced ourselves to become more professional than ever. And this reverts back to your ideas that we are upstanding in the eyes of our fellow citizens. Certain values we live by, adhere to, and show to the world. That is why Soldiers are among the most trusted individuals within the United States. Again, I believe you missed the mark by stating we need to “develop (sic) a stronger bond of trust between the Army and the American public.” That bond and trust is there. Are we able to increase of at least keeping that current level steady, I do not know? More importantly is how did we get it so we can retain this fundamental of who Soldiers are.
Does one aspect of the military profession outweigh the other? Does Character, Competence, or Commitment hold a higher value to the profession? Is it a matter of considering “the whole person?” When speaking of Competence versus Character versus Commitment what role does marital fidelity play in the military profession?
“…[George] Washington recognized his character was far more important to the success and regard of the republic than its policies.” – (Glenn Phelps – The President as Moral Leader: George Washington in Contemporary Perspective published George Washington Foundations of Presidential Leadership and Character,
However many of the US Army’s most revered leaders were known to compromise their personal vows, and continue to be exemplified in the modern profession.
As noted in the 24 JAN issue of the Wall Street Journal, Historian Victor Davis Hanson writing at PJMedia.com on 22 JAN, used the examples of George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower (and let us not forget Douglas MacArthur – founder of “Duty, Honor, Country”) to make the following point:
“But marriage has so many variables (the devout husband can be mentally cruel and indifferent, the noble wife can be a shrew, the publicly supportive wife can privately forgo sex, the faithful husband can be lazy and a lech), and leadership so many contours (natural brilliance, rhetorical flair, stamina, courage), that infidelity in marriage simply cannot quite trump them all.”
In fairness, Eisenhower’s alleged infidelity remains merely an allegation and the evidence makes it unlikely. However, where, if any, are there limitations between the professional and the personal? For George Washington there appeared to be none.