Follow InsideDefense.com on TwitterInside the Army -- Army officials hope to find out more soon about a preliminary survey suggesting that trust in senior service leaders may be eroding, with the service planning another round of data collection to validate the controversial finding that surfaced this summer.
Results from an Army survey compiled in June, plus information gleaned from conferences during the "Army Profession Campaign," offer glimpses of a troubled trust relationship between soldiers and their senior leaders. A new survey readied for later this month by Training and Doctrine Command is expected to show whether problems are systemic or based merely on isolated instances of personal misgivings, as they occur in virtually every large organization.
The Army never released its June interim survey report even though the document's existence was highlighted in the Sept. 1 edition of the Army-wide "Stand-To" email list. Inside the Army has obtained a copy of the document. Col. Sean Hannah, who directs the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic at TRADOC's Combined Arms Center, called the interim results "overcome by events" because officials have gathered additional since June data and because "sampling" problems were found.
In a Nov. 9 interview with ITA, Hannah pointed to the final report, expected in January, as the authoritative source for information on the Army's soul-searching efforts that began under former Gen. George Casey, the former chief of staff, after nearly a decade of war.
"We're finding an overwhelming amount of positive things," Hannah told ITA. The negatives, he said, come with "very low base rates," meaning they were mentioned by relatively few respondents.
Still, the issue of trust warrants a closer look, he acknowledged. "Yes, there was some indication of trust breaking down across levels, and we're looking into why that may be," he said. "Some of it is just the simple, 'It's been like that forever.' When you've got layers of command separated from one another, junior leaders sometimes don't fully understand why senior leaders are making some of the key decisions that they are making."
Few as they may be, the issues raised in the interim report are explicit. The document paints a picture of healthy trust levels among peers and unit members. But when it comes to trusting leaders and trusting in the functions of civil society and the media, emerging themes were more ominous, according to the document.
"A lack of trust exists upwards and externally," it states. "Senior leaders are not always perceived as trustworthy when it comes to telling it like it is" to their superiors. "A perceived paying lip-service to putting people first has been a recurring theme of our discussions, but one also tempered with the recognition that mission demands have recently been just that, inflexible demands," it states later.
On the question, "When Army leaders say something, you can believe it's true," only 44 percent of survey respondents agreed, while 33 percent were neutral and 20 percent disagreed, according to the document.
The examination of trust comes at a critical time for the Army. The service is putting in place personnel policies to remake itself into a smaller force without losing critical capabilities. Lower promotion rates across the board, especially if not communicated ahead of time by senior leaders, could bring a sense of surprise and mistrust among key grade levels in the Army, one official opined.
The promotion rate to the rank of captain, for example, is expected to drop from 98 percent to somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent as the Army ups its performance standards for candidates, Hannah said. "That's a new reality that's going to influence our culture, too," he said.
At the same time, the Army is faced with a transition out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many soldiers returning to garrison. Hannah said he shies away from the use of that word, however, because of its "negative connotations." He prefers the term "home station environment" to garrison because it reflects that soldiers would still prepare for combat. "What we don't want is this mentality that back to garrison means back to bull -- painting rocks," he said.
Seven recommendations, or "Army profession strengthening initiatives," have begun to crystallize out of the Army Profession Campaign, according to Hannah. They involve updating doctrine and policy to more clearly articulate what the Army is about; improving leader development; strengthening certification processes around the benchmarks "confidence," "character" and "commitment"; building and sustaining trust relationships (internally and externally); enforcing standards and discipline; examining Army culture; and integrating human development.
In March, Army officials contacted a random sample of 174,000 active-duty, reserve and civilian personnel to partake in a main profession-of-arms survey. The survey also was available in the Army Knowledge Online intranet. The response rate was 12 percent, or 21,349 individuals. Senior leaders received an additional set of open-ended questions in April. Of 6,713 contacted, 821 responded. Army officials also continue to use focus groups, conferences and online discussions to solicit feedback from the force. -- Sebastian Sprenger
