Document text
INSTILLING THE ARMY CORE VALUES AT THE UNIT LEVEL
WILL FM 22-100 GET US THERE?
T-J
m
$'.• i& X v O
\
%
/ Conunind and General Staff College in partial
f f fulfillment of the requirements for the % |
XX:XX X/'XXX 1 f
degree
i t
k
f I
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
/ /
i' /
X General Studies
i /
\ V. v ■*<,
X \ I
‘ V Y» 1 1. f’ ; „ " \« ,
$ x.
,r
j a 1. by f: . _
T jx.^-x C'6 v ...xV Cx | \ \
/ / DAVID A. JONES, MAJOR, USA V Y
B.S., U. S. Military Academy, West Point, New York 198
M.S., Univ. of Long Island, C.W. Post, New York 1995
5 / _ j (:
*” . /
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
X? 7 ?lX' i999-fYvX
PAU
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
-pfllCQ.
19990909 327
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information » estimated to average 1 hour per response, induding the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Repairs, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arfngton,
VA 22202-4302 and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (07044)188), Washington, DC 20503.
1 . AGENCY USE ONLY ( Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
4 Jun 99 Master’s Thesis 7 Aug 98-4 Jun 99
4. TITLE AMD SUBTITLE
Instilling Army Core Values at the Unit Level: Will FM 22-100 Get Us There?
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
6. AUTHOR(S)
MAJ David A. Jones
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
ATTN: ATZL-SWD-GD
1 Reynolds Ave., Bldg. Ill, Rm. 123
Ft Leavenworth, KS 66027-1352
8. PERFORMING ORGAN IATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
V
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for Public release; distribution is unlimited
| 13. ABSTRACT ( Maximum 200 words)
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
A
1
This study focuses on an analysis ot the revised final draft FM 22-100, Army Lea
for unit leaders in instilling the Army core values. Within this research effort, th
the doctrine presented to include the framework, and character development mod
doctrinal framework and model were compared to theory in the field. In additior
interviewed FM 22-100 authors, and surveyed officers familiar with the revised f
assess the usefulness of FM 22-100 as a tool for use by unit leaders to instill Am
organizations.
The analysis showed that the final draft FM 22-100 is theoretically sound, and is
scholarly writings in the areas of character and values development. In addition,
the FM 22-100 was a useful document for use by unit leaders.
In addition, those served indicated several areas that should be emphasized and n
augment FM 22-1 00 as it is introduced to the force. Implications of the research
as well as issues requiring further research were recommended.
idership and its usefulness
e investigator evaluated
el introduced. The
i, the investigator
inal draft FM 22-100 to
ly core values in their
fully supported by
those surveyed felt that
^sources provided to
findings were discussed
NUMRFR OF PAfiFfi _
bUuJLv 1 1 LI (Wlw
101
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOIs 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
20. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
UL
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
PfMC**Wt* ANSI 3tt 238-18
296-103
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
THESIS APPROVAL PAGE
Name of Candidate: MAJ David A. Jones
Thesis Title: Instilling Army Core Values at the Unit Level: Will FM 22-100 Get Us
There?
Approved by:
(
v.
'{IPL-
n
LTcXenora A. Ivy, M.M.A.S
Thesis Committee Chairman
MAJ Kenn
Kenneth W. Bush, M.Th.
, Member
, '"y c.ms
Ct 4:- - Member, Consulting Faculty
96L Judith A. Bowers, Ph.D.
Accepted this 4th day of June 1999 by:
/fnnrljM _
-L - /—
1 • t -n ■ 1
Philip J. Brookes, Ph.D.
, Director, Graduate Degree Programs
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not
necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or
any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing
statement.)
11
ABSTRACT
INSTILLING THE ARMY CORE VALUES AT THE UNIT LEVEL: WILL
FM 22-100 GET US THERE? by MAJ David A. Jones, USA, 101 pages
This study focuses on an analysis of the revised final draft FM 22-100, Army Leadership
and its usefulness for unit leaders in instilling the Army core values. Within this
research effort, the investigator evaluated the doctrine presented to include the
framework, and character development model introduced. The doctrinal framework and
model were compared to theory in the field. In addition, the investigator interviewed
FM 22-100 authors, and surveyed officers familiar with the revised final draft
FM 22-100 to assess the usefulness of FM 22-100 as a tool for use by unit leaders to
instill Army core values in their organizations.
The analysis showed that the final draft FM 22-100 is theoretically sound, and is fully
supported by scholarly writings in the areas of character and values development. In
addition, those surveyed felt that the FM 22-100 was a useful document for use by unit
leaders.
In addition, those served indicated several areas that should be emphasized and resources
provided to augment FM 22-100 as it is introduced to the force. Implications of the
research findings were discussed as well as issues requiring further research were
recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge the mentoring and advisory assistance of my entire
committee, who collectively made this experience a worthwhile one. My appreciation to
each committee member for allowing me to maximize this experience, on an academic
and intellectual level, truly focusing on the “process” as much as the product. My thanks
to Dr. Ronald Cuny for his guidance and mentoring early in the process. My
appreciation to Dr. Vicky Scherberger for her, as well a her staffs assistance in
developing a useful surveying instrument for this research project.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL PAGE . „
ABSTRACT . m
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . vii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION . 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW . 26
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . 44
4. ANALYSIS . 52
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 83
APPENDIX
A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT . 92
B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE . 95
C. SUMMARY OF APPENDIX E,FM 22-100 . 96
GLOSSARY . 97
REFERENCES . 98
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST . 10i
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAN
Army After Next
C02
Consideration of Others Program
DA
Department of the Army
FM
Field Manual
IET
Initial Entry Training
LDRSHIP
Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal
Courage
MTP
Mission Training Plan
NCO
Noncommissioned Officer
OOTW
Operations Other than War
OPTEMPO
Operational Tempo
POI
Program of Instruction
SME
Subject Matter Expert
TSP
Training Support Package
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 . DA Guidance and Directives on Army Core Values . 62
2. DA Guidance and Directives Reflected in FM 22-100 . 63
3. DA Emphasis on Army Core Values . 64
4. DA Emphasis Articulated in FM 22-100 . 66
5. CGSC Students Reception of Army Core Values . 67
6. Army Plan for Instilling Core Values Outlined in FM 22- 1 00 . 69
7. Appendix E, FM 22-100 . 70
8. Appendix E, FM 22-100 Application... . 72
9. FM 22-100 as an Effective Tool . 73
10. Recommended Additions or Augments to FM 22- 1 00 . 76
Vll
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Values are at the core of everything our Army is and does.
Your commitment to living and teaching the Army core values
is critical to our success today and tomorrow.
GEN Dennis J. Reimer, CSA
In January 1998, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Dennis Reimer formally
introduced a critical Army-wide area of emphasis-the seven Army core values. The
seven core values are Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and
Personal Courage, (LDRSHIP), (ODCSPER 1998, 1). By placing these core values in the
forefront, General Reimer has highlighted the absolute necessity for a “values-based”
Army. Character Development XXI is the program the Army has introduced to the force
that centers around the Seven Army core values. FM 22-100, Army Leadership, June 98,
Revised Final Draft, is the Army’s premiere doctrine on military leadership, and
character. Within this document, the Department of the Army hopes to define these Army
core values, detail a framework for character and value development and to provide
leaders and soldiers an azimuth by which to lead, train and live. The seven core values
are the basis by which all leaders and subordinates are called upon to live by.
Values in Recent Military History
Emphasizing values is not a new concept in the military. Military leaders have
continually acknowledged that high moral and ethical standards are a necessary ingredient
in building leaders of character. Army leadership documents have addressed high moral
1
and ethical conduct and principles as the standard. Leaders at all levels in the military
have been evaluated on their moral and ethical conduct in written reports, and informally
assessed them on a daily basis for many years.
Tracing values in the Army in the past decade clearly reflects the continuous
importance of a values emphasis in fulfilling its mission. In the 1990 version of
FM 22-100, the Army defined an Army Ethic encompassing loyalty, duty, selfless
service, and integrity. This was introduced along with identified individual values of
competence, courage, commitment and candor. The 1994 doctrine, FM 100-1, The Army,
identified the Army Ethos of duty, integrity, selfless service, and loyalty. These were
presented in concert with the core competencies of commitment, competence, candor,
compassion, and courage (known as the “five C’s) (Reimer 1998, 3).
The terms have changed to a limited degree, but the emphasis and articulation of
Army values or ethos has been constant. The common threads in terms and concepts
seem evident within the documents presented to the force throughout the 1 990’s. The
most obvious commonality, however, is that the Army has continued to emphasize the
necessity for core values, Army ethos, or the Army ethic as a foundation in all this
nation’s Army is and does.
In his message to the field, General Reimer states that:
Army values form the foundation of character. They are not new; they have
evolved over time. Soldiers enter the Army with their own values, developed over
time by what they have seen, learned and experienced. Army values form the
identity of America’s Army as an organization and are the glue that binds us as
individuals together into a profession. These values tell us what we need to be in
every action we take. They are non-negotiable and apply to everyone all the time
in every situation. (Reimer 1998, 4)
2
The Army has continued to define the Army ethic, using familiar character traits,
and lists of common values to attempt to codify how it does business. This is evident as
one traces the doctrine over the past years. However, what has changed recently is a
renewed and greater emphasis on the need to understand, adhere, internalize and lead
others in the area of character and values development in the Army. It is necessary, in
understanding the full scope of this topic, to review why this recent emphasis has
emerged.
The Army, Change, and Values
In the 1997 Army Greenbook, General Reimer wrote:
The US Army is in the midst of some of the most dramatic changes in its history.
Never before has the Army undergone such a profound transition and yet
remained trained and ready. During this period, without question our greatest
challenge has been dealing with the human dimension of change, preserving our
bedrock values and traditions amid the pressures and turmoil of the times.
(Reimer 1997, 22)
What is meant by General Reimer’ s comment that the Army “. . . is in the midst of
some of the most dramatic changes in its history?” The answer lies in the Army’s
publication “ Leadership and Change in a Values-Based Army: A Leaders Guide.” This
guide was produced by DA in order to provide leaders thorough and informative overview
of the future challenges for the Army.
In the past eight years the Army has changed physically and culturally-but there
is a human dimension to this change. . . the world is now more interdependent
than ever, the line between domestic and foreign policy has been erased, and our
security and economic interests are inseparable. . . the history of this century
teaches us that as America’s engagement around the world increases, the
likelihood we will be drawn into conflict decreases. (Change 1997, 4)
3
Army missions are far more diverse and challenging than ever before. Operations
Other Than War (OOTW), peacekeeping, and force protection missions have redefined
how the Army organizes, trains and fights. The high operating tempo (OPTEMPO) of
soldiers is a direct result of the physical and cultural changes of the past eight years since
Desert Shield. The Army has over 128,000 soldiers and civilians stationed around the
world and conducts exercises in over 70 countries (Change 1997, 3). Technology and the
ability to handle it has become increasingly important, and certainly further defines a
significant aspect of change in the Army, “. . . but the outcome of this change— whether
victory or defeat- will be decided by soldiers (Change 1997, 7).
The Army today has experienced much turbulence with a draw-down that has
resulted in the reduction of roughly thirty percent of the force in the past ten years. Since
1989, over 450,000 personnel have been cut from the force (Reimer 1996, 2). This reality
of a significant reduction in the size of the force is not a new one for the military, but it
was an abrupt change for many of those who entered the military in the mid-1980’s, who
never before had experienced any significant reduction of the force in their short military
careers. This reduction, consistent with the aftermath of wars before, followed a very
significant victory in the Persian Gulf. The shock effect of a perception of overwhelming
victory followed by a sizable reduction in force was significant and clearly evident.
Much of what is addressed in Leadership and Change focuses on the Army of the
twenty-first century. Army XXI, the Army After Next— the Army of 2020 and Beyond, is
the Army’s effort to look as deep as possible into the future to understand the
environment and the challenges to come. The guide illustrates some of the many changes
4
of present and of the future that have lead to the Army’s increased emphasis on the human
dimension, character and values development in particular. “The cornerstone of
America’s Army will continue to be quality soldiers who posses a strong sense of values”
(Change 1997, 6).
Recent Values Related Challenges Throughout the Military
The Leaders Guide addresses changes in the Army’s near future that emphasize an
increased need to focus on values and character development. However, changes within
our society, and the emergence of numerous high profile incidents in the military in the
past several years also serve to energize a greater need for values and character
development emphasis in the Army. Clearly, these trends have also influenced the
Army’s recent intensified efforts to focus on values.
Colonel Darryl Goldman wrote in military review about the influence of changes
in societal values and the challenges ahead for the military.
The young men and women joining the military today are a diverse aggregation,
generally without the homogeneous values of their grandparents. We have no
effective mechanism for teaching them values traditionally esteemed by our
military services. We relentlessly challenge them to embrace ever-increasing
ethnic, racial, gender, religious and cultural diversity, and they are surprisingly
elastic. However, we fail to challenge these young adults with the training and
education required for appropriate cognitive development and change. (Goldman
1998, 62)
Both changes value indicators and influences in society and recent problematic issues in
the military itself have also acted as a catalyst for change.
As one attempts to further understand General Reimer’s, as well as the Army’s,
increasing emphasis on character and values development, it is important to review his
5
insights and concerns as reflected in his 1 996 Military Review article, Leadership for the
Twenty-First Century: Empowerment, Environment and the Golden Rule. He introduces
results of the Army’s Research Institute’s (ARI) command climate assessment of more
than 24,000 soldiers and civilians. In the article, General Reimer summarizes the ARI
results that reflect some significant and troubling perceptions that were more common
then not:
The state of ethical conduct is abysmal; few battalion commanders can afford
integrity in a zero defects environment; there is a return to the “zero defects” and
ticket punching mentality of the 60’s and 70’s; the Army is a zero-defects
organization; some officers attitudes and actions reflect micro-management, and
there exists a general lack of trust or shared responsibility between officers and
NCOs; there is a necessity to develop more positive command climates in units in
the Army. (Reimer 1996, 2)
To say that the results of the ARI survey did not impact the Army’s direction in
focusing much effort in character and values development would be an error. These
troubling survey findings are not the only influencing agents, however. In the past
decade, many significant incidents have occurred in the military that have caused much
concern internally and externally. These incidents collectively have raised serious
concern about the values and character of the military as an organization: sexual
harassment, extremist activities, abuse of soldiers, high profile adultery cases involving
lower ranking officers as well as cases of alleged adulterous activity by several senior
members of the military. Although the number of incidents are small in comparison to
the numbers of members in the service, the perception within the military and in society,
is that there appears to be a serious collapse of standards, both personally and
professionally, across the military services. In addition to discrediting the military in the
6
eyes of those it has sworn to serve and protect, the loss of values seriously undermines
military readiness through a degradation of unit moral and cohesion. The loss of trust and
confidence between leaders and subordinates, as well as the decrease in trust between
peers, seriously threatens a unit’s ability to work as a team to accomplish its mission in
peace or combat (Mays 1997, 1).
More specifically, high profile cases seemed to have had a great impact on
members of the military, the organization as a whole, and on a nation who rates the
military as the most respected profession in the country. All the services have had serious
incidents that have impacted the perception of the military as a values-based, highly moral
and professional institution.
For example, the Navy went through the Tailhook incident involving a 1984
aviator’s convention with alleged sexual exploits and a preceived climate of sexual
harassment of officers of all grades. In addition, there was the suicide of Admiral Borda,
the Chief of Naval Forces, accused by Newsweek magazine of wearing unearned and
unauthorized combat medals. The Marines were thrown into the headlines for abusive
ceremonies involving ‘ blood wings,” which included actual video footage of intense
harassment of marines for the nation and the world to witness first hand (Hillen 1997, 1-
2).
