ETHICS IN THE U.S.

NAVY

U.S. Naval War College

RADM Walter E. Carter, Jr
President, USNWC
24 March 2014

Ethics in the U.S. Navy paper was written in support of the Navy Leader Development Continuum and Strategy specifically to stimulate the continuing and always ongoing discussion by all leaders in the U.S. Navy, on Navy
Core Value, the Navy Ethos, and the Naval Profession. http://www.usnwc.edu/NavyLeader
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

ETHICS IN THE U.S. NAVY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE...................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction: The U.S. Navy and the American people ............................................................ 5
The Naval Profession and the Public Trust ................................................................................ 6
Implication 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6
Ethical foundations: More than compliance .............................................................................. 7
Implication 2 ........................................................................................................................... 7
Implication 3 ........................................................................................................................... 8
Moral choice: Domains for ethical decision making.................................................................. 8
Implication 4 ........................................................................................................................... 9
Implication 5 ......................................................................................................................... 10
Culture for Navy ethics: Proactive vs. reactive ........................................................................ 10
Implication 6 ......................................................................................................................... 11
A Way Forward........................................................................................................................... 11
Ethics Development: From the bottom-up and the top-down ................................................ 12
Recommendation #1: Inculcate understanding of the naval profession ............................ 12
Recommendation #2: Construct good barrels and cultivate good apples ...................... 12
Recommendation #3: Build a culture for Navy ethics beyond compliance.......................... 13
Recommendation #4: Engage the Command as well as the Schoolhouse ............................ 13
Recommendation #5: Engage both ethics training and ethics education .............................. 14
Recommendation #6: Intersect ethics development with leader development ..................... 14
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 16
Ethics Terminology................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 17
Teammates the Art of Selecting Character and Competence [NSW] ................................ 17
APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................. 21
Mapping Naval Special Warfare Methodologies to Ethics Recommendations ........................ 21
APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................. 23
NAVAL LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS CENTER .................................................................. 23
List of Contributors .................................................................................................................... 26

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

PREFACE
From the onset, both officer and enlisted personnel share a common bond in the U.S.
Navy we took an oath and solemnly affirmed to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and that we would] bear true faith and
allegiance to the same This oath binds us from the start; were in this Navy this profession of
arms together. While our professional skills are most historically associated with activities on,
under and above the maritime domain, they have evolved; extending to the realms of space and
cyber and are now global reaching. Our enduring ethical responsibilities, though, have never
been bounded; they have remained with us permanently, described not by domains or temporal
limits, but as a constant, a part of who we are.
Our profession is unique. As a Service in our Nations Department of Defense we are
trusted to be experts in the profession of arms. We operate with lethal force and are expected to
prevail under conditions of extreme adversity; in peacetime, through crisis and war. We build
winning teams to deliver on this expectation and believe warfighting first accurately captures our
priorities. The missions we are regularly asked to perform, and must be ready to perform,
together with the lives of those we are charged to lead, demands a trust in our leadership to
employ every means available to make the right decisions. These means include a strong ethical
foundation.
Warfighting, by definition, requires ultimate commitment; a willingness to lay it on the
line with our lives if required. That commitment is reinforced through discipline in our
actions and trust. This is a realm where absolutes do apply, and as such, drives an imperative for
scrupulously adhering to high standards and consistency in ethical behavior at both the
individual and institutional level. Why? This behavior reinforces trust; alternately, breaches and
omissions in ethical behavior undermine it. In the end, trust is the single most important factor
upon which our authority to lead is derived. When an order is given in combat and we rely on
the training, skill and courage of our Sailors (officer and enlisted) to execute; their actions and
commitment are ultimately founded on trust in their leaders, trust in their fellow shipmates and
trust in our institution the Navy. Everything we do in the execution of our duties either adds or
subtracts to this trust. This condition of commitment is enduring, no on and off, it describes
who we are and how we live 24x7x365.
This notion of commitment and the logic connecting it to our duties in the naval
profession and the central role of trust is a truth we can't take for granted. It must be actively
discussed and promoted in our wardrooms, chiefs messes and on the deck plates. The
understanding of ethics, ethos, character, virtue, morality and integrity are not relics from the
dusty shelves of the classroom; they are terms and concepts that dwell in the environment of trust
--natural accompaniments to this most central element of our profession.
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

As we endeavor to build winning teams we commit to making ourselves, and those we lead,
better people. It's all in ...all the time ...all the way.
Remember we took an oath

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

ETHICS IN THE U.S. NAVY

[Enlisted] Sailors surmise that Navy leadership expects them to adopt
prescribed morals, standards, and rules of behavior without investing in the
process required to instill, teach, develop, and mentor these standards on the deck
plates.
PACFLT Sailor Roundtables Report, 17 Dec 2013

Introduction: The U.S. Navy and the American people

The U.S. military is among the most trusted of American institutions.1 The trust accorded
to the U.S. Navy by the American people derives from our status as members of the military
profession. Only to the degree that the Navy is, and is perceived to be, trustworthy can we
maintain our status as the naval profession in American society.
The American public we serve and some members of Congress recently have
questioned the Department of Defense concerning a number of ethical lapses. This is the nexus
where the central importance of ethics emerges for the Navy. It is the trust of the American
people that grounds the ethical and behavioral expectations for all Sailors2 at every level.
While only a small percentage of our people are caught engaging in illegal actions, what can
we conclude about ethical behavior in our ranks? Does our culture discourage ethical actions
in the name of mission accomplishment or career advancement? Does acceptance of low-level
ethical failure lead to the sort of high-profile law breaking that undermines the trust of the
American people in their Navy? 3
Our warfighting capability is diminished by the reality and the perception of illegal,
unethical and immoral behavior. Navy Core Values and moral and ethical conduct serve as the
enablers to build trust, morale, unit cohesion, and ultimately, our combat readiness. Yet, it is
possible, for instance, for Sailors to matriculate from accession source to retirement without
having had more than basic ethics training over the course of an entire career.
Our predominant approach to ethics is legalistic in content and often negative in tone.
Ethics training is equated with the Code of Conduct, law, policy, and JAG guidance. We exhort
our Sailors to follow the rules or suffer the consequences, without the corresponding effort to
train and educate, to develop and mentor, and to create the systemic conditions for dealing
positively with the ethical challenges and problems inherent to the profession of arms. At best,
we employ a checklist of what not to do, and at worst, ethical development of our people is a
chore or a burden that takes away from getting the job done. Too often in our current approach

