Document created: 22 September 04
Air University Review, November-December 1971

Impending Crisis in Air Force Leadership

First Sergeant Delaney eased into the parking spot and stopped. The colonel will be disappointed, he thought, if the guys don’t go along with his plan. He got out of the car, closed the door quietly, and started across the parking lot. The crunch of the gravel echoed loudly between the dormitories, and he considered for a moment that some of the guys would be irritated by the noise.

Delaney opened the door and peered down the hall. Trash was piled knee-high at the center of the hall, and here and there a lone beer can lay on its side. “The janitor will have his work cut out for him,” he said, half aloud.

The smell of incense, perfume, alcohol, and pot invaded his nostrils as he knocked softly at the first door.  He pondered about the source of each of the smells and then realized that the door had come open and he was staring into the face of T /Sgt Bill Johnson, the dormitory chief.

“Good morning, Bill. Don’t know whether you remembered or not, but this is the Fourth of July.  The day the colonel wanted to have a parade, —ah—to sort of celebrate the country’s two hundredth birthday.”

“Oh, gee, that’s right, Sarge.” Bill rubbed his eyes and then said, “I’ll try to get the guys rounded up right away. Can’t promise you anything, but I’ll do my best.”

“I’ll certainly appreciate that, Bill,” the first sergeant replied.

“Tell you what,” Bill said, “we’ll meet you in the day room in fifteen minutes—make it eight o’clock on the nose.”

By eight o’ clock the first few airmen began coming into the day room, in various stages of undress and costume. Most stared sullenly at the walls, each other, or the sergeant, but a few gave voice to loud complaint as soon as they stepped into the room, bitching profanely about being awakened on their day off and about the suspected ancestry of “lifers.”

Sergeant Delaney began to explain the situation, somewhat hesitantly, but then heard the approach of Sgt Johnson and decided to withhold his comments until all the airmen were present.

“That’s all I can round up, Sarge. Benson and Brill must be downtown with their girls. Talley says he’s sick, and Rudder won’t open his door. He had a little party in there last night with some of the WAFs, and they’re probably still ‘tripped out.’” Johnson finished his explanation and sat down.

“Ok, Bill, thanks,” said the first sergeant. “Guys, I’m awfully sorry to wake you up so early this morning on your day off, but the colonel is pretty keen on us doing something special to celebrate the nation’s two-hundredth birthday. He just feels strongly that we ought to have a parade in order to sort of make something special out of the event. What do you guys think about the idea?”

“I think it’s just plain stupid,” an airman in the front muttered. “Two hundred years. Big deal.” A chorus of voices gave him a measure of support.

The first sergeant held up his hands and said, “The colonel will sure be disappointed if we don’t have this parade. Look, this thing won’t take long—you can wear your 1505’s—and after it’s over I’ll use squadron funds to buy beer and grass and we can have a little party. What do you say?  I mean, after all, this will only be the second Saturday this year that we’ve made you do anything at all.

 At the side, a couple of airmen mumbled something that Delaney thought might be interpreted as favorable. Sgt Johnson said he thought it sounded OK. After another wave of conversation, the first sergeant spoke again.

“OK, then. Let’s do it. We’ll meet on the parade ground at nine and the whole thing will be over in less than thirty minutes. I am sure pleased that you are all helping me out on this.”

Is such a scene possible in the Air Force in 1976—just five short years away? The drastic increase in violent dissent, lack of respect for law and order, absence of patriotism, and rampant disorder in our society are readily apparent. But will things come to such a state in so few years that the scene just depicted could actually occur? Quite possibly so.

Some young adults are rejecting many aspects of our culture, formulating radical new society patterns, and rapidly overturning existing moral standards. Quite often it appears that they seek to destroy traditions and institutions without having so much as a vague idea of what will be established as a replacement. With these young people displaying attitudes and morals so widely different from the established standards of older generations, there is small hope that the Air Force can remain immune to these cultural changes taking place throughout the nation. From this population resource, of course, must come the future lieutenants, crew chiefs, clerks, technicians, leaders, and managers of the seventies.

There is evidence that the changes are already under way in the Air Force. Use of marijuana has increased to a point where OSI investigative units are totally saturated. The Army and the Marines have experienced a doubling of desertion rates in the past four years, and the Air Force increase may portend worse things to come. Some blacks demand Afro haircuts and soul music, and some young airmen argue with their sergeants about whether or not to shine their shoes or scrub the floor. Indeed, the Air Force may very well be right on the fringe of some radical changes. After completing a worldwide survey of the current student unrest, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., former aide to President Johnson, commented on the parallel unrest in the military:

In the Army, dissent is a major issue on a scale unprecedented in the history of this nation. Radical newspapers are being published, anti-war coffee houses are being opened, and military discipline is no longer accepted at face value. The college graduate in the Army wants to be shown that the exercise of military authority over him is both right and necessary, the same standard he uses for all other authority.¹

In order to comprehend and cope with the problems created by these cultural changes, USAF managers need to understand how our society got where it is today, determine its current impact on the Air Force, and try to determine how it will affect the management of resources in the next decade. Unfortunately, USAF senior managers, the very people who should be attempting to solve this problem, appear to be thoroughly confused themselves. A similar observation about the civilians of that generation was made by Richard Poirer in the Atlantic Monthly:

More terrifying than the disorder in the streets is the disorder in our heads; the rebellion of youth, far from being a cause of disorder, is rather a reaction, a rebellion against the disorder we call order, against our failure to make sense out of the way we live now and have lived since 1945.²

A salient fact is that today’s young people in their late teens or early twenties were untouched by two very strong factors that influenced the older generation, which includes the senior managers in the Air Force today. These two very influential factors were the depression of 1929-32 and World War II. Members of the older generation have these two influences firmly entrenched in their characters, whether they are aware of it or not. These influences have instilled in people over forty a keener respect for hunger and poverty than today’s youth can ever fully understand, for so few of them have known want of any kind. Through the impact of World War II, our senior people have shared the emotion of an urgent threat to national security, the resulting unification of the nation in an almost unanimous resolve, and the happiness that was experienced at the absolute defeat of a mortal enemy. Moreover, that enemy was one that could be identified easily with the forces of evil. That clear-cut situation contrasts sharply with the complex nature of the world today: a cold war environment that has no definite lineup of forces and an ending that cannot be visualized by even the most skillful of political scientists.

In 1945 World War II servicemen came home to civilian life with their war brides in tow and settled down to what they hoped would be a peaceful life. The GI Bill and associated veteran benefits gave them a running start toward a prosperity and affluence unheralded in the history of mankind. Children of the Great Depression, they worked diligently and successfully to acquire more and more possessions, build bigger and more expensive houses, and buy finer cars, investing wisely—in short, creating a blanket of security against any future economic calamity like that which they had experienced in the early thirties.

With new and daring psychologists as their guides, the war veterans spawned the “baby boom” and vowed to provide their children with all the things that they themselves had never been able to enjoy. In a multitude of ways the ex-servicemen broke the “shackles of tradition” and raised their children in an environment of prosperity and permissiveness.

The generation that had survived both the depression and the war entered the decade of the fifties with growing confidence and rising expectations. College completed, they entered the business world, rose in rank and position, increased their incomes, acquired more possessions, and began to display all the distinguishing marks of middle-class success. From material and economic viewpoints, their lives were well ordered and their goals were easily visible.

Had that generation taken the time to examine the moral and social aspects of their society, they might not have felt so comfortable. Perhaps it was impossible for them to determine their situation and observe the direction they were heading. Quite possibly the rapidly changing world around them and the onrush of technology distorted their perspective and permitted hindsight evaluation only. At any rate, it now seems clear that the veterans of World War II were undergoing a transition—a cultural transition in which mankind itself was in the process of growing up, and doing it much too rapidly.

Throughout the fifties strong factors were at work as this cultural transition took place. A shift in living habits and attitudes resulted in a steady increase in urbanization. A once stable living pattern, geographically, became a fluid situation with the proliferation of automobiles. At the same time the influence of the church began to decline significantly. What had previously been clear-cut moral standards now were scrutinized more carefully; some were found irrelevant and were replaced by a code called situational ethics— “It all depends on the situation.”

