| U.S. Service Academies profess to develop “leaders of character,” but do they? Research literature suggests that an authoritative and transformational climate is crucial to the development of mature, ethical, and competent graduates who think critically and independently and engage in the dedicated self-reflection necessary for the development of strong psychosocial competencies, moral motivation, and strength of character. Therefore, the authoritarian environment with emphasis on transactional leadership, common at service academies, may produce unintended consequences.; While the results of historical research on the positive effect college has on the development of students' moral judgment is equivocal (McNeal, 1994; Rest, 1986; Rest & Narvaez, 1991, 1994), the most recent research suggests that the role of the social environment, specifically student friendships and social networks, is most important (Derryberry & Thoma, 2000).; Employing a grounded approach, suggested by the work of Kohlberg (1984) and Schultz & Selman (1998), cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy were interviewed to explore how interpersonal relationships influenced their development of moral judgments, moral motivation, and strength of character. Four graduating cadets, two men and two women, one each from the top and bottom of their class, participated in three, one-hour in-depth interviews.; This investigation had two primary questions. One, does the way cadets make meaning and understand authority, responsibility, and privilege differ when they are in relationship with officers, faculty, classmates or subordinates in three distinct contexts: the military, academic and co-curricular domains. The second area of interest was whether the application of a psychosocial developmental framework would help clarify the parallels between cadets' levels of awareness about their own moral motivation and strength of character, and the quality of the meaning they make about their own interpersonal relationships.; Results revealed that these four cadets were at different developmental levels. The two cadets from the top of the class negotiated collaboratively in their relationships regardless of whether the relationship was with an officer, faculty member, classmate, or underclass. On the other hand, the two cadets from the bottom of their class quickly subordinated themselves to those in power. Results are generalized to civilian colleges. |
