Integrity Is Up To You

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.

GEN George Lee Butler, USAF (Ret.)

Igot my first lesson in personal integrity from Mrs. Criss, an English teacher of mine when I was growing up and absorbing the small-town values of rural northern Mississippi. She caught me helping one of my slower classmates prepare a book report, and I will never forget the look on her face when she said, “Lee, your friend Joe was only in danger of failing this report. But you have failed me—and worse yet, you have failed yourself.” Those words are seared into my brain. I will never forget them as long as I live.

Why spend this time retracing my steps over the broken glass of painful experience? Why dwell on concepts of ethics, honor, and integrity anyway? Can they ever be separated? Is it possible to be both honorable and unethical at the same time? Can anyone adhere to a rigid ethical code and still be dishonorable?

Anyone who finds himself struggling with such basic codes in a school situation will never make it in the real world after graduation.

The answer is that an honor code and a code of ethics are both essential, but they are insufficient—singly or in combination—because they deal with absolutely minimum standards of behavior. Anyone who finds himself struggling with such basic codes in a school situation will never make it in the real world after graduation; the challenges are far too great. On the other hand, the singular distinguishing, defining value of our military profession is a quality called integrity—the touchstone upon which everything else depends. Integrity must be cherished and guarded against all assaults, temptations, snares, and illusions, if we are to uphold the public trust and confidence of the American people and the respect and loyalty of our seniors, peers, and subordinates.

Why? Because when integrity fails, everything else fails. There is no sense of outrage equal to that of a public shocked by scandal in high places, or that of a unit whose mission and reputation are soiled by an incompetent or unscrupulous leader, or that of a subordinate abused by a trusted boss, or that of a spouse betrayed by an unfaithful wife or husband. There is a visceral rejection of the hypocrisy of public officials who violate their oath and trample on the most common standards of human behavior. They have committed the professional’s cardinal sin: proving themselves unworthy of their trust.

The expectations and demands placed upon the military profession are so high that our First Commandment must be: “Thou shalt not violate thine integrity, lest public trust be lost.”

What are the elements of integrity? What are the standards of behavior that will create an internal alarm system capable of ensuring unfailing sensitivity to ethical issue?

First, there are honor and ethics—but they are two sides of the same coin, distinguished only in degree. Blatant lying, cheating, and stealing are relatively easy to deal with—but what about the shades of gray: misleading statements, quibbles, and half-truths of omission; infidelity on either a personal or public level; or unauthorized use of public funds or materials for personal gain or convenience?

A second element of integrity is competence. Professionals in general are entrusted with public safety and security and the lives and fortunes of others. The responsibility of the military professional, on the other hand, goes all the way to the survival of the nation and directly encompasses the lives of peers and subordinates. Lapses in professionalism can be fatal—often quite suddenly and unexpectedly. There can be no substitute for basic competence that continually strives for excellence.

The third element of integrity, which goes to the very core of our most basic beliefs, is morality. Throughout my career, my role models have been those who get the job done while maintaining high standards of personal and professional conduct. They treat people with unswerving dignity, decency, equality, and impartiality—in stark contrast to the abusive, corrosive authority that sometimes passed for so-called “leadership” in earlier times. My cardinal rule as a commander—from cadet days on—has been to get rid of any person in authority who abuses a subordinate. Mutual respect is part and parcel of integrity, which is defined in terms of relationships with and among human beings. Inequality and double standards—with regard to race, sex, or other arbitrary divisions—can never exist where integrity reigns.

If the need for integrity is so clear, how and why is integrity lost so often? Here are my observations, taken from years of coping with fallen heroes and shattered trust.

First of all, there is the fundamental character flaw of confusing who you are with what you do. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ambition, greed, and ego can cause leaders to focus on their positions and their perks, instead of their responsibilities. Remember that greatness seeks the power to do, not merely the power to be.

Integrity also can fall victim to a fear of failure or embarrassment, bom of a lack of self-confidence. Avoiding confrontation, shifting blame, covering up mistakes, and failing to insist on proper standards of performance and conduct all are manifestations of such weakness.

A third culprit in the loss of integrity is often a sheer lack of competence. It is impossible for a “Peter Principle” leader—promoted beyond his competence—to adhere to a proper standard, if he cannot visualize or fully appreciate such a standard to begin with.