The Gallup Poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congress-falls-lowest-record.aspx

Throughout this paper the term Sailor refers to both officers and enlisted personnel.
3
See, for example, Malcolm Gladwells treatment of the Broken Windows theory of crime in The Tipping Point
(New York: Little, Brown and Co,, 2000), pp. 140-51.
2

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

the intrinsic good assigned to ethical conduct, either to service, to unit or to self is lost. We have
a moral obligation to do better. We can and we must.
The Naval Profession and the Public Trust
In modern English, professional often means anything a person is paid to do. However,
there is another sociological sense of the term profession based on the notion of social trust.
That is, the bond of trust between the profession and society. True social trust professions
such as medicine, clergy and law have a special bargain with the societies they serve. In
exchange for the high regard and trust placed in them by their societies, they are: (1) granted a
high degree of collective autonomy; (2) allowed to control their
own education, certification, promotion, and dismissal; and (3)
Only to the degree that the Navy is,
given considerable discretion and latitude in how they apply the
and is perceived to be, trustworthy
unique professional knowledge they possess. This status as a
can we maintain our status as a
profession is allowed and maintained only insofar as the trust
relationship with the client in our case, the American people is
profession in American society.
firm and intact. Whenever that trust is compromised, the society
reduces or even eliminates professional autonomy through its
legislative and executive branches.4
The foundation of our naval profession is the Oath of Office/Enlistment. Individuals
come into the Navy from a diverse range of backgrounds on many dimensions cultural,
religious, ethical, socioeconomic, and so forth. All Sailors share central ethical obligations
resulting from their oath to the Constitution, providing the foundation for common values. By
taking the oath, Navy personnel explicitly adopt a shared commitment to service and sacrifice;
and implicitly assume a shared identity as a member of the naval profession.
Furthermore, the unique professional knowledge that is developed and maintained by
members of the naval profession leads to ethical expectations and requirements that establish the
professional military ethic. The personal ethics that diverse individuals bring into the Navy are
not necessarily identical to, or in perfect correlation with the professional military ethic on the
one hand nor mutually exclusive on the other.
Implication 1: For our diverse Navy, the critically important take away is that the
foundation for common values comes from shared membership in and identity with the naval
profession. Shared identity as members of the naval profession helps to inculcate Navy Core
Values and Navy Ethos throughout the force, engendering a more meaningful application of
ethics for individual Sailors. The strength of our shared identity must be built over time and
continually reinforced.

See Don M. Snider and Lloyd Matthews, Eds. The Future of the Army Profession. 2nd Edition (New York:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2005) for a collection of articles applying this concept of profession to military
organizations.
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

Ethical foundations: More than compliance

A fuller understanding of ethics beyond compliance models rests on the foundations of
moral philosophy. Indeed, by his own accounting, Vice Admiral Stockdale noted that his
character, courage, and discipline were shaped by his study of philosophy and the humanities.
Stockdale believed that an ethics course for military officers need not be organized directly
around military ideas or military writings. Rather, he advocated the study of classical
philosophers as a matter of personal and professional development, with the attendant
consequence of molding better (and moral) human beings.5
Philosophical traditions on ethics provide a number of touchstones to guide Navy ethics
education and training and foster a culture for Navy ethics. Both classical and modern
philosophical traditions direct our attention to multiple aspects of moral philosophy to include:
(1) self-discipline (Plato); (2) individual character (Aristotle); (3) sense of duty (Immanuel
Kant); and (4) the collective good (John Stuart Mill). Together these philosophies point to the
importance of both the individual and the institution in maintaining ethical standards.
When we compare Platos moral philosophy with that of Aristotle, for instance, we learn
the importance of and some limitation to ethics education and training centered on character
and integrity. Plato espouses the virtue of self-discipline and personal restraint; particularly
applied to the soldier for a well-ordered society and developed through rigorous and repetitive
military training. He argues that peoples capacity for understanding both their own and the
common good enables the inculcation of persuasive ethos and cultural norms to guide good
behavior. Aristotle espouses moral virtue excellence of character developed through
formed habits. He contends that a stable character leads a person to always do the right thing, in
the right way, at the right time.
An underlying assumption of Platos philosophy is that no one knowingly does wrong.
In other words, if people know and understand what is morally right, they can be relied upon to
act accordingly. This assumption, of course, is easily challenged; and points to the limitation of
relying primarily on directives for ethical outcomes. At the same
time, Aristotles ideas of character have been shown to be only
partially correct. While integrity and good character are indeed
[W]e need to look at both good
important, research indicates that situational factors also have a
apples
as well as good barrels if
great influence on actual behavior.6
we are to do everything possible to
facilitate ethical behavior and foster
Implication 2: What this means for our Navys ethics
ethical climates.
efforts is that self-discipline, character, and integrity are indeed
important for a well-ordered organization. However, we must be
also mindful that we cannot presume a prescribed common meaning of moral integrity among all
Navy personnel; and we must consider the potential effects of the situation and the environment
5

