Military Professionalism - United States Air Force Academy

Pierce, James G. Is the Organizational Culture of the U.S. Army Congruent with the
Professional Development of its Senior Level Officer Corps? Letort Paper Series.
Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Sept. 2,
2010.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA528831
Dr. Pierce postulates that the ability of a professional organization to develop future
leaders in a manner that perpetuates readiness to cope with future environmental and
internal uncertainty depends on organizational culture. He examines the degree of
congruence between the Army’s organizational culture and the leadership and managerial
skills of its officer corps senior leaders. At the macro level, the results of his research
strongly suggest a significant lack of congruence between the U.S. Army’s organizational
culture and the results of its professional development programs for its future strategic
leaders. Dr. Pierce recommends that the leaders of the Army profession initiate an
organizational culture change effort. Specifically, he recommends changes to the more
informal aspects of the professional development program, such as the less-than-lifelong
commitment to the Army profession, the “up-or-out” personnel policy, and the officer
evaluation system which may be creating an underlying assumption that failure will not
be tolerated regardless of the circumstances. In the current culture, senior leaders may be
exercising an excessive degree of structured supervision which reinforces the culture of
stability and control despite the formal education system which attempts to teach the
opposite. Therefore, it is not surprising that junior professionals learn to distrust their
senior leaders and to then subsequently perpetuate the cycle of over-control or depart the
profession altogether.
Reese, Thomas H. “An Officer’s Oath.” Military Law Review 25 (July 1964): 1-41.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/276073~1.pdf
“It may be concluded that an officer has the duty to be familiar with the Constitution to
which he has sworn fidelity, for his first allegiance is to the Constitution. A
commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the United States, like his civilian
counterpart, is accountable to the law as it is judicially determined to be notwithstanding
his standard of ‘implicit obedience.’ Furthermore, officers of the Armed Forces of the
United States must act in compliance with the directives of competent authorities.
Finally, it is incumbent upon the command structure of the United States Armed Forces
to provide information to its officers to keep them well informed on constitutional
matters and to provide fresh, rigorous, and imaginative courses of instruction on the
meaning of an officer's oath during all phases of career schooling. National preservation
will be sustained by adherence to the principles of the Constitution which time has
proven to be equal to the changing stresses that have affected our nation.”
21