In determining “the right people,” the good-to-great companies placed greater weight on character attributes than on specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience.
—JIM COLLINS1
Imagine that you are starting a new company and need to hire one hundred employees, ranging from entry-level workers to senior management. Knowing the importance of character as the foundation of a high-performing company, you want to make sure that your employees from the most junior to the top leaders display positive character and value it in others. To accomplish this goal you need to do four things. First, you must identify what positive character traits are most important to your organization. Second, you must select high-character individuals during the initial hiring. Third, you need a plan to continually develop your employees to optimize their role in and contribution to the organization. And finally, you must constantly monitor individuals and subcultures within your organization to ensure continued adherence to organization values.
With these goals in mind you enlist the aid of a human resources (HR) specialist. This person will have many tools available to assess intelligence and aptitude and will recommend a variety of strategies to fill the positions. These will include gathering background information on each applicant, such as work and educational history. This may be followed by background checks, a review of letters of reference, and eventually interviews.
So far so good, but standard hiring strategies only go so far in assessing character. These strategies focus mostly on talent, narrowly defined as intelligence or aptitude-test scores. The military gives the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to hundreds of thousands of potential recruits each year. Fall below the cutoff score, and you will not be allowed to join any branch of the military. The ASVAB is akin to a test you may be more familiar with—the SAT. You, or your children, have probably taken this assessment. Your score on the SAT plays a major role in determining the college or university that you will attend. A high score is necessary, but not sufficient, to elicit an offer from an elite university. Fall a bit below that and you may find yourself attending a second-tier school. Score even lower, and you will likely end up, at least initially, in a community college or a trade school. This may happen even though, with hard work and determination, you had excellent grades in high school.
If you have ever been denied a job or entry into a college because of test scores, you may have experienced aptitude myopia. This bias stems from over a hundred years of psychologists putting the bulk of their efforts into developing and refining a variety of tests for intelligence and aptitude. Human-relations specialists like these tests because they are reliable and valid. But at the very best they only predict about 25 percent of performance in work and academic success. If talent assessments alone account for such a small percent of success, that means 75 percent or more of performance is related to other attributes. And here is the challenge. Psychologists and HR specialists do not have sophisticated or valid ways to identify and assess these attributes.
Aptitude myopia is problematic for organizations that want to fill their ranks with high-performing individuals. Think about the high school student who studies diligently, takes summer classes, gets tutoring when needed, and graduates with an A average. But for whatever reason, this student does not excel at standardized tests such as the SAT, scoring only average. So he or she is denied admission to top-tier universities. If you were predicting this student’s success in college, which factor would you put your money on? The mediocre SAT score (accounting for fewer than 25 percent of potential success) or the grit and determination (accounting for a significant chunk of potential for success) displayed by the student over four long years of study in high school?
To be clear, the SAT and similar tests are useful in predicting college success especially when combined with high school grades, which has been the most powerful way to predict future academic performance. However, considering noncognitive attributes, in conjunction with standardized test scores, will optimize the prediction of who will succeed and who will fail. The applicant with high academic potential, as measured by the SAT, combined with high grit, self-regulation, love of learning, and so forth is the ideal combination of cognitive and noncognitive abilities. Also, test scores such as the SAT are frequently misunderstood and sometimes misused. Colleges and universities should consider SAT scores along with a host of other indicators of academic potential. The College Board itself has always advocated using test scores in this manner—as one factor among many to consider when making admissions decisions. To that end, the organization has invested in a program called Landscape, designed to help schools better understand some of these other factors, and to more appropriately employ the SAT in making admissions decisions.2
In hiring employees, talent assessments are important, but standard HR strategies may not allow you to tap into attributes such as grit, integrity, self-regulation, and social intelligence (among many others) that will optimize the personnel makeup of your company. Because character is so important to both individual and organizational performance, let’s examine some approaches to attracting, retaining, and sustaining high-character individuals. For example, Angela Duckworth and colleagues have found that physical ability is a strong predictor of success among West Point cadets. Physical ability, along with grit, predicted graduation from West Point better than cognitive ability as measured by SAT scores. The influence of physical ability and other noncognitive attributes on success in other organizations is largely unknown. We believe that organizations of all types would do well to consider these and other noncognitive factors in selecting and assigning employees.3
West Point provides a useful case study of identifying positive character traits needed for success in the organization. As part of the larger Army, West Point embraces the seven Army values—loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Its honor code (“A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do”) has long been a defining characteristic of West Point. Consider the following letter, written in 1946 by Army Chief of Staff General Dwight D. Eisenhower to West Point’s superintendent, Major General Maxwell Taylor:
Dear Taylor,
Since your visit to my office a few days back I have had West Point much on my mind and have wished that I could find time to have a long conversation with you. Pending opportunity to have a personal exchange of views I am writing down in very rough fashion some of the distinct impressions I have, so that you may be thinking about them with a view of further discussion or taking such action as you may deem appropriate—if indeed any at all is indicated.
I think everyone familiar with West Point would instantly agree that the one thing that has set it definitely aside from every other school in the world is the fact that for a great number of years it not only has had an “honor” system, but that the system has actually worked. This achievement is due to a number of reasons but two of the important ones are: first, that the authorities of West Point have consistently refused to take advantage of the honor system to detect or discover minor violations of regulations; and second, that due to the continuity of the Corps and the instructional Staff, we have succeeded, early in the cadet’s career, in instilling in him a respect amounting to veneration for the honor system. The honor system, as a feature of West Point, seems to grow in importance with the graduate as the years recede until it finally becomes something that he is almost reluctant to talk about—it occupies a position in his mind akin to the virtue of his mother or his sister.
I realize I feel no more deeply on this subject than you do and all other responsible officers at the Academy. My excuse for bringing it up is that we have only recently undergone an expansion at West Point and we have just now been through a war where I have no doubt the Superintendent has been hard put to keep on his Staff officers of his own selection. I sincerely trust that as time goes on this latter difficulty can be largely overcome but in the meantime it seems to me equally important that individuals now at the Academy, both officers and Cadets, clearly and definitely understand that the honor system is something that is in the hands of the Cadets themselves, that it is the most treasured possession of the Point and that under no circumstances should it ever be used at the expense of the cadets in the detection of violations of regulations.
I remember my most unfortunate experience when I myself was a Cadet, an incident where some lightbulbs had been thrown into the area. The culprits were found by the lining up of the Corps and the querying of each individual of this particular misdemeanor. Any such procedure or anything related to it would of course be instantly repudiated by any responsible officer who had the good judgment to visualize its eventual effect on the honor system; but I do think it important that a policy along this line be clearly explained to all at least once a year, certainly by an authority no lower than the Commandant himself.
The problem of maintaining a profound respect for the honor system is of course something that falls upon the shoulders of all officers on duty there as well as upon upper classmen. Active effort should fall primarily upon the first classmen and their assistants in the second and third classes, but the officer certainly has a big field in his persistent adherence to the requirements of the system and in his refusal to abuse it in any way.
A feature I would very much like to see in the curriculum is a course in practical or applied psychology. I realize that tremendous advances have been made in the matter of leadership and personnel management since I was a Cadet. Nevertheless I am sure it is a subject that should receive the constant and anxious care of the Superintendent and his assistants on the Academic Board and these should frequently call in for consultation experts from both other schools and from among persons who have made an outstanding success in industrial and economic life. Too frequently we find young officers trying to use empirical and ritualistic methods in the handling of individuals—I think that both theoretical and practical instruction along this line could, at the very least, awaken the majority of Cadets to the necessity of handling human problems on a human basis and do much to improve leadership and personnel handling in the Army at large.
I am told that since my days as a Cadet much has been done, particularly in the first class year, in inculcating a sense of responsibility in the man who is soon to be a 2nd Lieutenant. The more we can do along this line, the better for us. The Cadet should graduate with some justifiable self-confidence in his ability to handle small groups of men, to organize any appropriate task, and to see it through in a satisfactory fashion with the men under his command.
I have not a word to say about the technique or technical work at the Academy. Not only do I feel that they are in competent hands but I am certain that they are of far less importance than the larger questions I have so briefly touched upon above. In your efforts to graduate succeeding classes in which each individual will have, as an officer, a very definite feeling of responsibility toward the country, a very lively and continuing concern for his personal honor and for the honor system at West Point, and who finally will approach all of his problems with a very clear understanding of the human factors involved in the developing, training and leading an Army, then indeed West Point will continue to occupy its present place in the national consciousness and will be worth any sum that we must necessarily expend for its maintenance.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER4
This remarkable letter underscores the importance of honor and integrity as core values to West Point. In Eisenhower’s view, these are the most important character traits of cadets. He doesn’t even mention talent. Perhaps he took it for granted that cadets, handpicked from a large pool of candidates, would excel on this component of excellence. We have seen the fundamental importance of trust in the military, and a big part of the character component of trust is honor and integrity.
The second remarkable piece of Eisenhower’s letter is his recommendation to Taylor that West Point establish a course of instruction in applied psychology. Eisenhower observed many officers during World War II who were technically competent but did not understand the human element. By studying psychology, he believed that cadets could build leadership skills by developing a better understanding of human nature, to include character. West Point’s Behavioral Sciences & Leadership Department traces its origin to this letter.
How do you identify what character strengths are most important for your organization? The first step is to determine which character strengths are most relevant to and important for the mission of your company (or school or other type of organization). Considering the twenty-four character strengths, different clusters of strengths predict success in different types of organizations and for different types of missions. Studies of Army combat leaders show that teamwork, bravery, capacity to love, persistence, and honesty are the most important strengths for functioning successfully in combat situations.5 Kindergarten teachers use different types of strengths, including fairness, humor, kindness, and love of learning. Reflect on the twenty-four strengths and ask people who are knowledgeable about your organization to identify three or four strengths that make for an outstanding employee.
Once you identify these strengths, you must devise a plan to select for these traits in prospective employees. If persistence is important, then you may look for a past history of successfully completing challenging tasks that require time and determination. If creativity matters, then look for indicators of it in the résumé or during interviews.
How does West Point select high-character cadets? To assess academic competence, the academy uses relatively objective measures including standardized test scores, high school grade point averages, and high school class rank. But because there are no equivalent tests for character, West Point relies on indirect indicators of character. Grit, for instance, may be inferred from a number of actions and accomplishments of high school students. Choosing a sport as a freshman and sticking with it for four years is an example. Becoming an Eagle Scout, because it requires perseverance and dedication over a long period, is also a proxy for grit. Leadership, another desired character trait, can be inferred by a student’s being elected as a club president or a team captain. In this way, West Point selects cadets who not only have the talent to succeed, but also possess the character important to success at West Point and in an Army career.
We recommend caution in using existing tests of character, such as the VIA-IS, for formally screening potential employees. While they are valuable for self-reflection, these assessments are not useful in employee screening because they are transparent. Applicants can easily game the assessment to demonstrate they have the character strengths that may lead to a job offer. It is better to focus on past behavior and accomplishments.
An important axiom in psychology is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This is true with predictors of academic success. A high school student who studies diligently is likely to be a college student who does the same. This is true as well when it comes to character. As you identify and screen for character, look for objective indicators of behaviors and actions that reflect the positive character traits you seek. You should also look for evidence of traits that run counter to your organization’s values. A thorough background check may reveal indicators that the person’s values are not a good match for your organization.
Organizations may use creative approaches to assess character. West Point, for example, requires applicants to write an essay on an ethical situation, explaining how they would address the dilemma. From these essays, character attributes may be revealed.
Once you have selected the best candidates for your organization, the focus should shift to how to nurture and further develop desired traits. This requires regular assessment, as we saw with Johnson & Johnson. To be effective, these ongoing assessments must not occur in a vacuum. Students and workers need feedback, and this requires a good mentor to interpret the assessment, to coach employees on how to address issues, and to develop a plan for improvement.
West Point takes this seriously. Every cadet at West Point is assessed in a Periodic Development Review (PDR) three times a year—each academic semester, and during summer training. In this 360-degree assessment, the cadet is assessed by his or her superiors, subordinates, and peers.
The PDR assesses the cadet academically, physically, militarily, and in character. The character assessment is considered the most important component. Among the character traits assessed are the seven Army values, empathy, the warrior and service ethos (sharing attitudes and beliefs that embody the spirit of the profession), and discipline (self-regulation). Several questions evaluate leadership and trust. Cadets are rated on a 5-point scale, from 1 (low, needs substantial improvement) to 5 (excellent, ready to be an officer). Cadets receive feedback in a color-coded format (from black at the bottom, through red, orange, yellow, and to green at the top) that allows them to easily see how subordinate cadets, their peers, their cadet leaders, and their officers and professors perceive them. In this type of rating you can immediately see strengths (i.e., green) or weaknesses (i.e., black), and you can see trends over time.
The mentor reviews the PDR with the cadet and discusses where his or her strengths or weaknesses are, what the trends are, and what the cadet needs to do to address weaknesses. This leads to self-reflection and actionable plans to improve.
You may be thinking that this works because it’s an organized, well-resourced, institution-driven assessment. Then you ask, “What about me? Since I’m not a cadet, and I’m not in a job with assessments and feedback, how can I get an assessment of my leadership capabilities that includes my character development?”
That’s a great question because all students, employees, and leaders need to get an open, candid assessment of how well they are leading, and how their character impacts their work performance and leadership effectiveness. We welcome favorable feedback about ourselves, but with less favorable feedback, we often rationalize or dismiss it. If you want to know if your character is in line with the values of your institution, you need to be thick-skinned and listen to what others are saying about you. So, welcome the feedback!
You can take a number of approaches. The first thing we suggest is to make a self-assessment of your character. The tactic is similar to what we suggested in identifying traits critical to a given job. Write down the character traits you feel are critical in the work you’re doing, as well as necessary traits in other activities in your life—such as parenting and volunteer work. Look to the VIA-IS for a list of the character traits. Next, make a list of behaviors associated with each of these traits. An appropriate behavior for “respect” would be “intently listen, especially to people whose worldview is not consistent with your own.” An appropriate behavior for “duty” could be “always doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.” Once you have this list of relevant behaviors for each character trait, evaluate each behavior on a scale of 1 to 5, similar to the cadet PDR.
Now it is time to get feedback from others. Take your character trait and behavior list and share it with your boss, with some of your subordinates, with your spouse and children, and with others in the groups with which you engage. Ask them to rate you in each of these areas on the 1-to-5 scale, and if you’re really open, sit down and ask them why they rated each area as they did.6 You will be amazed at what you discover about how others perceive you.
New tools are emerging to make character assessments that you can use to develop people once they enter your organization. Psychologist Brian Davidson is the founder of MindVue, a human-capital firm dedicated to measuring, predicting, and building human excellence. Davidson and his colleagues have developed a state-of-the-art assessment tool called the MindVue Profile.7 This profile assesses a variety of noncognitive skills and attributes including grit, self-control, conscientiousness, hope, growth mindset, self-discipline, resilience, and integrity. This instrument, unlike other character-assessment tools discussed thus far, includes a flag for whether the test taker is being honest or consistent in answering questions. This greatly increases the reliability of the instrument.
Returning to the opening scenario of hiring and developing one hundred new employees, the MindVue Profile could be used along with our other suggestions to identify and screen job applicants. Once employees are hired, the MindVue Profile can be used in a number of ways. Employees review and reflect on detailed feedback the assessment provides them, seeing areas where they are strong or may need development. For senior management, the MindVue Profile provides a dashboard that summarizes individual scores into averages for teams and larger subdivisions of the company. This provides a useful diagnostic, providing leadership and management with reliable information on how various components of the company stand in these attributes. Teams that are low in resilience, for example, could receive additional training to help them improve.
The ability of the MindVue Profile to provide both individual and group feedback takes the guesswork out of character assessments. Combined with traditional strategies of interviews and surveys, this is a valuable tool for organizations to develop and “unlock the potential within individuals.” It chips away at the 25/75 dilemma.
Giving and receiving honest feedback, especially about character, is difficult. But if you don’t seek feedback and take it seriously, you’ll keep demonstrating the same positive or negative behaviors, with the same positive or negative outcomes. That is not improvement and it is not growth. It is also a missed opportunity. So, we encourage you to do this—be thick-skinned, use some moral courage, and ask your colleagues and your family how they would assess your character traits and affiliated behaviors.
