Why Can’t the U.S. Military Grow Better Leaders?

[Majestik Møøse]

Short interview with a former Air Force officer who's releasing a book entitled Bleeding Talent: How the U.S. Military Mismanages Great Leaders and Why It’s Time for a Revolution. It think he's spot on in many ways.

Some significant quotes: "In my ideal Navy, Maverick would still be flying his Tomcat. Today, he’s either working on a spreadsheet or PowerPoint in the Pentagon basement, or he’s flying a 747 out of Hong Kong as a civilian pilot for United Airlines.

and:

"More to the point, Ike would have been rotated out of his role as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in 1943 to give someone else a turn."

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/01/21/why-cant-the-u-s-military-grow-better-leaders/#ixzz2IdOS3wm1

[PapaJu]

Corporatizing rank structure/getting rid of year groups is a pretty bold suggestion.

[Spur38]

At least 70% of all flag officers have NOT been brought up or discharged on misconduct charges! They got that going for them!

[Azimuth]

The USAF would benefit from a Warrant Officer corps.

[Buddy Spike]

Lack of porn in the workplace.

[The Texan]

Simple. People promote like-minded people and those who give them least resistence in the lower ranks.

[matmacwc]

Simple. People promote like-minded people and those who give them least resistence in the lower ranks.

This

[Termy]

The USAF would benefit from a Warrant Officer corps.

Go spend a few years in the Army before you convince yourself that is true.

[pawnman]

I think the answer to this one is pretty clear. Because we promote the people who check the boxes, not the people who innovate or hack the mission. This means your good leaders are passed over or given shitty jobs, while your brown-nosers are promoted until they can't do their jobs anymore, then we promote them one more time before they retire.

[slackline]

Go spend a few years in the Army before you convince yourself that is true.

Have deployed with Army, and done several deployments with WO's and I fail to see their big problem. Like any group, there are tools as well as SH dudes, and then there's the average that are perfectly fine for the rest of the time. I fail to see their problem. Especially when talking about pilots, I fail to see why a college degree is required. Throw your spears...

Oh, and I read the article linked by BeerMan. Pretty interesting stuff. I enjoyed it.

[M2]

Warrants aren't the answer, they are single-track specialty officers and while that may be appealing to someone who wants to stay in the cockpit his/her entire career; it doesn't answer our leadership issue (if there even is one).

My suggestion is to allow them to grow beards. It worked during the Civil War and with Special Forces! Even a Pentagon study proves it!

Cheers! M2

[Techsan]

Warrants aren't the answer, they are single-track specialty officers and while that may be appealing to someone who wants to stay in the cockpit his/her entire career; it doesn't answer our leadership issue (if there even is one).

My suggestion is to allow them to grow beards. It worked during the Civil War and with Special Forces! Even a Pentagon study proves it!

Cheers! M2

Damn, I'm in trouble. Not only do I not have all my boxes checked, I grow a beard like a 15 yr old kid.

[Azimuth]

Warrants aren't the answer, they are single-track specialty officers and while that may be appealing to someone who wants to stay in the cockpit his/her entire career; it doesn't answer our leadership issue (if there even is one).

My suggestion is to allow them to grow beards. It worked during the Civil War and with Special Forces! Even a Pentagon study proves it!

Cheers! M2

Who said anything about Warrants being Pilots? There are some specialities where a Warrant would work better than a SNCO or even a young CGO. Do you honestly think there isn't a leadership problem in the USAF currently?

[M2]

Who said anything about Warrants being Pilots? There are some specialities where a Warrant would work better than a SNCO or even a young CGO. Do you honestly think there isn't a leadership problem in the USAF currently?

How would Warrants work any better in those positions that SNCOs/CGOs?

As for a leadership problem in the USAF, no, I don't see it being much worse than I've seen it on numerous occasions in the past. Much of what the leadership gets blamed for isn't their fault. Do you really think this recent "PC" witch hunt was their decision? Do you think the budget cuts are their idea? Do you think all this whining and moaning is something new?

I was around for "the good old days," and they weren't always that good all the time either.

I'd be more concerned if people weren't whining...