Admiral James B. Stockdale, Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot, (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution
Press, 1995).
6
See Dan Ariely, The Honest Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone Especially Ourselves for an
overview of this research.
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

(e.g., command climate; system-driven expectations) on ethical behavior. As many social

scientists would put it, we need to look at both good apples as well as good barrels -- i.e., the
environment, the tools, and the conditions we create -- if we are to do everything possible to
facilitate ethical behavior and build ethical climates.
A comparison of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill speaks to why individuals might
act morally. Kant espouses the concept of moral obligation, distinguishing between actions that
are merely in accordance with duty (i.e., the individual performed the right action, but for many
possible reasons including fear of punishment or hope for reward) and action from duty (in
which the individual did the right action because of a dutiful allegiance to do the right thing).
The former reasoning speaks to compliance to the rules. In the latter reasoning, moral actions are
derived from an intrinsic sense of duty for example, an internally-driven moral imperative to
uphold the standards of the naval profession resulting in more resolute ethical behavior.
John Stuart Mill adopts a utilitarian perspective for moral actions, stressing the
importance of acting in such a way that the outcome provides the greatest good for the greatest
number. This greatest good motivation requires subordination of individuals interests in
favor of those of that best benefit the collective organization. In this way, members of the naval
profession, for example, desire to act in a way that forgoes self-interested behavior in favor of
moral actions that support Navy Core Values and the Navy Ethos.
Implication 3: What we learn from Kant and Mill is that Navy ethics education and
training must address internal motivations for ethical behavior, beyond the application of rules
and policy. Comprehending the underlying impetus for ethical behavior and moral choice
informs both the approaches to instilling, training, and mentoring on ethical standards as well as
the policies and procedures intended to facilitate ethical behavior.
Taken together, these various perspectives of moral philosophy indicate that more than a
one size fits all approach is required for sustainable ethical behavior and a culture for Navy
ethics. As we re-examine our approach to ethics, the efforts must be comprehensive, considering
not only the individual Sailor his or her commitment, ethical understanding, and moral
motivations but, perhaps even more importantly, the systems and processes within our Navy
that can facilitate ethical behavior.
Moral choice: Domains for ethical decision making
Fundamentally, ethics is about choice. The decisions to adhere to core values, adopt
prescribed morals, and act in accordance with ethical standards all revolve around personal
choice. Our frame for understanding moral choice pivots on two distant but complementary
perspectives: (1) a speech given by Lord Moulton, minister of munitions for Great Britain during
WWI, which was published in 1924; and (2) a more recently published popular book by Dan
Ariely, The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

Lord Moulton describes the domains of ethical choice, which he divides into three
spheres of human action.7 The first is the sphere of Positive Law actions in which individuals
adhere to rigidly prescribed and dutifully enforced rules. The third he called the sphere of
Absolute Freedom, where individuals enjoy complete free will regarding their behavior. In
between, he identified the domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable, which he called doing
what you should do although you are not obliged to do it. In other words, this is the sphere
where individuals must exercise discretion and judgment, making decisions when the only
enforcer is themselves (Figure 1). Obedience to the Unenforceable relies upon an internalized
sense of responsibility and an intrinsically-developed ethical core.
Implication 4: Again, for our Navy, this suggests that compliance is the moral minimum.
Complying with rules and policies is but one and to some degree, limiting factor that
contributes to ethical decision making. Due attention, therefore, is needed to address the
unenforceable domain of human action as well specifically, discretion and moral judgment.
Tending to the moral development of Sailors such that ethical choices become routine helps
establish a culture for Navy ethics, and in essence transforms the unenforceable into
enforceable.

Positive Law

Obedience to the
Unenforceable

Ethical Choice

Absolute Freedom

Figure 1. Lord Moultons Domains for Human Action

The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty notes that all individuals possess the human
capacity for both honesty and dishonesty; whether in enforceable or unenforceable domains.8 In
7

Lord Moulton. Law and Manners, The Atlantic Monthly, (July, 1924).
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/NewspaperArticles/LawandManners.pdf (accessed 1 March
2014).
8
Dan Ariely, The Honest Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone Especially Ourselves. (New York:
HarperCollins, 2012).
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

other words, every person is susceptible to this most human foible and less-then-optimal
behavior. There are a host of forces that can lead individuals down the slippery slope of
dishonesty such as: (1) ability to rationalize, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) creative reasoning, (4)
one immoral act, (5) being depleted tired and overtaxed, (6) others benefiting from dishonesty,
and (7) watching others behave dishonestly.9 Ultimately, these forces have been shown to shape
moral choice.
One key lesson from Arielys research is that a first act of dishonesty even a seemingly
innocuous one might be particularly important in shaping an individuals subsequent ethical
decision making. Therefore, it is important to address poor moral choices early on, so as to be
preventative (proactive) in addressing ethics behavior over time. Another key lesson from this
examination of dishonesty is that highlighting acts of honesty is incredibly important for
establishing the sense of social morality. By publicly promoting salient examples of
commendable behavior, we improve what is viewed as acceptable behavior; and ultimately
improve ethical decisions and actions.10
Implication 5: When our Navy attributes unethical behavior to just a few bad apples,
the extent of potential ethical challenges throughout the naval force can be obscured. When
pitted against a compliance-based approach aimed at maintaining high standards, the result is
policies and rules that serve only to punish those bad apples that cross the red line. At the
same time, when our Navy promotes commendable ethical decisions and behavior it fosters a
culture for Navy ethics.
Culture for Navy ethics: Proactive vs. reactive
As we seek to develop and maintain a solid ethical foundation in all Navy personnel, it is
important to consider how change comes about in large organizations, particularly with respect
to organizational culture. It is within an organizations culture that expectations for ethical
behavior are sourced and reinforced.
Organizational culture, defined by Edgar Schein as the set of structures, routines, rules,
and norms that guide and constrain behavior, constitutes the overarching organizational
environment. 11 Culture encompasses the identity of the organization and its members i.e., how
they define who we are as an entity and is a primary driver of the organizations outlook.
Culture is enduring. While leaders, policies, and circumstances revolve, culture transcends
organizational transformations (e.g., the Navys culture of command). Schein proposed that
culture can be understood and analyzed at three levels: (1) on the surface, (2) among espoused
beliefs and values, and (3) within underlying assumptions.
At the surface level the most obvious indicators of an organizations culture are visible
structures, processes, and rituals (e.g., platforms, operational regulations, change of command