42

Proceedings/April 1994

Finally, integrity fails because of moral dilemmas or conflicts, or just plain moral blindness. This can stem from

Honor

deficiencies in education, the lack of a personal code, or the failure to keep a personal code alive.

In nourishing and reinforcing a personal code of integrity, the first task is to develop your own appreciation of what is at stake—through reading, study, and close observation of real-life examples, both good and horrible. Your personal code must be clearly defined.

The second task is to develop true mental toughness— accepting responsibility, holding subordinates accountable, upholding standards, and never hiding behind excuses or rationalizing mistakes. It means focusing on the mission, rather than self or career.

The third imperative is to maintain a sense of perspective, keeping in mind that the military professional must focus on public service—not money, power, or status. Beyond military service, there will always be a full range of responsibilities—to God, to family, to self, and to right living—that will help keep things in balance.

Three maxims apply:

► Always do and say the right thing. Don't worry about the consequences. Remember, no one has ever improved

on The Golden Rule.

►    Work hard, but for the right reasons. The mission is paramount, not personal advancement.

►    Live your life as though you will someday have to account for every word, thought, and deed—public or private. Leaving aside the fact that for some, that will be precisely the case—you should be your own toughest judge, as part of being your own best friend.

When you get right down to it, your integrity is up to you. It cannot be imposed from outside. To paraphrase a famous saying:

“Integrity is what you are in the dark.’’

So be it.

General Butler retired in February as Commander-in-Chief U.S. Strategic Command. He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1961, and, after Hying F-4s in Vietnam and earning a Master’s degree in international affairs at the University of Paris, taught at the Air Force Academy 1969-1972. He later commanded a bombardment wing, served as Inspector General for the Strategic Air Command, and was the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Honor Code: Master or Servant?

VADM Howard B. Thorsen, USCG (Ret.)

The American public consistently ranks our military at the very top of the nation’s major professions and institutions in terms of trust and confidence, a position earned by more than two centuries of high ethical behavior and strict standards of accountability imposed on those few who transgress.

For the same reason, the four military academies (along with a small number of private institutions with a strong military orientation) have a special place in the public’s mind. To be sure, the portrayal of a near-perfect moral and ethical atmosphere is an important, unique differentiator during the highly competitive annual quest by those schools for the very best candidates.

Each year, they accept a total of about 4,000 of this nation’s finest young men and women and, in an intense atmosphere, confront them simultaneously with a demanding military indoctrination and academic challenge.

Entrants arrive each summer with their own individual established characters. Highly motivated, they embark on the rigorous routine of midshipmen or cadets. Training and studying from early morning to late at night, they are transformed from civilians to proud members of an elite military organization in an astounding two-month metamorphosis.

They learn how to march and drill . . . and they learn the proud history and traditions of their service. They are introduced to discipline, regulations, and an honor code. Discipline is a broad, dynamic principle of any military unit, and involves far more than the stereotypical

“blind obedience to orders” sometimes used by critics intent on discrediting the military. Regulations, on the other hand, guide them in their daily routine within the military organization.

But what about the honor code? That short phrase that states the obvious: that anyone who lies, cheats, steals, or otherwise attempts to deceive is unworthy to remain in the group. What could be more straightforward?

How, then, can it be that violations by large numbers of our nation’s finest over the years have occurred not during the first few transition months as they adapt to a new life, but long after they have been accepted into the group and, in some cases, have earned positions of leadership within the corps?

What has gone wrong? Where do we apply the corrections? Of course, we can always find someone to “hang” for letting things slip, conduct a quick study that validates the code, and then go about our business for another decade—confident that the code has been fixed.

Anyone associated with the administration of any of the academies soon learns that the “old grad” solution is invariably more stringent, wishing that less flexible standards of conduct be applied to ever-younger people.

A typical view, perhaps the most common, of what it takes to put things right includes the following:

>      An honor code must be strict, strictly enforced, and based on a zero-defect goal.

>      Despite diverse backgrounds, young men and women voluntarily brought together by a common goal can and should be treated as homogeneous parts of a whole.

>      An intense, high-pressure academic environment offers an excellent opportunity for testing an individual’s adherence to the honor code, particularly as it pertains to cheating.