What the Army Taught Me About Servant Leadership in Government

During my time in the Army, "service before self" was not a slogan we quoted during ceremonies and forgot about afterward. It was a daily practice. Whether we were deployed overseas or leading training exercises at home, we placed the mission, our team, and the country above personal comfort or gain. That mindset shaped how we approached problems, how we treated each other, and how we made difficult decisions. There was no ambiguity about what mattered most: completing the mission with integrity and protecting those we served alongside.

When I transitioned into civilian government work, particularly at the Department of Veterans Affairs, I saw how easy it is for that clarity of purpose to get lost. Bureaucratic structures, performance metrics, and political pressures can obscure the basic question every public servant should ask themselves daily: "Who am I serving, and am I putting their needs first?" What I’ve learned is that military values, especially selfless service, can anchor teams amidst procedural noise. When we reintroduce those values into our agencies, we see natural improvements in morale, accountability, and mission effectiveness.

Leading with Purpose: Applying Servant Leadership in Government

One of the most impactful leadership lessons from my Army career came not during combat but during a stateside logistics operation. A junior soldier had made a costly error unloading equipment, and the easy route would have been to reprimand him. Instead, our commanding officer sat down with him, walked through the mistake, and asked, “How can I help you do better next time?” That moment cemented for me what servant leadership looks like in practice: removing barriers so your people can succeed. In the military, this approach is not theoretical. It's operationally necessary.

When I entered a leadership role within the VA, I carried that mindset with me. I made it a point to visit every department under my oversight, not to audit but to listen. I asked employees what tools they needed, what policies were hindering them, and how leadership could support their success. This wasn't about coddling - it was about accountability through empowerment. Research supports this approach: studies show that servant leadership in government settings enhances employee engagement and reduces turnover, especially when employees feel heard and supported in their roles (Eva et al. 2019)¹.

Reconnecting Staff with the Mission

In the Army, every soldier knows the mission and their part in achieving it. That shared understanding binds teams together, even in high-stress environments. In many government agencies, that sense of mission gets diluted. Staff become disconnected from the end user, whether it's a veteran, a taxpayer, or a community. This disconnect often leads to inefficiency, low morale, and even ethical lapses. But I have seen firsthand how realigning employees with the mission can reverse those trends.

At one VA medical center, I noticed that clerical and administrative staff had very little interaction with the veterans we served. I initiated a biweekly "Veteran Impact Briefing," where employees heard directly from veterans about their care experiences. The results were immediate. Staff began to see how their behind-the-scenes work affected real lives. According to a 2021 report by the Partnership for Public Service, agencies that succeed in connecting employees to mission outcomes consistently outperform others in productivity and employee satisfaction². Reconnecting people with purpose isn't just motivational - it's operationally smart.

Discipline and Accountability Without Bureaucracy

Military structures are often misunderstood as rigid or authoritarian. In reality, effective units combine strict discipline with personal accountability. Leaders are expected to set the example, correct errors swiftly, and uphold standards without hiding behind layers of policy. This model has valuable applications in civilian government. Too often, accountability in agencies is filtered through cumbersome HR processes or delayed by interdepartmental conflicts that erode trust and momentum.

One practice I brought from the Army is the After Action Review (AAR). We use it after major initiatives, not to assign blame but to identify what worked, what didn’t, and what will be done differently next time. These reviews are structured, time-bound, and include all levels of staff. Implementing AARs at the VA improved our claims processing accuracy by facilitating rapid learning cycles. The Department of Defense has long documented the effectiveness of AARs in improving unit performance and organizational learning³. Civilian agencies can benefit greatly from adopting similar practices that promote both accountability and adaptability.

Building Trust Through Shared Sacrifice

Trust is the currency of any effective organization. In the military, trust is built through shared hardship and mutual sacrifice. You don’t ask your team to do anything you wouldn’t do yourself. That principle carries over into my civilian leadership style. Whether it's staying late during system outages or navigating budget cuts, I make it clear that I’m in the trenches with my team. This approach has consistently led to stronger team cohesion and improved performance.

Public administration scholars have recognized that authentic leadership - characterized by transparency, shared responsibility, and personal commitment - correlates with higher team trust and organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al. 2008)⁴. Civil service leaders can build credibility not through rhetoric but by showing up, taking responsibility, and putting their people first. That’s what “service before self” looks like in practice.

Bridging the Civil-Military Divide in Government Culture

One of the challenges I’ve encountered is the cultural divide between veterans working in government and colleagues who have only worked in civilian environments. Veterans often bring urgency, clarity, and a mission-first mindset. Civilian colleagues may prioritize process, compliance, or consensus. This difference can lead to friction if not openly addressed. I’ve found that creating cross-functional teams with clear short-term goals helps bridge that gap. When teams focus on delivering outcomes together, they begin to appreciate each other’s strengths.

Agencies that intentionally integrate veterans into leadership and planning roles tend to benefit from this diversity of experience. A 2020 report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that veterans bring strong competencies in decision-making, teamwork, and resilience, which positively impact organizational effectiveness when leveraged appropriately⁵. The key is not assimilation but intentional collaboration. By valuing both perspectives, agencies can build teams that are both disciplined and creative, both structured and adaptable.

Bibliography

Eva, Nathan, Sen Sendjaya, Bruce Avolio, and William L. Liden. "Servant Leadership: A Systematic Review and Call for Future Research." The Leadership Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2019): 111-132.
Partnership for Public Service. "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government: Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance." 2021. https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/best-places-to-work-in-the-federal-government-2021/
United States Department of Defense. "After Action Review (AAR) Guide." Center for Army Lessons Learned, 2013. https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/call/AAR%20Guide.pdf
Walumbwa, Fred O., Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, Tara S. Wernsing, and Suzanne J. Peterson. "Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure." Journal of Management 34, no. 1 (2008): 89-126.
United States Office of Personnel Management. "Employment of Veterans in the Federal Executive Branch: Fiscal Year 2020." 2021. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/veterans-services/vet-guide/