take a critical look at SMA Dailey’s decision to change the tattoo policy that basically restricted the view of tattoos.
Critical thinking questions:
The tattoo policy served as a platform ushering in the “new Army” wanted that modernizing itself. After the tattoo policy change, then came changes in Physical Fitness, promotions, and a myriad of other things. However, it started with the tattoo policy. The tattoo policy reversal, it was also a way to attract new recruits because in this day and age tattoos are everywhere, and the old policy made it difficult to attract recruits.
SMA Dailey came in with an unorthodox approach to his job, previously the SMA was viewed as an old, crusty career soldier that was there to shake his finger at others and deliver the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) message to the enlisted force. Now SMA Dailey came in with a job in mind which was transform the Army from it olds ways. He started with town hall type meetings in which he would listen to the grievances that soldiers had along with spreading the message of change and modernization.
His greatest strength was his ability to actively listen, relate, communicate, and see the bigger picture. But with all his talk about modernization, and change it appeared as if he was catering more to the future/ younger soldiers, and not the older ones. I don’t believe he was purposely doing that, but all the while he was going about implementing change without the buy-in from the older soldiers basically alienating an entire segment of the military.
For my paper I want to show my through my writing the connection between the leader's actions, the culture they created, ethics, and the situation they found themselves in. My underlying theme that influenced SMA Dailey to make the decision he did.
Sample Solution