An Army White Paper: The Army Profession of Arms, Its Culture, and Ethic Essay Example

motivated as either a governmental occupation or a vocational profession. Throughout its history, the Army has mostly functioned as a hierarchical bureaucracy. This hierarchy goes back to the early days when colonial militias were overseen hierarchically by colonial legislatures. Despite maintaining its bureaucratic structure, the Army Officer Corps went through professionalization in the late 1800s, thanks to Sherman, Upton, and Mahan's influence. As part of this process of professionalization, staff schools were established at Forts Benning and Leavenworth while an Army War College was founded in the early 1900s.

During that time, education played a crucial role in enabling individuals to achieve professional status in their respective fields. The main objective of education was to develop the necessary skills and knowledge required for professional standing, particularly emphasizing the cultivation of leaders. Huntington examined the transformation of the organizational structure during this period, specifically focusing on officers. He observed that officer roles had become more professionalized and bureaucratic, with only a select few granted exclusive rights to serve as officers. This concept can be compared to a doctor's license, where an officer's commission serves as its equivalent. However, it is important to note that professional status within the Army has expanded beyond just the officer corps.

Since the professionalization of the Army, it has fluctuated in its demonstration of professional characteristics and motivations compared to its government occupation identity. It has been highly professional during periods of expansion and later stages of war, but less so during contraction periods after wars such as post-WWII into Korea and post-Vietnam. Despite the establishment of an all-volunteer force in 1971 and the rebuilding of the Army NCO Corps after Vietnam, these

fluctuations have persisted. The Army exhibited high professionalism during Desert Shield- Desert Storm, but arguably became much less professional after a decade of downsizing and the departure of captains and other leaders and talent in the late 1990s.

The Army, after years of war in the Middle East, is showing more traits and characteristics of a profession compared to its role as a force-generating organization. The Army has a dual nature, functioning as both a hierarchical government occupation and a military profession. As the Army transitions from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, the challenge of finding balance and maintaining its character arises. This challenge is highlighted by General Dempsey's comments, and it revolves around the competing tensions caused by the Army's dual structure. The key question now facing the Army's strategic leaders is how to lead the Army in a way that aligns with the culture, ethic, and behavior of a profession capable of implementing Operational Adaptability in the future.It is important to note that our Army requires a "professional" bureaucracy within its supporting organizations in order to effectively manage its manpower, equipment, training, and other systems. This topic will be further discussed in subsequent sections.

The main purpose of this White Paper is to establish and facilitate the Army's discussion on three fundamental concepts necessary for maintaining an efficient profession. These concepts include: 1) The Army as a unique Profession of Arms with distinct characteristics, 2) understanding the culture of this profession, and 3) focusing on the foundational principles of the Army's Ethic. The subsequent section of the paper then derives specific policy implications from these sections.

Section 2 - The Army as a Profession of Arms

Section

2.1 - A Framework for Discussion Starting with Two Definitions

The Profession of Arms: The Army is an American Profession of Arms that consists of experts who are certified in ethically applying land combat power while serving under civilian authority. They have been entrusted with defending the Constitution and protecting the rights and interests of the American people.

The Army Professional Soldier: An American Professional Soldier is an expert volunteer who has been certified in the Army's Profession of Arms. They share a special bond with their comrades, based on a collective identity and sacrifice, serving both their nation and upholding constitutional values. They adhere to extremely high ethical standards and act as guardians for future generations within the army profession.

From these two definitions, it is clear that being a professional is dependent on the profession one serves. For example, a professional Soldier cannot develop without being immersed in the environment and culture of a true profession. Soldiers must be inspired to become experts and embody the identity and character of their profession. If Soldiers view their role as merely an occupation, rather than a profession, they will lack motivation and struggle to meet their aspiration of becoming an “expert and a professional” as stated in the Soldier’s Creed. These two definitions are interconnected as being professional entails understanding, embracing, and competently practicing the specific ethos and expertise of the profession in accordance with its standards. The key components that outline the necessary conditions to be established within every Army unit by Army leaders on a daily basis are further elaborated below: “The Army as a Profession of Arms is a unique vocation."

"Volunteers in the army are

professional soldiers who are bonded with comrades in a shared identity and culture of sacrifice and service. Army leaders establish a professional identity and culture that goes beyond being just a government occupation. This culture promotes altruism, selfless service to the nation, and a strong ethos towards the Army and its mission. It also encourages continuous self-assessment, learning, and development, which collectively allow the Army to be an adaptive and learning profession. Within this culture, members of the profession form a Soldier's identity that involves a sense of calling and ownership over the advancement of the profession and the exemplary performance of its members. They serve together in a bonded unity with fellow professionals who also share this sense of calling."

Army leaders prioritize effectiveness rather than efficiency and emphasize the significance of investing in the development of its members to sustain the profession. The Army profession comprises experts, with American professional Soldiers being experts in the Army Profession of Arms. The main objective of the Army is to triumphantly engage in and emerge victorious from national conflicts. As a result, the Army generates its own expert knowledge, encompassing both theoretical and practical aspects, for carrying out an extensive array of operations such as offense, defense, stability, or civil support operations.

The Army's goal is to develop Soldiers and leaders who possess lethal expertise, both individually and as units. These individuals are expected to uphold the highest standards of character while defending the Constitution, the American people, and our way of life. The Army considers itself a profession, with professional Soldiers being "certified" in the ethical application of land combat and the Profession of Arms. In order

to maintain the effectiveness of the profession, the Army tests and certifies its members to ensure they meet the high standards of competence, expertise, and morality required for ethical land combat power. This certification process occurs before granting full membership in the profession and is reevaluated at each level of promotion or advancement. The Army provides training and education to individuals in a trainee or apprenticeship status until they can meet the professional standards. It is important to note that the Army and its professionals serve under civilian authority, existing solely to serve the Constitution, the American people, and their elected and appointed representatives.

The Army Profession operates with disciplined candor, advising and willingly subordinating itself to the American people through their elected and appointed civilian authorities. Additionally, the Army comprehends and accepts the prioritization of their unit’s mission over personal needs. Its role involves defending the Constitution, as well as safeguarding the rights and interests of the American people. Through demonstrating effective military expertise and ensuring its ethical application, the Army establishes a trust relationship with the American people, gaining institutional autonomy and high vocational status. This grants the Army legitimacy by America’s elected and appointed officials to operate in various capacities such as Joint Command in Major Combat Operations, Stability Operations, Strategic Deterrence, and Homeland Security. The Army maintains the highest ethical standards, practicing the ethical application of land combat power. Ethical standards govern the profession's culture and actions, inspiring exemplary performance from all members by employing their expertise.

The Ethic of the Army is based on military effectiveness and the values of American society. In addition, the Army ensures its own integrity by having

leaders at every level enforce the standards of conduct and performance for the profession. These leaders also teach others those standards, establish systems to develop members to meet them, and take swift action against those who do not. The responsibility to set an example for others is greatest for the most respected and qualified members of the profession. Each Soldier is responsible for safeguarding the future of the Army profession. Leaders in the profession prioritize and invest in developing professionals and future leaders at all levels.

Leader development is crucial for sustaining the Army as a profession and is integral to its combat power. It involves the continuous use of ethical discretionary judgments by professionals, regardless of whether they are leading a patrol in combat or making significant policy or budget choices at the Pentagon. Discretionary judgments are essential in all professions, particularly in the military. Additionally, the Army focuses on cultivating strategic leaders such as Sergeants Major, Colonels, and General Officers to preserve its professional status.

Only they control the major Army systems, policies and resources that maintain the expert knowledge of the profession, establish the external jurisdictions of the profession and maintain its legitimacy therein, ensure the development of its leaders, and adapt the culture and Ethic of the Army as necessary to ensure its continued effectiveness. Given these definitions of what the Army and its Soldiers need to be as a Profession of Arms filled with expert professionals, let’s now go beyond them to a discussion of the contrasts and tensions inherent within the Army’s dual character.

