2.5
The Ethics of Warfare

Within the Army Ethic, the U.S. Army Values play an important role in all three pillars of the ethic: servants, experts, and stewards. The ethic finds its unique origins in American culture shared between Soldiers and the American people, as well as the laws the government compels it to adhere to. Culture and Law, however, were not enough to restore the people's trust in their Army after the Vietnam War. The establishment and purporting of ethical standards within the Army, alongside the All-Volunteer force structure, sought to turn Soldiers into not just competent warriors but also ethical warfighters who understood, at least tangentially, that each member was a representative of the force and whose actions reflect the Army as a whole.

The current Army Values are inculcated into every new Soldier going through basic training and are reinforced in their training and evaluations as they progress through their careers. Soldiers, except for the newest recruits, are able to recite the seven Army Values in their proper order and without pause. The seven values, Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage, create an apronym (an acronym that spells a word), and together, these values spell "LDRSHIP." Like any other character values, these are concepts that don't adhere to strict objective assessments and are sometimes open to interpretation when ethical conundrums appear. In this way, they are as subjective as they are objective, but the way they are taught in classes, referenced in hypotheticals, or showcased in historical anecdotes, we develop a shared understanding of what they mean. Each of the following seven values will have their conceptual definition as it is written in the Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1-0: The Army Profession from June 2015. We will then discuss the purpose of the value for the Army and how such a conceptual value can benefit organizations in the business world.

Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit. (B-5)

Loyalty can also be viewed as adopting the interests of those you are loyal to. In the case of the Army, one shows loyalty to others by aligning their actions so that they accomplish ends that are in the organization's best interests instead of their own. For the Constitution, keeping its intent and codification of rights at the forefront of decisioning-making is critical. For the Army, being a good steward of the profession is important. For the unit, it is through understanding the organization's mission, commander's intent, and the concept of operation that they can tailor their own actions to support them. For one's fellow Soldiers, it is through encouraging their success, holding them accountable when they falter, and supporting them when they need assistance.

Loyalty shouldn’t be misconstrued as synonymous with obedience. In the past, obedience was the hallmark of a good soldier in all professional armies throughout the world, as it was seen as the best practice for armies to be successful on the battlefield simply to follow the orders of their superior officers exactly. Officers were seen as both intelligent and having a greater sense of situational awareness and understanding of battlefield conditions, and it was through their orders that the mass of humanity that was a military unit could be coordinated to defeat a threat. Soldiers were from the lowest classes of society and were often poor, uneducated, and criminal, and the only reason they were professional was through blind obedience to the orders of their officers. As battlefields became more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous through the advent of new technologies, and the education of the general populous of industrialized nations improved, the rank-in-file soldiers of these nations became more respected and less detested as the dregs of society.

The requirement of obedience was the same for U.S. Army Soldiers up through the First World War, where obedience could still be found mentioned in their training manuals. Around the time of the Second World War, we saw the shift from obedience to loyalty, which started to be promoted as the hallmark of a good soldier, alongside other skills that were pertinent to what we would now refer to as professionalism. Nowadays, obedience is only referenced in terms of compliance to lawful orders when time doesn't allow for the development of a greater course of action, and it must be done immediately, a non-ideal situation to begin with. Other than that, obedience can now be seen as a potential detriment.

What I mean by obedience being detrimental is that as battlefields become more complex, officers no longer could be looked towards having the best situational awareness and understanding of the battlefield. Sometimes, the lowest-ranking soldiers on the frontline had the most up-to-date information on a situation, and time wouldn't allow for superior officers to be informed and probed for guidance. As a result, the warfighter on the front needed to act in the best interests of the organization's mission and its people, even if they had to deviate from plans or disobey orders. Standing orders may no longer achieve the desired ends or the commander's intent, given the new information being perceived while still being obedient to those orders would see failure and be detrimental to the organization. This is the primary reason for the abandonment of obedience and the adoption of loyalty, as loyalty allows the individual to have some level of autonomy so that they can adjust as necessary to achieve mission success, whereas obedient Soldiers will "do as they are told" right into mission failure; even if they are critically aware being obedient will cause the failure.

