Table Of Content

Leading Airmen MAJ GEN CHARLES D. LINK, USAF, RETIRED Editorial Abstract: In this leadoff article for our special leadership edition, General Link sam ples theoretical as well as pragmatic perspectives of leadership. He identifies mission accom plishment as the imperative for the military leader but also reflects on the “transformational leader,” who is able to harmonize the desires of both leaders and subordinates into a common goal of accomplishing the mission. IN SEPTEMBER 1947, our Air Force trained eye of a 17-year-old aircraft mechanic. began its journey as a separate service. In 1957, as a new Air Force one-striper, I en- Much of what airmen believe about lead- joyed an opportunity to participate in a field ership was born in our shared heritage exercise involving both Army and Air Force with our Army brethren. After only 10 years personnel. The young soldiers were accus of separate development, the differences in tomed to being told exactly what to do—then leadership approach between soldiers and they did it. The young airmen wanted to airmen were already obvious, even to the un- know why they were there and what was the 7 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2001 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2001 to 00-00-2001 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Leading Airmen 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Air and Space Power Journal,155 N. Twining Street,Maxwell REPORT NUMBER AFB,AL,36112-6026 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 6 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 8 AEROSPACE POWER JOURNAL SUMMER 2001 point of the exercise. Understanding the nu theory-based learning tends to overempha ances of that contrast was beyond me then. size the characterizing tensions of the various Today, I believe I was witnessing the differ examples, often at the expense of more prac ence between leadership resting primarily on tical application. Many of us are familiar with power or authority and leadership acknowl various diagrams illustrating the competing edging the value of the follower perspective. demands of a leader whose interests are bal A few years later, as an officer candidate in anced between production (the mission) on Class 63D (the last Air Force Officer Candi one hand and subordinates on the other. date School [OCS] class), a portion of our The leader who achieves the optimal balance leadership course included viewing and then of these competing interests is the “team” discussing the movie Twelve O’Clock High. The leader.2 lesson objective rested in the analysis of two In practice, I find this to be an unhelpful very different leadership styles practiced by notion. After all, in our profession, the leader successive commanders of a World War II and the followers have no other legitimate bomber group. Col Keith Davenport was re basis of relationship than the mission. Em lieved of command when higher authorities phasis on a “tension” between the mission became convinced that poor mission per and the people assumes the people in the or formance was a result of Davenport’s “over- ganization aren’t as interested in accomplish identification” with his subordinates. His re- ing the mission as is the leader. While this placement, Brig Gen Frank Savage, adopted a may be possible, it is not necessarily a useful crushing discipline that led to improved mis premise. In my experience, leaders who see sion performance and, eventually, to higher themselves in this dilemma often spend too morale. I believe the lesson I took away that much time emphasizing the needs of their day was that in the profession of arms, the people to the boss and the needs of the mis mission must come first. sion to their people, ultimately disappointing Over the next 10 years or so, what I both. learned about leadership was purely through Yet another “either/or” hypothesis pre informal settings, more by circumstance than sented in our leadership curriculum is the by design. It wasn’t until I attended Air Com Theory X and Theory Y approach described mand and Staff College that I had another by Douglas McGregor.3 In this construct, The formal training opportunity. ory X leaders assume followers are either lazy Even though this block of training was or otherwise incapable of productive effort more in depth than my OCS experience, I without close supervision. Theory Y leaders honestly can’t remember learning anything assume followers are bright, self-motivated, about “leading airmen.” I do remember some and mission oriented. Here again, we find the fairly sophisticated discussions about “situa construct centered on the assumptions of the tional leadership” as presented by Paul leader and described in generally polar Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard. Their Man terms. In practice, most leaders will find that agement of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing any group of followers will present ranges of Human Resources provides an excellent survey self-motivation and capability. The Theory X of the development of leadership theory.1 leader who relies primarily on his or her au In fairness to the “educators,” our profes thority and close supervision will not likely sional military education would not be com evoke the best possible performance from the plete without such a survey of leadership the group. The Theory Y leader may create a sim ory. We learn that the twentieth century has ilarly undesirable effect and wind up like been characterized by a shift in emphasis Colonel Davenport—popular but ineffective from the leader to the follower, from a focus and out of a job. on the needs of the organization to the Rounding out the review of our leadership- needs of the individual. Unfortunately, such training repertoire is a theory by James Mac- LEADING AIRMEN 9 Gregor Burns, one that I believe best applies tention focused on leaders) leaves us little to the profession of arms. In his 1978 work, time for serious attention to followership.6 Leadership, Burns describes “power wielders” Kelley categorizes followers as “effective as those whose leadership is designed to mar followers,” “yes people,” “alienated follow shal resources to achieve ends or goals of ers,” or “sheep,” depending upon whether their own.4 He contrasts leadership of human they are active or passive and whether they beings as designed to engage followers in are independent, critical thinkers or depen ways that motivate them to achieve goals mu dent, uncritical thinkers.7 In this context, the value of “effective followers” is obvious. Per- tually held. As much as any construct I’ve en- haps more importantly, his categories help us countered to date, Burns touches on the situ understand that followers have responsibili ation of the military leader. On the one hand, ties just as important as the responsibilities we the military leader is issued followers and pro assume of leaders. vided the legal authority to coerce them to achieve goals. On the other hand, the follow ers of the modern military leader may not re- What Does All This Have to Do quire coercion. Indeed, they may perform at with Leading Airmen? much higher levels of productivity if they are engaged. After all, there is no reason to as Consider for a moment that the vast ma sume they are any less interested in mission jority of our Air Force members are perform performance than is the leader. ing simultaneous roles of leader and follower. Burns goes on to describe “transforming Consider also that we now have more than 50 leadership” as a practice in which one or years of experience leading and following in more persons engage with others in such a the particular circumstances of the Air Force. way that leaders and followers raise one an- Have we not now developed a leadership her other to higher levels of motivation and itage unique to the Air Force? Should we not morality.5 Transforming leaders create envi try to identify the model behaviors of success ronments in which leader and follower pur ful Air Force leaders and followers? Should poses become fused. Contrast this with his de we not hold these behaviors up as examples scription of transactional leadership, in which in our education and training environments? While the Air Force is composed of a leaders and followers retain separate pur broad variety of related disciplines, most of poses. The transactional leader may provide them relate to a central tenet of Air Force op something of value to the followers in ex- erations: centralized control and decentral change for the support or labor of the follow ized execution. At their most elemental level, ers. The purposes of leader and followers re- centralized control and decentralized execu main separate and distinct. tion require leader vision and subordinate So far, we have focused—as has most of the initiative. The Gulf War, the first in which the business literature—on half of the leader/fol ater airpower was brought under the command lower relationship: the leader. Robert E. Kel of a single airman, illustrates the concept. ley reminds us that “followership” may be as Over each 24-hour period, the command in- important as “leadership.” Writing in the Har tent of a single leader was carried out across a vard Business Review, Kelley points out that broad battle space by 300 to 500 flight leads leader and follower are both roles thrust and mission commanders acting and reacting upon people who may or may not be pre- against thinking adversaries. pared to carry them out. He also points out On the various flight lines supporting the that most managers play both roles, some- effort, similar leader/follower behaviors were times simultaneously. Kelley notes further observable as fuel, supplies, munitions, and that our preoccupation with leadership (re aircraft were marshaled into a coherent ef sulting from the recognition, glamour, and at fect. Spanning several continents, a network 10 AEROSPACE POWER JOURNAL SUMMER 2001 of aircraft under the centralized control of pilot will learn to