Document created: 25 September 02
 Air University Review, May-June 1978

Opposition to the New OER

a crisis alert!

It is clearly evident across-the-board, from cocktail party conversations to letters to the editor, that the "new" Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) has drawn more flak than any other single subject since our involvement in Vietnam. Opponents of the new system seem to outnumber the proponents by far. Many speak with assured conviction that the new system was conceived, at best, in a filling station somewhere alongside the proverbial road to Abilene. The ardent opponents declare it to be unfair, unjust, and unnecessary. They suggest that it serves only to promote the nefarious behavior of those "other" officers who would stoop to any level to ensure a rating in the top block. Not only is the collective peace of mind of the officer corps in a state of unrest--as the heated flurry of discussion would imply--but many believe that the very foundation of the officer corps is threatened because of the new system's avowed effect on individual integrity and cooperativeness. This, at least, seems to be the theme of the vocal opposition. It is this very perception, this issue--the belief that the officer corps' integrity and cooperativeness are irreversibly on the road to ruin--that needs to be looked at arid looked at closely.

The most fervent argument surfaced by the opposition is that backstabbing will replace cooperativeness. It is suggested that this will be the inevitable result because of the cutthroat competition inherent in the new system's hard quotas for the top block ratings. Is such a claim a valid one? Are backstabbing and cutthroat competition inherent in the new system? Is the new system going to be the cause of diminished integrity and cooperation within the officer corps? Or has the mass outcry of the opposition served to support the possibility that a large majority among us are already suffering the malady of diminished integrity? Why do those opposed to the new system seem to find more support--real or imagined--for their claim of backstabbing and lack of integrity? Does it not seem rather peculiar that the presumption of nonintegrity heavily outweighs integrity and cooperativeness? Not only is the presumption of nonintegrity directed against contemporaries but it is directed against reviewing officials as well. These rhetorical questions may have a hard, cold, and sobering answer: significant number of Air Force officers firmly believe that other officers lack integrity. Collectively, we are those other officers With this proposition, a corollary exists: Simply stated, you have no integrity, and I have no integrity. A thoughtful consideration of this corollary should serve to put the minds of professional, dedicated officers and national servants into a real state of crisis alert. Might it be true that with implementation of the new OER system we have become enemies? Apparently, there is ample evidence to assert chat (in the words of Walt Kelly's Pogo) "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

If one may rightly assume that a majority of officers possess that quality referred to as integrity, then one may also be perplexed at the recent fuss the new OER system has evoked. Integrity is defined as utter sincerity, honesty, and candor: avoidance of deception, expediency, artificiality, or shallowness of any kind. If we possess this quality, why does the new system cataclysmically destroy it as opponents would suggest? Granted, people resist change. And when a major change is

forced upon us, we reactively resist if for no other reason than to maintain the inertia of the past. But the resistance to the new system has far surpassed the typical and understandable stage of initial discontent. What is it in the new system that seems so vastly different from the old? What is it that makes acceptance of this system so repugnant to so many?

A possible underlying cause might he one expressed to the author by an allied officer and member of the Air Command and Staff College faculty. Unbiased and unaffected by its implementation, he suggests that the new OER system now allows each officer to see and know his competition on a personal--and oftentimes daily--basis. With the assigned quota allotment for the top block rating, we flow seem to have personalized the competition. We know exactly who the competition is--names and faces--not merely all others of like grade throughout the Air Force. The diffusion of competition is no snore. This seems to be a valid assessment. It is unquestionably a new perception for all of us. It is this any different from the old system? Yes. But why has this new perception made us feel more like Cain than Abel? Perhaps even more a paradox in this change of attitude is the fact that competition--personalized competition --is a fundamentally acceptable and desirable concept espoused and practiced by Americans. Our free market economy, educational system, sports, political system, even our love affairs are based on it. Our country has become a leader among nations in great measure because of it. Are we now to assume that it is undesirable, insidious, and undermining of the integrity and cooperativeness within the officer corps?

When individuals or groups compete in some arena, for some desired outcome—victory--one wins and the other loses. Ties are rather frustrating, and as a consequence, when the stakes of the outcome are high, we have excluded the tie concept from the possible outcome. In keeping with our competitive spirit, we Americans have arrived at a solution to the frustration of the tie--sudden death! Anyone who has played in the heat of passion associated with this sudden death situation knows the feeling. "Do or die," "This is it," "Lose this one and it's all over," "No chance to recover, "--all are typical phrases that express the feelings and emotions of the sudden death situation when the stakes are perceived as high. It is not uncommon to witness a rising of tempers under these circumstances. And whose tempers generally rise?--the ones who perceive that they are losing the game! Might it be that we now perceive the new OER system as "sudden death"? Might it be that we perceive ourselves to be losing even before the shot ending the game has been sounded? It is tough to accept defeat in a hard fought competition without the emotional aspect of having to play in the sudden death atmosphere. But when sudden death is being played, as may be the case now perceived in the new OER system, why do we immediately allow our tempers to rise?

An important consideration in the concept of American competition is that when any individual or group is seen to place total emphasis on winning, then that individual or group, regardless of outcome, is more likely than not to be labeled as one of questionable character. And it is generally a unanimous feeling, in the minds of the other players as well as the spectators. In short, nobody likes a bad sport. Each of us probably perceives himself as a good sport. We could easily find consensus on the definition of a good sport. He is the kind of person who puts forth his very best effort into winning, but failing that, recognizes the superior effort of his competition. He accepts it. He dedicates himself to further self-improvement, for himself and for his team. Let us relate this to the feelings generated by the new OER system. If the opponents of the system perceive a new trend of backstabbing and throat-cutting to win, are they not in effect saying that the other guy is more concerned with winning? Are they not saying that everyone else is a bad sport? There may be a rather straightforward answer.

We may perceive that if we lose this game, the game which is now being played for high stakes in the passion of sudden death, we will never be allowed to play again! Simply stated, if we get a lower rating than our personalized competition, we will get passed over for promotion to the next grade and be separated from the Air Force. And this same logic leads us to say ourselves: "I play a good game. I want to continue playing. I should be allowed to continue playing!"-no "he" or "they" in this mentality. "I," "I want," and "I should" seem to pervade our vocabulary. And when we find out "he" got a higher rating than "I," we convince ourselves that it was "his" questionable character and integrity--or the reviewer’s--that is to blame. Well! I can play that kind of game, too! It's a dog-eat-dog world and I'm not going to be one of the eaten! Tempers rising? Heavens, the gentleman hasn't even lost his job yet and he's acting and feeling like it! What happened to his integrity? If you ask him, he'll probably tell you that he has it, but "they" don't.

Individually, we are so concerned about winning that we may have lost sight of the reason we chose to play the game in the first place. "What's the matter with the team?" The old high school response, "They're all right!" may not fit under the present circumstance. Is this kind of attitude and self-interest the guidepost we want to believe is typical and desirable for those of us who have chosen to pursue a career of national service? The thought that guardians of the national security have motivations such as this has odious implications. And the continuing fuss about the declared effects of the new OER system would seem to suggest that self-interest far outweighs and outnumbers the ideals of integrity, cooperation, dedication, and self-sacrifice.

Soldiers who have experienced the sacrifices required for our national security and for the fruits of liberty and freedom often observe that many Americans in the civilian sector do not recognize the linkage. Too many Americans assume security, they say. They declare that the fruits of a secure America were, are, and always will he won only through determination, dedication, self-sacrifice, and setting moral principles above personal gain. Our nation was born of such ideals and principles; we have fought and some have died for these ideals and principles. What would history have shown had all Americans placed themselves above the concerns and security of the nation? We may tolerate, but never fully accept, those among us who are the self-servers--the takers rather than the givers. It would seem that this parasitic element is ever present, in some numbers, in all societies. The impact of a majority of this kind of person on any society. group, or professional body has predictable consequences. But the relevant aspect here in regard to the opposition to the new OER also demonstrates the effect of assumed security some officers may believe exists with regard to their tenure. Just as we would like to awaken those civilians who assume national security, so too should we awaken those in our profession who would assume tenure.

Those among us who would assume such tenure may well have the perception that the oath of office they executed was nothing more than a symbolic "punching of the time card." To them, public service may be nothing more than "a day's work for a day's pay." This may be an acceptable frame of mind for members of some other profession--but not ours! The bearer of that kind of frame of mind would find self-sacrifice highly incompatible with his lifestyle. We are members of a profession that not only requires self-sacrifice but it also unequivocally demands it! The stakes in this game are too high. There is no place in today's Air Force for the summer soldier. The only assumption we must allow ourselves is that self-sacrifice is a prerequisite for continued membership. It is this basic assumption of attitude or why we wish--or even demand--to remain in service to our nation that is the dividing line between the givers and the takers. The privilege of tenure is earned. It is parceled out, admittedly, through an imperfect system of competition, but it is a system that provides no threat to those who focus their thoughts and actions on service rather than on the system. A giver or a taker, which are you? It is a rime for us all to reflect.

The magnitude of our success as part of the national defense team is far less significant than are the consequences of our failure. All the sacrifices we have made and will make to sustain freedom and liberty are mere part and parcel to the alternative. Military history emphatically illustrates that some have sacrificed more than others, but no one needs to keep score on an individual basis. In the broad scheme of events, it has been clearly evident that the totality of individual sacrifices has carried the day--won the battle--secured liberty and freedom for the whole.

In the history of the United States Air Force, personal ambition and teamwork have heretofore been compatible, compatible because personal ambition did not mean self-interest. But the outcry elicited by the new OER system, with its quotas, its atmosphere of sudden death, its personalized competition, seems to suggest that overnight personal ambition and teamwork have been rendered incompatible, The perception seems to be a collective feeling that no one can win in this new environment of sudden death. We need to take stock of the realities that are involved in ambition and teamwork. The Air Officer's Guide provides a clear assessment:

Ambition can he a driving force for self-improvement, and should he. Only one caution is relevant: Set the sights of your ambition no higher than the level of your willingness to work, for the two are linked as iron.... Cooperation is the first essential. The Air Force is a team organization, and teamwork is the oil of the machine.

Does the new OER system really cause all the bad things it is said to cause? Is it true that no one can win? As a matter of fact, just as many officers will be nonpromoted--just as many officers will be separated--under the new system as under the old. The system is not going to magically change that reality! If you perceived a threat to promotion and tenure under the old system, chances are you perceive the same threat under the new. If you did not perceive that threat under the old system but you do under the new, it is the extent to which it occupies your mind and influences your concept of collective integrity that should concern you. Will you continue to focus on the system, or will you get back to service? If you are worried about the integrity of others, recall what Lincoln said ": .... . you can ... fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." That thought should be reassuring if you are concerned that the wrong people will win the game.

The nature of our officer promotion system is unquestionably a competitive one. That is a fact. It should not, however, be the focal point for those who enter and wish to remain in the privileged capacity of public servant to the nation. We could debate the merits and demerits of the new DER system-or if there should even be an evaluation system. We must ask ourselves, however, how long we are going to let discussion of this new system and its perceived effect on our integrity and cooperativeness go on. Are we going to continue the dialogue until the atmosphere and working environment are really hazardous due to all the unsheathed knives for backstabbing and throat-cutting? Until we convince ourselves that we really are a despicable lot? Until we suspect that the ambitions of our contemporaries are directed against us? Until the noncommissioned officers and enlisted personnel around us are equally convinced that we are a rotten bunch of human beings: self-serving, lacking integrity in word and deed? How far and how much longer must we continue this self-destructive, team-destructive discussion?

All the fuss about the new OER system is indeed a crisis alert. The time to reflect is at hand. Unless we resolve this crisis, and resolve it swiftly, personally and collectively, we are heading for a disastrous chapter in the history of the Air Force and the nation. General David C. Jones, as Air Force Chief of Staff, spoke on many occasions of what he refers to as selflessness. His remarks seem to reveal a concern that there are some among us who would put self-serving ambition above personal dedication and service to the Air Force and nation. The late General Douglas MacArthur spoke convincingly on this subject, and his words eloquently capture what our concern should be:

…your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable--it is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purposes, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishment; but you are the ones trained to fight; yours is the profession of arms--the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed; that the very obsession of your public service must be--Duty--Honor--Country.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Let's get on with it!

Feed the body frugally, the mind abundantly--and mix in plenty of exercise and hard work.

Dr. Paul Dudley White
The Retired Officer, January 1978

Major Daniel R. Peterson (B.A., University of Minnesota) is an Operations Officer in the Joint Reconnaissance Center of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A senior navigator with over 5500 hours of flying, he has served overseas tours in Japan and Korea and flown various models of the RC-135 and F-4 aircraft. Major Peterson had an ASTRA tour with the Directorate of Personnel Programs, Hq USAF. He is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

 Disclaimer

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.

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