Ibid, p. 245.
Ibid, p. 216
11
Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010, p. 1)
10

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

10

ceremonies). The organizations espoused beliefs and values form a deeper stratum of the
culture and guide and justify behaviors and choices (e.g., we believe in warfighting first). At
the deepest level are the underlying assumptions that are the true foundations of the
organizations sense of itself (e.g., this is how we do things here.). A challenge for many
organizations is ensuring that espoused values align with the sometimes more forceful
underlying assumptions (e.g., a say-do mismatch). In the case of ethics, the organizations
culture defines and dictates what its members understand to be most important to their leaders
and their actions as a result.
Implication 6: Organizational culture informs our understanding of the utility of the
Navys current ethics approach for shaping ethical behavior. Considering both the visible aspects
of culture and the underlying assumptions, the Navy seems to have developed a prohibitive
and reactionary culture for ethics. The tendencies to spotlight individual ethical failures (bad
apples) and generally respond by firing the offenders, issuing new policy, and mandating more
training each occurring after ethical misconduct has occurred signals a pervasive sense of
just dont be that person! The dont do this sentiment then becomes deeply entrenched in the
culture. Even the language of ethics failure or lapse emphasizes a negative culture for Navy
ethics vice a positive approach. Thus, the current culture for Navy ethics is one based on obeying
the rules in order to avoid punishment; rather than a proactive culture for Navy ethics that fosters
and inspires individuals to embody Navy Core Values and the Navy Ethos, and to use their
discretionary judgment professionally, making the right ethical decisions and actions even in
the domain of the unenforceable.
A Way Forward
As our Navy reexamines its approach to comprehensive ethics development, education,
and training at all levels while fostering a proactive culture for Navy ethics, Stockdales wisdom
is worthy of serious consideration. When and where in the development of Navy personnel does
the kind of deep reading, thinking, and reflection Stockdale advocated occur? When do we
engage our people in serious conversation about their identity as members of the naval
profession and the kinds of ethical responsibilities that flow from that identity? For most of a
Navy career at present ethics means a focus on legal compliance and general exhortations to be
persons of good character. If we take Stockdale at his word, however, we should be thinking in
terms of more substantive engagement that would make not just better naval personnel and better
citizens, but a better warfighting organization.
Grounding the Navys ethics development, education, and training efforts in a shared
understanding of the naval profession will instill in our Sailors a cultural ethos to act for the good
of the service, for the unit and for themselves. In addition to focusing on observable behavior, a
common understanding of the naval profession helps to shape self-awareness, shared identity,
and a more internalized application of ethics. From this vantage point, the broader scope of
ethical development is inherently valuable. This is not, however, education for its own sake.
This is about improving our warfighting readiness today, and maintaining the trust of our fellow
citizens for the future.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

11

Ethics Development: From the bottom-up and the top-down

The following recommendations derive from the implications listed in this paper as well
as insights based on previous taskings and research related to Navy ethics. The orientation is
both bottom-up and top-down; meaning engaging Sailors at the deckplate level all the way
through to responsibilities of senior leadership. Establishing a culture for Navy ethics requires
investment on the part of individuals and our Navy as an institution. Ultimately, recommitting to
the naval profession and maintaining the trust of the American people serves as the driver for
Navy ethics.
The following recommendations are in no way all-inclusive. They offer a broad view of
necessary efforts to strengthen the culture of ethics for the Navy.
Recommendation #1: Inculcate understanding of the naval profession
We must have a common understanding of what it means to be a member of the naval
profession. Presently, we represent 18 distinct communities, which most often shapes our
views and actions (e.g., I am a fighter pilot; I am an Enlisted Surface Warfare
Specialist).
Recognizing that we are first and foremost members of the naval profession (e.g., I am a
United States Sailor) then, members of our respective communities places greatest
emphasis on our unifying Navy Core Values and the Navy Ethos.
The naval profession establishes why maintaining the trust of the American people
through a culture of Navy ethics matters.
Recommendation #2: Construct good barrels and cultivate good apples
Examine policies and procedures as well as system-driven expectations (e.g., perceived
pressures to cheat) that may unintentionally lead to poor ethical choices.
- For example, examine existing or previous ethics challenges to study how
policies, procedures, and expectations may have contributed to less than optimal
decisions and behaviors and adjust accordingly.
- For example, consider where in the continuum of leader development or certain
career milestones to inject more intensive ethics development, training, and
education; recognizing that the scope of Sailors ethical responsibilities grows as
their experience levels increase and contexts shift.
Examine whether we are helping or hindering Sailors in the execution of their mission
through ethical leadership.
- For example, consider the impact on good barrels -- i.e., the trust environment
created by leaders -- of endless priority one tasks.
Enforce existing, and institute new, policies that support the ethical development of our
Sailors.
- For example, enforce policies requiring completion of Navy PME, which includes
a significant ethics component.
Invest in the ethical and leader development of our people. As indicated in the statement
from the PACFLT roundtables, our Sailors desire to be better and want to be developed.
Sailors surmise that Navy leadership expects them to adopt prescribed morals,
standards, and rules of behavior without investing in the process required to instill,
teach, develop, and mentor these standards on the deck plates.
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

12

For example, develop activities and processes that allow for regular feedback
without consequence (i.e., will not negatively affect evaluations).
For example, provide tools that will aid coaching, counseling, and mentoring of
our Sailors. [See also Recommendation #6]
For example, alter the view of development activities as an investment rather than
a cost.