As the influence of the church waned, parents very carefully kept up the façade of respectability. Children were faithfully taken to church each Sunday while fathers, just as faithfully, played eighteen holes of golf. Attitudes and morals soon began to crumble, and before long the phoniness of the situation began to be apparent to the younger generation.

The space age dawned on a generation of parents and national leaders totally unprepared to cope with the rapid pace of technology, already advancing at a speed that, when coupled with growing urbanization, was bringing about subtle but very real deterioration of the society. “The society of the 1950’s based on bland conformity, privatism, and middle class values of sociality, was not ready for the sudden impact of the technological age.” ³

But ready or not, the age came. It arrived as most of today’s young generation was still in the early formative stages of life. The generation of the sixties grew up under the strong influences of science and technology, in a society 75 to 80 percent urbanized, constantly being reshaped and unified by the new electronic media. Television drew youth into new levels of human involvement and provided them with a depth of knowledge and a quantity of information far greater than that experienced by their parents at a comparable age. In effect, this generation became the first to grow up under the dominant influence of strongly humanistic values.

There were several strong psychological forces at work molding this young generation into the specter we see today. The first of these forces has been termed “instantism” and can be attributed to technology. Because of significant developments in packaging and preserving, it became possible to have instant foods of unlimited varieties: instant breakfast, quick-fix lunch, ten-minute TV dinners—add water and it became almost the real thing. At the same time development of the transistor permitted radios and television sets that start working immediately. As a result, today’s youth expect things on an instant basis—master the piano overnight—learn a language in just hours—build muscles in a flash—get out of Vietnam tomorrow. They are, in short, the Now Generation. The consequence of “instantism” has been a lack of patience and perseverance on the part of the young people and a corresponding intolerance of failure or slow progress.

Another psychological factor has been society’s overemphasis on scientific and material aspects of life. The young have been deluged with possessions and gadgets and overwhelmed with scientific data. Parents, teachers, and scientists have poured forth limitless streams of information, displayed all things and all creatures in the most complete, naked, and factual manner possible, and answered each and every question with totally accurate scientific pronouncements—no intuitive, mysterious aspects permitted.

Youth has rebelled. It has refused to fall down and worship “mother science” and the “almighty dollar.” It yearns instead for things meaningful, beautiful, and mysterious. It wants warmth and feeling instead of toys, trinkets, and a TV sitter. It has rejected the coldly rational, scientific, practical approach to life in favor of intuitive, humanistic attitudes.

Television has unquestionably been another major factor in the lives of the younger generation. Worldwide instant telecast has permitted them to watch Neil Armstrong take man’s first step on the moon, switch to a baseball game in New York, and then view the Vietnam combat in their own living room, watching an infantryman bleed, in living color, as the action actually occurs. Moreover, television has brought more than a simple change in method of communication; it has also caused a change in thinking processes. The ability to select from a wide variety of programs, to reject a subject when it has become boring or difficult, moving instead to a new and exciting picture has caused the younger generation to think superficially and often indifferently about a multitude of problems without ever really coming to grips with any of them. The Now Generation is prone to view matters only as they appear here and now and is reluctant to take the time and effort to study a problem in depth, from beginning to end, and labor hard for a solution. Instead, they dash into the middle of a problem, attempt to analyze it quickly, and then turn away from it without really understanding the matters that caused the problem in the first place or to speculate on future possibilities. How much easier it has been for them to select a different channel until one is found that is easier to watch and less painful to the conscience.

Many senior USAF managers survey this young generation and despair of ever being able to turn over to it the reins of management. Frequently, the older generation reacts to this new breed of young people angrily and irrationally, and a situation already bad becomes worse. How bad are they, really? Is there, in fact, a wide gap separating senior from junior, oldster from youngster? Can bridges be restored? Allen J. Moore, in his book The Young Adult Generation, has this to say about the differences between the generations and the gap that separates them:

In times of rapid change, normal differences between generations are aggravated and greatly magnified. This is due largely to a breakdown in communications structures between generations and the inability of society to maintain continuity between age groups.⁴

In other words, in spite of numerous avenues for dialogue—instant and portable TV, a proliferation of transistor radios, mountains of papers, magazines, and books, and two and a half cars per family—the generations have stopped communicating with each other. Mr. Moore contends, however, that the gap between generations is not as wide as many people believe. A recent study, he says, found that two-thirds of the students polled believed that their attitudes were very similar to the attitudes of their own parents. Further, he points out, moral standards have not been changed abruptly but have been steadily becoming more liberal for the past half century.

