Posted on Feb 19, 2015
Do Army Officers (and other service members) lie more than other people?
31.6K
147
96
5
5
0
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/army-ethics-lying-report/
Needless to say, lying is normally a bad thing. In light of the latest scandal about Army leaders lying, it would be interesting to see how they would stack up against the average American citizen.
What's your thoughts?
Needless to say, lying is normally a bad thing. In light of the latest scandal about Army leaders lying, it would be interesting to see how they would stack up against the average American citizen.
What's your thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
Honor
Honor
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 35
9
9
0
LTC (Join to see), if I met an officer who told me that he or she has never once checked the box or pencil-whipped something for a briefing, I would think that I am being lied to. I managed to read the monograph and I think it is something that should be read and discussed in OPDs Army wide. It is true that some degree of dishonesty is sadly expected these days. As the monograph explains, "Company commanders somehow have to fit 297 days of mandatory requirements into 256 available training days" (page 4). The thing is, I do not believe that officers truly want to lie (based on the info given in the monograph). I think that most of us feel like we have no choice (the ethical fading that it talks about). I've seen this happen throughout my relatively short career and I must admit that I have been guilty of box checking and pencil whipping on occasion. As one officer said "We can probably do two or three things in a day, but if you give us 20, we're gonna half-ass 15 and hope you ignore the other five" (page 6). I have to agree with this. I have seen it firsthand. The recommendations at the end are spot-on I think. Acknowledging the problem is essential, and then exercise restraint (in mandatory requirements, priorities, etc.) and lead truthfully (tolerate risk, be honest - even brutally, and stop mutually agreed deception). This seems like the right way to reinforce the foundation of trust that our profession is built upon. I am glad a discussion is starting on this. I am curious how long it will take for a 2/3rds majority of us to admit that this is a systemic problem. Once we reach that threshold, there may be enough consensus to affect a culture change.
(Edited for grammar/spelling)
(Edited for grammar/spelling)
(9)
(0)
9
9
0
It's official. I'm a crotchety old man. I'm going to sound like one...
Once upon a time an officer's commission contained the word "Gentleman". It's a practice that dated back to a time when British officers were drawn from the "gentry", a class of people expected to be better educated and above base behavior such as lying. However, America never had a class system and anyone could rise above base instincts and behavior.
Military academies enforced honor codes to instill such behavior in those destined to be commissioned. Even Officer Candidate Schools (at least when I attended) attempted to teach these qualities. We had an honor code and a student committee to enforce it. (I don't know about ROTC. I suspect they were simply excused from the practice inasmuch as they were all college-educated)
However, no upbringing or acculturation can offset the deleterious effects of poor leadership.
Let me give you a couple of examples...
When I was a boy, President Truman wore a fedora (that's a hat, people). Most men wore fedoras. When Eisenhower became President, he favored the homburg and most men followed him (another kind of hat. Sheesh, must I explain everything?) Kennedy wore none. Hats were incompatible with styled hair. And, yes, hats fell out of fashion.
Now, that's a simple matter of style. But all gentlemanly behavior is a matter of style. Consider...
When the White House tapes were played for the public, we heard then President Nixon and his inner circle cursing like farmers plowing rocky fields with mules. It wasn't long before cursing became generally accepted in "polite society".
Then there was Bill Clinton who lied. His wife lied. They were infamous for lying. A joke oft told in that time has it that Bill was late coming home one night. When Chelsea awoke from a nightmare, Hillary tried to comfort him. Chelsea asked for a story and Hillary responded, "Wait until daddy comes home. He can tell us both one."
Do we seriously expect our military officers to set a higher example than their Commander-in-Chief?
Yes, lying became a fact of life in the years of the Clinton Administration and is a general feature of the culture to this day.
I have no evidence that the current Administration is any more capable of lying than the Clinton Administration. (Let's not get into the Bush Administration. His purported lies are being exposed as truth every day.)
However, I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton is on the verge of being the next President. I wonder what that will do for the art of lying?
Once upon a time an officer's commission contained the word "Gentleman". It's a practice that dated back to a time when British officers were drawn from the "gentry", a class of people expected to be better educated and above base behavior such as lying. However, America never had a class system and anyone could rise above base instincts and behavior.
Military academies enforced honor codes to instill such behavior in those destined to be commissioned. Even Officer Candidate Schools (at least when I attended) attempted to teach these qualities. We had an honor code and a student committee to enforce it. (I don't know about ROTC. I suspect they were simply excused from the practice inasmuch as they were all college-educated)
However, no upbringing or acculturation can offset the deleterious effects of poor leadership.
Let me give you a couple of examples...
When I was a boy, President Truman wore a fedora (that's a hat, people). Most men wore fedoras. When Eisenhower became President, he favored the homburg and most men followed him (another kind of hat. Sheesh, must I explain everything?) Kennedy wore none. Hats were incompatible with styled hair. And, yes, hats fell out of fashion.
Now, that's a simple matter of style. But all gentlemanly behavior is a matter of style. Consider...
When the White House tapes were played for the public, we heard then President Nixon and his inner circle cursing like farmers plowing rocky fields with mules. It wasn't long before cursing became generally accepted in "polite society".
Then there was Bill Clinton who lied. His wife lied. They were infamous for lying. A joke oft told in that time has it that Bill was late coming home one night. When Chelsea awoke from a nightmare, Hillary tried to comfort him. Chelsea asked for a story and Hillary responded, "Wait until daddy comes home. He can tell us both one."
Do we seriously expect our military officers to set a higher example than their Commander-in-Chief?
Yes, lying became a fact of life in the years of the Clinton Administration and is a general feature of the culture to this day.
I have no evidence that the current Administration is any more capable of lying than the Clinton Administration. (Let's not get into the Bush Administration. His purported lies are being exposed as truth every day.)
However, I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton is on the verge of being the next President. I wonder what that will do for the art of lying?
(9)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Yep, sounding kinda crotchety CPT Jack Durish --- at least now I have a name for what I sound like! :-)
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
- Very disappointing to read the article.
- Very interested in reading the study itself.
- Initial thought was that the study was conducted by a non governmental agency with a bone to pick against the Army. After seeing that the study was conducted by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute and by a former Army officer, hard to discount the study based upon that premise.
- Article does not state the next step (what does the Army do about this). Hopefully the study does.
- Very interested in reading the study itself.
- Initial thought was that the study was conducted by a non governmental agency with a bone to pick against the Army. After seeing that the study was conducted by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute and by a former Army officer, hard to discount the study based upon that premise.
- Article does not state the next step (what does the Army do about this). Hopefully the study does.
(9)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
Sir, I think the next step is culture change. The same culture that makes us great also hurts us at the end of the day. However, we are still people. Meaning, we share the same character flaws as our civilian counterpart. The hard part about culture change is understanding when it needs to be changed and getting peers and subordinates to implement the change.
Sir, I think the next step is culture change. The same culture that makes us great also hurts us at the end of the day. However, we are still people. Meaning, we share the same character flaws as our civilian counterpart. The hard part about culture change is understanding when it needs to be changed and getting peers and subordinates to implement the change.
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
It was released for the avowed purpose of launching a discussion about integrity in the profession of arms as well as a discussion of a culture & system that (according to the monograph) not only encourages but requires breeches of integrity to check all the required blocks.
I believe it was right to do and right to release. A profession isn't a profession if it doesn't self-police. And it is impossible to fix a systemic problem behind closed doors.
Moreover, this is exactly the kind of question and research you would expect the Army War College to support, if it really is an independent institution of higher learning.
NOTE: I only had time to read about 10 pages at lunch today, and the server appears to have melted down before I got home.... Therefore, I can't speak to the quality or accuracy of the monograph, only what was front loaded though the forward.
I believe it was right to do and right to release. A profession isn't a profession if it doesn't self-police. And it is impossible to fix a systemic problem behind closed doors.
Moreover, this is exactly the kind of question and research you would expect the Army War College to support, if it really is an independent institution of higher learning.
NOTE: I only had time to read about 10 pages at lunch today, and the server appears to have melted down before I got home.... Therefore, I can't speak to the quality or accuracy of the monograph, only what was front loaded though the forward.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I don't think this is anything new. How often is there a suspense that is near impossible to maintain when your unit is doing a million things at a time. I think this plays into the "Toxic Leader" also. If a company commander is fearful of being honest to his status due to the condemnation of his boss he will do what he can to get by.
This reminds me to the "Rules of Ranging."
"4. Tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the rangers, but don’t never lie to a ranger or officer."
This reminds me to the "Rules of Ranging."
"4. Tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the rangers, but don’t never lie to a ranger or officer."
(2)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Having had a chance to read the monograph over the weekend (and the servers have quit melting, so you can now get a copy of your very own!!), I think it is well written and worth reading. I'll make a few general purpose comments:
1. The story that the media reports isn't always the story.
2. "Study" is not the term that should be used. Monograph or Paper would be better. It doesn't have the quantitative bias you would expect from a "study."
3. The primary focus of the paper is on the accumulation of perverse incentives that encourage integrity shortfalls. A secondary focus is on the process by which one can become desensitized to cutting ethical corners.
4. Several of the examples that they point to have been lively threads in this community.
5. I think their recommendations have merit, but no really clear & practical means of implementation. It is definitely intended as a "conversation starter" and not as a "solution."
1. The story that the media reports isn't always the story.
2. "Study" is not the term that should be used. Monograph or Paper would be better. It doesn't have the quantitative bias you would expect from a "study."
3. The primary focus of the paper is on the accumulation of perverse incentives that encourage integrity shortfalls. A secondary focus is on the process by which one can become desensitized to cutting ethical corners.
4. Several of the examples that they point to have been lively threads in this community.
5. I think their recommendations have merit, but no really clear & practical means of implementation. It is definitely intended as a "conversation starter" and not as a "solution."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google