Ethical Issues Facing the US Army, Root Causes, Implications and Solutions of the Scandals with US Air Force and Navy Officers - Case Study Example

Ethical Issues Facing the U.S. Army Introduction Safety lapses and unethical behaviour in the military have been raising the public’s worries that the nation’s arsenal is in bad hands. The bad behaviour of military officers has been making headlines, demonstrating the ethical crisis facing the American army. Their behaviour is a sign of wide spread corruption that has penetrated the army ranks; an indication that the army has not been serious about its ethical responsibilities. The army men who have for a long time been considered examples of ethical conduct, decency and discipline have rapidly lost ethical candor and consequently lost trust from the public. In two separate cheating scandals, U.S. Air Force and Navy officers cheated while doing their proficiency tests. The two scandals are related with the country’s nuclear program and the ethical issues raise worries that the country’s nuclear arsenal is not in good hands. 92 Air Force officers cheated when doing monthly proficiency tests to oversee the nuclear reactors in Malmstron Air Force Base in Montana (Londono, 2014). At the same time about 32 Navy officers from the Charleston nuclear training unit in South Carolina cheated their way to getting certified as instructors (Associated Press, 2014). This essay will demonstrate that the two scandals show misplaced priorities, careerism, slackness in enforcing ethical standards and bad leadership. The quiet cancer in the military has had and will continue to have pernicious repercussions. The decline in ethical standard in the army is totally unacceptable because it is contrary to the values that make the military. It is time that the military dealt with the root causes of this ethical crisis if it has to remain credible and effective. Root Causes, Implications and Solutions The massive exam cheating scandals by the Navy and Nuclear officers demonstrates how slack the military is at enforcing ethical standards. The army has been neglecting due diligence in enforcing ethical behaviour among its officers. It is clear that this crisis did not accumulate overnight. Senior offices were reported to have shared exams which contained classified information during a training on nuclear reactors. The officers cheated to pass qualifications to be “certified as instructors at a nuclear training unit in Charleston, South Carolina” (Burns, 2004). The cheating ring operated for seven years without being detected. In this scandal, at least 78 enlisted sailors were found culpable. Such an ethical breach is serious especially because nuclear reactors are delicate and complex, and a mistake could be disastrous. The safety of nuclear reactors cannot be compromised. Additionally, the officers in questions were senior sailors (Golgowski, 2014), which is an indication of unethical behaviour and corruption from the top down. Unethical behaviour in the military take place because no safe guards have been put in place to prevent such behaviour. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Progarm, Adm. John Richardson reported that the major attraction to cheating by the officers is the fact that there was little risk of getting caught (Burns, 2014). If strict safe guards had been put in place, the officers would not have risked their careers by participating in this corruption scandal. The investigators into the scandal found out that the examinations were predictable and had not changed since 2004, though written rules demand for them to be changed frequently (Burns, 2004). Admitting to the slacking in ethical behaviour in the army, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said that “ethics and character are absolute values that we cannot take for granted. They must be constantly reinforced.”(Joyner, 2014). The army is not rigorous in enforce a culture of accountability and responsibility Integrity trainings and declarations of honesty within the army are just procedural requirements which officers observe just for the sake of it. The galling part of this cheating scandal is that the instructors has to undergo integrity training before overseeing the exams. Again, they had to give a sign declaration of their honesty. Furthermore, during the examining process, the instructors had to remind the students of the consequences in case they cheated. As events later reveal, these were just empty words, and declaration on paper without real intentions. The officer who reported this scandal only did so because he saw reports of another scandal and was scared of likely retaliation. Lack of personal will to report unethical behaviour is a clear indication that army officers place complacency above personal integrity. Careerism in the military is among the key root causes of decline in ethical standards. To remain competitive, officers are required to have zero defects and maintain perfect scores (Barno & Bensahel, 2015). For the officer who chooses to meet the 100 percent ethical standards may have to destroy his career. At the same time, senior army officers strive to maintain perfect reporting whereas such a case is difficult. As such, officers loose individual integrity and joins the prevailing group culture of doing things in a certain way. Senior leaders have failed to take into account the effects of their requirements thereby condoning systematic lying (Barno & Bensahel, 2015). Leadership failure is the major source of the ethical crisis in