Enforcing The Army’s Definition Of Professional Ethic Requires More Than A Written Document by Conrad Brown, Task and Purpose
… the evolving nature of the Army, as well as the society from which we recruit, required the formalization of the Army Professional Ethic in Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1, in June 2013, and was most recently revised in June 2015. Despite the great strides and efforts in codifying and publishing these ideas, they still require more work to reach the desired end state, which is the acceptance and application of these principles by all soldiers.
Culture is difficult to control in an organization as large in terms of personnel — both soldiers and civilians — and geographically separated as the Army. Individual leaders can also influence culture based on selective enforcement or interpretation of unwritten social norms, prompting the formalization of our best understanding of the Army professional ethic. Another significant evolution in society, the amplification of individual voices through social media, is a large driver in the need to ensure every last soldier understands what it means to be a part of a profession and has enough pride in that fact to model their personal conduct appropriately. The regulations that guide the conduct of soldiers, to include those punitive regulations under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, have always clearly applied both on and off duty, in and out of uniform. However, the increasing amount of online interaction has blurred the lines, at least in the eyes of some, between personal and professional lives, between freedom of speech and standards of professional conduct…
Comments
I rather like the ADRP 1 discussion of culture and organizational climate. In a sense, American and Army culture are both so pervasive and bureaucratic that for most Soldiers/civilians they will have little impact. Unit climate on the other hand is very much influenced by the commander and leaders...the good as explained in ADRP 1
The not so good in ADRP 1 as you identify is the evolution of society (decidedly negative) and to a lesser degree your identification of the amplification of individuals through social media.
Social media "gone wild" a symptom, not the root problem: gone are the days of tolerance, patience and civility as if these concepts are relics from an age gone by. SWJ above, calls this as "standards of professional conduct" and for generations the nation took this for granted but no more. In your face, politically charged, emotional, disrespectful and outright lying has become the rule for many in the cyber domain.
The problem related to this symptom is a fundamental breakdown in national character and more specifically, the character of our Soldiers. We see this nationally in the riots, recent move to assassinate police officers, hate crimes, murder at epidemic rates in big cities, ethical lapses by our political leaders at an outrageous pace, entitlement attitude and the general lawlessness pervasive in the nation. Specifically to our Army, 129 Bn/Bde Cdrs relieved for duty since 2003 (mostly for UN-ethical conduct), fraud/waste/abuse from GWOT contracting +/- $ 60 Billion?, general officer courts martial, SHARP violations at an epidemic pace for generations (reporting improved in the past 4 years), and on and on.
The solution: first off, is not education or adaptable leaders for an uncertain world. Education as a means to intellectual over match or better critical thinking and creativity misses the point. The problem is NOT in the mind. The problem is in the will. It would be a simple matter if the ethical lapses of our Officer Corps and NCO leaders were just a lack of knowledge but the sad fact is, some of the worst criminals are very clever and intellectually brilliant! The problem is perhaps even more fundamental as we don't just have "a will", has human beings we are "a will."
If the Army as a profession wants to fix this unethical conduct, we must tame this proclivity from the "will" -- not through an intellectual focus on superiority rather through adequate and appropriate restraints. The problem is not how to build character and bring out the good (it simply is not there) rather how to constrain the proclivity for bad. It was Sigmund Freud's great discovery that "man's basic nature is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder and other crimes." In the Army with power, this abuse and corruption of power seems pervasive...just as Lord Action predicted. If we are honest and guided by fact rather then some "dreamer" ideal, the ugly truth is that constraining the bad is the only way to improve the situation. Note: virtually all legislation written and laws intended to regulate social behavior are "negatively stated." The concept is not new as seen in the Hammurabi code, or the Jewish laws from the Torah -- "Thou shalt not...." both over 3000 years old.
As such, we should set high expectations for all leaders in our ADRP 1 for swift and severe punishment, we should publicize these lapses of ethical conduct and use the full extent of the UCMJ/Manual for CM. ADRP 1 should discuss this in Chapter 4 or at least expand this concept of "Honorable Service." There are not only expectations of honorable service, especially from our leaders but severe consequences for ethical lapses. Chapter 4 is far too short and mostly platitudes about noble service, oaths and ethical orders. No discussion on the "consequences" for dishonorable service. No discussion about constraining the abusive and toxic leaders. There should be.