Leadership Forum: Trust, Confidence, and Obligation

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.

By Captain George C. SoIIey, U. S. Marine Corps

Trust,

Confidence

and

Obligation

du­

are the appointment itself and its

osin?

the

As a newly commissioned officer, I was fortunate to read several works concerning leadership and other mil­itary matters that greatly aided me in discovering my new role as an offi­cer—in terms of both my relationships with seniors and subordinates and my place as an inheritor of two centuries of tradition. Since that time, I have occasionally returned to and reread these sources, sometimes to seek a different perspective than my job then allowed, sometimes to come to grips with the decision of a respected friend and fellow officer to leave the service. These reviews have reminded me of the traditions of my service, lifted me out of the daily routine, strengthened my conviction that mine is an hon­orable service, thereby confirming my sense of personal and professional worth, and made me keenly aware of the debt owed to those officers and men who went before me.

Recently, though. I found that I had overlooked something in these occa­sional reflections. What 1 had not re­viewed, and in fact gave insufficient thought to at the time, was the mean­ing of my commission as an officer. So 1 looked closely at my commission, particularly at the words used in granting an officer his lawful authority and even more particularly at those words having to do with the “special trust and confidence” placed in the officer corps. Words led to ideas, ideas to concepts, and concepts to standards of conduct. I found that the language of the commission is not mere courtesy and convention. It sets standards of performance that are ab­solute. strict, and demanding: the United States grants the commission with the full expectation that officers have certain high qualities, and the acceptance of that commission im­poses a profound obligation on each officer—without regard to how pain­ful, dangerous, or difficult it might be to fulfill.

In brief, the commission is the au­thority by which each officer performs his duties.* It does not merely say that someone is now an ensign or second lieutenant, as a driver’s license gives authority to operate a motor vehicle, but contains other important infor-

•I use the masculine gender merely for simplic­ity. I mean, of course, both men and women officers.

mation in important language- Granted specifically by the President of the United States, this authority has four short paragraphs: the first ap­points the officer to his rank, with a specific date, and gives reasons for that appointment; the second pro­vides instructions to that officer and to his juniors; the third defines the duration of the commission; the fourth gives the date and place the commis­sion was issued. That the commission is granted by the President is impor­tant, and the language further indi­cates how important that fact is. For a regular officer, the President writes that “I do. by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint him . . . and all officers are directed “to observe and follow such orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States In other words, the President acts partly as commander in chief the armed forces and partly as the elected representative of the people of the United States, advised by other elected representatives of the nation, with the clear implication that powers and actions of the President are g°^v' erned by the people of the country- Thus, although written in the words of the President and legally granted by him, the commission and all its in­structions, provisions, and recog^nl' tion come from the people of our na­tion.

The instructions given by the com­mission are brief and general in ⁿ³' ture: each of us is directed to carry out his duties “carefully and dim gently” and, as mentioned, to foll°^vV the orders of the President and "othe Superior Officers.” The provision

ration, which is “to continue in f°^rC during the pleasure of the Preside¹ of the United States of Amen^c . . . These aspects of the commj^s sion are straightforward and easi > comprehended; simply put. Amcn^ expects each of us to do his duty.¹ do it well, and to do it when and whe^ the nation wills. The recognition

contained in the phrase “rep¹ special trust and confidence in patriotism, valor, fidelity, and ah' ^ ties” of the officer appointed. Th^e words contain much food for tho^ug.^ and must be examined thoroughly order to appreciate fully the me^anl -

. .we have a debt to the past, present, and future; to the officers whose past patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities enable us freely to make our choices; to the people of the United States whose present trust and confidence are placed in us; and to those men and women who will follow us, to leave them a service and nation as strong as that we inherited.”

of the commission.