The Air Force has had two serious cases that have tarnished its reputation in recent
years. First was the highly publicized case involving Lieutenant Kelly Flynn, who was
charged and convicted of adultery with a subordinate, lying and directly disobeying her
commander, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. Secondly, the case with General
7
Ralston, a leading candidate for the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who
was removed from consideration after his previous adulterous affair became public
(Hillen 1998, 1-2).
The Army, too, has had its own challenges in dealing with high profile incidents.
In 1989, the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina experienced several
serious “hate group” related murders and what seemed to be a substantial rise in extremist
activity within the ranks. The Army sex scandal, which emerged initially with the alleged
incidents at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland in 1996, surfaced not only abuse and
sexual misconduct and harassment within this basic training unit, but also served as a
catalyst in identifying a widespread perception across the entire Army of substantial
sexual harassment problems. The results of an Army wide investigation yielded 1,249
complaints of sexual misconduct, and over 300 criminal prosecutions, with another
roughly 400 still under investigation (Willis 1997, 23).
Each of the services has attempted to address the issues in its own way. The
Army, as a result of the incidents mentioned above, first, appointed an action team to
investigate the root and scope of the problem across the force, and initiated an Army wide
chain teaching program that addressed the issues involving extremist activity: identifying
signs, the Army’s stance on the problem, and individual and leader responsibilities and
required actions. This mandatory training and increased emphasis on the problem, and
required actions and an aggressive Army-wide investigation of the problem, and potential
hotspots within Army organizations worldwide quickly resolved many of the issues
present. The deeper problem of addressing the environment and culture has allowed the
8
extremist activity to develop is much more difficult to identify and being to solve both
within our society and within the military. The Army’s response to sexual harassment
problems was equally as intense. The Secretary of the Army appointed an Army Senior
Panel on Sexual Harassment to investigate the problems throughout the Army and
develop recommendations for corrective actions. Based on the panel’s recommendation,
the Army took significant steps in addressing the problem to include an Army wide
mandatory training program for all soldiers and civilians, which focused on identifying
harassment, actions to be taken by individuals and leaders, victim focused actions, and
reporting procedures. In addition, commanders at all levels were required to conduct
detailed assessments of the command climates in subordinate units and attempt to identify
potential problems before they developed (Army 1997, 33).
This perceived downward trend in moral and ethical standards in recent years is
not unique to the military. Many have suggested that society bears much of the
responsibility for the trends seen in the military, based on the fact that society is the
provider of our new soldiers, each of who carries with him or her their personal values
into the military upon entry. Though interesting to consider in speculating on the impact
that this may have as new members enter the services, it is beyond the scope of this study.
It is, however, precisely this degrading values trend in society, the military in
general and specifically in the Army that prompted General Reimer to attack this problem
directly, throughout the entire Army, with the emphasis of a main effort attack. Clearly,
as the Chief of Staff of the Army has concluded, Army core values are and have always
been directly and specifically tied to combat readiness. 6CThe Army game plan is clear—
9
continue to deal with the human challenges created by change in an open and forthright
manner and continue to do what is best for the Army and our Nation” (Change 1997, 15).
Character Development XXI
The Army’s solution to the complex challenges of change as the force prepares for
the demands of the twenty-first century in the area of leadership is Character
Development XXI. As General Reimer stated “ Character Development XXI, is a direct
effort to refocus the Army on its core values-honor, duty, courage, loyalty, selfless
service, integrity, and respect. We will equip our leaders with the knowledge and tools
they need to create organizational climates that reinforce our message— Army values are
the bedrock of all we do” (Change 1997, 15).
Character Development XXI as an umbrella concept for the Army serves to
address the leadership piece of the profession. Included in the Character Development
XXI initiative are: changes in doctrine, training and education refocusing, evaluation
system changes, specialized training for certain disciplines within the force to include the
chaplain’s corps and equal opportunity personnel, revised equal opportunity reporting
procedures (Change 1997, 15-17). This study focuses on doctrine, and training and
education.
The major doctrinal source in the Character Development XXI initiative is
FM 22-100, Army Leadership. Leadership and Change (1997, 15-16) reports that
rewriting this document serves to reaffirm the importance of values to the Army. At the
time of this research, FM 22-100 was at the final draft stage, but the writers expected that
the final published version would stress the importance of the leader in teaching those
10
values. The doctrine was expected to give the leader “the tools to create the ethical
climate that fosters the development of the Army’s bedrock values.” Leadership and
Change (1997, 15-16) also stresses that leaders must go beyond simply teaching
recognition of the values as a way of life, beyond simply creating temporary behavioral
changes in soldiers, to encouraging them to embrace these values and make them an
active part in every aspect of daily life. The intent of FM 22-100 is to provide a
framework and tools for leaders and soldiers to learn the definitions, develop a deeper
understanding and foster a sense commitment to living the values while leading others to
do the same.
Coupled with this new doctrine are education and training programs designed to
teach the concepts of character development as well as provide the tools to foster this
development. The instruction will be progressive and sequential incorporated into basic
training and into the entire Army education system. Unit developed character and values
education programs will reinforce the initial training and provide continuity and
credibility in this important effort. In addition, emphasis at the unit level will provide the
real-world military application of operating in a values based Army.
In addition, Army core values are now part of all Army evaluation systems. The
objective is that “leaders will be able to use the new evaluation system as supporting tools
for achieving the character development intent of living Army values in our
organizations”(Change 1997, 16). The Character Development XXI system includes
detailed guidance for incorporating the Army values themes into the officer and
11
noncommissioned officer evaluation reports, but also in developmental counseling and
mentoring programs that include Army values assessments and discussion.
Statement of the Problem
As stated above, Character Development XXI is an integral part of the Army’s
plan to guide the force into the twenty-first century. Army XXI, combines Force XXI, and
the Army After Next (AAN) initiatives with Character Development XXI, which focuses
on the human dimension, leadership. The Character Development XXI document,
FM 22-100, Army Leadership, will provide the doctrine on character and values
development that will prepare the force for the Army of twenty-first century. The focus
of this research effort is the effectiveness of FM 22-100 as the centerpiece effort for
Character Development XXI (Change 1997, 15).
In FM 22-100, the Army defines the values that are intended to guide soldiers,
leaders, and the collective organization through the challenges ahead. The manual will be
the tool that defines these values, presents a useful, applicable character development
framework, and sets the conditions for leaders of the force to teach, develop and lead
soldiers in order to fight and win in the battles of the next century. As General Reimer
identified, the doctrine, training and education efforts, specialized development for
subject matter experts in the ranks, and a revised evaluation system that incorporates
greater emphasis on Army values are the components of Character Development XXI.
Unfortunately, the Army was not able to introduce all components of this plan
simultaneously. Rather, as each separate portion of the plan was ready to be presented to
the force, it was introduced. After the basic Character Development XXI plan was
12
released in October 1 997, the Army core values were presented to the force. The
introduction of Army core values came officially in January 1998. Very shortly
thereafter, TRADOC was directed to develop and execute an extended Basic Training
Program that included an additional week of values training. In October 1998, TRADOC
officially executed this new POI, for a 40-hour Army values curriculum which included
defining the core values, and used discussion to increase understanding. This values
education was integrated into all aspects of a new soldier’s basic training experience. The
TRADOC military education system also incorporated much greater emphasis on Army
values training immediately at all levels, (soldier, noncommissioned and commissioned
officer education programs) throughout the force. This action, the POIs, and the new
emphasis all preceded the revision of FM 22-100, Army Leadership, although DA level
guidance was in fact given to TRADOC leadership, to other action agencies, and to
doctrine writers. Training and action agencies immediately begin to develop values
training resources and the doctrine writers incorporated Character Development XXI into
the draft of FM 22-100 (TRADOC Memo 1997, 3).
Guidance to operational units in the Army was much more general in nature.
Although the Consideration of Others (C02) Program initiatives were in place, guidance
to the force about the Army’s values emphasis was minimal. DA guidance and initiatives,
directed at MTOE units in the Army, specifically in the area of Army values were not
much more than introducing and defining of Army core values, viewing Living Army
Values, distributing Army Values Cards, identification tags and Values posters, (Note that
the overall distribution plan for the values cards, ID tags, and posters initiative was poor,
13
resulting in a predominately negative reception for these items), the incorporating Army
core values into the new officer evaluation report, and introducing the Ethical Climate
Assessment Survey as a tool for commanders. DA guidance to operational units was brief
and general, simply stating that commanders at all levels should teach, lead, and live
Army values. Predictably, this guidance communicated to commanders in the field that
Army values required much emphasis and attention at the unit level, but provided no
guidance for action or implementation. Therefore, action at the unit level as a result of
this sketchy guidance was varied, and has only been executed to any great degree by those
commanders who have made Army core values a priority and taken the initiative to
aggressively develop programs to instill Army values in their units. There are no DA
policies, directives or other guidance to unit commanders, other than those addressed
above. Although unit commanders may have received more specific guidance from their
commanders who have taken initiative and proactively developed programs that
emphasize and instill Army values.
In an effort to provide some uniform continuity in executing the Character
Development XXI initiative, DA will soon field FM 22-100, which will provide the
structure, guidance, and framework for use by unit commander’s in developing unit
programs that will instill Army core values. At the time of this study, FM 22-100, Army
Leadership, is pending final approval for publication and distribution. It is anticipated it
will be published by June, 1999. FM 22-100 is the Army’s bible on leadership. Its
purpose is to clearly articulate leadership, character, values, and competence as central to
the success of the Army in peacetime and in war. Within FM 22-100, much emphasis has
14
been placed on what makes a leader of character and on leader actions. The familiar
concept of “Be, Know, Do ” is fully integrated into this Army doctrine. There appears,
however, to be much less emphasis on how leaders should instill values in subordinates
and the impact of leader actions in reinforcing and instilling Army values in seniors,
peers, and subordinates alike.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research effort is to review FM 22-100 and assess its
usefulness to the force as a tool to instill Army core values. Much effort and substantial
resources have been committed in developing the Character Development XXI concept.
FM 22-100, as the Army’s leadership doctrine, is integral in this effort to assist leaders in
defining, adhering to, leading by and living Army core values. The doctrine should be
useful and applicable to leaders as an invaluable source for instilling Army values in their
soldiers and units. Within FM 22-100, DA will introduce a character and values
development framework for use by unit leaders in the Army.
Under the Army Chief of Staff s guidance, pre-commissioning sources, NCO
academies and Initial Entry Training (IET) organizations have integrated intense values-
focused training within their specific programs of instruction (POI). Adding values
centered instruction involved a significant adjustment of the curriculum for IET, adding
over 40 hours of training time and used substantial resources. Incorporating values
centered instruction resulted in many additional hours and resources for pre¬
commissioning source schools, as well as for all NCO schools. Such an emphasis and
commitment in time and other resources clearly illustrates action being taken to execute
15
General Reimer’s command guidance and a sincere attempt to get the Army back on track
as a values based organization with values as the core of combat readiness. A significant
shortcoming seems to be the lack of clear guidance to and specific action by the field
Army to date. With ample evidence of commitment, emphasis and specific actions in IET
organizations, as well as, in pre-commissioning source organizations toward this effort,
the question must be asked, what is the field Army doing to instill the core values? There
appears to be much less evidence that a focused effort, plan, and commitment of resources
currently exist to bring the field Army on track with the Army Chief of Staff s guidance.
In general, it appears that the Army is missing an important link in instituting a
new and aggressive program of emphasizing and instilling Army values within the force.
The Army must plan, resource and prepare the force to teach Army core values as part of
operational training priorities. New soldiers who arrive at units from IET, freshly
introduced to these critically important Army core values must actively experience the
same level of commitment, emphasis and positive reinforcement in their organizations.
They must observe the force emphasizing, teaching and most importantly living the Army
core values. This will not happen by chance.
In concurrence with the views of the Army’s most senior leadership, the
investigator is convinced that the Army, in order to be successful in war and peace, must
be a values-based organization. The doctrine, FM 22-100, must provide the necessary
insight, guidance, applicability, and a useful framework for unit leaders to develop
educational programs to instill Army values in their soldiers and organizations.
16
In light of societal and military challenges involving high-profile major moral and
ethical breaches in the past several decades, the Army must refocus its collective energies
and bring core values back into the center of everything it does. This is critical at all
levels in the Army. General Reimer has provided the catalyst for change; the leaders of
the twenty-first century, must create the means and the ways to bring their units into
congruence with the Chief of Staff s vision. It is not enough to simply recite the seven
core values, or even to just teach the concepts. The Army must create the environment in
which the values are lived in words and actions. The Army’s commitment must be
focused on both personal internalization of the values and the leadership to inspire
seniors, peers and subordinates to understand, follow and ultimately commit to the
highest moral and ethical standards of conduct, as articulated within the seven core
values. FM 22-100, Army Leadership, must provide the force the direction, guidance and
insight for developing Army values programs in units.
Primary Question
Will FM 22-100 be an effective tool in instilling the Army core values within the force?
Since FM 22-100 is the doctrine the Army will present to the force that will serve
to provide DA guidance and intent, as well as offer a useful framework to instill Army
core values, this research question is extremely relevant and valuable. The research
question focuses on the usefulness of the document to leaders in the field. In assessing
this doctrine, the investigator attempted to evaluate its usefulness from the viewpoint of
battalion level leaders in an active duty field unit. It is important that to assess the
usefulness of the doctrine from the perspective of those leaders in units-leaders that are
17
developing training programs in character and values development for their subordinate
leaders and soldiers. Active duty units are asked to develop programs and incorporate
Army core values in all they do. FM 22-100 is designed to serve these leaders and
provide necessary guidance and insight to accomplish this task. The question seems
clear: does FM 22-100 serve this purpose? Obviously, it is necessary in addressing this
question to explore the theoretical framework offered in FM 22-100, to describe insights
from the authors and editors, to summarize the viewpoints of Army leaders who have
reviewed the doctrine and to present the comments of Army Command and General Staff
College Leadership instructors. As a preliminary study, the approach is exploratory and it
is anticipated that the results will offer informed and insightful recommendations for
making this resource, FM 22-100, more valuable and more useful to the force.
The following subordinate questions directly relate to the primary question and
serve to better define the direction of this research effort in answering the question of
FM 22-100’s usefulness:
Subordinate Questions
1 . What have been the guidance and directives given to the Army on instilling
Army core values?
2. How is FM 22-100 integrated into the overall plan for the Army in instilling
Army core values?
3. What is the overall framework and intent as presented in FM 22-100?
4. How does FM 22-100 support/refute the accepted theory in character and moral
development?
18
5. What are the long term goals and objectives within FM 22-100 for instilling
Army core values?
6. What are the duties and responsibilities for elements of the force in the area of
Army core values as defined in FM 22-100?
7. How does FM 22-100 provide a useful framework the force in developing
Values Programs?
8. What are some possible strengths and weaknesses of FM 22-100 and the Army
plan to instill Army core values?
Value of the Research
This research project is critically important to the Army, and operational unit level
leaders to assist the force in establishing the Army core values as the comer stone of
Army organizations prepared to train, fight and win in the twenty-first century. All too
often moral-ethical training and emphasis is brushed aside for more important “go to war”
operational mission training, and more often than not ineffectively taught in order to
fulfill an annual requirement. Leaders must discover effective ways to teach and instill
Army values with the emphasis and genuine committed by enthusiasm that this critical
area requires. If the Army is to truly be values-based, it must teach, operate, and live
these values, directly and indirectly incorporating the inherent concepts in all it does. As
evident in recent incidents, failure to emphasize the core values and implement effective
training to inculcate the Army core values as a command priority will directly effect
combat readiness.
19
If, in this research effort, an area requiring more or less emphasis is identified, DA
has the opportunity to adjust the approach, and package the doctrine to meet this need.
Insuring that FM 22-100 is received, as a positive and valuable resource for Army units
must be a priority. Identifying shortcomings, areas requiring additional emphasis or areas
requiring greater clarification can improve the effectiveness of the doctrine as a valuable
resource for the force. FM 22-100 must be clearly understood, and usable for unit leaders
in developing programs and environments, that meet the Army’s intent of creating
organizations where leaders and soldiers alike understand, adhere to, lead and “live” the
Army core values. This research will provide an analysis of FM 22-100, attempt to predict
its usefulness, and offer insights that could quite possible make it a much better received,
more useful, and applicable resource.
