Lt Col Michael A. Bradford

Introduction: 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 examines character and competence in action as we explore the lifecycle of Colin Powell’s leadership. The focus will be on the types of character traits exhibited at different phases of his career. Is there a relationship between character and competence? At various points in his career, did the job demand more virtue or competency-based decisions?

“Have no fear of perfection – you’ll never reach it.”[1] Salvador Dali

Photo courtesy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The goal of any organization should be to acquire competent individuals capable of becoming leaders of competence and character who seek perfection in both areas with an understanding that they will not attain it. This case study of Colin Powell’s life examines the relationship between character and competence. Among Colin Powell’s many titles, he was the United States’ 65th Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General, diplomat, statesman, politician, loving husband, father, and grandfather. His life reveals the relationship between competence and character. The proper amalgamation of competence and character were prerequisites to Colin Powell’s success in life.

An in-depth study requires examination of his life during his foundational years, frontline leadership experience, mid-level leadership, and executive leadership opportunities. Doing so shows the interplay between competence and character and the roles of each in varying periods of his life. Competency and character (value)-based traits become apparent through his decision-making. The reader will find competence-based traits such as accountability and temperance in Powell’s early life and leadership. The transition between competency-based traits to virtue-based traits such as wisdom, courage, and integrity starts at the operational level, with virtue-based decision making becoming increasingly more important than competence-based traits up and to the executive level of leadership.

Powell’s Foundational Years

At seventeen years of age, Colin Powell was a competent worker. He mopped floors at a soft drink bottling plant for ninety cents an hour. By the third summer of working at the bottling plant, he went from mopping floors to becoming the deputy foreman.[2] He owed his promotion at the bottling plant to the competency and the character he exuded mopping floors. He mopped floors well (competence), and his character can be examined through temperance, or doing the right thing at the right time.[3] This story illustrates how an organization like the Air Force could examine and evaluate both the competence and the character necessary for success in mopping floors. This simple example from his life highlights the relationship between competence and character. As his responsibilities increased, the demands on Powell’s competence and character also increased.

Competence, Character, and Virtue versus Competency-Based Decisions in Powell’s Foundational Years

Definitions of virtue-based and competency-based decisions help shed light on these traits identified in Powell’s time at the bottling plant. Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove define virtue-based decisions as emphasizing one character’s character and virtues to determine or evaluate.[4] Martin Mulder defines competency-based decisions as demonstrating specific skills required in a particular field[5] These definitions provide a lens through which to view Powell’s job at the bottling plant. Powell worked hard mopping floors. He exemplified the virtues of temperance throughout his time, which led to his promotion. His work ethic was apparent, as doing the right thing at the right time was essential for becoming a successful soft drink bottling factory employee.

Frontline Leadership Years

In January 1959, the Army assigned Powell to the Fulda Gap in Germany. The US expected the Fulda Gap to be the Soviets’ entry point into Central Europe.[6] Lieutenant Powell’s first leadership position involved supervising a 40-man platoon in Company B, Second Armored Rifle Battalion, 48th Infantry Division. His competence as a platoon leader earned him the Company Executive Officer position. He also held the company command position for a few months during his assignment at the Fulda Gap.[7] Powell earned these promotions into positions of trust by proving he was competent and a person of character His selection to these positions of trust reveals the faith that leadership had in him.

As a Lieutenant and platoon leader, Powell made a mistake that could have derailed his career. In haste to perform his duties at an exercise, he lost his .45 pistol. When Powell realized he did not have his weapon, he radioed and informed his Company commander. His character, doing the right thing at the right time, regardless of the consequences, stands out in this chapter of his life. Colin chose not to hide his awareness that his weapon was missing. He held himself accountable, which also showed the virtue-based decision of courage, as defined by Hursthouse and Pettigrove.[8] Both courage and temperance are visible and, to a degree, measurable in this scenario.[9]

Powell demonstrated his lack of competence by leaving his weapon behind. His Company Commander could have punished him, but did not. Likely, his character helped him avoid harsh punishment. This example illustrates the linkages between competence and character and how supervisors evaluate both simultaneously. Powell showed diminished competence by losing his .45, but his character remained high. He went unpunished by his command, which might have been due to the high character shown at the moment and his Company Commander’s ability to assess his character over his lack of competence.

Competence, Character, and Virtue Versus Competency-Based Decisions during Powell’s Frontline Leadership Years

The tactical stage of Colin Powell’s career revealed more of his character. He built upon the temperance he displayed during the early years of his life and adds accountability and courage. Powell proved his competence by doing his job well enough to be promoted into positions of trust. His character worked with his competence by the accountability he displayed in telling his company commander he had lost his pistol. His competence and character play a role in his decision-making.

At this career stage, he made virtue-based and competency-based decisions in each instance. First, competency-based decisions earned him promotions, which he would not have received if he had been incompetent. His virtue-based decision revealed his character and the accountability and courage he showed by telling his leadership he lost his firearm.

Colin Powell, retired four-star Army general and former United States Secretary of State, speaks will a veteran with Honor Flight Chicago at the World War II Memorial, Washington, D.C., July 10, 2019. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Nicholas T. Holmes.

Mid-Level Leadership Years

Colin Powell continued displaying outstanding competence and character as an operations officer. His excellence in his roles opened the door for him to attend Command and General Staff College (CGSC). He continued his pattern of competence and excellence through hard work and graduated second in his class. He then deployed to Vietnam, and while there General Charles Getty (his Division Commander) found out he was the number two graduate from the Command and General Staff College from an Army Times article. He hired Colin as his G-3 (Operations Officer covering Vietnam). While performing his duties, he was riding a helicopter with the Division Commander when the pilot attempted to land in a narrow landing zone and crashed after hitting a tree

Powell modeled wisdom, courage, and humanity with his performance before deploying to Vietnam and while there. He held various leadership positions, completed his MBA at George Washington University, and became a White House Fellow. [10] Presumably, his prior competence and character-based performance opened a new door for him. He remained a gung-ho soldier, eager to learn all he could from his experience as a fellow.[11]

As a White House Fellow, Colin was an executive assistant in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).[12] He had several bosses but learned how to deliver bad news with a positive attitude from the deputy director of O.M.B., Fred Malek (using wisdom). Malek wanted to replace people in the administration but needed somewhere for them to go. He had Powell call various offices and congratulate them on a new person joining their teams; a very wise move to change the narrative. Powell would not have been able to work at the White House without being competent. Powell became the informal leader of the White House Fellows. His leadership saw the virtues of wisdom and judgment because he held the group together. [13]

Powell’s performance was outstanding at the operational leadership level. He made the most of his opportunities at CGSC, Vietnam, and the White House. First, his competence and character were shown in the form of wisdom when he graduated number two in his class at CGSC. Second, while in Vietnam he displayed the virtues of courage and humanity when he pulled General Getty from the helicopter crash. Finally, he displayed great wisdom and judgment as an official leader of the White House Fellows.

Competence, Character, and Virtue Versus Competency-Based Decisions during Mid-Level Leadership Opportunities

Later in his career, Colin Powell’s competence and character became well-known and solidified. He earned opportunities through the combination of the two. His competence and character contributed to his success. He performed well at CGSC and in Vietnam, which opened the door for a White House Fellowship. As a fellow, Powell’s character began to contribute more to his success than his competence He embodied courage, wisdom, judgment, and humanity in his roles.[14] Powell displayed virtue-based decision-making during his heroic Vietnam efforts and leadership role as a White House Fellow. He called upon courage, wisdom, humanity, and judgment in these assignments which were not necessary to be successful early on in his career. Powell’s journey reveals a transition from largely competency-based decisions to virtue-based decisions.

President Reagan holds a National Security Council meeting on the Persian Gulf with National Security Advisor Colin Powell in the Oval Office in April 1988. Photo courtesy of Reagan White House Photographs.

Executive Leadership Years

Colin Powell eventually retired from military service and became the Secretary of State for President George W. Bush. Following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and at the behest of President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke before the United Nations on February 5, 2003, where he claimed Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction. He told the world he gave them ‘facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.’[15] Unfortunately, the intelligence was bad and he unknowingly provided false testimony, leading to Powell’s resignation from the Bush administration in the spring of 2004.[16] President Bush said he felt Powell’s State Department was not on the same page as the administration, but Powell ‘made it easy on him’ and submitted his resignation.[17] Powell described that speech as “a blot” on his record, and it pained him that he delivered a false narrative to the world.[18]

US Secretary of State Colin Powell briefs high-level meeting of the Security Council concerning his country’s evidence of Iraq’s weapons programme. UN photo by Mark Garten.

His public statements about the pain he felt after presenting lousy intelligence to the world as the truth exposed the world to Colin Powell’s character, namely, the virtues of courage, accountability, integrity, and humility. [19] He displayed courage by not evading or making attempts to obfuscate his error. He demonstrated accountability and integrity by admitting to the mistake. Lastly, he showed humility by sharing his honest feelings about failing to deliver accurate information on the World Stage.

Colin Powell’s Competence, Character, and Virtue Versus Competency-Based Decisions at the Executive Level

Competence is expected at the strategic level of leadership. Powell’s examples of character from the early years to the strategic level reveal he likely continued to grow in competence. As Secretary of State, Powell made primarily virtue-based decisions. He unknowingly presented terrible intelligence to the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Colin Powell would view this error as “a blot” on his otherwise stellar public service record, resulting in his eventual resignation from the administration.

Conclusion

Throughout Colin Powell’s career, he illustrated his character and competence in his actions and decision-making. An outsider can measure both cases. As he progressed through his life, first working in the bottling plant, competence was more important. The floor needed cleaning, and it was evident whether it was or was not. However, character plays a role as Powell was left alone to finish his tasks. With no one watching, Powell did what was necessary to complete the tasks and did them well. Thus, he highlighted virtue-based decision-making through temperance.

Retired Army Gen. Colin Powell looks toward the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, during Veterans Day observances, Nov. 11, 2013. DOD photo by Lisa Ferdinando, Army News Service.

In the second example, Powell’s promotion to a position of trust revealed he demonstrated competence and character in his leadership. He did show a lack of competence by losing his firearm while revealing good character by reporting it to his supervisor. This scenario revealed the character traits of accountability and temperance. He held himself accountable by revealing his error and displayed temperance by remaining levelheaded. His character likely helped him avoid severe punishment. Lastly, this scenario showed that an individual will make mostly competency-based decisions at the tactical leadership level. His competence and character led to a promotion to the next leadership level.

In the third example, Colin Powell modeled competence and character during his tour in Vietnam and later as a White House fellow. He modeled wisdom, courage, and humanity in Vietnam by saving his commander. Later, he became the unofficial leader of the White House Fellows. Wisdom and judgment were hallmarks of his character in this unofficial role. Powell’s experiences at the operations level of leadership depict the transition from mainly competency-based to virtue-based decisions. The next step in the lifecycle of his leadership was a transition to the strategic level.

In the final example, Powell’s performance at the strategic level revealed his continued competence and two additional character traits. First, selection as Secretary of State proves President George W. Bush trusted that Colin Powell had the requisite skill and knowledge to be competent in this position. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Colin Powell spoke before the United Nations. He unknowingly provided poor intelligence information to the world about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet his public statements about his regret revealed two additional character traits: integrity and humility. He acknowledged the error while maintaining a high moral standard and exposed his character. He did not shirk away from the truth, demonstrating the second character trait of humility. He provided an honest self-assessment to the press with sincere words, calling his error “a blot” on his public record. Lastly, this example shows that an individual will make largely virtue-based decisions at the strategic level. He spoke before the United Nations because the international community trusted him. His character had earned him the opportunity to speak before the United Nations.

Next, we will look at interviews with Air Force leaders that highlight their personal experiences and the influence of character on leadership outcomes. Building on the findings in this case study of Colin Powell, article 3 will examine how these leaders view the role of character in virtue-based decision-making and emphasize 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.

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

[1] Salvador Dali, “Explore the World With Simon Sulyma,” 2024, https://www.simonsulyma.com/2018/11/have-no-fear-of-perfection-youll-never-reach-it.html.

[2] Howard B. Means, Colin Powell: Soldier/Statesman–Statesman/Soldier (New York: D.I. Fine, 1992), 54.

[3] Aristotle and Roger Crisp, Aristotle wrote, “The temperate person’s appetite is for the right thing, in the right way, and at the right time,” Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 59. Mary M. Crossan et al. wrote that a temperant person not only resists excess but is calm and composed in tense situations, which allows them to think clearly. Expanding on the subject, they wrote that temperant individuals accomplish tasks thoughtfully and carefully, “Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations,” 1000.

[4] Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove, “Virtue Ethics,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Zalta and Uri Nodelman, 2022.

[5] Martin Mulder, “Conceptions of Professional Competence,” in International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-Based Learning, ed. Stephen Billett, Christian Harteis, and Hans Gruber, Springer International Handbooks of Education (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014), 107–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8902-8_5.

[6] David Roth, Sacred Honor: A Biography of Colin Powell (Grand Rapids, Mich. : San Francisco, Calif: Zondervan Pub. House ; Harper San Francisco, 1993), 48.

[7] Roth, 49.

[8] Crossan et al. defines accountability as taking responsibility for their actions, dependability, and ownership of complex issues, “Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations,” 1004. Peterson and Seligman define courage as any act or consistent pattern of life that requires a person to sacrifice comfort and maintain integrity, Character Strengths and Virtues, 36.

[9] Aristotle and Roger Crisp, Aristotle wrote, “The temperate person’s appetite is for the right thing, in the right way, and at the right time,” Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 59. Mary M. Crossan et al. wrote that a temperant person not only resists excess but is calm and composed in tense situations, which allows them to think clearly. Expanding on the subject, they wrote that temperant individuals accomplish tasks thoughtfully and carefully, “Toward a Framework of Leader Character in Organizations,” 1000.

[10] Jeffrey J. Matthews, Colin Powell: Imperfect Patriot (Notre Dame, and Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2019), 55.

[11] Means, Colin Powell, 137.

[12] Means, 174.

[13] Peterson and Seligman define wisdom as knowledge gained through struggle presented in a noble fashion that everyone appreciates, Character Strengths and Virtues, 39. Monzani, Seijts, and Crossan define judgment as the ability to make analytical decisions quickly with little information in challenging circumstances, “Character Matters: The Network Structure of Leader Character and Its Relation to Follower Positive Outcomes. PLoS ONE 16(9): E0255940.,” 3.

[14] Christopher Peterson and Martin E. P. Seligman, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification (Washington, DC : New York: American Psychological Association ; Oxford University Press, 2004).

[15] Julian Borger, “Colin Powell’s U.N. Speech: A Decisive Moment In Undermining US Credibility Julian Borger in Washington,” The Guardian, October 18, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/18/colin-powell-un-security-council-iraq.

[16] George W. Bush, Decision Points, 1st ed (New York: Crown Publishers, 2010), 90.

[17] Bush, Decision Points.

[18] Borger, “Colin Powell’s U.N. Speech: A Decisive Moment In Undermining US Credibility Julian Borger in Washington.”

[19] Peterson and Seligman define integrity as 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, 29. Crossan et al. said integrity is when peers and leadership view their actions as 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.