A Crisis of Credibility: Discipline Starts at the Top

By Sgt. 1st Class Alexander C. Castle

F Company, 2nd Battalion, 159th Aviation Regiment (Attack Battalion)

August 17, 2026

Download the PDF

This scene is a daily indictment of senior leadership. A young sergeant, doing fundamental NCO work, corrects a private on a minor uniform discrepancy. Moments later, a sergeant first class with a phone to his ear strolls past, one hand in his pocket. He walks directly into the battalion headquarters and no one says a word.

The sergeant falls silent and the private looks confused.

In that instant, a simple lesson in professionalism is replaced by a masterclass in hypocrisy, taught and sanctioned by the very leaders who should be the staunchest guardians of standards.

This is not a junior enlisted failure, it's a senior NCO doctrinal and moral failure, and it's a direct threat to the Army's lethality and readiness for large-scale combat operations (LSCO).

The discipline forged in the seemingly minor interactions of daily garrison life is the very foundation upon which cohesive, lethal teams are built. When the Army value of "Selfless Service" is replaced by a sense of exception that comes with rank, the mutual trust required for units to function under the extreme stress of war evaporates (MacCoun & Hix, 2010).

Attempts to fix discipline that don't start with a ruthless focus on senior NCO accountability is doomed to fail, creating not only cynicism, but a force unprepared for the brutal realities of the modern battlefield.

How We Lost Our Way

How did we get here? We abandoned the simple, effective framework that once bred discipline at every level - the four rights; be at the right place, at the right time, in the right uniform, and with the right attitude.

This was never just a slogan; it was a clear, measurable, and easily enforceable standard that empowered every NCO. Crucially, this system was enforced by a culture of shared accountability. NCOs didn't just correct Soldiers; they did so knowing their first sergeant would hold them accountable for deficiencies they failed to address.

The standard you walked past was the standard you accepted, and in a disciplined NCO corps, accepting a substandard performance was a personal failure NCOs were unwilling to risk (Spiszer, 1999).

In that older culture, Soldiers knew NCOs would enforce every standard. This consistency meant that an on-the-spot correction was not a significant emotional event; it was an expected and accepted part of daily life. You accepted that if you violated a regulation, you were wrong, and the correction was just.

Today, with inconsistent enforcement, even clear violations like hands in pockets become points of frustration. When Soldiers get away with it for days and are later corrected, they feel singled out, not mentored. The problem isn't the standard itself, but leadership's lack of consistent enforcement.

Forging Leaders Through Discomfort

The failure to make on-the-spot corrections is more than a dereliction of duty; it's a missed opportunity to forge the very resilience the Army requires for combat. Leadership, like muscle, is built through repeated exposure to discomfort.

The small, hard daily leadership choices - making a correction you may not personally believe in, conducting difficult counseling on substandard performance, or teaching a class in front of your peers - are the foundational exercises that build leaders' comfort zone around uncomfortable situations.

This is where senior NCO failures become most damaging.

Junior NCOs may be tasked with teaching a class that push them outside their comfort zone, but the senior NCOs who delegated the task fail to follow up. There are no rehearsals, no reviews of the material, no mentorship. The junior NCOs, poorly prepared, deliver a mediocre class.

That's when trust erodes exponentially: the Soldiers see their NCOs as incompetent, they fail to learn the material, and the junior NCOs learn nothing from the experience because senior leaders also did not provide an after-action review to help them improve.

This single leadership failure creates a cascade of negative consequences, degrading trust and competence throughout the formation.

Each time leaders successfully navigate uncomfortable situations, whether tough counseling sessions or well-rehearsed classes, they not only grow their competence through lessons learned, but also build resilience and confidence.

They learn that positive outcomes are the result of facing discomfort, and the anxiety associated with it lessens. By failing to mentor their subordinates through these challenges, senior NCOs deny them this critical developmental loop.

Punishing the Principled and Promoting the Average

Cultural decay does more than erode discipline; it actively punishes those who attempt to uphold standards. In today's environment, NCOs who consistently enforce standards are often labeled as "difficult" or "toxic," while more "amicable" NCOs who avoid confrontation are preferred.

This creates a perverse incentive structure where agreeableness is valued more than the transformational abilities required to build lethal teams (Bass, 1985).

Avoiding discomfort extends to the evaluation system. We no longer force junior NCOs to write detailed counseling for substandard performance, and the NCO Evaluation Review (NCOER) system has become so inflated that the Army is constantly trying to solve the issue.

Rather than rating people honestly, leaders hide behind weak bullet points and inflated ratings. Telling a Soldier they're merely "average" or in the top 50% is seen as a career-ending move. But not everyone is exceptional.

When average performers are allowed to compete with the best because their raters were unwilling to be uncomfortable and give them a deserved lower rating, the entire talent management system is compromised.

A truly top-tier NCO with a strict rater who realistically places them in the top 20% can be disadvantaged against an average NCO whose rater inflates their evaluation, giving the less-qualified Soldier an unearned advantage in promotion and assignments.

The Need for Radical Honesty

Modern Soldiers will accept hardship, but they won't accept hypocrisy. To earn their genuine commitment, not just coerce their resentful compliance, leaders must provide transparent and honest justification for the standards they impose.

We lose their "buy-in" when they see through flimsy reasoning. Hiding behind weak arguments about "professionalism" or "heritage" that Soldiers know to be inconsistent is counterproductive.

If a standard's sole purpose is to instill discipline, to build the habit of obedience for the chaos of combat, then leaders must have the courage to state that plainly. Soldiers respect leaders who say, "We do this because it's hard, and practicing discipline now saves lives later." Soldiers won't respect leaders who justify a standard while violating it themselves.

This trust is leadership currency, and without it, a unit's will to fight and win in a contested environment is fatally compromised (Ben-Shalom et al., 2008).

SMA Weimer's Misdiagnosis

Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) Michael R. Weimer's intent to restore discipline is correct, but his chosen weapon, a high-visibility campaign against shaving profiles, is aimed at the wrong target. It misdiagnoses the illness.

The problem isn't the private with a neat, close-trimmed beard; the problem is the sergeant first class who sees it and does nothing because his own standards are compromised. This echoes warnings from past SMAs, who consistently preached that leaders must personally model the discipline they wish to see in the force.

By focusing on the most junior and visible Soldiers, the strategy attacks the symptom, not the disease. The disease is a failure of leadership credibility at the senior level.

This approach is guaranteed to backfire. It won't change NCO corps' culture. It'll create, at best, a temporary wave of compliance as leaders wait for the SMA's tenure to end.

At worst, it further erodes trust, sending a clear message that the top is more interested in a public relations campaign than in solving the core problem of senior NCO hypocrisy.

This creates a crisis of selective enforcement. The intense focus placed on an issue that, due to the medical reality of pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) (commonly known as razor bumps, an inflammatory skin condition caused by sharp, newly cut hairs curling back and piercing the skin), disproportionately impacts Black Soldiers (Ogunbiyi et al., 2014).

While likely not born of malicious intent, the effect is a campaign that places a specific demographic under a microscope. This transforms a discipline problem into a potentially morally injurious event for Soldiers with legitimate medical needs.

When we force Soldiers to choose between their health, their career, and a regulation (Department of the Army [DA], 2021b) their peers and seniors violate in other ways with impunity, we betray the very essence of leadership (National Center for PTSD, 2024). This internal division is a vulnerability our adversaries would be eager to exploit.

An Evidence-Based Path Forward

We don't need to invent a solution; we need only look at what works. When the Army decided to modernize female grooming standards, it did so through a deliberate, evidence-based process that balanced morale, professionalism, and readiness (DA, 2021a).

U.S. allies in the United Kingdom and Canada have shown that beard policies can be adapted to improve morale and recruitment while maintaining a professional standard (Dugan, 2024; Canadian Armed Forces, 2024).

The question isn't whether we can adapt, but why we choose to apply a different, more punitive logic to this specific issue.

A sophisticated, evidence-based path forward is required:

Conclusion

The Army's most urgent task is to rehabilitate senior enlisted leadership accountability. This isn't about appearances; it is about warfighting.

The trust, cohesion, and disciplined initiative required to win on a modern, dispersed battlefield is forged or broken in the daily habits of garrison life (DA, 2026).

Senior NCOs who tolerate hypocrisy actively degrade the Army's combat readiness. Soldiers will only commit to standards - and to each other in combat - if they see them reflected, without exception, in the senior leaders entrusted with more responsibility.

Late fifth SMA William G. Bainbridge said it best: "Standards are the price of admission to the profession of arms, but they are meaningless if the keepers of those standards do not first apply them to themselves."

It's time for senior NCOs to decide whether they lead by example, build a more lethal and ready force, or continue down the path of irrelevance. The NCO corps' credibility, and the discipline needed to win the nations wars, hangs in the balance.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Ben-Shalom, U., Lehrer, Z., & Ben-Ari, E. (2008). Cohesion during military operations: A field study on combat units in the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Armed Forces & Society, 32(1), 63-79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249775664_Cohesion_during_Military_OperationsA_Field_Study_on_Combat_Units_in_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada

Canadian Armed Forces. (2024, July 2). July 2nd 2024 Changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/dress-manual/changes-canadian-forces-dress-instructions.html

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377-383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589

Defense Innovation Unit. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved August 3, 2025, from https://www.diu.mil/solutions/portfolio

Department of the Army. (2026). ADP 6-0: Command and Control. U.S. Army Publishing Directorate. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN47032-ADP_6-0-000-WEB-1.pdf

Department of the Army. (2021a, January 27). Army announces new grooming, appearance standards. Army.mil. https://www.army.mil/article/242536/army_announces_new_grooming_appearance_standards

Department of the Army. (2021b). AR 670-1: Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia. U.S. Army Publishing Directorate. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30302-AR_670-1-001-WEB-3.pdf

Dugan, E. (2024, March 29). British army ends century-old ban to allow troops to grow beards. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/29/british-army-ends-century-old-ban-to-allow-troops-to-grow-beards

MacCoun, R. J., & Hix, W. M. (2010). Unit cohesion and military performance. In Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: An update of RAND's 1993 study (pp. 111-146). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1056.html

National Center for PTSD. (2024, March 25). Moral Injury. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp

Ogunbiyi, A., Olanrewaju, E., & George, A. (2014). Pseudofolliculitis barbae; current treatment options. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 7, 241-247. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6585396/

Spiszer, J. M. (1999). The art of the NCO. NCO Journal. (Note: This is a historical reference often cited in military leadership discussions; direct links to specific 1999 issues are scarce, but the journal's archives are maintained by Army University Press at https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/)

Thematic. (2024). How to start using AI-powered sentiment analysis. https://getthematic.com/insights/using-ai-sentiment-analysis/

Author Biography

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the NCO Journal, the U.S. Army, or the U.S. Department of War.

Back to Top