1
Liberating Discipline
Running Head: LIBERATING DISCIPLINE
Liberating Discipline: Historical and postmodern perspectives of
Trans-cultural Code-Sharing and Transcendent Discourse
in the role of the Inspector General
Barton D. Buechner
Fielding Graduate University
Presented at the conference of the
Society for International Training, Education, and Research (SIETAR), Deutschland
Global Integral Competence
Berlin, Germany
September 29, 2012
Abstract
The Inspector General, or “IG” is an iconic role in military and government organizations most commonly associated with enforcing integrity, efficiency, and accountability. The IG model currently in use in the United States government stems from a novel approach taken towards training the army of the revolution in 1775, in which the IG role was established outside of the army’s organizational structure and assigned particular areas of independent responsibility and authority for creating order and instilling training and discipline in the troops. The enacting of this role in this context had the almost paradoxical effect of creating channels for communication, resolution of conflict, and the emergence of a liberating moral code within and between the military and civil authorities. Referring to theories of the Coordinated Management of Meaning (Pearce, 2007) and network theory (Alstyne, 1997), this paper will examine the origins and function of the US Army Inspector General (IG); consider ways in which this function was translated into a system and “moral code” in the United States Army, and explore the potential applicability of a similar construct to serve as a vehicle for what Pearce refers to as Cosmopolitan Communication, or Transcendent Discourse, in global organizations or networks.
Liberating Discipline: Historical and postmodern perspectives of Trans-cultural Code-Sharing and Transcendent Discourse in the role of the Inspector General
The success of the American Revolution was an improbable event that marked the beginning of a great experiment in individual freedom and democratic governance, placing sovereignty in the people. George Washington is widely recognized as the essential military leader who led the battle for independence and achieved, for the first time in world history, the independence of a colony from an empire (Ellis, 2005). Less well-known is the entirely novel and unprecedented system of training and discipline employed by the Colonial army to attain this improbable victory, and the way this system emerged through the interaction between General Washington and his first effective Inspector General, Baron Friedrich von Steuben. The interplay of the character and values of these two men became embodied in a new role of the Inspector General, or “IG”, and permeated through the organization as part of a “code” of technical competence, ethics, and values. Over time this code, instilled and perpetuated through the “von Steuben IG Model” has evolved as a force of moral authority in the increasingly complex organizational context of the US Army. Beyond a particular doctrine or methodology, the IG model functions independently of the formal organization as a cyclical or recursive system, including distinct and interconnected stages of teaching and training, evaluating performance, making corrections, and learning from experience. How was this able to happen, and why was this new “IG” model so much more effective than previous methods of military training?
From Prussia, with Love
Following negotiations with American emissaries in Europe, and approval by the Colonial Congress, von Steuben made the long voyage from Prussia to America at a time when Washington’s army at Valley Forge was demoralized after a number of military failures. Von Steuben quickly realized that the volunteer soldiers he encountered there would not unquestioningly adopt the same rigid training and discipline as their Prussian counterparts (Lockhart, 2008). He bridged the gap of authority and common cause by creating and teaching a new system that would ensure accountability, common terminology, and a reasonable amount of technical proficiency – but only in those things that demonstrably contributed to combat effectiveness. He also required that the officers master the same basic skills as the enlisted soldiers, and be actively engaged in teaching them. Further, officers were subject to the same rules as the solders, and were admonished to lead by example and uphold a higher standard of “exemplary conduct” (Schmitz, 2012). The overall effect of this standardized and systemic approach was a less rigid, more egalitarian, highly autonomous yet technically proficient and integrated army (Clary and Whitethorne, 1987). Such an organization was capable of operating in smaller units, with a high degree of confidence among these units and their members to competently carry out commonly understood skills, maneuvers and organizational practices – all of which were prescribed in detail in a written code of regulations for the US Army, written by the Baron himself (von Steuben, 1779). This new method of training and code of discipline completely transformed the performance of the Continental army in a short period of time, allowing them to capitalize on the commitment and spirit of individual soldiers while using existing resources efficiently and maintaining order and predictability during field maneuvers.