In the next Chapter 3.0: Business Operations with Military Concepts, I will discuss the concept of "Mission Command" in greater detail, but the basics of it is that mission command allows superiors to provide orders or tasks to subordinates, and those subordinates are given some leeway to accomplish them. The superior requires trust in their subordinate that they will work towards accomplishing the superior's intent and will voice their concerns or issues if they arise as well. The superior believes the subordinate is competent in their job and will use critical judgment when going about their work. The subordinate, likewise, has trust in their superior that they will support their decision, even if it fails if it was made in good faith, and that the subordinate understands what the superior's intent is. Basically, mission command requires a shared understanding of the situation and trust to be successful in these volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous battlefields of our contemporary era, but trust requires loyalty, which is where this value comes in.

Business examples, as we just alluded to, will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter, but fostering a sense of loyalty is important when the marketplace is also complex. In internet forums, you may have heard of the concept of "malicious compliance," where an employee or contractor, after having voiced their concerns about the boss's desired course of action, is simply told, "Just do as I say." The person who engages in malicious compliance, understanding the reality of the situation, will simply give in to the directive and do as they are told, even though they know it will fail and potentially cost the business capital, delays, or even damage equipment. The boss, in these cases, fosters an environment of obedience which is counter to the interests of the business itself. Better to foster loyalty by encouraging employees and contractors to voice their concerns when they are involved in actions that impact the business, take their thoughts into consideration, and show that their contributions and competency are valued and that if they fail, they will not be "thrown under the bus" if they thought what they were doing was for the benefit of the business. By fostering loyalty in the workforce, you develop people who can feel free to think critically, adjust courses of action that are within their scope to correct perceived problems and be flexible when a rush is on.

Duty: Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a team. The work of the U.S. Army is a complex combination of missions, tasks, and responsibilities — all in constant motion. Our work entails building one assignment onto another. You fulfill your obligations as a part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take "shortcuts" that might undermine the integrity of the final product. (B-5)

For the Army, and indeed for any military service, we don't necessarily have the "not in my job description" type of mentality. Of course, our occupational specialties provide us the training and expertise to fulfill the tasks of our assigned duty positions, but the reality of military service and the dangerous environments we operate in means that often we have to accomplish tasks outside our traditional duties and at the behest of the commander, staff, and the organization. We cross-train with other Soldiers to learn how to accomplish their duties, not only to familiarize ourselves with what they provide the team but also to cover down on their duties should they go on leave, be incapacitated, or be killed. Unlike in the business world, we anticipate and prepare for the possibility of our people being wounded or killed. While injury or death in the business workplace would be grounds for grinding business operations to a halt in order to access safety protocols and render aid, in combat, this is when the enemy is going to pressure you the most. Doing only what is in your job description could get people killed and endanger the mission, and would be considered failing to do your duty.

Because of the severity of the consequences associated with military operations, even in training, when we maneuver multi-ton war machines in simulated combat, we take standard operating procedures, step-action drills, and processes very seriously. As mentioned in Chapter 2.2: On Training, we "train as we fight," and we need to replicate our training as close to real combat as possible since we all have a tacit understanding that what we do purposefully in training will become instinctual in the chaos of combat. We focus on developing our procedures, drills, and processes as we train so that when we are thrust into chaos, we "fall back on our training" as a matter of habit. This means that during training or daily operations, when we may be tempted to cut corners or do things half-assed, it is our duty to avoid that temptation because such bad habits will surface in the chaos of war and endanger our people and the mission.

Additionally, we understand that no action occurs in a vacuum and that all actions conducted are only a part of a greater action or operation. We fulfill our duty when we support a task to its fullest, covering down when a comrade falls and accomplishing the task to the best of our ability because we know that a single task is but an element of something greater. If you know something needs to be done for the success of the organization, and you are the only one capable of accomplishing it, then it is your duty to do so. If you are incapable, it is your duty to find someone else who can or inform your superiors so they can make the appropriate decisions. Every task assigned to the organization has its purpose, and this is in some way tied to the purpose of the organization and how it supports its higher echelon. It is one's duty to support a task and fulfill one's obligations, as failing to do so hinders the success of the organization to varying degrees.

