The Army Profession: A Narrative

In 2010, the Secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh, and the Army Chief of Staff, General George W. Casey, directed the TRADOC Commander, General Martin Dempsey to conduct a review of the Army profession. General Dempsey's review gave rise to the Army Profession Campaign. In the literature supporting the Army Profession Campaign, Army leaders described the Army as a profession with two sub-professions: the Army Profession of Arms and the Army Civilian Corps. Defining civilians a part of the military profession is a significant departure from existing practice and raises the question, why did Army leaders adopt the Army Profession concept? To determine why the Army profession included civilians, it was first necessary to investigate how the concept of a profession has evolved. The concept of a profession was first applied to civilian occupations before it was imported into discussions of the military. Both history of the civilian and military uses of the term profession revealed that the Army Profession concept is ahistorical. Surveying key profession of arms models also illustrates Army leaders broke with tradition by making the Army Profession an all-inclusive model. A review of narrative and organizational theory suggests Army leaders may have developed the Army Profession concept as a rhetorical device rather than a literal description of the Army. One organizational theorist, Valerie Fournier described a theory of professionalization in which an organization's leaders could use the concept of a profession to inculcate behavioral norms within the organization. Examining Army doctrine and Army Profession Campaign literature supports the inference that Army leaders intended the Army Profession Campaign to serve as a rhetorical construct with which they could improve discipline throughout the force. A review of the literature and doctrine support the conclusion that Army leaders were greatly concerned with improving discipline at the time they adopted the Army Profession concept. A review of the literature and doctrine prove Army leaders were aware of narrative theory. A review of the same materials proves Dr. Snider, the chief architect of the Army Profession Campaign, was aware of Fournier's argument that a professionalization rhetoric campaign could improve self-discipline within a workforce. The research into the Army Profession concept through the lens of narrative and organizational theory does not conclusively prove Army leaders developed the Army Profession construct by applying Fournier's theory. However, the evidence collected supports the inference that Army leaders did develop the Army Profession concept as a rhetorical device. Furthermore, the evidence makes clear Army leaders chose to employ professionalization rhetoric as a possible way to correct observed behavioral deficiencies or to prevent a forecasted decline in discipline.