Download Character Development of U.S. Army Leaders: A Laissez Faire ... and more Slides Statistics in PDF only on Docsity!
Character Development of U.S.
Army Leaders: A Laissez Faire
Approach
by
Colonel Brian M. Michelson
United States Army
United States Army War College
Class of 2013
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Approved for Public Release A
Distribution is Unlimited
This manuscript is submitted Strategic Studies Degree. The views expressed in this student academic research in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of paper 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.
Association of Colleges and Schools,The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and theCouncil for Higher Education Accreditation.
USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
Character Development of U.S. Army Leaders: A Laissez Faire Approach
by
Colonel Brian M. Michelson United States Army
Dr. Don M. Snider Strategic Studies Institute Project Adviser
This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commissionon Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The views expressed in this student academic research paper 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.
CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013^ U.S. Army War College
Abstract Title: Character Development of U.S. Army Leaders: A Laissez FaireApproach
Report Date: March 2013 Page Count: 34 Word Count: 5501 Key Terms: Mission Command, Ethics, Morality, Army Values, Warrior Ethos, Leadership, Leader Requirements Model Classification: Unclassified
The generation and application of military force often presents military leaders with moral dilemmas that are unique to the profession of arms. As the Army fully implements its doctrine of mission command, Army leaders will be expected to make difficult and consequential decisions in ethically ambiguous situations, but to do this with even less guidance and oversight than they experience today. In this environment, the quality of a leader’s character, who they are as a person, and thus their ability to make correct and independent discretionary judgments, matters even more than in the past. Drawing heavily on current Army doctrine and data, this paper examines the Army’s approach to the development of personal character in its leaders. This paper also evaluates the effectiveness of these efforts, provides summary conclusions, and offers recommendations for action.
acts.”^5 To better contextualize this definition and the Army’s view on it, we must start with Army Doctrinal Publication (ADP) 1, The Army. This document states that: “The Army is built on an ethos of trust, which buttresses four other essential characteristics of our profession: military expertise, honorable service, esprit de corps, and stewardship.”^6 The Army’s very identity, the essence of which is expressed by the Army Values,^7 relies “on a bedrock of mutual trust among Soldiers, leaders, families, and the American people.”^8 The Army clearly places a premium on trust and defines it as the “assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.”^9 Vertical trust, up and down the chain of command, is essential to the effectiveness of the Army for two primary reasons. First, a leader’s trust in his or her subordinates is an essential requirement to execute mission command. Without it, mission command simply cannot work.^10 Second, trust in leaders is what allows Soldiers to accomplish difficult and dangerous tasks even when the legal consequences of disobedience are less than the potential consequences of obedience (wounding or even death).^11 It is this combined trust that serves as the glue that holds units together and allows individuals to stand resolutely in the face of the “most horrific environments,”^12 but also to know that difficult decisions in garrison are also done in accordance with the Army’s highest ethical standards. In summary, as the Army seeks to fully implement mission command, it clearly applies trust in the context of Leader - Soldier relationships that are based heavily on the character, ability, strength, and/or truth of the individuals involved. To narrow the scope of this discussion further, we will focus primarily on the attribute of character, which is best defined and explained within the current leadership doctrine of the Army.
Current Army Leadership Doctrine Leadership is the preeminent element of combat power because of the way it brings unity to the other seven elements (information, mission command, movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, and protection) and multiplies their effects, not merely adds to them.^13 The Army currently defines leadership as “the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.” 14 An Army Leader is simply “anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals.”^15 The Army clearly differentiates the process of leadership from the authority of command”^16 and uses a leadership requirements model to describe its expectations of its leaders in two broad categories: attributes and competencies. Attributes are primarily internal traits and consist of character, presence, and intellect, while competencies are primarily related to actions and skills that consist of leading, developing, and achieving.^17 While all of these attributes and competencies are important, the only one that the Army views as an inseparable component of successful leadership is character.^18 As an attribute, the Army defines character as the sum total of an individual’s moral and ethical qualities,^19 the essence of “who a person is, what a person believes, and how a person acts.”^20 The Army goes on to define the four component parts of character as: The internalization of the Army Values Empathy Commitment to the Warrior Ethos/Service Ethos
leaders^27 because leader development, coupled with effective training, “form[s] the cornerstone of operational success.”^28 While “leader development is a continuous and progressive process spanning a leader’s entire career,”^29 the Army indicates that the preponderance of leader development occurs as a result of operational assignments and self-development.^30 The Army expends significant resources to develop leaders with the attributes and competencies described previously, but takes an unusual approach with the attribute of character. Character Development as a Component of Leader Development Unlike the development of the other five attributes and competencies of the Army leadership requirements model (presence, intellect, leading, developing, and achieving), character development is singled out as being primarily an individual (self) responsibility.^31 This conceptual principle, a hold-over from previous doctrine,^32 and its supporting assumptions serve as the doctrinal basis for the Army’s “hands-off,” or laissez faire,^33 approach to the character development of its leaders. Army doctrine goes on to describe character development as occurring at three levels: individual, leader, and organizational/unit. At the individual level, the process of building character involves “day-to-day experience, education, self-development, developmental counseling, coaching and mentoring” in which individuals develop themselves through “continual study, reflection, experience, and feedback.”^34 Adoption of “good values and making ethical choices” is a critical part of this process. 35 At the second level, leaders are expected to “encourage, support, and assess the efforts of their people,”^36 serve as the organization’s “ethical standard bearer,” and set a proper ethical climate.^37 In building a proper climate, leaders are assisted by “the chaplain, staff judge advocate, inspector general, and equal opportunity specialist.”^38