Recommendation #3: Build a culture for Navy ethics beyond compliance

Acknowledging that ethics means more than just obey the rules is a huge step in
changing the way ethics is currently perceived and enacted within Navy culture.
- For example, spotlight examples of good ethical choices and behavior; as well as
examples that favorably represent the naval profession.
- For example, institutionally reward good decisions and actions that reinforce
Navy Core Values and the Navy Ethos.
Tend to the moral development of our Sailors i.e., helping them develop habits for
making the right ethical choices and utilizing proper discretionary judgment.
- For example, provide opportunities for facilitated dialogues, peer discussions,
and open roundtables around topics of motivation, reasoning, and processing of
moral choices.
Capitalize on existing training and education that present opportunities to instill ethics
discussions and learning.
Recommendation #4: Engage the Command as well as the Schoolhouse
Ethics development goes beyond just training and education. Deckplate leadership is still
our most effective influence!
Sailors at every level of the chain of command serve as positive influencers on ethical
choices.
One-on-one engagement among Sailors, peers, and leaders enables effective coaching,
counseling, and mentorship; providing opportunities to address ethical decision making
prior to, during, and after ethical challenges.
- For example, continue to engage the Chiefs Mess the backbone of our Navy
with perhaps the most direct influence in regular and informal ethics
conversations with junior Sailors.
The Commander/Commanding Officer is the moral arbiter for the command and sets the
standards of behavior and performance that contribute to esprit de corps, unit cohesion,
mission accomplishment, and ethical climate.
- For example, foster a command climate that spotlights successes and rewards
positive behavior (vice a command climate that spotlights failure and stresses
punishment.)
Encourage the application of ethics education and training on the deckplate.
- For example, set the command climate for Bystander Intervention. Remind Sailors
of their responsibility to step in and intervene when a situation is not right.
Develop a view of the Schoolhouse (and service college) as opportunities for personal
and moral development.
- For example, build participation in, and attendance at, available training and
educational opportunities into career progressions.
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

13

Recommendation #5: Engage both ethics training and ethics education

We train for compliance (and competence); we educate for knowledge and
understanding. With knowledge development we better address the domains of the
unenforceable and ethical gray areas that require moral thought.
Together, training and education produce demonstrably greater allegiance to Navy Core
Values and the Navy Ethos, than training (compliance) on its own.
- For example, utilize ethics training to reinforce compliance to legal rules and
policy standards. Provide ethics education that offers a broader understanding of
ethics, self-awareness, and personal development.
Recommendation #6: Intersect ethics development with leader development
Stand up the Naval Leadership and Ethics Center (NLEC) around the existing functions
of the Command Leadership School.12
- NLEC will guide the development of leaders with a strong, abiding sense of their
responsibility, authority, and accountability, and who are committed to Navy Core
Values and the Navy Ethos.
- NLEC will provide leadership education and training, curricula support, leadingedge research, and assessment of leadership effectiveness across the Navy to
ensure our leader development activities remain current and relevant.
Conduct further study on how we measure the character and integrity of our people. If
we measure these things and hold people accountable for the results, cultural change will
rapidly follow.
The attributes, behaviors, and skills expected of Navy leaders at all levels coincide with
expected ethical standards. Leadership and ethics are inexorably intertwined.
The Leader Development Outcomes (LDOs)13, which specify leader expectations for
officer and enlisted, E-1 to O-10, provide a useful tool for both ethics and leader
development.
When coupled with the other recommendations, application of the LDOs will influence
both individual leader development and the overall culture for Navy leadership and
ethics.
Conclusion
This paper is intended to continue the dialogue which will broaden our perspective and
lead to actions necessary to improve ethics in our Navy. The overarching discussion drives us to
a set of questions we must continually ask ourselves with regard to our culture for Navy ethics:
1. Are we doing what is required to maintain our trust with the American people as the naval
profession?
2. Are we investing in the development of our people to enable them to decide and act
instinctively with character and integrity?
3. Are we providing the tools to enable our senior enlisted and command leaders to effectively
coach, counsel, and mentor their Sailors?
12
13

Draft Charter attached as Appendix D

Approved by VCNO August 2013

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

14

4. Are we creating ethical climates where good moral choices are more salient than bad ones?
5. Are we providing the right opportunities at the right time for personal and moral
development?
6. Are we appropriately utilizing policies and procedures to anticipate rather than react to
improved ethical decision making for our Sailors?
In our As Is state of ethics in our Navy today, the responses to these questions are not a
binary yes or no, but rather somewhere along a continuum. However, the answer to the
question Can we do better? is an emphatic absolutely. Our Navy Ethos charges that:
We are patriots, forged by the Navy's core values of Honor, Courage and
Commitment. In times of war and peace, our actions reflect our proud heritage
and tradition.
Our goal, therefore, should be to establish a culture for Navy ethics such that we have confidence
that every Sailor in every community will fully embody, uphold, and operate from Navy
Core Values and the Navy Ethos.
Fortunately, we have the opportunity to build upon existing foundations and draw lessons
and examples from various communities (see Appendix B, for example, of character
development efforts in the SEAL/SWCC community). Other efforts such as The Navy Leader
Development Strategy, The Navy Education Strategy 2025 and the 21st Century Sailor all align to
advance the Navys approach to ethics development, education, and training. Importantly, we
must engage the positive influencers in the lives of our Sailors, namely the chain of command,
mentors, and especially our families, to collectively invest in the character development of our
people, build ethical behavior, and commitment to the naval profession.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

