The Army Values Challenge
2001; The MIT Press; Volume: 81; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0026-4148
Autores Tópico(s)Military History and Strategy
ResumoISSUING AN Values card to every soldier is easy but leaders must ensure complianceconsistent demonstration of Values by all soldiers. US Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Leadership, clearly states that when it comes to values, internalization rather than demonstration is the goal.1 Rote memorization of definition is not enough. There must be a deeper understanding of the spirit behind the rules. He in lies the Valses challenge-how should the train and measure values internalization? The historical basis for Values stems largely rom moral questions raised,by the Vietnam War and subsequent incidents that indicate a need for clearly stated values actively incorporated into training.2 Current thinking reflects this understanding. Retired US Chief of Staff General Dennis J. Reimer writes, Army values build strong cohesive organizations that in turn become the source of strength and solidarity for their members in difficult and turbulent times.3 FM 22-100 states, Army values form the very identity of America's Army, the solid rock upon which everything else stands.4 Ultimately, the established the seven Values outlined in FM 22-100 and printed on the Values card. They are well founded, having appropriate and reassuring similarities to universally accepted moral imperatives. Summarizing the work of philosopher Bernard Gert, author Rushworth M. Kidder ientifies 10 universal imperatives: do not kill; do not cause pain; do not disable; do not deprive of freedom or opportunity; do not deprive of pleasure; do not deceive; keep promises; do not cheat; obey the law; and do duty.5 Kidder also identifies a smaller set of basic commands that have countless applications in business and politics and that hold true in all great world religions: do not kill; do not lie; do not steal; do not practice immorality; respect parents; an4 love children.6 The Challenge There is no way to know soldiers' values when they enter the military. FM 22-100 explains, your job as a leader would be a great deal easier if you could check the values of a new Department of the civilian or a soldier the way medics check teeth or ran blood tests. You could figure out what values were missing... and administer the right combination, maybe with an injection or magic pill. And, although the mandate to leaders is for soldiers to internalize Values, there are no proven means to either train or measure their internalization. Recent findings of three independent research organizations indicate that current leaders hold different values from those held by the nation's youth-the next generation of soldiers. More troubling, the two sets of values are continuing to diverge. During surveys conducted in both 1997 and 1998, the Bama Research Group determined that 75 percent of adult Americans do not believe in absolute standards of right and wrong behavior and 65 percent do not believe in unchanging moral truths.' Barna also determined that the most effective form of education these days is behavioral modeling, indicating that people are most prone to, recall what they have seen others do rather than memorize what has been read or said by others. Finally, the surveys determined that young adults from 18 to 32 years old are the least likely to believe in absolute behavioral standards or unchanging moral truths.9 During a 1998 study the Josephson Institute, a public-benefit, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization advocating principled reasoning and ethical decision making, determined that the majority of high school youth freely admit to lying, cheating and stealing within the past year and yet see nothing wrong with their own ethics and character.10 The findings of this survey, one of the largest ever to focus on the ethics of young people, including more than 20,000 middle and high-school respondents revealed that almost all teenagers admit to lying. Of high-school students surveyed, 92 percent said they had lied at least once in the past year. …
Referência(s)