This monograph reviews the functions, development, and measurement of military discipline in the US Army, and assesses these concepts against the current needs and limitations of the modern battlefield and society. By relying primarily on existing literature dealing with military history, psychology, morale, leadership, and discipline, it is concluded that the concept of "discipline," central to military thought and critique throughout history, is a complex, multifunctional amalgam of psychological and physical components. Military discipline is defined as a set of attributes which can be grouped into two complementary categories, each necessary to enhance a soldier's individual and collective combat effectiveness. The first category, DISCIPLINE B(ehavior), consists of the externally enforced or learned habitual behavioral responses functions of obedience, synergism, attention to detail, restraint, and stress resistance. The second category, DISCIPLINE A(ttitude), consists of voluntary, self-sustaining, value-based functions of courage, identification, internalization, and initiative. Discipline(B) is clearly necessary for soldiers, and may historically have been sufficient as well. However, Discipline(A) is also clearly necessary for US Army soldiers on the modern battlefield. Fortunately, the functions of Discipline(B) and Discipline(A) are complementary, and not mutually exclusive. The manner in which leaders can develop and maintain each type of discipline is considered. When measuring discipline in soldiers or units, most indicators point toward Discipline(B), since measuring Discipline(A) is much more difficult. Leaders must exercise caution that they do not ignore the latter by constantly measuring only the former, or by confusing indicators of discipline with developers of discipline, hence attempting to develop discipline through the management or mismanagement of symptoms.

ADA 289122 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)