Air University Review, March-April 1969
Officer training today is an unhealthy combination of both traditional and contemporary concepts of discipline. Those holding to the more modern approaches have had an influence on the academic aspects of the curriculum while the military portion of the training program bears the full imprint of those who advocate the more rigid traditional views. As a result officer training seems too much like an incongruous game to the students. It most certainly is not an accurate reflection of the duty for which it is supposedly preparing them. The students “play the game” in order to graduate. It is accepted as a routine one must follow, on obstacle en route to a commission.
military vs. academic-
traditional vs. contemporary
Officer training has made great strides in the past few years, but mostly in the academic aspects of the curriculum. We are much more concerned with what the student learns in the classroom than with what he learns in his total environment. Our action should be directed to all phases of the curriculum, since the graduate is a product of the whole school. To make him a product of a school within a school, or of two schools which appear to be at odds with one another, is to confuse him. This is exactly the case, and an examination of the military aspects of the curriculum will bear this out.
Which approach to discipline insists that the second button only be buttoned on his 1505s and the top button only on all other clothing in the closet? The trainee wonders if it is important. He wonders about other restrictions and wants to know why they are part of a precommissioning program. “Trousers will be hung so that the belt line and bottom edge of trousers’ legs are even. The fly will be unzipped and facing the locker door.” Those adhering to the more traditional concepts of discipline still think this rigid approach to closet arrangement (along with keeping like items together and facing the same way, etc.) makes a student a better officer. Many officers who have not challenged their own concepts of discipline routinely think that this is the thing to stress in all military training schools (officer training schools, too).
The student will always “play the game,” but he may wonder why he must put a row of shoes on display under his bed. All this encourages is checking for straight lines, time-wasting spit shines, and tucked-in laces. What’s more, shoes get dusty out there in the room where people walk. Reason suggests that shoes belong in the closet. The trainee knows this but accepts a double standard, one which he follows now (precommissioning) and one for later (postcommissioning).
Instead of relying on the older, more traditional concept of discipline, why not appeal to his intellect, treat him as we would like him to treat others, and let him display his clothing any way he pleases? If his uniform and shoes are in poor repair or not clean enough, he can easily correct this. An officer’s appearance is important but not his closet’s appearance. A contemporary view of discipline would be more realistic. Why “ground” a clock or an ashtray? Why insist that books be “taller tapped”? Why demand that the soap dish be so many centimeters from the razor blades? Why do socks have to be rolled a certain way? When the student asks these questions, he’s usually told that things have to be standard so that the Air Force can be objective during inspections. To the reasoning student, this sounds like establishing a program which is designed only to perpetuate itself. He suspects that the USAF creates rules only to see if they are being followed.
Some would say that this standardized way of spacing things out evenly in a drawer helps us to be standard in our approach to other things. The traditional-discipline school sets great store by this transfer-of-training principle, but modern transfer theorists argue that it does not work quite so simply. They might question how we can expect creativity after commissioning, while imposing rigidity before commissioning. The training situation is the formative period. What students see in training all around them, what they live by each day, is what they take with them. Do we want them to march off with mind in step, thinking that the Air Force wants mechanical response to everyday problems? Do we want them to think, or to respond as a robot? What we show them counts-not what we tell them.
The officer’s role has grown through the years, yet officer training has not grown fast enough. We speak about relevancy and modern leadership, but the “brown-shoe,” “training-must-be-difficult” concepts linger on.
the total environment
Thus far I have cited a few rather obvious situations illustrating how we teach leadership and instill an understanding of behavior in the academic phase of officer training while forcing some old-fashioned, inflexible practices upon the trainee via his military curriculum. It is indeed difficult for the student to reconcile the reason with the rote. When pressed for a reasonable excuse for what we impose on our students, we often stumble, hesitate, and offer one of the old but hardy justifications such as “It builds discipline” or “We must develop an appreciation for detail.” To each of these explanations, reason would suggest that we are kidding ourselves.
The mechanical situations are not nearly so important as the whole conflicting image of officer behavior we seem to present. Early in the program students are generally greeted with some such statement as “Welcome to an honorable profession. You are about to join an officer corps. We’ll treat you as officers.” Then they are subjected to young and rather rigid upper-class leaders. Whereas permissive, psychologically oriented leadership is stressed in seminar rooms, authoritarian leadership gets the nod in the barracks and hallways. We hope to teach ideas such as developing pride in workmanship, encouraging creative thinking, making subordinates want to perform, learning their personal, psychosocial needs and designing work experiences to satisfy these needs. Yet this is not what they learn when they are berated for infractions of minor rules. They are not encouraged to appreciate the consequences of their actions. They just get the “good old-fashioned chewing-out.” While this may be necessary for some students, it is discouraging and confusing to the others who expect to be treated as they are told to treat their subordinates. They wonder why these excellent principles of leadership apply only in studies or textbooks, and they wonder why the principles are not applied to them. Which leadership practices do students learn and take with them, those they hear of in class or those they are exposed to outside the classroom?
a disciplined force-an effective force
It may appear that I am advocating a free, open, liberal, democratic Air Force. Perhaps it sounds as if I am preaching an end to discipline, a blending of officer and airman. Not so! If, however, we continue to approach discipline as “chewing-out” for seemingly insignificant items, we are victims of routine thinking, and we severely handicap progressive training programs.