In the business sphere, as we have mentioned throughout War Is My Business, the consequences of success or failure in business endeavors are not as severe as that of warfare. Nonetheless, it does have consequences on the business organization itself, its employees and contractors, and the communities they serve. Just like in the military, every task assigned to departments, teams, or individual employees serves a greater purpose for the business organization, and tasks are rarely an end in themselves. When the finance department is told to develop a financial forecast for the next fiscal year, that task in some way becomes an input to some other activity or department, such as marketing or research and development, when they conduct their planning for the future. When a team is assigned the loading of products into the trucks, they must load it according to their standard operating procedures and processes for how to properly load shipments; otherwise, failing to do so may result in improper weight distribution and instability in the stacks could cause later injury and death, or damage to products when the load collapses during transit or unloading procedures. The individual who is driving the shipment of products must follow their own training on procedures and drills for the proper maintenance of their vehicle and how to quickly and safely change out flat tires. Otherwise, the shipment may not arrive on time to the distributor or client.

This is why the mentality of the "not in my job description" type of person is dangerous for an organization. Now, I fully understand that the civilian sector may operate under a very strict scope of work or contractual description of duties, and they may not be permitted to deviate from what is explicitly stated. However, even if they are not permitted the necessary autonomy to cover tasks outside their scope, they may still be permitted to inform teammates and supervisors of any potential problems outside their scope. Remember, every task has its purpose, and failing to support a task to the best of one's ability may endanger the business to some degree, and even Mr. "Not In My Job Description" may soon be out of the job if the business ultimately fails. Generally speaking, it is in everyone's best interest that the business succeeds, and to support this, it is everyone's duty to support those tasks.

The best way to foster a sense of duty in the workplace is twofold. First, by giving departments, teams, and individuals the commensurate freedom to tackle tasks within their realm of expertise and to promote familiarization with other personnel's duties so that they can support one another when they need additional assistance, go on vacation, or call in sick. This will also provide people the ability to view the bigger picture of how the organization functions and will give them the knowledge necessary to see when problems may be surfacing that need to be corrected. Second, by promoting the first value (loyalty) you create a body of people who have placed the interests of the organization alongside their own. They have a vested interest in the success of the whole team and seek to improve the organization as a matter of principle. Loyal employees and contractors will want to do their duty because doing so supports the business.

Respect: Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier's Code, we pledge to "treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same." Respect is what allows us to appreciate the best in other people. Respect is trusting that all people have done their jobs and fulfilled their duty. And self-respect is a vital ingredient with the Army value of respect, which results from knowing you have put forth your best effort. The Army is one team and each of us has something to contribute. (B-5)

The Army, as it is for the other Services, requires effective teamwork to function. Everyone has a role to play in the success of their unit in the tasks that they are assigned by that unit, and, ultimately, the nation. The contribution of each member varies to a degree, but all members are important, otherwise, there would be little reason to equip, train, and put in harm's way a person who serves little purpose for the unit.

Since the Army operates as a series of teams working in a coordinated effort to accomplish difficult tasks, a certain level of trust must be placed in fellow Soldiers. If we weren't able to trust other Soldiers to do their duty, then each member would constantly have to stop doing their tasks to check with others to make sure they are doing theirs, which would reduce the efficiency of the organization. A Soldier would feel insulted to be constantly questioned about whether they did their job, and their loyalty would wane in the face of leadership or team members who questioned their competency and dedication to duty. As a result, one aspect of respect involves having trust in the competency of others. This doesn't preclude checking progress and offering assistance with difficult tasks, but in those cases, the focus is on providing support instead of questioning ability.

The self-respect aspect of this value is about understanding one's own capacities, strengths, and limitations within our team-centric organizations. We acknowledge that we are not perfect, and at times, we may need assistance in tasks, additional training to build competency, as well as the personal courage necessary to admit when something is beyond our capacity to accomplish. There are, however, individuals who have it in their nature to question themselves on everything they do and to beat themselves down at every perceived failure or inadequacy. The reason why self-respect is important is that people who don't respect themselves don't improve themselves. They may give up on tasks, never put themselves out there for opportunities, feel bad when requesting necessary support, and constantly put themselves in a state of worry and hesitancy when action is required. Self-respect is important because, without it, this type of person is a burden on the team.

A nation's army is a collectivist and team-oriented organization, as that is what is necessary to win battles according to the principles of warfare: mass, maneuver, unity of effort, unity of command, etc. However, the U.S. Army and its Army Ethic are also a product of American culture, which created one of the most individualistic societies in human history. American individualism is not necessarily a problem for the U.S. Army if the Army Values have been properly adopted by each Soldier. The American Soldier is still very much individually focused, but instead of focusing on what is best for themselves, they think about how best to harness their own potential for the benefit of the team. Or, to paraphrase the famous quote from President John F. Kennedy, ask not what your Army can do for you but what you can do for your Army.

The American Soldier, being an individualist, having loyalty to the Army, doing their duty, and showing respect for themselves, will believe that the Army is better with them serving it. They believe that when they improve themselves, they improve the Army ever so slightly. The biggest thing that kills this mentality, however, is disrespect. Just as in any other community in the United States, if the community doesn't have respect for one another, then they can't operate effectively when collective effort is required; the nature of the Army's structure and mission simply make this reality apparent.

For businesses, respect is important to build the same team dynamic that we have in the Army. Obviously, the departments, teams, and employees of a business have to rely only on others to accomplish their assigned tasks, but nothing builds the team spirit more than feeling like you are a trusted and valued member of the team. Conversely, nothing kills the team spirit more than having your motives, competency, and sense of worth questioned by supervisors or team members. Business leadership should focus on the best ways to harness their people without stifling their individualism. Naturally, inculcating a sense of loyalty and duty to the business and fellow employees will help, but it also offers the ability for the individual to improve themselves in various ways, which also builds a sense of loyalty.

Any displays of disrespect must be corrected as soon as they are witnessed without being disrespectful yourself. The individual who disrespects others may not necessarily be aware of the damage it can cause to the morale of the team and its overall goals, but we must educate and reform the individual in such a way that they still sense they are part of the team as well. It requires tact to leverage just the right amount of influence to show someone has erred without making them feel ashamed or devalued within the organization.

For example, amongst men, we often crack jokes at each other's expense as a form of bonding, which does build a sense of camaraderie by making fun of each other's potential inadequacies; however, in an attempt to bring women into the fold, the female recipient may feel disrespected. Amongst women, on the other hand, they engage in more self-deprecating humor in order to bond with each other by showcasing some of their own inadequacies in a safe and supporting environment; however, when attempting to bond with men, they may appear self-flagellating and weak. Amongst men and women, strangely enough, problems can be compounded as a gentle ribbing by a man may be seen as purposefully insulting to the female psyche, and a self-deprecating joke by a woman may be seen as an inferiority complex to the male psyche. As a leader in either a military or business environment, dealing with personnel engaged in these various activities, they need to be able to determine when activity is either purposefully or unintentionally disrespectful to prevent the fallout without damaging their efforts to build their closeness. Keeping conversation "professional" in the workplace is often the best course of action to maintain respect.

Selfless Service: Put the welfare of the nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each team member to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort. (B-5)

Just as loyalty requires the individual to align their interests with that of the Constitution, the Army, the unit, and one's comrades, the other side of the coin is the suppression of one's own interests and gain for that of others. To be loyal and do one's duty as a servicemember requires a certain sense of selflessness in order to support the purpose of the organization. The interest of any one human is to be safe and sound in their home, surrounded by a loving family, but war requires struggle and sacrifice. For any nation's military to succeed in war, it will require leveraging personnel, equipment, munitions, and capital in battle, where the interests of the state and its political objectives take precedence. Selfless service is about understanding this danger and still giving it your all.

While the dual application of loyalty and duty will produce a person who prioritizes the organization over themselves and does more than their share to ensure success, selfless service adds the acknowledgment that excellence and dedication in service are not meant for personal gain. Indeed, there are many benefits to service for a Soldier and their family: steady pay, retirement and life insurance benefits, health and dental coverage, tuition assistance for higher education, and a handful of others, as well as for some Americans in poorer communities without economic opportunities, military service is the best option available. Whatever extrinsic value may be earned through service, after coming to understand and adopting the Army Values as a Soldier, those become tangential to service. What I mean to say is that the most important value gained from service becomes the intrinsic value of being the best Soldier one can be. The pay exists because Soldiers need to feed and house their families, and if they didn't get paid, they would have to leave the service to find employment in the private sector. Soldiers get retirement and good life insurance so that they can focus on developing themselves instead of worrying about the uncertainty of the future after military service or if they should die or sustain debilitating injuries. Health and dental coverage for the Soldier helps maintain the strength of the Soldier and their family so they can focus on their unit. Money for college may be used, even if the Soldier doesn't plan on making the military a career, but having an educated body of servicemembers is a benefit for an ever-technologically advancing military force, and, when they separate, they can better support the nation through other avenues.

