Over the course of the last month I have had two distinct conversations with two very different people about the same topic: AOCs.
For those not well-versed in United States Air Force Academy lingo, an AOC (Air Officer Commanding) is usually a major in charge of a squadron of about 100 cadets. The role is designed to help guide and mentor officer candidates during their four years at school as well as prepare them to become leaders in the "real Air Force".
Now I think the primary reason that I had these two discussions is that a lot of grads either had great AOCs or terrible AOCs. I personally had a terrible experience since my particular AOC saw the position as a stepping stone toward bigger and better management positions. He also seemed to take his responsibilities lightly and operate within a weird set of double standards.
Sadly, when I queried "AOC USAFA" on Google the following video appeared:
You don't have to watch the whole thing, but there is a telling segment right around the two-minute mark where the interviewee explains that he saw the AOC position as a means to get a master's degree. I mean never mind the cadets or anything.
Looking back, this would be a trend that I would encounter with most mid-level managers during my active duty career. Not all, but most majors and captains seem to forget the importance of their current job because they have their eye on the prize (i.e. school slots, commander jobs, etc.).
I was reminded of these conversations yesterday when I saw an article re-posted by my sister that discussed force shaping in the Army. The piece obviously wanted to bring to light the fact that folks are being kicked out of the military while deployed, but I think the bigger issue is the focus on quantity over quality.
The United States and DOD have experienced countless personnel surges and drawdowns since WWII. Each time we get too big we cut our most precious resource (human capital) to the bone. The decisions seem to hinge almost entirely on sheer numbers and dollar figures rather than the type of leader in question as well as the investment made in that individual to date. My overarching fear, however, is that we have gone a little too far during this particular set of cuts due to an amplified focus on the economy.
For those not well-versed in United States Air Force Academy lingo, an AOC (Air Officer Commanding) is usually a major in charge of a squadron of about 100 cadets. The role is designed to help guide and mentor officer candidates during their four years at school as well as prepare them to become leaders in the "real Air Force".
Now I think the primary reason that I had these two discussions is that a lot of grads either had great AOCs or terrible AOCs. I personally had a terrible experience since my particular AOC saw the position as a stepping stone toward bigger and better management positions. He also seemed to take his responsibilities lightly and operate within a weird set of double standards.
Sadly, when I queried "AOC USAFA" on Google the following video appeared:
Video clip: Seriously?!
You don't have to watch the whole thing, but there is a telling segment right around the two-minute mark where the interviewee explains that he saw the AOC position as a means to get a master's degree. I mean never mind the cadets or anything.
Looking back, this would be a trend that I would encounter with most mid-level managers during my active duty career. Not all, but most majors and captains seem to forget the importance of their current job because they have their eye on the prize (i.e. school slots, commander jobs, etc.).
I was reminded of these conversations yesterday when I saw an article re-posted by my sister that discussed force shaping in the Army. The piece obviously wanted to bring to light the fact that folks are being kicked out of the military while deployed, but I think the bigger issue is the focus on quantity over quality.
The United States and DOD have experienced countless personnel surges and drawdowns since WWII. Each time we get too big we cut our most precious resource (human capital) to the bone. The decisions seem to hinge almost entirely on sheer numbers and dollar figures rather than the type of leader in question as well as the investment made in that individual to date. My overarching fear, however, is that we have gone a little too far during this particular set of cuts due to an amplified focus on the economy.
DOD: Between a rock and a hard place?
Most services offered a severance package or payout to junior military officers with, what I believe to be, the unintended consequence of forcing out the best and brightest leaders. I truly think that those who no longer felt appreciated by their bosses and needed more intrinsic incentives to stick around made the easy choice and left. Thus, the hollowing of the force is taking place in preciously the area that needs leadership the most: the middle.
While HBR frequently vacillates on whether middle management is obsolete or crucial, I found their latest research rather compelling. Specifically, the writers argue that those caught between higher-ups and employees are forced to find a creative way to solve problems, which makes them critical to both the top and bottom line. This squeeze produces an experienced manager that is often taken for granted or not allowed to continue in this same line of work.
Hmmm, sounds familiar.
I wish I could end this post on a more positive note, but I think that the DOD is on the cusp of a very long and sustained middle management drought that will require years to reverse.
But hopefully I am wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment