Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 39

LEADERSHIP

of toxic leadership. These seemingly disparate statistics make far more sense if one considers the probability that respondents associated preparing themselves for increased responsibility with tactical and technical skills only, while perhaps not adequately considering their personal character as an area that should be, or even needed to be, improved. The potential for the “blind leading the blind,” the lack of a causal theory for character development, and the disconnect between survey data regarding “develops self” and actual characterrelated behaviors, all cast serious doubt on the validity of the assumption that leaders will adequately develop themselves to a level commensurate with their responsibilities.

Some Conclusions

This paper began by asking whether or not the Army’s approach to developing the personal character of its leaders would meet the challenges posed by implementing the new doctrines of mission command and The Army Profession. While the Army clearly describes what it wants in terms of leader character and behavior, the actual approach it uses to assess and develop the personal character of its leaders is best described as laissez-faire in practice. The primary conclusion of this paper is that the Army’s current laissez-faire approach is insufficient to effectively meet the challenges posed by implementation of either mission command or the principles presented in ADRP 1-0, The Army Profession. While the topic of character development is often emotionally charged and exceptionally complex, the Army’s own data and statistics point to several serious inconsistencies between what the Army’s doctrine maintains and the documented results it is producing. While many specific observations could be drawn from this research, the following four conclusions emerge as the most compelling and most urgently in need of both attention and action. Conclusion one. The Army does not have a broadly understood, and agreed upon, causal theory for how it can assess and develop the personal character of its leaders. The Army has neither an agreed upon method to assess and develop the personal character of
MILITARY REVIEW ? September-October 2013

its leaders (vice merely enforcing behaviors) nor an adequate framework to empower leaders in guiding either their own or their subordinate’s character development. Conclusion two. The Army’s three primary assumptions about the development of personal character are questionable at best, are potentially seriously flawed, and should be immediately re-examined. In light of current behavioral and cultural trends within society toward moral diversity and ethical relativism, the Army should immediately re-evaluate both its base assumptions and its approach to character development. If these assumptions are found not to be valid, as suggested here, the Army will have to adjust its doctrinal approach to character development to achieve the desired leader developmental goals. Conclusion three. The Army does not know, and cannot know with confidence, if the current method of character development will achieve its desired institutional goals. The lack of a broadly understood and agreed upon framework for how to assess and develop personal character reduces the Army’s ability to evaluate its own efforts in this regard to little more than conjecture. Even the findings of its most recent CASAL report are hotly contested. The quantitative data cited in this paper points to tr ?????????????]??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????Q???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Q??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Q??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????%??????????????????(??((0