Excellence in Leadership

Editor’s Note: PIREP is aviation shorthand for pilot report. It’s a means for one pilot to pass on current, potentially useful information to other pilots. In the same fashion, we use this department to let readers know about items of interest.

Lessons Learned from Top-Performing Units

Mr. Martin Pitt
Dr. Michael Bunamo*

In 2004 I became the new executive assistant for leadership in the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI). Because of my responsibility for training OSI personnel assigned to leadership positions, I had a particular interest in learning how the command’s award-winning leaders influenced their personnel to fulfill the mission. One day I asked my colleague and coauthor Dr. Bunamo if a fact-based way existed to identify the leadership and management practices used in the command to foster performance excellence. After mulling over this question, he recommended an approach consistent with Air Force doctrine, pointing to two passages from Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1-1, Leadership and Force Development:

He suggested that we reverse-engineer performance excellence to identify effective leadership. Dr. Bunamo wanted to harness the OSI’s data-mining capabilities to identify top-performing units and validate these selections with OSI senior leaders. Then he proposed that we interview unit leaders to learn how they fostered performance excellence, hastening to add that this was a risky procedure without a guarantee of success. That said, I sought and received backing from Brig Gen L. Eric Patterson, then the commander of the OSI, for the Excellence in Leadership project. This sequence of events led us on a remarkable journey that has provided some amazing results.²

Background

To identify excellent units, we used some high-tech wizardry. We defined an excellent detachment as one that demonstrated the following:

We used data-mining software and statistical algorithms to examine performance data on 150 OSI field detachments around the world during 2001–4. We extracted all of the data from the command’s legacy and current information-management systems. After examining the indicators, we selected seven units for in-depth study.⁴

Capitalizing on the OSI’s traditional law-enforcement skills, we found that structured interviews helped us identify effective leadership practices employed in these units.⁵ In each interview, we asked the same questions about leadership practices and management processes used to foster excellence in performance in garrison units during peacetime. We collected information from unit commanders (both military on active duty and civilian personnel), their superintendents or the senior noncommissioned officer at the location, and the agents and support personnel who were members of these units, asking them about what encouraged performance excellence. We hoped to determine if these leaders used common policies and practices to foster excellence.

What Made These
Leaders Different

During these sessions, we were struck by how the interviewees differed from stereotypical views of excellent leaders. For example, we found that having a reputation as the world’s nicest person did not necessarily reflect excellence. Neither did stern, authoritarian taskmasters necessarily foster that quality.

The participants made up a diverse group. We interviewed men and women, active duty military and civilians, none of whom had a single behavioral style in common. Some were soft spoken—others more forceful.⁶ Leadership experience also varied; some had four or more leadership assignments—others only one or two.

Although dissimilar, they possessed similar leadership skill sets. The interviewees tended to view leadership as a process rather than a position, focusing their energy on creating an environment in which others could succeed. These individuals also proved effective in achieving mission objectives while sustaining productive working relationships in the unit.

They recognized the propriety of serving as a boss, realizing that forceful leadership does not have to equate with obnoxiousness. During the interviews, we found that these leaders felt comfortable with themselves, with command, and with dealing with individuals both personally and professionally.⁷ They brought a different mind-set to their jobs, telling us that they believed in service before self and demonstrating that belief in three ways: by ensuring that their customers received timely, first-class products and services; by providing their units the resources and training required to get the job done; and by demonstrating compassion for employees and their families.⁸

Best Practices
during Peacetime

Our interviewees took small-unit leadership seriously, starting when they learned about the assignment. They prepared diligently for their new command by learning about the unit and its mission, the accompanying challenges, and the personnel they would lead.⁹Once in command, they defined roles and responsibilities for all unit members and took a hands-on approach to fulfilling the mission. Most of them self-inspected key programs, using the OSI inspector general’s checklist, and spent the time required to bring all programs into compliance with established standards.¹⁰ They monitored and measured performance, holding people accountable for the results of their efforts. They rewarded and punished as appropriate, but they did not micromanage, relying instead on coaching and mentoring to help unit members succeed and grow.

These leaders had a vision for where they wanted their teams to go—a vision founded on the priorities and requirements of key customers but also reflecting internal goals developed collaboratively.¹¹ They realized that vision by developing detailed plans that guided execution, expecting everyone to contribute to the plan to make it a success. They worked hard to develop a sense of inclusiveness.

These leaders got results by working through others. They made every effort to build trust with their personnel by emphasizing a positive attitude, fairness, and honesty, as well as by creating a sense of “one team, one fight.” The teams knew what their superiors expected of them. Leaders challenged their unit members and stretched them. Brainstorming tough issues as a team, they encouraged thinking “outside the box” and displayed a willingness to learn from their personnel. Exhibiting respect and appreciation for all, they created a thoroughly professional workplace. These leaders provided “top cover,” which enabled team members to focus on mission-related tasks.

These attributes became particularly evident as we observed how they worked with probationary agents—any OSI agent with less than one year on the job. The leaders viewed probationary agents as a gift whose energy and enthusiasm could propel a unit to excellence. Recognizing that inexperienced agents made mistakes, they compensated by creating a learning environment through continuous coaching, mentoring, and training, explaining to their personnel what to do and then showing them how to do it. They worked with different people differently—doing more for some and less for others. When mistakes occurred, these leaders took corrective action without belittling the people involved and then moved on to meet the next challenge.¹²

Excellent communicators, they maintained an open-door policy and “managed by walking around.”¹³They provided honest feedback and listened.¹⁴They were helpful, respectful, encouraging, and enthusiastic. In this way, these leaders communicated to members of the unit that they considered them important and that they cared about them. In turn, their subordinates often described them as authentic, down-to-earth, empathetic, honest, and trustworthy.¹⁵

Decisive and determined, these leaders worked hard and made up their own minds. They did the right things. They held themselves accountable. No one questioned their integrity. They had an unwavering commitment to achieving excellence—to being the best.

Changes during Wartime

As the pace of deployment of OSI personnel in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq increased, internal debate intensified about whether or not leadership policies and practices would or should change in wartime. With the backing of Brig Gen Dana Simmons, the current OSI commander, we expanded the scope of the project and interviewed individuals identified by OSI senior leaders as having excelled in a wartime environment.

All of the people we interviewed described leading in wartime as the most important assignment of their career.¹⁶Most of them indicated that key leadership practices which fostered performance excellence in peacetime carried through to a war zone. OSI combat leaders told us that they

They also told us that wartime assignments differed in significant ways, citing as an example the importance of new leaders getting off to a fast start. Having only four or five days to bond with the unit, new commanders had to show their commitment to the mission. They needed to invest time with the members of the unit, work the same hours as everyone else, and share the same experiences and stresses. Moreover, unit leaders had to prepare themselves for the fact that everything happens faster in combat. Our interviewees had written their letter on command philosophy and expectations in advance so they could publish and discuss it with unit members as soon as they assumed command. They had also mapped out the essentials of a plan for leading their unit in the battlespace but made adjustments after meeting with their personnel.

A war zone’s accelerated pace reflected two hard facts: unit leaders started at a pronounced disadvantage by fighting a ruthless and capable enemy in his “house” and, in the case of OSI units, by fighting with team members who had not worked or trained together. To offset these disadvantages, OSI leaders must

According to the people we interviewed, in a war zone they had to act like commanders around the clock and let their actions speak for themselves because Airmen will follow what their leaders do—not necessarily what they say. Leaders have to direct both themselves and unit members through difficult situations because there may not be specialists to turn to for assistance. Leaders also must find ways to relieve stress and tension. Finally, all of the interviewees acknowledged that leaders should realize that the wartime experience would change them, especially upon their return home.

Conclusion

We found that excellent wartime leaders had several personal traits in common. They could focus themselves, would never quit, and responded creatively to challenge and adversity. All of them took extremely seriously their responsibility to bring their colleagues home safely.¹⁹

The Excellence in Leadership project provided a bountiful harvest of lessons learned, practical leadership suggestions, and helpful hints. We have made these results available to all OSI leaders by uploading the study on the command’s intranet. The study has now become part of the curriculum of the Leadership Challenge Forum (LCF), a workshop in unit-level leadership principles provided in conjunction with professional military education. The LCF is designed for newly assigned active duty and Reserve commanders, special agents-in-charge, and superintendents—especially those taking their first leadership assignment. Staff lectures and presentations by senior OSI leaders emphasize essential leadership and management skills required for the operation of an OSI unit, while practical exercises prepare students for their new roles.

