By: Lt Col Michael A. Bradford
First Chapter of A Five-Part Series
This five-part series shines light on an under-emphasized area for Air Force leaders tasked with Airman development, promotion, or even selecting their replacements. The USAF may develop the best technology and create enduring processes that increase efficiencies and effectiveness; still, an individual with bad character can nullify those advancements by their behavior in and around an organization. A leader may possess high levels of military genius, be a highly competent Warfighter with the flexibility of mind to achieve political ends, but still have low character. Warfighting competencies and character are not the same. In fact, being a competent operator is paramount at lower ranks, while one’s character becomes increasingly more important – and their operating competency becomes less important – as individuals move up the ranks. The USAF is transitioning from a system characterized by centralized command and decentralized execution to a construct based on Mission-type orders, with decentralized command and decentralized execution. A leader’s character becomes more critical at lower levels of command in the Mission-type orders construct. The current promotion system evaluates competence, but fails to assess a budding leader’s character. Completing tasks efficiently and on time is the current measure to serve at the next leadership level. This paper explains the importance of character in the Air Force, starting a conversation about the importance of character evaluation throughout an Airman’s career.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.[i]
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I Have a Dream Speech
Air Force Instruction 1-1
An Airman can download or obtain a copy of Air Force Instruction and read about the Air Force Core values. They will find that the Air Force’s core values are integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do.[ii] AFI 1-1 lists virtues, or character traits, that define the Air Force’s Core values, including honesty, courage, accountability, humility, duty, loyalty, mission, discipline, and teamwork.[iii] The same Airmen may attend professional military education, where they would write a paper on what values are important to them and compare and contrast those values to the Air Force Core Values.[iv] This anecdotal example reveals what most know to be true: the Air Force values character, but does not evaluate it. The Air Force teaches virtues and talks about virtues during feedback sessions The building blocks of an Airman’s character are virtues, and they are listed in AFI 1-1.[v]
Furthermore, the Airman’s supervisor may read the officer and enlisted evaluation systems Department of the Air Force Instruction 36-2406 to prepare to provide performance feedback or prepare their performance report. The document does not explicitly review character, but it does use words such as care, respect, and accountability.[vi] Instead, the Air Force evaluates competence. The supervisor will find verbiage discussing task knowledge, proficiency, resource utilization, time management, and mission accomplishment.[vii]
Conversely, the Army dedicates chapter two of the Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 (ADP 6-22) to a leader’s character and the virtues that make up a leader’s character.[viii] The Army lists character as the primary core leadership attribute of three (character, presence, and intellect).[ix] The regulation states character is the true nature of a leader guided by their conscience. Additionally, they write that nature influences attitudes and actions. Unlike the Air Force, the Army has a clear vision on the importance of character, and they evaluate it.
Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, Table 2-1 lists attributes associated with character.
The Air Force clearly values character, but the service never evaluates or measures it Character traits are measurable, and there are character traits Airmen should possess. Throughout the leadership lifecycle, the Air Force can determine an Airman’s character and competence at critical junctures. To accomplish these goals, we must focus our attention on character define it, and identify ways to view and assess it. This paper explains the importance of character in the Air Force, while identifying ways to view and evaluate it throughout an Airman’s career.
Gaze Upon Character
This series should turn the gaze of Air Force leaders to the importance of character. It should also encourage academics and instructors alike to research this vast topic. It is impossible to take such a vast topic, like the character of people in leadership positions, and flesh out its many intricacies and details in a single article. Yet, it is possible to discuss opportunities to evaluate character throughout the lifecycle of a leader’s career.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the primary focus of theorists and leaders was competence and workers’ ability to produce as many widgets as possible. Initially, competence was the primary focus of those who theorized about employees and production capabilities. The current techniques the USAF uses to identify, retain, fire, and hire talent are rooted in the methods developed at the turn of the 20th century by the mechanical engineer and author Fredrick Winslow Taylor in his book The Principles of Scientific Management.[x] His work is essential to understanding labor, both then and now. Taylor opened the conversation by discussing the search for competent men. He argues that skilled employees are not gifted to businesses; the company must build competent employees.[xi] Like Taylor, the Air Force currently measures competence and discusses the importance of character through the Air Force Core Values.[xii]
Changes in Air Force doctrine and the global political landscape require measurements of competence and character. As the USAF adopts Mission Command we are empowering Airmen to operate independently in complex, dynamic circumstances.[xiii] Mission command places more trust and decision-making at the tactical level The authority to operate is at the appropriate level using Mission-Type orders.[xiv] The Air Force has updated its doctrine to place great trust in leaders at multiple levels but has not formalized a method of assessing character.