Scope and Delimitations
Clearly, this is no easy task. The researcher attempts to predict the usefulness of
FM 22-100, but does not attempt to evaluate DA guidance, directives or the overall plan
for instilling Army core values beyond what is presented in FM 22-100. The study will
not evaluate the selection of the Army seven core values or attempt to set priorities, nor
assess the TRADOC program of instruction, the military education system, or the pre¬
commissioning sources approaches to instilling Army values. The study will, however,
address how each applies within the framework offered in FM 22-100, and how each
system is integrated into the Army Character and Values Development model presented
in Appendix E of FM 22-100. The study does not assess how units are now conducting
values development programs, and creating values based organizational environments,
20
nor does it address what units require in order to develop character and values
development programs, other than those areas specifically mentioned in FM 22-100.
Furthermore, the nature versus nurture arguments in individual value
development, and the impact of societal values, on the military is beyond the scope of this
study. Although extremely important in the area of Army core values, this study will only
briefly address, in Chapter 5, the impact of organizational climate and command climate
in developing a strong values-based training program and environment. The investigator
will not, as a result of this research, offer an “approved solution as to what units must do
to develop environments and values programs to instill the Army core values in
organizations.
Limitations
The study was limited by time, resources and assess to a large, random and
representative sample. The time limitation was based on the investigators many
responsibilities as a CGSC student, and other time demands that kept this research from
being full time. Resources, and financial limitations included only one investigator for
this research, no possibility of travel to conduct interviews, or to meet with Army
leadership on this research project. The population which was available for this research
was the entire faculty of the CGSC Leadership Instructional Division. Administrative
constraints did not allow for the researcher to survey part or all of the CGSC student
population, nor did it allow for the researcher to survey officers and non-commissioned
officers in the field.
21
To balance the impact of these limitations, the investigator selected the population
of CGSC leadership instructors, each of whom is familiar with the final draft of
FM 22-100, and introduces this doctrine to roughly 60 CGSC students. The investigator
was unable to conduct face to face interviews with all the FM 22-100 authors, but
conducted telephonic interviews as needed. Finally, although the survey instrument was
pretested, and there are no indicators of validity and reliability, the investigator reviewed
both the survey instrument and the interview questions with the CGSC certified testing
agency prior to initializing the tests or interviews. The survey instrument and interview
questions were approved and given a CGSC control number as required by CGSC
administration policy.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were necessary for the conduct of this study:
1. All U.S. Army officers are familiar with and accept as givens, the Army core
values.
2. The seven Army core values are of equal importance. They are not intended
to be rank ordered.
3. Values can be taught, learned and reinforced. The selection of the Army’s
seven Core values will not be the subject of debate in this research effort. The Army core
values are “the given” in this project.
4. The authors of FM 22-100 have been given DA guidance and directives for the
framework and approach in developing FM 22-100, and also understand the Army’s plan
22
for instilling Army values throughout the force, as well as how FM 22-100 is to be
integrated into the overall plan.
5. US Army Command and General Staff College adequately reflects a cross
section of the field grade officers that can understand and implement directives and
guidance introduced in FM 22-100 in unit character and values development programs.
6. US Army Command and General Staff College Leadership instructors are fully
familiar with the contents of FM 22-100, and possess the background and skills necessary
to understand and communicate its framework and its integration into the Army’s overall
plan to instill Army values throughout the force.
7. The first published version of FM 22-100 will be virtually the same as the draft
of FM 22-100 used in this study.
Conclusion
General Reimer has directed that all Army leaders and organizations make it their
priority to emphasize Army core values and provide training for all soldiers. This chapter
has traced some of the challenges facing the military in recent years that have lead the
Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army leadership to emphasize Army core values. In
addition, the author has discussed the future of the Army of the twenty-first century and
the inherent challenges for the force in the decades ahead in order to reinforce the great
need for the increased emphasis on a values-based Army, and concise, understandable
guidance to achieve it.
As the centerpiece of Character Development XXI, FM 22-100, Army Leadership,
will soon be published and distributed. The intent of this research project is to assess the
23
usefulness of FM 22-100 as a tool for unit leaders to instill Army core values within their
organizations. The focus of this research is to provide an overall assessment of
FM 22-100, Army Leadership , focusing on the usefulness of the character development
framework, the purpose and intent of the doctrine, the guidance and directives offered to
unit leaders, the strengths and weaknesses of the document, and finally, the integration
into the Army’s overall plan to instill Army values throughout the force.
Since the doctrine has not yet been introduced to the field, it will be necessary in
evaluating the utility of this doctrinal resource for battalion leaders to carefully analyze
the doctrine’s contents, compare its framework to accepted theory on character and values
development, and to interview those who have developed the doctrine, and to survey
those who are extremely familiar with it. In a sense, this research is intended to predict
how FM 22-100 will be received by unit leaders as they develop character and values
training programs within their units.
The research will focus of assessing the guidance, framework, theoretical support,
and character and values development model introduced in this doctrine in order to
evaluate the usefulness of the doctrine from the perspective of the authors and of the
leadership instructors at the US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas.
In order to adequately answer the primary and subordinate questions relating to
FM 22-100 the investigator will conduct a thorough literature review, interview doctrine
authors and editors, and survey the leadership instructors at CGSC who all are familiar
24
with the doctrine. The literature review provides an overview of applicable theory and
compares it to the framework and character and values development model offered in
FM 22-100. The intent in interviewing the present FM 22-100 authors is to assess DA
guidance and intent of the doctrine, as well as its integration into the overall Army plan to
instill Army core values within the force. Finally, the intent in surveying the CGSC
leadership instructors is to obtain a preliminary assessment of the usefulness of the
doctrine. The instructors are field grade officers that have a working knowledge of
FM 22-100 and have presented it to field grade officers students at the US Army
Command and General Staff College. As a result of this research project, the investigator
hopes to be able to predict the usefulness of FM 22-100 as a tool for unit leaders to use in
creating organizational environments and developmental programs that instill the seven
Army core values. Additionally, as a result of this research effort, the investigator will
offer recommendations on how to introduce the doctrine to the force.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
There is much written about principles and values development in the social
psychology field. It is not the intent of this study to address the nature and/or nurture
controversy regarding moral-ethical growth, but rather to explore the literature that
incorporates organizational culture, values, norms, beliefs, character and values
development, and social learning as it relates to the content of FM 22-100. Initially, the
literature review deals with FM 22-100, highlighting the guidance, framework,
theoretical support and character and values development model introduced. Following
the assessment of FM 22-100 is a review of relevant literature on individual and
organizational values, social learning and organizational culture theories, which is then
compared with FM 22-100. Additionally, this literature review includes insights on
teaching of values in the military and making comparisons with FM 22-100. Finally, the
literature review identifies teaching strategies and instructional techniques.
FM 22-100, Army Leadership
As stated in the manual, “The purpose of FM 22-100, Army Leadership, is to
provide leadership doctrine for all Army leaders that will help them fight and win the
nations wars.” The purpose of the document is threefold:
1 . To provide unified theory to all elements of the Army, active and reserve,
officers, non-commissioned officers, soldiers, and civilians.
2. To provide doctrine that enables leaders to meet mission requirements.
26
3. To provide a comprehensive and adaptable leadership manual for the
twenty-first century (FM 22-100 1999, vii).
This doctrine provides a common core of leadership ideas for leaders at all levels,
clarification of the skills and actions that differ by leadership level, a point of departure
for development and implementation of leadership tactics, techniques and procedures in
operational assignments. Finally, this doctrine provides a springboard for the individual
leader’s self-development goals and initiatives (FM 22-100, viii).
FM 22-100 introduces the Army core values to the force. “The Army is a values-
based organization. Simply put, leadership in combat, our greatest challenge, requires
acceptance of a set of values that contribute to the core of motivation and will. We will
call these values “Army values.” This doctrine clarifies those values” (FM 22-100,
1-19). FM 22-100 directs that leaders must . . live up to the Army values of loyalty,
duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.” The doctrine
challenges leaders at all levels to improve the Army by developing its people, building
its teams and organizations, and learning both as individuals and collectively as groups.
FM 22-100 introduces the concepts of direct and organizational leadership, and the
differences in leadership approaches of each. Additionally, the doctrine describes
differences in the impacts, responsibilities, and sphere of influences between the two
leadership levels.
As stated, the objective of FM 22-100 is to define leadership terms, specifically
values, attributes, skills and actions required of leaders at different levels of leadership
within an organization. FM 22-100 presents a framework for how to lead and provides
27
points for leaders to consider when assessing and developing themselves, their people
and finally their organizations. In the introduction, the reader is encouraged to “apply
this doctrine as appropriate to the situations (one) will face, not as an ‘exactly how to do
it’ manual” (FM 22-100, x).
This is how FM 22-100 emphasizes values and what they mean in the Army.
Everything begins with values. Subordinates enter the Army with their own set of
values, developed from childhood and nurtured through experience. People are shaped
by what they have seen, what they have learned, and whom they have met. Soldiers,
once they commit to service, and have taken the oath, have promised to live by Army
values. Not just a system of rules, or a code, they are our defining values. They tell
soldiers what they need to be, in any and all situations, all the time. Army values form
the very identity of America’s Army. They are nonnegotiable: they apply to everyone
all the time in every situation (FM 22-100, 2-2).
The doctrine reintroduces a familiar theme in presenting Army values to the
force: “Be, know, and do. . . how we (soldiers) are expected as leaders to live, train and
lead the Army values” (FM 22-100, 2-26). The document charges Army leaders at all
levels to not just know and understand the values, but to believe them, model them in
one’s own actions, and to teach others to accept them. FM 22-100 suggests that a
values-based organization uses expressed values to provide the fundamental framework
for what it expects of its members and uses these values to judge all of the organization’s
systems, processes, and decisions. Army values provide a moral touch-tone, a compass
to help us find our way to right action.
28
In addition, the doctrine states that self-discipline that leads to teamwork is
rooted in character and values. An individual with a solid character and moral base will
know the right thing to do whether observed or not (FM 22-100, 2-28). Leaders act,
bringing everything they are, everything they believe, and everything they know how to
do to provide direction and motivation. The doctrine addresses direct and organizational
leadership levels in a simplistic framework: influencing, operating, and improving.
Imbedded within the doctrine are the responsibilities and duties of leaders at these
different leadership levels in an organization and the importance of instilling values at
each level.
The document addresses stress in leading in the military, suggesting that it is best
addressed through the adherence to constants: values, teamwork, and discipline-
hallmarks of the military as a profession. FM 22-100 implies that Army values directly
apply in managing stress, mentoring programs, organizational culture, command climate,
direct and indirect leadership, and in transformational and transactional leadership.
It is necessary to devote some attention on how FM 22-100 addresses
organizational culture and command climate because the doctrine commits several pages
to these areas as they relate to developing a values-based organization. According to
FM 22-100, “. . . organizational culture is a long lasting, complex set of shared
expectations.” Leader responsibilities are to the soldiers present and those who have
gone before them. Tradition, unit history, heroic acts in combat of those soldiers
associated with the unit in wars past, and Army values of yesterday and today are all part
of this culture that soldiers should draw strength from. What leaders emphasize as
29
important today, such as unit traditions and instilling values, all serve to reinforce a solid
and positive organizational culture. Leaders must know and understand the critical
impact of organizational culture and work to develop, maintain, and reinforce Army
values and traditions within their units (FM 22-100, 3-19).
Most, if not all. Army leaders understand the importance of a positive command
climate. Leaders must establish and maintain a positive environment that reinforces the
highest ethical standards. The leader of an organization creates the climate by his or her
words that are reinforced with action. Soldiers must trust and respect their leaders. If
this trust and confidence is lost, the organization ultimately will fail. Climate comes
from soldiers’ shared perceptions and attitudes about how a unit takes care of its
members and the values it endorses. Army values must always be at the center of a
positive command climate and must be emphasized and reinforced often in words, and
more importantly, in actions (FM 22-100, 3-14). Additionally, the manual presents an
Ethical Climate Survey for use by leaders to better assess the command climate of the
organization.
Additionally, FM 22-100 offers realistic and applicable examples of actions that
illustrate each of the seven Army core values. In presenting performance indicators,
FM 22-100 offers additional insight into the seven Army core values. Examples include:
Loyalty-shown to commanders and leaders, to the mission, as well as to the
Constitution of the United States, the Army, and the organization; Duty— fulfills legal,
civic, and moral obligations; Respect-treats others as they should be treated, creates a
climate of fairness and equal opportunity; Selfless service-puts the welfare of the nation,
30
the Army, and subordinates before his own; Honor— lives up to all the Army values, does
not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those things in others; Integrity-does what is right,
legally and morally, honest in deed and word; and Personal courage— faces fear, danger,
or adversity, takes responsibility for decisions and actions, (LDRSHIP). Offering these
performance indicators adds to the applicability and usefulness of the Army values.
They are not just abstract words, but active principles to live by (FM 22-100, B-l-B-4).
Finally, there is the four tiered Character and Values Development Model
presented in Appendix E of FM 22-100. (Refer to Appendix C for a summary of the
model). The model is an important contribution to the values development. The four
tiers or levels are Understand, Adhere, Internalize, Lead and Teach. Each level relates to
a growth step in instilling Army values. The Army suggests that leaders can instill Army
core values through the use of this character development model. Therefore, it is
necessary to understand each level of the model. At level one: Understand Army values
and Leader Attributes, every new soldier is taught the Army values. The values and
leader described in the manual establish the foundation for leaders of character. Once
these values are learned and understood, soldiers must Adhere to the Army values and
Exhibit Leader Attributes, the second level of the model. Adherence to these values and
principles are essential. Soldiers must also maintain personal ethical and moral
standards expected of members of the Army, not just learn and recite terms without
committing to them in action, which is Internalization of Army values, the third level of
the model. This internalization requires a lifelong commitment, and introspection of
what is right and important to the individual and necessary to the organization. Army
31
values must be followed by individuals and organizations not because of fear of
punishment, but because of an internal commitment to live ethically and endorse these
important values. The fourth level of this model is to Teach and Lead Others in the Area
of Army values. Leaders are charged with the responsibility to develop the character of
others, through mentorship and personal example, and to lead units with Army values as
the center of all it stands for and all it does (FM 22-100). This model is well illustrated,
with many examples of how each level applies to organizations as they develop values
programs in their units. Clearly, it begins with an understanding of the Army values,
followed by personal and unit adherence, and an on going process of individual
internalization of these values, and finally, to teach and lead others in this direction, with
Army values at the forefront of all that individuals and organizations do.
With a better understanding of the guidance, emphasis, framework and character
development approach presented in FM 22-100, it is now possible to review relevant
theory on individual and organizational values, and character development. First, the
review explores literature on individual and organizational values formulation and
importance, then it addresses leadership and values, followed by theories on social
learning and organizational culture theories. Finally, it covers teaching values in the
military and teaching strategies and instructional techniques.
Individual and Organizational Values
Much has been written about values and attitudes, both individual values and
organizational values. There continues to be active discussion about to what degree
values in individuals are learned, and how much value sets can change in individuals.
32
Most theorists on this subject agree that people form their value sets early in life through
the influences of family, significant role models, religion and significant life
experiences.
Social psychologist Milton Rokeach defines values as enduring beliefs that relate
to each person’s life goals and to the ways that each one attains those goals. Values are
evaluative beliefs about preferences that serve as personal standards of judgment. He
suggested that values are organized into two sets: means and ends. Means values refer to
the “here and now” values, how things should be accomplished. The ends values that
Rokeach describes refer to the future, a vision of what lies ahead; the standards by which
performance will be judged. Organizations must have means and ends values.
