Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 86

is most closely associated with competency to lead and manage. In operational theaters, junior leaders are empowered and make decisions based on minimal guidance to take action within the intent of mission command. In the home station environment, junior leaders fear being stripped of their authority, autonomy, and freedom of action, which could undermine the trust relationship developed with their superiors. Organizational trust is related to perceptions of senior leader competence in managing service-level processes and establishing priorities for the force (e.g., personnel, training, acquisition, sustainment, family programs). These perceptions are particularly acute in light of the projected austere resource environment, impending end strength draw-downs, and trade-offs in resourcing. Breach of trust perceptions based on prioritization decisions could undercut the strong perceptions of trustworthiness between cohorts within the Army. Currently, the Army enjoys the public’s trust and the profession is held in high-esteem by most Americans. Public trust is the most fragile echelon of trust; it has to accommodate a broad range of stakeholders, indirect access to information, and various motivations and interpretations of leader behavior. Potential areas of concern for the Army Profession, exacerbated by the current economic environment and pending strategic choices, include: (a) Perceptions that end strength and budget cuts will render the Army incapable of responding to threats and defending the nation’s interests in a flexible and reliable way. (Competence and Predictability) (b) Perceptions of the Army as self-serving, exploiting soldiers, exhibiting poor stewardship (fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement), or lacking a spirit of burden sharing as the society shoulders economic hardships to reduce national debt. (Benevolence and Integrity) Future Research Several areas are rich for further research to better understand, build and sustain trust of the Army Profession. Leaders of the profession should seek better understanding of trust internal to the Army. Research efforts need to assess and track the trust relationship among Army leader and subordinate cohorts as the institution transitions from a deployed force at war to a regionally aligned, home station-based force. Researchers should evaluate the effectiveness of professional military education systems to develop Army leader competency with regard to strategic management of the profession. They should conduct and publish empirical studies—drawing on academic theory and practitioner experience—to contribute to senior service college curricula. Such topics necessarily include strategic decision making, strategic force development decision process analysis, and strategic management to support national strategypolicy interfaces. A detailed examination of trust between the Army and its external stakeholders—public trust—is equally important for senior leaders of the Army Profession. Cross-disciplinary longitudinal studies could help identify antecedent factors and trends associated with public trust of the Army profession across several domains (business organizations, civic bodies, government agencies, and other nations). This article examined inter-personal, organizational, and public trust of the Army profession. An aspiration of the Army Profession should be the development of professionals who trust in one another and in the institution’s ability to serve the Nation, while caring for its people. The Army Profession must exemplify essential characteristics to be trusted by its soldiers and civilians members as well as the American public and international partners. MR NOTES 1. See “The Army Profession” in ADP-1, The Army with Change 1 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 7 November 2012). 2. See Raymond T. Odierno, “Initial Thoughts—Chief of Staff, U.S. Army” (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 7 September 2011) and Raymond T. Odierno, America’s Force of Decisive Action: Marching Orders (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, January 2012). 3. The Profession of Arms (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 8 December 2010). 4. Phanish Puranam and Bart Vanneste, “Trust and governance: Untangling a tangled web,” Academy of Management Review (2009), 11-31. 5. Denise M. Rousseau, Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer, “Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust,” Academy of Management Review (1998), 393-404. 6. Gareth R. Jones and Jennifer M. George, “The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork.” Academy of Management Review (1998), 531-46. 7. James P. Steele, Army Trust: A Multi-level Review (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Leadership, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, 2011). 8. USAWC Study of Professionalism, known as The Westmoreland Study (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1970), and Army Training and Leader Development Panel Officer (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 2002). 9. See Alex Keenan, “U.S. Military (Ret.): Commission could cut benefits, but talks will take years, at least,” Army Times (29 June 2012), . 10. U.S. Army Profession of Arms Campaign 2011: Interim Report (Fort Monroe, 84 September-October 2013 ? MILITARY REVIEW