The Air Force Supervisor

If Fred Fiedler is correct and the key to being an effective leader is the ability to persuade, then how does a modern leader perform the task of persuading peers and subordinates?

To answer this question, the modern Air Force supervisor must understand what happens inside a person when he is being “persuaded” or “counseled.” Each of us, as human beings, has created an image of ourself that has been referred to by various behavioralists as the self-image, self-structure, or self-concept. Regardless of the label, it is a system of ideas and beliefs that one has about himself, which he has accumulated through his life experiences in numerous environments.

Technically, the self-concept is defined as “an integrated structure of assumptions (or beliefs) about self, perceptions of the self, feelings about the self, influenced by and influencing a less clearly integrated set of beliefs, views, and emotions toward the world outside the self.”² A supervisor should remember certain important dimensions of the subordinate’s self-concept: (1) it is a pattern of beliefs that has been developed over a prolonged period of time; (2) a person has a basic need to preserve this system of ideas about self; and (3) a normal person not only likes to maintain or preserve it but also likes to enhance or improve upon it.

Research findings³ indicate that a person copes with threat to his self-concept by exhibiting defensive behavior or by changing his self-concept. Normally, it is easier for a threatened subordinate to act defensively than to change the self-concept. Furthermore, the greater the threat, the more negative the subordinate becomes toward the supervisor’s comments. Given this description of a person’s self-concept, how does a supervisor persuade or counsel a subordinate?

Perhaps the most abused word in civilian society and the military community is counselor. Counselors run the gamut from the well-trained professional to rank amateurs who deal in many nonbehavioral-related areas, such as loan counseling or even funeral counseling. The real counselor who understands the application of behavioral concepts is a well-trained expert. The Air Force cannot expect its present-day leaders to be counselors in the professional sense of the word. However, it can expect today’s commanders and supervisors at least to be familiar with certain behavioral concepts and apply them in management of today’s personnel force.

Commanders are rightfully concerned about the direct conflict between their counseling role and responsibilities and their role of disciplinarian. This concern is understandable when one realizes that few of our present-day commanders have much management training to supplement the technical competence that earned them their promotions and positions of responsibility. Can the commander’s concern about conducting what are apparently conflicting roles be resolved? If so, how? The answer is much simpler than one would expect. It consists in understanding the two roles and their application in the force of the 1970s.

Let us consider the following example. How many roles does almost every officer fill on a daily basis? In addition to each man’s role as an officer, he is usually a husband, father, commander, disciplinarian, and lover. Each of these roles has its distinctive requirements, which are managed by most of us on a daily basis. We manage the role differences by “shifting gears” or “changing hats.” We recognize the requirements of each individual role and change our mental set to accommodate each role. Why, then, is the managing of the commander/counselor role so difficult? We submit it is in part because of a lack of complete understanding of the counselor role and misconceptions about role changing.

To simplify the problem, let us address the counseling role in terms of a helper/receiver relationship instead of a counselor/client atmosphere. The helper and receiver must both understand that the helper is trying to influence and change the behavior of the receiver in a direction that will be useful to the receiver (and at the same time could serve some useful purpose to the helper).

needs
values
feelings

}

helper

→

interaction

alternatives

←

receiver

{

needs
values
feelings

Note that both parties have their needs, values, and feelings that will influence their behavior in the relationship. In days of old, the commander often told the receiver what was best for him without any interaction or without considering the subordinate’s needs, values, and feelings. The receiver often carried out the commander’s prescription through either fear or respect. If the receiver carried out the commander’s recommendation and it proved to be an unsuccessful solution, the receiver could blame the helper for poor advice.

As mentioned earlier, today’s leadership must consider persuasion as a device for changing behavior. Today’s young airman may rebel at being arbitrarily told what he can or cannot do. The helper must understand this and be prepared for other approaches. One approach that is understood today is that of maximizing alternatives. If both parties in the helping relationship agree there is a problem or that the receiver’s demonstrated behavior is unacceptable, then the foundation exists for exploring alternate courses of behavior. If the helper can get the receiver to understand and explore the courses of action (alternatives) available to him, he has gone a long way toward solving the problem or modifying the behavior. Ideally, the receiver must be free to choose the course of action that he feels is best for him under the specific circumstances. Behaviorally, the receiver is more apt to carry out a course of action that he identifies as his because it is his decision and he is thus responsible for the outcome. A spin-off benefit of this type of help is that the receiver is primarily responsible for his own actions. The receiver is acting of his own free choice from alternatives that the helper can accept or approve of as the commander. Since the receiver has participated in the decision-making, he will probably be more firmly committed to carrying it to a successful conclusion.

As a commander or supervisor, the officer/helper can let the receiving party know what he expects, such as payment of debts, improved performance, better dormitory conduct, et cetera. However, if he has helped the receiver explore alternatives and arrive at a decision, he can be certain that his role as a helper stands a better chance of being successful than if he had directed the receiver to specific action.

