9
9
0
For all of us at every level of leadership, how do we go about in realistically gathering a measurement of someone's moral fiber?
I think the BLUF on this is to look for courage: put people in positions or situations where there is opportunity to be courageous. And to be clear for the sake of conversation, I am defining courage as facing down something dangerous or painful and in turn proving where your commitments lie.
A Soldier must not only have the talk, but the walk. You must know what right looks like and then... do what is right. Even if it's hard or costly. In fact, especially then. This somewhat harkens back to that old Army model: be, know, do. I would love to hear from the Drill Sergeant community, especially those still on the trail. And I would also greatly appreciate voices from the other branches, and those who served in Desert Storm and earlier, just before the Army started putting so much stock in character development with things like the seven army values and all that.
Naturally, this "test" looks different at various levels of leadership and context does matter. Regardless, I have come to believe that courageous action and behavior is the testing point of one's moral beliefs and values. Someone can speak to you all day and make you believe they're squared away, but only when the chips are down and things have hit the fan will you actually know what they're really about. Or even further, someone can have weak character and yet have the potential for great moral fiber. Like a muscle that needs to be developed so you can finally max that deadlift on the ACFT; our moral character is something we can and should work on, and even test each other on. I think most of us would agree that the Army is in fact ALWAYS trying to test moral character.
Consider this when we put our Soldiers into situations where they might fail, knowing full well they might fail. Sometimes, we are just looking to see how a person handles their mistakes. You could argue this is the predicament of every 2LT, and that is in fact a major expectation of 2LTs, baptism by fire and all that. This would support the concept of courage as vitally important in gauging character, because it's not the mistake itself that matters most. As every seasoned Soldier knows, it's the response to an error that is most important. A mistake does not have to define you so long as you respond with humility and courage. And I'm not implying combat alone. Normal day to day provides plenty of opportunities to discover whether someone has strong character or is actually for themselves and their career, for example. I am being vague here, trying to leave wiggle room in this line of thought as context in any moral situation always matters.
I think this is simple. "Why bother with the question at all then?" you may be thinking. Because this simple lesson seems to be muddled the higher up we look. And because I may be wrong. This is one of those questions I like to take to RP. The leaders with the strongest character that I seek to emulate are the ones that wisely tell the emperor they have no clothes or fight like hell when everything in a situation says they can't win. So, what do you think?
-----
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point" - C.S. Lewis
"Humility is the foundation of all the other virtues hence, in the soul in which this virtue does not exist there cannot be any other virtue except in mere appearance." - Augustine
"Circumstances do not make the man, they only reveal him to himself" - Epictetus
"Partial commitment changes everything-it reduces the sense that the mission comes first." - Gen. (Ret.) James Mattis
"I think the rewards for moral courage are promotion. … Any institution gets the behavior it rewards.” - Gen. (Ret.) James Mattis
"In these pages I have written much of generals and of staff officers; of their problems, difficulties, and expedients, their successes and their failures. Yet there is one thought that I should like to be the over-all and final impression of this book- that the war in Burma was a soldier's war. There comes a moment in every battle against a stubborn enemy when the result hangs in the balance. Then the general, however skillful and farsighted he may have been, must hand over to his soldiers, to the men in the ranks and to their regimental officers and leave them to complete what he has begun. The issue then rests with them, on their courage, their hardihood, their refusal to be beaten either by the cruel hazards of nature or by the fierce strength of their human enemy. That moment came early and often in the fighting in Burma; sometimes it came when tired, sick men felt alone, when it would have been so easy for them to give up, when only will, discipline and faith could steel them to carry on. To the soldiers of the many races who, in the comradeship of the Fourteenth Army, did go on, and to the airmen who flew with them and fought over them, belongs the true glory of achievement. It was they who turned Defeat into Victory." - Field Marshall William Slim , "Defeat into victory", p460
I think the BLUF on this is to look for courage: put people in positions or situations where there is opportunity to be courageous. And to be clear for the sake of conversation, I am defining courage as facing down something dangerous or painful and in turn proving where your commitments lie.
A Soldier must not only have the talk, but the walk. You must know what right looks like and then... do what is right. Even if it's hard or costly. In fact, especially then. This somewhat harkens back to that old Army model: be, know, do. I would love to hear from the Drill Sergeant community, especially those still on the trail. And I would also greatly appreciate voices from the other branches, and those who served in Desert Storm and earlier, just before the Army started putting so much stock in character development with things like the seven army values and all that.
Naturally, this "test" looks different at various levels of leadership and context does matter. Regardless, I have come to believe that courageous action and behavior is the testing point of one's moral beliefs and values. Someone can speak to you all day and make you believe they're squared away, but only when the chips are down and things have hit the fan will you actually know what they're really about. Or even further, someone can have weak character and yet have the potential for great moral fiber. Like a muscle that needs to be developed so you can finally max that deadlift on the ACFT; our moral character is something we can and should work on, and even test each other on. I think most of us would agree that the Army is in fact ALWAYS trying to test moral character.
Consider this when we put our Soldiers into situations where they might fail, knowing full well they might fail. Sometimes, we are just looking to see how a person handles their mistakes. You could argue this is the predicament of every 2LT, and that is in fact a major expectation of 2LTs, baptism by fire and all that. This would support the concept of courage as vitally important in gauging character, because it's not the mistake itself that matters most. As every seasoned Soldier knows, it's the response to an error that is most important. A mistake does not have to define you so long as you respond with humility and courage. And I'm not implying combat alone. Normal day to day provides plenty of opportunities to discover whether someone has strong character or is actually for themselves and their career, for example. I am being vague here, trying to leave wiggle room in this line of thought as context in any moral situation always matters.
I think this is simple. "Why bother with the question at all then?" you may be thinking. Because this simple lesson seems to be muddled the higher up we look. And because I may be wrong. This is one of those questions I like to take to RP. The leaders with the strongest character that I seek to emulate are the ones that wisely tell the emperor they have no clothes or fight like hell when everything in a situation says they can't win. So, what do you think?
-----
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point" - C.S. Lewis
"Humility is the foundation of all the other virtues hence, in the soul in which this virtue does not exist there cannot be any other virtue except in mere appearance." - Augustine
"Circumstances do not make the man, they only reveal him to himself" - Epictetus
"Partial commitment changes everything-it reduces the sense that the mission comes first." - Gen. (Ret.) James Mattis
"I think the rewards for moral courage are promotion. … Any institution gets the behavior it rewards.” - Gen. (Ret.) James Mattis
"In these pages I have written much of generals and of staff officers; of their problems, difficulties, and expedients, their successes and their failures. Yet there is one thought that I should like to be the over-all and final impression of this book- that the war in Burma was a soldier's war. There comes a moment in every battle against a stubborn enemy when the result hangs in the balance. Then the general, however skillful and farsighted he may have been, must hand over to his soldiers, to the men in the ranks and to their regimental officers and leave them to complete what he has begun. The issue then rests with them, on their courage, their hardihood, their refusal to be beaten either by the cruel hazards of nature or by the fierce strength of their human enemy. That moment came early and often in the fighting in Burma; sometimes it came when tired, sick men felt alone, when it would have been so easy for them to give up, when only will, discipline and faith could steel them to carry on. To the soldiers of the many races who, in the comradeship of the Fourteenth Army, did go on, and to the airmen who flew with them and fought over them, belongs the true glory of achievement. It was they who turned Defeat into Victory." - Field Marshall William Slim , "Defeat into victory", p460
Leadership
Character
Leadership Development
Courage
Values
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 13
11
11
0
Moral character is built off of personal values and principles. The Army (and other services) also have values pretty much cemented in stone. The "test" is rarely a test when not in a combat zone. But, it can be seen in the actions people take on a day to day basis as well as how they execute during exercises. (Note: I did not say how well or how poorly...)
I want to know how they execute.
Do they pay attention to details?
Do they take shortcuts?
Do they ask questions on parts they've never executed before?
Do they try to clarify or bullshit their way through something?
This is where your NCOs and Staff NCOs come into play. While you may see a lot of your people's activities, they are the ones more closely knit with those people. You need to get to know your senior enlisted very well then, over time, get to know the rest of your people, be able to take their measure, and you will get to an 80% picture of moral character. The other 20% will arise when extreme pressure is present.
And remember, it is easy to do what is RIGHT when people are watching. It is when no one is watching that your character is revealed.
I want to know how they execute.
Do they pay attention to details?
Do they take shortcuts?
Do they ask questions on parts they've never executed before?
Do they try to clarify or bullshit their way through something?
This is where your NCOs and Staff NCOs come into play. While you may see a lot of your people's activities, they are the ones more closely knit with those people. You need to get to know your senior enlisted very well then, over time, get to know the rest of your people, be able to take their measure, and you will get to an 80% picture of moral character. The other 20% will arise when extreme pressure is present.
And remember, it is easy to do what is RIGHT when people are watching. It is when no one is watching that your character is revealed.
(11)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
1LT (Join to see) - Absolutely correct sir. You can also take this out of the military and into the corporate world, into marriages, into business relationships, into friendships, etc.
You hate to see any career end on a bad note but I've even seen a LtCol end with a BCD. <sigh/>
You hate to see any career end on a bad note but I've even seen a LtCol end with a BCD. <sigh/>
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Reminds me of a fun story that happened years ago, that I use anywhere to talk about the application of military discipline.
The short version is that one monday at the motor pool, our CSM at the time was pissed about the crap show that was parking outside the motor pool gate. Everyone was parking illegally, wherever they wanted. So, when he gets up Infront of the formation he asks us "Why do sergeant's major get upset when you walk on the grass?" Long pause... "Because if you're willing to cut corners there, where else are you willing to cut corners? It's a matter of integrity". He went on to instruct us further, but you get the point. It was a good lesson and a good illustration.
The short version is that one monday at the motor pool, our CSM at the time was pissed about the crap show that was parking outside the motor pool gate. Everyone was parking illegally, wherever they wanted. So, when he gets up Infront of the formation he asks us "Why do sergeant's major get upset when you walk on the grass?" Long pause... "Because if you're willing to cut corners there, where else are you willing to cut corners? It's a matter of integrity". He went on to instruct us further, but you get the point. It was a good lesson and a good illustration.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
1LT (Join to see) - Perfect! And, unfortunately, it goes over some people's heads. Sometimes it does take a clue-by-four to drive the message home. ;)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
1LT (Join to see), as others have pointed out, you really can't "test" moral character well. You can certainly train it. And you can try to test it with practical exercises, but as SSgt (Join to see) and SSgt (Join to see) pointed out, it is easy to do what is right when everyone is looking.
We all know the "right" answer to moral questions. It's the heat of the moment that gets us. The only thing you can do is study the leadership requirements model and all the foundational KSABs that build into that and train those.
There are tons of niche case studies you can go through to put their moral muscles through exercise, but if you don't build a disciplined, professional unit, when the going gets tough some Soldiers give way.
The thing that saves our butts are the Soldiers whose moral character is so strong they lift and guard everyone else. Someone caught stealing gets busted by a battle buddy who encourages them to return it and report themself. Or Someone gets drunk and tries to drive home, but battle stops them. Those Soldiers make us honest and morally better. That is why nearly every unit has strong rules for Soldiers to always have a battle with them, for everyone's benefit.
We are imperfect, but building a solid team gets us closer.
I would not reccomend attemping to devise a true "test" of moral character. For example, settting up a scenario where you tempt a Soldier to violate Army values in situations they think no one is watching (i.e. an unsecured pistol or thermal imaging device; money left out in the barracks or unsecured wall lockers; getting them drunk to see who attempts to drive... etc)
We all know the "right" answer to moral questions. It's the heat of the moment that gets us. The only thing you can do is study the leadership requirements model and all the foundational KSABs that build into that and train those.
There are tons of niche case studies you can go through to put their moral muscles through exercise, but if you don't build a disciplined, professional unit, when the going gets tough some Soldiers give way.
The thing that saves our butts are the Soldiers whose moral character is so strong they lift and guard everyone else. Someone caught stealing gets busted by a battle buddy who encourages them to return it and report themself. Or Someone gets drunk and tries to drive home, but battle stops them. Those Soldiers make us honest and morally better. That is why nearly every unit has strong rules for Soldiers to always have a battle with them, for everyone's benefit.
We are imperfect, but building a solid team gets us closer.
I would not reccomend attemping to devise a true "test" of moral character. For example, settting up a scenario where you tempt a Soldier to violate Army values in situations they think no one is watching (i.e. an unsecured pistol or thermal imaging device; money left out in the barracks or unsecured wall lockers; getting them drunk to see who attempts to drive... etc)
(7)
(0)
(2)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
1LT (Join to see) Not on purpose. Most of the time is was a result of a good idea fairy to “see” what the Soldier would do and then use it as a teaching moment. The problem is when the actions violate the UCMJ or Army Values it is now a conduct issue and no longer training.
Build your base first, train your team, find case studies and have discussion about your expectations of conduct. Build the capacity for good decision making. They have to trust that you have the best of intentions for them and they will follow your lead.
There are plenty of stories out there where the commanding officer set a culture that permitted violations of Army values.
Build your base first, train your team, find case studies and have discussion about your expectations of conduct. Build the capacity for good decision making. They have to trust that you have the best of intentions for them and they will follow your lead.
There are plenty of stories out there where the commanding officer set a culture that permitted violations of Army values.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
I guess it "depends". Depends on the person, situation. Too many factors to have a one standard fits all. I guess the biggest thing is you have to know the soldier and what makes that soldier tick. A good leader will be able to pick out what this is.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google