United States Air Force Academy   Right Corner Banner
Join the Air Force

News > Commentary - Duty: the double-edged sword
Related Links
 Center for Character and Leadership Development
Duty: the double-edged sword

Posted 10/27/2011   Updated 10/27/2011 Email story   Print story


Commentary by Dr. Arthur J. Schwartz
Senior scholar, Center for Character Leadership and Development

10/27/2011 - U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. -- A 1970 graduate of the Air Force Academy recently asked my opinion about what I thought the Academy is doing well today. He knew I've been serving this past year as The Academy's senior scholar, assigned to the Center for Character and Leadership Development. He also knew that I've never been in the military.

Although his question caught me by surprise, my response was immediate. "Without a doubt," I replied, "I'm amazed at how quickly and effectively the Academy teaches basic cadets about their duty."

Until this past year, I never really thought much about the virtue of duty. Growing up, my parents didn't emphasize the concept, and my wife and I certainly never used the term or emphasized duty with our own children: We focused on responsibility, a much different virtue. Moreover, duty is certainly not a virtue valued or practiced in the academic world: Professors have responsibilities, not duties.

So I hope you will appreciate how much I've learned this past year about duty, not only how essential it is to the military ethic but how quickly our basic cadets grasp its foundational role in the profession they have chosen to pursue. I am not suggesting that all cadets fulfill their duty all the time. It takes time for cadets to develop the settled habits of the "Five Rights": Right place. Right time. Right uniform. Right attitude. Ready to do the right thing. I'd also argue that a cadet or an Airman can develop these habits and do so for reasons that have nothing to do with duty (such as a desire to graduate or to receive a promotion).

Yet the Air Force Academy is doing something right. As a member of the faculty, I've had the opportunity to listen to cadets sincerely express their commitment to duty, and I've seen them display this virtue on a consistent basis. Moreover, I can't imagine practicing duty without sacrificing something -- free time for cadets, family time for Airmen -- and I have been amazed at how quickly cadets recognize and accept that their duty requires them to make these sacrifices, including their ultimate sacrifice to our nation.

But duty may be a double-edged sword. I wonder whether the "command and control" model of the military promotes a mindset about duty that diminishes the willingness of an officer to stand up for what is right regardless of whom the officer is talking to. I wonder whether cadets and airmen believe candor, the willingness to tell the truth even when it's unpopular, is part of their duty.

To me, fulfilling one's duty also means having the courage to ask great questions. Yet in large bureaucracies, most middle managers learn to defer to authority, recognizing the occupational hazards of questioning ideas, processes that are "owned" by someone with more authority. What too often results is a culture where no one speaks up, takes a critical stance or questions assumptions.

This seems especially pertinent within the military bureaucracy, where duty can be seen as nothing more or less than developing and mastering a "go along to get along" mindset. Instead, if duty is truly a calling, then I want to suggest that it's the duty of all military officers, at the right time and place and in the right way, to "call into question" their profession's assumptions and dominant ways of thinking.

My concern, however, is that within the military asking great questions is too often seen as an act of defiance or disobedience, rather than as the actions of someone fully committed to his or her duty as a military officer.

Of course, there is a set of skills associated with asking great questions or speaking with candor. We all know that asking a question at the right time or speaking with candor in the right way makes a difference. But these skills ought to be modeled and taught by military leaders who aim to create a culture where candor and asking great questions is valued and ever-present.

Even here, I'd argue that once cadets have displayed competence in what they need to do and learn how to do it, we should begin to encourage cadets to ask "why" questions, including those thorny, difficult questions that may challenge the veracity and effectiveness of the Academy's many long-standing traditions and practices. Moreover, these questions, raised mostly by fourth- and third-class cadets, should be fully answered by the upperclassmen within their squadrons.

Indeed, my hope would be that over time the Cadet Wing leadership will display the courage to strengthen or enhance a particular tradition or practice, all because a third-class cadet had the courage, as part of his or her duty, to respectfully ask "Why do we do it this way?"

For me, "ready to do the right thing" captures the essence of duty. I also suspect that most of the time "the right thing" has little to do with acts of candor or asking great questions. But sometimes the "right thing" is about the courage to stand up for one's subordinates or to ask a question in the search of a better way to do things. In any organization, there are times when speaking with candor or asking a question is a matter of your responsibility. And in the military, it's your duty.

11/28/2011 10:43:31 AM ET
I think Dr. Schwartz really hit the spot on cadet mentality. As a recent grad we learn very quickly what duty means. In this controlled environment we knew all of the right things to say if a superior were to ask us about duty. Talk to any 4 degree in a hallway and they will be able to spew off five different quotes on the subject. However in a world in which groupthink mentality runs high it is quite easy to lose that sense of duty when crossing into upperclassman-dome. In our second year at school many of my peers and I found ourselves lost without the constant supervision. And without it we told each other we didn't necessarily care as much about duty as we did about escaping the hill to have fun. We made mistakes. Some of us survived and some of us didn't. And from it some of us learned about duty and some of us didnt.I dont think you can really teach the why side of duty through lecture and I dont think the Academy took a proactive approach to teaching th
Lyndsey Horn, Cambridgeshire United Kingdom
11/21/2011 1:35:54 PM ET
Excellent article. I would temper your double-edged sword perspective by saying that military activities normally involve planning and execution phases. The dominant cost of duty is in execution giving up anything from free time to one's life in execution of the mission. But in some ways the harder duty for military officers is in the planning phase. As followers one must overcome a natural reluctance to appear to or actually challenge authority--a behavior that cannot be tolerated in military execution. I agree with you that it is not only acceptable but a requirement of duty to question in military planning if only to strengthen the planned outcome or clarify the effort. At the extreme given that we deal not in dollars but potentially in lives questions and resolution in planning leads to a lower attrition. Leaders have not only a duty to lead in execution but to solicit advice in planning and mentor the future leaders in their care.Our duty is bifurcated Discu
John M Davis, Brentwood TN
Add a comment

 Inside USAFA

ima cornerSearch

tabAir Force Academy Social Media
  Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube
  More info on our Social Media page.
tabAcademy News
tabAcademy Links
tabOther Academy Sites

Site Map      Contact Us     Questions     USA.gov     Security and Privacy notice     E-publishing  
Suicide Prevention    SAPR   IG   EEO   Accessibility/Section 508   No FEAR Act