This is the first in a series of articles that seek to answer the question, “How does organizational leadership differ between my experience on active duty in the U.S. Air Force and my new career(s) as an airline pilot and citizen airman in the Air National Guard?” I will answer the question by focusing on three areas: 1) the concepts of service and excellence, 2) the leadership environment, and 3) leader development.
My comments will be relevant both for those considering transitioning from active duty, as well as leaders/mentors of subordinates who face that decision. My opinions are my own and do not represent the official positions of my Air National Guard unit or civilian employer.
Greener Grass?
“Is the grass really any greener?” is the question friends and co-workers have consistently asked me in the nearly two years since I made the difficult decision to leave active duty. At the time I was assigned to train the next generation of tactical airlift pilots in the C-130J while simultaneously leading unit personnel and financial management in the role of “Director of Staff” (a made-up title aimed to enable career progression for young field grade officers). The answer varies in different aspects of life (e.g. financial security, quality of life, professional life) but I will focus my response on the three aspects mentioned above.
How the concept of service outside of active duty differs seems fairly straight-forward but reflecting on the topic quickly revealed that the seemingly obvious contrast between “serving customers instead of serving country” is not quite so simple. Leaders at all levels should very critically (read honestly) consider who and what they are serving and what implications the answer has for organizational excellence. Good leadership, especially on active duty, is a service provided to a customer while exercise of assigned authority is nothing more than that. Who, then, are your customers?
“Graduating from Command”
My final active duty assignment and the point of my career progression absolutely challenged my internal concepts of service and excellence. I came to believe that the majority of leaders I came in contact with were serving their careers, not their subordinates and not the mission. Sometimes the three would happen to align but the daily manifestation of this dynamic was an authoritarian, micro-managing and therefore oppressive command. Examining the application of the Air Force Core Values of “Service Before Self” and “Excellence in all We Do” to the realities of daily operations supports this broad assertion.
I found that my leaders held an inexplicable assumption that mission excellence was a given but failed to apply any meaningful metrics to measure it. My Outlook inbox was filled with a steady stream of suspenses with deliverables all the way to the major command level. The only item I can recall that had anything to do with training pilots was the ‘on time graduation rate,’ which only served to encourage accelerating the training of pilots who honestly needed extra training. Because mission excellence was a forgone conclusion, officers and NCOs were exclusively evaluated on performance of additional administrative duties and “differentiators” like advanced academic degrees, early completion of professional military education, and community service to name a few.
These areas received intense scrutiny by leadership. The mission suffered and the leaders who tried to be excellent in all they did burned out brightly. Picture an E-4 aircrew instructor, tasked to manage the unit’s record management program, with little to no formal training, and just in time for a compliance inspection. Imagine the impacts on the quality of the instruction they were then able to provide. Was it excellent? Did it meet the standard? Leaders assumed (correctly) that American officers and NCOs can do anything…but I believe they failed to consider the cost.
I believe they were led to do so because their own evaluations also assumed mission excellence as a given. As long as there were no mishaps that rose to higher headquarters’ attention during a command tour, leaders were judged by unit performance in inspections of administrative areas and the perceived quality of personnel they recommended for promotion. They aggressively managed their subordinates but they seldom led and certainly didn’t serve. The goal, as an active duty squadron commander told me, candidly and without shame, was to “graduate from command” to a follow-on assignment in order to remain competitive for career advancement.
This mindset runs contrast to any real concept of service or excellence and, laboring under the resulting mediocrity, directly contributed to my decision to leave active duty after 12 years of service. I honestly came to believe in those years that these were not isolated cases of “bad bosses” but a cultural issue within the Air Force itself.
The Other Side
Since beginning my new career(s) I have found that excellence in assigned duties remains a baseline expectation but the big contrast is that any undertaking beyond core competencies is recognized and appreciated by higher level leaders. This opens avenues to innovative approaches to leadership. In the execution of my duties as a pilot I serve the organizations customers (airlift users in my Air National Guard role and the flying public as an airline pilot). As a leader in these organizations I’m able to serve my crew members and fellow employees by using the inherent authority of my position to support them in the execution of their assigned duties.
The organization thrives on trust built from setting the example, removing obstacles within my span of control, and making time-critical decisions that reinforce the notion that the mission comes first. My leadership actively supports me in doing this. In this way, I am able to use my leadership position to serve my crews or as my airline refers to its employees, “our internal customers.” I have found this dynamic to be the norm in my airline and my Air National Guard unit but it was a rare exception during my time in the active duty Air Force.
Having my assigned duties in line with my organization’s stated mission and the way my performance is evaluated has made it immeasurably easier for me to truly find fulfillment in service, strive for excellence in what the organization actually does, and support those around me in doing the same. The difference in organizational climate is night and day and I believe the concept of servant leadership is the reason why.
This will be the topic of Part 2. Until then, who and what are you serving?