By: Lt Col Michael A. Bradford
Third Chapter of a Five-Part Series
An Airman renders a salute during the playing of the National Anthem at the Air Force Memorial in Arlington, Va., Sept. 17, 2019. The Air Force Memorial, standing at 270 feet tall, honors the legacy of the past and present service members in the United States Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Taryn Butler)
The Air Force’s current promotion system prioritizes task efficiency and competence over character. In this series we look at opportunities to revise the evaluation system to include character evaluation throughout an Airman’s career thereby emphasizing the significance of good character in Air Force leadership. Article 2 in this five-part series examined character and competence in action as we explored the lifecycle of Colin Powell’s leadership focusing on character traits exhibited at distinct phases of his career. Building on the findings in the case study, this article examines how three Air Force leaders view the role of character in virtue-based decision-making, and the importance of both character and competence in their service. This article will illustrate the critical role of character-based outcomes in fostering effective leadership in the Air Force.
“For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.”[i]
Ecclesiastes 9:4
Good character is not the absence of temptation to commit amoral acts. According to the online etymology dictionary, the word character originates in Latin from the Greek kharaktēr, which means “carved mark” or “sign or inscription on the soul.”[ii] It defines character as the amalgamation of a person’s enduring qualities that make them unique. According to Aristotle, these good or bad character imprints develop from repeated actions or practices from the individual’s early days.[iii] The definitions of character and how one attains them equate the human being to material shaped, stamped, and molded into different forms. The definitions elucidate an understanding of character by equating the human to an object.
Potter shaping clay on a pottery wheel. (Photo courtesy of Shutterstock contributor Yucel Tozlu)
This gives credence to further examination of human character using various analogies. In the book of Jeremiah in the Holy Bible, God tells a prophet, Jeremiah, to go to the potter’s house, and he would speak to him there. Jeremiah observed the potter molding clay on his wheel. The potter made an error and ruined the clay. Using the same clay, he constructed a vessel that pleased him. God then spoke to Jeremiah and told him the children of Israel were like the clay in the potter’s hand. He could shape them if they returned to him. These examples provide tangibility to a concept that can be hard to define.
For this third article in the series, diverse perspectives from Colonel Matthew Psilos, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (CMSAF) (retired) Kaleth Wright, and Ms. Angela Adams provide new insight into what a “Leader of Character” looks like, the relevance of character in leadership positions, selecting candidates with the right character traits, and candidate evaluation. Drawing from a collective 80 years of Air Force service, two themes emerged: (1) a short list of espoused traits common to leaders of character, and (2) that changes to evaluation are needed to select and develop leaders with the right blend of character and competence.
Espoused Traits
The interviewees mentioned four character traits as central to evaluating leadership talent: authenticity, integrity, moral courage, and self-examination. These traits correlated with several desirable aspects of good character mentioned in article two.
The first, authenticity, was emphasized both by CMSAF Wright and Ms. Adams.[iv] They spoke about authenticity in terms of not trying to be someone they are not. Their definition of authenticity requires that the leader understand their personality type and leadership style. For example, introverts should not act like extroverts because they believe this trait is more desirable to their followers. When people behave this way, others know they are inauthentic, making everyone uncomfortable.[v] Ms. Adams shared a story of a squadron commander who terminated a training sortie early because a few people were tired. Rather than meet the intent of the training mission, he followed his idea of what a leader should do and how to “take care of his people.”[vi] According to Ms. Adam, the individual was inauthentic because he did not know who he was as a leader. This lack of confidence led him to decide to please people rather than ensure his team could accomplish the training mission. The squadron commander’s decision to terminate the sortie early ultimately led to his squadron being unable to achieve the mission for some time due to training shortfalls.[vii] For Peterson and Seligman, authors of Character Strengths and Virtues, authenticity is an aspect of integrity, the next trait discussed.[viii]
An audience of cadets, faculty, service members, visiting undergraduate students and community leaders listen to a senior leader panel including Gen. Stephen Whiting, U.S. Space Command commander, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, Chief Master Sgt. of the Space Force John Bentivegna and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force David Flosi, during the National Character and Leadership Symposium at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., Feb. 21, 2025. NCLS is the Academy’s annual leadership symposium bringing together distinguished scholars, military leaders, corporate executives and world-class athletes. (U.S. Air Force photo by Trevor Cokley)
Integrity was near the top of each interviewee’s list of desirable traits organizations should look for in potential leaders.[ix] Ms. Adams gave the most unique definition of integrity. She defined it as “holding oneself to a standard.” Continuing her thoughts, she said it is “actually being able to profess what you possess, carry through on it, and execute.”[x] Col Psilos mentioned that “Integrity First” is the Air Force’s first core value. Hence, integrity is essential to the USAF; accordingly, it should be important to the leaders responsible for choosing the next leaders.[xi] His definition of integrity included leaders “doing what they said they would.” Furthermore, Crossan et al. defined integrity as “maintaining high moral standards and not compromising when times get tough.”[xii]
Everyone mentioned the aspect of moral courage.[xiii] CMSAF Wright talked about moral courage in providing candid feedback to one’s boss, even when there is fear of losing a promotion or not being selected for an award. Ms. Adams talked about moral courage in light of making hard decisions that could “harm someone’s career.”[xiv] She told the story of an officer who received orders to deploy and was having problems at home. The person chose to go downtown and get drunk and became belligerent when business owners told him he could not drive home, which resulted in his arrest. The Commandant did not punish the individual. He promoted the person to a higher position in the organization and canceled his deployment. Later, the individual was arrested again, this time for domestic abuse. Fortunately for the Air Force, the individual was working for a new commandant at that time, who demonstrated greater moral courage, handling the domestic violence case using the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He held the individual accountable for his actions and issued UCMJ actions to correct the behavior. He was more concerned with correcting the behavior, effectively ensuring that the officer would not be promoted to the next leadership level.
U.S. Air Force Capt. Isabella Shelton, left, 325th Fighter Wing chief of military justice, speaks with Maj. Patrick Milott, 325th FW deputy staff judge advocate, during a mock court martial at Tyndall Air Force Base, June 26, 2023. The legal office is involved with all on base court cases and counsel commanders, supervisors and other decision makers. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Cameron Otte)
Moreover, Col Psilos discussed moral courage in light of a lieutenant colonel who refused the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons; the Army demoted him to major, forcing mandatory retirement per the policy at that time. Despite the organization, this person had the moral courage to stand up for his beliefs.[xv] This example is congruent with Putnam’s definition of moral courage, which states that it is “the ability to not compromise on an ethical stance.”[xvi] In light of these examples, moral courage involves giving honest feedback to leaders, making hard decisions with the potential for substantial consequences, and not compromising on an ethical stance. Moral courage is an outgrowth of self-examination.
The final desirable attribute for current and future leaders is self-examination. The interviewees spoke of self-examination during discussions of leadership in general but primarily while speaking of operational and strategic leaders. Therefore, they likely believe self-examination is more important at these levels of leadership. Self-examination is an aspect of integrity, and Aristotle described it as being “at the mean.”[xvii] It is essential to understand the difference between self-examination and authenticity. Authenticity is the leader’s ability to be themselves. The leader is not trying to impress anyone. They are being themselves and leading with their strengths while understanding their weaknesses.
Self-examination is the leader’s acceptance that they have weaknesses. It is an honest self-assessment. Col Psilos and CMSAF Wright spoke about self-examination as decision makers realizing they are not always the most intelligent people in the room and that those they lead most likely have better ideas. The collective mind is more potent than a single mind, when balanced to avoid excess diversity of thought which can lead to stagnation.[xviii] In addition, Ms. Adams gave an example of self-examination to help leaders understand why they may be at odds with another person. She said the person must ask, “What is inside of me and my demons that this person stirs up?”[xix] Another way of viewing self-examination is through Aristotle’s concept of “at the mean.” The leader does not promote themselves excessively or provide unwarranted self-criticism.[xx] Self-examination is challenging, but it is a required trait in leaders, along with authenticity, integrity, and moral courage.
Authenticity, integrity, moral courage, and self-examination are not an exhaustive list of virtues; however, they establish a common baseline for consideration. The three individuals interviewed, with over 80 years of shared Defense experience, all spoke of these four character attributes. While leaders and observers of leadership can identify virtuous leaders even if they are unable to articulate the specific traits, this presents challenges for scalable evaluation.
Members of the U.S. Air Force Honor Guard Drill Team pose with an EA-37B Compass Call after completing their performance at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., March 22, 2025. The elite team supports the Air Force Recruiting Service by serving as the official ambassadors in blue, showcasing precision, discipline and professionalism. The EA-37B, formerly known as the EC-130H Compass Call, is a specialized electronic warfare aircraft designed to disrupt enemy command and control communications, providing critical support to joint and allied operations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Andrew Garavito)
Evaluation and Training
Each interviewee discussed evaluating character in training environments. While these training experiences varied widely, all placed stress and pressure on the trainee, designed to reveal their underlying character.
Col Psilos shared two onboarding stories, one from the Infantry Officer Basic Course and the other from Special Tactics Officer Assessment and Selection, which emphasized the importance of a flat organizational structure and environmental stressors in providing opportunities to develop and evaluate a trainee’s character. The first feature of the training environments he discussed was their flatness.[xxi] All trainees were peers, so no one could use rank to bully others. The flat organizational structure encouraged teamwork and cooperation. The leader one week would be the follower the next week. It was in the trainees’ best interest to treat everyone with respect. Inevitably, some did not learn these lessons, and their experience in training was either short-lived or unpleasant due to the negative ramifications of their actions. The training cadre highlighted people who did not treat others fairly and were unable to lead their peers. These individuals did not complete training if their behavior did not change.
The other factors were environmental – sleep and starvation – which created physical stress. The lack of sleep slowed their decision-making and increased stress.[xxii] The programs induced stress during both classroom and field training, while also decreasing the trainees’ caloric intake[xxiii]. They were not starving but felt hunger pains, which added to the mental and physical strain.
The Air Force Special Tactics community conducts training in that manner because of the conditions the trainees would face in combat.[xxiv] The organization needs to test and evaluate a person’s character and virtue-based decision-making. This environment highlights individual character. Along with measures of competence, these tests of character allow the Air Force Special Tactics community to place and promote the right people.
Combat rescue officer candidates participate in water confidence training during the CRO Phase II Screener at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., Oct. 18, 2022. Water confidence training is also used as a tool to measure the stress tolerance of Air Force Special Warfare candidates. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman William Turnbull)
Not all organizations and jobs will require the same training that Col Psilos completed in the special tactics community, but each individual serving in the United States Air Force should experience stress in training that will reveal their character. This ensures that new Airmen possess the foundational virtues espoused in the Air Force Core Values before they are allowed to enter the USAF.
Upon arriving at their first base, young Airmen may be handed Air Force Instruction (AFI) 1-1 by their First Sergeant or supervisor and instructed to read it. AFI 1-1 states each core value and defines them by virtues such as honesty, courage, accountability, humility, duty, loyalty, respect, discipline, and teamwork.[xxv] The AFI 1-1 is the extent of formal training on character and organizational norms in the Air Force. The more senior an individual is, the less likely they are to receive a reminder of the Air Force’s expectations and the character traits they are to model. The Air Force should take the next step to guarantee that an individual understands the service’s character expectations both through training and onboarding as well as evaluation.
Author Jim Kwik contrasted the story of Rip Van Winkle – and the necessary change that takes place over time – to the modern education system. He argued that Rip Van Winkle would recognize the contemporary classroom because it has mostly stayed the same since its inception, failing to change and adapt.[xxvi] Similarly, the outdated hiring and human resource practices of the early 20th-century are still prevalent in the Air Force. Following Frederick Taylor’s model in his book, The Principals of Scientific Management, the DoD uses tests to verify an applicant’s fitness to lead in the armed forces. The United States Air Force’s Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) measures aptitude for commissioning programs.[xxvii] While this serves a purpose, Taylorism falls short in identifying character and in developing talented workers into leaders of character.
The Air Force Manual 36-2032 states, “Applicants must be of sound moral character.”[xxviii] It goes on to guide what makes an applicant ineligible to be an officer in the USAF. The AFOQT has proven helpful for the Air Force; still, officer technical schools still have students every year who fail to meet the standards.[xxix]
Leaders have repeatedly said, “People are our greatest resource.” However, the extent of early testing and evaluation is often through the development of competence in technical skills, not character. The challenges of tomorrow have driven updated doctrine – Mission Command – which will demand that more junior members act with more autonomy up and down the military ranks.[xxx] We need to understand what these individuals are likely to do when left alone and required to make independent decisions. CMSAF Kaleth Wright acknowledges that understanding how a person may behave when promoted to leadership is fifty-fifty. “It is the luck of the draw.”[xxxi] But shouldn’t we strive to do better?
Col. Craig Prather, 47th Flying Training Wing Commander, watches as CMSgt. David Snarr, 47th Flying Training Wing Command Chief, goes through example problems from the Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) at the Education and Training Center on Laughlin Air Force Base, Dec. 3, 2021. The AFOQT is similar to the SAT, covering topics ranging from verbal and math skills to pilot and navigation aptitude for those interested in flying. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman Kailee Reynolds)
Conclusion
Ensuring Airmen are competent and conducting competency-based testing is paramount to the success of the Air Force. Colin Powell’s life and the examples above revealed that character works in tandem with competence. Colin Powell had a successful career in the Army and State Department. The interviewees provided both positive examples of character along with examples of inadequate character.
The interviewees identified authenticity, integrity, moral courage, and self-examination as desirable traits for service members. Leaders must lead authentically by remaining true to themselves and not trying to live up to an idea. They talked about integrity in terms of holding oneself to a standard and living by espoused virtues. They spoke of moral courage in terms of the suffering sometimes necessary to maintain integrity. Finally, the interviewees discussed self-examination. They said it was important for leaders to understand where they have weaknesses and room for improvement, and that leadership involves leaning upon their teams to balance these areas.
This is not an exhaustive list of virtues; however, the identification of these virtues demonstrates that it is possible to observe and evaluate character. It is much easier to list the number of sorties flown, missiles fixed, and money spent or saved, but evaluating character is necessary as well. The Army has found a way to evaluate character; therefore, the Air Force can do the same.
Part four of this series introduces the Competence Character Continuum, a framework for Air Force leaders and Airmen to verify readiness to lead at different leadership levels. Researching these two leadership aspects helps explain the importance of character and competence in leaders at various stages of their careers. The continuum depicts the relationship of competence and character before an individual enters the Air Force. There is a measure of competence during training, which places people into a position in the AF. The areas discussed are a person’s pre-affiliation, tactical, operational, and strategic levels of leadership within an organization. Pre-affiliation refers to attitudes and values a person holds before joining an organization. Tactical is a person’s introduction to an organization where competence increases, and organizations transmit their character through training and expectations—demonstrating the virtues set forth by the Air Force signals an Airman’s readiness to transition. If the employee does not meet character qualifications for promotion, the employee will not be promoted to the next level of leadership. The exact same process takes place within and between the remaining leadership levels.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.
About the Author:
Lt Col Michael A. Bradford is a USAF Missileer. After graduating from the University of Oklahoma’s Reserve Officer Training Corp program in 2008, he served in a variety of assignments, including 341st Missile Wing Emergency War Order Instructor, 576th Test Operations Squadron Assistant Director of Operations and Officer Training School 217th Training Squadron Director of Operations. He is a Master Instructor who has educated Airmen in operation, accession, and professional military education programs. He served on the 9th Air Expeditionary Task Force – Afghanistan Staff as the Deputy A3 and supported Operations in United States Central Command (CENTCOM) as the Rotations Branch Chief. He holds degrees in political science and military operational art and science. After graduation from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, he is currently assigned to CENTCOM J5 MacDill AFB, as a Strategic Theater War Planner.
Works Cited
[i] The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (B.B. Kirkbride Bible Company, Inc, 2007), 733.
[ii] “Online Etymology Dictionary” (Douglas Harper, 2023 2001), https://www.etymonline.com/.
[iii] Aristotle and Roger Crisp, Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 24.
[iv] Christopher Peterson and Martin E. P. Seligman define authenticity as a subcategory of integrity. They write it a willingness to say what is true, not trying to present oneself as something they are not (authenticity), and being sincere, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (Washington, DC : New York: American Psychological Association ; Oxford University Press, 2004), 29.
[v] Wright, Interview with CMSAF Wright.
[vi] Angelia Adams, Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Bradford’s Interview with Ms. Angelia Adams, In-person Interview, December 6, 2023.
[vii] Adams.
[viii] Peterson and Seligman, Character Strengths and Virtues, 30.
[ix] Mary M. Crossan et al. said integrity is when peers and leadership view their actions aligned with their values and beliefs. They further describe a person of integrity as one who maintains a high moral standard for themselves and does not bend in the face of difficult circumstances, “Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations,” 1000. Aristotle and Crisp, Aristotle contends that an individual “at the mean” [humble person] strikes a harmonious equilibrium between excessive self-promotion and undue self-criticism, demonstrating humility by maintaining an honest self-assessment and fostering sincerity in interactions with others. Nicomachean Ethics, 23. “Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations,” Journal of Management Studies (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) 54, no. 7 (November 2017): 986–1018.
[x] Adams, Interview with Ms. Adams.
[xi] Matthew Psilos, Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Bradford’s Interview with Colonel Matthew Psilos, Microsoft Zoom Meeting, November 8, 2023.
[xii] Crossan et al., “Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations,” 1000.
[xiii] Peterson and Seligman define courage (moral courage) as any act or consistent pattern of life that requires a person to sacrifice comfort and maintain integrity. Character Strengths and Virtues, 36.
[xiv] Adams, Interview with Ms. Adams.
[xv] Psilos, Interview with Colonel Matthew Psilos.
[xvi] Daniel Putman, “Psychological Courage,” Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 4, no. 1 (1997): 1–11.
[xvii] Aristotle and Crisp, Aristotle contends that an individual “at the mean” [humble person] strikes a harmonious equilibrium between excessive self-promotion and undue self-criticism, demonstrating humility by maintaining an honest self-assessment and fostering sincerity in interactions with others. Nicomachean Ethics, 23.
[xviii] Geoff Mulgan, Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2019), 45.
[xix] Adams, Interview with Ms. Adams.
[xx] Aristotle and Crisp, Nicomachean Ethics, 76.
[xxi] Psilos, Interview with Colonel Matthew Psilos.
[xxii] Psilos.
[xxiii] Psilos.
[xxiv] Psilos.
[xxv] Air Force Instruction 1-1 (United States Air Force, 2023), 7, https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf.
[xxvi] Jim Kwik, Limitless: Upgrade Your Brain, Learn Anything Faster, and Unlock Your Exceptional Life, 1st edition (Carlsbad, California: Hay House, Inc, 2020), 43.
[xxvii] United States Air Force Officer Qualifying Test Information Pamphlet, AFPT 997 (United States Air Force, 2015), https://access.afpc.af.mil/pcsmdmz/a_AFOQT%20Pamphlet%202014_20150825.pdf.
[xxviii] Alex Wagner, Air Force Manual 36-2032 5.4.5.1. Questionable moral character includes but is not limited to, a history of antisocial behavior and frequent difficulties with law enforcement agencies. 5.4.5.2. Applicants are ineligible if they have a state or federal conviction, or a finding of guilty in a juvenile adjudication, for a felony crime of rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, incest, or other sexual offense, or when the disposition requires the person to register as a sex offender. (T-0) 5.4.5.3. Applicants are ineligible if they are under judicial restraint imposed by a civil or criminal court or are subject to a subpoena ordering attendance on some specified future date (including those relieved from restraint on the condition of appointment). (Washington, D.C: Air Force Pentagon SAF/MR, 2019), 73, https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/dafman36-2032/dafman36-2032.pdf.
[xxix] Thomas Manacapilli et al., “Reducing Attrition in Selected Air Force Training Pipelines.” (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Project Air Force, December 1, 2011), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA556496.pdf.
[xxx] USAF, Air Force Doctrine Publication 1-1 Mission Command (Maxwell Air Force Base: USAF, 2023), https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_1-1/AFDP%201-1%20Mission%20Command.pdf.
[xxxi] Kaleth Wright, Chief Master of the Air Force (retired) Kaleth Wright, personal communication, January 25, 2024.