During the LCF, we demonstrated a direct link between unit leadership and mission effectiveness. Although all Air Force managers share the same goal of successfully accomplishing the mission, only individuals with an unwavering commitment to leadership bring out the best in unit personnel. The results of the Excellence in Leadership study indicate that those who set high standards, as well as motivate and inspire Airmen, can foster performance excellence consistently. These empirical findings underscore and reinforce the very same points from AFDD 1-1 that we discussed in this article’s introduction.

1. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1-1, Leadership and Force Development, 18 February 2006 (interim change to the version of 18 February 2004), 1, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/afdcprivateweb/AFDD_Page_HTML/Doctrine
_Docs/afdd1-1.pdf.

2. See Michael Bunamo and Martin Pitt, Excellence in Leadership, vol. 1, Peacetime, vol. 2, Wartime (Washington, DC: US Air Force Office of Special Investigations, 2006).

3. Law-enforcement agencies measure performance in many different ways. The Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, a nonprofit organization that works to foster excellence in local government, maintains an excellent Web site that illustrates the use of metrics by law-enforcement agencies. See http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/pubsafe/le/le-main.aspx. See also Use of Data in Police Departments: A Survey of Police Chiefs and Data Analysts (Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, 2005), 12–26.

4. Upon request, we will make available a short paper that describes the criteria and methods used in selecting excellent units.

5. Dr. Mike Thirtle, “Developing Aerospace Leaders for the Twenty-first Century: A Historical Context for the DAL Concept,” Air and Space Power Journal 15, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 52–57, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/sum01/thirtle.pdf. This article contends that the Air Force was lax in documenting its own excellent leadership practices in a comprehensible, universally articulated way.

6. Drea Zigarmi et al., The Leader Within: Learning Enough about Yourself to Lead Others (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005), 211–44. Chapter 7 examines the relationship between personality and leader behavior.

7. Oren Harari, The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 125–40. Chapter 8 emphasizes the importance of people.

8. Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan, Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done (New York: Crown Business Press, 2002), 1–9. The introduction discusses the necessity of getting things done.

9. Michael Watkins, The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003), 1–15. The introduction discusses why transitions are critical times for newly assigned leaders.

10. Maj Gen Perry M. Smith, Rules and Tools for Leaders: A Down-to-Earth Guide to Effective Managing (New York: Perigee Books, 2002), 45–52. Chapter 3 discusses setting standards.

12. Daniel Goleman, Richard E. Boyatzis, and Annie McKee, Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002), 53–69. Chapter 4 discusses gearing one’s leadership style to the situation.

14. Jack Welch with Suzy Welch, Winning (New York: HarperBusiness Press, 2005), 25–51. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss the importance of honest feedback.

15. Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau, The Trusted Leader: Bringing Out the Best in Your People and Your Company (New York: Free Press, 2002), 29–41. See chapter 3 for a discussion of the characteristics and competencies of trusted leaders.

17. John Keegan, Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to al-Qaeda (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003), 7–25. Chapter 1 discusses preparing for a wartime command.

18. Edgar F. Puryear Jr., American Generalship: Character Is Everything: The Art of Command (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 2000), 188–235. Chapter 6 discusses how contact with the troops influenced General Eisenhower’s decision making.

19. Col Thomas A. Kolditz, “The In Extremis Leader,” Leader to Leader, no. 36 (Spring 2005, supplement): 6–18, http://www.leadertoleader.org/knowledgecenter/L2L/spring2005-supp/kolditz.html. This article describes the characteristics of individuals leading in dangerous and high-risk situations.

At the very heart of warfare lies doctrine. It represents the central beliefs for waging war in order to achieve victory.
—Gen Curtis LeMay, Chief of Staff, US Air Force, 1961–65

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University

PIREPs