[busdriver]

I had a commander that was prior Army. His input is that the AF system is better than the Army. As a commander in the AF he was also a tactical expert thanks to having that opportunity, so he could lead from the front. During his time in the Army he was a commander of a like sized unit with much less experience, and would defer to his senior Warrants on tactical matters. Bear in mind that it is very rare for a CGO in the Army to be an instructor pilot.

Maybe the AF warrant officer corps is entered from the real life officer ranks(RLO, Army speak)? In other words, everyone gives a shot at the "command track" and those that don't meet that requirement but can still fill a need lose their rank and become the "warrants" how to pay said individuals can be up for debate. But the gist is getting to stay in after getting passed over is selective and individual versus mass year group, and you're gonna give something in the process. I don't know, just spit balling here.

[Fuzz]

The Army also has a similar track for its officers, there's a point either around captain or junior major where they branch to either a staff type career field or stay in the combat areas. I.e. a Lt. Col. I knew started mech. armor, and then was sent to work in I think logistics, basically sent off the leadership track.

[Fuzz]

Makes too much sense so therefore will never happen.

I also was thinking about this and the AF is unique I think the fact that a select group (pilots) can only advance to be leadership, whereas in the marines or army it is the other way around the majority of their people actually execute their mission and therefore the number of leadership billets are far more numerous and open to people from many different fields (armor, airborne, infantry ect.)

[nsplayr]

I am a big fan of all three of the recommendations cited in the article (haven't read the book to get the full explanation, but they sounds good in the cliff notes version).

1. Commanders get hiring authority - I know several people who would love to do the job I'm doing right now. I would love to do several other jobs out there in the Big Blue world, some occupied by those same people who want to get where I am. Alas, "not releasable" from your functional on both ends means we either soldier on working a good or different deal down the road (possible if not always probable), or get out. I've known a couple who chose door #2 recently and I will strongly consider that when my commitment is up too. To me it's a desirable fix since the system we're used to is based on very long contracts where you sign away your balls to The Man, coersion to take OK jobs rather than roll the dice and get a really bad deal, etc, all things that are not particularly efficient or which lead to creativity being looked at as a positive attribute. Obviously not an easy fix, especially in the rated world but present in most career fields, due to expensive and time-consuming training pre-reqs to do many jobs and the limitations on the training pipelines where dudes often get bottlenecked even when there's a slightly above-level of accessions into a particular community.

2. Better evaluations - I don't know a single person who likes our current evaluations system, can't see why this is not an easy kill. I'd bet almost any alternate system we tried that incorporated even some components like peer evaluation, non-inflated strats, striking voodoo coding burried in push lines, masking things not related to job performance, etc. would be better than what we have now.

3. Lateral entry - I'm also totally for this; gives dudes an opportunity to take their talents to South Beach if they so choose but return to Big Blue if things don't work out or things change or especially if they gained new experiences that bring new value added to the service. Probably would need to be rid of year group promotions and 10-year commitments to make this happen but then again doing away with both of those things sounds good to me too. Promote guys when they are ready to promote (could be real fast, could be real slow, could be average), not when "their year group is up for a look."

That's my bar napkin reasoning from some Capt in a flying squadron. Hopefully puzzle palace and White House types get some of this type of feedback and maybe I'll be surprised with some bold change for once!

I also was thinking about this and the AF is unique I think the fact that a select group (pilots) can only advance to be leadership, whereas in the marines or army it is the other way around the majority of their people actually execute their mission and therefore the number of leadership billets are far more numerous and open to people from many different fields (armor, airborne, infantry ect.)

I don't think you got it quite right. Seems like in Army you need to be combat arms if you want to command at a high level, in the AF you need to fly, in the Navy you need to be a SWO if you want a ship, etc. That's the baseline and all others are exceptions to the rule. It's the same type of deal just a different flavor.

Those with more wisdom on the other services feel free to chime in if I'm off base with those corrections.

Edited January 23, 2013 by nsplayr

[HuggyU2]

...in the Navy you need to be a SWO if you want a ship, etc.

I thought a number of aviators got command of ships. Is that wrong?

[osulax05]

It's my understanding from some friends in the navy that you must be an aviator to command a carrier but everything else up through commanding a numbered fleet is all but reserved for SWOs.

[ThreeHoler]

I thought a number of aviators got command of ships. Is that wrong?

This is not wrong.

[M2]

Well, first we have to agree on what we are arguing about here!

