The Four Most Important Words In Human Relations

Following orders is one of the most important things you do being in the Army, or any branch in the armed services, enlisted or reserve. Obedience is what enables the military to operate in an organized and effective manner which is clearly very important during challenging military situations. While many individuals can question the notion of obedience in daily their life, this luxury is often not available to us in the military, where the grand goals and aims require smooth internal functioning and coordination throughout the chain of command. Indeed, many of the standards that put up with and endure would be frowned upon outside the military, yet they are essential to our work's success within. For example, punishment is never really deemed to be a positive occurrence in an average person’s life, whereas in the military, it is meant to strengthen one's determination and instill discipline. It also enables a person to learn and fully take on the importance of following orders in. Not following orders is not an optional choice that we in the armed forces can make upon signing that contract. In fact, the act of the act of disobedience is considered to be an infraction and a person who placed himself in such a situation can find himself facing negative counseling statements, or smoking’s. Thus, respect and obedience is of the utmost significance in the military as it helps

Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1-0 states, “living by and upholding the moral principles of the Army Ethic” is the foundation to our profession. An organization cannot survive if there are no foundation for morals. The organization will internally implode. This is a critical fact for the Army. Individuals that do not have a foundation that aligns with the Army’s foundation is detrimental to the organization. The purpose for this short paper is to explore the fundamentals of our profession; examine the need for structure; how to return to basics of the profession; who needs to enforce standards; finally, implementing a culture change within the Army. Army leaders have categorized the four problems that currently plague the Army

“Military leadership qualities are formed in a progressive and sequential series of carefully planned training, educational, and experiential events—far more time-consuming and expensive than similar training in industry or government. Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, military leadership is based on a concept of duty,

Remember that culture is the way things are done at a certain place and it derives mostly from the ethics, and priorities that an organization sets. We also examined the chain of command within the Army. There are chains of command in every workplace but the Army’s is a very complicated system and it allows everybody to know their roles within the organization, it also allows people to advance which boosts morale and self-esteem. This paper also informed about the Operations Process which is the way that decisions and missions are carried out within the Army. Remember that there are four parts of the Ops Process that can be applied to any task in our daily lives; Plan, Prepare, Execute and Assess. In conclusion, even though people may not think of America’s soldiers as managers, they are. They are managers because from day one they are forced into leadership roles and they are taught these management processes. The Army requires Specialists and Corporals to complete 80 hours of training, called Structured Self Development (SSD), in order to be eligible for promotion to Sergeant. The training teaches the Army culture, management styles, Army regulations and more. It is very important to teach all workers at every level, how to effectively manage and lead because eventually they will be the ones making the calls and tough

There is a multitude of different power within the military. The most utilized power in the military is the coercive power, or the leader’s perceived ability to punish. You often see this in the military because of our different laws highlighted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Followers tend to fall in line when the leader giving direction is capable of punishing their insubordination. This level of power is given to people as they progress in rank and is respected among followers but is not necessarily influential. The military requires its members to comply with the rank of those appointed above them and therefore by military law you must follow lawful orders or receive the appropriate level punishment. However, this does not guarantee you the influence of a more charismatic leader. Followers are receptive by force, but the quality of work suffers because followers are doing the bare minimum. They may follow the orders, but they would not

The military although tangled in many variations of culture all have an underlining base of warrior ethos that are in place to insure mission success. It offers individuals a unique bond/camaraderie, professional ethics and value system. Another large part of the culture is how extremely hierarchical it is, meaning that a person’s rank and time in service plays a large part of how you interact with them. It is also said that the military defends the Constitution; it does not emulate it. There are strict rules limiting freedom of speech and association all with the intent to maintain good order and discipline.

Doctrine and training practices have changed to improve through lessons learned and time tested methods. We as volunteers create a sense of identity with one another through training and shared experience to build a community within the Army. We learn as a group to overcome obstacles, rely on each other in field environments and build a team from a small group. Basic rifle marksmanship also sets the Army aside as we must be proficient to complete the training required of us. “A sense of community broadens Soldiers identity by developing the I into the we.” (Putnam, 1993). We learn from our leaders the ethics and creeds that inspire us and make us want to succeed and become leaders and mentors for future generations. “Leaders at all levels can set the conditions for ethical and virtuous behavior is rewarded and unethical behavior is punished. Leaders can also create normative pressures to align ethical behaviors by communicating the values and ideals of the unit that all Soldiers are expected to honor”. (Brown, 2005). Leaders at all levels must foster a climate of shared beliefs that honor the Army