15

APPENDIX A
Ethics Terminology
Given the multiple theoretical underpinnings that were applied to our understanding of
ethics, it follows then that an exposition of various ethics terminology is warranted. There are
many terms, often used interchangeably and not always with a consistently shared meaning.
Consider the following contextualized compilation14:
Ethic/ethics: a code of conduct, especially in the setting of a profession.
Ethos: the character or culture of a profession or professional organization; the
ends or ideals it serves and the professional standards of conduct it endorses and
inculcates.
Character: the emotions and moral virtues or vices typical of a particular
individual; that individuals moral disposition. As a positive term (=good
character), a moral disposition that controls emotion and issues typically in
virtuous behavior or right action.
Integrity: a sense of personal worth or honor that predisposes an individual to
virtuous behavior or right action.
Morality/moral principles: the principles of right action from the point of view
of the individual; the principles typically guiding/defining virtuous behavior.
Virtue: a disposition to right action, inculcated by learning and habituation. (In
classical times, four so-called cardinal virtues were commonly recognized:
courage, moderation or temperance, justice, and wisdom or practical judgment).
Culture: patterns of behavior in an organization that develop over time in
response to (often unconscious) organizational or societal imperatives and can be
very difficult to alter. A professional ethic is an explicit part of an organizations
culture.
Command climate: patterns of behavior in an organization reflecting a mixture
of organizational culture and the leadership style of particular senior officers.
____________________________________________________________________________
From Websters II New Riverside University Dictionary
Ethics: the rules or standards of conduct governing the members of a profession.
Ethos: the character, disposition, or basic values peculiar to a specific population
or culture.
Character: the combination of emotional, intellectual, and moral qualities
distinguishing one person from another; moral or ethical strength or integrity.
Integrity: firm adherence to a code or standard of values.
Morality/moral principles: rules or principles of conduct
Virtue: moral excellence or goodness.
Culture: the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns typical of a
population or organization at a given time.
Command climate: patterns of behavior in an organization reflecting a mixture
of organizational culture and the leadership style of particular senior officers.
14

Compiled by Naval War College scholar, Dr. Carnes Lord

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

16

APPENDIX B
[The following summary written by CDR Jay Hennessey provides an overview of a new
approach to selection, training, and development utilized by Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Basic
Training Command (BTC).]
Teammates the Art of Selecting Character and Competence [NSW]
By Commander Jay Hennessey, Commanding Officer, Basic Training Command
Have you ever served in a platoon or boat detachment and wondered how someone made it
through training
The Problem: All selection and training programs try to avoid two fundamental mistakes:
deselecting/dropping good candidates; and selecting/qualifying bad candidates. While it is nearly
impossible to measure the missed benefit from those who attrite, we have seen first-hand the
impact of selecting and qualifying the wrong guy it can be catastrophic. This is especially true
in an organization like NSW where the strength and success of the unit relies heavily on each
individuals contribution to the Team.
Selecting the right men to join the
ranks of Navy Special Warfare
cannot be based on physical
performance alone NSW requires
additional tools to select, train and
develop our future Teammates
Men of Character and Competence.

Accordingly, leaders at the Naval Special Warfare Schoolhouse, Basic Training

Command, continuously seek ways to mitigate this risk ultimately select and qualify only the
best candidates.
Over the past 18 months, NAVY SEAL and SWCC Training cadre identified two
opportunities to mitigate this risk. The first opportunity identified was the historic over-valuing
of physical performance and undervaluing of the character attributes. Simply put, Selection
Error graduating fit athletes who were not good Teammates (Quad III).
Senior cadre members often felt that their hands were tied. They observed behaviors of
trainees that were not consistent with the SEAL and SWCC Ethos. However, since the trainees
were passing all their test gates, they were progressing. Or as the 1st Phase Master Chief once
commented, Hey sir, this guy may be passing our test-gates, but I would not want him on my
team. I dont trust him and hes not a team player. I see it, my cadre sees it, and his classmates
see it.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

17

The second opportunity identified was the schoolhouses inability to track each trainees
character and performance throughout the respective pipelines. The only time the command
flagged a trainees record was when he failed a test-gate (predominately physical). However,
there was no method to track the character attributes that both fellow students and experienced
cadre members observed. To the cadre, these were best explained as the blind spots of the
pipeline.
The SEAL and SWCC Pipelines are 63 and 28 weeks respectively. Intuitively, this
should be enough time to select and assess the trainees; however, the staff recognized that blind
spots occurred at the transition of each phase of training with very little turnover between staffs.
Of course the staff usually was aware of the most and least successful students they always
stood out. The problem was mapping the progress of the rest of the pack.
The Blind Spot became most evident, however, when a student failed a test-gate. At this
time, the trainee would go to a student performance review board. In this board, the commands
most experienced cadre would assess that trainees performance to date and determine if this
trainee should remain in the pipeline. Has he been a good teammate? Has he been trustworthy?
Did he show up on time with the right gear? Did he prioritize the team over self? Would his
classmates and instructors choose him for their team? These critical questions are at the root of
selecting the right Teammate.
Unfortunately, the board found that cadre members were often ill prepared to answer
those questions. Instead, the answer was usually, in assaults he is really struggling.
Otherwise, I dont know.we have only had him for 2 weeks.

In this scenario, the trainee in his 2nd week of Assaults training has been in the SEAL
Pipeline for 42 weeks certainly a reasonable expectation to know a bit about each trainees
character.
The solution: The answer was clear determine what matters most to being a SEAL and SWCC
operator and measure it. Then, create a process that maps each trainees performance and
progress.
What matters most in selecting Teammates?
The issue of Selection Error and Blind Spots sparked incredible dialogue among senior cadre
members. Collectively the comments from the cadre were similar. One senior enlisted stated, I
dont really care how fast a guy is on the four mile run, or two mile swimas long as he is fast
enough; I want to know if he is going to be a good Team-guy. Will he have my back? Can I trust
him.thats what we need to be testing.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

18

Reputation is the Currency of NSW: Most would agree that establishing a strong reputation as an
operator and a teammate is crucial to eventually succeeding in the Teams. With this in mind, the
cadre believe that providing on-going and constructive feedback to a trainee on his performance will
not only help address the challenges of Selection Errors and Blind Spots, but will also help future
trainees succeed our ultimate goal. Too often struggling students are unaware of their substandard
performance, or they have not been properly counseled on how to improve.
Step 1: Solicit feedback. BTC Staff formalized an anonymous peer evaluation system that
had been utilized in a variety of ways for many years. In the new system, students would answer
more questions about less people. Rather than trying to evaluate their entire class, each trainee
would provide and receive feedback from trainees in his squad. In addition, each trainee would
be asked a few additional questions:

Is anyone in the class performing so well, or so poorly, that he is worth mentioning?

Is anyone in the class at risk of embarrassing NSW or himself due to his conduct?

Are there any natural leaders in the class?

Step 2: Squad Mentors. BTC Cadre leveraged the strengths of this Squad-Model by assigning a
single instructor to each squad the idea being that rather than instructors looking at an entire class,
one instructor can get to know a squad of trainees. By the end of a block of training, the instructor
should know how everyone is performing. Finally, while the trainees are conducting peer
evaluations, the mentor answers similar questions on every member of his squad.
Step 3: Provide feedback. At the end of each phase of training, the squad mentors and phase
leadership provide feedback to each trainee. At this time, the trainee receives the anonymous
feedback from his squad members, and direct feedback from his mentor. Each trainee should be
well informed on his performance and any areas in which he needs to improve.
So What: Whats the so what.remember the first question presented?
Have you ever served in a platoon or boat detachment and wondered how
someone made it through training
The so what is that cadre have measurable data with which to make decisions decisions
determined by trends, not sporadic occurrences. It is not uncommon to see peer evaluations that
reflect a stressed friendship; or others that illustrate an immature perspective of someone in the
class. The cadre are well armed to sift through the data and determine legitimate issues versus
personality conflicts. In the end, the cadre is better armed to be intrusive with problems in the class.
From potential alcohol issues, to trainees exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with NSW Ethos, the
cadre is informed with quantitative and qualitative information to make decisions.
In the end, this methodology has removed students from the pipeline who have passed every
single test gate; similarly, it has provided additional opportunities to trainees who have stood
out as stellar Teammates.
End of the Gray-Man: Finally, the methodology provided cadre with insight on the rest of the
class the guys typically referred to as gray-men. Assigned mentors were now able to have
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

19

tighter relationship with a smaller number of trainees; and if the mentor missed noteworthy
behavior, the peers picked it up. In the end, the methodology enables mentors to be more
informed and better equipped to lead, coach and mentor all trainees to be successful Teammates.
Informed cadre informed trainees: In the end, this methodology is about helping trainees
become better teammates by providing them honest and anonymous feedback. Some might
argue that evaluations and fitness reports are designed for that purpose; however, in reality, those
reports are really only utilized for promotion and are completely void of any constructive
criticism.
Conversely, this methodology is not designed to influence promotion or advancement it
is designed to tell the individual operator how he is meeting the mark of a Teammate, and how
he could do it better.
Potential Way Ahead: As the Basic Training Command codifies this process at the
schoolhouse, NSW is exploring how this may apply to the rest of NSW, by evolving word of
mouth feedback, with a consistent process for the Teams.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

20

APPENDIX C
Mapping Naval Special Warfare Methodologies to Ethics Recommendations
The NSW approach to deliberate and integrated character development within their basic
training systems aligns with the Recommendations suggested in this paper.
Recommendation #1: Inculcate understanding of the naval profession
Members of the SEAL and SWCC community, as with most of our 18 communities,
identify most strongly with their community rather than the naval profession. Thus, the
SEAL and SWCC Ethos permeates all selection, training, development, and evaluation.
[Note: To the degree that we can develop as strong of an identity with our naval
profession and our Navy Ethos as we have with our respective communities, the
stronger our Navy will be.]
Recommendation #2: Construct good barrels and cultivate good apples
NSW recognized that some of their selection and training processes (specifically,
overvaluing physical performance and undervaluing character attributes) created blind
spots in their development pipeline and missed opportunities to select, train, and develop
the best people.
As a result, NSW has constructed better barrels to better enable cultivation of good
apples.
The new NSW system includes deliberate, on-going, integrated, and constructive
feedback processes along with opportunities to correct/improve behavior and actions,
which demonstrates proactive investment in the character development of their people.
Recommendation #3: Build a culture for Navy ethics beyond compliance
From the NSW perspective, a culture of compliance equates to a culture of physical
performance where failing a physical test-gate garners the most attention, to include
performance review boards.
Absent from this culture was/is awareness and assessment of important character
attributes critical for NSW team success (e.g., trustworthiness, selflessness, good
teammate, etc.). The new system deliberately incorporates peer and leader assessments of
character attributes as development tools.
With the new NSW system, a red flag translates to an opportunity to further develop
and help trainees succeed vice a red flag equating to failure.
As a result, the new system places even greater, if not equal, emphasis on character as
they do (physical) competence initiating the shift from a compliance only culture to a
competence and character culture.
Recommendation #4: Engage the Command as well as the Schoolhouse
Within the NSW system, the senior cadre, squad leaders, and peers are trained, and
provided the tools to, effectively mentor and offer constructive feedback.
The system sets the conditions for and connects to the graduates 1st platoon to
continue the development process following BTC.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

21

Recommendation #5: Engage both ethics training and ethics education

The system provides the foundation for further training and education on character
development at subsequent career milestones (e.g., E6, E7/O3, E9)
Recommendation #6: Intersect ethics development with leader development
The system leverages character development to also identify and further develop
leaders within their teams.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

22

APPENDIX D
DRAFT COMMAND CHARTER
NAVAL LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS CENTER
MISSION
The Naval Leadership and Ethics Center (NLEC) inculcates the fundamental tenets of ethical
leadership throughout the naval profession, from Seaman Recruit to Captain. NLEC guides the
development of leaders with a strong, abiding sense of their responsibility, authority, and
accountability, and who are committed to Navy Core Values and the Navy Ethos. NLEC
provides leadership education and training, curricula support, leading-edge research, and
assessment of leadership effectiveness across the Navy to ensure our leader development
activities remain current and relevant.
FUNCTIONS
1. Leadership Education and Training. NLEC will deliver first-rate, role-specific leader
development that builds confidence and competence in attaining Leader Development Outcomes
in our Navy professionals, from Seaman Recruit to Captain. NLEC retains at its core the
responsibility to develop leaders at the command level, including Major Command,
Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, and Command Master Chief/Chief of the Boat.
2. Curricula Support. NLEC will partner with accession sources, the Center for Personal and
Professional Development (CPPD), the Senior Enlisted Academy, the U.S. Naval War College,
and the MCPONs Leadership Mess on developing Navy-wide leadership and ethics curricula
that support effective leader development and strengthen our collective stewardship of the naval
profession.
3. Research. NLEC will conduct leading-edge research, in conjunction with the U.S. Naval War
College, in areas such as self-awareness, command climate, organizational culture, and decisionmaking that will influence curricula and leader development activities.
4. Assessment. NLEC will assess leadership effectiveness across the Navy, analyze trends, and
modify curricula to ensure currency and relevance. NLEC will partner with the U.S. Naval War
College, academia, sister Services, and the Fleet to bring to the forefront best practices and areas for
further work, and to ensure synchronization and alignment with the Leader Development Strategy.
TASKS
1. Leadership Education and Training.
a. Design, develop and deliver first-rate, role-specific leadership learning activities to
command-level leaders and their spouses, including:
(1) Sequential Major Commanders
(2) Prospective Major Commanders
U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

23

(3) Prospective Commanding Officers

(4) Prospective Executive Officers
(5) Prospective Command Master Chiefs/Chiefs of the Boat
(6) Command Spouses
(7) Command Master Chief Spouses
b. Partner with Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-4) to detail only due course
officers and senior enlisted Sailors to NLEC instructor billets.
2. Curricula Support.
a. Partner with accession sources, CPPD, the Senior Enlisted Academy, the U.S. Naval War
College, and the MCPONs Leadership Mess to guide the design of consistent, current, relevant,
and Navy-wide leader development activities.
b. Via the Leader Development Continuum Council (LDCC), make recommendations to the
Advanced Education Review Board to fill identified gaps in the Leader Development Continuum
from E-1 to O-6.
3. Research.
a. Identify best-practice education strategies for developing self-awareness, a positive
command climate and organizational culture, and decision-making skills for leaders at multiple
levels.
b. In conjunction with the U.S. Naval War College, convene an annual Leader Development
and Ethics Symposium that includes sister Services, academia, and the Fleet.
4. Assessment.
a. Develop an assessment strategy to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks
within existing Navy-wide leader development curricula.
b. Partner with the U.S. Naval War College and the Fleet to create and implement tools to
assess the effectiveness of our leaders, particularly at the command level.
c. Provide to the LDCC annual reports on trends as they relate to the Leader Development
Outcomes gaps and challenges.
COMMAND RELATIONSHIPS
NLEC is an Echelon 3 command assigned (ADCON) to the President of the U.S. Naval War
College (PNWC). In order to effectively and efficiently execute its mission, NLEC shall be
authorized direct liaison with the following commands and staff elements for the purposes
identified below. NLEC is further authorized to pursue memoranda of agreement with the below

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

24

listed commands and staff elements, where necessary, in order to specify and clarify
supported/supporting duties and responsibilities.
1. DCNO(N1) will liaise with the four-star staffs to schedule Navy leadership engagements with
students at NLEC. DCNO(N1) is the primary resource sponsor for NLEC, via PNWC;
manpower and budget levels will be fenced by N12/10, with any changes requiring
DCNO(N1) approval.
2. Center for Personal and Professional Development (CPPD) and NLEC shall have a mutually
supporting relationship in order to ensure curricula consistency, from E-1 to O-6, in realizing
Leader Development Outcomes.
3. Navy Personnel Command (PERS-4) will coordinate with all community managers for
selection and management of NLEC course quotas, and serve as NLECs single point of contact
for quota management. PERS-4 will propose due course officers and senior enlisted Sailors to
President, U.S. Naval War College for duty with the NLEC staff. Commanding Officer, Naval
Leadership and Ethics Center remains a nominative billet, selected per MILPERSMAN 1301202.
4. Naval Services Family Line will provide a Director of the Command Spouse Leadership
Course Steering Committee from within membership of the Naval Services Family line
executive board.

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

25

List of Contributors
RADM Robert Girrier
RADM Peter Gumataotao
RADM Michael White
CAPT Mark Johnson
RADM (Ret.) Jamie Kelly
CAPT (Ret.) Tom Bayley
CAPT (Ret.) John Meyer
Dr. Martin Cook
Dr. Tim Demy
Dr. Carnes Lord
Dr. Olenda Johnson
Professor Gene Andersen

U.S. Naval War College/ Ethics in the U.S. Navy

26