The Epistemology of Character
Retired Command Sgt. Maj. Robert Nelson, Sgt. Maj. Richard Russell, and Sgt. Maj. Christopher Becker
Sergeants Major Academy
August 1, 2025
Download the PDF 
During our time in the Army, more leaders have failed due to lapses in character than due to incompetence. If you dismiss this as anecdotal, ask yourself: When was the last time you saw someone get into trouble for a purely competence-related issue?
It’s possible to fail due to incompetence, especially in technical occupations. However, we argue that the lack of competence in this case stems from a character issue. The Army doesn’t allow Soldiers to perform tasks in which they haven’t been formally or informally trained. Thus, a lack of competence is, at its core, a reflection of character.
So, character development is arguably as important as the technical development — if not more so.
Character
While most people acknowledge the importance of character, their definitions of it vary. Army doctrine defines character as “one’s true nature, including identity, sense of purpose, values, virtues, morals, and conscience” (Department of the Army [DA], 2025).
Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.
— H. Jackson Brown Jr. (1991)
Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
— Abraham Lincoln (n.d., attributed)
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.
— Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1963)
The list of famous people who have attested to the importance of character goes on and on. Leaders must have strong moral character, and we believe that a leader’s character forms the foundation on which all their abilities, actions, and decisions are based.
Developing an honorable character can’t be delayed nor its importance ignored. Possessing the highest attributes of character creates a basis of trust and effectiveness in leadership.
Epistemology
If character is important, how can it be developed? Epistemology is the study of knowledge, its nature, origins, and limits. So, inquiring about the origins of character can be described as studying the epistemology of character (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
Our environments shape our character as we grow. Our family, friends, schools, neighborhoods, neighbors, and cities influence us. This can be a good thing, but when someone joins the Army with a limited, underdeveloped, or malicious character, problems arise. Once our character develops, it’s difficult to change.
A person’s character will typically only change after a significant emotional event or with deliberate effort over a substantial period. If this is the case, what can large organizations like the Army do when the requirement for leaders of character is in constant demand? The answer is to focus on developing leaders of character.
The Army’s leader development programs for officer and enlisted leaders consist of three domains: the institutional (school), the operational (work), and self-development (the individual) (DA, 2019). The self-development domain contains the most white space, but motivating individuals to work on character development is difficult if they see no need.
In the operational domain, leaders are assessed based on their character, and those with high moral character should be selected for positions of authority. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Many senior leaders find themselves in trouble for lapses in character. If you doubt this, search online for military scandals where leaders face accusations based on poor character. (We acknowledge this is a low percentage of the population.)
Another example of the organizational domain failing to develop character lies in individual development plans or counseling programs. We believe you will see our point if you reflect on your time in the Army or when you were counseled regularly and correctly. Missed guidance opportunities could be why the self-development domain is difficult to influence.
The operational domain contributes to character development but often lacks consistency. The institutional domain remains the only area the Army can fully control.
Army leadership school curricula must include character assessment and development to improve such growth. This is why the Army instills its core values (the Army Values) into Soldiers from the beginning of their service to the end. This aligns with Baehr’s (2015) recommendation that organizations limit target virtues to develop.
Given these points, can the Army enhance its development of leaders of character in the institutional domain? Yes, it can.
Recommendations for Improvement
The first step institutions can take is to deliberately create opportunities for students to reflect on their character strengths and weaknesses via designed learning experiences (McDaniel & Konheim-Kalkstein, 2023).
Reflective journaling is a great tool for this process (University of Alabama Teaching Academy, n.d.). They can be private or shared on a limited basis. Instructors should let students know it’s okay to have a weakness if they can identify it, acknowledge it, and work on it.
Character doesn’t change overnight. It’s a slow, deliberate, arduous journey filled with small wins, disappointments, and triumphs. When students understand this and reflect on their character, improvement is possible. Self-reflection is an important part of educating for intellectual virtues (Tishman et al., 1995).
Self-reflection and personal growth require a safe and supportive environment. “Research and common sense tell us that the kind of change or personal formation in question is unlikely to occur in environments that feel hostile, disrespectful, unsupportive, or unsafe” (Baehr, 2015, p. 6).
Thus, when instructors learn about a student’s character weakness, they must handle it professionally and discreetly. They should never ridicule the student, gossip about the flaw, or violate the student’s trust. Instead, they must foster an environment where students feel safe discussing areas for improvement without fear of judgment or embarrassment. It’s intellectually risky for them to reflect deeply on their character, but it’s essential for growth.
Establishing an environment of mutual respect is critical in allowing this deep reflection (Baehr, 2015). Another advantage of reflective journaling is that if instructors review the entries occasionally, they may identify cognitive biases unknown to the student. In many cases, awareness of biases can lead to an instructor-student conversation and the student developing an approach to eliminate the bias (Wake Forest University Program for Leadership and Character, n.d.).
The next and perhaps most effective component of developing students’ character is demonstrating the behaviors and character you want to see in others. In terms of education and social learning theory, this is called modeling.
Our students learn how to act by watching us. They see us as exemplars of what they want to be, and “learning from exemplars is one of the most powerful ways our character is formed” (McDaniel & Konheim-Kalkstein, 2023, p. 2). Therefore, instructors must consider their behavior and the values the Army wishes to instill in its leaders. They must avoid acting in a way that contradicts these values.
In this regard, even small and seemingly insignificant actions — such as not adhering to basic uniform standards and regulations — can lead to students’ character defects. This is one reason the Army consistently uses the mantra lead by example.
Facilitating a Positive Adult Learning Environment
We must understand our learning environments as leaders, mentors, and educators. We need to know our Soldiers’ backgrounds and experiences to support their growth and development. With strict maturity, instructors must maintain a positive and effective learning environment by fostering empathy and professionalism.
Instructors must observe, interpret, and respond to student dynamics, engagement levels, and needs in real time — facilitating the adult learning environment. This means instructors must be cognizant of classroom behaviors when they are present and absent.
It’s important to identify students who lack positive character traits and thoughtfully monitor their behavior (as well as how others interact when they’re present or absent). Educators must also understand their classrooms and be able to correct negative behaviors on the spot. They should also encourage students to correct themselves as negative behaviors arise.
One key action instructors can take to help students correct negative behaviors is to ensure they recognize acceptable behavior. Again, this is known as modeling. In the Army, it’s called setting the example.
Ogden (2021) suggests that modeling is the best way to help children understand what character traits they should strive to develop because they look up to adults to make sense of their environments and learn how to behave in them. This works for adults, too (Lawler & King, 2000). Therefore, instructors must model the behavior they want students to mimic and internalize as part of their character.
A more nuanced approach to character development in the institutional domain is to emphasize academic honesty. In academia, it’s easy to take shortcuts. Artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of generative AI from large language models threatens academic honesty. Until educators develop ways to use AI productively, they must encourage students to cite AI when used. This applies to all forms of scholarly work.
References and citations are important, and instructors should discuss plagiarism and ways to avoid it with their students (McDaniel & Konheim-Kalkstein, 2023). While these are small things, violations of academic honesty can lead to ethical fading and developing counterproductive character traits (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004).
Another area related to character development instructors can influence is the development of a growth mindset. Carol Dweck is a pioneer in the field. She notes how having a fixed mindset (e.g., “There’s nothing I can do about my intelligence”) can discourage growth while a growth mindset (e.g., “I can grow if I try”) can enable it (Dweck, 2006, p. 7).
Instructors can encourage a growth mindset by providing motivation and encouragement to students who feel they can’t complete an assignment, providing the means for them to complete the assignment, and believing in them. Erbe et al. (2024) call this the three “M”s of character development: mindset, motivation, and means.
Based on our experience, mindset is the most important of the three in character development: Those who have it and fail are the ones who get back up.
Conclusion
Developing leaders of character is critical to the Army’s success. While each learning area is important, the institutional domain is the easiest when it comes to influencing character development. The Army can cultivate such development from Initial Entry Training to the Army War College.
To do so, leaders in the institutional domain must encourage instructors to think deliberately about character development as an important goal. They should design learning activities that foster it, build environments of dignity and respect, model the best character traits possible, and stimulate the development of a growth mindset.
References
Baehr, J. (2015). Educating for intellectual virtues: An introductory guide for college and university administrators. https://jasonbaehr.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/e4iv_baehr.pdf
Brown, H. J., Jr. (1991). Life’s little instruction book. Thomas Nelson Inc.
Department of the Army. (2019). Army leadership and the profession (ADP 6-22). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN42975-ADP_6-22-002-WEB-8.pdf
Department of the Army. (2025). Army profession and leadership policy (AR 600-100). https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1029642
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Erbe, R., Konheim-Kalkstein, Y., Fredrick, R., Dykhuis, E., & Meindl, P. (2024). Designing a course for lifelong, self-directed character growth. Journal of Character and Leadership Development, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.58315/jcld.v11.286
King, M. L., Jr. (1963, August 28). I have a dream [Speech transcript]. American Rhetoric. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P. (2000). Refocusing faculty development: The view from an adult learning perspective. Adult Education Research Conference. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2187&context=aerc
Lincoln, A. (n.d.). Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. [Attributed]. In B. Siebert (Ed.), The treasury of wit and wisdom.
McDaniel, T. J., & Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L. (2023). Developing leaders of character: It is our job. Military Review. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/developing-leaders-of-character
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Epistemology. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 4, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemology
Ogden, G. (2021, June 15). Modeling positive behaviors for our children. Signing Time. https://www.signingtime.com/parenting-articles/modeling-positive-behaviors-for-our-children
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. Allyn and Bacon.
University of Alabama Teaching Academy. (n.d.). Teaching tip: Fostering a caring classroom environment through reflective journals. University of Alabama. https://uateachingacademy.ua.edu/teaching-tips/teaching-tip-fostering-a-caring-classroom-environment
Wake Forest University Program for Leadership and Character. (n.d.). Seven strategies for character development. https://leadershipandcharacter.wfu.edu/vision-2/seven-strategies-for-character-development
Back to Top