Army Leadership Doctrine Examined: The Chameleon Effect

Do recent changes in leadership doctrine reflect social values articulated by our civil institutions or military functional needs, and if they reflect social values rather than functional needs are the changes likely to inhibit the solving of critical functional problems? Congressional investigations into moral turpitude within the services generated solutions acceptable to society. Army leaders instituted changes to leadership doctrine incorporating social and congressional edicts as well as their own solutions. The revisions encompassed a change in Army values. The social value, equal opportunity, is the banner under which congressionally mandated changes were instituted. As a result senior Army leaders have sanctioned personnel policies, instituted educational programs, and revised traditional values that are intended to address the issue of sexual harassment. Traditional values of duty and selfless service, as defined in U.S. Army leadership doctrine support military functions. This study documents the role these values play in supporting Army purpose. Army action plans aimed at fixing sexual misconduct are compared against congressional, societal, and Army values constructs. The comparisons illustrate leader actions are affecting core purpose, core values and ultimately core ideology. The changes to doctrine reflect social values articulated by our civil institutions. Socially palatable value of individual autonomy is heightened because of the new Army value "Respect". Dual standards are a consequence and accelerate the demise of warflghting functions. Traditional values: duty and selfless service are subordinated to individualism. This phenomenon emerged because of doctrinal modifications and a unclear understanding the role traditional values play in maintaining Army purpose.