In part one of this series, I described my transition from active duty flying in the US Air Force to my current job as a civilian airline and Air National Guard pilot. I addressed how I found my concepts of service and excellence to be more aligned with my post-separation life than my active duty experience.
I also asserted that many leaders I encountered focused more on serving their careers than serving their subordinates and that this mentality has become a cultural issue within the Air Force’s Air Mobility and Training Commands, if not the Air Force itself.
Today’s post compares the active duty and civilian/National Guard leadership environments that I experienced.
Servant Leadership
We will encounter “Bad Bosses” in every environment, so the key difference is what the organization values in, and expects of, its leaders. In both my airline job and in my ANG unit, I find the concept of servant leadership to be far more prevalent than in my active duty experience.
The “servant leadership” philosophy (not style) has been written about at length (Google returned 1.6 million results). The following provides some helpful context. Robert Greenleaf is generally credited with coining the term and the Center for Servant Leadership named in his honor describes it well:
While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid,” servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible.
Servant leadership does not imply subservience to the whims of individuals, nor does it mean “letting the inmates run the asylum.” Rather, servant leaders use their authority to clarify organizational priorities and enable their people to achieve them.
A Servant Leader in Action
I’m not sure when I first became aware of the concept of servant leadership, but I will never forget the commander who I first saw embody it. In his remarks following his assumption of command, he (half) jokingly told us that the ink was still wet on his application to work at Burger King, meaning he wasn’t afraid to get fired for mistakes he made in taking care of us or enabling us to execute our tactical airlift mission.
He encouraged us to do the same, to be creative, and that he would have our backs as long as our actions weren’t criminal…and then he lived up to it for the next two years. He led from the front by deploying with us every time our squadron was tasked, he took the time to know and mentor us, and he said NO to as many mission distractions as he could.
He also made it clear that he worked for us and respected us as professionals, which allowed him to demand our best and get it. I heard of other leaders like this during my time on active duty but in 12 years I never worked for another one. Rather, the prevailing outlook I observed was that command is a stepping-stone or box to be checked on the way to bigger roles.
This tended to drive a “don’t screw up, zero defect mentality” that discouraged risk taking and innovation, and consistently depressed morale. Intentionally or not, these commanders conveyed only the expectation that we not “screw something up” on their watch. This did little to inspire mission excellence and a lot to muddy organizational priorities.
Getting it Right
I have been very fortunate to be hired by a company that prioritizes the concept of servant leadership. Frequently, commentators on military leadership assume “Corporate America” is more about management than leadership but in my experience, companies who put managers in leadership roles suffer just as much as military organizations that do so.
My airline expects its leaders to identify the right people for a job, build great teams and develop those people, encourage debate/dialogue, and to think strategically about the company’s mission. Such an attitude was painfully rare during my time in the active duty Air Force. If senior leaders in Air Mobility Command and Air Education and Training Command thought these concepts were common knowledge that didn’t need to be stressed, they were wrong.
Whether they realize it or not, commanders in my Air National Guard Wing also frequently employ elements of servant leadership. They have “grown up” in the unit, have a strong loyalty to its mission, and have built long-term trust. They have been called to serve as leaders but they didn’t join the unit to lead it.
To once more quote Robert Greenleaf on servant leadership:
The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.
Finally, a decade later, I am working for leaders who aren’t worried about their next job, who trust me as a professional and an officer, and whom I trust will have my back because of it. However, signs of “career development” are starting to creep into the Air National Guard. Senior leaders responsible for selecting subordinate commanders are faced with the challenge of how to identify qualified and prepared candidates. If they do not truly know their people, the importance of how an individual looks on paper (i.e. their service record) becomes disproportionate to their demonstrated leadership.
An unfortunate result is that Commanders focus guidance to subordinates on what service record “checkboxes” must be completed to remain competitive for career progression. This is frequently allowed to replace any feedback or guidance aimed at leader development. Instead of “career development” box checking, the focus should be on “leader development” which begins with the organization being clear, early and often, about what it values in and expects of its leaders.
Given how rarely I saw aspects of servant leadership while on active duty, it is reasonable to question how the Air Force is developing its leaders. This will be the focus of Part Three.