The President and people of the United States do not give such in­structions to nor require such obedi­ence from everyone, but only those 'n whom they repose “special trust and confidence.” Trust is variously defined as belief in and reliance on some quality or attribute of a person or thing, the condition of being en­trusted with something, and the obli­gation or responsibility imposed on one in whom confidence is placed or authority is vested, or who has given an undertaking of fidelity. Confidence ■s a belief in the reliability of a person °r thing and an assurance arising from reliance on something. Trust, then, ■rnplies instinctive and unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something °r someone, and confidence implies ^conscious trust because of good rea- ^s°ns, definite evidence, or relevant ^e*perience. In sum, the nation be­lieves that each officer has responsible ^and reliable qualities and believes this consciously and without reservation, '’used on the reasonable evidence of ^exPerience. The nation also entrusts ^each officer with some things that cre­^ate in him some sort of obligation. Trust and confidence, in fact, are spe- ^c,ai implying that they are greater *han those given to other citizens: fur- !"^er, they are not merely given once, ^but reposed—placed for an indefinite ^Perjod. But what are the qualities the Ration expects of us as officers? What ^ls entrusted to us? And what type of °bligation do we incur?

The nation reposes “special trust ^a°d confidence” in certain qualities °I'ts officer corps, specifically “in the Patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abili- ^,les” of each officer. These qualities simple enough: we all have a ^a,gh regard for our country, and we ⁿ°Pe we have courage, loyalty, and ^certain degree of competence. But ^aese qualities are not as simple as ^hey seem.

Patriotism means having the char­ter of a patriot and is the devoted °^Ve. support, and defense of one’s °Untry; a patriot is one who disin- ^erestedly or self-sacrificingly exerts 'uiself to promote the well being of ^ls country and who maintains and ^fends his country’s freedom or 8hts. The key concepts here are de- ated love, disinterest, and self-sac- i^e. Love itself means a degree of ^e|nessness, and devotion implies an ^Ven greater willingness to place the object of that love above one’s self. To be disinterested in a situation is to forego any personal gain, and to sac­rifice oneself means to give up some­thing of personal value. Thus, the na­tion expects that we will be selfless in our love of country, and that we will be willing to give up other possible interests and opportunities which may conflict with the requirements of pa­triotism.

Valor is more than courage or the mastery of fear. It is the quality of mind that enables a person to face danger with boldness or firmness. Courage, bravery, and valor are re­lated, each being qualities of spirit and conduct: courage permits one to face extreme dangers and difficulties; bravery implies true courage together with daring and boldness; valor im­plies continuous, active bravery in the face of personal danger—and a noble and lofty quality of courage. Whether or not one has valor is difficult to de­termine, for no one knows truly the quality of his courage until it is se­verely tested. But the point is this: the President and nation expect and rely on each and every officer not only to have courage, but to have valor.

Fidelity means the quality of being faithful and requires the strict and loyal observance of promises and du­ties: the word implies unwavering de­votion and allegiance to a person or principle. It also means being consci­entious and thorough in the fulfillment of an obligation imposed by a trust, the obligation of a promise or engage­ment. If all this appears somewhat complicated as a definition, it does reveal certain insights into the nature of fidelity. Fidelity in an officer is a constant and never-changing loyalty and allegiance to the principles and people of the United States, and the willing fulfillment of the obligations imposed on him by virtue of his oath of allegiance and his appointment as an officer. The nation expects that we have unwavering and continuing loy­alty, and it imposes a strict obligation on us because of that loyalty.

Ability is the suitableness, fitness, or aptitude to do or act physically, mentally, and morally; it is compe­tence in an activity or occupation be­cause of one’s skill, capacity, means, or some other qualification. On the one hand, we are expected already to possess the necessary attributes —physical strength and stamina, in­telligence, and character—to perform our duties. On the other hand, we are expected to make continued good use of those attributes to maintain profi­ciency and competence in our profes­sion.

These, then, are the qualities that the nation trusts that we have as of­ficers. But we are also entrusted with something, and that something is im­plied in the qualities themselves. Pa­triotism requires us to defend our country’s freedoms and rights, and fidelity requires that we be faithful to our promise and engagement to “up­hold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all ene­mies.” Quite simply, we are entrusted with the continued survival of the United States.

If we recognize and understand the depth and importance of the qualities required of an officer, and if we fully appreciate the vital nature of our en­trusted mission, then we cannot help but feel an increased sense of obli­gation, a more powerful sense of duty. But we need to know more about this duty. To whom are we obligated? And, more important, what are the characteristics and effects of the ob­ligation?

We are obligated to the nation. Our patriotism and fidelity require it of us, and the language of the commission makes it clear that our trust and con­fidence come ultimately from the peo­ple of the United States. The com­mission also gives us an obligation to