Air University Review, July-August 1969
A Familiar saying, “Do as I say, not as I do,” calls attention to our not infrequent human failing to make our actions coincide with our description of the way people should behave. The results of polls and surveys tend to be quite unreliable because of this failing. When people give misleading, erroneous answers to questions about how they behave, it may be for many reasons. They may not understand themselves very well, they may not explain their behavior very well, or they may have private reasons for intentionally giving wrong answers. In view of this problem, researchers try to develop means for supplementing or bypassing polls and surveys: means which will permit direct study of how people behave—what they actually do, not what they say they do.1
Opportunity to study what people actually do in planning their military careers occurs each year in Air Force ROTC. Shortly before the date on which commissions are awarded, AFROTC cadets select the three Air Force specialties they most want for their initial duty assignment. A complication is that the specialties must be in three unrelated career areas. Thus a man whose prime interest is flying may list “Pilot” as his first choice, but for his second and third he must choose two distinctly different specialties, for example “Intelligence” and “Personnel.”2
These cadets stand in a unique, flexible position vis-á-vis the Air Force. They have no Air Force work experience to shape their thinking, no previously assigned specialty to channel them toward specific jobs; yet they have opportunity to request assignment to the jobs that hold most appeal for them. They are asked to make crucial decisions about their future lives and careers. They are not asked to consider a hypothetical situation and explain what they would do if . . . ; what they are asked to do will actually shape their futures.
This procedure permits study of the considerations they actually use, the factors they consider most important in career planning at this point in their lives.
Late in 1968, 24 AFROTC cadets at Stanford University, California, undertook this task. Each was told to prepare a report identifying the three specialties, in different fields, which he considered most appropriate for him. He was to study the requirements of the specialty, as listed in Air Force Manual 36-1, and show how his academic experience, work experience, or other qualifications met the requirements. In addition, he was to discuss his personal interest in being assigned to the specialty. The cadets were told that these choices would be part of the information considered by the Air Force in designating their initial active duty assignments and that they probably would be very influential.
The cadets prepared their papers very carefully. Without exception, they spent considerable time studying AFM 36-1, and they appeared to make their choices only after a great deal of thought.
The specialties the cadets selected are not the focus of this analysis. Instead, attention is given to the statements they made in discussing their interest in the specialties they selected. Here they showed at least some of the factors they considered important in planning their Air Force careers. Presumably, the factors they mentioned were those that loomed largest in their thoughts, the most important of the considerations they actually used.
Sixty-nine pertinent remarks were counted in the cadets’ papers. Two of the remarks concerned the importance of fringe benefits such as flight pay; two indicated interest in an active role in operational units of the Air Force; the rest fell into two major groups focused on training, education, and experience: the majority of the remarks centered on desire to apply already-acquired education and experience to real-life tasks; the remainder centered on desire to receive additional education, training, and experience that would be of value at some more or less distant point in the man’s lifetime.
Some illustrative comments are quoted verbatim from the cadets’ explanations of their interest in Air Force specialties:
To apply acquired knowledge
“I would like to make as much use as possible of the specialized knowledge gained in my research . . . .”
“My working in the area of human vision would probably be of value to the Air Force, where vision is so important in flying, and at the same time would allow me to make optimum use of my specialized knowledge.”
“I have a . . . degree . . . which will qualify me for management development work . . . plus I have 18 months of industrial experience that would qualify me for dealing with civilian contractors.”
“I do not want to be like the man in the biblical parable, who, when given a talent by his master, buried it and never made use of it. I have worked hard to learn the basics of the . . . trade; I thought carefully before deciding that it was in this field that I could best contribute to my world; therefore I feel that it is in this area that both the Air Force and I can benefit.”
“I will be very disappointed if I cannot get a job in or related to geology because this is where I feel I could make a real contribution to the Air Force.”
“. . . have done much practical computer troubleshooting and repair. As a result, I have a feel for the problems associated with maintaining a computer system, and planning for the installation of equipment.”
To acquire new knowledge
“An. . . assignment requiring research in and/or practical use of knowledge in these fields would both sustain my interest and motivation and playa constructive role in my long-term educational development.”
“I have an interest in learning to manage and administrate as well as a general interest in the personnel field . . . .”
“The broad area of public media seems challenging, the chances for reporting, writing and editing appear abundant, the familiarization with radio-television would be beneficial.”
“I think this would prove to be an interesting job and one that could provide valuable experience.”
“It would provide much managerial experience which would be invaluable in any career in or out of the Air Force.”
“This field has interested me for some time because it promises to be a new learning experience, a challenge . . . .”
