Document created: 27 April 03
Air University Review, January-February 1976

New Leadership for a New Air Force

IN taking a stand by writing this article, I feel somewhat like the man in ancient Greece. In those days, at least one part of Greece, it had long been the custom that when a man proposed a new law in the, assembly he did so on a platform with a rope around his neck. If the law passed, they removed the rope; if it failed, they removed the platform. 

From this tale, it is safe to conclude that one had to be very courageous then to speak out or introduce anything new. Unfortunately, the same attitude appears to characterize many military members now, not so much because the consequence of speaking out may result in the removal of the platform but primarily because of the myth that military personnel are not supposed to question the system.

The time has come, however, to bury that myth once and for all. If history has taught us anything, it is that constructive change within a system can, should, and does come from members within the system who are most familiar with its strengths and weaknesses.

Unquestionably, the military, like the rest of society, is changing. We should not react with alarm at this process, however, but look upon it as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to supply some input in order to design the type of system we would like to have.

Above all, it is not a time to withdraw behind the cloth of our uniform and oppose "them" on the outside, but rather, as one astute historian pointed out: "Those in the service have an obligation, as well as a vested interest, to assure that change evolves from within rather than be dictated from without."¹ It is time, therefore, to band together, to join forces, to exchange ideas, to establish standards of professionalism that will have a profound influence on the profession which will emerge from this period of transition we are now experiencing.

Let me emphasize that an appeal to speak out is not an invitation to anarchy. Abiding by the philosophy of being able to "disagree without being disagreeable," we must channel our criticisms and suggestions in a professional manner through the organs and forums we already have established. One thing we do not need is more unit or base councils.

Then afterward, don't despair if your "profound" idea is rejected, refined, or modified. Keep in mind that it is good that new ideas be heard, but it is also good that new ideas have to go through the mill of objection and opposition from more experienced people. Out of this struggle between the "old" and the "new" come creative inputs that will go far toward establishing a viable, adequate military establishment.

In this context, let us stand on the platform with the rope around our neck and offer something new: a new breed is prepared to take its place in a new Air Force. In my many years with the Air Force I have sadly watched as senior noncommissioned officers (NCO's) and company-grade officers gradually abdicated their responsibilities as leaders. Many of the leaders gladly relinquished their powers, for it meant one less headache they had to contend with. Usually, however, this abdication was not a voluntary thing, but rather it occurred because changes in the Air Force conflicted with the traditional methods of the military in determining who is the leader and what are his responsibilities. For example, in recent years we have seen the proliferation of numerous councils, committees, and advisory bodies that airmen and officers can use to convey directly to the commander their problems and aspirations. Certainly these assemblies have played an important role in solving personnel problems, but in the process the NCOIC or OIC of the airmen or officers involved has been neglected. He has been bypassed because now it is easier to go directly to the commander when a problem arises. Too often one hears: "Let's save that problem till next Thursday's meeting, when the commander will be there."

As General David C. Jones recently pointed out, "If ever there was a time when the Air Force needs to call upon every officer and NCO to display the qualities of sound leadership, now is that time. Now is the time that good leadership can minimize functional problems . . . and, conversely, bad leadership can make minor problems catastrophic."² It is apparent in this time of austerity that good leadership can go far to reduce costs and improve efficiency. Yet one may ask, What is good leadership? I think leadership is relational. The task at hand, in most instances, determines what elements are essential for good leadership. It is difficult, therefore, to say with any precision that qualities A and B will make one a good leader. While there is no best or ideal leadership style, best leadership does depend on a number of things: (1) the personality of the supervisor himself, (2) the followers, (3) the kind of people they are and the kind of work they do, and (4) the particular situation and circumstances of any given day or hour. In short, there is no ״ cook book " recipe for effective leadership. Only the supervisor himself, totally familiar with the job and his people, can decide what is the “best” leadership style for him.. In essence, it must be an act of individual judgment.

Perhaps the primary requisite of good leadership, however, is courage. In olden days, it was physical courage—and in many situations today it is still physical courage. More important than physical courage is, to me at least, mental courage—the strength and conviction to be bold, to be decisive; in effect, to be a leader. To make that decision and assume responsibility for one's actions—that to me is courage and leadership. Unfortunately, as General Ira Eaker, who had to make numerous decisions while commanding the Eighth Air Force during World War II, recently pointed out, "In actuality, there are not many candidates for top leadership, and one reason is that most men hate to make fateful decisions." ³