Taylor valued competence in decision-makers. The hazardous impacts may come in many forms. The overall effect of choosing a person high in competence and low in character may vary.[xv] The impact mainly depends upon the person’s position or how high they can move within the organization before their low character materializes. Definitions of competence and character are necessary before delving any further into this topic.
Defining Character and Competence
Good character creates a solid foundation upon which to build competence. Therefore, defining character is of utmost importance for this article. There is a plethora of angles one could take to understand the word character.[xvi] Character is primarily associated with ethical behavior or virtues.[xvii] Moral, amoral, proper, improper, right, and wrong describe ethical character. On the other hand, virtuosity describes character as well. These are virtues that are related to the ability to make sound decisions.[xviii] Jan Wiener defines character as “inner development,” understanding oneself, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable personal traits through self-reflective analysis.[xix] Additionally, psychologist Lucas Monzani et al., identified eleven character virtues: courage, humanity, accountability, drive, collaboration, humility, justice, temperance, integrity, judgment, and transcendence.[xx]
Monzani et al. (2021) define the eleven character virtues.
There are two additional ways to interpret ethical and virtuous character. When defining character in light of ethics, individuals may place these qualities on themselves, and others may ascribe these attributes to the leader. They are primarily related to actions taken by the person judged. The person judged holds within themselves character in light of virtues .[xxi] We call letters of the alphabet characters because they are unchanging. Like the alphabet, a person’s character is defined as consistent virtuous or non-virtuous behavior. The focus of character is behavior, whereas the focus of competence is task completion.
Some have defined competence as the mental and physical ability to complete a task.[xxii] The etymology dictionary online defines competence as “adequate range of capacity or ability, sufficiency to deal with what is at hand.”[xxiii] Merriam-Webster’s Deluxe Dictionary defines competence as “having the requisite or adequate ability or qualities, and having the capacity to function or develop in a particular way.”[xxiv] Finally, Author Richard E. Boyatzis wrote the book, The Competent Manager, wherein he describes competence as effective performance in attaining desired results through actions required within a position while abiding by the policies and procedures of the organization.[xxv] For this series, “competence” is defined as the ability to complete assigned tasks.
Conclusion
Consistent virtuous or non-virtuous behavior defines a leader’s character. Thereby, defining the leader. The ability to complete tasks does not define character. Although task completion is integral to completing missions, it does not build trust or make organizations thrive. Good character is the foundation upon which leadership is built. While this is the case, competence is a fantastic litmus test if completing tasks is the organization’s goal. Even if the completion of the tasks is not all the organization cares about, competence is more straightforward to evaluate than character. Competence is not as nebulous as character. Leaders can see, touch, taste, feel, and even hear about good or better results. For these reasons, when evaluating talent, AF leaders currently emphasize the outcomes of leadership more than the process of attaining the outcomes. Virtues may contribute to actions taken or not taken, competence is observable, and character is more difficult to identify. Throughout the lifecycle of a career in the Air Force, competence remains, once attained if the required tasks do not change. Competence is more accessible to evaluate than character. Straightforward evaluation may be a primary reason the AF uses competence to promote or select the next generation of leaders (based on the EPB/OPB). If the USAF wants to promote the right people, then competence and character must be individually evaluated to select leaders who are competent and possess character (consistent virtuous behaviors) to meet the changing needs of the Air Force’s adaptation of Mission Command.
