Which is more important, character or competence? It’s one of those chicken-and-the-egg questions. Stack it next to, are leaders born or made? The obvious, reductionist answer is that leaders must have both. When written out, the argument is usually portrayed as character v. competence. But what if we are expressing the relationship incorrectly? What if we are struggling to find the answer because we are asking the wrong question? This isn’t a binary option or alternatives in consumption in a scarcity market. Instead, we should view it as a math equation: character x competence.
In the winter of 2018, I was preparing to sit down and have a conversation with Maj. Gen. Bill Burleson. Maj. Gen. Burleson was, at the time, the commanding general of the 7th Infantry Division at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. He’d been a very supportive follower of the website. I asked to interview him for an article and he graciously agreed to sit down with me.
Prior to our interview, I coordinated the details with members of the General’s staff. Little did I know that, while my interview with Maj. Gen. Burleson would be fantastic, I would gain equally valuable insight from Col. Kyle Marsh, the 7th Infantry Division Chief of Staff.
Col. Marsh and I discussed the details of my upcoming interview and other coordination matters. But then the conversation went into our mutual passion for leadership and the profession. Col. Marsh related many valuable lessons from his time in uniform, communicating them as an equal partner rather than the seasoned superior he was relative to my time in service. His humility was welcoming.
During the discussion, Col. Marsh grabbed his notebook and wrote out two words: Character x Competence. He spun the book around and asked me circle the most important part. I waffled.
“Well, if starting from zero, I would have to go with competence,” I said with a lack of confidence.
“But, assuming a baseline level of both, then character is the more important.”
That is when Col. Marsh circled the part I had complete ignored.
The Equation
I fell into the trap of concentrating on the two words and the false dichotomy between them. Col. Marsh circled the x. He went on to explain that competence and character are parts of an equation and they are multiplicative rather than additive.
For the purposes of easy math, we will stick to a scale of zero to ten, where ten is the maximum score. If the equation was additive, then a score of zero in either category would still render a product equal to the opposite category’s score. But in a multiplication problem, a zero in either category drops the product to zero.
The Product
So what is the product? What does Character x Competence get you? Trust. This equation is about trust. It reflect the trust garnered from those you lead, the trust of the American people, the trust of your leaders, and the trust of your peers.
We have all met the leader who is a great man or woman of character, but lacking competence in their job. They have a great attitude, endless optimism, and humility. But they seem to skate by on their strengths without actually achieving results. We will give them a character score of ten, but a competence score of one.
10 x 1 = 10: Carried by Character with no multiplicative effect of their competence.
Alternatively, we see stories of the successful leaders who fall from grace due to character flaws. We see the Bathsheba Syndrome in the headlines too often. Throughout their careers, these leaders didn’t completely lack character. But they clearly had shortcomings, and succeeded based on their skill and ability to achieve results.
1 x 10 = 10: Reliant on Performance
But what if either of these scores drops to zero? In an addition problem, a score of zero in either category would still result in a net positive trust-score. In a multiplication problem, a score of zero in either category drops the overall trust score to zero.
You need a net positive in both Character and Competence to build any level of Trust in your organization.
The Army Leader Requirements Model
ADP 6-22, Published July 2019
The Army Leader Requirements Model is a doctrinal construct that breaks down the expectations of Army leadership into three attributes and three competencies. It operationalizes the Army’s definition of leadership while also providing a framework for evaluating our leaders. These are the traits by which we assess our leaders in NCOERs and OERs.
On the NCOER/OER, the first attribute/competency evaluated is Character, and the last is Achieves. I love what this says about the character x competence discussion. Everything starts with character. If you haven’t internalized the Army values, don’t lead with emotional intelligence, and lack humility – then the rest is moot. But we are also a results-oriented profession of dire circumstances. For that reason, Achieves is the bottom-line.
If you are morally corrupt or bankrupt, the evaluation stops there. But even if you are a great dude/dudette, you still need to achieve results. Winning matters.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!