the military. According to Box (2012), a survey of 22, 630 leaders conducted in the Department of Defence (DoD) revealed that one in every five leaders sees their superiors as unethical or toxic. All services in the military can be significantly affected by even the smallest number of toxic leaders. Leadership in the military is described as providing direction, purpose and motivation, while working to achieve the mission of the organization. Therefore, toxic leaders are bound to pass their toxicity and lack of ethical consideration to those under them. They are an anathema to the integrity of the military. The testing of the nuclear instructors lacked rigor, an indication of the slackness in enforcing ethical standards. The million-dollar question begs, how was a seven-year cheating never caught the eye of the commanders? Although the commanding officer was exonerated from participation in the cheatings, he should have done a better job at ensuring that due diligence was observed. The director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, Adm. John Richardson, admitted to the allegations. Nevertheless, he clarified that the nuclear reactors that were supposed to be manned by the cheating officers do not involve nuclear submarines or naval nuclear weapons. He implied that this misconduct could not cause serious a damage that everyone anticipated. However, the fact that this happened amongst these officers serves to indicate that it can happen to any other officers in the highest ranks. The consequences of such unethical behaviour means such delicate nuclear reactors could be manned by unqualified officer, posing a risk to thousands of American lives. Disciplining ethics ‘breachers’ is not an indication of progress in enforcing ethics. A superficial look at this issue could mean that the military is making progress because it discovered a problem, investigated it and punished those implicated. However, a deeper look at the issue reveals that the Navy had not dealt with the root of the problem. First, this kind of cheating went on for seven long years. For cheating to go on for such a long time, the commanders must have been either complicit or unconcerned about the violations of their juniors. The military should place more emphasis on personal character than their expertise. In the cheating scandals mentioned, the officers let go of their integrity to pass the exams. This indicates that the core of this problem is with the system concentrating more on their expertise at the expense of their character. To ensure that the integrity of the military leaders is maintained, the various department in the military should come up with multiple-rater assessments where the leaders conduct and character is rated by different people. This way, toxic leaders can be identified and removed. The assessment tools should focus on the leader’s personality, morality and leader’s attributes (Box, 2012). The military, being an institution of high values and ethics must pay a lot of attention to toxic leadership and cases of leadership failure. Conclusion The army has for a long time boasted of due diligence in enforcing professional ethics within its officers. It is time to reclaim sanity in the military. The military, being an institution of high values and ethics must pay a lot of attention to toxic leadership and cases of leadership failure. The damning findings calls for serious soul-searching of everyone in the military at the state of personal and institutional ethics. The serious problems identified cannot and will not be solved by a change in programs or introduction of other requirements to the already draining ones. It calls for a strong leadership, transparency and rigorous efforts in enforcing ethical standards. References Associated Press (2016). Defense Secretary Hagel addresses ethical issues in military. WJLA. Retrieved 11 December 2016, from http://wjla.com/news/local/defense-secretary-hagel-addresses-military-ethics-99943 Barno, D. & Bensahel, N. (2015). Lying to Ourselves: The Demise of Military Integrity - War on the Rocks. War on the Rocks. Retrieved 11 December 2016, from http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/lying-to-ourselves-the-demise-of-military-integrity/ Box, J. E. (2012). Toxic leadership in the military profession. USAWC Strategy Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/box_toxic_leadership.pdf on December 10, 2016. Burns, R. (2016). Navy kicks out 34 for cheating at nuclear training-site. Navy Times. Retrieved 10 December 2016, from https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/careers/2014/08/20/navy-kicks-out-34-for-cheating-at-nuclear-training-site/14338381/ Golgowski, N. (2016). Navy investigating alleged cheating on tests by sailors training on nuclear reactors. NY Daily News. Retrieved 10 December 2016, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/navy-investigating-alleged-cheating-tests-sailors-training-nuclear-reactors-article-1.1601912 Joyner, J. (2016). The U.S. Military's Ethics Crisis. The National Interest. Retrieved 11 December 2016, from http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-us-militarys-ethics-crisis-9872 Londoño, E. (2016). Officials: 92 Air Force officers assigned to nuclear arsenal involved in cheating scandal. Washington Post. Retrieved 11 December 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-92-air-force-officers-involved-in-test-cheating-scandal/2014/01/30/ddfd6db2-89d6-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html?utm_term=.d4ac9a16110d Read More