Army of One

A few years ago, in grad school, I had a discussion with a professor about the U.S. Army's recruiting slogan at the time "Army of One." I thought it was an intriguing little slogan. My prof, a retired Army officer (and, I had to remember, the guy who would give me my grade) was less impressed.

His belief, which was pretty common among many active and former Army folks, was that telling potential recruits they would each be an "Army of One" flew in the face of the essential concept of teamwork and ignored the disastrous effects of individualism (not individuality, but individualism) on unit cohesion and effective military operations. They felt it suggested that new soldiers only had to focus on themselves, rather than on their role in the Army. If they were correct about the message, then that would indeed be a poor recruiting slogan.

I always thought, though, that the meaning was different from that, and that it was actually a pretty shrewd message. For 20 years before that the Army's recruiting slogan was "Be All That You Can Be," and frankly, during those 20 years, "all that you could be" when you graduated from high school was a faceless cog in the machine...whether on a Ford assembly line, in a suit at IBM, or in the green uniform of a US soldier. Your options as you entered the world with no experience were a little limited.

(It's worth noting that these television and print campaigns are aimed at recruiting enlisted soldiers -- potential officers are mostly recruited through other means. So, the target audience tends to be future and recent high school graduates.)

As we entered the 21st century, though, that high school graduate's options had expanded dramatically. He or she could take skills learned in their spare time, whether IT-related or creative or what have you, and start out in a job where they could make a contribution almost immediately (and be rewarded appropriately, too). Internet startups, large tech firms, and free agency were now the Army's competition. "Army of One" told potential recruits that each individual could be a contributor, that they could come into the Army and make a difference, and have their work recognized. They wouldn't have to spend years as a faceless grunt before they could contribute something unique; the Army was ready to make use of their skills NOW. This, hopefully, would make the Army a viable alternative.

Whether that message was effectively communicated is debatable. A lot of people who had spent years in the military certainly didn't see it. Then again, they weren't the ones being recruited.

Just as the Army recognized that teenagers' perceptions of their own potential were changing, so too do you need to understand what your Creatives expect when they come to work for you. Today's new employees have seen that, even in a poor economy, Creatives with talent can be put to good use right away...in fact, a poor economy is a time when you really need to use everything you've got, rather than sticking your newest talent in the corner for a few years. You need to offer your Creatives the opportunity to do something meaningful, or they'll go to someone else who will. There are plenty of firms out there that will make good use of the Creatives you don't get; do you really want the most motivated potential employees to go to your competitors instead?

As a side note, when I went to grab a Wikipedia link for all those who are unfamiliar with the Army's recruiting campaign, I discovered that the true meaning of the campaign is alleged to be "Army of Officers, NCOs, and Enlisted." (hence the "ONE") That's the first time I've ever heard that. If true, then it blows my whole defense of that slogan right out of the water, because honestly, I think that's kind of dumb.