Air University Review, March-April 1982

On Military Professionals
Versus Civilian Careerists

I enjoyed reading "Military Professionals and Civilian Careerists in the Department of

Defense" by Dr. Ronald J. Stupak in the July- August 1981 issue of the Review.

However, I object to his implications that civilian executives in the Department of Defense are not on a par with military executives and that the latter adjust better to their executive roles and hold more sophisticated world views. Thus, I believe his thesis to be wrong.

In my experience, many high-ranking military officers who hold executive positions in DOD are no better qualified as executives than their civilian counterparts. Often, I think they are less qualified, either as executives or as managers. Many of those military people earned their stars in troop command positions either in combat, combat support, or combat service support units. They won the approval of their superiors by their leadership abilities, not because they were outstanding managers or executives. In fact, many of them made their marks because their civilian assistants carried the ball in all the daily mundane matters that had to be taken care of.

How many times in recent history, for instance, has the Army Comptroller’s position been filled by an individual who had absolutely no background for the job but who had been a good division or post commander and needed a third star before he retired? Many other military executive slots have been similarly filled.

Perhaps civilian executives in the Department of Defense do need additional training. But I am convinced that most civilian executives are as capable in their jobs as their military counterparts despite the latter’s years of supposed high-level schooling.

Colonel Garland is Deputy Editor of Infantry Magazine, Fort Benning, Georgia.

A Response

I am pleased that Lieutenant Colonel Albert Garland read and commented on my article. I still believe, though, that military executives are more systematically prepared than their civilian counterparts to become high-level executives in the Department of Defense. In fact, Garland supports that contention in his final paragraph: his use of perhaps suggests that he is not totally aware of the great disparity between military and civilian preparation; nor does he appear to be sensitive to the anger or frustration this engenders from civilian executives, who see themselves treated as second-class citizens in this developmental arena.

Garland’s comments on my article can be dealt with on three fundamental levels.

• He does not seem to understand that there are major role differences and role expectations between a manager and an executive. My analysis states it is the executive role that creates major problems for civilians, not the middle managerial role or the project manager role.

• Executive positions require leadership abilities much more than nitty-gritty managerial techniques. Hence, Garland’s agreeing that many military executives ". . . made their marks because their civilian assistants carried the ball in all the daily mundane matters that had to be taken care of" is exactly the point of my analysis. Executives must delegate, lead, coach, counsel, negotiate, and teach; they must not allow

themselves to work at levels below the requirements and demands of executive positions.

• Technical expertise is only one dimension of executive competence. In fact, many studies show that too much concern with technical expertise can cause an executive to want to work too much "at the bench level," ignoring development in other critical process areas such as rearranging priorities, changing sequences, and responding to the political ebb and flow of events. In essence, executive leadership is letting people do what they are good at while influencing and channeling them through the pace, timing, and ordering or problem-solving sequences; an effective leader gives subordinates little nudges in the right directions. Hence, one can lead without having brilliant technical skills.

Finally, there are effective and ineffective career executives in both the civilian and military services. But I still believe that civilians are short-changed in their developmental opportunities as they move toward the executive levels in DOD.

Dr. Stupak is Professor of Political Science and Contemporary Affairs and Senior Faculty Member at the Federal Executive Institute, Charlottesville, Virginia.

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