All of these extrinsic benefits in some way free a Soldier to focus on improving themselves and their organizations by removing some of the worry and preoccupation with their personal lives that detract for many in the civilian world, but I would foolish not admit that there is always a little bit of selfishness there. The Army, and the military force as a whole, doesn't necessarily want its personnel to burn themselves out, sacrificing everything for their units; we want them to have a good work/life balance. Rest and relaxation, spending time with family and friends, developing hobbies, and planning for their future in and outside the military. Indeed, while we don't want people to base every decision upon the internal motivator of how their actions can best improve their future prospects, we still require them to take an active role in their own career progression. We want them to push for those necessary schools that are required for their professional military education and will look desirable for their promotion boards and evaluations because we want our personnel entering into the higher ranks with greater responsibility to be a higher caliber of Soldier. We want them to care about themselves and look out for their own interests to the extent that it benefits the Army; if that makes sense.

In business, predominantly speaking, everyone is in their position for self-interest: selfishness vs selflessness. It may be appropriate to say that within the business, the entrepreneurs of small businesses, family-run stores, and those engaged with non-profits may be selfless in their service to their organizations since they have a direct vested interest in the success of the enterprise or cause. Employees and contractors, however, may predominantly view the organization as a source of a paycheck or commission, and while they may be loyal, it is because the business continues to pay them or they have some relationship with the people who work there. The value of selflessness in business is that it compels people's actions toward what is best for the business, but most people in business are in it for justifiably selfish reasons; there is no harm in that fact. Non-profit charities, however, may have a better possibility of encouraging selflessness in their workers by having some noble cause to support, but the people that they contract out to help accomplish the purpose of their charity may themselves only do so for their own selfish reasons.

In this case, we are mainly concerned about the consequences of selfish behavior negatively impacting business operations. To compensate for the inherent selfishness in the private sector, we can leverage that selfishness in such a way where their self-interest is best served while serving the interests of the organization. For example, while employees may have joined for a paycheck, they may be further motivated to benefit the company if there are bonuses tied to success metrics or they are awarded stock options. Either way, by serving the interests of the business, improving profits, and creating value, they serve their own interests as well. Additionally, by promoting a sense of intrinsic value in the quality of one's work, as well as supporting employees with managed career development plans, you create a person whose future as a skilled professional and member of the team compels them to work in a more selfless way for the betterment of the organization.

Honor: Live up to Army values. The nation's highest military award is The Medal of Honor. This award goes to Soldiers who make honor a matter of daily living — Soldiers who develop the habit of being honorable, and solidify that habit with every value choice they make. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do. (B-5)

The Army Values are the foundational principles that guide ethical military behavior, or at least as it is adopted and professed by the U.S. Army. The other elements that make up the Army Ethic are the adherence to external sources, such as principles professed in the nation's founding documents, the regulations and laws of war that ethics compels the Army to comply with, as well as the expected and desired behaviors shared within American culture. The value of honor, as it is described in the Army Values, is somewhat self-referential. The only way to be honorable is to "live up to the Army Values," but that is only done through adhering to the other six values. Therefore, one is labeled as dishonorable if they violate any of those other six values, which means a Soldier can never only ever violate one Army Value; as they would also violate honor in the process.

The description of honor shows reverence to the Medal of Honor, the highest award any military servicemember can earn; however, it only mentions that it is given to those who make it a habit in their daily lives and through their choices in every situation. It must be noted, however, that this is not a U.S. Army award but an award given by the U.S. Congress and presented through the U.S. President as the Commander-in-Chief to any Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Airman, Coast Guardsmen, or Guardian that met the criteria; hence the official title of the "Congressional Medal of Honor." As a result, the Medal of Honor has its own criteria that go beyond simply living honorably in the way it is defined in the Army Values, which generally includes 1) being engaged in combat with an adversary of the United States, 2) going above and beyond one's duties, and 3) displaying bravery and risking one's life to support others and/or the mission.

In the case above, the Army makes reference to the Medal of Honor merely as a display of honor in the most extreme situations. The showcase of loyalty to the unit and brothers and sisters; the fulfillment of duties above and beyond what is expected of the average Soldier; the display of selflessness to such an extent as to risk or sacrifice one's own life; and the courage necessary to push past the fear and accomplish the task under fire, these are Army Values displayed to the highest order in the most extreme situations. Therefore, the reason why the Medal of Honor is referred to in the Army's description of honor is to place the recipients of those awards as exemplars, people to look up to for inspiration and who can serve as role models. From the prestigious Medal of Honor to the most humble Certificate of Appreciation, their purpose is to display ethics in their various forms and degrees. Indeed, part of the awards process for any level of award given out to people in the military and in the civilian world, other than recognition to the individual for doing a good job, is to showcase to the rest of the organization what they did was desirable and that their example should be followed.

If honor for U.S. Army Soldiers is about living up to their own values, which are a foundational aspect of their own ethics, we can extrapolate that honor, in the general sense, is about living ethically at all times. A person who adheres to their own ethical framework, even when the situation may benefit them to deviate, could be seen as an honorable person if we judge them by their own ethics. Yes, people's ethics may differ between professions and cultures, but honor requires individuals to view themselves as part of a greater community that they, as individuals, must abide by. It requires a mixture of pride and shame. Pride in that they view themselves as an ethical person who shouldn't deviate from their socially expected behavior and personal moral guidelines and will be viewed accordingly, and shame in that they have a painful cognitive response to the thought of the humiliation or distress that can be brought about by breaking their own morals and ethics.

In business, we don't use the term honor as much since it is often associated with military achievements or traditional social views on family and religion. However, we do still see the trappings of honor carried out if you know where to look. Again, honor is about adhering to one's ethics in all cases, so any employee, agent, contractor, or whatnot that adheres to ethics when it would have benefited them to deviate could be considered honorable. A salesman who could easily convince a customer to buy a product or service but decided not to because they understand that it would not benefit the customer's overall interest could be considered honorable if they had a fiduciary responsibility to the customer. However, it could also be considered honorable to make that sale if their fiduciary responsibility was to the company. Depending on whom their ethics consider a fiduciary will determine where one's loyalties lie, but a key component of honor is tied to sticking to ethics in spite of personal gain. In this case, salesmen are often paid on commission of a sale, so by displaying loyalty to the customer's interests by reducing the price, though they are losing out on additional bump in their commission, they are, however, still supporting the business through that sale. Meaning, getting the sale at all, as long as it produces a profit for the business, is serving the interests of the business.

For a better example, real estate agents usually get paid a commission that is based on a percentage of the final sales price of the home. Real estate agents have a fiduciary responsibility to their client's interests, so they must display their loyalty by getting them the best deal on a transaction. For the listing agent that helps the seller sell their home, they already have aligned interests as the seller wants the most they can get from the sale, and the agent gets a higher commission the more they can get that final sales price raised. The buyer's agent, however, also benefits from a high sales price, but the buyer's interest is to get the home at the lowest possible price, which means that to display loyalty to the client, they need to serve them selflessly by negotiating the price down and thereby actively fighting to reduce their own commission at the same time. This could be considered an honorable act by the buyer's agent because they are engaged in support of other values, like loyalty and selfless service, while they otherwise could have decided to deviate and benefit themselves directly.

The most important aspect of honor in the eyes of other people is that the honorable individual will adhere to their adopted ethical and moral frameworks, even while under duress. An organization that cultivates honor amongst its people can be viewed, by the community that it serves, as an honorable organization that follows its own beliefs and adheres to its own ethics at all times. This builds trust in the eyes of those both internal and external to the organization, which is critical to fostering immediate professional relationships and will help promote future relationships with other organizations. To cultivate honor, we hold people accountable for their actions and recognize those who adhere to ethics.

The positive reinforcement provided by recognition and awards is one such way that we can promote honor because we establish people as ethical exemplars that others should look towards as models for their own behavior. This fills people with a sense of pride that they are valued for their actions when they sacrifice for others and the organization. While these actions build pride, the application of shame requires a more gentle touch, as public shaming can be detrimental not only to the individual but also to the trust and camaraderie built within the organization. Instead, privately acknowledging how the individual has failed in their ethics and causing them to reflect on the situation, such as saying, "Not everyone is suited for this line of work," may be sufficient to cause enough mental anguish that they reorient themselves back towards the proper ethical framework. If they can't be made to adhere to ethics, they must be removed from the organization so that the perceived honor of the whole is not tainted by the dishonor of the one.

Integrity: Do what's right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself. (B-5)

The key element to integrity is staying true to oneself, especially to the moral beliefs that one holds, and being honest with others. The consequence of integrity is the building of trust that others have, and this is its greatest value. When a person is perceived to have high integrity, people place their trust and faith that they will do what they say to the best of their ability, and even if a person fails, if their integrity is without question, then they are often given the benefit of the doubt. With a high level of trust, they are afforded more responsibilities and opportunities within organizations by leadership and clientele who delegate to them the authority to make the organization run more efficiently and help solve their problems.

In the military, when one's very life and well-being are on the line in dangerous and terrifying environments, we often take for granted just how much our lives are placed in the hands of others. Of course, there will be the most apparent situations in combat where this occurs when we place our trust in our buddies to provide covering fire when we cross a street, where we trust a medic to come to our aid when we are injured, or when we trust that our comrades will come to our rescue should we be pinned or captured by the adversary. However, just as critically, we trust that the logisticians properly loaded the proper munitions on the trucks that we need for the upcoming fight, that the riggers properly packed the parachutes before our paratroopers jump out of their planes, and that the cooks have been properly storing and cooking food before feeding hundreds of personnel.

A US Army Soldier who holds a high level of integrity will be honest about their capabilities when they genuinely believe that they may need assistance in order to accomplish a task. They won't lie and say they can do a task if, indeed, they think they may not be qualified. If they make a mistake, they own up to it. If they succeed, they acknowledge the contributions that others make. They understand they are only one part of a team effort, that is their unit, and they are as integral to the collective effort as any other Soldier. Therefore, integrity is not simply a moral principle that they follow but a practical ethical behavior they have based on this understanding that individuals who only do what is in their best interest will harm the ability of the organization to accomplish its purpose. They are honest, not just because they think it is good, but because lying is detrimental to problem-solving. They are realistic about their abilities, not just because they are humble, but because the organization needs to find the right people for the right positions to accomplish its essential tasks. They adhere to legal and ethical requirements, not just because they are exemplars of honor, but because great deeds are accomplished by the collective effort of every Soldier in their team, not by them alone, working towards desired ends.

For military and business organizations, having personnel in their ranks that display high levels of integrity helps shape the view of the organization as one that can be trusted as a whole. Personnel who lie to the chain of command, investigators, families, government bodies, compatriots, and the public create an aura of suspicion in everything they do. Even when such a dishonest organization does good deeds, the suspicion of previously unethical or immoral behavior that has eroded that trust will dilute the positive messaging that otherwise could have been created. Conversely, an organization that has a track record of honesty with others can be forgiven for bad deeds, easily attributed to one-off mistakes, slip-ups, and unforeseen extenuating circumstances that they will mitigate in the future.

To promote integrity within an organization, they must encourage honesty amongst their people. We know that without honesty, we are not given the complete picture of a problem, and this results in compounding problems that could have been mitigated and corrected early on. Humans naturally fear the consequences of blame; one of the reasons why humans learn lying from an early age is that the practice is ingrained in our genes as a social species, but dishonesty harms the collective effort of everyone, which includes the individual being dishonest. For the individual to have strong integrity when lying may become tempting, Honesty, early on, needs to feel good; delayed honesty needs to feel relieving yet with a tinge of regret that they weren't honest sooner; and dishonesty needs to feel shameful and mentally anguishing. To produce this effect on people, we need to give people the benefit of the doubt, avoid punishments for mistakes, and recognize the courage to admit when one is at fault. With this, we create an environment that permits people to come forward when mistakes are made, or when bad news needs to be delivered, without killing the messenger.

Personal Courage: Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral). Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal safety. Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others. You can build your personal courage by daily standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable. (B-5)

If adhering to ethics were as easy as simply following written laws and regulations, and there were no inherent negative consequences for doing so, then it would be much easier for humans to follow these expected social behaviors we demand of them. The other Army Values are difficult to adhere to at times, because they may require the individual Soldier to forego opportunities for self-enrichment to do what is right for the Army, the unit, and their comrades. Personal courage, however, encourages the individual to engage in actions that have a perceived negative consequence in order to do the right and honorable thing.

For the Army, we have identified two forms of courage that we desire in our people. The first and most traditional form of courage involves the physical dangers that occur in our line of work. This can include running out of protective cover while being shot at by the adversary, jumping into rough seas to save a comrade who has fallen overboard, pulling out an injured buddy and/or sensitive equipment from a disabled vehicle to prevent them from falling into the hands of the enemy; and even jumping on a live grenade to save others at the expense of one's own live. Every act of physical courage involves some form of physical danger. This danger stokes fear, and it takes strong resolve to push past that fear to do something that benefits others. But physical courage has been around since time immemorial, and we can see forms of this courage in other social species.

The other form of courage, however, is less talked about because it doesn't involve the same level of heroics and glorious sacrifice that we attribute to the former. Moral courage involves doing the right thing except the potential negative consequences are of a social nature. This could include standing up to superiors who are giving illegal or immoral orders, redressing the improper behavior of a fellow Soldier, and even making the very necessary decisions that will get people killed in order to accomplish the mission. In a way, moral courage can be much more difficult because physical courage involves facing clear and immediate dangers that threaten one's physical safety, something that is part of our training. This type of courage is often celebrated and deeply ingrained in the ethics of military organizations around the world. Soldiers are trained and conditioned to react to physical threats with a combination of instinct, preparedness, and a sense of duty, which can make the enactment of physical courage more straightforward. The criteria for physical bravery are relatively clear, and external validation and support from peers and superiors can reinforce this behavior. The human brain sees a danger, assesses the risks it poses to the group and themselves, and then acts accordingly. Physical courage involves more risk, yet more certainty in outcomes and simplicity to execute.

Moral courage, however, involves navigating complex social and ethical landscapes where the risks and benefits are not always clear. Engaging in moral courage often requires challenging authority, going against the consensus of a group, or standing up for ethical principles in situations where the outcomes are uncertain and the social risks are high. The human brain's aversion to social exclusion and the deep-seated desire to belong can make moral courage particularly challenging. Social situations are ambiguous, and the fear of ostracization, ridicule, or damage to one's reputation can be powerful deterrents to doing what one sees as right. The human brain perceives something as socially unacceptable, but social situations are fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty; we rack ourselves with what we should do. Moral courage involves less risk yet more uncertainty in outcomes and complexity in execution.

Additionally, for an Army Soldier, physical courage is often supported by the other Army Values, where putting oneself in physical danger is part of doing one's duty and is a display of selflessness and loyalty to others. Moral courage, however, is often at odds with some aspects of Army Values, where cohesion and adherence to the chain of command are paramount, and the stakes for moral courage can be even higher. The potential for conflict between personal morals and loyalty to superiors and comrades adds an additional layer of complexity to acts of moral courage that need to be taken into account when deciding how to act. To be loyal to the Army, one may need to be disloyal to one's unit and one's comrades, who may be acting out of line and need to be corrected. Sometimes, being dutiful means telling friends that they need to carry their own weight instead of always passing on their own duties to others.

The one thing to note about courage is that what makes it noble, what makes it a value the Army wants as a core principle of its ethics, is that courage is employed for right and just reasons. The Army doesn't want its people to sacrifice their lives courageously; they want Soldiers to achieve objectives and complete tasks, and sometimes that requires courage and sacrifice; we don't want martyrs, just victors. Similarly, the Army doesn't want its people destroying unit cohesion and ruining reputations; they want Soldiers to keep each other accountable and keep their organizations ethical and effective, and sometimes that requires courage to rattle things up and correct impropriety; we don't want pariahs, just ethical organizations and people. When things are tough and people balk at the pressure, the courageous one does what they believe they must do for the mission, the organization, and others.

To promote courage, one must foster an environment where courageous acts are instinctual. As I mentioned about the military fostering physical courage through its training and culture, the military also attempts to do the same through its training for areas involving substance abuse, sexual harassment and assault, suicide awareness, and other social scenarios that require the individual to put themselves in social situations that make them increasingly uncomfortable. Businesses, or any organization, that expect their people to "do the right thing" when the time comes shouldn't have their people first experience it when it actually happens but should familiarize themselves ahead of time. They need to be able to assess a situation, determine the best course of action based on organizational ethics, and act accordingly. Many train employees for fires, earthquakes, and active shooters so that they can effectively respond to physical dangers with the appropriate response instinctively; sometimes, physical courage is necessary. So, too, should they train for scenarios that require moral courage. And when moral courage is displayed, just as we do for displays of physical courage with awards and recognition, we need to recognize the courage of people who do the right thing even when that thing may be unpopular or may damage friendships.