 Good afternoon again everyone. Good to have you back from your break and back for the last session of today's first academic events. So I've been a president of the Naval War College, now your Naval War College, for a little bit over a year. I have no idea where that year went. It has gone by incredibly, incredibly fast. It's also been an incredibly enjoyable year. It has been a whole lot busier than I ever thought it could have been. I came from an operational job to here, and I remember back there thinking, Newport, it's away from Washington, D.C. It's an academic institution. This is going to be nice, and the pace has been a lot, lot busier than I thought. But at the same time, the last year has afforded me an opportunity to read, and think, and discuss, and reflect to a greater level than probably almost any other time in the 30 years before I got here. And that has resulted in a truly a personal and a professional, incredibly rewarding journey for me. And what I wanted to do was to discuss with you one of the insights that I gained as a result of that journey, and that's specifically this, that there is an operational imperative. There is a warfighting imperative that we view ourselves, that we view our Navy as a profession. Now, I want to make a couple of comments before I kind of unpack that statement. The first is that the last thing in the world I want to do is kind of come across as Charlie Brown's teacher up here. Purely focused on kind of like this more abstract piece of the professional argument. But I am convinced that there are real, practical, operational implications of the concept of professionalism, and that it's not just important. It is absolutely vital that we have explicit discussions about that topic. So the second point I'd like to make before I kind of jump into it is that this discussion is, it is less about trying to correct any significant deficiency that we have today, and it's much more about setting conditions for success for the future. So our institution, our Navy, it has been largely successful, and in some cases exceedingly so. But as we've discussed in the two previous lectures, the world is changing at an increasing rate, and that VUCA acronym rings very, very true. It's clear to me that what has been successful in the past isn't necessarily going to prepare us best for the future. And so this discussion and similar discussions on leader development are, again, less about trying to fix a big hole that we've got today, but much more about looking to the future and trying to ensure that we are best prepared for the challenges of the future. And then third, I would just like to upfront, I'm going to be using the term Navy almost throughout the presentation today. In fact, for the rest of the year with y'all here, but with absolute respect for our joint counterparts and our international partners, I hope you'll be able to just translate in your own mind. When I say Navy, think your service. When I say US, think your nation, and your nation's service. Okay, so with that in mind, back to this this insight over the course of this year, again, that there is a war fighting imperative that we think, that we view, that we see ourselves as a profession. So, you know, we mentioned it earlier today, and I would imagine that a good portion of you in the audience today are familiar with the fact that over the last several years, there's been a pretty significant discussion on the topic of professionalism. Chairman Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he has been a long time proponent of this concept and has expressed his concerns over a need to renew a sense of profession across the military. And over the years, I have read multiple articles on professionalism in Joint Force Quarterly and in other professional military journals. But frankly, none of them resonated with me. I remember getting introduced to the concept of the profession of arms in a session training at the Naval Academy, but for almost my entire career, what the word professional meant, it connoted almost specifically technical or tactical competence. If we were describing someone as professional, it meant that that seal was really good at their job. They were a good operator. Or it meant that that sailor, they look sharp. They are professional sailor. It looks like they represent the Navy in a very, very good way. And when I read the Navy ethos, and I see the word professional in there, it looks just like an adjective that's just describing a sailor in the Navy ethos. So it just didn't resonate with me. But over the course of the last year here, as a result of multiple significant discussions with some really, really smart folks, some of which you have heard today. Discussions with Re-Admiral Peg Klein and her team in the Pentagon. If any of you all have worked with Admiral Klein, she's now the secretary's special advisor in military professionalism. She was put into place by Secretary Hagel and is now continuing on in that charge with Secretary Carter. But with her team and then with Joint counterparts across. And as a result of all of those discussions, I tell you there's a new sense in my mind of how important the topic of professionalism is. And I got to find out exactly where I was going to go next as it just went, yeah, here it goes. So let me walk you through kind of the key essence of that insight. And let's go to the next slide, please. So through those conversations, here is what I have come to understand. Our Navy has a dual character. It is both a military department that is organized as a bureaucracy. And at the same time, it is an organization that is recognized as a profession. And it's in this dual character that our challenge as leaders in the Navy, that's where our key challenge resides. And let me walk you through a little bit of what Martin Cook talked about earlier. So if you've had any of the academic studies on either of these two things in the past, you would probably know bureaucracies originated out of society's need for efficient routine work. And that focus on efficiency drove organizational structure