Does the Army need anything more than the 7 Army Values (LDRSHIP)?

COL Jon Thompson — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:40:09 -0400

A few months ago, I read a blog that said that the Army values were too simplistic and the author argued for a more comprehensive Army ethic to guide our behavior as Soldiers. My argument was that if people could not live up the seven values, a more comprehensive ethic would not make a difference. This came up again for me as I was working on a short essay on the key lessons I learned as an officer. Please let me know what your thoughts are.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 5:43 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:43:19 -0400

I agree. If 7 is too lenient, then how is a more comprehensive one any better?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 5:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:46:07 -0400

Those time honored values are intrinsic enough to meet any challenge and I am concerned that too much tinkering with those values may jeapordize morale as well as those values. As far as morphing into better leaders, we are going to reach a point of equilibrium and that is where we will stay.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 6 at 2015 6:49 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:49:39 -0400

Hell, we can not get people to do the 7 that we have!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 6:57 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:57:13 -0400

I don't see how a change in the Army values would really improve the image of the Army. We constantly rebrand the Army. It does nothing to hurt our image. If we change it the Army Values it would imply that they were not sufficient. I think we have an extremely comprehensive set of values. To be honest I would even reduce it if at all possible. Some of them seems to overlap to me. Loyalty is somewhat implied by Duty and so Respect in relation to Honor. But as I stated I wouldn't change it at this point.

I spent some time in Marketing with the NCNG. The one thing we really had going for us was the constant image we portrayed as the National Guard. We rallied around the term Citizen-Soldier. We didn't try to rebrand what we were or change our image much. When the National Guard had a song used to support the National Guard, by 3 doors down, it was called "Citizen Soldier." It was extremely successful in portraying our image in our recruiting effort.

I believe we fail when we attempt to customize our recruiting campaign to fit the generation in which we are targeting. I realize our efforts should be tailored to our target audience but we should focus in how we can have that target group realize what it means to be a soldier. They should accept that they need to confirm to what it takes to be soldiers more sure than altering our definition of what it means to be soldier with every new target group or generation. It just seems like we put the cart in front of the horse a lot.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 7:18 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:18:33 -0400

There are very few things I remember from my first few weeks of basic training, but one that stands out was a lecture by some DS on the Army Values. What stood out to me, was his statement that the Army Values coincide with the basic tenents of most any creed or religion. I'm a devout Christian, and the Army Values aren't something that stand or fall to me as a person. In fact my behavior hasn't changed, and wouldn't change in the future if the Army decided it didn't need values. If a person doesn't live up to the Army Values, I do NOT believe that is for a lack of education, that is a moral fault. I don't care if you are a practicing Baptist, Hindu, Catholic, or Muslim, or even Athiest you have been taught some measure of right and wrong. The Army isn't a religion. If the first moral code a person has is the Army Values, we don't need them as a soldier.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 9:42 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:42:27 -0400

Marine Corps Leadership Traits - JJDIDTIEBUCKLE
Marine Corps Leadership Principles - 11
Enough said!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 10:50 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:50:27 -0400

I think its too long as it is! Anything longer would be hard to remember. All the other branches have only 3. Simpler and shorter make it like a slogan. In fact the Navy/Marine core values of Courage Honor Commitment are short and snappy. They have been featured in some of the Navy's ads.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 2:46 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:46:33 -0400

The Navy has only three. "Honor, Courage, and Commitment". That's it. Are they better for it? Worse for it? Does having catch phrase "go to" words matter? Should we include "work ethic"? How about "Stewardship?". How many words or phrases do we need to "make" a soldier? Should not most of these things be basic to being a citizen at all? What I'm getting it is, while they are great, and not to be scoffed at as stupid words that don't matter, they don't make soldiers better any more than a revised "Soldier's Code/Creed" did. Could not the Navy's three words cover our 7 when you think about it? Is "Honor" in our own ethics essentially the "catch-all" that the others point to? How much into this would we as a military organization need to ensure we "develop" soldiers any better, short of treating them like children? The list could get unbelievably long if we are to make a document out of it to educate grown men on how to be worthwhile human beings at all. How many more boxes need to be checked on an evaluation report?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 10:14 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:14:54 -0400

Indoctrination is key. The services are not about individuality, yet we constantly acknowledge the need to allow people to be individuals. Where I can see that as being important to the human condition, this is a volunteer force and we should be cohesive mentally and values-wise especially in a garrison environment. We have semi-civil arguments daily about tattoos, piercings, race, LBGT and religion. We should be able to work better together everyday and not just when deployed.
More ethics and values written in memos, manuals, cards and ID tags won't do this.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 3:07 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 03:07:19 -0400

Why mess with something that works and has been working. The values are stupid simple for a reason , there easy to follow for the lowest level Soldier. It's made so it can easily be remembered and as you become a more proficient Soldier and begin moving up you will start to really understand what they actually represent and find yourself living these values more than you initially believed. Changing them would only complicate things and lower the morale of alot of Soldiers who have been living these values. It should be left alone and let the NCO's lead the soldiers by example. Great leaders are not made by remembering an acronym but from the competent leaders who guided them.

Response by SPC Matt Van Winkle made Jul 8 at 2015 9:58 AM

SPC Matt Van Winkle — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:58:24 -0400

The blogger over thought something that should be simple. In fact some would argue that 7 is too many values. Most organizations with successful value structures have 4-5.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 10 at 2015 4:13 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:13:08 -0400

It really troubles me the military has become a surrogate parent to successive generations with less values. Parents should instill basic value into their children's lives and life teaches the rest. I don't know how to bridge the delta.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 6 at 2017 7:45 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sun, 06 Aug 2017 19:45:00 -0400

Those values should not just be Army values but for others as well ..