A commander or supervisor gives feedback to individuals to help them develop and become more effective members of the Air Force team. Given the helper/receiver relationship, by following certain guidelines one can become a more effective counselor/commander. Some of those guidelines, stated directly, include the following:

(1) Don’t argue. The subordinate will attempt to preserve his self-concept by meeting your argument with resistance. If you increase your argument or position, he further increases his resistance, and the unproductive spiral continues.

(2) Be prepared to listen. You must understand the subordinate’s point of view before you can begin a joint exploration of the alternatives. However, understanding his viewpoint does not mean that you must agree with or support his position. There is a difference between empathy and sympathy! As a good listener, you should let the subordinate do over fifty percent of the talking. It is very easy, because of your extensive Air Force experience, to be caught in a telling or prescribing role. Again, when you play a telling role, the receiver may feel threatened and leave the scene (mentally) or act defensively.

(3) Direct your comments toward behavior which the subordinate can do something about. By giving people unfavorable feedback about behavior over which they have no control, we as supervisors only increase their defensiveness and sense of frustration.

(4) Keep your feedback timely. Generally, feedback is most helpful to the subordinate if it is given at the earliest opportunity after a given instance of behavior. Further, research indicates that individuals may have a certain tolerance level for accepting unfavorable feedback. When that level is approached or surpassed, no further learning takes place. Therefore, give feedback often and in small quantities. A comprehensive, once-a-year review of performance with a subordinate does not appear to be the correct way to develop subordinates as future Air Force leaders.

(5) Understand your subordinates as subjects, not as objects that are only a personnel resource. These people are human beings, with feelings, needs, and values. Try to see the world through their eyes and frame of reference.

(6) As you follow the above steps, be alert for signals from the subordinate that indicate his commitment and ownership in the outcome of the relationship. Once the subordinate assumes responsibility for overcoming his shortcomings, your task as a commander and helper is practically complete.

In conclusion, as times change, Air Force commanders and supervisors—as well as industrial leaders—can no longer stand on their authority and still be effective leaders. Leadership has become an art of persuading peers and subordinates toward an objective.

To persuade others, the modern supervisor must realize that every subordinate has a self-concept that has been developed through years of being conditioned in numerous environments and situations. Individuals are committed to preserving or improving their self-concept, and any threat to that image creates defensive reactions. Alvin Toffler, in his popular book Future Shock, discusses this theme when he states that “once we commit ourselves to a particular model, . . . we fight energetically to build it, and perhaps even more so to preserve it against challenge. For the style becomes extremely important to us. This is doubly true of the people of the future. . . .”⁵

Thus, the old directive days are gone, and the subordinate of the present and future will be deeply concerned with his self-concept. Today’s commander, as well as the commander of the future, can increase his effectiveness by understanding certain behavioral science concepts and by applying them in the helping relationship. The modern commander and supervisor will, through the guidelines elaborated here, help the subordinate maximize alternatives. Further, he will create the helper/receiver relationship whereby the receiver will have ownership in the alternative selected and be committed to that particular course of action.

Every man is a volume, if you know how to read him.
William E. Channing

United States Air Force Academy

1. Fred E. Fiedler, “The Trouble with Leadership Training Is That It Doesn’t Train Leaders,” Psychology Today, February 1973, pp. 23-24.

2. Arthur N. Turner and George F. Lombard, Interpersonal Behavior and Administration (New York: The Free Press, 1969), p. 159.

3. Emanuel Kay, Herbert H. Meyer, and John R. P. French, Jr., “Effects of Threat in a Performance Appraisal Interview,” Journal of Applied Psychology, October 1965, pp. 311-17.

4. The concept of the helper and receiver relationship is a modification from Carl Ransom Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951). Also, some of the ideas came from a handout by George F. J. Lehner, Professor of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles. See also Henry P. Knowles and Borje O. Saxberg, Personality and Leadership Behavior (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 71-101.

Captain Robert A. Zawacki (Ph.D., University of Washington) is Chief, Research Division, USAFA. As an enlisted man (1954) and since commissioning (1963), he has served in personnel management and organizational behavior in Labrador and elsewhere. He is a fully qualified senior parachutist and jumpmaster. Captain Zawacki is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, a member of the Academy of Management, and recently received his doctorate in organizational behavior.

Lieutenant Colonel Peter E. LaSota (M.Ed., University of Arizona) is Chief, Test Review Section, 3700^th Occupational Measurement Squadron, Lackland AFB, Texas. Commissioned and rated in 1954, he has served in 55^th Weather Recon Squadron, 3d Bomb Wing, and 11^th Tac Recon Squadron, and as Director, Cadet Counseling Center, USAFA. He flew 106 combat missions in SEA. He attended the Kepner-Tregoe workshop on systematic decision making and two National Training Laboratory workshops on organizational development.

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.

The Air Force Supervisor

Giving and Receiving Help