My goal is to contrast leadership development in my current environment with my experience on active duty in the U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC). The thing is, I didn’t really experience much formal leadership development during those 12 years on active duty. So what do I want to share?
I’ve settled on this: The active duty Air Force is purging leaders that were developed the hard way over a decade of constant war and other contingency operations, while nearly exclusively retaining candidates who developed their careers and resumes according to official timelines and benchmarks. There is a need for both types of leaders and I want to close this series by advocating for a compromise. Strong leaders, in any stage of their careers, should be considered for positions that have come to be reserved for career development.
Career Development Isn’t Leader Development
Career development must be distinguished from the concept of leader development.
Career development on active duty (in AMC) was driven by rigid timelines and benchmarks. Multiple examples of these “wickets” have been lamented in many other forums by other authors. I concede that these defined paths to senior leadership positions in a 20 plus year career are necessary. They are needed to achieve the broadening any organization should want in people who are designated for their highest levels of decision making, authority, and responsibility.
What drives me now to write, is that I cannot explain away my impression that the Air Force assumes it can do without experienced leaders at its lowest operational levels. Worse, micro-management and removal of real authority from developing leaders, most notably at the squadron commander level, for fear that any mistakes that might be made in developing, actually served to impede real development. Instead, it seemed that subordinate commander’s ability and willingness to take care of their people and their operational mission were subordinated to the necessities of tending to threats to their own and superior commander’s careers.
Careerist vs. Expert
A brief hypothetical may better illustrate the difference. Imagine you are an O-6 commanding an operations group of multiple tactical airlift squadrons. You must choose between two available O-4s to lead your group’s standardization and evaluation function. This O-4 will not only lead the group tasked with implementing higher headquarters policy and procedure, but will be the face of your effort to ensure your operators have the knowledge skills and ability execute “by the book.”
One O-4 has 14 years of service and over 4,000 hours of total flying experience and over 2,000 hours, multiple combat deployments and instructor/evaluator ratings in his currently assigned aircraft. This O-4 has requested not to attend career development professional military education (PME) in residence because it is not currently compatible with his career and family priorities.
The second O-4 has 11 years of service, 3,000 hours of total flying experience including multiple combat deployments, but only 200 hours and no combat experience in his currently assigned aircraft. He will have to rush through instructor and evaluator qualifications. This O-4’s goal is to compete for PME selection and below the zone promotion to O-5.
Which of these officers would you want to fill this pivotal role? Would you care how your selection reflected on your commander’s perception of you? Would you permanently sideline the officer you didn’t choose, effectively ending their career despite their every willingness to serve as long as they can? I certainly don’t believe there is any one right answer but there are also no options.
How the Other Side Does It
Leader/career development in my current civilian organization differs most notably in that there are multiple opportunities, throughout a long career, to enter a path to increased leadership roles, then leave it and then return to it according to the needs of the company and the individual. The most qualified individual who is willing to assume the responsibilities of a leadership role is welcomed without regard to their career progression.
As a new First Officer in my airline, no one is concerned with how I am positioning myself to become VP of flight operations. We all only care that I am competent and qualified to operate the aircraft. I am aware of opportunities to contribute to the management of operations after I have developed a solid base of experience in being an operator. Whether I wait five, ten or twenty years to pursue those opportunities is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if I choose to pursue opportunities I can return to being an operator, with even more experience for having participated in managing the operation. The company and its operators both benefit, as do the customers. All this is possible because there is no one defined path and/or timeline over the course of my career.
I ask that you consider how your own organization could benefit from this kind of flexibility. If senior leaders who had the benefits of broadening experiences early in their careers can allow themselves to trust, value, and respect the contributions of strong leaders who chose to be technical experts, I believe everyone stands to benefit.
Please allow this to be the start of a conversation to recapture the spirit of true leader development and let careerism fade out of significance.
Subscribe to The Military Leader!