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.
Top Related