that places an absolute premium on centralized command and control. Strict adherence to optimize standard operating procedures. And kind of compliance-based or rules-based behavior. Professions, on the other hand, were originated out of society's need for the expert application of specialized knowledge. And in order for that knowledge to be effectively applied on behalf of the client, professions were granted autonomy. They're granted autonomy based on trust that the profession will execute that knowledge, exercise judgment, and exercise that knowledge consistent with the shared values with the ethic of that profession. So this dual character of the Navy is very, very important. The strengths and the attributes of both the bureaucracy and the profession are absolutely necessary for the Navy to execute the wide variety of tasks that it has to across the globe every single day. But as leaders in the Navy, it's our challenge to ensure that the overarching characteristic is and remains that of the profession. And here's why. A bureaucratic organization will not succeed on the battlefield. Only a professional organization will excite. And one more. So as we've been talking, the operational environment, so from a Navy context, that operational environment on the water, below the water in the air, the operational environment, it is volatile, complex, dominated by ambiguity and uncertainty. And so success in this kind of an environment, it requires so much more than simple tactical competence. It requires that competence to be employed with great, it's not the right word, judiciousness, it requires judicious employment of that tactical competence and it requires it to be executed in a decentralized manner. Next build. At all levels, tactically, operationally, and strategically. And the key enabler of the decentralized employment of that expert knowledge is trust. Next slide. Trust left and right within the military formations, trust up and down the military formations, and trust between the military and the nation and the civilian leadership in which it serves. Next slide. Trust is largely absent from a bureaucracy. In fact, bureaucracies are designed to operate effectively in low trust environments. But trust is the central characteristic of a profession. So next build and next build. Trust in a profession is built upon each member's core identity being associated with that of the profession, and each member's actions being guided by that ethics that is shared across the profession. So there's an operational imperative to thinking, to seeing, to being a profession because only it will provide an identity that engenders the trust that is necessary to succeed in a complex operational environment. Next slide. Thanks. Thanks. So this updated concept of professionalism has significantly improved my thinking about ethics. So I don't know what your experience has been, but over the years, especially as a military member, I was always a bit confused when we started talking about ethics. I didn't know if we were kind of going back to, I went to a parochial school when I was growing up, and I didn't know if we were going back to notions of right and wrong, as studied back in parochial school. I didn't know when we talked about ethics, if we were focusing in on kind of the sometimes mysterious branch of philosophy known as ethics. Or most recently, whether we were referring to that annual training and that list of dos and don'ts standards of government, standards of conduct for government employees. So it was always a bit confusing for me. I now see ethics through the lens of professionalism as members of the maritime profession of arms. So our ethic now becomes simply that body of guidance that steers our actions. It includes not only laws, regulations, and policies, but also our Navy's values, our culture, and our aspirations. Our ethic guides us to always act in a manner that is consistent with the profession's values, and as a result, it reinforces trust within the profession. Our ethic, next slide, guides us to also always act in a manner that supports the value of the nation and the civilian leadership that we serve. And as a result, it enhances the trust between the military and that leadership and our nation. In a complex world, our ethic helps us to understand not only what we can or what we must do, but more importantly what we should do, and does so always from a perspective of enhancing trust, both within the organization and external to it. So this idea of being a professional is truly renewed in me. This framework for thinking about the profession of arms and the professional of ethic, it has clarified and refined my thinking. It has created and reinforced a mindset that has positively influenced my decisions and my behavior. And the Navy ethos, when I read it now, it has new meaning for me. And as I reflect on years gone by, I am absolutely convinced that if I had had this framework for thinking about the profession of arms, I would have been a better leader and a better naval officer earlier and throughout my career. I do know now that I am better prepared for future challenges as a result of this framework. And one more build. So it's this impact on thinking, decision making, combined with this notion that there is a practical operational impact to this notion that has made me a true believer in the chairman's call to renew our commitment to the profession of arms. Now the tension between the bureaucratic and the professional characteristics of our organization, it is only going to grow greater as we move into times of fiscal pressure and begin to move away from sustained combat. But every single day, we have a choice in how we see ourselves and how we think about ourselves. So as you embark on this year's intellectual journey, I ask that you make renewing your sense of professionalism a key component of your studies, your reflections, and your discussions. Make a conscious effort to let the framework of the navy as a profession drive your vision, your thinking, and your decision. We're going to be a better navy for it if you