The Army as Profession of Arms and its Supporting Organizations

As noted in the introduction a profession is an

organization for producing uniquely expert work, not routine or repetitive work. Such expert work requires years of study and experiential learning before one is capable to practice effectively, e.

Professionals in various fields, including medical doctors, lawyers, and Army commanders, play vital roles in society. They are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring health, justice, and security for the community. It is their obligation to utilize their skills for the betterment of society rather than pursuing personal gain. These professionals are bound by ethical standards that prevent them from misusing their expertise. Military occupations, in particular, hold a special status as "social trustees" since society relies on them to possess knowledge and abilities that are not readily accessible otherwise. The survival of society greatly depends on these professionals utilizing their expertise while upholding the values of those they serve.

The professions of medicine, theology, law, and the military have traditionally been structured in western societies as social trustee roles. The main focus of professionals is on effectiveness rather than efficiency. Clients seek a cure for their illness, absolution for their sins, exoneration for their accusations, and security in times of vulnerability. While efficient service is desired, the ultimate goal is to achieve truly effective results through the expertise of professionals. Professions are self-governing organizations that provide expert services to clients who they are ethically bound not to exploit for their own gain. The servant ethic of professions can be summed up as "let the taker believe in us."

The Army's trust in the American people, civilian leaders, and junior professionals within the ranks forms the foundation of its professional ethic. Unlike other government occupations that focus on

socially necessary and repetitive tasks for efficiency, the Army works with expert knowledge. An example of such an occupation is a state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Such bureaucracies rely on structure and process, formalization and differentiation of roles and tasks, centralized management, and standard operating procedures. They are efficient producers of non-expert work and are able to survive by successfully competing with other bureaucracies for resources. Bureaucracies do not prioritize the development of their personnel, as it is easy for them to replace personnel by acquiring and training new individuals. Therefore, the methods of motivation and social control within a profession, also known as its ethic, are different from those of a business or government occupation.

The profession is trusted by the client (i.e., the American people in the case of the Army) to produce expert work when and where it is needed. This trust in the profession's expert knowledge and practice enables the American people to grant professions significant autonomy in creating their own expert knowledge and overseeing its application by individual professionals.

An exemplary Ethic is necessary for the Profession of Arms to maintain trust from the American people. Additionally, the profession must actively self-police the use of its Ethic to prevent incidents that undermine America's trust in the effectiveness of their Army or its Ethic (e.g., the strategic failure at Abu Ghraib, the failures at Walter Reed Medical Center, the terrorist massacre at Ft. Hood, and the recent failures at Arlington Cemetery).

Furthermore, while businesses and government occupations have traditionally motivated their workers through external factors such as salary, benefits, and promotions, professions, on the other hand, rely on mechanisms of social control that

are more inspiring. These professions primarily focus on intrinsic factors such as the continual pursuit of expert knowledge, the privilege and honor of serving others, the satisfaction of nurturing and safeguarding life, and the ability to contribute to the flourishing of society. Additionally, being a member of an ancient, respected, and self-regulating occupational group also grants social status. Consequently, true professionals in the Army are driven more by these intrinsic aspects of their service rather than external motivators. In summary, there is a continuum within the Army where every command and unit finds itself daily. Although this will be further explored in a subsequent discussion on culture, we can reiterate that the Army encompasses both a military profession and a governmental occupation. These distinct types of organizations possess different cultures and exhibit diverse behaviors while adhering to separate ethical standards.

The chart below describes the endpoints of the organizational culture continuum. It is important to note that every Army organization reflects aspects of both professional and occupational behavior. The ideal balance between the two may vary across different types of Army organizations. For instance, a supply depot and a brigade combat team may have different characteristics based on their profession/occupation mix.

