How do you test a Soldier's moral character?

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Oct 2022 22:29:29 -0400

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

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2022 2:59 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 02:59:59 -0400

I'm going to be the party pooper here.

Trust no one.

Cover your ass.

I've been betrayed by those I have to place absolute trust in and without a means to validate what I'm trusting them with. I won't say who or what but it made me reevaluate a personal mantra I held about trust.

Next, the Army doesn't train us to trust. I acknowledge trust is placed with everyone in our roles, but if we as leaders put that trust with our subordinates without documented developmental or initial counseling we as leaders typically get burned.

The ONLY THING!!!!!!!!!!!!! In this world I TRUST is my spouse's love for our children and her priority to put them above anything else in this world, but if the FBI kicked in the door tomorrow and arrested her for bank robbery I guess I would chalk it up to "you don't know someone until you know someone".

We as leaders should only trust our subordinates as well as we can write the initial counseling statements.

******************
I get the impression two things were discussed about "trust". There is the trust of soldiers to push through hard situations and find courage. That is something you simply don't know how everyone will react until faced with such situations.

But then there is trust that they will do the right thing in every day in life.

Trusting someone to charge up a hill in face of fire is much different than trusting someone professionally not to abuse their positions and responsibilities. I am mostly focusing on the later.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2022 9:01 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:01:19 -0400

I submit that you cannot test a soldier's moral character because it's a test. You cannot test being under fire. You cannot test being surrounded, outmanned, and outgunned. You can assume that, when put to the hazards, your soldiers were trained as you were and will respond to the best of their ability. Until then, they will make decisions to pass the test.

"A hero is a victim of circumstance. In that moment, he longs to be a honest coward." - Umberto Eco.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 17 at 2022 10:43 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:43:58 -0400

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2022 11:52 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:52:37 -0400

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.

Response by CSM William Everroad made Oct 17 at 2022 2:38 PM

CSM William Everroad — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:38:14 -0400

1LT Private RallyPoint Member, 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 Private RallyPoint Member and SSgt Private RallyPoint Member 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)

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 17 at 2022 6:11 PM

Maj John Bell — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 18:11:36 -0400

I have problem with this question on many levels. First, let's get on the same sheet of music. How do you define moral fiber?

My definition: Moral fiber is the capacity to do what is morally correct, no matter the circumstances. In my book, artificially creating morally uncertain scenarios, as a test for your subordinates, is a dangerous game and the height of hubris. Who is to blame if they fail your test? Who should be held accountable? You will definitely lose their trust and should. So, my answer is you don't test it. You observe it.

Your definition: Facing down something dangerous or painful and in turn proving where your commitments lie sounds more like moral or physical courage.

But as a leader it is not always the correct course to face down the dangerous and painful. Good leaders find ways to make the dangerous and painful irrelevant. In tactical terms, by-passing or enveloping an objective may be the correct course rather than a frontal assault. No doubt, sometimes a frontal assault is the only choice, but the long-term merits of mission accomplishment and force preservation should be weighed against unnecessarily high casualty rates.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2022 9:39 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 21:39:25 -0400

Well 1LT. If you have to talk Values you have already lost the match. You see LT. If officers and senior NCO"s lived the VALUES there would be no need to talk about them but the problem is senior NCO'S and Officers only talk about VALUES but never live them.

Response by GySgt Kenneth Pepper made Oct 18 at 2022 10:53 AM

GySgt Kenneth Pepper — Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:53:00 -0400

It seems like you are heading in the right direction based off of what you have been studying. I'm not sure about testing the moral character of young, unproven troops. It would be most leaders hope that they can behave well enough to stay off the radar with typical young, bored Joe shit.
I will echo SSGT Barrows, rely on your SNCOs for help. Watch for the signs: late to formations, calls from creditors, driving a vehicle they can't possibly afford, etc.,
The best thing to do is to be an example. Have guided discussions. Assign reading. Ensure you break down your intentions into clear expectations. And then, hold them accountable when necessary.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Oct 18 at 2022 5:11 PM

SSG Bill McCoy — Tue, 18 Oct 2022 17:11:15 -0400

"Courage," might be the wrong word as it can just as likely be an issue of "recklessness," especially in law enforcemnt. There, it's called a "John Wayne complex," or syndrome. I do get your point however and don't disagree on its face.
Perhaps a more definitive test of moral character is honesty and accepting responsibility for foul-ups. Then I'd say it follows that a soldier's/sailor's indication is how well he/she does their duty - event he routine stuff, and how well they work with others; and especially NCO's/Petty Officers who take care of their people.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Oct 19 at 2022 7:48 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 07:48:59 -0400

The signs you seek are built into the data to day as it arises. Trying to establish a test at the local level seems more like having everyone stand up to a singular or like challenge.

You can never get to heat of Battle character, individual strengths or leadership with a one sized fits all.

All units have established training at every level conducted periodically during rotations at all training sites, including local. This is where Senior leaders can modify resource availability, harsh changes to events faced during evaluation. Elevating stressors by removing expected resources from scenario is etc. is how you see the true grit of leaders and Soldiers. True colors come shining through in the heat of training. That’s where you want to see the signs, and for the leaders, you learn to be in key spots on the battlefield based on what you learn of your Soldiers and leaders in training and day to day.

Sorry to have drones, you cannot establish individual (leadership) assessment with one mans point of view. The resources exist, you yourself are very young in grade. I assure you that you are being evaluated in your day to day by the CO and COS, Ops etc. True grit sines out in all of you responses and actions. Do unto others as you would have sone to you.

Biblical, or golden rule, or not, the phrase makes sense.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Oct 19 at 2022 11:52 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:52:17 -0400

Moral fiber is not that hard- lie, cheat, refuse to own the problem, inflate your role in things, take other's credit. Put them in temp positions where they have to do certain things and watch them. Good troops do not make good leaders all the time. We use to garrison troops and field troops= garrison troops, enter all the boards, know all the answers and look/act sharp, but they can't survive or lead on the battlefield. You need to force both to blend together.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2022 12:23 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:23:42 -0400

observation & patience...

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2022 2:54 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:54:43 -0400

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0erRWbsh1ac

Biden blames new villain for rising gas prices

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., joined 'The Faulkner Focus' to discuss rampant inflation and Biden's energy policies ahead of November. #FoxNews Subscribe to Fox Ne...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 5 at 2022 12:52 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 05 Nov 2022 12:52:50 -0400

What do you think was my first priority was before taking over a unit?