One of Webster’s definitions of discipline is “training which corrects, molds, strengthens, or perfects.” Another is “punishment; chastisement.” While the former is no doubt one proper approach, many officers seem to think only of the latter. Webster goes further with discipline and states, “to develop by instruction and exercise.” The word develop warrants attention. Another definition is “to train in self control or obedience to given standards.” I do not suggest a change in definition but a new approach to what are used as criteria. For example, let’s continue to train, mold, strengthen, and perfect. But by what measures or criteria? Let’s continue to punish, even to chastise. But for which offense and to what degree? Let’s continue to develop by instruction and exercise. But what will we develop, and what procedures do we want trainees to practice and exercise? Let’s continue to train for self-control, to demand obedience to given standards. But what shall we use as standards? Soap-dish placement? Closet arrangement?
Is the officer less disciplined if he is encouraged to use his intellect? It would appear so to those who think of discipline as forced compliance with routinely accepted standards, standards which make no sense to the trainee. The more modern approach would suggest that we develop more meaningful standards. Then we can be as firm in our “punishment” or “chastisement” as we feel is necessary. A “chewing-out” for breaches of meaningful standards is as necessary as ever. The officer so trained and so disciplined is better prepared for the complex establishment he serves. He will comply with demands made out of military necessity even though he finds no immediately apparent reason. When military requirements dictate, he will recognize the need for immediate response to commands. If we train him to use his mind, he will see this. Instead, we seem to fear that he will not comply, that unless he has been trained to perform on cue with all of the usual drawer displays, he will not perform on cue for real and vital situations. Is there any real evidence for this?
a conflict of interest
The problem, then, lies in a conflict of interest of sorts. The conflict stems from different approaches to discipline, with the older, traditional views more prevalent, and manifests itself in the meaningless mechanical things required of trainees in dining halls, closets, etc., and, more important, in the very way we talk to them and lead them. It does not matter if there is no conflict in our minds’ there is in the Student’s mind, and that is what counts.
Today’s precommissioning students are different from those of five to ten years ago. They are not as willing to accept dogma. They want reasonable answers for performing in prescribed ways. They inquire about their rights to participate in strikes, demonstrations, political campaigns, etc. Given reasonable answers, they accept necessary circumscriptions; what they resent is the response which basically tells them “Because it just isn’t done that way.” Those students no longer accept the “moral imperatives” in military training situations. They think for themselves and should be better officers than those in the past. Given a reason for a principle, they will support it.
The general barracks routines and regimentation contribute more toward a student’s concept of the Air Force than does his classroom work. Training courses project a conflicting image here, advocating permissive, psychologically oriented leadership on the one hand while inspiring rigid discipline and apparently meaningless procedures on the other. The modern student’s sophistication will not allow him to accept an environmental training which he finds meaningless.
Concepts of discipline influence one’s approach to training. The more traditional concepts stressed immediate compliance and innate obedience. Training programs were therefore traditionally very rigid. Over the years the military has modified its approach, with many writers advocating a psychological approach to leadership and discipline. These writers reject the traditional view and stress flexibility and permissiveness in the training environment.
Today’s officer training programs use a combination of the two approaches to discipline but with each view applied to a different area. The contemporary view prevails in academic programs while the traditional view prevails in the “out of class” military environment. The two approaches are contradictory, and today’s sophisticated students find the traditional approach largely meaningless and unacceptable. If we are to improve training, we would best abandon the rigid, ritualistic approach that dominates officer training and show the students in training what we expect of them after training.
JUSMAG, Thailand
Major Donald T. Sandler (M.Ed., Our Lady of the Lake College) is Chief of the Training Branch and training adviser to the Royal Thai Air Force. Since his commissioning from AFROTC in 1955, he has served with the 53d Air Rescue Squadron, Iceland; in personnel and executive capacities with 1823d Airways and Air Communications Service Group, Andrews AFB, Maryland in Personnel, Hq Ground Electronic Engineering Installation Agency, Griffiss AFB, New York; and as instructor and course chief, Officer Training School, Lackland AFB, Texas, 1962-67. Major Sandler is graduate of Squadron Officer School and Air Command and Staff College and of the Instructor Training Course, Randolph AFB, Texas.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor