This document discusses the concepts of "Be, Know, Do" as the foundation of military leadership. It provides examples of how great historical leaders embodied these concepts through their character, knowledge, and actions. Specifically: - "Be" refers to a leader's character and strengths/weaknesses. Great leaders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln exemplified strong moral character. - "Know" means having knowledge and experience to guide others. Leaders must continuously expand their knowledge through education. - "Do" refers to taking action and using one's knowledge and strengths. Effective leaders take initiative and make decisions in the best interests of their organization. The document emphasizes that true leadership requires setting an example, caring for

1. Be, Know, Do
Be, know and Do is the foundation of every successful leader within the military
today. Be is the character of each individual that defines who they are by their inner
strengths and weaknesses. Know encompasses our level of knowledge that we have
managed to retain of the years; while Do is in how we use that knowledge based on the
type of person we are.
To better understand Be, Know and Do; let’s look at what a leader is.
“It is critical that Army leaders be agile, multi-skilled pentathletes who have strong moral
character, broad knowledge, and keen intellect. They must display these attributes and
leader competencies bound by the concept of the Warrior Ethos. Leaders must be
committed to lifelong learning to remain relevant and ready during a career of service to
the Nation.
Army leaders must set the example, teach, and mentor, and this manual provides
theprinciples, concepts, and training to accomplish this important task on which
America” (1 GEN. Schoomaker)
The above quote from the Chief of Staff signifies the whole of what a leader
should be. The army Field manual 6-22 states that a leader should have “strong
intellect, physical presence, professional competence, high moral character, and serve
as a role model.” A Leader is also expected to act in the best interest of the
organization and within the intent of his or her superiors. A leader is anyone by virtue of
responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish goals. They motivate people
to pursue actions, think and act in the interest of the military.
A leader is expected to influence those around him / her to do what needs to be
done to accomplish the mission. It is not enough to issue orders as a leader but it is
vital to set an example for everyone to emulate. Such influences and examples are not
only set while in uniform but also when out in public in civilian attire. Positive examples
subconsciously influence everyone around you both directly and indirectly.

2. Purpose and vision are closely related. Purpose is the individual reason to
achieve a goal which can be either through orders or suggestions. Vision is the
influencing factor of purpose. When a leader conveys his vision of what he or she
would like to accomplish in a clear and organized manner, then they are able to
enlighten others to their purpose and thus drive them toward the same goal.
A leader provides direction through clear communication and prioritizing tasks
and assigning those tasks to the appropriate person or persons. Direction also requires
allowing the people designated to accomplish a task the freedom to modify plans and
orders to adapt to the ever changing situation. While such freedoms need to be
allowed, it is also the responsibility of the leader to stay apprised of the situation and to
redirect at times when the mission dictates a specified direction.
A leader is someone who motivates and is motivated by those around them.
Motivation is the will to put forth the energy to accomplish the mission. A leader must
understand what motivates those around him / her to achieve the same organizational
goals. Motivation consists of praising success, critiquing failure, andproviding
challenging tasks to keep their attention.
A leader provides developmental counseling to assist their subordinates improve
their performance to prepare for the future. Such counseling should encompass both
strong and weak areas and provide a plan to improve the weak areas and correct any
short comings.
Every military leader shares a common compass as their superiors and
subordinates alike. They possess the Loyalty to bear faith and allegiance to
Constitution, the Army, unit and other Soldiers, the Duty to fulfill their obligations to
those whom they are loyal, the Respect to treat people the way they want to be treated,
the Selfless Service to put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and subordinates before
theirs, the Honor to live up to the Army values, and the Personal Courage to face fear,
danger, and adversity.
A Leader must be loyal to those whom they serve and their subordinates. They
must support them in both their accomplishments and failures. For a leader to expect or

3. demand loyalty from their subordinates, they must be willing to off the same in return.
Loyalty is not a trait easily given or earned but with proper guidance and example, such
loyalty can be achieved.
A leader is duty bound to fulfil the tasks presented to them; to accomplish the
mission despite the odds. When a leader has earned the loyalty of those around them,
then that duty is quickly taken up by those around them and the mission is more easily
accomplished and with less hardship.
To retain the loyalty of those around him / her, a leader must be respectful to
those around them. Respect includes listening to their input, grief and addressing them
as they arise.
A leader will always place the needs of their subordinates before their own. He /
she will ensure the health and welfare of those around them regardless of their own
strife for a healthy soldier is a motivated soldier. A soldier who has less personal issues
is more attentive and reliable than those who do.
An Honorable leader will be noticed by those around them, subordinate and
senior alike. An honorable leader will stand up for their beliefs, take credit for their
mistakes and strive to correct those mistakes. They are the embodiment of the Army
values despite their situation.
A leader must possess the integrity to do what is right and expected even when
alone so as to bring credit upon him more so than others.
A leader who has the personal courage to step forward; to lead the way, before
all others demand respect, loyalty, honor and the duty of others to follow.
BE denotes a leader to be themselves, to lead by example, to be true to
themselves and those around them. To be true requires the integrity to admit to
mistakes, the personal courage to accept the consequences for ones actions, the honor
to correct those mistakes. BE is to be the one who those around you can turn to for
strength and courage in the face of adversity despite any hardship for when all things
fall apart, it is the Sergeant everyone turns to for the answers.

4. Know describes a leader’s knowledge. A leader is expected to have the answers
even when there are none. Only through experience, training, confidence and
continuous education can he / she guide others. Every leader is expected to know his /
her job, the job of their subordinates and the job of their direct supervisor. A leader
must know his subordinates, know their need, know their wants, and know how to
satisfy those wants and needs. A leader is expected to know and anticipate the needs
and wants of their superiors in order to better facilitate those needs and wants.
Continuous education is required of a leader to continually expand their knowledge both
in and outside their area of expertise.
Do is every action that a leader takes; both negative and positive. A leader is
expected to take action in the absence of direction based on the knowledge that he or
she possesses at the time. They are expected to act in the best interest of the
organization while taking into serious consideration the welfare and needs of their
subordinates. To do this, they are expected to use the expertise and strengths of those
around them to their maximum potential in order to accomplish the mission before them.
Many leaders from the past have stepped forward to lead when others would not
and have set the pace for those who have and are expected to come after them.
Leaders, such as General, George Washington were a plantation owner and were
serving in the Virginia House of Burgesses when he was elected to lead the Continental
Army3. General Washington used his experience as a former British Commander to
lead an untrained military. He saw the need for training and sought to do that while
camped in Valley Forge during the winter of 1777. His determination and courage
helped to inspire his soldiers and eventually defeat the British in 17814. The respect
and admiration he earned while serving as the Commander and Chief of the Continental
Army unanimously won him the position as the First President of the United States.
Abraham Lincoln, despite his unremarkable military service, he was no less a
leader for it. He studied law and expanded his knowledge to a point where he could use
that knowledge to among other things, to protect those and lead the country forward by
abolishing slavery, modernizing the economy and strengthening the government.
Despite resistance, he pushed for the betterment of those around him.

5. Ulysses S. Grant distinguished himself as a leader during the civil war. His
aggressiveness and confidence won him victories through the loyalty of his soldiers and
their duty to serve. After her led the Union Army to victory of the Confederate states, he
went on to be elected as the eighteenth president of the United States where he served
two terms. As a leader, he sought to protect those who he was responsible. He fought
to protect the citizenship of the African American population, expand world trade, and
maintain peace with the countries of the world.
Douglas MacArthur was a leader who led from the front and fought with his
subordinates which earned him multiple Silver Stars. By fighting on the front lines with
his soldiers, he instilled loyalty and respect as one who leads by example. He made
promises which he kept (return to the Philippines) during the Second World War.
General George Patton was another leader who led his subordinates from the
front. While he lacked any political correctness by all accounts, he inspired his
subordinates by talking with them, pushing them hard and rewarding them for their
accomplishments. Patton also expected his junior officers to serve at the front with their
soldiers as evident in his orders “I expect to see such casualties among officers,
particularly staff officers, as will convince me that a serious effort has been made to
capture this objective5”
As you can see form the examples of many leaders in our history, a leader is
someone who takes the welfare of those whom they are charged with the care of into
consideration and places such welfare high on their priorities. The guidance of
leadership can be found in many sources, one of which is the Creed of the
Noncommissioned Officer. Each paragraph can be broken down to describe Be, Know,
Do.
“No one is more professional than I.” This simple opening line states that a
leader is to Be a professional. “I am a Noncommissioned officer, a leader of soldiers.”
The second line lets a lead Know his responsibility. “…And will at all times conduct
myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the military service and my country

6. regardless of the situation in which I find myself.” A leader is honorable and morally
strong. This line tells us what a leader must Do.
“Competence is my watch-word.” A leader should strive to Be competent by
taking his or her experiences into account and making them part of who they are. “I will
strive to remain technically and tactfully proficient.” A leader must continually expand
his Knowledge so that he will have the tools to accomplish any mission. There is little
doubt as to what a leader must Do since it is outlined so obviously; “I know my soldiers
and I will always place their needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with
my soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and impartial when
recommending both rewards and punishment.”
The final paragraph also outlines traits for a leader. "I will earn their respect and
confidence as well as that of my soldiers." This describes a leader who can Be
dependable and respectful. A leaders Knows "I will not forget, nor will I allow my
comrades to forget that we are professionals." and "I will exercise initiative by taking
appropriate action in the absence of order." A leader will Do with needs to be done
without guidance and in the best interest of the organization and their subordinates.
As I stated earlier, the Creed of the Noncommissioned Officer provides a clear
and concise outline as to what is a true leader within the military structure. The quotes
used are only examples from each paragraph and do not encompass the whole of the
meaning but are the most important parts of each, just as a leader is much more than
his or her individual parts.
There are many types of leaders, those who lead as I have outlined above, and
those who lead through intimidation, deceit, and fear but in all cases, each leader
thought he was in the "right." Every leader has fought what they viewed as the
oppression to their way of life.
Osama bin Laden is considered one of the most "evil" men of our century. Under
his guidance, Al-Qaeda planned multiple attacks on the United States as he viewed the
infidel Americans as a threat to his society. While most people disagree with his view of
the world and interpretation of the Quran, he inspired thousands of people around the

7. world to attack American and her allies. Even after his death in 2011, people still follow
his ideals. While most of the world considers him to be a terrorist, he still retain respect
and loyalty from many for whatever reason they chose to follow him.
Maximilien Robespierre inspired people to follow him through the French
Revolution. Robespierre wanted the people of France to have freedom and equal
rights. During his time with the Committee of Public Safety, he was considered a hard
worker, strong principles and was thought to be incorruptible due to his honesty and
rigid commitment to the transformation of France6.
These are only two leaders who in the eyes of many were ruthless and evil but
who still demanded the loyalty of thousands. Today leadership has become less
commonplace in America with more people content to follow or to place their own needs
above that of their peers or subordinates. This common practice is all too common in
today's military.
Soldiers in the rank of Specialist tend to work hard to lead soldiers under their
influence and to set themselves above their peers. They are much like children trying to
please their parents buy watching their siblings. When a specialist achieves the rank of
sergeant, he introduced to increasingly more responsibility and pressure. This pressure
with the fear of reprisal for failure and the insatiable desire to jockey ahead of their
peers leads to two types of leaders. As a E5 sergeant, we begin the cut-throat arena of
leadership. Nearly all new sergeants fear reprisals from their seniors for making the
wrong decisions. Some try to protect themselves by passing the blame on their
subordinates, doing only what they think their supervisors want while not under the
microscope of their leaders demand the respect, loyalty, and dedication they believe
their rank entitles them.
The other type of sergeant tends to be soft, timid, and silent. They spend much
of their time trying to be buddy, buddy with subordinates. This is not much different
from a position of senior specialist; however, a specialist will try to take advantage of
this type of leadership.

8. No matter which type of sergeant a leader starts out as, they both handle
insecurity in two different extremes. Both are fearful of losing their fragile position either
by the actions of their subordinates or their own failures. A minute few will shift to a
happy medium in which they begin to accept their roll and inspire and care for their
subordinates, while most of the others will stagnate, and cease to be a factor. Of the
small but large portion of the second group, they will go on to climb the ranks by
metaphorically cutting the throats of their peers and climbing the ladder of success on
the backs of their subordinates. This is what I refer to as the "Hurray for me, fuck you
attitude." All that matters to them is their own success no matter who they have to
destroy to reach the top. These types of leaders will often succeed until those whom
they stepped on to get to their position rise to position in their own right.
Introverted leaders tend to rise the rank rapidly and are much like bottle rockets.
They shoot high, fast and shine bright but quickly fall from glory just as quickly and
sometimes in a spectacular way. Other extroverted leaders climb the ranks more
slowly, build alliances, make friends and take the time to earn the respect and loyalty of
others. While their climb is less spectacular and sometimes riddled with mistakes
accredited to their personal leadership, they tend to exhibit the greatest influence to
those around them. This type of leader may be born of either extreme of leadership
style but chose to learn from their mistakes rather than place the blame on those around
them.
In today's evolving military, the defining example of leadership is radically
changing. While the definition of what makes a leader has remained the same, the
fundamentals have changed. Officers and Noncommissioned officers are being
required to think outside the box instead of such a trait being a "fluke" A leader must
think independently, creatively and flexibly. They must deploy an exceptional array of
skills in dealing with an ever increasingly complex situation.
One successful modern leader is General David Petraeus. He is considered an
intellectual leader who embodies Be, Know, Do. In 20088. While he possesses a Ph.D
from Princeton, what makes him a leader is his ability to think things through. He had
the courage to argue his ideas even if they were unpopular with his leaders. General

9. Petraeus possessed the moral courage to stand up for his beliefs. As a Major General
commanding the 101st Airborne in 2003, he spoke up against the leadership of the time
saying they were wrong. After refining his thesis about counterinsurgency (which he
wrote on Vietnam for his doctorial thesis), he began enacting what is known as the heart
and minds mission where support is gained among the local population9.
Another idea is that "A military leader has a healthy respect for his enemies. In
the battlefield he is willing to decimate them, but on peaceful occasions he bears no
enmity against them. Another attribute of a military leader is that he always remains
vigilant about the moves an maneuvers of his opponents so that he is not caught
unawares if they spring a surprise10." This is a though that while a leader might be
militarily competent, he or she must be able to advocate peace when peace is available.
The tank of colonel is depicted as an eagle with arrows clutched in one claw
while an olive branch of peace is held in the other. When worn, the olive branch is held
outward from the body of the officer. This small but significant placement of the rank is
indicative that a leader should always advocate peace over war. To advocate war over
peace is to place those under you in harm's way needlessly when a peaceful approach
is available.
Every leader must conserve every resource that they can. According to a report
in 1982 by Walter Reed Army Institute for Research noted that leaders must sustain
“intellectual and cognitive effort” when future warfare will have a pace, intensity, and
technological complexity of unprecedented dimensions. The report’s author is
particularly insightful in discussing the need for leaders to be able to “not only maximize
the probability of successfully completing their current mission, but to conserve what
[human] resources they can for the mission that will surely follow.11”
Military leadership is unlike any leadership held. Officers are placed in
responsibility of roughly twenty to forty personnel while a civilian leader may work most
of his career to gain the seniority and position to lead an equivalent number of people.
This is one of the reason military leaders are highly sought out in the civilian sector due
to the experience they bring to the companies in addition to ethical working standards.