share his or her planning Air Mobility Command distributed the awe- tasks with other flight members, involving some capabilities of the US military to decen their diverse experiences and backgrounds in tralized locations. Air Force Space Command sculpting the best plan to accomplish his or networked a variety of capabilities to provide her vision. improved warning to decentralized locations In other operational environments, the around the theater. Air Combat Command new pilot will be assigned as a copilot, a mem marshaled resources from around the globe ber of a larger aircrew. In this environment, to support the effort in the Gulf. he or she will learn to command an aircraft in Aerospace power grows out of the contri which the contributions of other crew mem butions of many airmen, often doing differ bers are fundamental to mission success. ent things in separate locations and using in- Once again, the pattern of shared planning novation and initiative to support a single and diverse operational duties organized vision. It is what we do. around a single vision will manifest itself. In our missile forces, success depends on Our Emerging Leader/ the development of highly disciplined patterns of behavior in which centralized control Follower Heritage is “decentrally” executed with profound pre cision. The patterns of mutual trust and re Our original identity as a service and the liance between leaders and followers found in central component of our contribution today the flying forces are replicated here. rest on our operational flying forces. Within Our space forces, involved in develop these forces, one can find many useful clues ment, buildup, launch, and satellite-control to Air Force leader/follower behaviors. As activities, operate in an environment de one learns to fly, the leader (instructor pilot) manding perfection in both the leaders and and the follower (student) carry out very spe the followers. Every space launch is an ex- cific responsibilities, gradually shifting re ample of centralized control and decentral sponsibility for their combined task from the ized execution—especially when one consid leader to the follower until the student finally ers the myriad of related activities that must solos. The new pilot learns to lead himself or come together to assure success. In addition herself, exploring the boundaries of this new, to the launch itself, there are telemetry, range three-dimensional freedom. safety, control handoffs, and on-orbit factors In some operational environments, the new pilot next learns followership as a wing- —all orchestrated to achieve a single mission. man. These responsibilities include maintain Throughout our expeditionary aerospace ing an appropriate position relative to the forces, we can find examples of centralized lead aircraft and, importantly, covering the control and decentralized execution—leaders leader’s blind spots and calling out “bogeys” communicating vision, trusting followers with for the flight. Both the leader and the wing- initiative, and getting important jobs done man share responsibility for mission success and missions accomplished across the globe. while performing separate and distinct roles. Unfortunately, in our Air Force today, we After demonstrating prowess on the wing, the can find less attractive examples of leadership pilot will progress to flight-lead status. As a and followership as well. We can find leaders flight lead, the pilot will first lead one wing- who rely exclusively on their legal authority to man and then an additional two-ship as a command respect and obedience among sub- flight of four. Throughout this progression, ordinates. They get the job done—barely, and the pilot will be graded on his or her ability to often at the expense of their subordinates. plan, think ahead of the flight, and operate And we can find followers who are alienated, the flight in consideration of the capabilities followers who are “yes people,” and others of the wingmen. Eventually, the experienced who are merely sheep. LEADING AIRMEN 11 In spite of reports or rumors to the con and opportunities, both as leaders and as fol trary, I believe the majority of airmen operate lowers. at the higher end of the leader and follower behaviors we have been discussing. The ex traordinary performance of our Air Force in Why would we not hold up the trans- meeting a variety of tough challenges over forming leader—the leader who works the past 10 to 15 years attests to the quality and dedication of leaders and followers. By very hard to understand his or her mis focusing more deliberately on the leader/fol sion and then labors to produce an up- lower behavior we would like to encourage, I lifting vision worth communicating to believe we can do even better. followers—as the ideal Air Force In summary, every airman is a follower; leader? most are leaders. The nature of Air Force op erations—combined with the highly edu cated, trained, and disciplined force—begins A more valuable approach would be to iden to characterize