In the past, many men, by conviction, made fateful decisions. General Billy Mitchell, for example, laid his career on the line to achieve his objective. He had the courage to openly criticize national aviation policy and demonstrated his confidence in air power by sinking target battleships with aerial bombs. He even went so far as to accuse the high military command of incompetence and criminal negligence to make his point that they needed to devote time, money, and consideration to air power to protect the national defense of the United States. For his actions he was court-martialed, and he resigned when he was suspended at half pay. Although many years later he was recognized by Congress for his outstanding pioneer service and foresight in the field of American military aviation, it is interesting to ask how many people would go as far as he did to stand for his convictions. Or are we among those General Jimmy Doolittle described when he said: "I do not think we, on the average, are as courageous, as ambitious or as moral as our founding fathers. We as a nation, incline laziness."⁴ The essence of all this is, as General Doolittle pointed out in a letter to his wife in 1944: "Command, regardless of its size or importance, carries with it both responsibility and opportunity; Responsibility to superiors and subordinates. Opportunity to utilize to advantage one's attributes and ability."⁵

At the same time, we must also be proud to be a member of such an honorable and dedicated profession. The recently published results of a survey showed that the public rated the military highest among major institutions, according to how good a job that institution is doing for the country. Pride and esprit de corps are essential to leadership. I am told that there is a French army regiment that carries on its active rolls even today the name of a soldier who was cited for gallantry personally by the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte over 150 years ago. When the name of that soldier is called, every man of his company answers "Here." What a sense of belonging! What a sense of organization! What a sense of leadership that soldier's mere name invokes.

My comments should not be misinterpreted as a plea for blind obedience to the military and all it commands. As I pointed out in the beginning, the military is undergoing change, and the ones best qualified to suggest or implement the correct changes needed are the people who are most familiar with the system. I seek not blind following but rather dedicated and objective support. At the beginning of World War II, General "Hap" Arnold needed thousands of officers and NCO's to form the leadership for the fast-growing—I mean fast—Army Air Corps. His staff assured him that it would take months to build schools and get instructors. So with the aid of his secretary, he faked a call to Louisiana State University "as several of his staff watched." After speaking into the phone instrument for a few moments, he hung up and informed those present that the officials at Louisiana could, if he so desired, set up a leadership training program within a week. Within hours his staff assured him that they had located facilities in Florida and enough instructors had been identified so that the course could start. ⁶ The point is that being a leader means getting things done to achieve the mission. That's what made Doolittle, Eaker, Mitchell, and Arnold leaders. There is no set mold.

For example, in 1940 at the age of 55, a French history professor, Marc Bloch, joined the French underground resistance movement. Although a new recruit when he joined the resistance, he was already greatly renowned. As a scholar, Professor Bloch had become one of the most influential economic and social historians of his time. He was exceptionally well known and respected in academic circles and was prominent in the interwar years at international conferences. Yet he was more than just a great historian. He was a man who loved his country dearly and devoted all his energy and intellect to rid his country of the Nazi occupation forces. He was what one would call a "true patriot." After joining the resistance, he turned with eagerness to learn and absorb the methods of outlawry and rebellion, things that were completely foreign to his nature. Yet he gladly and devotedly embraced danger in order to accomplish his goal, and he had in himself the soul of a fighter. He brought to his new duties a taste for precision, detail, and logic that was found enchanting by those who knew him. His friends remember the many times he would remind them with: "Come, come, we mustn't let ourselves be carried away. The great thing is to isolate and limit the problem"⁷—whether that problem was to pass instructions, transport arms, print leaflets, or insure that everyone knew his job on D-Day. He rose quickly in the organization and was to lead the whole of the resistance movement in Lyons until a tragic day in 1944 when the trap closed. After his capture by the Nazis he continued to write, and prior to his execution his memoirs were smuggled out of prison. In his work he meticulously pinpointed blame where it lay, whether in the military, political, or civil sector. But underlying the specific charges that he levied, his final conclusion came to rest on the individual, including himself. To him the nation of France was defeated, but it takes people to make a nation—and it takes people to join together to protect that nation when it is threatened, something which was not done in France prior to 1940. Everyone, he pointed out, became complacent, more interested in personal gains, unwilling to make any sacrifices for the society as a whole. There were no leaders. In effect, not enough people had the courage to speak out, to correct injustices, to demand responsible leadership, as he so eloquently pointed out: "There can be no salvation where there is not some sacrifice, and no national liberty in the fullest sense unless we have ourselves worked to bring it about. "⁸

For us to bring about responsible leadership, fortunately, we do not have to go to the extreme as did Marc Bloch and give our life. Each person in his own way, however, must display the courage to be a leader among men. Bloch did his the way he knew. Others, however, followed different methods.

Take General Patton for example. He is remembered for the unique leadership he exercised. He had the ability to obtain the utmost from American troops, and some would say that he obtained more than the maximum response. Through his charisma, exemplified by a flamboyant and well-publicized image, he stimulated American troops to an aggressive desire to close with and destroy the enemy. He personified the offensive spirit, the ruthless drive, the will for victory in battle.

