Strong Character Barometers
Judge durable behaviour under pressure instead of trusting charm or credentials
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 99%
Charm, friendliness, intelligence, and a strong résumé can be deliberately performed, so they are weak evidence of character. Character is the deeper pattern that repeats across situations. Greene proposes four practical barometers: emotional balance under stress, consistent treatment of people when the observer is absent, openness to criticism, and the ability to collaborate, delegate, and share credit. A weak character tends to fall apart or act out under pressure, becomes two-faced with subordinates, experiences feedback as a personal attack, and insists that work follow a private agenda. A strong character stays relatively calm, treats assistants with dignity, looks for learning in criticism, and enjoys collective success. Decisions should therefore follow observed patterns across these tests rather than first impressions.
Origin
Robert Greene distilled these character tests from The Laws of Human Nature and more than twenty years consulting with businesspeople who repeatedly chose damaging partners and lieutenants.
Core principles
- 01Appearance is not character
- 02Repeated behaviour reveals deeply engraved patterns
- 03Pressure exposes emotional stability
- 04Private treatment of low-status people predicts integrity
- 05Criticism and collaboration reveal strength or weakness
How to run it
- 1
Ignore surface signals
Temporarily set aside charm, stated intentions, intelligence, and credentials. Define the recurring behaviours that would matter after the initial impression fades.
Pro tip Write the barometers before meeting a candidate so personal liking does not rewrite the standard.
Watch out A pleasant first interaction is evidence of social skill, not necessarily character.
- 2
Observe stress
Watch what happens when plans break, pressure rises, or an outcome disappoints them. Look for emotional balance and the ability to avoid reflexive reactions.
Watch out Do not manufacture harmful pressure; use naturally occurring setbacks or realistic work trials.
- 3
Check unseen treatment
Learn how the person treats assistants, service workers, spouses, and colleagues when there is no status benefit. Compare that behaviour with the face presented to decision-makers.
Pro tip Seek direct observations rather than relying only on the candidate's account.
- 4
Test criticism
Give specific, fair feedback and notice the first response. Strong character considers what can be learned; weak character treats criticism as a verdict on identity.
Pro tip Separate a brief emotional reaction from the person's considered follow-through.
- 5
Test shared work
Use a bounded collaboration to see whether the person delegates, shares authority, and gives credit. Observe whether every decision must serve their agenda.
Pro tip A small paid project exposes more than another conversational interview.
- 6
Decide from the pattern
Combine evidence across all four barometers and look for consistency. Give repeated conduct more weight than explanations or isolated mistakes.
Watch out Do not diagnose a personality disorder from this scorecard.
In the wild
A prospective partner is charismatic with founders but repeatedly belittles assistants, rejects a minor correction, and withholds credit during a trial project. The evaluator treats the recurring pattern as stronger evidence than the impressive pitch and declines the partnership.
→ The business avoids a relationship that could take years to unwind.
A launch fails during a work trial. The candidate stays composed, asks what can be learned, assigns recovery tasks without blame, and publicly credits the colleague who finds the fix.
→ The candidate demonstrates strong character across stress, criticism, and teamwork.
Common mistakes
Mistaking charisma for character
Charm can be a learned attention-getting skill and may conceal the exact pattern the evaluator needs to detect.
Judging from one easy situation
Character becomes legible through repeated conduct, especially under stress, criticism, and shared authority.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for evaluating employees, business partners, project collaborators, and intimate partners before deep commitment.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when there is no opportunity to observe repeated behaviour across pressure, feedback, and collaboration.
From the transcript
“not being able to judge people's character and only looking at their appearances is a terrible terrible fault that you carry along with you in…”
“if somebody of weak character will tend to fall apart under stress they'll get emotional they'll act out that become this kind of child”
“their first reaction is how can I learn from this maybe you're right maybe I can use that criticism to get better”
From the episode
YAPClassic: Robert Greene on Decoding the Laws of Human Nature
YAPClassic