Comparison Profession Government Occupation

Knowledge

• Expert, abstract and practical; requires life-long learning and certification
• Non-expert; quickly learned on the job largely through training vs. education/development

Practice

• Knowledge applied with discretion to new situations by individual professionals
• Repetitive situations, work done by following SOPs, administrative rules, and procedures

Key to Success

• Focus on effectiveness of applied practices
• Focus on efficiency of resources used

Culture/Ethic

• Granted autonomy to practice within a self-policing ethic
• Closely supervised;

Below is the unified andtext:

Imposed governmental ethic

Investments

• Priority investment in developing individual professionals
• Priority investment in hardware/software, routines,
  

and systems

Growth

• Individuals develop a coherent professional worldview
• A worldview is not necessary for the work

Motivation

• Intrinsic motivation: altruistic towards clients; work is considered a calling
• Extrinsic motivation: work is just a job for personal gain

Leadership

Develops leaders who inspire and transform effective professionals. Trains managers who focus on efficient processes and systems.

Table 1-1.

The aim of Army leaders is to establish a professional culture within the Army while subordinating the cultural influences of supporting occupational organizations. The concept of a "professional" bureaucracy, as opposed to a "machine" bureaucracy, helps in understanding how professions shape their supporting organizations. This concept will be further explained in Section 3. 3.

In conclusion, it is important to remember that the Army cannot simply declare itself a profession. Ultimately, this determination lies with our client, the American people, who assess the Army's performance and trustworthiness on a daily basis. Therefore, the Army must continuously earn its professional status through the trust it maintains with society as it serves and defends.

Section 2.3 - The Army’s Expertise and Jurisdictions

Upon closer analysis, it is evident that all modern professions share three common traits: the creation and maintenance of their own expert knowledge (expertise); the application of this expertise within the desired domain or situation (jurisdiction); and the establishment of a trusting relationship with clients over time (legitimacy).

The Army's main area of expertise lies in the art and science of fulfilling its military objectives as outlined in Title 10. The vast range of expertise required to achieve military effectiveness under the new concept of Operational Adaptability across various types of operations is truly remarkable.

To cultivate and sustain this extensive expertise, the Army must consistently develop its own professionals

who possess up-to-date knowledge in specific fields, including:

- The Military-Technical Field of Knowledge: This field provides guidance on conducting offense, defense, and stability or civil support operations on land at strategic, operational, and tactical levels.

- The Moral-Ethical Field of Knowledge: This field informs the Army on how to engage in wars with a strong moral foundation as expected by the American people and dictated by domestic and international laws.The text describes two fields of knowledge within the Army: the political-cultural field and the human development field. The political-cultural field focuses on operating effectively in different cultures and includes civil-military relations and media-military relations. The human development field focuses on socializing, training, educating, and developing civilians into Soldiers, as well as developing those Soldiers into leaders. It is acknowledged that not every Army Professional needs to be equally expert in all fields of knowledge. Instead, individual professionals undergo life-long learning through a combination of training, education, and operational experience. The emphasis on specific fields of expert knowledge may shift as one progresses through their career or transitions from a generalist to a specialist.

However, the way the Army now engages in irregular warfare has changed, impacting the importance of certain fields of knowledge. This includes the necessity for combat arms leaders to possess early expertise in political and cultural knowledge. The Army operates within four external jurisdictions which were recently renegotiated in 2006 with civilian leaders and other services. These include major combat operations, strategic deterrence, stability operations, and homeland security. Nevertheless, this White Paper emphasizes the significance of the two internal jurisdictions that exist within all professions.

They are two main aspects: 1) maintaining and expanding their

expert knowledge; and 2) developing human practitioners who can effectively apply that knowledge acquired through years of study and practice. These two internal areas are referred to as military doctrine and leader (and Soldier) development within the Army. It is evident from these insights that the most vital field of knowledge for the Army is the latter, as it involves the development of Soldiers and leaders who can skillfully and ethically put into practice the military knowledge created by the Army. Ultimately, even with the most advanced technology, without capable and adaptable Soldiers to utilize it, everything becomes futile.

