Major General John Mcpostield

Introduction

John McAllister Schofield was a West Point graduate in 1853 he was a former U.S. Secretary of War and a Commanding General of the United States Army. There were only two things I knew about Major General John M. Schofield before writing this paper, that is that Schofield Barracks is named after him, and his “Definition of Discipline.” Researching Schofield, you will discover that he was not well liked by his superiors, but dig further into his life and you will discover that he was beloved by his subordinates. His definition is as follows:

The discipline which makes the Soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy

My first textbook Introduction to Teaching: Becoming a Professional, has three pages of the 535 devoted to discipline. The majority of those three pages discusses how detrimental corporal punishment is to a student’s development. (Kauchak & Eggen, 2014, 271-272). There is such a negative connotation to the word punishment that often we try to use other words to sound less “harsh,” such as penalties or corrective training. In another textbook, Kingdom Living in the Classroom, the author Dr. McCullough, using a Christian perspective, makes little distinction between punishment and penalties, but instructs that the most effective leaders focus on being proactive opposed to reactive in discipline (2008, 253). Punishments, penalties, and corrective training are similar, but punishments are usually applied because of a misbehavior or need for correction, while a penalty is a set consequence based on a breach of rule or law (Land, n.d.). However, you want to play the semantics of the consequences of actions, the important thing is certainty of punishment over severity (McCullough, 2008, 266). In the United States, only 20 states still allow “corporal punishment,” within their school systems. Today’s Soldiers are acclimated to a much different punitive system than the Army typically practices. So many Army leaders lead with fear and intimidation, often screaming and yelling. Officially, the Army

NCOs are leaders of Soldiers, Soldiers are leaders themselves; we are authority figures of leaders, and as such we should seek to be mentors and encouragers. An NCO is only as effective as their relationship is strong with their Soldiers. The only way an NCO will “know” their Soldiers well enough to “place their needs above their own” is if the Soldier is willing to approach that NCO. An unapproachable NCO is an ineffective NCO. Disciplining can require immediate attention or pulling the individual aside, but it should not be a tool for embarrassment or vengeance (McCullough, 2008, 257). Regardless if it is mandated by the Military Code of Justice, and regardless of any Oath made we are a volunteer army, and therefore have free will to strive for excellence or do the bare minimum required. Disrespect is more likely to slow down the mission and disrupt the unit; an NCO’s time is better spent learning how to inspire instead. Disrespect can rear its ugly head often without us realizing it. Asking Soldiers to miss a disproportionate amount of family time, ignoring a Soldier’s socializations and value systems, or assigning tasks that is “beneath” their title or position can solicit resentment (Figliuolo, 2011). The Golden Rule is always the best rule for respect, “Treat others how you want to be