Accountability in the Army
Name
Institution
Accountability in the Army
Introduction
Accountability is an important concept that applies public service, military service, and even in private business. It means the responsibility of an individual or an organization to account for activities carried out, decisions made, and demonstrate result (Ricks, 2012). Within the army, accountability takes a slightly different definition because of the way it is imposed. The army definition of accountability is “the obligation imposed through a lawful order on an officer or another army officer to record of properties, documents, funds or soldiers” The army does not take accountability lightly because of the potential damage that might result should that be the case. Army generals have accountability over their team as a way of maintaining order within the army.
The army’s sense of accountability is evident from their strict adherence to time schedules. Being on time, in the context of the army often means being at least 30 minutes early. Being early is a highly valued practice within the army because it not only shows one has the discipline, it also indicates that he or she respects the superiors (Ricks, 2012). In the army, and also within the civil setup, being early is an indication of responsibility, trustworthiness, and ability to follow directions. Punctuality is not just seen by army officials as an order that the army requires, but also as a good personal trait that is a reflection of one’s character; a demonstration of one’s integrity and self-discipline.
The strict culture of accountability and strict military values is often enforced through an army training exercise. The army is entrusted to defend the nation’s borders, interests, and ideas, and this responsibility must be executed with a high degree of accountability and discipline. The army college has been given the mandate to train soldiers and teach them to be professionals. Both the soldiers, their families, and loved ones have put a lot of trust on their generals to ensure that they give the best service to their country while also maintaining their safety (Esdal, 2015).
The army is also fortressed by core values that determine how its officers have to carry themselves out at any given circumstance. The values such as loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are some of the most important factors that determine the success of military forces around the world (Klaus, 2016).
This paper seeks to analyze the concept of military accountability and how it contributes to the success of the United States Army. Similarly, the paper explores some of the core values of the U.S military, with a focus on how the values and accountability contribute to the success of the army in its various missions.
How the Military Creates the Culture of Accountability
Accountability is all about expectations, irrespective of whether one is in business or the military. Lack of accountability often leads to disappointment and the spread of negativity, hence affecting team morale (Esdal, 2015). Within the military, lives depend on keeping promises and commitments; and hence there is a higher threshold for accountability.
The military officers are trained to know that anything can and will happen to them, especially when in combat. Because of this, every team member must be sure that the team or squad leader know where the soldier and his or her equipment is at all the time. This calls for a higher sense of accountability. The equipment cost a lot of money, and the life of a soldier is invaluable, and hence the military leader must be accountable to them at all the time. Accountability is not just about knowing where everything is, it also goes to the peace of mind of the team members, knowing that things are in order and that everyone is responsible in whatever assignment they are given. People who are accountable are easily trusted, but the same cannot be said for people with questionable accountability records. Working in an army, one needs the assurances that the team members will do their specific assignments diligently and not sabotage the success of the whole team (Ricks, 2012).
Within the army, accountability is not just one’s willingness to be responsible, but rather an enforced concept that must be accepted by everyone. Even though the willingness to be accountable is a good thing, those who are not able to be accountable can be the weak links that often jeopardize the combat readiness of their units. Through the culture of accountability, military leaders and team members expect nothing more than absolute responsibility from everyone, even when there is no supervision.
The military has unique ways of building the culture of accountability among its officers. One of the techniques through which the military has perfected the art of accountability is by placing a lot of emphasis on teamwork. When people are not delivering on their assignment, the morale of the whole team is likely to be affected, leading to massive disruptions of operations. According to Ellis (2016), honor and accountability are linked together as a formula for great leadership. Having team leaders who have the mindset of accountability is likely to inspire every team member within an organization to achieve higher levels of performance. This is the formula that has been perfected by the U.S army; where military leaders are people who lead with examples, hence spreading the culture of accountability down to their low-ranking troops. The key to success within the military is engaging with courage, commitment, and caring concern as opposed to motivation by fear, intimidation, and self-preservation. According to Ellis (2016), people within the military often increase their success and elevate the performance of their team members by demonstrating the connection between positive accountability and honorable behavior.
Another vital way to promote accountability within the military is by making everything clear to everybody. The military leaders are often expected to be clear about their firm values, the expectations they have on their juniors and the behaviors that would not be tolerated under what circumstance. The military has specific red lines that are clearly drawn, and no one is expected to cross. The ability to speak clearly about the rules and the expectations not only helps the military officers become better people and better soldiers, but it also trains them to become better leaders of tomorrow. According to Watkins (2017), there should be no surprise why military people make better pollical leaders because they have the discipline and the respect for the rules and values; the kind of package needed to become a good leader.
The military is fashioned in a way that every minute detail matters. Things like making one’s bed in the morning may be considered trivial to a civilian, but to the military, it is an indicator that one is ready to polish off other tasks of the day. Having to accomplish the task of making the bed in the morning is a symbolic gesture which gives military personnel a sense of pride and accomplishment, and this pride is often replicated in other assigned duties of the day. Most importantly, giving much attention to such trivial things helps the military men and women to understand that even the smallest details matter in any assignment before them (Huskey, 2012). A duty like packing a parachute may sound trivial to a civilian, but to the military, there is no room for error because it could be the difference between life and death.
The military relies heavily on certain rituals to maintain the culture of accountability. One of the common rituals among military personnel is the pledge to always work with honor and protect each other in every situation. Such rituals are meant to reinforce the military values of loyalty to their own. Because of such rituals, military personnel would not find it easy to abandon his or her compatriot, no matter of the situation (Klaus, 2016). The purpose of military rituals, according to Ellis (2016) is to create a certain attitude among the military officers. One of the common things among team members is excuses whenever something goes wrong. This is something that is highly unlikely within the military context because every individual must do his or her roles perfectly. People who make genuine mistakes in the course of discharging their duties have been trained to own up and let the whole team know how they got it wrong. This is a culture that is hard to implant into the heads of individuals unless it is a made through rituals like in the case of the military.
Perhaps the most distinctive nature of the military is the ability to face things head-on and face problems as they come. The rules are clear, and people who break the rules know the consequences. In order to achieve this, military leaders have been trained to face their juniors whenever there is a problem and lay down the ground rules (Yingling, 2007). It is important that team members who are not doing the right thing are identified and informed of the consequences of their actions, both to themselves and to the rest of the team members. Military leaders are known not to mince their words, and this has contributed to the development of the culture of accountability.
Military Approach to Correction
The military has special ways of correcting their members whenever they are involved in the violation of the military codes of conduct. However, the general rule of military correction is to ensure that correction leads to training and not humiliation. According to Command Sgt Major Rory Malloy (2013), corrective training is an important and invaluable way for the NCOs to enforce their standards and hold soldiers accountable in whatever they do. However, as Malloy (2013), acknowledges, there is often a thin line between corrective training and humiliation, punishment or hazing. Whenever that line is crossed, the consequences could be far worse than the problems that were being targeted I the first place.
According to the U.S army regulation 600-20, “training, instruction, or correction given to a Soldier to correct deficiencies must be directly related to the deficiency.” In other words, any training or correction must be aimed at improving the overall performance of the soldier in his or her area of assignment. The army Regulation 600-20 further declares that “Care should be taken at all levels of command to ensure that training and instruction are not used in an oppressive manner to evade the procedural safeguards applying to imposing nonjudicial punishment” (Diamond, 2019). The rules are clear that any corrective training meted on army officers should be to correct a deficiency and improve the officer, and not to punish. The punishment of army officers is limited to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Malloy, 2013).
One way of doing corrective training is using certain tricks to instill the time discipline among army officials. For example, an army officer who shows up late to a formation should not be forced to wear a clock around his or her neck for a month because that would amount to humiliation rather than corrective training. The best approach is to force the officer to always report to the formation 10 minutes earlier than the rest of the team until the supervisor is convinced that the officer has overcome the time-keeping deficiency (Esdal, 2015).
Another commonly used corrective training method in the army is to assign soldiers some research projects on the subject areas where they are having shortcomings. Such projects help the soldiers to learn more about how to overcome their shortcomings and why it is important for their professionalism (Diamond, 2019). For example, soldiers who have shortcomings of timekeeping may be assigned some research on the importance of punctuality to the individual and the success of the group.
Another important corrective training often within the military is physical training. This is done to soldiers who show lethargy during formation, and the training is meant to bring them back to a focused state of mind. A soldier who goofs off in the formation may be forced to do a few pushups to get him or her back to focus. Forcing such a soldier to do a hundred pushups is not corrective, but rather punishment.
Living the Army Values
Words such as loyalty, duty, service, honor, integrity, and courage are common, and people often profess them casually. However, it is not often easy to find people who live up to the true meaning of the words. In the military, however, these concepts have been committed to the institution’s core value system (Klaus, 2016). All soldiers are required to not only about these values during their Basic Combat Training, but they are also required to live them every day in everything they do, whether on or off duty. The seven core army values define the true meaning of being a soldier in the United States, and failure to live up to ideals is a betrayal of the uniform.
Loyalty is one of the most important military value that every soldier has to learn and embrace. Through proper training, soldiers learn how to inculcate loyalty within their system and make it a part of their life. The ideals of loyalty expect soldiers to bear true allegiance to the United States Constitution, the Army, the platoon unit and other soldiers. By bearing allegiance, the soldiers are expected to believe in and devote themselves to something (Huskey, 2012). A loyal soldier is one who would support the leadership of the army whatever the cost, and is ready to stand up for fellow soldiers. Having the opportunity to wear the U.S army uniform is an indication that one is ready to express his loyalty and do his share as well as show loyalty to the platoon unit.
Duty is another important military value that every soldier must demonstrate at all the time. Soldiers are trained to have a strong sense of duty in whatever assignment they are given. Having a sense of duty means being able and willing to carry out tasks as assigned as part of fulfilling one’s obligations. A U.S army has a complex nature of work that often combines the elements of mission, tasks and responsibilities, all wrapped up as one. The obligation of a soldier is to do his or her work diligently and help the rest of the team also do their work (Esdal, 2015). Enforcing a sense of duty ensures that soldiers do not take shortcuts since that could undermine the integrity of the final service delivery.
Respect refers to the need to treat people as they deserve to be treated. The soldier’s code of conduct stipulates that soldiers should treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same. Through the value of respect, soldiers can appreciate the best in other people. Within the military, the expectation is that every team member will do his or her job well, as required (Yingling, 2007). Respect is trusting that all the team members have what it takes to do their work and fulfill their duties. Besides respect for others, a soldier must also have the self-suspect required to trust one’s ability and judgment at any given point.
Soldiers are required to always demonstrate selfless service when in their line of duty. The soldiers’ code of conduct stipulates that the soldier puts the welfare of the nation, the army, and the subordinates before his or her own. Soldiers are always trained to do their duties with loyalty, and without thinking about their recognition or gain (Klaus, 2016). The basic requirement for selfless service is the ability to show and demonstrate commitment to each of the team members, and the ability to go an extra mile, endure a little longer for the team.
Integrity is an important part of being a soldier because of the high stakes involved. Every soldier is always trained to do what is right, what is legal and what is moral. Soldiers develop integrity by adhering to moral principles. No soldier is expected to say anything that is misleading or deceiving to the others (Yingling, 2007). As the level of integrity grows, the amount of trust people has on the soldier increases. Lastly, the U.S military emphasizes on the values of personal courage. A soldier is trained to face danger, fear, and adversities with courage. Soldiers go through training that are often meant to help them endure physical duress.
Perhaps one of the valued ideal by soldiers in the United States is the ideal of honor. The country’s highest military award if the Medal of Honor which goes to the soldiers who have made honor a matter of their daily lives. For many soldiers, the ultimate goal is to develop the habit of being honorable and make it a part of everything they are involved in. The ideal of honor combines all the other ideals of military service such as loyalty, selfless service, integrity, and personal courage.
Conclusion
In conclusion, accountability is an important concept that applies to public service, personal life, and military service. Accountability means the responsibility of an individual to account for everything, including actions, decisions, and outcomes. Accountability is a highly valued virtue within the military because of the stakes involved. Lack of accountability can risk the lives of soldiers and sabotage an army operation. To instill the culture of accountability, soldiers are given special training where they are taught how to work as a team, take responsibility for their actions and have the discipline necessary to follow the rules. Corrective training is always used on soldiers who fall short of certain important values, such as punctuality. The military codes of training demand that corrective training should be aimed at improving the soldier, and not just to punish. Accountability is also enforced through the seven military values. The values include integrity, honor, respect, selfless service, loyalty, integrity, and personal courage.
References
Diamond, M. (2019). US Army laser-focused on property accountability. Reverse Logistics Magazine.
Ellis, L. (2016). Engage with Honor: Building a Culture of Courageous Accountability. FreedomStar Media.
Esdal, L. (2015). Lessons on accountability from experiences in the Army. Education Evolving.
Huskey, K. (2012). Accountability for Private Military and Security Contractors in the International Legal Regime. Criminal Justice Ethics, 31(3):193-212.
Klaus, L. C. (2016). Transforming armed forces through military transparency: Open government challenges in a world of secrecy, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10 (1): 99-119,
Malloy, R. (2013). From the CSM: Correction Should Train, Not Humiliate. NCO Journal.
Ricks, T. (2012). Command and Accountability: Charting the erosion of senior officer responsibility. Armed Forces Journal.
Watkins, S. (2017). Seven Lessons from the Military About Creating a Culture of Accountability. Investors Business Daily.
Yingling, P. (2007). A failure in Generalships. Armed Forces Journal.