Values Statements and the Profession of Arms
A Reevaluation By John Mark Mattox
ver the past decade and a half, that underwrite, circumscribe, and guide Core Value Statements Compared the Department of Defense the organization’s goals and work. As such, Upon undertaking a critical examina- (DOD) and each of the uni- each merits both special attention and tion, the first thing we notice about these O formed Services has issued core careful reflection. However, each addition- statements is that each is different, even values statements: ally deserves critical examination—espe- though the uniformed members of the respec- cially since each is intended to communicate tive organizations are members of the same DOD: Duty, Integrity, Ethics, Honor, to the profession’s members, particularly profession of arms and, with one exception, Courage, and Loyalty. its newest members, its core ethical com- the same executive department. In their 2009 U.S. Air Force: Integrity first, Service before mitments. A critical examination includes review of these core values statements, the self, and Excellence in all we do. questions such as: Military Leadership Diversity Commission U.S. Army: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, offered the following apologetic explanation Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and ■■ How well do these statements capture for this lack of uniformity: Personal courage. the essence of how each organization’s U.S. Coast Guard: Honor, Respect, and members ought to conduct their personal and Although the DoD core-values statement indi- Devotion to duty.1 professional lives? cates that uniformed military members share a U.S. Department of the Navy: Honor, ■■ How successfully and comprehensively common set of core values, each Service’s iden- Courage, and Commitment. do they communicate the ethical standards of tity is reflected in its own uniquely defined core the organization? values, which serve as common ground for all Each of these statements purports ■■ How well do they imbue the members its members. For example, the Marine Corps’ to constitute a succinct summary of the of the organization with a sense of what it core values “ form the bedrock of [a Marine’s] owning organization’s most fundamental means to belong to the profession of arms in a character” (Sturkey, 2001), the Air Force’s “tell commitments—the moral reference points democratic society? us the price of admission to the Air Force itself” (United States Air Force, 1997), and the Army’s are “what being a soldier is all about” (United States Army, n.d.).2
This descriptive statement, coming from DOD (Cherie Cullen) a commission with a mandate to promote diversity, comes as no particular surprise, and, in all fairness, there is nothing overtly objectionable about it. On further reflection, however, it raises some questions that properly claim our attention:
■■ Since DOD has a common set of core values, and DOD is the organization that encompasses the profession of arms in the United States, why should its subordinate organizations find it necessary to espouse dif- ferent sets of core values?
John Mark Mattox was the inaugural occupant of the General Hugh Shelton Chair in Ethics at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He is currently a Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Joint Forces Color Guard participates in National POW/MIA Recognition Ceremony the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the National Defense University. ndupress.ndu.edu issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 / JFQ 59 COMMENTARY | Values Statements and the Profession of Arms
Core Values Compared
DOD duty integrity ethics honor courage loyalty
Air Force integrity service excellence first before self in all we do
personal selfless Army duty integrity honor loyalty respect courage service
devotion Coast Guard honor respect to duty
Marine Corps honor courage commitment
Navy honor courage commitment
■■ Is there something fundamentally of their identity. If in the process of self- the superior unit mission and the subordinate different between DOD and the uniformed examination, they encounter discomfiting restated missions. Services or among the uniformed Services flaws in their assumptions or methods, they The next thing of note is that none of themselves that makes distinctions in their must resist the temptation to dismiss those the Services includes “ethics” in their respec- core values a matter of logical necessity? encounters out of hand, but instead take as tive core values statements. At first blush, ■■ Do the Services’ values actually differ, their touchstone the question, “What is best this may seem nothing less than incredible. or do the differences in wording and compo- for America?” and relegate other consider- Indeed, one might ask, “How can it possibly sition exist merely for cosmetic reasons? ations to a secondary status. be that none of the subordinate command- ■■ If their values actually differ, why is ers finds ‘ethics’ to be important enough to this so? DOD Core Values include from the superior commander’s ethics ■■ If their distinctions are merely On the basis of the comparison in the operation order into their own?” However, cosmetic, might not such artificialities actu- table, we observe that all five uniformed the likely answer is that the subordinate com- ally have the effect of detracting from the Services contain one or more elements found manders omitted ethics precisely because seriousness that should attach to core values in the DOD core values. This