This week’s post revisits some of the theory behind leadership with respect to the Army as a profession. Some may look at the military as an occupation, but the path required to attain and retain membership to the services, the special capability it provides, and overall development of it’s people define why it seen as a profession. In recent times this professionalism has been called into question, driving a continual discussion for mentors and mentees that attempt to navigate a successful and worthwhile career.
Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash
“The Profession of Arms is decaying (weakening or fraying — as opposed to a relative decline), and the primary causes are neglect, anti-intellectual bias, and a creeping, cancerous bureaucracy.” This the line used by an Army Major as the opening to his Foreign Policy piece calling into question the military as a profession. In recent years we’ve seen arguments that illustrate neglect in the form of gross lying, anti-intellectualism in the form of failed foreign policy and bureaucracy as the baseline for mismanaged talent. I refuse to think we have to abandon ship at this point, however.
So what do we do to right the ship? Quite simply, maybe we just need to tighten our grip on the boat’s wheel and set our sails in the right direction, and that direction is towards our fundamental principles. In May 2008 The Army Chief of Staff established the Army Center of Excellence for the Professional Military Ethic (ACPME). Located at the United States Military Academy at West Point, the ACPME was re-designated in 2010 as the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE) and realigned to fall under the command and control of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and its Combined Arms Center. CAPE is our lighthouse.
CAPE has given us many tools to use to develop ourselves and use to teach, coach and mentor those around us, to include the next generation. A set of those items are the Three Cs of the Army Profession: Character, Competence, and Commitment. There are many definitions for each of the Three Cs and how they manifest in leaders. Instead of wasting your eyeball time with potential semantic arguments we will walk through each of the Three Cs via the CAPE’s doctrinal definition.
Character
We find that CAPE defines character as:
“An Army professional’s dedication and adherence to the Army Values, virtues, purpose, identity, ethics, and morals as consistently and faithfully demonstrated in decisions and actions.”
Interestingly enough, this definition brings up a few key words that stand out, namely dedication, adherence, consistently, faithfully, and demonstrated. This tells in very certain terms that our character is derived from what you believe, espouse and enact on a daily basis. Leaders are deciders, and decisions are judged via one’s character. Research on character tells us that followers in a group believe that leaders with integrity will make decisions and take actions based on values and verifiable facts, which for them then alleviates the hidden agenda. The ‘video matches the audio’; what’s said is also believed and done, allowing the leader to be trusted. Your character establishes the stickiest bonding material – trust. The basis for this trust is a congruence of honesty – truthfulness, sincerity, frankness (think freedom from deceit or fraud), and integrity – adherence to principles, morals and ethics (think soundness of character). If you picture the two elements as circles in a Venn diagram, you want them to overlap as much as possible. Character is where it all starts. Simply put, I’ll take the liberty to adjust Chris Widener’s first rule of his Four Golden Rules of Influence; ‘live a life of undivided character’ (he uses the word integrity in the place of character).
Competence
CAPE defines competence as:
“An Army professional’s demonstrated ability to successfully perform their duties and to accomplish the mission with discipline and to standard.”
Again, we find specific key words, such as demonstrated, successfully, accomplish, and discipline. Competence here isn’t about education or how many courses you’ve attended and passed. It is about getting the job done to specs. Success then comes from competence; you can’t make the right decisions that lead to achievement without the intellectual aptitude to be smart and execute. Research into leadership in dangerous/combat situations tells us competence is the primary indicator of a few vital factors; leader effectiveness, adaptive skill sets, and depth of understanding. Today’s 1) threat environment and 2) generational differences require knowledgeable professionals that can display competence. This has to be with respect to both capability – gross intellectual aptitude put toward a singular or prototypical application (think learned and applied knowledge) and capacity – synthesized application of capability in varying environments, contexts, or circumstances (think adapted and leveraged knowledge). If you could, picture firing at stationary targets on a range. The routine procedures to fire a weapon and hit the target accurately develop a capability. Now picture taking that weapon and figuring out a way to fire it against a surface to skip bullets, say under a car off the concrete, to hit a target on the opposite side. That would develop capacity. Studies in combat environments indicate that Soldiers rate competence the highest directly because it edifies a leader’s decision making ability to ensure mission accomplishment while minimizing risk.
Commitment
CAPE’s definition of commitment is:
“The resolve of Army professionals to contribute honorable service to the Nation, to perform their duties with discipline and to standards, and to strive to successfully and ethically accomplish the mission despite adversity, obstacles and challenge.”
A few key words to highlight are contribute, standards, strive, and interestingly, despite. I mention ‘despite’ because of the context of its use. For you to be truly committed, it has to be while overcoming issues and trials. What we also find that this definition ties character and competence together through the ideas of demonstration, adherence to discipline, and accomplishment of the mission. But one must ask, “commitment to what?” It may seem obvious that we are committed to our organization and its people, but which one first? An oft used phrase is ‘mission first, people always’, but that doesn’t help us differentiate which is a priority. Both horizontal loyalty – left and right; peers, friends, co-workers, etc. and vertical loyalty – up and down; chain of command, subordinates, but mostly the institution are important factors with respect to commitment. The key is to understand that the institution will outlast us all; while we forge bonds to our brothers and sisters in arms and ensure that we never leave a fallen comrade we must consistently put those horizontal allegiances in the context of upholding the vertical fidelity to something bigger than us all. This will help us to always put other’s interest first; commitment is hard earned but is much better than compliance. The three social-psychological outcomes of influence are commitment (I’d love to do it), compliance (I’ll do it because you say so) and resistance (I won’t do it). As leaders, we are influencers who horizontally connect with others to build vertical commitment. Keenly remember that all three are much better than apathy, a place devoid of feeling, conviction, and initiative.
Closing
Who has helped to improve your Three Cs? If you’re mentoring another, how are you building up their Three Cs? Which one is most important or least important to you, and why? How do the three intertwine with each other, and what are some derivative characteristics that derive from these (courage, candor, loyalty, etc.)? We hope that these questions may start a conversation that helps round out the discussion that sparks a transformation in your development. In sum, these fundamental characteristics form a sound triumvirate for the basis of the Army as a profession, and they’ll always be your lighthouse in the storm.