The 24 cadets at Stanford are a minute percentage of the roughly 4500 men that AFROTC commissions each year. Their attitudes may not be typical of the majority. But the indication that these cadets placed most emphasis on using education or gaining education in their jobs may be of benefit to supervisors or other Air Force personnel charged with helping junior officers develop Air Force careers. In particular, it sounds a note of caution with respect to one career-planning philosophy that has recently been observed: the focus on promotion.
The Stanford study indicates that officers, at least at the very beginning of their careers, put more emphasis on the use of knowledge or on the acquisition of knowledge than they do on “advancement opportunities.” Opportunity for promotion in “rank” or in “responsibility” is rated fairly important by people in some civilian jobs,3 but it was mentioned only once in the Stanford cadets’ papers. The reason may be that the military promotion system is more clearly visible and understandable than civilian promotion systems. Air Force promotions in rank are clearly linked very closely to seniority, and promotions in job responsibility are closely linked to promotions in rank. The Air Force has formal programs for developing executive abilities in junior officers, with delineated patterns that officer assignments are to follow, including phase points for education, training, and types of duty.4 Therefore, junior officers are “assured” of promotion in both rank and responsibility if they prove competent on the job. This frees them to “ignore” promotion concerns and to shape their careers around other considerations—for example, use or acquisition of knowledge.
Nevertheless, some effort to get junior officers to plan their careers around considerations of promotion is evident. During the summer of 1968, about 300 lieutenants and captains received these instructions:
Write . . . at least 500 words describing your limited career goal and what two assignments you want after you complete your present assignment. These two assignments should logically lead to a third assignment which is your limited career goal. State your goal as a duty title and AFSC [Air Force Specialty Code] that you can logically achieve. Do not consider further schooling as assignments but as steps to qualify you for your two assignments and your goal . . . . Your letter will aid in monitoring your career under “Project Air Force Career.”
Project Air Force Career is broader than this question of promotion goals versus experience goals. But the direction it takes on this question may have significant impact on Air Force retention of junior officers. While there appears to be no harm in allowing junior officers the option of planning the job promotion pattern they would like to follow, perhaps more emphasis should be placed on opportunities for selecting a variety of specialties.
It would appear appropriate to extend the assignment selection procedures now used for AFROTC cadets to officers on active duty. For example, every five years an officer could be required to reassess his role in the Air Force and to identify three specialties in different career areas for which he is qualified to some degree. He would be asked to state precisely his qualifications and to rank the specialties in the order he prefers them, best liked to least liked. This information, then, would be the focus of the individual officer’s planning of his Air Force career.
Both the Air Force and the man would benefit from this emphasis in several ways. First, it is not always desirable for an officer to “specialize” in one field for too long a time. This can lead to stagnation. Most officers, of course, have opportunity to volunteer out of their current field and enter another. But inertia tends to work against this. There is a natural tendency for men to remain in the field they have grown accustomed to. The requirement to consider, list, and justify three specialties at intervals would work to break this inertia and, presumably, lead to a broadening of many officers’ careers.
Second, the Air Force sometimes cannot afford to allow men to remain in a certain career field. Pressing Air Force requirements can force the assignment of men to new fields. Sometimes such assignments appear to be made on a “buckshot” basis-assignment with little regard for a man’s experience, interests, or preferences. Then the men who feel mal-assigned have grounds for rationalizing their poor work performance. Given every officer’s preferences as to the three specialties he most desires, the Air Force probably would have a better chance of making the “buckshot” assignments coincide with the right men who have the right interests.
From the Stanford study, it appears that considerations of the use or acquisition of education and experience are of highest importance to the man involved. Therefore, career planning based on these considerations, as expressed through the three-specialties program when expanded Air Force-wide, should tend to increase officers’ satisfaction with their assignments and with the Air Force. Altogether, the ultimate result should be to enhance retention of career officers.
Stanford University
Notes
1. Eugene J. Webb, Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, Lee Sechrest, Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966).
2. AFROTCM 45-1, Chapter 8.
3. Career Satisfactions of Professional Engineers in Industry (Washington, D.C.: Professional Engineers Conference Board for Industry, Inc., n.d.), pp. 10, 39.
4. “Focus [Formal Officer Career Utilization Structure]—On Officer Career Planning,” Air Force and Space Digest, June 1968, p. 133.
Captain Carl R. Oliver (B.A., Stanford University) is Assistant Professor of Aerospace Studies, Air Force ROTC Detachment 50, Stanford University, California. Commissioned through AFROTC in 1962, he then completed the USAF Special Investigations School, Washington, D.C., and was a special investigations officer at Vandenberg AFB, California, until 1964. During the next year he worked in a similar assignment in South Vietnam, then was reassigned to Hq Pacific Air Forces as counterintelligence analyst. He assumed his present assignment in 1968. Captain Oliver is a graduate of the Academic Instructor School and Squadron Officer School.
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.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor