Thoughts on: Lying to ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army profession.
BLUF: The demands placed on military leaders are stringent, and honesty does not always win.
This week, while drafting a chapter for a report, I was reminded of a paper published ten years ago that remains highly relevant. The paper outlines the challenges military leaders face in attempting to complete all mandatory training requirements. It critiques the practice of making everything mandatory and relying on delegation, noting that leaders will often pencil-whip requirements they cannot realistically accomplish in order to avoid being penalized later.
In one—albeit dated—example, the authors note that it would take an active-duty unit 297 days to complete all mandatory training requirements, despite having only 256 available training days on the calendar. In the Reserve Component this equates to approximately five years to complete one years worth of requirements.
Why this matters: In the current context (e.g., the sunsetting of TASP and other evolving requirements), we are seeing the Army remove prescriptive requirements and instead place responsibility for determining Soldier needs squarely in the hands of commanders. This shift means that efforts aimed at supporting military leaders must demonstrate clear and immediate value if they are to be adopted and sustained.
Wong, L., & Gerras, S. J. (2015). Lying to ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army profession (Monograph No. 1465). U.S. Army War College Press.
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1465&context=monographs