Some of the unique character of the von Steuben IG model of Inspector General originated in the complex interpersonal relationship between General Washington and Baron von Steuben, and the context in which they were operating. Due to the intense competition and jealousies among his senior officers, Washington was reluctant to allow the Baron (as a foreigner and relative newcomer) to have formal command authority, and so protected him from intrigue and interference with his assigned task by restricting his scope to the training of troops and establishment of standards (Lockhart, 2008). In this way, the Baron was positioned as an agent of the Congress, in direct service to the senior military commander, with the ability to create and enforce system-wide standards for the army to which all were accountable. A key aspect of this arrangement is that the IG was operating outside of, and therefore not in competition with, the formal army command structure. This would become a key aspect of the IG role as an independent entity, and to a certain extent foreshadows the notion of separation of powers that would become a mainstay of the US Constitution.
To better appreciate how the first IG code itself took shape, it is helpful to have some understanding of von Steuben’s personal background. He began his military career in the Prussian army during a time of war, and as a relatively young officer, was a member of a small group of officers personally tutored by the King of Prussia, Frederick the Great (Lockhart, 2008). Although he was arguably one of the most experienced and capable officers of his cohort, he apparently fell victim to political intrigue and was unceremoniously released from the military service (Lockhart, 2008). Afterwards, he assumed duties as the Hoffsmarshall for a Prince of the Hohenzollern family, where he was challenged to create a system of efficiency and accountability to guard against the allegedly “spendthrift” tendencies of his employer (Schmitz, 2012). A series of chance encounters led him to travel to America to join the Colonial revolutionary forces. When he reached Valley Forge, he found a dispirited and impoverished army, which had suffered recent defeats and was lacking in nearly everything (Ellis, 2005). Although he spoke little or no English, he and Washington gained a mutual respect, and von Steuben was assigned to the process of inspection and training. From his previous experience, he quickly recognized that the first need was to establish accountability and standardized procedures, and made it his first order of business to prescribe and implement a system of inventory control for weapons, standards for sanitation and order in camp, and military drill procedures (Clary and Whitethorne, 1987). As he learned more about this new army, he became aware that the character of the soldiers – all volunteers – was different than the Prussian troops he had previously dealt with. According to family historian Henning-Hubertus Baron von Steuben, he wrote in a letter to a former colleague in the Prussian army defining the difference in this way:
“You tell your soldier what he has to do, and he follows (the order); I have to explain at first why something has to be done, and only then it happens … it is a sign for self-respect and a tribute to the solders as free and independent individuals” (von Steuben, 2004).
This insight also shaped the von Steuben IG model, helping to bridge very different social worlds. In the absence of the unquestioned rule of an aristocracy as had been present in the armies of Europe, von Steuben needed to clarify and justify to all a form of individual and group discipline that could be understood, embraced, and carried out to facilitate coherent collective action by members at all levels of the organization. The result was a clearly defined and articulated social system. Von Steuben wrote precise descriptions of the role and authority of each rank and position in the army, with the admonition that officers not merely command, but also personally engage in training and drilling the troops, and look out for their welfare (Lockhart, 2008). The IG then inspected individual units to ensure that both material conditions and behavioral standards were consistent across the individual units that constituted the army. In this way, the role of the IG evolved from that of drillmaster, as it had previously been, into something more systemic and pervasive.
At first, von Steuben himself embodied this role of teacher and trainer, but in a very different way than the American Army was used to seeing. He was not merely a drill sergeant; for through his relationship with Washington he also carried the authority of the commander and the ability to ensure that all soldiers of every rank received and complied with their instruction (Lockhart, 2008). Yet, it is a significant point that he did not have formal command authority in himself, which would have complicated the role by adding the element of competition with his peers. Von Steuben also had another line of accountability, in that he had been directly hired by the Continental Congress, who had sent him to Valley Forge to achieve the results of training their army (Clary and Whitethorne, 1987). This could have put him in conflict with General Washington, as it had the previous Inspector General appointed by the Congress, but the trust and respect which developed between the two men allowed the arrangement to work (Lockhart, 2008). This dual relationship of the IG to both the military commander and to the highest civilian authority eventually came to define the positioning of the Inspector General within, yet outside of, the military organization.
The IG and Network theory
Military organizations have a deserved reputation for being vertical hierarchies, organizations, reflecting their tendency towards a well-defined and stratified rank structure and “top-down” decision-making. The addition of an independent IG function, positioned outside of the chain of command, introduces other dynamics, which do not conform to hierarchical norms but instead follow the behavioral logics of network theory. Networks are distinguished from other forms of organization; particularly hierarchy, bureaucracy, and free market, in that power and influence between actors are not dependent upon level or position, as in a hierarchy or bureaucracy, nor are they solely determined by a single differentiating factor, such as price, as in an open market (Powell, 1990). Network theory also provides explanatory power for emergent, or intangible properties that are not easily predicted or created by other forms of organization. We will explore later on ways that these intangible properties may be useful in preventing or resolving some of the inevitable conflicts and inefficiencies that come with hierarchies.
In the von Steuben IG model, the Inspector General does not hold direct command authority within the army’s formal structure, but influences through expertise by “teaching and training”, and ensures adherence to prescribed standards by “inspecting and correcting”. Also, the IG is not reducible to a simple organizational function within a defined bureaucracy. Instead, the IG has broad powers across the organization, subordinate only to the senior military commander and with direct accountability to the highest civilian authority for ensuring efficiency and accountability. Lastly, the presence of an IG in the system prevents individual components from operating solely as if part of a “free market” by ensuring standardization and harmonization of purpose across sub-units. The IG performs these integrating and regulating functions largely through processes of communication, or indirect influence. The result of this coordinating function is both increased levels of orderliness, and flexibility. These seemingly contradictory characteristics also appear frequently in the literature as descriptors of network forms of organization, and may be precursors or indicators of other, emergent, properties of networks. (Alstyne, 1997).
Networks function in a complex, yet orderly way, and are defined by certain observable, emergent characteristics. Marshall van Alstyne lists several of these characteristics in “The State of Network Organization” which include boundaries, relationships, information flow (communication), meaning, identity, membership, shared goals, trust, shared risk, and flexibility (Alstyne, 1997). All of these characteristics are observable in the von Steuben IG model, and seen as emergent properties in the army organization under its influences, as presented earlier. The IG, and the army, both subscribe to and depend upon certain intangible values. Von Steuben family historian Henning-Hubertus von Steuben lists the basic values of the IG as “Duty, Discipline, and Integrity” (von Steuben, 2004). The process of bringing forth these values through the IG model follows several distinct steps, which include (1) prescribing the standard, (2) training and teaching, (3) modeling “exemplary conduct”, and then (4) inspecting (Schmitz, 2012). Through this process, which von Steuben described as “explaining to (free, volunteer) soldiers why they should do things,” the intangible qualities such as unit cohesion, pride, morale, commitment, and loyalty appear as emergent properties. These are not things that can be intentionally created simply by stating a desire to do so, or imposed by bureaucracies; nor do they readily manifest in open markets. Instead, they can appear as emergent properties network organizations, when conditions are created which supports them. As Alstyne (2007) describes it:
“Substantial evidence suggests...that markets and hierarchies do not bracket networks. The most compelling of these arguments focus on issues of affiliation, loyalty, trust—dimensions along which markets resemble hierarchies more than either resemble networks…. In networks—where intangibles and rapidly applied expertise provide key sources of value—reputations, commitments, and trust become essential” (p. 4).