So, there are two main points to consider. Firstly, every professional Soldier must have a certain level of expert knowledge in all four fields to be effective. Secondly, a strong leader development system is absolutely necessary for a professional Army. However, establishing priorities for adequate investments in Soldier and leader development remains one of the most challenging issues facing the Army as a Profession of Arms and its strategic leaders.

The Practice of the Army Professional

The specific practice of an Army professional, regardless of rank or position, involves the "repetitive exercise of discretionary judgment" to achieve effective outcomes in their area of responsibility. This practice is done in accordance with the professional ethic, whether it is a combat patrol or a significant budget decision. The essence of this definition is that true professionals have control over their own work. They are often not told what to do or how to do it; their actions are based on their own discretion.

Think of a leader on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a senior leader in the Pentagon. How many

times in the course of a day will they make a highly discretionary judgment, one not announced by a formula or computer, rather drawn primarily from their years of accumulated knowledge and experience? That is the practice of the military professional’s art, many times a day, followed up by actions to implement their decisions.

Second, most all of these repetitive discretionary judgments have a high degree of moral content, where decisions will directly and rather immediately impact on the life of another human being, whether subordinate Soldier and family, the enemy, or an innocent on the battlefield. Such judgments must therefore be rendered by Army professionals of well developed moral character and with the ability to reason in moral frameworks.

Such was the case in the battle of Wanat, July 2008 in Afghanistan, where leaders at multiple levels of command from infantry company upward each made discretionary judgments as to how best to use available resources to establish a new combat outpost in the Korengal Valley. Ultimately the final review of this battle established that these leaders, despite the loss of seven Army Soldiers KIA and twenty-seven WIA while successfully repelling an enemy attempt to overrun the outpost, each had made judgments that were reasonable and prudent based on what they knew at the time.

Although the loss of Army Soldiers is always a tragedy, it is important to understand the senior reviewer's conclusion on the cause of these losses. This conclusion provides insight into the Profession of Arms and the importance of moral discretion for Army leaders. It is essential that we do not automatically associate U.S. casualties with professional error or misconduct. In war, battle

is the means by which we defeat our enemies, and casualties are an unavoidable outcome of battle.

Unfortunately, they often come at a cost despite achieving victory. This is demonstrated in a clear and emotional example, highlighting the significant autonomy that professions possess. Unlike many businesses and government occupations, the Army operates with minimal regulation from the society it serves. The Army is not dictated as to what should be included in its doctrinal manuals, demonstrating its expert knowledge. Additionally, Army leaders have the authority to establish policies for educating and training soldiers based on this knowledge. Commanders in the field also possess discretionary power when carrying out operations. The nature of war reinforces this principle of the Profession of Arms, especially in the context of decentralized counter-insurgency campaigns.

Due to the Army's successful operations and its commitment to learn from mistakes, it currently enjoys a high level of trust among the public in comparison to other institutions. However, there have been instances in the past when the Army's autonomy and legitimacy were compromised due to its failure to adhere to an approved Ethic and self-regulate, such as the Aberdeen training scandal in the 1980s and more recently, the Abu Ghraib scandal.

In each case, the Army temporarily became externally regulated and lost some autonomy necessary for maintaining its professional status. Trust is crucial for professions, as it is the foundation for client belief. This critical discussion of trust will be revisited in the last section of this White Paper.

The Unique Role of Strategic Leaders in the Military Profession

As mentioned earlier, strategic leaders of the Army have consistently faced the challenge of maintaining a proper balance

between the dual internal nature of being a profession and a government occupation. This challenge has been ongoing since the professionalization of the Army in the late 19th century. The goal is for the profession to hold dominance in all areas, except for those few tasks that are inherent to any large organization, such as administrative duties and some logistics.

In the current volunteer Army, citizens volunteer in the hopes of becoming professionals within the commissioned and noncommissioned ranks. They desire to work in an environment and culture of a profession that supports their personal growth and grants them autonomy to organize and carry out their work. The challenge for leadership in the Army lies in this: leaders below the ranks of sergeant major and colonel must address this expectation.