Interestingly enough, it is evident that values are at the core of what the Army and
military say and do, and that providing a vision ethically as well as operationally is an
important part of the military culture (Kouzes and Posner 1995, 212).
Values help individuals as well as organizations to better define right and wrong.
They help individuals and organizations to determine what to do or not to do. Rokeach
suggests that they are deep seated, pervasive standards that influence every aspect of our
lives. Leaders that advocate values but fail to live them, loose all credibility. Leaders
and subordinates in organizations must operate under a shared understanding of what is
expected. There must be a community of shared values to develop a cohesive, effective
organization. Just as goals and objectives must be shared, so must value sets be shared
(Kouzes and Posner, 212).
33
Changes in individual value sets according to Rokeach involve a rearrangement
of the relative importance of values within a system rather than an addition or deletion of
certain values. The significance in what Rokeach presents to leaders of organizations is
that they must understand that organizational values are a subset of their soldiers’ own
individual value sets. An organization can in fact build on, or rearrange individual value
sets, as long as the individual, as a valued member of the organization, can relate to
personal and organizational values and goals and understand their significance. The
nature, demands, missions, structure and culture of the profession of arms in defending
our nation, placing oneself and others in harms way, and risks certainly portray the
strong need for a values-based organization. Individuals who commit to being members
of an organization quickly see the need and significance of the shared value set,
emphasized by the Army (Leadership in Organizations, 3-14).
Research which has examined the relationship between personal and
organizational values, reveals that when there is congruence between individual and
organizational values, there is significant positive effect for leaders and their
organizations (Kouzes and Posner, 213). The same study revealed that when there was
leader-subordinate dialog centered on shared values, there was a stronger personal sense
of effectiveness and value to the organization. The opposite result occurred when
individuals were unable to relate or define the organizations shared values. “Research
makes it clear that shared values make a difference to organizational and personal
vitality and that values form the bedrock of an organizations culture” (Kouzes and
Posner, 215).
34
In the field of management, researchers have uncovered three central themes in
the values of highly successful organizations: high performance standards, caring
attitudes toward people, and a sense of uniqueness and pride (Kouzes and Posner, 216).
Highly effective military units, such as the Ranger Battalions or Special Forces Teams
generally possess these traits. The necessity of military organizations to develop these
traits in peacetime and in combat is evident.
Leadership and Values
What does the research say about imposing values on others? Research in
general has shown that leaders cannot impose their values on organizational members.
However their values can be synthesized and integrated. Leaders must be involved and
proactive in involving subordinates in understanding, applying, and living these shared
values. According to management experts, shared values are often the result of listening,
appreciating, building consensus, actively participating in dialogue, and observing the
application of these values in organizations (Kouzes and Posner, 217).
As a result of their extensive research, Kouzes and Posner stress some valuable
implications for leaders: . . a unified voice on values results from discovery and
dialogue. Leaders must engage in a discussion of what the values mean and how their
personal beliefs and behaviors are influenced by what the organization stands for.
Leaders must be prepared to discuss values and expectations in the recruitment, and
orientation of new members and with current members in the execution of daily
operations in the organization” (Kouzes and Posner, 219). This is precisely what the
Army as an organization is attempting to do with the values-based Army emphasis, in
35
the emergence of new doctrine, and in the incorporation of a values focus throughout
subordinate commands. Additionally, as FM 22-100 has introduced with the Character
Development model, (understanding, adhering, internalizing, and leading and teaching
the Values) provides the framework, supported by this research, that the organization
will apply to instill Army core values.
In his book, On Leadership, John Gardner describes the critical nature of shared
values in the context of “community building.” He suggests that in building
communities, or effective organizations, as they approach accomplishment of group
goals, individuals develop identity and a sense of belonging. With organizational
actions, values are generated and regenerated. Leaders must understand the
communication of these shared values, and guiding principles. As the organization
continues to operate, these shared values are either reinforced or they disintegrate. The
leader is responsible to continue to emphasize, integrate, and reinforce the standards and
guiding principles of the organization. Gardner concludes, . . today we live with many
faiths. We must nurture a framework of shared secular values (justice, respect for the
individual, tolerance and so on) while leaving people free to honor diverse faiths that
undergird those values)” (Gardner, 113-1 14). The relationship between individual and
organizational values is evident, but it is the organization’s leadership that is charged
with communicating, emphasizing, and enforcing those shared values that define and
guide that organization.
In his book, Hope is Not a Method, General Gordon Sullivan suggests that “. . .
values provide direction and stability in periods of turmoil, stress and change. . . ”
36
Effective leaders understand that core values rooted deeply within the people who make
up an organization are the essence of its organizational culture and enormous source of
strength. The most successful companies over time are those with a strong sense of
values (Sullivan, 62). He continues “. . . leadership begins with values. Shared values
express the essence of an organization. They bind expectations, provide alignment, and
establish a foundation for transformation and growth. By emphasizing values, the leader
signals what will not change, providing an anchor for people drifting in a sea of
uncertainty and a strategic context for decisions and actions that will grow the
organization” (Sullivan, 64). His framework for organizational values begins by
identifying organizational values: providing purpose for members, and continuity,
highlighting a historical context, valuing people in the organization, empowerment and
responsibility of subordinate leaders, and finally integrity— a strong pattern of internal
consistency, a genuine commitment to doing the right thing. After indentifying
organizational values, he focuses on the sustainment of organizational values:
demonstrating how values endure and remain constant during organizational change,
using stories to reinforce commitment, redefining selfless service, and finally fostering
trust, through adherence to organizational values (Sullivan, 66-76). Sullivan’s
framework is similar to the Character Development Model offered in FM 22-100. He
prescribes identification, adherence, commitment and leadership, as key ingredients in
developing an effective, successful organization. He further acknowledges the necessity
of reinforcement of these values through discussion and communication, both verbal and
37
nonverbal. He states that organizations must focus on values as the one constant in a
changing or adverse environment.
Social Learning and Organizational Culture Theories
In their article “Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization,” organizational
psychologists John Van Maanen and Edgar Schein define organizational socialization as
the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to
assume an organizational role. Van Maanen and Schein present a comprehensive theory
which suggests that organizations socialize personnel both upon initial entrance and
when individuals cross a boundary, vertically or horizontally, fulfilling a new role.
Furthermore, the authors submit that an organization can impact its members
significantly if the leaders employ specific organizational socialization “tactics.” Simply
stated, the authors act on the idea that “what people learn about their roles. . . is often a
result of how they directly learned it.” The authors apply an interactionist perspective in
their argument, suggesting that individuals, not organizations, establish and define
values, beliefs and norms in organizations. Leaders can effectively employ valuable
tactics to insure effective socialization occurs. The application of this theory is useful in
developing a socialization process for newcomers, new soldiers to a unit, as well as
boundary-crossers, noncommissioned officers and lieutenants in new positions in the
unit. Inculcating values within organizations involve an active socialization process of
teaching, as well as role-modeling those values and norms that are important to the
organization (Van Maan and Schein 1994, 209).
38
In Organizational Culture, Edgar Schein provides a useful approach to assessing
the present culture and affecting change within an organization, as well as instilling
beliefs, values and norms within the organization. His suggestions about uncovering
artifacts, or organizational indicators of values, beliefs and norms, and clearly
identifying espoused values in an organization are the first step to affecting
organizational culture. Schein offers embedding mechanisms to reinforce organizational
culture values. The following are a sample of Schein’s embedding mechanisms:
1. What leaders pay attention to, measure or control.
2. Leader reactions in critical incidents and organizational crisis.
3. Observed criteria by which leaders allocate scarce resources.
4. Deliberate role-modeling, teaching and coaching by leaders.
5. Criteria for selection, promotion, rewards, recognition, and excommunication
(Schein 1992, 230-244).
Schein’s work is applicable to military units, and has much application as leaders
develop a thorough program and climate in which to teach, reinforce, and live Army
values. Leaders must look holistically at their organization. They must consider the
training and the activities, positive and negative indicators and reinforcement agents
when developing an effective values-based training program. How we reward and
punish individuals for taking the morally right or wrong action, and what our leaders
emphasize, role-model, and how they react in difficult moral or ethical dilemmas, all
apply to a unit’s effectiveness in inculcating values.
39
Kohlberg’s work on stages of moral development offers valuable and practical
insight as to where members of organizations are regarding moral development. Clearly,
individuals are at different stages of development, certainly not dictated by age or
military experience, but by intellectual growth and moral foundation. His stages are:
1. Preconventional-heteroneous morality, avoid punishment, do not consider
interests of others and the transition to individualism, instrumental, exchange, serving
own needs, recognize others interests;
2. Conventional-mutual interpersonal, “good person” based on others
expectations, mutual relationships, loyalty to others and group norms, and the transition
to Social system and conscience, loyalty to the organization, “law and order” and
keeping the institution going as a whole;
3. Postconventional-social contract, “Priority to society,” obligation to law
because of social contract, freely entered into and the transition to Universal Ethical
principles, validity in and to universal moral principles, justice, equal rights, human
dignity, and individuals as ends not means (Huitt 1998).
As an Army unit leader develops a training program, an understanding of
individual levels or stages of moral development is critical. The training plan must best
match the audience in depth and challenge each individual member in order to be
interesting and effective.
Teaching Values in the Military
Many military papers have focused on societal-military values, values and
leadership, military professional ethics, and values education. In particular, many
40
military leaders have addressed not only the importance of teaching military ethics, but
also its critical application in the Profession of Arms. The intent in teaching military
ethics in units cannot be overstated. Clearly, leaders and subordinates alike must be able
to act ethically in times of crisis and use logical, sound, values-based thinking when
faced with an ethical decision in combat.
Colonel Stromberg, in The Teaching of Ethics in the Military, addresses the
importance of military ethics, identifies some problems in military ethics in units,
articulates goals for teaching military ethics, and offers teaching and evaluation
techniques for use in military schools. Absent in his work are applications for field
units. However, his insights are valuable as a base for designing, implementing and
evaluating a military ethics and values training program. Colonel Stromberg includes
the following goals for teaching military ethics:
1 . Stimulating the moral imagination;
2. Recognizing moral issues;
3. Developing analytical skills;
4. Eliciting a sense of moral obligation and personal responsibility; and
5. Tolerating— and resisting-disagreement and ambiguity (Stromberg 1982, 43-
47).
Stromberg’ s insights provide the grass-roots framework for developing an
effective and energized values training program. His evaluation criteria are a necessary
addition in developing an effective program. The Army typically uses feedback methods
41
including After Action Reviews (AARs) to assess training effectiveness, and it is
necessary to incorporate a similar means of feedback for a values curriculum.
Teaching Strategies and Instructional Techniques
Much has been written about effective teaching methods, approaches and
strategies. One source, Ivor Davies’ Instructional Techniques, details strategies of
instruction, tactics of instruction, and instructional concerns. Strategies of instruction
include addressing efficient and effective learning, methods, lesson structure, and
instructional settings. Tactics of instruction address participants’ needs, objectives, and
commitment, verbal and nonverbal communication, and assessment techniques.
Instructional concerns involve acquiring knowledge skill and attitudes, discussion
techniques, managing time and paper, and instructor personality (Davies, 26).
Another valuable source for better understanding of instructional approaches is
Robert Gagne’s Principles of Instructional Design. Gagne writes about outcomes,
varieties of learning, intellectual skills and strategies, designing instruction, media and
effective group instruction. Gagne offers insights about developing goals and objectives,
scope, tools and assessment in setting up a lesson plan. Gagne’s reminds the reader of
the participant and instructor frame of reference, attitudes and agendas. Key to his
insights are ways to energize the participants and maximize learning (Gagne 1986, 13).
There is much to be gained by reviewing various perspectives on instructional
techniques, effective methods, planning and resourcing, and assessing the instruction.
FM 22-100 addresses the need for effective programs and innovative approaches to
teaching Army values. Literature in the field is rich with innovative and up to date
42
approaches in creating a learning environment that sparks quality discussion, while
minimizing distracters. As the literature suggests, the unit leader must understand and
apply effective teaching strategies in developing a Values Education Program. Selecting
the right instructor, understanding the participant’s perspective, applying the best
instructional strategy, collectively applied, approach the development of a successful
training program.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this literature review first examined FM 22-100, and highlighted
the guidance, framework, theoretical support and character and values model introduced.
The examination of FM 22-100 was followed by a review of individual and
organizational values, leadership and values, social learning and organizational culture
theories, with comparisons to FM 22-100. The literature review concluded with insights
on teaching values in the military, teaching strategies and instructional techniques.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This exploratory study was designed to examine the usefulness of FM 22-100 as
a guide and a tool for instilling Army core values at the unit level, with the primary
research question being: will FM 22-100 be an effective tool in instilling the Army core
values within the force? The subordinate research questions that emerged were the
following:
1 . What have been the guidance and directives given to the Army on instilling
Army core values?
2. How is FM 22-100 integrated into the overall plan for the Army in instilling
Army core values?
3. What is the overall framework and intent as presented in FM 22-100?
4. How does FM 22-100 support/refute the accepted theory in character and
moral development?
5. What are the long term goals and objectives within FM 22-100 for instilling
Army core values?
6. What are the duties and responsibilities for elements of the force in the area of
Army core values as defined in FM 22-100?
7. How does FM 22-100 provide a useful framework the force in developing
Values Programs?
8. What are some possible strengths and weaknesses of FM 22-100 and the
Army plan to instill Army core values?
44
In order to adequately answer the above subordinate questions the investigator
used a combination of several methods. First, the investigator conducted a thorough
analysis of FM 22-100 to answer subordinate questions that directly dealt with the
content of the doctrine and compared the framework and model presented in the manual
with applicable theory. Second, the investigator developed a survey instrument, (a
sample survey is included as appendix A), in order to address subordinate questions
relating to attitudes and opinions about the usefulness of the field manual, insights about
possible strengths and weaknesses of FM 22-100, and possible recommendations for
areas to augment the manual as it is introduced to the field Army. Finally, the
investigator conducted personal interviews with FM 22-100 authors, which addressed
subordinate questions referring to DA intent and guidance, (sample interview questions
are included as appendix B.
Research Population
The research population used in this research project included a total of thirteen
subjects. The survey population included all (thirteen) CGSC Leadership Instructional
Department (LID) instructors, (of the thirteen instructors, three were unable to complete
the survey due to other conflicting LID mission requirements). CGSC Leadership
instructors were selected because of their familiarity with FM 22-100. LID instructors,
as part of their duties, were previously thoroughly familiar with the Revised Final Draft
FM 22-100, were required to incorporate this doctrine into leadership instruction for
CGSC students, to introduce its concepts to field grade officers, and were required to
facilitate small group discussions focused on instilling Army core values within units as
discussed in FM 22-100.
45
The CGSC Leadership instructors, in general, probably know FM 22-100 better
than most officers, and have spent much time pondering the guidance, directives, plans
for implementation, framework, intent, relationship to theory, goals and objectives,
associated duties and responsibilities, and are therefore well suited to participate in this
research project. In addition, their involvement as facilitators with many CGSC
students, and exposure to field grade officers reactions to the material presented in
FM 22-100 provides valuable and insightful resource in support of this research effort.
Participation by the instructors was voluntary and there were no rewards offered
for participation. Due to the non-invasive, non-threatening nature of the survey, no
written informed consent was completed. The survey was accompanied by a cover letter
that encouraged each participant to reference FM 22-100 while completing the survey,
and each participant was provided a personal copy of Appendix E, to FM 22-100. The
survey took fifteen to twenty minutes to complete. As required, each survey
participant’s confidentiality and anonymity was maintained throughout the entire survey
process. Participants were assured that their responses would be confidential and that
the investigator would track only the survey form to complete collection of all surveys.
The investigator did not personally distribute or collect the surveys: members of the
Leadership department’s staff distributed and collected the surveys.
The researcher identified the one primary author, and the two current editors
responsible for developing, producing and introducing FM 22-100 to the force. The
researcher concluded that it was necessary to interview all writers involved in the
development of the doctrine. Each interviewee willingly volunteered to assist in this
46
research effort. There were no rewards offered for participation in the interviews. Each
interview required roughly one hour to complete.
Data Collection Methods
The literature review served several purposes in this research. A thorough
review of the Army doctrine, the Chief of Staff of the Army’s guidance, an analysis of
the integration of Army core values within FM 22-100, and the comparison of applicable
theory served to answer subordinate research questions 1, 2, 4, and 5. The review of the
literature included a detailed analysis of FM 22-100, a comparison with the character
and values development framework and applicable theory, a review of organizational
culture theory, and finally a review of military scholarly writing on the subject of ethical
training in the military. Chapter 4 addresses consistencies and inconsistencies between
the literature and FM 22-100 and the implications.
The survey instrument designed for this research addressed subordinate questions
2, 6, 7, and 8. The intent of the survey instrument was to collect data to identify the
effectiveness of FM 22-100 as a useful tool to assist Army units with instilling Army
core values. The survey focused on FM 22-100, and its strengths and weaknesses as a
tool for unit leaders to use to instill Army core values. Demographic information
required included only rank, branch affiliation, (CA, CS, or CSS), and years as a CGSC
Leadership instructor. No other demographical information was relevant or necessary
for this study.
The survey instrument consisted of nine force response items using a four point
Likert scale, and four focused open-response questions. The four open-response items
47
were narrowly focused in order for the researcher to better analyze specific issues that
related to FM 22-100.
The investigator drafted the survey items and then had several committee
members review each item for wording, tone, and accuracy in directly linking item to
subordinate questions. The investigator then presented the survey instrument to the
CGSC survey and data collection department for final review and approval. The survey
instrument was officially approved for use in this research project, and received a CGSC
control number as required. Only after this process, was the survey instrument
administered to the survey population.
The data tabulation and organization for the force response questions involved
basic hand tallying of like responses for each question. Open-response questions
answers for each question were physically cut and separated, and then recorded
verbatim. After all responses were recorded, then and only then did the researcher
attempt to categorize like responses and identify themes where plausible. Several
members of the research committee were then asked to review all responses and confirm
or deny the researchers themes and generalities.
Finally, the interviews with the FM 22-100 authors addressed subordinate
research questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. The intent of the interviews with the FM 22-100
authors was to gain insight about DA guidance and directives for the development of
FM 22-100 and the DA implementation plan for instilling Army core values throughout
the Army.
Each interview consisted of six open-ended questions that directly corresponded
to one of the subordinate questions: guidance and directives from Army Leadership,
48
(1 and 2); framework and intent of FM 22-100, (3); integration of FM 22-100, and the
Army plan to instill the core values, (2); theoretical basis of FM 22-100 and character
and moral development, (4); and possible strengths and weaknesses of the FM 22-100
and the Army plan to instill Army core values, (8).
In developing the questionnaire for FM 22-100 authors, the investigator followed
the same process as he did previously in developing the survey instrument. The
investigator drafted the questions for the FM 22-100 authors and then had several
committee members review each question for wording, tone, and accuracy in directly
linking item to subordinate questions. The investigator then presented the questionnaire
to the CGSC survey and data collection department for final review and approval. The
questionnaire received official approval in this research project, and was appointed a
CGSC control number as required. Only after this process, was the interview
questionnaire used.
The investigator conducted two personal and one telephonic interviews of
FM 22-100 authors. Doctrine authors, and editors offered a unique perspective in this
research effort. They directly or indirectly received specific guidance and directives for
the writing and intent of the FM from the Army’s leadership. They understand the
FM 22-100 implementation plan, and its integration with other existing or developing
values related programs in the Army. They are subject matter experts on the doctrine,
and have expertise and experience in the area of leadership and character development.
Finally, in general, they are in an ideal position to communicate the purpose, intent, and
context of the doctrine and the Army’s overall plan for inculcating Army core values.
49
Survey responses were hand recorded by the researcher and reviewed by the
respondent at the conclusion of the interview. All participants were assured of the
confidentiality and anonymity of their responses in all aspects of this research. No
demographic information was required except for basic branch affiliation, (CA, CS, or
CSS), rank, whether they were an original author or editor in the FM 22-100
development process, and how many months have they been working on this project.
For the purpose of this research effort, all authors and editors were addressed as
“FM 22-100 authors” in reporting their responses in Chapter 4 to better maintain
anonymity among the four interviewees.
The data tabulation and organization included collecting responses for each
question, and then grouping like responses in order to identify themes and common
attitudes. Several committee members reviewed a collection of all responses for each
question and verified that the researcher had been accurate, logical and unbiased in
grouping like responses, and reaching generalizations.
Summary
This exploratory and preliminary research effort incorporated three approaches to
collect data to answer the research question and subordinate questions. The initial step
was incorporated into the literature review and involved comparing the character and
values development as presented in FM 22-100, (including the model offered in
Appendix E of the manual), with social psychology theory, and with education methods
in teaching values and ethics in a military organization, (subordinate questions 1, 2, 4,
and 5). The second step involved a written survey of leadership instructors at CGSC to
capture attitudes and opinions about the usefulness of FM 22-100, (subordinate
50
questions 2,6,1, and 8), and the third step was conducting personal interviews with
authors of the FM 22-100 to collect data regarding the Army leadership’s guidance,
intent and implementation plans for instilling Army core values through FM 22-100,
(subordinate questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8).
Chapter 4 compares theory and values development models and approaches with
that offered in FM 22- 1 00, as well as presents the survey results and interview data.
Finally, the results are analyzed in an attempt to: draw valuable comparisons, identify
strengths and weaknesses in the doctrine in order to assess for the Army the usefulness
of FM 22-100 as a tool for instilling Army core values in the force.
51
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
Introduction
In Chapter 3, the methodology used in this research project involved three
approaches. First, the investigator conducted a thorough analysis of FM 22-100 to
answer subordinate questions that directly dealt with the content of the doctrine and
compared the framework and model presented in the manual with applicable theory.
Second, the investigator conducted personal interviews with FM 22-100 authors, which
addressed subordinate questions referring to DA intent and guidance. Finally, the
investigator developed a survey instrument, in order to address subordinate questions
relating to attitudes and opinions about the usefulness of the field manual, insights about
possible strengths and weaknesses of FM 22-100, and addressed possible augmentation
requirements as the FM is introduced to the force. In this chapter, results of the doctrine
analysis as well as survey and interview results will be addressed.
The results from this exploratory research must be interpreted with cautions since
the population was small (13), non-random and not necessarily representative.
However, the respondents are very knowledgeable about FM 22-100, its development
and incorporation into the Army’s overall plan to instill Army core values throughout the
force.
Finally, it is necessary to restate the primary and subordinate research questions.
The primary research question is will FM 22-100 be an effective tool in instilling the
Army core values within the force? The subordinate research questions are the
following:
52
1 . What have been the guidance and directives given to the Army on instilling
Army core values?
2. How is FM 22-100 integrated into the overall plan for the Army in instilling
Army core values?
3. What is the overall framework and intent as presented in FM 22-100?
4. How does FM 22-100 support/refute the accepted theory in character and
moral development?
5. What are the long term goals and objectives within FM 22-100 for instilling
Army core values?
6. What are the duties and responsibilities for elements of the force in the area of
Army core values as defined in FM 22-100?
7. How does FM 22-100 provide a useful framework the force in developing
Values Programs?
8. What are some possible strengths and weaknesses of FM 22-100 and the
Army plan to instill Army core values?
Each of these questions will be referenced as the data is presented and analyzed
in this chapter.
FM 22-100 Content
Subordinate question one, two, three, five and six deal with the analysis. The
following are those related subordinate questions and an analysis of each based on a
review of the doctrine.
1 . What have been the guidance and directives given to the Army on instilling
Army core values?
53
The Army formally introduced the Army core values in January, 1996. It defined
these values, offered some background for their formation, a minor historical context,
and the application of these values for our Army in the present and the future. The
Army did not use FM 22-100 to introduce specific guidance or directives to the force,
rather, it issued guidance and directives to specific subordinate commands directly.
FM 22-100 offers only general guidance and directives for leaders at all levels to
personally understand, adhere, and live the Army core values, and to train, mentor, and
emphasize these values within the units that they are charged to lead. In reviewing the
purposes of FM 22-100, as defined in the introduction section, the intent of the doctrine
is to establish a useful framework and define Army leadership for the force.
To date, the Army has only issued general guidance, consistent with that which is
presented in FM 22-100, to the force at large to emphasize, train, and “live” the values as
individuals and as organizations. Whether this is sufficient or adequate guidance for the
force is a question of greater concern. This area will be discussed in more detail in as it
applies to data collected from the survey instrument and from author interviews in the
pages to follow.
What the review of FM 22-100, DA directives and associated documents does
reveal is that there is only limited specific guidance and directives about instilling Army
core values that has been communicated to the force as a whole. The survey instrument
and interview results may suggest possible impacts of this discovery.
Subordinate question number 2: How is FM 22-100 integrated into the overall
plan for the Army in instilling Army core values? was also addressed within the
FM 22-100 review by the investigator.
54
When the Army unveiled its plan to transition from a competency-based Army to
a values-based Army, and the ARMY XXI concept, Character Development XXI was
presented to the force. Inclusive in Character Development XXI were the Army core
values, FM 22-100 Leadership doctrine, and a plan to incorporate character and values
development in all aspects of the Army, (including: IET, pre-commissioning, military
schooling, officer and NCO evaluations, and within the counseling and mentoring
programs). FM 22-100 provides the foundation for Army leadership, defining the terms,
standards, and expectations of individual soldiers, leaders, and organizations. The
doctrine provides the guidance and intent in preparing the leaders of the Army to fight
and win as it moves toward the challenges of the new Century. The doctrine introduces
the necessary framework for character and values development for use by individuals
and organizations.
The source that best articulates the integration of all aspects of the Army’s plan
for the transition into the twenty-first century was the Leading Change document that
was produced in 1996. This source, extensively referenced in this research project,
provides the best overview of the Army change plan, to include explanations of the need
for change, the complexities of the Army of the future, the future threat, and most
importantly, the intense necessity for a values-based Army.
FM 22-100 is not a stand-alone document, nor is it intended to be. What it is
intended to be is the chief component for defining and presenting Army Leadership for
leaders at all levels, and offering a useful framework for character and values
development to be applied by leaders in the field. The Army leadership has presented a
55
plan that centered around developing a values-based Army for the future- FM 22-100 is
designed to be the guiding leadership doctrine to get the force there.
Based on the review and analysis of FM 22-100, this document is critical in
establishing how the Army expects its leaders to lead the Army into the twenty-first
century. Character Development XXI explains and emphasizes the integration of Army
core values, FM 22-100 Leadership doctrine, and the DA plan to incorporate character
and values development. FM 22-100 is the cornerstone leadership doctrine that defines
how leaders will lead and articulates a character development framework useful in
applying to all aspects of individual and organizational character and values
development programs.
The review of FM 22-100 also addressed subordinate question #3: What is the
overall framework and intent as presented in FM 22-100?
The final draft of FM 22-100 presents a framework that is based on familiar
concepts of the past. It follows the theme of “be, know, do” and highlights the 24
attributes expected of a leader. The framework incorporates Army core values within
the context of what leaders should be; addresses moral, physical and mental attributes;
discusses interpersonal, conceptual, technical and tactical skills required of leaders; and
presents the actions of influencing, operating, and improving.
Most applicable to this research is the character and value development model
presented in appendix E, FM 22-100. This model provides leaders at all levels a useful
model for understanding the Army’s approach for leaders in designing character and
value development programs in their units. The model provides leaders insightful and
56
easily understood four step growth process in which to apply to individual subordinate
development as well as organizational developmental programs.
Finally, FM 22-100 introduces a new approach in understanding leadership at
different levels and the impacts of each. The leadership levels addressed are direct,
organizational and strategic. This research effort focused on the direct and
organizational levels of leadership. The insights presented in this area, offer leaders at
all levels valuable perspectives of the impact of leaders at all levels and their
responsibilities therein. The doctrine effectively presents illustrations that highlight the
utility of involvement of the leadership at all levels as it relates to Army values, and the
critical necessity of each in developing a values-based organization. The manual’s
emphasis on leadership levels reinforces the application of leadership development
programs at all levels in an organization and the positive impact that this involvement at
each level can have on an organization. Subtly, the doctrine emphasizes a shared
responsibility on leadership at every level in emphasizing Army values, not just at the
junior leader level.
The framework presented in FM 22-100 is easy to understand, incorporates
familiar concepts within the military community and an ease of application for leaders in
developing individual and organizational values based development programs. Survey
data and insights from author interviews discussed later in this chapter also support this
conclusion.
With an analysis of FM 22-100, the investigator attempted to answer the
following subordinate question:
57
5. What are the long term goals and objectives within FM 22-100 for instilling Army
core values?
FM 22-100 does not clearly define the DA long-term goals and objectives on
instilling Army core values. Most of the Army references reviewed focus on the Army’s
transition to a “values-based” Army as it prepares to meet the demands of the twenty-
first century. Ironically, with this renewed emphasis on Army values, it is the Army’s
values that remain the constant, according to Army leadership. Clearly though, the
Army leadership seems concerned with several issues which lead to this renewed
emphasis on a values- based Army. These concerns include: the mission challenges
present in operations other than war (OOTW) that the nation’s military is involved in
today, and most certainly will be involved in for years; the apparent downward trend in
values in society, and reflected in our military today; the negative impact of recent
downsizing, and increased operational tempo (OPTEMPO) in the military today and as
anticipated in the future; and finally, the reality that cultural change in an organization,
as the Army is attempting to do in its transition to a “values-based” Army, takes many
years to accomplish- and often with change comes resistance.
As previously stated, FM 22-100 does not clearly define long term goals and
objectives, more that to address the challenges for the military in the future, emphasizing
the definite need for a “values-based” Army, and the necessity for individual soldiers,
leaders, and organizations to understand, adhere to, internalize, and “live” Army values.
The question then becomes is it necessary to articulate long term goals and objectives for
instilling Army values, beyond insuring that the force understands and follows the Army
leadership’s intent in emphasizing, leading and “living” the Army values? The Army
58
leadership must, then, feel confident that the subordinate leaders at all levels understand
and execute their intent. This area will be addressed in greater detail later in this chapter
with the discussion of survey results.
Subordinate question 6: What are the duties and responsibilities for elements of
the force in the area of Army core values as defined in FM 22-100? The analysis
revealed that there are no duties or responsibilities directly specified in FM 22-100,
rather the doctrine focuses on general leadership responsibilities within leadership levels.
No other document could be identified that specifically addresses duties and
responsibilities for individual duty positions, or organizations as it pertained to instilling
Army values. Areas of responsibility have been issued to major commands, for example
TRADOC, or the Chaplain’s corps to develop training packages, etc. Agencies have
been tasked to develop training support packages for the Consideration of Others (C02)
program, for example. However, FM 22-100 does not define duties or responsibilities
for organizations, or leaders. The question then becomes is this necessary, either as part
of the doctrine or as a component package to augment the doctrine? An issue for
discussion is whether or not there is ambiguity as to who is responsible for the each step
of the Character Development model offered in FM 22-100. Is it possible that unit
leaders might feel that level 1 : understanding Army values is covered by the IET
process and that they have no responsibility to address this step in their unit? Or does
the Army intend to have leaders in all organizations re-enforce all steps of the model in
their organizations, regardless of the unit mission? This issue will be addressed again
later in this chapter.
59
FM 22-100 and Theory
The investigator addressed subordinate question 4: How does FM 22-100
support/refute the accepted theory in character and moral development? The literature
review, which included an overview of related theory of individual value development,
as well as theory in organizational value development, shared values and their
importance in successful organizations, provided a means of comparison with FM 22-
100. In addition, military scholarly writings provided insights about moral and ethical
development and training specifically in military organizations to compare with that
presented in FM 22-100.
There was nothing presented in FM 22-100 that was inconsistent with accepted
theory in the field. Specifically, theory in the area of organizational development
consistently re-enforced the necessity of individual and shared value sets, and the
importance of individual identification with organizational goals, standards, norms and
values. In addition, many scholarly sources emphasized the critical need for an
organization to formally define, publicize, re-enforce and openly discuss shared values
with members of the organization, new and old.
Finally, scholarly writing in the area of leadership continued to support the
character and values developmental approaches presented in FM 22-100. Clearly
defining, encouraging dialog, debating, and re-enforcing organizational shared values in
words and action were reoccurring themes in many of writings in the leadership theory.
FM 22-100 appears to have a firm theoretical foundation in the area of character and
value development.
60
Analysis of Pilot Survey Results
Other than the issues mentioned in chapter 3, no administrative problems
emerged from the conduct of the survey, or with the survey itself. Several participants
indicated an interest in the subject area, and discussed the context of the research after
completing the survey. (A copy of the survey instrument is included in appendix A).
Figure 1 addresses the first item in the pilot survey about the clarity of
Department of the Army guidance and directives on Army core values. (This item is
directly tied to subordinate research question 1 as well). Of the ten respondents, no one
disagreed that the Department of the Army had not provided clear guidance and
directives. The majority of those surveyed strongly agreed that DA guidance was clear,
and the others generally agreed with the statement. This suggests that the guidance has
in fact been clearly communicated to those who have been tasked to present the Army
values concept to field grade officers. This is most certainly an important first step. As
with any change, those charged to lead the organization through the process, must
clearly understand the guidance and directives of higher leadership. Any disagreement
in this area would be cause for alarm, and require direct and immediate attention.
One might expect that those who are charged with presenting the Army values
emphasis and accompanying programs should know and understand the direction and
guidance of Army leadership. Whether this feeling of agreement is consistent with a
larger population is yet to be seen. It is therefore important to use these pilot survey
results as a preliminary indicator of possible issues.
61
DA guidance and directives on Army core values are clear.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 1. DA Guidance and Directives on Army Core Values
Responses from Item 2 in the survey are reflected in Figure 2, which addresses
Department of the Army guidance and directives as articulated specifically in
FM 22-100. (This item is linked to subordinate question 1 and 2). Those surveyed also
agreed that Department of the Army guidance and directives were clearly articulated in
FM 22-100, as indicated. FM 22-100 will be the chief document that will be used to
communicate to the force DA guidance and directives for emphasizing Army values in
all Army organizations. It is important that FM 22-100 capture important top level
leadership’s intent in instilling Army values throughout the force. According to the
results of the pilot survey, all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the doctrine
adequately articulates DA level emphasis. Even with this small sample size, there is
62
some level of confidence that the intent is being communicated and is clearly articulated
with this latest emphasis on a “values-based” Army and guidance to the force on
instilling values throughout the force. There is no indications of any lack of clear
understanding in what the Department of the Army expects of the force.
Figure 2. DA Guidance and Directives as Reflected in FM 22-100
Note that the DA level guidance and directives that are addressed in the first two
survey questions are of a general nature, and the survey respondents later in the survey
are asked to comment on areas of greatest importance, and those requiring more direct or
63
specific emphasis. More discussion on this area and its impact of the effectiveness of
FM 22-100 will be addressed later in this chapter.
Figure 3. DA Emphasis on Army Core Value
Figure 3 reflects survey respondents’ responses in assessing how well the force
understands the Department of the Army’s rationale for this latest emphasis. (This item
and the next item in the survey address respondents understanding of the emphasis and
indirectly relates to subordinate questions 1, 5 and 8). Clearly, each survey participant
are asked to generally assess the feelings of the force, based on their exposure to views
of roughly sixty CGSC field grade officers each. Although survey participants’ opinions
64
reflect their assessment of only a small population of officers, in assessing the force in
general, the statement in the survey addressing clear understanding of DA rationale for
its recent emphasis could conceivably shed light on an area for further analysis. The
results suggest that the respondents do agree that in general the force understands the
rational for the Army’s values emphasis; however, the agreement is not as strong as the
responses in the previous two survey statements. In fact, two surveyed did not feel that
the rationale is clearly understood by the force.
The varied responses in this survey statement might indicate a weaker
understanding of the rationale for DA emphasis on Army core values than in the general
understanding of DA level leaderships’ guidance and directives. Within generally
accepted good leadership traits in the military is an understanding in the value for a
leader to not only provide guidance and directives in communicating a task or area of
emphasis to a subordinate, but also to provide the rationale for the emphasis, when
possible to the subordinate. This is done so that the subordinate might better understand
the intent and thought-process of the leader, and to establish the trust and commitment of
the subordinate in carrying out the leader’s wishes. Ensuring subordinate leaders clearly
understand the rationale for the Army’s recent emphasis in instilling core values
throughout the force should be a DA priority to better understanding of the values, their
importance, and a stronger commitment to living and leading these Army values. The
results of this survey statement indicate some variance in agreement as to the forces’
general understanding of the rationale for this DA emphasis. Certainly, it would be
valuable for DA to consider assessing the necessity to better communicate the
leadership’s rationale for emphasizing Army core values.
65
As reflected by results of survey item 4, respondents generally agreed that
FM 22-100 clearly articulated the Department of the Army’s rationale for the recent
emphasis of Army core values, (figure 4). Only one respondent felt that FM 22-100 did
not adequately address DA rationale for the recent values emphasis. In comparing the
results of survey Item 3 and 4, it is interesting to note that the survey participants in
general felt stronger that DA rationale is clearly stated in FM 22-100, then they did
about the understanding of the force about this rationale. This seems to suggest that the
doctrine that will be introduced soon quite possibly serve to better inform the force in
this important area.
The rationale for this emphasis is clearly
articulated in FM 22-100
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 4. DA Emphasis Articulated in FM 22-100
66
In survey item 5, respondents were asked to generally assess the reception of
CGSC field grade officers to the emphasis of Army core values. The results are
presented in figure 5. (This item is tied to subordinate questions 1, 5 and 8). Again, this
item required each survey participant to generalize the attitudes of roughly 60 CGSC
student attitudes about this recent DA emphasis.
Figure 5. CGSC Students Reception of Army Core Values
*
67
The purpose for this question was to attempt to capture the feelings, positive or
negative, of those that will be charged with the responsibility as leaders at the
organizational level to develop character and values development programs in their
units. To ask respondents to generalize about other officers’ attitudes might not be
acceptable for scientific research, but in the context of this research, this response to this
item could indicate possible challenges as DA introduces this doctrine, is therefore,
certainly worth exploring. The results of the survey responses reflect agreement that
CGSC student reception is largely mixed, both positive and negative. In fact several
respondents strongly agreed that the reception among these field grade officers is
predominantly mixed.
This item in the survey, addresses the possible reception of the force to this
change in emphasis, rather than directly to FM 22-100. The implications of the positive
or negative reception in this effort, could directly impact the perception of the usefulness
of this doctrine as it is introduced to the force. It is critically important, if the doctrine is
to be received well, that the values initiative is initially well understood and generally
accepted with enthusiasm by the force. Without overstating or over-reacting to the
survey results in this area, it is safe to conclude that their exists mixed attitudes among
some members of the force about the Army’s recent emphasis of Army values. It is
necessary to fully consider these positive and negative attitudes prior to introducing the
doctrine to the field, and attempt to lessen the negative impacts that a lack of
understanding or lack of commitment among lower level leaders may have on this effort.
68
Results of survey item 6 are reflected in figure 6. (This item addresses
subordinate questions 2, and 5). Survey participants have varying opinions about how
clearly FM 22-100 outlines the Army’s plan for instilling Army core values in the force.
Half of the pilot study respondents felt that FM 22-100 does not adequately outline the
Army’s integrated plan for instilling Army values throughout the force. A chief
objective of FM 22-100 is to introduce Army leaders to the seven core values, a
framework for their application, and a character develop model that serves to assist
leaders in developing values programs for individual and organizational use. Clearly
mixed responses to this survey item suggest a possible area of disconnect worth further
review.
FM 22-100 clearly outlines the Army's plan for instilling Army
core values.
Figure 6. Army Plan for Instilling Army Values outlined in FM 22-100
69
A significant DA charter to those who authored FM 22-100, was to present a
useful character development model that could be easily understood and easily applied.
Survey Item 7 addressed the ease of understanding of FM 22-100, appendix E, Character
and Values Development Model, (Figure 7). (This item directly addresses subordinate
question 3 and 7). All ten respondents agreed that the model is easy to understand. In
the course of their duties, the survey participants were required to introduce the model to
Appendix E, FM 22-100 is easy to understand.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Figure 7. Appendix E, FM 22-100
their students, their responses to this survey item suggest that the model was in fact easy
to understand and communicate to others.
70
Results of the next survey item, presented in figure 8, suggest that the model is
more difficult to apply than to understand. (This item addresses subordinate question 7
and 8). Two respondents reported that they felt the model was not easy to apply in
developing character and values development programs. In analyzing these pilot study
results, it is evident that some individuals do not feel unit leaders could easily apply this
model as a tool for instilling Army values. Though not conclusive, the results of this
survey item, indicate that some leaders might benefit from additional clarity in
presenting the model, or possibly additional examples presented within each of the
developmental stages to better communicate the application of this model. As
previously stated, one of the major objectives of FM 22-100, is to present an easily
understood and useful model of character and values development. Several respondents
indicated that there is still a need to devote some additional focus to improve the existing
model, in appendix E, FM 22-100.
The final item in the survey, (survey item 9), asks the respondents to assess the
usefulness of FM 22-100 directly. “Is FM 22-100 an effective tool for the Army to use
in instilling Army core values?” The results of this survey item are presented in figure 9.
All ten officers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that this doctrine is an effective and
useful tool. Based on the small survey population, no conclusive evidence can be drawn,
however, the respondents did communicate a unified confidence in the present
Leadership doctrine. Again, the surveyed officers brought with them a solid
understanding of the FM, and exposure to the attitudes and opinions of over 60 officers
each. For all surveyed officers to agree or strongly agree to this statement is very
encouraging for this research and for the Army as well.
71
Appendix E, FM 22-100, is easy for a unit to apply in creating a
character and values development program.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 8. Appendix E, FM 22-100 Application
The survey instrument included four open-ended items to better assess strengths
and weaknesses of FM 22-100. (These four survey items directly addressed subordinate
question 8). The respondents were asked to prioritize several critical areas currently
included in FM 22-100, as to their importance in assisting leaders within the force
charged with developing character and values programs within their organizations. The
following areas were listed: theoretical background of character development; Character
Development Model, Appendix E; historical context of Army Values; articulation of the
importance of Army core values; articulation of the direction for the Army today and in
72
the future in the area of Army core values. Each respondent was asked to rank order the
below listed areas from most important to least important.
Figure 9. FM 22-100 as an Effective Tool
The following are the summary results after analyzing all respondents’ rank
orderings, from most important to least important:
1 . Articulation of the importance of Army core values
2. Articulation of the direction for the Army today and in the future in the area
of Army core values
3. Historical context of Army Values
4. Character Development Model, Appendix E
73
5. Theoretical background of character development
Each of these areas currently is addressed in FM 22-100, Army Leadership.
Although these responses reflect only the views of ten officers, the results offer insight
as to what these officers feel are important and most useful for leaders of the force as
they develop values programs in their units, and begin to instill Army values in their
subordinates and in their units. The above rankings suggest that leaders may value
insight from the Army leadership’s on the importance of Army core values, and the
direction of the Army today and in the future in the area of Army values, even more so
than the history of Army values. The survey participants ranked the Character
Development Model, and theoretical basis as least important of the five areas. This is
not to imply that these areas are unimportant. Clearly, FM 22-100 offers leaders and
organizations many things; the results of this survey item begin to indicate the relative
importance of each area compared to the others listed.
Survey item 1 1 asked the respondents to recommend areas that should be added
to FM 22-100, or might augment FM 22-100 to make it a more useful tool for the force
in instilling Army values. (This item indirectly addressed subordinate question 8).
Respondents were given five areas to select from. There was, however, no requirement
to select any or all of those areas listed. The areas included: reason or basis for the
Army’s recent emphasis, specific guidance to the force on the Army’s plan to instill core
values, duties and responsibilities of organizations and leaders in the area of teaching
Army values, a listing of resources available and subject matter experts (SMEs), and a
description of useful programs and ideas for units to incorporate in developing values
74
education and training. The results of the participants recommendations are listed in
figure 10.
The next survey item, #12, asked respondents were address additional areas of
emphasis within FM 22-100 or as an augmented resource. Over half of the respondents
recommended that DA augment FM 22-100 with DA pamplets, memorandums,
messages, or training support packages. The results of this survey question indicate that
there are in fact several important areas that should be introduced in support of the
doctrine in order to better serve subordinate leaders in the force in developing values and
character development programs. Clearly, a descriptive listing of useful programs and
ideas, as well as a better articulation for DA rationale for this recent values emphasis
emerge as the major areas that should augment the doctrine as it is introduced to the
force. In addition, respondents suggested that duties and responsibilities for both
organizations and individual leaders be added in some form to augment DA guidance.
This might imply that subordinate leaders need a working list of specific responsibilities
to better understand what is expected of them and their organizations. Recall that survey
participants generally felt that there lacked a clear understanding of the Army plan for
instilling values throughout the force, and the role that subordinate organizations played
in the overall equation.
Finally, pilot survey participants were given the opportunity to offer additional
comments about FM 22-100, instilling Army values, and encouraged to offer written
recommendations for making FM 22-100 a more useful resource for subordinate leaders.
The following areas were addressed by several respondents as areas to consider as the
Army introduces FM 22-100 to the force: the use of a chain-teach program to introduce
75
the new Leadership doctrine to the Army; update other related manuals that also address
Army values and character development, (FMs 22-101, 102, and 103); develop training
support packages and a useful values resource website; and useful tactics, techniques,
and programs (TTPs) in the area of character and values education. These
recommendations all support the necessity to augment FM 22-100 with additional useful
and applicable resources for use by subordinate leaders.
Recommended additions or augments to FM 22-100.
A
Figure 10. Recommended Additions or Augments to FM 22-100
76
FM 22-100 Author Interviews
In addition to the pilot survey, personal interview with doctrine writers were
conducted in order to better understand DA guidance, directives, and intent for
developing the Leadership doctrine that will carry the force into the twenty-first century.
There are two authors that are presently rewriting and reviewing the final draft of FM
22-100. Both of these authors are stationed at Fort Leavenworth and were available for
personal interviews with the primary researcher. One additional editor involved in
reviewing the present draft of FM 22-100 was also identified and contacted for an
interview for this research as well. The interview questions are included as an appendix
in this paper, (appendix B).
Authors were asked to comment on how DA guidance and directives are
reflected in FM 22-100. All interviewees stated that the Final Draft FM 22-100
accurately answers the specific DA guidance. The present doctrine provides subordinate
leaders with a common framework, defined values, a useful character development
model and a easy to understand overview of the basis, background and necessity for a
“values-based” Army that will be prepared to fight and win on the battlefield of the
twenty-first century. The seven Army values are well defined, easy to understand and
are presented with an easy to remember acronim (LDRSHIP). This was precisely the
guidance given to the doctrine writers by the Army leadership in developing the new
Leadership doctrine. In addition, the framework presented in the doctrine follows the
familiar “Be, Know, Do” concept that was first presented in the leadership doctrine in
the early 1990s.
77
Authors were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of the current doctrine.
FM 22-100 writers suggested that the current leadership doctrine captures the historical
perspective of Army values, focuses on unilaterally defining our Army core values, and
presents them in a way that is easy for leaders at all levels to understand and apply,
appendix E, the Character Development model offers leaders a better understanding of
how individuals learn and grow in the areas of character and values. An area that the
writers identified as requiring improvement with the present doctrine included the need
for additional case-study type vignettes that leaders could use to communicate ethical
challenges and application of the core values in peacetime and in combat situations.
A bigger challenge, as addressed by all those interviewed was the combating the
attitudes of leaders and soldiers that this doctrine is written for. There is a general
feeling among those interviewed that many soldiers and leaders do not feel that values
can be taught, or that operational training and the units’ daily missions are much more
important than time invested in the area of values education or character development.
There is a perception that everyone has their own set of values, and it is difficult if not
impossible to effect change, so why are we as an Army spending so much time and
resources in this area. According to the authors, there seems to be a general lack of
understanding among the force as to why the Army leadership feels that values must be
emphasized to such a large degree. Additionally, two of the authors felt that soldiers and
leaders in the field might view higher level emphasis on Army values as a “politically”
motivated action to fend off some negative high profile ethical cases that the military has
faced in recent years. The interviewees suggested that there appears to be a general
cynicism in at least a portion of the population of organizational level leaders. This view
78
certainly is consistent with results identified in the pilot survey about the mixed
reception, both positive and negative of field grade officers in CGSC as perceived by
Leadership instructors on the emphasis on Army core values.
The implication of this cynicism among organizational leaders, if accurate, may
have a negative impact on the Army. The leadership at all levels must understand the
rationale for the Army’s emphasis on core values, and must not feel that values and
character development programs are training distracters, rather that they serve to
enhance the effectiveness of the organization in peacetime and in war. The authors all
expressed concern that the doctrine as it is written now does not adequately address the
negative feelings that seem to be present throughout the field Army in the area of Army
values.
When asked about how the doctrine might be improved or enhanced, to better
serve organizational leaders in the field Army as they develop programs for instilling
core values, one author suggested that the doctrine is descriptive, rather than prescriptive
in nature. The doctrine does not provide a checklist or a “how to instill values in
subordinates or organizations.” It is not a mission training plan, (MTP) per say.
Leadership in general is not easily taught, and it is difficult to assess where subordinates
or organizations are. The author was concerned that organizational leaders in the field
might be looking for or expecting a “how to” manual on leadership, character and values
development. This doctrine does not fulfill this need. The doctrine does, however,
define terms and easily applied approaches in developing character and values programs.
FM 22-100 provides a useful framework that is easy to understand and apply for
organizational and direct level leadership.
79
All of those authors interviewed suggested that accompanying training support
packages (TSPs), an introductory video, a chain teaching program, and related training
and resource materials would greatly enhance the doctrine as it is introduced to the field.
Additionally, a well publicized web-site with multiple resource and SME links, a listing
of working programs, and assessment tools would augment the new doctrine. One
author stated that “the goal of a chain-teach program for FM 22-100 would be to
introduce this new doctrine to the force, and motivate subordinate leaders to dive into it,
to find out for themselves what it has to offer, and to uncover its applicability to all we
do in the Army, rather than as just a regergitation of more theory of leadership, as many
incorrectly perceive it to be.”
Another insight offered by several of those interviewed was the need to re¬
emphasize the field units have the responsibility to re-enforce that which is being
introduced to every new soldier that has entered the Army since October, 1998 in the
area of Army core values, and that leaders and subordinates in field units must not de-
emphasize the importance and application of the Army values in everyday operations in
Army units. As an interviewee put it, “much can be gained or lost with arriving soldiers
in an organization based on how the unit emphasizes the core values in their words and
actions.” This cannot be understated. An author stated, “good units are already doing
this, (emphasizing values), and have active programs that re-enforce the themes inherent
in the Army values.” Leaders need to understand that this emphasis is not entirely new,
and many programs that are already in motion in units support the Army values
emphasis. Leaders in the force need to know this. It is important that as the doctrine is
80
introduced to the field these points are emphasized by DA leadership and reiterated in
the literature and TSPs that accompany the doctrine.
Conclusion
The first step in this research analysis was to compare FM 22-100 and the
literature in the field and attempt to present evidence that supports or refutes the
framework and character development model presented in the doctrine with accepted
theory in the field. The results of this comparison suggest that the framework and
development model in FM 22-100 is theortically supportable. The doctrine defines
many terms to ensure that the entire force is operating with a common terminology and
general understanding of the Army core values, and leadership theory. The doctrine is
presented in an easy to understand and easy to apply format that focuses more on
assisting unit leaders in developing character and values programs rather than on
leadership theory alone. In addition, military scholarly writings on teaching military
ethics also support approaches presented in FM 22-100.
The second step in this research analysis was to present and analyze the results of
a pilot survey administered to ten Leadership Instruction Division CGSC Instructors.
Although it is obvious that there is no possible way to adequately draw conclusive
conclusions with a small survey size, as was used in this research, the survey results
serve as a preliminary study to provide only introductory insights as to the effectiveness
of FM 22-100 as a tool for direct and organizational level leaders in instilling Army
values in their units. Survey results, used as a pilot study, to help identify possible
strengths and weaknesses of the new doctrine prior to its introduction into the field
Army. Survey respondents offered valuable insight as to what areas might require
81
additional emphasis, as well as, those resources that should be incorporated into the
Army’s overall plan to instill core values throughout the force, to augment FM 22-100.
Finally, interviews with three primary authors of the Army’s new Leadership
doctrine, provided additional preliminary insights as to what is contained in FM 22-100,
the framework, tone, and intent of the doctrine, and the application of the character and
values development model. Doctrine authors provided their opinions of the anticipated
reception to the doctrine and some perceived attitudes of soldiers and leaders as to the
Army’s leadership emphasis on core values. The comparisons of the doctrine and
theory, the preliminary insights of the authors, combined with those of the surveyed
CGSC leadership instructors provided a basis of analysis for this preliminary research
effort.
82
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The intent of this research effort was to provide a preliminary assessment of the
Final Draft of FM 22-100, Army Leadership, to predict whether or not it will be a useful
tool for instilling Army core values throughout the force. The research question was
“Will FM 22-100 be an effective tool in instilling the Army core values within the
force?” To answer this research question it was necessary to initially critically review the
new doctrine and compare it to the theory in the field of character and values
development. Many of the subordinate questions were answered directly from this
careful review of the doctrine and the comparisons with theory and with military
scholarly writings in the area of military ethics instruction. In order to best predict how
this doctrine might be received by direct and organizational level leadership in the Army,
it was necessary to survey a select population of those officers that had already been
exposed and were familiar with the Revised Final Draft of FM 22-100. CGSC leadership
instructors were identified as pilot survey candidates, who, although few in number, met
the qualifications necessary to offer valuable insights in assessing the new Army
doctrine. Finally, doctrine authors were identified and interviewed in order to offer
additional insight in this preliminary research effort.
Summary and Discussion of the Results
The literature review along with a detailed review of FM 22-100, provided the
first element of analysis for this research effort. It was necessary to thoroughly read and
understand all aspects of FM 22-100 as it related to the Army core values. The Army’s
83
new Leadership doctrine effectively integrates Army values into all aspects of character
development and leadership discussion. The familiar framework of “Be, Know, Do” in
concert with the 24 leader characteristics fully integrates the seven core values as the
cornerstone of military leader knowledge, skills, and attributes. Army Leadership
doctrine establishes Army Core values as the central focus of all that Army leaders and
organizations are and do. The doctrine is well supported in character and values
development theory, and is consistent with many scholarly writings in the field of
leadership, in both the corporate and military communities. The researcher found no
evidence to support any inconsistencies in the doctrine and theory in the field. It is
important to note, however, that the doctrine authors intentionally did not write the
doctrine as theoretical in nature, in order to more effectively communicate with their
target audience, organizational level leaders. The doctrine is easy to read and understand
and clearly communicates important definitions, themes, applicable historic and present
day examples, and developmental models. The intent is to capture the essence of the
purpose and need for a “values-based” Army prepared to meet the challenges of the
future as a military organization. The result is a well communicated, theoretically based,
and applicable leadership source for use by organizational level leaders in developing
programs to instill Army values in their units, and in subordinates under their charge.
The doctrine effectively establishes an Army -wide common language and framework in
the area of Army core values for use by all leaders at all levels in all types of Army
organizations.
The pilot survey results, although certainly not conclusive, provide the Army as
well as subordinate level leadership with potentially valuable insight as a preliminary
84
assessment of the usefulness of FM 22-100 for unit leaders in instilling Army core values
in their organizations. As a direct result of the pilot survey used in this research, several
significant issues emerged that could be of great value to Army leadership as they prepare
to introduce the new Leadership doctrine to the field. In general, DA guidance and intent
seems to be understood and well communicated, however, there may be substantial value
in re-emphasizing DA leadership’s rationale for this recent emphasis in Army core
values. The results of the survey and interviews conducted in this research indicate that
there may exist potentially damaging defensive and cynical attitudes among some
subordinate leaders as to why the Army is recently emphasizing values. It is important
that DA level leadership understand this cynicism, and address it directly. It is very
difficult for subordinate leaders to accept ownership of and support organizational change
or a DA area of emphasis if they do not fully understand the rationale for the change or
emphasis.
Additionally, as a result of the pilot survey and interviews, some leaders
recommend that DA should provide more specific guidance in the form of duties and
responsibilities for both organizations and individual leaders at different levels in the area
of character development and in unit programs. The research for this project also
suggested that it might be necessary to augment the new Leadership doctrine with
training support packages, chain teach programs to introduce FM 22-100 to the field,
listings of resources available, websites of resource materials and SME contacts, and
descriptions of unit values programs that have been successful in Army units to date.
The pilot survey results provided some feedback as to what is most important in
the doctrine. The emphasis on the importance of Army values to our Army, subordinate
85
organizations, leaders and soldiers; the direction of the Army in the future in the area of
Army core values, the history of Army values, and the character development model
emerged as the most important aspects of the present doctrine. Knowledge about what is
important within the doctrine to subordinate leaders could be valuable to DA leadership
as they prepare to introduce the doctrine to the force.
According to the doctrine authors, the Army intends to develop a chain-teach
program to introduce FM 22-100 to the field, DA intent, according to the authors, is to
expose unit leaders to the definitions, emphasis, framework, and character development
model establishing how the Army views leadership and Army core values. In short, this
will be a public relations push to energize the organizational leaders to read and
understand the new Leadership doctrine, and to inspire them to develop unique and
innovative programs to instill the Army core values in subordinate leaders and soldiers
and in their organizations. A DA level chain-teach program such as the one currently
being develop provides a great opportunity for the Army leadership to address the
concerns and issues raised as a result of this research effort, and to re-emphasize
important areas that may have been misunderstood by the force. There is the opportunity
to address the perceived cynicism in the ranks about this recent emphasis on Army core
values.
Unit leaders must understand and be receptive to the fact that values education is
truly a life-long growth process, and that internalization of the Army values does not just
happen; rather, it is through an initial understanding of themes, through reinforcing
agents, candid open discussion, a positive command climate, a “learning environment,”
and active observation and role modeling of leaders and units “doing the right thing.”
86
Unit leaders must understand that “good units are already doing many of the programs
and activities that reinforce our Army core values” as one author stated. Finally,
organizational level leaders must understand that they are the catalyst to change, positive
change, through their guidance, emphasis, encouragement, role-modeling, and resourcing
activities and programs, and through the daily actions of their organizations.
Army leadership must seize the opportunity to positively introduce FM 22-100,
emphasizing its usefulness and application for unit leaders as valuable tool in developing
organizational programs that instill the Army core values. This research effort
illuminates some significant areas that should be considered prior to initiating a Army
wide chain-teach program. It is important that DA reemphasize the rationale for the
change, and the critical need for a “values-based” Army. In addition, careful
consideration should be made in developing training support packages and resources to
assist units in developing values programs.
Recommendations for Further Research
In conducting this research, several important areas requiring further research
emerged. The research survey and interviews uncovered some potentially valuable
attitudinal issues among field grade officers in the area of Army values. Although this
study was in no way conclusive, it would be useful for the Army to pursue a better
understanding of some of the underlying cynicism among field grade officers here at
CGSC as it relates to the recent emphasis of Army core values. As the Army’s
organizational level leadership, who will be responsible for emphasizing values,
developing plans and initiating values programs in Army units in the field, it is critical
that they are in line with the intent and direction of Army leadership. Although I was
87
unable to tap into this resource and survey the CGSC population in this research project,
it would be very insightful to attempt to better understand the attitudes and perceptions of
CGSC students in the area of Army values. In surveying CGSC Leadership instructors,
each of whom taught over sixty field grade officers about DA emphasis of the Army core
values, I was able to uncover hints of defensiveness and cynicism. Certainly, surveying
the entire roughly 1,000-member CGSC class could potentially provide very significant
results about the usefulness of FM 22-100 and Army values in general. The survey
instrument could be used in its entirety with only minimal adjustments.
Another area for future research will emerge once the doctrine in introduced and
used by organizational level leaders in the field Army. Initially, one planned aspect of
this research project included surveying field unit battalion and company commanders
and senior non-commissioned officers to identify how effectively they were able to instill
Army values within there units. This was not possible in this research project. For a
future research project, it would be valuable to explore the guidance and directives of
their direct supervisors, as well as attempt to uncover organizational environment
enhancers and detractors in instilling Army values in their organizations. The usefulness
of FM 22-100 for leaders in developing values programs could be assessed, along with
useful resources and SMEs in this effort. Finally, research in this area could help identify
strengths and weaknesses of the new Leadership doctrine.
The new doctrine’s target audience is small unit leaders in organizations across
the Army. It would be useful to conduct research with field unit soldiers, NCOs, and
junior officers in an attempt to assess the usefulness of FM 22-100 for them in
88
developing and mentoring subordinates, and in values education and programs in their
units.
Finally, a related area worthy of further research would involve new soldiers to
field units across the Army, to assess the effectiveness of field units in re-enforcing Army
core values that they have been taught in Basic Training since October 1998. This survey
could be constructed to attempt to assess the effectiveness of IET values related training,
the organizational climate that they experienced in their first field unit, and the
effectiveness of the field unit in reinforcing Army values.
Conclusion
In conducting this preliminary research in an effort to predict the effectiveness of
FM 22-100 as a tool for organizational level leaders in instilling the Army core values, I
attempted to thoroughly understand and assess the guidance and intent of the Army
leadership as described in the doctrine. I was able to trace the Army core values theme
throughout the leadership doctrine, and evaluate the integration and application of Army
values within the framework of Army leadership. As part of this research effort, I was
able to confidently confirm a strong theoretical basis within the framework and character
development model presented in FM 22-100. Additionally, scholarly writings in the field
of leadership and in military ethics training supported the Army Leadership framework.
The pilot survey and personal interviews used in this research project offered
preliminary insights as to the effectiveness of FM 22-100. It is unfortunate that CGSC
constraints did not allow for a substantially greater survey population of field grade
officers that had all been introduced to the new Leadership doctrine. Clearly, this is the
most significant limitations of this research effort. Still, by surveying CGSC Leadership
89
instructors, several significant issues emerged. The survey produced a preliminary
assessment of important aspects within the doctrine to these field grade officers, as well
as identifying necessary training support packages, listings of resources available and
descriptions of useful values programs that are being executed in field units that should
augment FM 22-100 when introduced to the field.
The Army leadership and organizational level leadership should carefully
consider the preliminary results and identified areas of interest that resulted from this
research effort. The goal of every leader must be to instill in their subordinates and
organizations the critical need for Army core values. The values programs they develop
as well as every day operations should serve to re-enforce the ideals inherent in the seven
Army core values. General Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff, has challenged each and
every leader at every level to understand, adhere, internalize and “live” the Army core
values in word and deed. This is not an easy challenge, but a necessary responsibility
that all leaders are charged with meeting with every subordinate and every organization
they are given the privilege of leading in the “values-based” Army that is prepared to
fight an win the battles of today and in the future.