In the history of our great nation, the one constant factor that has separated us from the rest of the world has been the Core Values that we uphold as a nation. The military service has to uphold these values at all times, as both our citizens and the citizens of countries worldwide look up to us to do so. Charles W. Pickering states, “A healthy democracy requires a decent society; it requires that we are honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful” (Pickering, Unknown). By not upholding the values of our society, the reputation of our military, and ultimately that of our country suffers. The way that our Army abides by these Core Values is a set of standards known as the Army Values. The Army Values is the code by which all Soldiers

Toxic Leadership by Colonel George E. Reed highlights destructive leadership and the effects on moral, retention, and unit effectiveness. Toxic Leadership is a new term for an old problem that has plagued the Army for generations. Accurately identifying Toxic leadership, and making Toxic Leaders responsible for their actions are the first steps in minimizing this dilemma. Accurately identifying Toxic leadership is not black and white. A Soldier may feel his immediate supervisor is toxic; another Soldier on the same team may be inspired by his leadership. This different interpretation of leadership effectiveness is a result of different backgrounds, cultures, experience, and maturity. Toxic Leadership can be the obvious bully or the soft-spoken

Disinterest of the American people left the constitutional structure of military leadership unrefined by further enactment (Huntington 8). The Founding Fathers built the United States on a system of checks and balances to protect the people against one entity having too much power, after all the saying goes “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Although ingrained into the core lifestyle of the American populace, it would be a mistake to take this protection for granted. A lack of supervision coupled with growing distaste and distance from the civilian sector could result in a military that has an enormous amount of power over foreign war strategy. Despite the disagreement of many American, the United States continues to play a major role in world interests and activities (Mackenzie). Lack of civilian political leader control is a danger to democracy (Weber 101). That is not to say if left unchecked the civil-military divide will warp into a strong military state, rather that the military has a more immediate impact on foreign relation and represents the United States in many countries around the world. Controlled primarily by immediate military supervisors, the nation depends on them to dutifully obey orders given thousands of miles

The Army profession is an institute of standards and values, where the Army has adopted the culture of the Army professional. As society continues to evolve in the 21st Century, the Army profession is struggling to sustain trust and the moral identity of a leader. The Army as a profession is inclusive trust to which leaders reinforce through actions. Since the closing of the 2016 presidential elections, there have been extensive debates on the morals of the government and those that lead it. Controversial topics of collusion and the questioning of the integrity of the government have made it difficult for leaders to sustain the identity of the Army profession. Leaders that lack a solid foundation of character, competence, and commitment weaken organizational trust and decrease long-term results. This papers intent is to heighten the importance of investing in our leaders to secure organizational trust.

The way leaders interact and manage people has a direct bearing on employees’ job performance and satisfaction. Too often in the USAF many leaders employ an authoritative leadership style at the expense of people. Others fail to engage their followers at all. The assumption in the USAF is that

In the military, effective leadership is on a contingent amongst several performance capabilities. More complex relationships among power, influence tactics and influential outcomes do exist. (Wisecarver, Schneider, Foldes, & Cullen, 2011) Hard influence tactics such as pressure, coalitions, and legitimating are more likely to result in compliance. On the other hand, softer tactics such as rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation result in more people joining the military. These tactics are also more effective at influencing others. Researchers suggest that using multiple influence tactics can be useful, but have not yet delineated the best approaches. (Friestad & Wright, 1994) There

The leadership styles that best suits the Officer’s and Non-Commissioned Officer’s in my unit is a combination of autocratic and democratic styles. The Lewin, Lippit, and White studies defined the autocratic style as the use of strong, directive actions to control the rules, regulations, activities, and relationships in the work environment and democratic defined as interactions and collaboration with followers to direct work and the work environment. Followers have a high degree of discretionary influence, although the leader has ultimate authority and responsibility (Nelson, Quick 195). Even though the military is made up of a chain of command we as Leaders still have to be mindful that we are dealing with human beings. That many

Leaders can be influential to their soldiers through psychological and institutional level. First, by being a “strong” person who embodies the ideals of the society, such as having “charisma”, being able to convene political negotiations, having a good personality and people managing skills, a leader can serve as a mental foundation of the unit that holds people from having emotional breakdowns. “Charisma” needs to be differentiated with authoritarianism, in that it may