retrospective. It’s used primarily for pro- motion and assignment selections. I had an Air Force wing commander tell me that after attending a class, he went back to his wing and set a one-hour appoint- ment with each of his officers, senior civilians, and NCOs to talk about their development, not their performance. Very illuminating. He said that none of them had ever had their boss even ask this ques- tion. If you are supervising somebody and you don’t know what’s important to them—where they see themselves in 5, 10, 15 years—then something is drasti- cally missing.
Tose of us who have the privilege to be in this business—and it
is a privi-
lege—know there’s plenty of good work going on. I include in this work what happens in the pre-commissioning envi- ronment for officers and NCOs. Getting leadership development for the civilian workforce that’s properly sequenced may not have had this same sense of urgency. I think that the behavioral science and leadership departments at the service academies do wonderful work—Leav- enworth [the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College] and Carlisle [U.S. Army War College] as well.
I had the distinct honor of spending 19 years at the Center for Creative Lead- ership, arguably the most world-class organization in the domain of leader- ship research and training. I think we all pretty much agree that leaders need better and more frequent feedback that is not tied to an evaluation. 360 [degree feedback] surveys are commonly used just about everywhere as a development tool—and we use them in every Level II program, by the way. My colleague David Campbell—author of the Camp- bell Leadership Index, the tool we use for this purpose—wrote a book some years ago entitled “If You Don’t Know Where
You Are Going, You Will Probably End Up Somewhere Else.” Tat pretty much sums it up.
Q. What can a supervisor draw from his/her subordinates to improve leader- ship style?
A. Te first thing is pretty obvious: Just listen. Fact is, we don’t get anywhere close to tapping into the human capital that’s available to us. It may be “policy” or
“procedure” or “regulations,” or you name it. Most people will resonate with a leader who pays attention to communicating with them, and that implies two-way communication, by the way. If all you are doing is talking to your folks, then you may not be listening. I remember one corporate CEO who told me that his favorite time of the week was Tursday lunch. Tat was the day he had a “diago- nal slice” lunch with his crew. He never knew who’d be invited, but it was four folks who represented management, staff, all the way down to the loading dock.
I also believe that most people funda- mentally want
to do well if they are
treated with fairness and respect. If times are tough, trust me, they know it. And if you’re committed to improving your leadership style, there’s nothing like ask- ing your folks what they’d like you to do more of, less of, or what you should con- tinue. But don’t ask if you’re not willing to do something. Your leadership style will be unique to you, and the best lead- ers I’ve ever known are never satisfied that they have the “magic bullet.”
Q. What trends have you seen in your acquisition workforce students?
A. Behavioral science is not an oxymoron; there is a science to it. I’m finding that acquisition folks are most like scientists and engineers. Tey are more introverted,
and they tend to be more data-oriented. In many cases, they were not aware of this, and there is certainly nothing wrong with it. I would also say they are intellectually curious, very comfortable challenging dogma, unafraid to challenge the sta- tus quo, and a lot of fun to work with. My data set across the Air Force and the Army Acquisition world now exceeds 3,500 folks from GS-12 to GS-15, and since the Air Force has a substantial commissioned population, that number includes lieutenants up through colonels.
Q. Are there other key principles of lead- ership that you believe go hand in hand with being agile?
A. Before anything else, I think the key principle is character. I worked with Whirlpool some years ago, and Dave Whitwam, who was then CEO, used to say regularly, “Tere is no right way to do a wrong thing.”
Tere isn’t much agility tied to character or values, but if something is wrong in the foundation, you’ll eventually have trouble in the upper stories of your build- ing. LTG Ted Bowlds (USAF, Ret.), former Commander, Electronic Systems Center, helps out with our Air Force acquisition programs. Ted says—and I think he’s right—“Tere will never be a parade honoring
acquisition profes-
sionals.” After five years working with their acquisition folks, and more than a year with the Army, there is little doubt that this enterprise faces massive chal- lenges related to funding, regulatory, and oversight requirements. But it does an amazing job taking care of our Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen. If tenacity counts for agility in the whipsaw world of budget challenges, then I think the acquisition world is pretty amazing right now.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
147
CRITICAL THINKING
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212