Given human nature, at times individuals or groups of individuals will behave in ways that are inconsistent with the values of your organization. Sometimes the best thing to do is to fire the employee or expel the student, depending on the transgression. But in many cases, the leader may use his or her knowledge of character and its development to correct the behavior.
The two case studies that follow illustrate, in two different types of organizations, the importance of this step. In each case, leaders had selected good individuals for the organization and assumed they would continue to behave ethically. Thinking all was well, the leaders failed to diligently monitor the actions of the organization’s members. This resulted in existential crises for both organizations.
In the summer of 2013, General Caslen, as the nominated and soon-to-be superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, was invited to attend the Board of Visitors’ meeting with the serving superintendent. The superintendent is akin to the president of a college or university. The Board of Visitors is similar to a university’s board of trustees, but does not have oversight authority. The board is composed of six or seven US senators, seven or eight members of Congress, and five or six presidential appointees. Their principal task is to write an annual report to the president of the United States on the state of affairs at West Point.
The 2013 board meeting was in June, about two weeks after graduation ceremonies, and about two weeks before Caslen was to assume responsibility as the academy’s superintendent. Normally board meetings are cordial and informative. Agendas are jointly prepared ahead of time, and action items and issues are prepared before the meeting. At least this was the procedure Caslen expected. But what occurred was something for which he couldn’t have prepared.
As soon as the board came to order, one of the presidential appointees, a West Point female graduate from the historic class of 1980 (the first class including women at West Point), read for the record a blistering criticism of how the academy’s leaders had recently handled a sexual-harassment allegation against the men’s rugby team. The situation had been going on for about five years and had surfaced a few weeks before graduation.
A series of hostile, degrading, and disrespectful emails had circulated among some rugby team members after each match. Known as the “Highs and Lows,” each edition criticized team members on their performance in the match, but also criticized the opposing team, the spectators, and even went beyond the match and referred inappropriately to individual instructors, tactical officers, and other cadets.
The comments were personal and degrading and not what one would expect of a future leader in the US Army, much less a responsible citizen in any community. The emails described inappropriate actions using coarse language. What really got the attention of the board members were the comments made to a number of female West Point cadets, identified by name. The emails clearly indicated a subculture with values that were totally contrary to those of the Army and the values of duty, honor, and country.
Subcultures are not inherently bad. For example, hard-nosed athletic teams pride themselves on a subculture of tenacity, resilience, and mental and physical toughness. These values within the subculture are consistent with the institution’s values. But when teams have values such as those expressed in the rugby team’s “Highs and Lows” emails that has to be openly acknowledged and action must be taken to realign the offending values or to remove those who are propagating them.
Public and private values must align. Individual members in the profession of arms are expected to demonstrate leadership twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. You do not have the privilege of turning character on when it is convenient and turning it off when it is not. You are expected to lead with the same values all the time. This should be true for any leader in any profession. Trust is the most essential element of effective leadership, and the surest way to lose trust is to demonstrate a private life with values inconsistent with those of the organization.
The criticism of the USMA Board of Visitors was not so much that unacceptable values were uncovered in the rugby team, but with how the academy’s leaders handled its exposure. The problem was identified about two weeks before graduation. The superintendent and the commandant put the rugby team, including the seniors who were ready to graduate, into an accelerated mentorship program and then assessed that their change of heart made their values now consistent with what the nation expects of a West Point graduate, enabling these seniors to graduate with their class on time. The board members clearly felt this response to the crisis was not appropriate, especially the allowing of the seniors to graduate on time.
Walking into this situation as the new superintendent allowed Caslen to take an outsider’s view of it. When the continuing investigation was completed, he removed the coach and the officer responsible for the team, dissolved the team for one semester, and placed all team members into a revamped mentorship program. Holding people accountable for their actions is essential for sending the right message to the organization. Caslen needed to send this message, especially as he began his tenure as superintendent. Disrespectful, disparaging behavior with values inconsistent with institution values could not be tolerated. This is not what is expected of future Army leaders.
A striking aspect of the rugby team’s dysfunction was that it went on for five years before being brought to light. Why didn’t someone recognize it for what it was? How can you be sure that the subcultures among athletic teams and clubs and other groups have values that are consistent with institutional values?
One must have a tool to assess the culture of the subordinate organizations. Caslen authorized the creation of a culture-assessment survey and administered it every year to every club, every club-level athletic team, and every NCAA team at West Point. The survey was anonymous and was extremely helpful in assessing subcultures. It was modified each year based on the data received. For example, one team got together and gamed the survey, influencing the outcome. Fortunately, an anonymous cadet from a different team brought this to Caslen’s attention. Subsequent surveys required team members not only to assess their own team, but also to assess other teams.
This assessment was so important to Caslen that he personally reviewed all the surveys, consolidated the data for each club and team, met collectively with every cadet team captain and their officer representative, and directed the athletic director to review the survey results with every coach. If issues existed, they were identified and resolved.
West Point is not alone in facing organizational conduct that is driven by the failure to adhere to institutional values.
The University of Central Florida (UCF) is one of the largest universities in the country and has been one of the fastest growing since its inception in 1968. Enrollment has been exponential—from nineteen hundred in 1968 to twenty-one thousand in 1992, to sixty-eight thousand by 2019. With an operating budget of $1.7 billion, UCF offers more than a hundred bachelor degrees and master’s and doctorate degrees in numerous fields, conferring more than sixteen thousand degrees each year. These sixty-eight thousand students are taught by twenty-five hundred faculty with the support of thirteen thousand staff. UCF’s research funding in 2018 was $183 million.
In the middle of its rapid growth, in August 2018, a Florida auditor general found that one of UCF’s academic buildings, Trevor Colbourn Hall, had been constructed using $38 million of ineligible state funds, called education and general (E&G) funds. Further investigation revealed this was not a onetime incident. A total of $84.7 million in leftover operating dollars was spent across eleven capital projects, over the five years from 2013 to 2018. The existing Colbourn Hall was built in 1974 and needed significant repairs. University leaders said that without the repairs health and safety issues would be significant. They felt that replacing Colbourn Hall constituted an emergency and used this rationale to misuse funds. The investigation found these claims “to be rooted in legitimate concerns that … [university] officials faced at the time of the decisions. However, the evidence does not support a conclusion that Colbourn presented an imminent health or safety risk requiring emergency action, nor does it support the claim that there was no other alternative but to use E&G funds.”8 This rationale by the university’s leadership was not accepted by any oversight authority—either the Board of Trustees or the Board of Governors.
Can someone justify unethical behavior because of health or safety? Is unethical behavior justified at some threshold? The Board of Governors held the university’s leadership accountable, illustrating that no threshold justifies immoral, unethical, or illegal behavior. And rightly so. Whether I sell my integrity for $1 or $38 million, I am still a person of no integrity. That’s a tough picture to look at in the mirror each morning.
UCF’s rapid growth in student enrollment and faculty placed increased demands on its human capital and campus physical infrastructure. Systems and procedures that had previously worked were now insufficient. Meeting the needs of administrative support was in direct competition to academic excellence and research. This dilemma meant increased difficulty in meeting the mission and compliance requirements. Or said another way, the unethical use of E&G funds for capital construction was an option to meet demands, and the temptation to make the unethical choice instead of doing the right thing was embraced. Using $84.7 million across eleven capital expenditures over five years demonstrated that the temptation was regularly embraced. The institution’s leaders chose the easier wrong over the harder right.
So where lies the accountability? Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran was skeptical that the UCF chief financial officer (CFO) was the only one who accepted responsibility and was the only one who knew of the offense. Corcoran wrote to the new UCF president, Dr. Dale Whittaker, “I am baffled by how the actions of one irresponsible officer’s effort at flouting the Legislature’s and State University System’s budget controls could result in a four-year-long unauthorized endeavor of this magnitude. There are only two possibilities: That others within UCF were aware of and conspired in this misuse of public funds, or your administration lacks the necessary internal controls to manage its fiscal responsibilities.”9 The issue the Speaker raises is to what degree are executives responsible for unethical and illegal actions within their organizations?
The Florida state legislature clearly felt that the executive leadership was indeed responsible; if not for personal complicity, then for failure to have proper institutional compliance procedures or to take appropriate actions if illicit activity was discovered.
The consequence of the actions of a few was devastating to the entire university. The former president retired and lost his retirement bonuses, the chief financial officer resigned, four associate vice presidents were terminated, the chair of the Board of Trustees was forced to step down, and the previous provost who had been selected to be the new president was forced to resign. Most concerning was the breach of trust between the university and its oversight committees, its Board of Trustees and Board of Governors, and the public.
In a Board of Governors meeting, the chancellor of the State University System of Florida called this a “calamity, and this calamity is a loss of credibility because it is a loss of trust.” The Florida House Public Integrity & Ethics Committee chair said the university’s Board of Trustees “apparently fail to appreciate the gravity of the situation they’re in.”10
The fallout from the misappropriations at UCF affected those directly involved in making those poor decisions, and ultimately the entire university, its leadership, and its reputation. It didn’t stop there. It placed upon the shoulders of the new leadership the difficult task of regaining the trust that was so unnecessarily lost. The new interim president wrote an email to the local newspaper, “What happened was wrong. The people who did this, and concealed their actions, are no longer with the university. UCF has taken multiple and aggressive steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again. We are committed to regaining the trust of the Board of Governors and Florida House.”
To UCF’s credit, the new leadership put together an aggressive plan to address the problem. The first step was to change the organizational structure that allowed finances and construction to exist under the same leadership. Separating these responsibilities introduced a degree of accountability that was previously missing. The solution addressed policies, procedures, and regulations on how the UCF leadership and staff would work with its oversight committees (the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors). Training and education programs were put in place to teach governance and fiduciary-responsibility procedures to the oversight boards as well as the university leadership and staff.
Training also had to address a culture that saw oversight authorities as obstacles. The new culture must embrace transparency, collaboration, and partnership. The university also instituted a whistle-blower program. Whenever faculty members or employees found themselves in a compromising situation, they were provided a means to report the unethical directive or behavior without fear of reprisal.
Under the previous leadership the organizational values, beliefs, norms, and goals at UCF had become unbalanced. The administration had failed to adhere to its own standards. The university’s Employee Code of Conduct now incorporates the organizational principles that the IROC model identifies as essential to a high-character organization.11 A clear vision statement is linked to the institution’s goals. Among its five visionary goals the university aspires to “offer the best undergraduate and graduate education available in Florida,” “achieve international prominence in key programs of graduate study and research,” and “become more inclusive and diverse.” The Code of Conduct includes four areas of focus that are consistent with a high-character organization: honesty and integrity, respect of others, responsibility and accountability, and stewardship. The latter focus—stewardship—calls on its leaders and employees to be ethical in their fiscal responsibilities. The code explicitly states four questions that must be considered when making fiscal decisions: “(1) Does this transaction influence any future business decisions I will make, (2) could this transaction appear to be a conflict of interest to anyone such as the press or media, (3) have I received prior approval to spend, accept, or manage these funds, and (4) have I been trained in proper collection practices and internal controls.”
Building a modern classroom building is a laudable goal. But achieving the goal at any cost, in this case through misappropriation of funds, sent devastating aftershocks throughout the organization. The old saying is that the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. Following Step 4 prevents this from happening.
A single action by a bad actor can erode the trust that took years to build. When trust is lost, it is important to find out what caused the loss, and to fix it as aggressively and quickly as possible. Whether rebuilding trust takes a couple weeks or a couple years (or longer), it absolutely must happen to have productive relationships that will enable organizations to achieve their vision and accomplish their mission.
A good stew requires more than good ingredients. Although you may have identified what you want in the stew, shopped around for the best meat and vegetables, and followed the recipe carefully, this may not be enough. You must attend to the stew and taste it regularly to ensure that the ingredients blend together in the right way. West Point and UCF failed in Step 4 and suffered great harm that required tremendous efforts to remedy.
In the 1992 US presidential election, candidate Bill Clinton used a simple slogan to characterize his campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Crafted by his campaign adviser James Carville, this statement focused voters on a powerful message. With the country coming out of a recession, Clinton correctly understood that focusing on the economy would strengthen his bid to win the White House.
When it comes to character, the message may be “It’s the organization, stupid!” The task of identifying, selecting, and developing high-character people is essential to having a high-quality company, school, or other organization. And the best organizations take the further step of constantly monitoring and assessing the character and ethics of the individuals and subcultures that comprise the organization.