do. So that's the key discovery over the course of the first year here at the War College. I'm looking forward to more discoveries in my mind as I proceed on this intellectual journey with you on year number two here. We're going to pause for a bit of a question and answer session. But before we do, I'm going to highlight you have a professional obligation. You have an ethical obligation for someone in this class to ask an incredibly meaningful and insightful question. And I get to be the judge of that. And we're going to lock the doors until someone does. But seriously, it didn't quite come out as smoothly as I wanted to present it to you today. But in all sincerity, what I wanted to get across to you was the fact that truly what had been a theoretical abstract concept, or one that was mostly just relegated to kind of scholarly articles within the military for me, it truly has new meaning for me. I would encourage you to seek and try to find that same sense of clarification in your own mind because I am convinced that the professional identity is going to engender trust within our organization and only with that trust will we be successful to fight and win against near peer competitors in an age of precision strike, should we be asked to do so. Okay, so for anything that Alinda said earlier or Martin Cook or I just laid out, comments, questions or feedback, costing it out to you, somebody's got to be first. Admiral, good afternoon. Congratulations. Well done. Lieutenant Commander Adam McClellan, United States Navy, the senior class. We've talked a lot about the development of the notion of a professional military or the military as a profession and if we look at the other professions, of course, they have codes of conduct, an internal regulation mechanism, but one thing I think you also see is something of a distinct separation from the rest of society. If you think about attorneys, not anyone can walk up the street and be an attorney. You can't walk up the street and be a physician, right? There's a very distinct separation between those who are of the society and those who are of the profession. And so are you concerned at all that this development and the focus on professionalizing the military separates us in some way from the rest of society? No, so if I've got a concern about separating from society, it probably has to do with everything from just demographics and what's happening with the composition of the military and less about the concept of professionalization. My sense is that you don't become a professional simply by joining the military. There needs to be a conscious professionalization effort to become a member of it. Earlier today we talked about personal ethics and professional ethics and the importance for all of us to think deeply about the sources and the nature of both of those ethics, where you get your guidance from when you're deciding actions, and to understand if the degree to which those ethics overlap. And if they don't overlap, where don't they overlap? Why don't they overlap? And what are the operational or professional implications of them not overlapping? And it sounds to me as I think about that statement that I just went off on a tangent that doesn't directly answer your question. So really to circle back to it, now I'm not that concerned about that an emphasis on professionalism will drive a larger kind of wedge between us and them. If there's a proper emphasis on them, society and our civilian leadership, trusting the military to execute with its capabilities consistent with our ethic, which has to be aligned with our nation's ethic. Over. But thanks for that. Sir Major Lushenko, the junior course. Folks at this college such as Martin Cook have talked about the rise of lethal strikes and drones and specializing warfare indeed resulting in potentially an unhealthy degree of autonomy. They have termed this to be immaculate warfare as well as potentially post heroic warfare. What are the implications of such specialization on the profession of arms and your assessment as well as the professional ethical obligation we have? So I'm not familiar with that conversation. So tease it out for me just a little bit. Is the idea that the specialization almost dehumanizes the actions and makes it too clean and mechanical? Yes sir. So I don't have any some of this is just coming out. I think my first thought is that so my very limited and second hand experience with those that have been involved in say strikes, especially remote strikes with drones, is that there is something that far from it becoming so clean and mechanical. There is something inherently human about it. In fact, the operators of ISR capabilities that are then called on to strike are in many cases they become incredibly familiar with the objects of attack. And instead of dehumanizing, they have almost superhumanized the objects of attacks. If I've got a kind of a concern along those lines, at least within this realm of it, it's almost that we need to be making sure that as technology continues to advance, and we are able to understand even more about our enemy before we strike them, that we are building in place the moral, the ethical, the intellectual, the emotional resiliency to ensure that our warriors are prepared to not just execute but execute the next day and the next day and the next day. So there's probably a piece of this that's not associated with the drones where you get into purely autonomous things that do make it very mechanical. And frankly, I'm just I don't know that I would offer a salient thought on that on that piece. But these are good questions for us to be thinking through. And I'm motivated now by both of these questions that when we're talking about ethics, we clearly have moved away from the list of do's and don'ts. And we're talking about those things that help us make right decisions and and face a very challenging and uncertain future. Good on you, sir. Peter Deppa in your media course. What do you think are the biggest impediments to having the military become a professional organization versus reverting back