should come as its inclusion serves no clear purpose in a statements? no surprise since, after all, DOD is the parent statement that, by its nature, is understood to ■■ Are the individual tenets themselves organization. However, what should be star- enshrine the institution’s ethics. With respect logically necessary or are they essentially tling to anyone familiar with standard five- to this particular tenet, the superior com- arbitrary? paragraph operation orders is that there is so mander’s core values statement does not serve ■■ If they are logically necessary, on what little overlap between DOD’s core values state- its subordinate commanders very well. grounds is this so? ment and those of the individual Services. Let Now we turn to the individual Service ■■ If they are arbitrary, does that mean us liken the DOD core values statement to a core values statements (in alphabetical order) that any list of virtues would suffice as a mili- superior command’s operation order and the as shown in the table. tary core values statement? core values statements of the individual Ser- ■■ Are the Service core values qualities vices to the operations orders of subordinate Air Force Core Values that members of that Service have a unique units, derived from the order received from It is immediately clear that the Air requirement to possess, or are they merely the superior headquarters. If the DOD core Force statement is the least aligned of all the desirable qualities that any virtuous citizen in values statement were to appear in what we Services with the DOD core values statement. a democratic society should have? might call an “ethics operation” order, where That in no way implies that the Air Force would it appear? Is seems clear enough that does not cherish ethical values; it simply Members of a profession have an it would appear either as paragraph two (the means that the DOD and Air Force state- obligation to be self-critical—to look for mission statement) or in paragraph three in ments do not, prima facie, appear to reflect a ways in which to better themselves and the “concept of the operation” subparagraph, reliance on each other as might be expected more effectively discharge the special public which addresses the commander’s intent. between superior and subordinate organiza- trust that distinguishes them as members One might argue that the individual Service tions. In particular, we are struck by the Air of a profession. That means they must, core values statements are simply instances Force core value not found in any other core from time to time, scrutinize cherished of the “restated mission statement” found in values statement, namely “excellence in all we notions, ideas that they have grown to hold subordinate unit operation orders. Perhaps, do.” In practical terms, this is not a particu- dear, or things that because of the passage but the problem with this interpretation is larly helpful tenet. It does not require a great of time have come to be regarded as part that there is no obvious connection between deal of reflection on general life experience
60 JFQ / issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 ndupress.ndu.edu MATTOX to conclude that if everything truly is excel- ties upon the values statement. For example, apply, in the present context, to persons lent then nothing is excellent. Human beings the Army core values statement refers not to based on whether or not they are leaders. simply do not do everything excellently; and “courage,” but to “personal courage.” This when they try to lead their lives in a way that is, of course, a rather odd and counterintui- Coast Guard Core Values insists on excellence in every single aspect, tive construction since courage, by its very While it is understood that the Coast they often end up frustrated and excellent in nature, is personal. Indeed, what would it Guard is aligned bureaucratically with the nothing. Certainly members of the profession mean if one were to refer to “corporate” Department of Homeland Security and not of arms are better served by being imbued courage? There is no such thing as a coura- DOD, the nature of its work as a uniformed with the understanding that they must learn geous squad, a courageous platoon, or a Service charged with the Nation’s defense to look at tactical situations, quickly and accu- courageous company. Only the members aligns it, for purposes of the present discus- rately assess them to separate that which is of that squad, platoon, or company can be sion, both conceptually and philosophically important from that which is not, and relegate courageous. Courage, like all moral values, with the Services under the Department of that which is not important to the possibility can be meaningfully experienced only at the Defense. of less-than-excellent outcomes. individual level. Even if every member of a The Coast Guard core values statement The next most prominent feature collective is courageous, the collective does is not particularly distinctive, except for its in the Air Force core values statement is not thereby become courageous; only its reference to “respect”—a reference shared its reference to “service before self.” This individual members can do that. with the Army’s core values statement. statement is not precisely the same thing as The other apparent artificiality in the Prima facie, it is not entirely clear what role the value of “selfless service” articulated in LDRSHIP acronym is “honor.” On the face “respect” should play as an essential charac- the Army statement. “Service before self” of it, this does not appear to be a problem, teristic of the profession of arms. This is not suffers from the same theoretical malady especially since every DOD and Service core to say that “respect” is not an honorable or that attends many such moral-philosophical values statement, except for the Air Force, desirable trait; but how does its inclusion in a statements: If we always serve others before includes it. However, its artificiality in the core values statement illuminate the essential attending to ourselves, our ability to serve context of the acronym is betrayed by the character of the profession of arms any more others ultimately diminishes because we fail Army’s own official definition of what it than, say, “cheerfulness,” “friendliness,” or to “sharpen the saw,” as it were. On the other hand, “selfless service” suggests that when one does serve—with the assumption that there is both a legal and philosophical basis for expecting a the idea of “service” in the profession of arms member of the uniformed Services to demonstrate “courage” represents the norm and not the exception— in a way that cannot necessarily be expected of members of one should do so selflessly. This characteriza- American society at large tion of service probably more closely reflects what is actually intended in the Air Force core values statement. means by “honor,” to wit: “Live up to all the “courteousness” would? Contrast “respect” Army values.” The notion thus becomes self- with ideas like “courage” or “duty” and it Army Core Values referential and to that extent, vacuous; for quickly becomes clear that no special expla- The Army’s statement is the most what good is a “value” that merely tells one to nation is necessary for why one carrying closely aligned of all the Services with the “live the values”? a loaded weapon in defense of the Nation DOD values statement. At the same time, The idea of making a core values list should be courageous or dutiful. Rather, the however, it is also the longest—raising the fit an acronym is something that probably inclusion of a notion like “respect” raises the question of whether Occam’s razor might be merits discussion among Army profession- question of how it helps capture the essence advantageously applied. als. However well intended the gesture, of the profession of arms as a distinct social But why exactly is it the longest? The might it not be the case that forcing a fit with entity with highly specialized responsibilities. unfortunate answer appears to be that a an acronym results in a case of misplaced Upon considered reflection, it may be that corporate decision was made to express the emphasis? Indeed, the acronym LDRSHIP is those values statements that refer to “respect” Army’s core values as an acronym, no matter itself a choice that invites some questioning. as a core value do so as a genuflection to what contortions needed to be applied to Is the intent of the acronym to suggest that political correctness. If so, it should be noted make it so. The acronym L-D-R-S-H-I-P is core values are the province of leaders only? that any such genuflection undermines the what has come to be Soldier-speak for “lead- Is it to suggest that everyone in a civilian-led spirit of seriousness that ought to attend ership.” Now, acronyms certainly have their military (in which all uniformed personnel ethical reflection. Perhaps inclusion of a place. After all, what drill sergeant would are, to that extent, followers) are actually value such as “respect” is a reactive response object to having the aid of an abbreviation leaders—and if so, in what sense? Indeed, to media scrutiny in recent years of cases of to help new recruits remember a long list of moral values are not about leaders per se; physical or other kinds of abuse by or among values, alongside the many other lists that they are about persons. To confuse the two military members. If so, the oddity of its trainees are expected to digest? However, is to misunderstand something fundamental inclusion in a military core values statement insistence on this particular acronym about our humanity. Values apply to leaders stands in even greater relief, for it is not clear appears to have imposed certain artificiali- because they are persons; values do not that there exists a rational basis to say that ndupress.ndu.edu issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 / JFQ 61 COMMENTARY | Values Statements and the Profession of Arms U.S. Navy (Steven L. Shepard) U.S. Navy (Steven L. Shepard)
Sailors in formation for seasonal uniform shift inspection from whites to blues a member of the uniformed Services has Marine Corps core values are presented as enlistment and from its commissioned officer any greater responsibility to demonstrate having been derived from the Constitution oath of office constitutes a curious juxtaposi- respect for others than every other member of the United States. This is a remarkably tion that may detract from the philosophical of American society does. The law holds— powerful and sophisticated approach because elegance of the arrangement. or should hold—every American citizen it provides a grounding and derivation for This goes to a point that some might accountable for the abuse of other persons. If the core values and a rationale for their selec- consider esoteric, but which in fact deserves that is what “respect” refers to here, it simply tion. Hence, the Department of the Navy consideration, namely, the question of what is not the case, legally or philosophically, statement does not suffer from the apparent exactly constitutes the “professional” part of that a distinctive standard need exist on this arbitrariness in selection of core values that the military profession. By their very nature, point for members of the uniformed Services. plagues the other statements. The Navy state- codes of ethics pertain most directly to the In contrast, there is both a legal and philo- ment ties each core value to key phrases from professional segments of society. For example, sophical basis for expecting a member of the one of the oaths administered upon entry while medical doctors are bound by the uniformed Services to demonstrate “courage” into naval service,3 to wit: Hippocratic oath, it does not follow that the in a way that cannot necessarily be expected Honor: “I will bear true faith and allegiance . . .” hospital medical records clerk or the radiol- of members of American society at large. ogy clinic receptionist are professionals in Courage: “I will support and defend . . .” “Courage” must be understood as not only the same, relevant sense. They may be skilled Commitment: “I will obey the orders . . .” fundamental to the performance of military technicians or tradespersons, but it is hard to duty—as a defining hallmark of the profes- Even if the connection of the Navy and make the case that they are classifiable as pro- sion—but also distinctively so, in a way that Marine Corps core values to these key phrases fessionals in the traditional sense of the word. “respect” must not necessarily be understood. is not obvious, the Navy’s official explana- American society has grown so accustomed, tion of the connection is compelling and in the last quarter or third of a century, to Department of the Navy Core Values makes an excellent basis for elucidating the referring to anyone who is gainfully employed The Department of the Navy core import of these core values—and for explain- as a “professional” that the concept has values statement, as manifested in both the ing precisely why they are core values—in become quite diluted. Hence, one routinely Navy and Marine Corps core value state- instructional settings with naval personnel. hears references to “professional” golfers, ments, features a singular elegance that is On the downside, the fact that the key phrases “professional” air conditioner repair persons, worthy of special attention: The Navy and come from a mixture of the Navy’s oath of “professional” sales clerks in department
62 JFQ / issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 ndupress.ndu.edu MATTOX stores, and the like. Please note that this is not values statements. Rather, it is a reevaluation arms should be able to articulate a defense of to say that “professionals” thus described do of the efficacy of the current core values state- why this is so. not make meaningful contributions to society. ments in terms of their ability to communicate Some members of the profession might Rather, it means that members of professions to the members of the profession the serious find these claims to be unduly theoretical. hold special responsibilities that set them nature of the ethical enterprise. Some might Some might regard them as bordering on apart from the rest of society. feel inclined to counter by saying, in effect, irreverence. They might place such question- Properly speaking, professionals are “Aren’t we making much too big a deal about ing in the same class with, for example, tin- persons charged with the control of expert this? Is it not far more important that we have kering with the words of “America the Beau- tiful” or of the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the current core values statements deserve to perhaps the time has come for DOD and each of the uniformed be scrutinized. If after a decade of experience Services to consider what values distinctively define the with the various core values statements their profession of arms in a democratic society words are found to withstand scrutiny, they will become stronger and more enduring. If they are not able to withstand scrutiny borne knowledge not easily obtained by and not some core values statements than it is that we of careful reflection, they need to be changed. readily available to lay persons.4 That is have any particular values statements?” The In either case, it may well be that the time has why the medical doctor is a professional in question is a fair one, but it is also one that come to conduct that reevaluation. JFQ the relevant sense and the medical office invites members of the profession to recall the receptionist is not. In a similar vein, it is ancient words of Socrates: “This is not a trivial notes not entirely clear that every member of the question; what we are talking about is how 1 As will be argued hereafter, the Coast uniformed Services is a “professional” in the one ought to live.”5 Presumably, the various Guard’s mission clearly makes it a part of the relevant sense. At least the question should uniformed Services expect their members to profession of arms, even if it is not aligned bureau- be asked as to whether there is a relevant take their respective core values statements cratically with the Department of Defense. difference in terms of professional status seriously—to memorize them, to reflect upon 2 “Department of Defense Core Values,” between, say, the young enlistee who drives them, and to incorporate the values thus Military Leadership Diversity Commission, Issue a truck and the company commander who enshrined in their individual lives. However, Paper 6, December 2009, 1, available at