At the organizational level, units also contribute to character development when their “ethical climate nurtures ethical behavior.” 39 This ethical environment will cause Soldiers to “think, feel and act ethically,” and thereby “internalize the aspects of sound character.”^40 Army doctrine states that “consistently doing the right thing forges strong character.”^41 While all the aspects of character development are important, the Army is committed to the view that the ultimate determinant of a leader’s character remains founded on an understanding of oneself.^42 Despite the importance the Army places on character and its development, when it comes to actual guidance on how an individual is expected to develop themselves, Army doctrine is strangely silent. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership, does not specifically discuss the issue of character development. Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22, Army Leadership, says virtually nothing on the subject beyond the importance of “continual study, reflection, experience, and feedback.”^43 The chapter discussing the leader competency of “Develops,” and more specifically, the sub-section on “Develops Self” provides no further guidance. Additional clarification is not offered in ADP 7-0, Training Units and Leaders, its companion document ADRP 7-0, the Commander’s Handbook for Unit Leader Development, nor the Virtual Improvement Center Catalog on Leader Development materials. Assumptions Underlying the Army’s Doctrine on Character Development The Army’s laissez faire approach is based on three important assumptions about how Soldiers, and specifically leaders, develop personal character:
- Army Soldiers and leaders know what is right and want to live ethically.^44
- Consistent ethical conduct develops strong character.^45
dated. Roles and responsibilities for leader development are not clearly defined and are sometimes conflicting.”^47 Yet in its efforts to meet this challenge, “the Army still lacks an integrated Human Development effort … [and] … internal subject matter expertise in the behavioral, social, and other Human Development sciences,” and must therefore “overly rely on external experts to implement crucial programs.”^48 In summary, the Army appears to lack coherence in its approach to leader development and to have outsourced its thinking on the topic. While this is of some importance, the more critical question remains: “Are these three assumptions about character development valid?” While the Army’s first assumption, that Soldiers and leaders know what is right and want to live ethically, can be challenged both quantitatively and qualitatively, this analysis will focus primarily on Army wide quantitative data. This data is available from many sources, but we will briefly concentrate on four that provide an objective and broad description of current trends: The Army’s 2012 report entitled, “Generating Heath and Discipline in the Force Ahead of the Strategic Reset,” otherwise known as the “Army Gold Book.” Technical Report 2012-1: The 2011 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Main Findings. Technical Report 2011-1: The 2010 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Volume 2, Main Findings. Technical Report 2011-3: Antecedents and consequences of toxic leadership in the U.S. Army: A two year review and recommended solutions (Toxic Leadership Report).
Two important caveats must be stated before continuing: First, statistics can only be as accurate as the underlying reporting. Many offenses are handled under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice vice criminal proceedings and/or simply go unreported. Secondly, general officer data was not included in either CASAL report referenced above. Even accounting for these mitigating factors, the documented trends are concerning and cast significant doubt on the validity of this assumption. Reporting from the Army Gold Book indicates that in 2011, 6% of the active duty population (42,698 Soldiers)^49 committed over 78,000 offenses, to include: 2,811 violent felonies 28,289 non-violent felonies 47,162 misdemeanors^50 In looking at these raw crime statistics and doing some preliminary analysis, some interesting trends emerge. By comparing the number of offenses relative to their specific segment of the Army population, one can draw two important data points.
Table 1. US Army Criminal Misconduct by Rank^51 Rank Overall Crime % Overall % of Army Ratio E1-E4 68 43 1. E5-E6 22 28. E7-E9 4 12. WO1-CW5 1 3. O1-O3 3 8. O4-O6 1 6. E5 – O6 Composite 31 57.
Figure 1. Core Leader Competencies^52 A closer look, however, also indicates that these perceptions have plateaued, in some cases begun to decline, and, most importantly, that nearly a third of subordinates (30%) do not believe that their superiors either create a positive environment or lead by example.^53 Additional survey data shown in Figure 2 regarding three of the four attributes of an Army leader’s character (Army Values, Warrior Ethos, and Empathy) indicates that the respondents still view approximately one fifth of their leaders as marginal or poor in one or more of these critical attributes of leadership.^54 This is a disappointing finding that highlights the difference between espoused values and leader actions.
Figure 2. Leader Attributes^55 The 2010 CASAL report offers an interesting insight in its analysis of the perceptions of the ethics of the Army’s leadership. This section was not surveyed in the 2011 report so recent trends are not available, but the 2010 data still provides useful insights for this analysis. First, over a third (37%) of leaders surveyed in 2010 believed that “senior leaders are more concerned that subordinates achieve results rather than the methods used.”^56 Additionally, as shown in Figure 3, respondents indicated that while 83% believed that their immediate superior demonstrated the Army values, only 72% believed that the leaders they interacted with displayed good ethical behavior.^57 The perception that over a quarter of Army leaders do not display good ethical behavior runs contrary to the Army’s assumption that “Army Soldiers and leaders know what is right and want to live ethically.”