10. A military leader is taught since the beginning of his career the impertinence of
completion of a mission and in some cases the dire consequences of failing to meet the
mission parameters. While a military leader will generally not face such extremes in
civilian life, those lessons are forever embedded in their psyche.
This leads us to the psychological aspect that makes a leader. While the military
is on the forefront of developing an ever evolving strategy for teaching its leaders, One
of the problems it faces is in changing the thought processes and strategies of its more
senior leadership. Military leaders for years leading up to the attack of September 11th
trained as though preparing for the next world war with doctrine learned in World War
Two, used in Korean war, and only slightly changed as a result of the Vietnam war. The
education of military leadership as a whole remained steadfast and resistant to change.
The ability to change and adapt was left up to the lower level of leadership who faced
the challenges on the ground.
While the United States has developed and maintained its image as a military
superpower, its leadership continued to hold to an outdated combat doctrine of victory
through brute force. During the early engagements of the Afghan and Iraq wars, most
of our casualties came from a fighting force which utilized what most soldiers
considered "cowardly tactics." Military leaders were forced to adopt a new strategy of
fighting an enemy who would rarely engage in an open battle. Instead they had to learn
to fight against improvised explosives, fear, and an elusive enemy. Leadership
strategies eventually began to slowly evolve into the hearts and minds campaign.
Why is it so difficult to change leadership strategies? It has to do with a frame of
reference based on what a leader has been taught, experienced and done. When a
new idea that challenges our frame of reference, we first try to reinforce our belief in our
own frame of reference. Then we try to change the frame of the other to fall in line with
our own. When we fail at this, we tend to write them off as radical or close minded.
One of the reasons for this difficulty is that research as concluded that certain
hereditary traits and characteristics influence leadership effectiveness. The five-factor
personality model is the most widely accepted model for describing human personality.

11. It consists of five empherically (originating in or based on observation or experience)
derived and independent factors: Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism. Research consistently shows that humans inherit 40 to
50 percent of their personality traits.
People scoring high in openness tend to be more creative and more aware of
their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs and can work with
symbols and abstractions. People with low scores on openness tend to have more con-
ventional, traditional interests, preferring familiarity over novelty. They tend to be
conservative and resistant to change, although they also tend to be more productive.
Leaders high in openness search for relevant and conflicting perspectives. Not only are
they imaginative, but they also solicit alternate points of view and are comfortable
debating with those whose perspectives differ from their own. They are generally more
receptive to change12.
Officers with a high level of openness based of the model above would be
expected to have more potential for change. Personality data gathered at the U.S Army
War College from lieutenant colonel and colonel students show that most successful
officers scored low on the openness tests. This was lower than the general population
of the U.S. This could be considered based on the fact that people who generally join
the military seek an institution which outlines and dictates their lives. Open leaders tend
to be more productive as described in the last paragraph than close minded leaders.
Because of their productiveness, they tend to rise through the ranks quicker and
achieve position of authority faster than the more open leader. According to the study,
those who are selected for command tend to score lower on the openness than the
average. The paradox described is based on the advancement of leaders most
resistant to change, prefer familiarity, and conventional methods into positions where
uncertainty and complexity are the greatest.
According to Secretary Gates, ". . . If as an officer one does not tell blunt truths or
create an environment where candor is encouraged, then they have done themselves
and the institution a disservice13." This is to say that an officer or any leader should
foster open communication between themselves and subordinates and peers alike.

12. While everyone talks about transparency and openness, few actually follow through with
it. Everyone is prone to this failing. Even our President of the United States built his
whole campaign around transparency, though he has prosecuted more people for
espionage that any president in history. In order to preach about transparency and to
demand such a concept, a leader must be willing to adhere to such ideas themselves.
A leader who fosters open communication (candor), invites respect and honesty from
their subordinates but for this to work, there can be no repercussions for such candor
that is constructive and does not persist on insubordination.
General of the Army George Marshal who is cited as an example of a great
leader was known for his candid approach. Two common examples of his candor are
his exchange with General John Pershing during World War I in France as a captain
when he placed his hand on Pershing's arm to return his attention back to what Marshal
had to say. He again used candor in addressing President Roosevelt during World War
II. Both times it was thought that her career would be over but in both cases his career
was advanced as both Pershing and Roosevelt valued Candor and rewarded it instead
of punishing those who utilized it. The squandering of candor interrupts the flow of
information and erodes trust between those involved14.
An equally plausible, yet rarely expressed, reason for the lack of candor can be
found in the Army “can-do” culture itself. The duty-driven Army that never accepts
defeat and never quits might find it heresy to admit that the 2006 strategy in Afghanistan
was not working or that in 2003 the Army in Iraq was not prepared to fight an
insurgency. Is it culturally acceptable to admit mission or operational shortcomings
when you are the commander? When candor is not embraced, how long does it take for
leaders from company to coalition level to candidly assess their current situation? An
inability to properly understand conditions and admit errors is equally as damaging to
the Army as thoughtless pretense that accompanies “can-do” approaches that lead
down the wrong course.
Whether candor’s lack of value is a result of its absence in professional literature
and discourse, the military’s hierarchical structure with industrial pay and retirement
systems, or the Army’s unintentionally adverse can-do culture, the Army needs to

13. reinvigorate candor in both concept and practice. But illuminating only historical
examples comes with the ease of perfect hindsight and often ignores current and
possibly contentious areas that need improvement. Instead, by focusing on two areas
that currently need attention, the Army Reserve Components and the Army evaluations
and feedback environment, I will describe areas where transparency and candor can
make a positive impact and align Army trust with espoused values.No one has to like or
agree with the following examples, because one aspect of candor is respectful
disagreement14.
Failures in the military structure are commonly credited with the lack of
communication between leader and subordinates. This lack of communication works in
both ways. When a leader does not communicate with their subordinates and to their
own leadership, or when they discourage open communication from their own
subordinates, there is a breakdown of communication and trust. The Creed of the
Noncommissioned Officer only directly addresses half this issue but hints at the second
half. "I will communicate consistently with my soldiers and never leave them
uninformed" The term communication is defined as the imparting or exchanging of
information or news. In other words, communication is two way.Candor is lacking in the
military largely because it makes people uncomfortable. Some people view it as a
challenge to their authority while others simply do not know how to respond to such
blunt honesty; especially in a public forum. To best utilize candor it is best to teach
subordinates the best use of candor and the tact to use it.
In conclusion; Leadership is a complicated concept with many confusing aspects
that while intellectually understandable, are emotionally difficult to understand and
incorporate into one's own life. There is no formula for what exactly is needed to make
a leader but there are theories abound. At the end of the day we understand that a
leader is to Be himself, Know his job, and Do what is expected of him or her.

14. References
1. Chief of Staff; General Peter Schoomaker.
2. Army Field Manual 6-22 dated October 2006
3. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-washington-assigned-to-lead-
the-continental-army
4. http://www.cr.nps.gov/logcabin/html/gw2.html
5. Hunt, DavidA Don at War
6. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/robespierre-overthrown-in-france
7. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm
8. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blog/culture/public-intellectual-of-2008-david-
petraeus/#.UqTTp-LfXQ8
9. http://www.biography.com/people/david-petraeus-39448
10.http://www.shareyouressays.com/2877/1600-words-essay-on-qualities-of-a-
good-leader
11.The Future Battlefield: Human Dimensions and Implications for Doctrine and
Research (Washington: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1982), has
relevance for 21st-century leadership.
12.Changing Minds In The Army: Why It Is So Difficult and What To Do About It.
Authored by Dr. Stephen J. Gerras, Dr. Leonard Wong.
13.Robert Gates, “Reflections on Leadership,”
14.Closing the Candor Chasm: The Missing Element of Army Professionalism.
Authored by Colonel Paul Paolozzi.