Article two will consist of a case study to examine character and competence in action. This article will 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. This case study will examine two research questions: (1) Is there a relationship between character and competence? (2) At various points in his career, did the job demand more virtue- or competency-based decisions?
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] Martin Luther King, The “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” (August 28, 1963) (Lincoln Memorial Washington, D.C., 1963), https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety.
[ii] Air Force Instruction 1-1 (United States Air Force, 2023), 4, https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf.
[iii] Air Force Culture, 5.
[iv] Air Education and Training Command, “Airmen Leadership School (ALS) Syllabus” (United States Air Force, October 1, 2023), https://airuniversity.usaf.afpims.mil/Portals/10/Barnes/ALS/ALS%20Course%20Syllabus%20(1%20OCT%20%2023).pdf?ver=04T_HHe_o_os_htUl6hmuw%3d%3d×tamp=1699885705051.
[v] Air Force Culture, 4.
[vi] Gwendolyn R. Defilippi, Department of the Air Force Instruction 36-2406 (Washington, D.C: Department of the Air Force, 2023), 67, https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2406/afi36-2406.pdf.
[vii] Defilippi, 70.
[viii] James C. McConville, Army Doctrine Publication No. 6-22 (Washington, D.C: Headquarters Department of the Army, 2019), 2–1, https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN18529-ADP_6-22-000-WEB-1.pdf.
[ix] McConville, 1–16.
[x] Deborah L. Rogers, Bennie W. Roach, and Lawrence O. Short, “Mental Ability Testing in the Selection of Air Force Officers: A Brief Historical Overview 1986; Rogers, Deborah L ; Roach, Bennie W ; Short, Lawrence O” (Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: Manpower and Personnel Division, October 1986), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA173484.pdf.
[xi] Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1911), 6.
[xii] Air Force Instruction 1-1 (United States Air Force, 2023), https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf.
[xiii] USAF, Air Force Doctrin Publication 1-1 Mission Command (Maxwell Air Force Base: USAF, 2023), 1, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_1-1/AFDP%201-1%20Mission%20Command.pdf.
[xiv] Fischer, “Fischer, Michael E. Mission-Type Orders in Joint Air Operations: The Empowerment of Air Leadership, 1994.”
[xv] B. Leavy, “Effective Leadership Today – Character Not Just Competence” 44, no. 1 (2016): 20–29.
[xvi] Thomas A. Wright and Ching-Chu Huang, “Character in Organizational Research: Past Directions and Future Prospects,” Journal Of Organizational Behavior 29, no. 7 (2008): 981–87.
[xvii] Taya R. Cohen et al., “Moral Character In The Workplace,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107, no. 5 (2014): 943.
[xviii] Rachel E. Sturm, Dusya Vera, and Mary Crossan, “The Entanglement of Leader Character and Leader Competence and Its Impact on Performance,” The Leadership Quarterly 28, no. 3 (2017): 349.
[xix] Jan Wiener, “Evaluating Progress in Training: Character or Competence?,” Journal of Analytical Psychology 52, no. 2 (2007): 178.
[xx] L. Monzani, GH Seijts, and M.M. Crossan, “Character Matters: The Network Structure of Leader Character and Its Relation to Follower Positive Outcomes. PLoS ONE 16(9): E0255940.,” PLOS ONE 16, no. 9 (2021): 3.
[xxi] Sturm, Vera, and Crossan, “The Entanglement of Leader Character and Leader Competence and Its Impact on Performance,” 2017, 350.
[xxii] Sturm, Vera, and Crossan, 350.
[xxiii] “Online Etymology Dictionary” (Douglas Harper, 2023 2001), https://www.etymonline.com/.
[xxiv] Merriam-Webster’s Deluxe Dictionary, 10th collegiate ed (Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader’s Digest, 1998), 367.
[xxv] Richard E. Boyatzis, The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance (New York: Wiley, 1982), 12.