or to a bureaucratic organization? Yeah. So so right now, I've never framed this answer in the way you've asked it. But what comes to mind really are two driving factors. The first is going to be the fiscal environment that we're going to be facing. And the second is the influence of technology. And so on the first, I think that in terms of the fiscal environment that we're going to be operating there is going to be an absolute drive towards efficiency and efficiency will drive us towards things that may not be the most effective, but certainly the most efficient means of getting things done. And that will allow the the bureaucratic characteristic of our military to kind of start dominating the thinking. And in the face of that, we will have a responsibility to ensure and back up for a minute, we should all recognize bureaucracy is not necessarily a bad word. There are strengths to bureaucracy that are that are phenomenal. And there are attributes of bureaucracy that when applied in the right context are the absolute right thing. But that's not always the case in terms of developing the military prepared for the challenges of the future. So I think one pressure is going to be this increasing fiscal pressure that's going to drive a bureaucratic mindset and we got to guard against that. And then the second is just this notion of technology is making it very, very easy for all in the chain of command to be seeking more and more information. And it will take a very deliberate and conscious attempt by all those in the leadership to create and sustain a culture that will be prepared to execute in a decentralized manner. Because again, only through decentralized execution will we be able to prevail in a complex, complex operation environment as opposed to a simple or complicated one. Admiral, I'm Alexander Hamilton with the Department of State. Great name. Thank you very much in the in the senior course. And I was wondering what your thoughts were on how we can as future leaders in our respective agencies and branches help instill a sense of professional ethics in those underneath us, the lower-ranking NCOs, officers, whomever, especially there. I think it was Professor Martin or Professor Kirk referenced how we're all here because we live this life. We have embodied this sense of service. How best can we best instill that sense of professionalism or professional ethics in those that are looking at just doing a couple of tours, maybe not re-enlisting, maybe not taking that next overseas assignment or what have you, what are your thoughts on that, sir? My first thought is to ask you if you got paid by our leader development experts to tee that softball up for me. Did everybody heard the question? I'll give you the quick answer and then I want to kind of give you a longer answer. The quick answer is a conversation like this with those in your charge and not just once, but a steady drumbeat of conversations about what does it mean to be a professional and as you're reviewing the last week's actions or perhaps the next week's actions or that day's actions, having very explicit discussions about what would the bureaucracy be telling us, what would the profession be telling us and having a very explicit discussion on when you let either of the characteristics dominate the decision-making and why? But it is, it's truly, it is taking the concept out of the abstract, making it practical and making it part of each and every day experience. A quick tangent there, there were truly two key discoveries and in my time over this last year I tried to offer the one about this operational imperative of the concept of profession of arms. The other one has been about leader development. Throughout my entire career I have always recognized how important leader development was as an officer, but I saw it only as this ancillary part of the job. Almost all throughout my career I felt like, you know, I'm not a leadership subject matter expert. I didn't study it in college. When I was a lieutenant and I had two lieutenant JGs working for me in a SEAL platoon, you know, I was struggling to rise to the team CO's expectations of a platoon commander, much less worried about professionally developing these JGs underneath me. What would I have to offer them? But I tell you, over the course of this last year as we've worked hard at trying to operationalize the Navy leader development strategy, we've got a strategy but as we conceptualize how we are going to operationalize it and then do it, the point that has just resonates with me now very, very strongly is it's leaders engaging leaders. It's not a schoolhouse solution. It's not waiting for another program to be developed. It's not a new course. It is simply the single most and highest return on investment strategy for improving leader development in the Navy is simply having leaders talking with subordinate leaders about leadership, about ethics, about professionalism as a routine course of business and you do not need to be a subject matter expert in order to stimulate a meaningful and productive conversation about leadership. Just simply raising it out of the kind of implicit into the world of the explicit will have a significant positive impact on those juniors. So I think I would offer to you it could start as easy as a steady drum beat of conversations and making the concept of professionalism explicit instead of implicit. Thanks for that. Okay, going once, twice. Okay, we will close out with a thought that I love my job but I would love to be in your seats right now. I would love to be heading off into a 10 months of an academic adventure or finishing up if you're here from one of the other trimesters. It's going to be a great year consistent with what we've been trying to say all day long. Please, when you leave here, don't flush what you've heard here today. Find some time tonight before you go to bed to reflect on the key messages that you've heard here today and renew a commitment to action those messages over the course of the next 12 months, 10 months. And we'll see you around campus. Have a good afternoon.