Chad, I agree completely. My main issue with the way we talk about character in the military – and frequently in society – is it’s treatment as some immutable, inherent characteristic. A person has good or bad character – then actions manifestly describe that character.

I think in many ways it’s the opposite – the actions we take shift and define our character.

A WWII study found a unit in heavy combat improved it’s performance up to 45 days, then performance began to deteriorate and become worse than a green unit after 90 days. Performance involved tactical and operational objectives – but also initiative, courage, and not withdrawing or cutting off an attack prematurely. I think it’s a good indicator aspects of individual and unit ‘character’ can be hugely impacted by the conditions under which they serve.

I think an area where it manifests is the Army’s struggle with command responses to sexual assault and sexual harassment. A frequent refrain, especially in years past has been ‘but, he (it’s usually a he) was such a good Soldier and had such strong character.’ Where the commanders lying? Was their judgement so badly flawed they were a poor judge of character? Or, as I would contend could someone show positive and negative character traits in different aspects of their professional and personal lives? Could we set the conditions by the way we organize, build a professional culture, and instill discipline where we optimize for bad character outcomes in some areas?

I think character is about choices but, like all important choices, you don’t make them just one time. You make them over, and over again. I think it’s dangerous for us to assume some level of leader passes through a gate to be accrued the assumption they’re always making the right choice. Similarly I think very few choices have only positive or only negative consequences – at least for the individual. I think it gets to the heart of toxic leadership and how subordinates can suffer under a toxic leader who continues to get promoted by superiors – it’s the same ‘character’, just looked at from different angles.

Very well thought and put together. All valid and true.

LT Bernheim I went to ROTC with your sister. Crazy that I see you writing articles now. Hope all is well with you and your sister. Sounds like you are doing well out there.

Excellent post. I often argue that the more we adopt the “Starting with WHY” model the quicker we will be able to adopt the true meaning of Mission Command. You bring up excellent points about how important it is to define the WHY as a leader but I would also add there is an equal importance to allow soldiers to be more active in defining their WHY’s. This combination can help us achieve greater results as a force. Thank you for kicking of the year with something that is so powerful.

Many Soldiers have grown accustomed to the more directed task “how” and “what” style of leadership. What tips do you have for JOs to help our NCOs and Soldiers become more comfortable with operating within the “why”? How can we implement leading with the “why” in our day to day activities?

Chad, I think this is a great technique and one I saw put into place very effectively by GEN Townsend when he took command of the 10th MTN DIV (LI) in 2013.

He chaired his first major meeting on a Monday or Tuesday with most of the commander’s on Ft. Drum after he arriving the previous Friday. I think most of the audience (myself included) expected him to talk general philosophy but mostly accept what he was told unchallenged – after all he had just arrived and didn’t have a separate feed for information yet. Or, that’s what we thought.

It turned out he challenged commanders on a number of topics – and had much more up-to-date information. GEN Townsend (MG at the time) when driving on post if he saw someone walking he’d pull over, pick them up, and give them a ride wherever they were going. He did it anytime he was driving but especially on the weekends. Invariably the people he would pick up were Soldiers or family members. He’d asking them about their unit, where they were going, why they were walking, what life was like, etc.

So, in that first meeting when commanders were telling him how they had adequate bus lines, chow hall hours, and sponsorship programs MG Townsend was in a position to look critically at what he was being fed. More often than not commanders were the ones scrambling to gain an adequate understanding to answer their boss. It sent a powerful message to leaders: 1. know your business, because I’m looking 2. Don’t give me answers you’re not sure on or are making up – my trust is earned and lost and 3. Every Soldier matters, if you’re not out for them you’re not leading the way I expect.