preferred leader and follower tify the desired, or preferred, behaviors of Air behaviors. The pace and tenor of day-to-day Force leaders and followers. Then, our educa operations involving airmen performing as tors and trainers could develop more focused, both leaders and followers and united in a even inspiring, examples of the kinds of behav concept of service above self further charac iors we would like to encourage. terize these preferred behaviors. Some will point out that not every airman will be capable of these behaviors. While that What to Do may be true, I would suggest that such a pur poseful approach to defining preferred Air Why would we not hold up the transforming Force leader/follower behaviors will produce leader—the leader who works very hard to un more of these desired practices than are oth derstand his or her mission and then labors to erwise achieved. Many of our officers find produce an uplifting vision worth communi their way to best practices in Air Force lead cating to followers—as the ideal Air Force ership and followership on their own. Others leader? And why would we not hold up the ef would benefit from clearer directions. fective follower—active in pursuit of or im Finally, I would like to suggest a sense of proving the leader’s vision, thinking indepen urgency in this endeavor. Our Air Force is fac dently and critically, and sharing responsibility ing fundamental challenges, not in making for mission success—as the ideal Air Force fol itself more relevant but in meeting expecta lower? And why would we not point out that al tions built on superior performance. Re most every Air Force member is performing si cently, 40-some years after my first leader/ multaneously as leader and follower? follower observation, I visited our deployed Nothing here should suggest that we airmen in Joint Task Force Southwest Asia. would ignore fundamental tenets of military Once again, I was reminded of the extraordi service. Our “in extremis” mission requires narily bright, intelligent, and motivated air- an ultimate loyalty up and down the chain of men who elect to serve in our Air Force. I command. I would argue that these funda observed how today’s airmen face new lead mentals of military service should define the ership challenges. Air expeditionary opera floor of acceptable leader/follower behavior, tions routinely pull our people out of one as opposed to the “preferred” or even the leader/follower relationship and set them “norm.” If we permit our military framework down in another, albeit temporary but no less to rest on tyrant leaders and sheep followers, critical. The wide range of practices and ex we will ignore our most noble responsibilities pectations with regard to Air Force leader- 12 AEROSPACE POWER JOURNAL SUMMER 2001 ship and followership complicates achieving Our sister services have inherited solid the best results in these circumstances. Over leadership constructs that rest on a legacy of the next few years, our Air Force is likely to service characterized by their unique opera tions. In the Army, one can argue that the center of gravity, the touchstone, revolves around a concept of “troop leadership.” For If we permit our military framework to the Navy, it’s “survival at sea,” emphasizing rest on tyrant leaders and sheep follow the captain’s authority and the disciplined re ers, we will ignore our most noble re sponse of the crew. After more than five sponsibilities and opportunities, both as decades of developing and perfecting our leaders and as followers. unique aerospace capabilities, it is time our Air Force found, identified, and taught our best practices for “Leading Airmen.” transform itself more than it has since Orville As our chief of staff has noted, “America and Wilbur began tinkering in their bicycle needs and deserves the best airmen we can shop. Developing the very best leaders and create. Our Air Force needs and deserves the followers is a must. best leaders we can develop.”8 (cid:2) Notes 1. See Paul Hersey, The Situational Leader (Escondido, Calif.: 4. James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Center for Leadership Studies, 1984), 50; and Paul Hersey and Row Publishers, 1978), 18–21. Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior: 5. Ibid., 4 and 106. Utilizing Human Resources, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren tice Hall, 1993), 473–92. 6. Robert E. Kelley, “In Praise of Followers,” Harvard Business 2. Hersey and Blanchard, 110. As the authors note, Robert R. Review, no. 6 (November–December 1988): 142–48. Blake and Jane S. Mouton developed some of these leadership 7. Ibid., 145. concepts. 8. Gen Michael E. Ryan, Commander’s Notice to Airmen 3. Ibid., 59; and Douglas McGregor, The Professional Manager, ed. Caroline McGregor and Warren G. Bennis (New York: Mc- (NOTAM) 01-02, “Developing Aerospace Leaders,” 22 March Graw-Hill Book Company, 1967), 79. 2001. The real leader displays his quality in his triumphs over adversity, however great it may be. ––George C. Marshall