To achieve this objective, Patton displayed many appearances. He was a man of many faces, and it is sometimes difficult to know who the real person was. The best-known image of him is, of course, his War mask. Toughness, profanity, and bluster were elements he assumed in order to inspire his soldiers and, incidentally, himself. This is what Patton did so well, and this is what the ivory-handled pistols, the oversized stars of rank, the rough, blunt, profane talk, the scowling face, the vulgar posturing were supposed to produce. They gave his men the warrior psychology, the will to meet the enemy, the confident feeling that they could defeat their opponents. His men were proud to say "I rolled with Patton." He was a Leader.

He was a leader because in his own life he constantly sought perfection, whatever the task. He was never satisfied with his performance. He was ways apprehensive that he would be found wanting, not quite up to the standards he demanded of himself.⁹ To overcome these apprehensions, he developed into one of the greatest leaders in military history.

The type of courage we need today is not that which was required of Mitchell, Bloch, Arnold, or Patton. Those bold and great leaders will emerge as the occasions demand it. What we need now in the Air Force is the dedicated professional middle manager who maintains standards, gets the job done right the first time, and keeps the Air Force running on a day-to-day basis. In a real sense, NCO's are the only ones left to be the type of leaders that we need. Lieutenants and captains, the ones who traditionally were the people managers, have become technicians. Today in the Air Force they are the highly skilled specialists--the pilots, navigators, computer programmers, engineers. Since they have gradually been changed from supervisors of men to supervisors or technicians of systems, a polarization has developed within the Air Force whereby the commander of an organization has become the supervisor of younger airmen. On top of this, there has been a tendency to abdicate responsibility and authority by numerous members in an organization for decision by committee. In effect, there is a lack of leadership. This is why I suggest that our corps of NCO's will be the middle managers in the Air Force.

This can best be done by adopting certain guides: (1) Above all, they must know their job. (2) Know the people who work for them—take an interest in them. Know their likes and dislikes, their goals and aspirations. (3) Insure—no, demand--that councils and advisory bodies within the organization become responsive to the reasons for which they were created. Too many of these bodies waste time and resources delving into areas that are none of their concern. (4) Insist, as strongly as possible, that supervisors become supervisors and exercise their authority and responsibility. (5) Enforce standards of professionalism, not only in the unit but at the base as well. A professional attitude toward proper dress, military bearing, and courtesy will catch on, and others will start to support and emulate such actions. One should not be afraid to take more responsibility--someone has to.

It does not matter whether one adopts the extreme leadership manner of the autocrat or dictator type or the other extreme of so-called free-rein leadership style where everybody commands. At least one should adopt a leadership commitment, and it should be a flexible one. It, then, can be a vehicle with which to go forward together in a quest to bring about responsive leadership within the Air Force.

From a commander's point of view, I rely on my NCO's to assume the hardships of leadership—for they are hardships during this period while the Air Force undergoes change, when standards of professionalism and patriotism are questioned, when hair length and dress codes are scoffed at by many. It is no easy task to be a strong leader at this time, yet unless someone is, then serious consequences could result not only in the military but to the society at large. That we cannot let happen, Let us not have to admit, as Marc Bloch did, that "the generation to which I belong has a bad conscience." ¹⁰

Let us go forward, then, and continuously mount the platform with a rope around our neck and demand new, responsive leadership from ourselves and others, And to those others whom we encounter along the way, let the word be "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Notes

1. David MacIsaac, quoted in "Military Professionalism under Scrutiny," Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders, AFRP 100-1, 2-74, 15 January 1974.

2. David C. Jones, "Leadership--The Key to Success," TIG Brief, vol. 27, no. 4, 28 February 1975, p. 1.

3. Ira C. Eaker, "The Military Professional," Air University Review, January-February 1975, p. 8.

4. Carroll V. Glines, Jimmy Doolittle: Daredevil, Aviator and Scientist (New York: Macmillan Co., 1972), p. 177.

5. Ibid., p. 165.

6. Flint O. DuPre, Hap Arnold: Architect of American Air Power (New York: Macmillan Co., 1972), p. 92.

7. Marc Bloch, Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940 (New York: Norton, 1968), p. xvi.

8. Ibid., p. 175.

9. Martin Blumenson, "The Many Faces of George S. Patton, Jr.," The Harmon Memorial Lecture in Military History, Number 14, USAF Academy, 1972.

10. Bloch, p. 171.

Colonel Harold P. Knutty is Chief of Staff, Iceland Defense Force. Previously he commanded the 552d Airborne Early Warning and Control Group, McClellan AFB, California. Most of his assignments have been in early warning and detection units, at one time as a participant in the USAF/RCAF Exchange Officer Program with duty at Lac St. Denis, Quebec, Canada. He commanded Detachment 2 of the 552d in Florida and was Commander, College Eye Task Force, during the hostilities in SEA. Colonel Knutty is a graduate of Squadron Officer School and Air Command and Staff College.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor