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 3 y ago
Responses: 12
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)
SGM 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)
5
5
0
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.
"A hero is a victim of circumstance. In that moment, he longs to be a honest coward." - Umberto Eco.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
I hear what you're saying sir and as a Christian I believe in human depravity, which certainly speaks to the idea of no one being worthy of our trust (but is responded to in the person of Christ).
Yet, we absolutely need trust. And this is by the book sir (6-22). Part of our competency as leaders is to build trust. "Failure to cultivate a climate of trust or a willingness to tolerate discrimination or harassment on any basis erodes unit cohesion and breaks the trust subordinates have for their leaders." I'm sure you've read this sir, but I'd be interested in hearing how you think that plays against the idea that the Army as a whole doesn't train us for it, or expect it from us. I think various people who have been burnt, like yourself sir (and me as well if I'm being honest), develop that idea, but it's counter to the spirit of our organization. It goes against the lessons Field Marshall Slim tries to impart to us as future generations of Soldiers.
Counseling is important, everything in a SM's packet is important and is there for good reason. But the oath I took was to win the nation's wars. Without trust mission command is crippled, and in turn the ability to seize the initiative is strangled to death. This kind of mentality leads to the "trust but verify" mentality which is a total contradiction to me and I've always hated it. I think as a leader we can extend trust wisely and accept a little risk while still protecting ourselves within reason.
Yet, we absolutely need trust. And this is by the book sir (6-22). Part of our competency as leaders is to build trust. "Failure to cultivate a climate of trust or a willingness to tolerate discrimination or harassment on any basis erodes unit cohesion and breaks the trust subordinates have for their leaders." I'm sure you've read this sir, but I'd be interested in hearing how you think that plays against the idea that the Army as a whole doesn't train us for it, or expect it from us. I think various people who have been burnt, like yourself sir (and me as well if I'm being honest), develop that idea, but it's counter to the spirit of our organization. It goes against the lessons Field Marshall Slim tries to impart to us as future generations of Soldiers.
Counseling is important, everything in a SM's packet is important and is there for good reason. But the oath I took was to win the nation's wars. Without trust mission command is crippled, and in turn the ability to seize the initiative is strangled to death. This kind of mentality leads to the "trust but verify" mentality which is a total contradiction to me and I've always hated it. I think as a leader we can extend trust wisely and accept a little risk while still protecting ourselves within reason.
(3)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
"Trust no one? Cover your ass?" Maybe I'm not digesting your comments correctly, but that seems a tough way to go. My way was to trust until that trust was betrayed, i.e., a subordinate or fellow NCO dropping the ball in their duty. As a SP4, I once relieved a SGT as Desk Sergeant when he laid the Weapons Inventory down for me to sign, verifying his count and he then promptly departed. I "almost" signed it out of trust for him as a SGT, but counted the weapons in the rack first, then the weapons out for issue. Came up one short! Of course, that made me a priime suspect (naturally) and that SGT was never trusted with ANYTHING again. (Ultimately, it turned out a ETS'ing PFC stole the .45 and tossed it into the Potomac River, so I was no longer suspect.)
So, I suppose doing the inventory despite the off-going SGT signing his end of it was my "CYA," which validates that part of your comment. Fortunately, despite the incident, I was still promoted to SGT a few weeks later. As President Reagan said, "Trust; but verify."
So, I suppose doing the inventory despite the off-going SGT signing his end of it was my "CYA," which validates that part of your comment. Fortunately, despite the incident, I was still promoted to SGT a few weeks later. As President Reagan said, "Trust; but verify."
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
SSG Bill McCoy That's a good story. Trust until trust is betrayed, I can buy that.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
I think that's spot on: training. When I think about how much I learn about people when we're out in the field together... few people seem to be able to hide their true colors once there cold, wet, tired, hungry, and pissed off.
(1)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
It sounds to me like you are building your tool kit very well Sir. 1LT (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
"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.
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.
(2)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
I think you're on to something, and this would also be greatly clarified if the question was changed to "How do you observe moral character?" rather than test.
Yet, when I am think long-term and sustained Soldiering, and I think about all the crap I have seen over the past 15 years in, it is courage that has served to be a gauntlet for the strongest forms of character. Courage to face unpopular opinion, to call out something wrong or stupid, courage to stand up to someone trying to bully you with rank, or courage to plan execute something when no one believes in you but you believe in the team and the results you could achieve.
Yet, when I am think long-term and sustained Soldiering, and I think about all the crap I have seen over the past 15 years in, it is courage that has served to be a gauntlet for the strongest forms of character. Courage to face unpopular opinion, to call out something wrong or stupid, courage to stand up to someone trying to bully you with rank, or courage to plan execute something when no one believes in you but you believe in the team and the results you could achieve.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
I didn't want to define morality as I would quickly turn to theology and draw from biblical truths; a different discussion for me. I defined courage. The question is geared towards testing some measure of character.
I think this is where your response is wise and helpful to me sir, that re-orienting the whole concept around observation instead of testing is arguably more appropriate and effective, especially when I escape the philosophy of all this and actually think about how this plays out in context.
I also think you make great points about strategy as leaders, something to definitely keep in my mind when observing moral character. I don't think I am exploring courage as a narrow "take the hill" attitude here, as the end all be all of a good person, but that having the courage to make right choices is critical for Soldiers.
I think this is where your response is wise and helpful to me sir, that re-orienting the whole concept around observation instead of testing is arguably more appropriate and effective, especially when I escape the philosophy of all this and actually think about how this plays out in context.
I also think you make great points about strategy as leaders, something to definitely keep in my mind when observing moral character. I don't think I am exploring courage as a narrow "take the hill" attitude here, as the end all be all of a good person, but that having the courage to make right choices is critical for Soldiers.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google