If it's about retention, then as I've said before I am against the "up or out" policy which causes the USAF to lose a lot of experienced and productive individuals. We don't need a warrant problem to fix that, it could be done easily by having different tracks for those who want to remain specialists and those who aspire for command. Obviously the first requirement would be to weed out the peckerwoods who think they belong in the latter but don't.

If it's an issue of leadership, then a warrant program isn't going to solve that as they are specialists that don't rise to leadership positions. Again, I argue that it's no worse today than it's been in the past; but the issue of those same peckerwoods remains. I am sure most of us can give several accounts of individuals in command positions who were not qualified or worthy; but for the most part I think the fair majority that have gained senior rank and command deserve it.

Could the USAF use a better program for selecting those who rise up through the ranks and earn command? Of course, but even with changes there is going to be those who slip through for the wrong reasons.

Is the US military in a leadership crisis? No, the few examples of late (Petraeus being the most newsworthy) are like the few mass shootings that have ocurred recently; they don't reflect the vast majority of military senior leaders or law-abiding gun owners; but as always the press is sensationalizing the issue for its entertainment value and its attempts to shape the opinions of the sheep...errr...public (it's easier to invoke defense cuts when such stories are rampant in the media).

Cheers! M2

[M2]

I thought a number of aviators got command of ships. Is that wrong?

According to the four USN officers in my office (one naval aviator, three SWOs), normally aviators will skipper carriers whereas the rest of the fleet it's SWOs.

Again, that's just the norm; there will always be exceptions to it.

[Guest]

I'm surprised nobody's linked back to this thread -

Lots of similarities here, but different focus. These articles seem to focus on CGO-level and general manpower capability/fulfullment (it touches on other points, but I feel those are the big points), whereas this leads into senior leadership discussed in the linked thread.

If you haven't read it yet, click the link above.

[Fuzz]

I am a big fan of all three of the recommendations cited in the article (haven't read the book to get the full explanation, but they sounds good in the cliff notes version).

1. Commanders get hiring authority - I know several people who would love to do the job I'm doing right now. I would love to do several other jobs out there in the Big Blue world, some occupied by those same people who want to get where I am. Alas, "not releasable" from your functional on both ends means we either soldier on working a good or different deal down the road (possible if not always probable), or get out. I've known a couple who chose door #2 recently and I will strongly consider that when my commitment is up too. To me it's a desirable fix since the system we're used to is based on very long contracts where you sign away your balls to The Man, coersion to take OK jobs rather than roll the dice and get a really bad deal, etc, all things that are not particularly efficient or which lead to creativity being looked at as a positive attribute. Obviously not an easy fix, especially in the rated world but present in most career fields, due to expensive and time-consuming training pre-reqs to do many jobs and the limitations on the training pipelines where dudes often get bottlenecked even when there's a slightly above-level of accessions into a particular community.

2. Better evaluations - I don't know a single person who likes our current evaluations system, can't see why this is not an easy kill. I'd bet almost any alternate system we tried that incorporated even some components like peer evaluation, non-inflated strats, striking voodoo coding burried in push lines, masking things not related to job performance, etc. would be better than what we have now.

3. Lateral entry - I'm also totally for this; gives dudes an opportunity to take their talents to South Beach if they so choose but return to Big Blue if things don't work out or things change or especially if they gained new experiences that bring new value added to the service. Probably would need to be rid of year group promotions and 10-year commitments to make this happen but then again doing away with both of those things sounds good to me too. Promote guys when they are ready to promote (could be real fast, could be real slow, could be average), not when "their year group is up for a look."

That's my bar napkin reasoning from some Capt in a flying squadron. Hopefully puzzle palace and White House types get some of this type of feedback and maybe I'll be surprised with some bold change for once!

I don't think you got it quite right. Seems like in Army you need to be combat arms if you want to command at a high level, in the AF you need to fly, in the Navy you need to be a SWO if you want a ship, etc. That's the baseline and all others are exceptions to the rule. It's the same type of deal just a different flavor.

Those with more wisdom on the other services feel free to chime in if I'm off base with those corrections.

That's what I'm saying, but the majority of the army is "combat arms" of some type, where as a minority of the AF is flyers. Therefore there are way more command billets in the Army than the Air Force.