Leadership Forum

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

Writing in the May 1978 issue of Army magazine, General Taylor outlined the qualities he feels are necessary to cope with the "ethical dilemmas’’ that plague the military profession today. This is an abridged version of that article, reprinted with permission from Army magazine.

80

“Ought” for the military profession means an obligation for the armed forces to be ready to fight; for the offi­cer corps to be ready to lead; for each officer to be ready to do his duty suc­cessfully; and for all parties to be trained and disciplined for the reliable performance of duty under the stress and dangers of war. Under this con­cept, the measure of the quality of the officer is his success in carrying out his mission, despite all obstacles.

He is a good officer professionally to the extent that he succeeds, a bad one to the extent that he fails. His ac­tions are right insofar as they contrib­ute to mission success, wrong if they contribute to failure. While there is a stark simplicity in so defining right and wrong, it has an analogue in the uncompromising distinction between victory and defeat for a profession which, by its nature, offers no conso­lation prizes for failure.

But how does an officer acquire the personal characteristics which will as­sure that he becomes a "good” officer always doing the “right” thing? To aid him, our code should include pre­cepts derived in large part from case studies of successful leaders of the past that illuminate the way to the attain­ment of total fitness—professional, physical, intellectual, and moral. It would emphasize the importance of acquiring the look and bearing of a competent leader able to inspire confi­dence in his followers.

To create that impression, he must demonstrate in his daily work a com­plete knowledge of his own job and an ability to teach subordinates to do theirs with comparable thoroughness. Recognizing that a military career may be compared to an arduous dis­tance race over rough terrain, he must maintain physical fitness through habits of regular exercise accompanied by moderation in eating, drinking, working, and playing.

As an essential counterpart to a sound body, the “good” officer must develop a muscular, disciplined mind equally inured as his body to daily ex­ercise and hard work. While formal schooling will assist his intellectual formation, in the end, achievement

will depend upon his own efforts car ried out in his own time. Fortunate y> a military career offers broad fields ⁰ an active and inquiring mind, ^s*^nC most of human knowledge has so application to the vast array of ^aC tivities involved in the avoidance, preparation, or conduct of war. ^ While moral fitness calls for a conn plex of virtues, in the case of the mi tary man most of its essential ^r quirements can be satisfied by ^tv

qualities: reliability and justice

To b^e

reliable, an officer must be profession ally competent and self-discipline

He tells the truth, keeps his

word-

_                                                                                             his

and can be counted on to perform

duty despite obstacles, Similarly.

just officer is, of necessity, as fair as^

commander in distributing ^re^^ar

and punishments. As a matter

of lor

his

since

men

their

alty and justice, he will choose commanders and staff for meric, to fill key positions with lesser would be wrong for his troops, safety, and their mission.

In fairness to his men, he must always concerned for their well-bemfo since he properly views his rank as symbol of responsibility, not as

credit card for privileged treatment

of

He would agree with the saying Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, him

While moral fitness calls for a ^c<>,>! plex of virtues, in the case of t ^ military man most of its esserit^,lt requirements can he satisfied by ^,tl qualities: reliability and justice■

self a Civil War veteran, that “the ^re^ ward of the general is not a bigg tent but command.”          ,

An officer with the foregoing <I^u!l ities should have little difficulty

with

the ethical dilemmas that reporte plague the profession today. He cou not be guilty of suppressing bad ne or submitting inaccurate reports ^ superiors if only because the quality ^ their decisions, many of which will a feet his unit, will depend on the accu racy of the information he provide For similar reasons, he will not he^sJ tate to disagree with a superior reg^af ing a decision in process of formation.

Proceeding's / June 1

₉70

_th^U7'U,_g.^ve his loyal support once

vision is finally made. q_q ^{S a sen}i°r officer testifying before to ⁿj]^ress’ ^w*h give candid answers ^a questions even if his reply indi-

chf^a‘^{rness t0} his men, he must be b_ei^{ays con}cerned for their well- r_anf’ ^stnce he properly views his not ^ ^{U s}y^mh°i of responsibility, ^{as a} credit card for privileged ^eatment.

sitf^{5 5} ^’^^erence with the official po- ^ar>d h ^^Ut ^*^{e wou}^ deem it disloyal f_e ^ence unethical to call a press con- ^view'^<'^{e t0} P^u^^^c*^ze his divergent

t_hi^^{nly on the} rarest occasions would j_n ^{S lt}^^eal officer ever consider disobey- (jg- ^a order, a possible exception ^ecut^ °^{ne patentl}y impossible ^t0 ex-

^ f" ^pven then, before disobeying he j_t ^{U re}mind himself of the possibil- tni     ^own fallibility since he

° ¹ '^ack information available at

the source of the order. Or, it might be that his mission is not expected to gain a local victory—it may be a di­versionary attack to distract the enemy from the decisive attack or a delaying action to slow an enemy to gain time.

Leonidas demonstrated at Ther­mopylae not only that suicidal mis­sions may sometimes be properly as­signed but also that their faithful ex­ecution may bring greater renown to the vanquished than to the victor. Mission success does not always take the conventional form of victory.

Having no obligation at the mo­ment to obtain agreement from any source and needing some text to serve as a basis for discussion of pos­sibilities, I have set forth below a con­densation of the principles illustrated in the behavior of the ideal officer pre­viously depicted. They reduce to six primary obligations which devolve upon any officer who would attain his standards. Such an officer owes it to his country, his profession, and him­self:

►  To dedicate his active life to the military profession and the fulfillment of its role in national security.

►  To strive constantly for self­improvement with the ultimate goal the achievement of total fitness— professional, physical, intellectual, and moral—for the duties of an officer in peace and war.

►  To set a model of excellence in the performance of duty capable of evok­ing the confidence and respect of his comrades of all ranks.

►  To demonstrate in word and deed the possession of the cardinal military virtues of competence, reliability, jus­tice, courage, and determination.

►  To make his highest concern the discipline, training, and well-being of his men.

►  To conform to the judgment of military experience that the ultimate measure of the professional worth of an officer is his ability to carry out dif­ficult and dangerous tasks successfully at minimal cost in accordance with the decisions of his superiors.