The younger generation thus may really not be as far out of step as suspected at first analysis. This thesis is supported by sociologist, Richard Flacks⁵ and Kenneth Keniston.⁶ Both found high correlation between the beliefs of young adult protesters and their parents, as well as between those held by nonprotesters and their parents. There is, in fact, little evidence that young adults participating in the various movements of dissent have been converted from or have rebelled against those values and beliefs held by their parents.

Therefore, the gap may not be as wide or as frightening as previously feared. But it cannot be dismissed lightly. The Air Force must draw its manpower from this new generation, and never before has a generation been so dominant in creating massive changes in a culture. Dr. Clark Kerr, former Chancellor of the University of California, stated in an interview:

The students in any country are usually going in the same direction as the country itself, only the students are a little quicker and go a little bit farther. So if you want to understand students, you better try to understand the country. And also, if you want to understand the country, you better look at the students, because they are a very sensitive weathervane that will tell you the way things are pointing.⁷

The USAF will not solve its leadership problems merely by conducting a study of student life, of course. But the new generation must be studied and its shortcomings understood. The youth of today urgently need a balancing influence, which the older generation is capable of providing. The young adult entering the Air Force in the seventies is different from his elders—different but far from perfect. Although 95 percent of the younger generation are decent, sincere, and intelligent, they need wise and capable leaders who can help them mature into the better and brighter leaders who will be needed in the eighties.

USAF managers must be made aware of and trained to cope with the traits of the young airman and officer entering the Air Force today. To overcome the effect of “instantism,” the young airman must be taught patience and perseverance. Only through experience on the job can the young man understand the need for these essential traits. Recognizing youth’s strongly humanistic attitude and sensitive nature, the properly trained manager will establish and maintain a personal, open, and direct line of communication through which he can express genuine concern for and interest in each man he supervises. In this way he will teach by experience the practical and rational approaches to problem solving. By understanding thoroughly the impact of television on a youth’s thinking process, a fully prepared supervisor can assist him in thinking a problem through as he faces it, patiently explaining each step from start to finish and helping the airman arrive at a valid and realistic solution. Because he is aware that the young man will often construct lofty and impractical ideals, the manager must be trained to help him build a foundation of good sense and practicality for those beliefs. And, finally, because the young man of today frequently lacks a framework of moral and ethical standards that could serve as a guide for his life, the Air Force manager must be prepared to suggest sound goals and guidelines he can follow and set an unpretentious example he can emulate.

The question naturally arises, then, as to whether or not the Air Force is presently prepared to cope with this cultural change taking place around us. The answer must be in the negative. The vast majority of Air Force managers are woefully prepared and untrained, and the growing examples of mission failure or degradation because of this are either unrecognized for what they are or just covered up by embarrassed supervisors.

The Air Force is well equipped to accommodate the young men who enter the service in a commissioned status. The Air University system of professional military education almost guarantees the young officer an opportunity to take at least one if not all three of the courses conducted, either in residence or by correspondence. These schools are designed and operated with a high degree of flexibility and relevance, which enables them to keep pace with the changing society and make appropriate changes in leadership training techniques.

A comparable system for leadership training does not exist for the young man who pursues an Air Force career as a noncommissioned officer, however. Although Air Force Regulation 50-39 provides for NCO academies, few noncommissioned officers are afforded the opportunity to attend, and then only after they have already served as managers for fifteen years or more. AFR 50-39 also provides for NCO leadership schools for airmen serving in grades E-4 and E-5, but unfortunately only five major commands are operating just a handful of such schools. Many leadership schools were closed when a manpower shortage developed because of the needs in Vietnam, and very few of them have reopened. Another directive, AFR 50-37, establishes management training for junior officers, civilians, and noncommissioned officers. Again, however, the chances for the young NCO manager to attend during the early part of his career are negligible.

This deficiency in NCO leadership training is affecting the USAF at a crucial point in the organization: at the middle management level, where young and inexperienced noncommissioned officers are attempting to train, discipline, and motivate large numbers of young airmen of the Now Generation. This is the initial point of contact with the younger generation. This is the “front line” that must contend with changing morals taking place in our society. This is the vital element that should be serving as the bridge to span the generation gap which separates the colonel from the basic airman. But unfortunately, these young noncommissioned officers are forced to do their job without the benefit of any formal leadership or management training. And, frequently, this lack of NCO training is the direct cause of mission failure or degradation: the required workload could not be accomplished because the work force lacked the proper motivation or leadership. The work that these NCO managers are responsible for almost always amounts to the very heart of the unit’s mission. This is the middle management level that must deal directly with the people. As Carl Heyel has put it:

No matter what new techniques for decision making and operational control are developed, every organization must still depend upon people for its final output. And these people must be selected, trained, assigned, directed and controlled. That is why management on the firing line continues to be the key link in every management chain of action.⁸

“Management on the firing line”—the flight line, the electronic maintenance shop, the data-processing room—these are the “gut” areas of the Air Force mission, and these are the areas where middle management is breaking down and adversely affecting the mission accomplishment. This breakdown has been taking place with increasing frequency, sometimes covered up and corrected by a supervisor but more often not.

The situation will worsen as USAF is given fewer men and less money. General Ryan has stated that more work must be done, and done better by fewer people. That goal will not be realized unless immediate corrective action is taken to provide adequate leadership training for junior noncommissioned officers, the E-4 and E-5 managers who must make first contact with the young airman.

AFR 50-39 does not presently outline a course of training that will do the job. That course must be revised to provide greater emphasis on human relations, understanding human nature, and personalized leadership techniques based on a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the youth of today. At the present time only about 25 percent of the curriculum is spent on this subject area. Leadership schools must be opened up throughout the Air Force, on each base, to provide all key NCO managers in the grades of E-4 and E-5 the skills they desperately need to train and manage the young airman.

A fresh and searching look needs to be taken at the content of these leadership courses. The requirement for each subject must be examined in light of the question, What kind of a junior manager do we need in today’s Air Force? In the interests of economy and mission effectiveness, such subjects as close-order drill may have to be de-emphasized in favor of greater emphasis on effective communication. The time currently allotted for “ATC familiarization” might be better spent on a subject such as “conducting an OJT program.” In short, the entire course needs to be restructured to meet today’s needs. USAF can ill afford to continue using 1940 management techniques for the Air Force of the seventies.

In the face of a rapidly changing culture and confronted with increasing reductions in men and equipment, the Air Force is being challenged today to do more and more with less and less. If USAF management is to meet this objective, each member of the force must be capable of assuming more and more of the load. Each NCO and officer must be better motivated and better trained. The key to the entire operation may very well be how well Air Force management adjusts to the changing society in America. If adjustments are not made, if corrections are not ordered, USAF will not measure up to the stated objectives.

Air War College

Notes

1. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., The Student Revolution: A Global Confrontation (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1968), p. 86.

2. Richard Poirer, “Disorder in the Streets,” Atlantic Monthly, May 1968, p. 77.

3. Paul Goodman, Growing Up Absurd (New York: Random House,1960), p. 19.

4. Allen J. Moore, The Young Adult Generation (New York: Abingdon Press, 1969), p. 35.

5. Richard Flacks, “The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student Protest,” Journal of Social Issues, July 1967, pp. 52-75.

6. Kenneth Keniston, “The Sources of Student Dissent,” Journal of Social Issues, July 1967, p. 27.

7. Mary Harrington Hall, “Interview with Clark Kerr,” Psychology Today, October 1967, p. 27.

8. Carl Heyel, Management for Modern Supervisors (American Management Association, 1962), p. 9.

This article has been adapted from a paper written by the author as a student at the Air War College, 1970-71.

Contributor

Colonel Doyle E. Larson (M.S., Auburn University) is Deputy National Security Agency Representative to the Department of Defense. He began his Air Force career in language school; after flying training served as an F-94C and F-89D crew member in Air Defense Command. Since his assignment of the USAF Security Service, he has activated and commanded security squadrons here and abroad. Colonel Larson is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Armed Forces Staff College, and Air War College.