Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 40

immediate and significant impact to the mission at hand. Second, in the age of mass media, breaches of character by all ranks will be highlighted evermore widely, clearly, and severely to the citizens we serve. The corrosive effects of these breaches of character strike at the very heart of the Army as a profession and the trust relationships that are so vital both internally to the military and externally with the nation. A Clear and Direct Challenge These observations and conclusions coupled with the prevailing laissez-faire approach to character development document a clear and direct challenge to the Army. But they also provide the Army with an exceptional opportunity to shape its younger generation of leaders if it acts soon. Given that the Millennial Generation is “open to change”46 and the U.S. military is one of the most respected institutions in America, 47 the Army would likely find a receptive audience to a fresh and more involved role in the character development of military leaders. A statement from the recent U.S. Army Profession Campaign Annual Report acknowledges this opportunity well: “Army Professionals are looking for the Army to refocus on professional values. Army Professionals voiced broad support for developing, training, and educating specific institutional characteristics that define the Army as a profession, as well as listing the individual attributes that identify Army personnel as professionals.”48 The Army will do the profession and the nation a great service by taking a hard and sober look at the role the Army should play in the development of the personal character of its leaders. If the Army does not meet this challenge, it will accept additional risk to mission accomplishment and its professional credibility. Yet within this challenge lies a great opportunity to shape the coming generation of young leaders who may be far more willing to grow than some might think.MR NOTES 1. Kevin Kruse, “Norman Schwarzkopf: 10 Quotes on Leadership and War,” Forbes, 27 December 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/12/27/ norman-schwarzkopf-quotes/ (accessed 17 June 2013). 2. “Mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.” U.S. Army Doctrinal Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-0, Mission Command (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], May 2012), 1. 3. Ibid., 1. 4. U.S. Army Doctrinal Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership (Washington, DC: GPO, September 2012), 1. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., 5-6. 7. ADRP 6-22, Army Leadership (Washington, DC: GPO, August 2012), 3-1. 8. Ibid, 3-1. 9. ADP 6-22, 5. 10. ADRP 6-22, 3-6. Note: Army doctrine is somewhat confusing on this topic as it tends to use character and integrity interchangeably and clearly emphasizes that integrity, defined as the ability to do what is right, legally and morally, is also a critical part of a leader’s character. See ADP 6-22, 6. 11. Ibid., 3-6. 12. Ibid., 3-5 through 3-6. 13. ADRP 6-22, 3-1. 14. Ibid. 15. U.S. Army Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership (Washington, DC: GPO, October 2006), 4-12. 16. Merriam-Webster, laissez-faire: “A philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action.” (4 March 2013). 17. Per ADRP 6-22, Army doctrine describes 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.” Adoption of “good values and making ethical choices” is a critical part of this process. At the second level, leaders are expected to “encourage, support, and assess the efforts of their people,” serve as the organization’s “ethical standard bearer,” and set a proper ethical climate. In building a proper climate, leaders are assisted by “the chaplain, staff judge advocate, inspector general, and equal opportunity specialist.” At the organizational level, units contribute to character development when their “ethical climate nurtures ethical behavior.” This ethical environment will cause soldiers to “think, feel and act ethically,” and thereby “internalize the aspects of sound character.” Army doctrine states that “consistently doing the right thing forges strong character.” While all these aspects of character development are important, the Army is committed to the view that the ultimate determinant of a leader’s character remains f ?[?Y?[?[?\??[?[????\?[??N?Q?KH\?^H??\??[?[?Q ?L??\?^HXY\??\????X?Y?X?[H\??\??H\??YH??\?X?\?]?[?Y[??Q? ?L???^\??\?X[H??[???H?X??X??^[?H[\?[??H?8?'??[?X[?YK?Y?X?[?^\?Y[??K[??YY?X???'HH?\\?\??\??[??HXY\???\][??H?8?']?[??8?'H[?[?H?X?Y?X?[KH?X?\?X?[??8?']?[???[??'H??Y\????\?\??ZY[??K?Y][?[?\?Y?X?][?\?????\?Y[?Q ?L?Z[?[??[?]?[?XY\??]???\[?[???[Y[?Q? ?LH??[X[?\??&\?[???????[?]XY\?]?[?Y[??H?\?X[[\??[Y[??[?\??][???XY\?]?[?Y[??NK?Q ?L???M????X?Y??K?X?Y??MK????K??\?^KT?\?^H??\??[??[\ZY?[??X[?\?\?[??L?L????X?Y?M????\??[X?\?\X\???[??YH?\?\??H??\?[???Y\?????\??Y?X?]?H]H\?[??HYX\?\??\??\?HH ?\??[??Y?\?H??[[?X?]HX?]?H]H[???[????\? ???K?K??\\?Y[??H\?^K?[?\?][??X[[?\??\[?H[?H???HZXY?H??]Y?X??\?] ?\?[???????[?X\?H?L?KM????K??\\?Y[??H\?^KX??X?[?\??L?LN?H?LH?[?\???\?^HXY\??\[??X[?\??^H?\?^HXY\??\ ?T?S N?XZ[??[?[??? ?\?[??????X^H?L?K???X?Y?L????K??\\?Y[??H\?^KX??X?[?\??LKLN?H?L?[?\???\?^HXY\??\[??X[?\??^H?\?^HXY\??\ ?T?S N???[YH?XZ[??[?[??? ?\?[??????X^H?L?K K??K?X?Y? ???X?Y????K?K??\\?Y[??H\?^KX??X?[?\??LKL?[?X?Y[??[????\]Y[??\???X?XY\??\[?HK??\?^N?H??YX\??]?Y]?[??X??[Y[?Y??][?? ?\?[???????[?H?LJK????X?Y?????X?Y???X?Y??K??K?X?Y??K???????\[X?\?S???\??L?;?kRSUT?H?U?QU??