ARMY LDRSHIP – A START POINT FOR ARMY ETHICS

Jason Borg

ORGL 610/COML 597 – Communications and Leadership Ethics

October 11, 2015

1ARMY LDRSHIP – A START POINT FOR ARMY ETHICS

Introduction

There is no acronym better known by soldiers than the seven Army values

LDRSHIP which refers to loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and

personal courage. From the moment soldiers attend Basic Training, the Army values are

emphasized and soldiers are instructed to wear them as part of the uniform with their

identification tags, a reminder of who soldiers are. The values are the make-up of the

Army culture. The hope of the LDRSHIP Army values, is to guide soldiers in decision

making, shape behavior, and reflect the Army’s desire to be a professional, socially

responsible organization, and that soldiers elevate a conscious of right and wrong

(Johnson, 2012, pp. 374-376).

Ever present as the Army values are, they are general, and only a starting point for

a soldiers check of right versus wrong. This may not lead to moral reasoning, and ethical

decision making. Deeper ethical discussions need to continue as the Army is a

conglomeration of many different people, with differing values, who are trained the

“what” of Army Values, but not “why” ethics are important, decoupling the Army’s

vision of ethics. Johnson (2012) suggests decoupling organizations must “make sure that

ethics matter (1) by ensuring that members recognize the moral dimension of every

aspect of organizational life and (2) by encouraging improvement in collective ethical

performance” (p. 298). By not keeping the Army Ethic standard, the Army is

endangering what is most important to the profession: keep the trust of the American

citizen and international community. Interestingly, the Army only recently published an

Army Ethic in “The Army Profession” in June of this year (CAPE, 2014, p. 12).

2The Stakeholders

The Army LDRSHIP values are “core values serving as enduring and guiding

principles”, and are continually reinforced helping to shape behavior of the Army force,

of which it’s greatest internal stakeholders are soldiers and their leaders (Johnson, 2012,

p. 300). The primary interest of soldiers as a stakeholder is that they receive the best

training possible from experienced leadership. They ask that their leadership follows the

same principles as they are asked to. Sadly, many senior leaders do not follow the Army

Values. Some recent examples are General Petreaus, caught in an extramarital affair in

2012, and Brigadier General Sinclair, caught in several affairs in 2013 and forced to

retire. The Army’s senior non-commissioned officer notes “we cannot expect our

soldiers to live by an ethic when their leaders and mentors are not upholding the standard.

These values form the framework of our profession and are nonnegotiable” (Chandler,

2011, p.12).

Army Leaders interests as stakeholders are the same as soldiers and additionally

include developing future leaders, ensuring soldiers are trained to accomplish their task,

and that they do so morally and ethically. Leaders interests also include being seen as

‘Professionals’ but cannot if they do not hold ethics in the highest esteem. This paper

uses the characteristics of a professional as defined by Sociology Professor Magali

Larson having “professional association, cognitive base, institutionalized training,

licensing, work autonomy, colleague control . . . and a code of ethics.” (Barrett, 2012, p.

7).

General Odierno writes “as Army professionals we perform our Duty according to

our Ethic. Doing so reinforces Trust within the profession and with the American

3people”, (CAPE, 2014, p. i). The Army operates on behalf of the American people, an

external stakeholder, and the public typically has high confidence in their military, but

this can often fade in times of war and when lives are at stake. Barrett (2012) notes

public trust “can wane for a variety of reasons, whether from tactical mistakes that have

strategic consequences, or from failing to build and maintain a culture of competence,

accountability and integrity” (p. 7). Noting war crimes at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in

2004, the 2010 “kill team” of American Soldiers in Afghanistan, and the infidelity of

General Patreaus revealed in 2012, the Army Values and professionalism is questioned

into these immoral decisions (p. 2). The effect of these decisions creates a loss of trust in

the Army from its citizens, its global views, and the US Presidential administration.

As a world power, international eyes are on the US Army expecting a high moral

standard, and an Army defined by good ethical choices. For the most part, this is the case

as the US continues to take lead in efforts against Global terrorism currently training Iraqi

military for fighting against ISIS, and disaster relief, recently deployed to West Africa to

lead support in a 2014 Ebola outbreak. Johnson (2012) states ‘to act as global citizens,

organizations must confront and master the dangers of globalization and the dilemmas of

ethical diversity” (p. 395).

Other key external stakeholders to the Army is the President and the

administration. They need to have trust and faith that the Army leaders can and will

execute orders, faithfully. Allen, C.D, and Braun, W. T. (2013) points to Woodward’s

book Obama Wars, claiming “the Obama administration did not trust its military

leadership to offer viable military options to advance the administration’s desired

strategic agenda to rapidly draw down forces and end the war in Afghanistan” (p. 80).

4National leaders and military senior leaders are challenged ethically in times of war as

values cross. It is in these moments that dialogic ethics and communication between

these key stakeholders becomes of mortal concern. “Dialogic ethics listens to what is

before one, attends to the historical moment, and seeks to negotiate new possibilities”

(Arnett, Fritz, & Bell, 2009, p. 95). From dialogic communication, understanding occurs,

and trust can begin to bud amongst stakeholders.

The Army as a Responsible and Organizational Citizen

The Army has to focus on its’ stakeholders and considers second and third order

effects prior to making major decisions (Johnson, 2012, p. 371). By doing so the US

Army keeps and maintains trust and can be seen as professional and a good

organizational citizen (p. 368). The Army’s newly published ‘Army Ethic’ hopes to

prevent decoupling this vision by writing “stewardship is the responsibility of Army

professionals to strengthen the Army as a profession and to care for the people and other

resources entrusted to them by the American people” (Department of the Army, 2015, p.

6-2). By committing to this stewardship mentality, Army soldiers and leaders can be

clear that their choices, moral or immoral, will impact on the greater community.

Further, a stewardship mentality, will gain and maintain trust of the American people, the

government and Administration, and the global community, and take the Army to a

greater level of citizenship. (Johnson, 2012, p. 383). The challenge for the Army as with

any organization, is ensuring the whole of the Army truly understands and embraces its

core values, LDRSHIP. More importantly, the Army soldiers and leaders, can use

LDRSHIP and the newly published Army Ethic as a start point for further development

and understanding of ethical decision making.

5References

Allen, C.D, and Braun, W. T. (2013). Trust. Implications for the army profession. Military Review 12/13. Retrieved from: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20131031_art012.pdf.

Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. M. H., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference.  Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Barrett, C. C. (2012). Finding the right way toward an army institutional ethic. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.

Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, CAPE (2014). The army ethic white paper. US Army Combined Arms Center (pp. 1-14). Retrieved from http://cape.army.mil/army-ethic-white-paper.

Chandler, R. F. (2011). The profession of arms and the professional noncommissioned officer. Military Review 12. Retrieved from: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2?militaryreview 20110930PofA art006.pdf.

Headquarters Department of the Army. (2014). The army profession. Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1. Washington DC. Retrieved from: (https://armypubs.us.army.mil /doctrine/index.html).

Johnson, C. E. (2012). Organizational ethics: A practical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.