A final thought, during one of the interviews for this research project, one of the
FM 22-100 authors relayed the following true story. Recently, during a Pre-command
Course, (PCC) the CGSC Commandant, Lieutenant General Steel, asked roughly 60 PCC
future battalion commander’s to write down the seven core values. Surprisingly, only
roughly 30 percent were able to list all seven core values. Shocking as this may seem,
this illustrates an important point, the force does not necessarily have it down, there is
much room for every soldier and leader to grow. It is not acceptable to say, “I have got
90
it when dealing with Army core values, all Army leaders at all levels must understand
that character and values development is an on-going process of growth and
understanding. FM 22-100 suggests that the road to internalization of the core values is
an on-going on process, that is approached only after much self study, professional
reading, and active dialog. FM 22-100 can only offer insights as to the history,
importance and challenges inherent to our force at present and in the future, to best
emphasize the critical need for a “values-based” Army. The doctrine offers a useful
framework that serves to assist direct and organizational level leaders in developing
character and values programs in the development and mentorship of their soldiers and
units charged to their care.
Leaders must understand their responsibility to develop the character of their
subordinates and mentor future leaders. They must openly discuss values issues and
create positive organizational command climates where the core values are at the center.
The future challenges for the military in military operations other than war, MOOTW,
filled with uncertainty and high risk, dictates the necessity that leaders and soldiers at all
levels be able to make decisions that are based on our Army core values. Leaders will be
required to act independently in the absence of orders or directives, in difficult,
complicated and unpredictable situations in MOOTW that far exceed the challenges
required of leaders in conventional warfare of the recent past. Each leader must be able
to make the right decisions” that are based on the core values of our Army with
confidence and immediacy. As General Reimer has stated many times before, “the lives
of our solders depend on it.”
91
APPENDIX A
SURVEY
Survey Participant:
I am currently conducting a research project in the area of Army Core Values.
Specifically, I am assessing the effectiveness of FM 22-100 as a tool for instilling Army
Core Values. At present, editors are reviewing the Final Draft of FM 22-100 in
preparation for distribution to the Army at large. In conducting this research, I will
assess DA’s guidance and intent, identify strengths and weaknesses of FM 22-100, and
possibly offer valuable insight to the Army as it prepares to introduce the Doctrine to the
force. Presently, steps are being taken to develop a chain-teach package to introduce the
doctrine to leaders and soldiers. It is likely that the results of this research will assist DA
in better preparing, packaging and introducing FM 22-100 to the field Army.
Your participation in this research effort is very much valued and appreciated. You have
been selected as the survey participant based on your experiences as a C700 Instructor,
and you familiarity of the Final Draft of FM 22-100 and Appendix E. Your views are
necessary for me to better assess the effectiveness of FM 22-100 as a tool for leaders to
use in developing Army Core Values programs. Please note that this survey is entirely
anonymous and that no attempt is made to identify you personally. Results will be
compiled for a GCSC (MMAS) thesis, only.
Based on the small number of survey participants, (C700 Instructors), each of the
participant’s responses is critical. As such, I respectfully request your support in this
research effort by completing this short survey. The survey should require roughly 15
minutes to complete.
No Marksense Form is necessary. Please write directly on the survey itself and return it
to LID Admin personnel when complete.
I welcome any comments that you may have concerning this research project or the
survey itself.
NOTE: YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO REFERENCE FM 22-100 WHILE
COMPLETING THIS SURVEY, AS WELL AS REVIEW APPENDIX E.
(ATTACHED).
Thank you in advance for your participation.
David A. Jonfej)
MAJ, IN CGSC 10A
Principal Researcher
92
CGSC Survey Control # 9936
Instilling Army Core Values:
Will FM 22-100 Get Us There?
Survey/Questionnaire
Survey Group:
C700 Instructors
For each item, please circle the response that best reflects your opinion.
1 . The Department of the Army’s guidance and directives on Army Core Values are
clear.
Strongly Agree - Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
2. This guidance and directives are clearly articulated in FM 22- 1 00?
Strongly Agree - Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
3. The rationale for the recent emphasis of Army Core Values is clearly understood bv
the force?
Strongly Agree - Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
4. The rationale for this emphasis is clearly articulated in FM 22- 1 00.
Strongly Agree Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
5. The reception among CGSC students to the Army’s emphasis on Army Core Values
has been largely mixed, (both positive and negative).
Strongly Agree - Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
6. FM 22-100 clearly outlines the Army’s plan for instilling Army Core Values.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree - Strongly Disagree
7 . FM 22- 1 00, Appendix E, is easy to understand.
Strongly Agree Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
8. FM 22-100, Appendix E, is easy for a unit to apply in creating a character and values
development program.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree - Strongly Disagree
93
9. FM 22-100 is an effective tool for the Army to use in instilling Army Core Values.
Strongly Agree - Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree
Additional questions:
10. Rank order the following items (l=most important, 5= least important) present in FM
22-100. Also, place a + or - after each item that you feel requires greater or lesser
emphasis in the present document:
- Theoretical background of Character Development
- Useful Character Development Model (Appendix E)
- Historical context of Army values
- Articulates the importance of Army Core Values
- Articulates the direction for the Army of today and the future in the area of
Army Core Values
1 1 . Place a check mark before the item(s) that you feel should be included in FM 22-100:
Reasons/basis for the Army’s recent emphasis on Army Core Values
Specific guidance to the force on the Army’s plan to instill Core Values
- Duties and responsibilities of organizations and leaders in the area of teaching
Army Core Values
- Listing of resources available and Subject Mater Experts
Descriptions of useful programs/ideas for units to incorporate in developing
Values education/training
12. What should augment FM 22-100, if anything, as it is introduced to the field Army?
(Continue on reverse if necessary)
13. Please offer any other insights that you may have concerning FM 22-100 and
instilling Army Core Values.
(Continue on reverse if necessary)
Demographic information: Please circle all that apply
Branch affiliation: CA CS CSS
Number of Years as a C700 Instructor: 12 3 4
94
APPENDIX B
CGSC Survey Control # 9936
Instilling Army Core Values:
Will FM 22-100 Get Us There?
Survey/Questionnaire #1
Survey Group: FM 22-100 Authors/Editors
1 . How does FM 22-100 accurately reflect the Department of the Army’s guidance on
Army Core Values?
2. What are the strengths present in FM 22-100 as the Army’s tool for instilling Army
Core Values within the force?
3 . What are the weaknesses present in FM 22- 1 00 as the Army’ s tool for instilling
Army Core Values?
4. How can FM 22-100 be a more useful document to the Army in instilling Army Core
Values?
5. How effective will FM 22-100 be as a tool for instilling Army Core Values?
6. Please offer any other insights that you may have concerning FM 22- 1 00 and
- instilling Army Core Values.
95
APPENDIX C
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT MODEL(as of January 1999):
The FM 22-100 Character Development Model as it appeared in the Revised Final Draft ( with editor
changes in January 1999). This model, used in this research project, illustrates the four stages or levels in
character development: understand, adhere, internalize, and lead.
APPENDIX E, FM 22-100 CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT MODEL (as of May 1999):
Shaping the organization ’s _
ethical climate^ Internalisation
Reinforcing Army Values and
Leaders Develop Leader Attributes^ Reinforcement
Character by .. .
Teaching Army Values Education
and Demonstrating Attributes
Subordinates
Appendix E, FM 22-100 Character Development Model as expected to appear in the June 1999 Final
Draft. This revised model focuses on leaders as well as subordinates. Leaders develop character in
subordinates through: teaching, reinforcing and shaping. Subordinates in turn: learn, comply and believe.
96
GLOSSARY
Army Core Values (7). Directed by the Army— Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-service,
Honesty, Integrity, and Personal Courage (LDRSHIP).
Chain-teaching approach. Army instructional approach used Army-wide distribution of
critical policy changes and/or, program introduction. Usually DA provides narratives and
accompanying resources for commanders at all levels to use.
Command Climate. Standards and expectations for the organization as stated and
illustrated by the leadership (i.e. companies, platoons where subordinates routinely see
and interact with their leaders.
IET. Initial entry training. Eight-week Army Basic Training Program. Initial
socialization process into the military for all new soldiers.
Organizational Culture. The tone, attitude, an accepted environment within the
organization, accepted norms and activities positive and negative) that make-up or define
organization.
Organizational Leadership. Indirect leadership (i.e. staffs at all levels) that plan, and
resource training or activities but do not directly execute or conduct it with subordinates.
Organizational V alues. Shared understanding of the values and standards expected and
adhered to in an organization.
Personal Values. Enduring beliefs that relate to one’s life goals and to the ways that one
attains those goals.
Socialization. Formal and informal programs designed to bring new people into the
organization.
97
REFERENCES
Army values. 1998. Military Review 78, no. 1 (January-February special issue on Army
Values).
Army values. 1998. ODCSPER message 1 1 1201Z March 98. Available from
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/cal/values/values2/email_values.htm. Accessed on 7
January 1999.
Army War College. 1997. Ethics: A selected bibliography. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army
War College, August. Microfiche.
Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
February.
Braun, William. 1988. An ethical Army leadership— Real or wanting? Carlisle Barracks,
PA: Army War College, March.
Carson, Frank L. 1989. Teaching military ethics as a science. Maxwell Air Force Base,
AL: Air War College, March.
Davies, Ivor. 1981. Instructional techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Department of the Army. 1998. Field Manual 22-100, Army leadership (Revised final
draft). Washington, DC: Department of the Army, June.
_ . 1994. Field Manual 100-1, Army. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.
_ . 1997. Leadership and change in a values-based Army: A leader’s guide.
White paper, Washington, DC: Department of the Army.
Donnithome, Larry R. 1994. The West Point way of leadership, 1st ed. New York:
Currency Doubleday Pub., January.
Drisko, Melville A., Jr. 1977. An analysis of professional military ethics: Their
importance, development and inculcation. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army War
College, July.
French, Wendell L., and Cecil H. Bell. 1995. Organizational development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gagne, Robert. 1986. Principles of instructional design, 2d ed. Ft. Worth, TX: Holt,
Renehart and Winston.
Gardner, John W. 1990. On leadership. New York: Free Press.
98
Gilmore, Gerry J. 1997. Sexual harassment reports released. Soldier 52, no. 10 (October):
2.
Goldman, W. Darryl. 1998. The wrong road to character development? Military Review
78, no. 1 (January-Febraary), 62.
Hall, Robert E. 1998. My message to soldiers. Soldiers 53, no. 2 (February): 2.
Hartjen, R. C., Jr. 1984. Ethics in organizational leadership. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army
War College, May.
Hillen, John. 1998. The military should keep high standards. Air Force Times 58, no. 25
(26 January): 32.
_ . 1997. Teaching values to Beavis and Butthead. Navy Times. 15 December,
33.
Huitt, W. 1998. Moral character and development: Moral and Character Development.
Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University,
1991; revised 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998. Available from wysiwyg://37/hppt://
www. valdosta, edu/%7Ewhuitt/psy702/morchr/morchr.html. Internet.
Jensen, Arthur F. 1990. Virtue ethics and the professional formation of Army officers. Ft.
Benjamin Harrison, May.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1995. The leadership challenge. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mays, A. 1997. A common professional ethic based on core values. Joint Services
Conference on Professional Ethics, Washington, DC, 30 January.
Ott, J. Steven. 1989. The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks
and Cole Publishers.
Perry, William G., Jr. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college
years. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich Publishers.
Potts, Robert E. 1986. Professional military ethics: Are we on the right track? Carlisle
Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, May.
Reimer, Dennis J. 1997. Preparing now to meet 21st-century challenges. Army Al, no. 10
(October Greenbook special edition): 19-28.
_ . 1994. Leadership for the 21st century: Empowerment, environment, and the
Golden Rule. Military Review 16, no. 1 (January-February): 5.
99
_ . 1998. Army. Army Magazine.
_ . 1998. Army Values Homepage. CSA message at http://www-
cgsc.army.mil/cal/values/values2/csamessage.htm. 10 June 98.
Schein, Edgar H. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Pub.
Schon, Donald. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Pub.
Schomick, John N. 1991. Military professionalism: The Army officer of the 90s. Carlisle
Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, May.
Schroeder, James T. 1996. Ethics and values in the Army today. Carlisle Barricks, PA:
U.S. Army War College, March.
Scott W. Richard. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. : Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Seven core values: In theory and in practice. 1997. Army Times. 16 June, 33.
Stromberg, Peter L. 1982. The teaching of ethics in the military. Hudson, NY: Institute of
Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences, Hasting Center.
Sullivan, Gordon R., General (retired). 1996. Hope is not a method. New York: Times
Business.
TRADOC. Initial Entry. Available from Training@http//www-
tradoc.army.mil/cmdpubs/let/forward.htm. Accessed 10 June 98.
Van Maanen, John, and Edgar H. Schein. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 1, JAI Press.
Willis, G. E. 1997. How the Aberdeen verdict will impact the Army. Army Times, May,
23.
Youngquise, James H. 1996. American society verses US Army values: Direction of
society ’s values and implications for the 21st century Army. Carlisle Barracks:
PA: U.S. Army War College, May.
Yi|kl, Gary. 1994. Leadership in organizations, 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
100
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
1 . Combined Arms Research Library
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
250 Gibbon Ave.
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-23 14
2. Defense Technical Information Center/OCA
8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 944
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218
3. Colonel Judith Bowers
2805 Home Place
Leavenworth, KS 66048
4. Lieutenant Colonel Lenora Ivy
2404 Hebbeln Drive
Leavenworth, KS 66048
5. CH (Major) Kenneth W. Bush
612 McClellan Avenue
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2314
101
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1. Certification Date: 4 June 1999
2. Thesis Author: Major David A. Jones _
3. Thesis Title: Instilling Army Core Values at the Unit Level: Will FM 22-100 Get Us
There?
4. Thesis Committee Members
Signatures:
5. Distribution Statement: See distribution statements A-X on reverse, then circle appropriate
distribution statement letter code below:
A B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified, you must coordinate
with the classified section at CARL.
6. Justification: Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution
Statement A. All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation. See limitation
justification statements 1-10 on reverse, then list, below, the statement(s) that applies (apply) to
your thesis and corresponding chapters/sections and pages. Follow sample format shown below:
EXAMPLE
Limitation Justification Statement
/ Chapter/Section
/
Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10)
/ Chapter 3
/
12
Critical Technology (3)
/ Section 4
/
31
Administrative Operational Use (7)
/ Chapter 2
/
13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below:
Limitation Justification Statement / Chapter/Section / Page(s)
/ _ /
/ _ /
/ _ /
/ _ /
/ /
7. MMAS Thesis Author's Signature:
STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. (Documents with this statement
may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals).
STATEMENT B: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON
REVERSE OF THIS FORM). Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following:
1. Foreign Government Information. Protection of foreign information.
2. Proprietary Information. Protection of proprietary information not owned by the U.S.
Government.
3. Critical Technology. Protection and control of critical technology including technical data
with potential military application.
4. Test and Evaluation. Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military
hardware.
5. Contractor Performance Evaluation. Protection of information involving contractor
performance evaluation.
6. Premature Dissemination. Protection of information involving systems or hardware from
premature dissemination.
7. Administrative/Operational Use. Protection of information restricted to official use or for
administrative or operational purposes.
8. Software Documentation. Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance
with the provisions of DoD Instruction 7930.2.
9. Specific Authority. Protection of information required by a specific authority.
10. Direct Military Support. To protect export-controlled technical data of such military
significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize
a U.S. military advantage.
STATEMENT C: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors: (REASON
AND DATE). Currently most used reasons are 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 above.
STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to DoD and U.S. DoD contractors only; (REASON AND
DATE). Currently most reasons are 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 above.
STATEMENT E: Distribution authorized to DoD only; (REASON AND DATE). Currently most used
reasons are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
STATEMENT F: Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date), or higher
DoD authority. Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special
dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505, DoD 5200. 1-R.
STATEMENT X: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and private individuals of
enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 5230.25;
(date). Controlling DoD office is (insert).