Air University Review, September-October 1985
The Honorable Verne Orr
Secretary of the Air Force
IS a leader born, or is he made? Over 200 years ago Voltaire said:
The right of commandship is no longer an advantage transmitted by nature. Like an inheritance, it is the fruit of labors, the price of courage.
Some people are fortunate enough to be born with traits that encourage other people to follow them, and many people will call them leaders. But these types of people are few. The rest of us can, nonetheless, become great leaders by studying the actions of successful leaders and, as Voltaire stated, by working to develop leadership capacity by "fruit of labors."
Are there particular personality traits or qualities leaders have in common? This question reminds me of the alumnus who visited his alma mater and was surprised to see that the questions on the exams were the same he had answered years before. When he asked his old professor about it, the professor replied: "Of course they are. The questions never change; only the answers."
So it is with personality traits and qualities. The question is always the same: What makes a great leader? But the answers change. Indeed, generations of research have failed to isolate one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate between leaders and nonreaders. No matter how hard we try to isolate these traits, there will always be successful leaders who don't possess them.
I don't mean to say, however, that leaders have no characteristics in common. They do. A few are worth reviewing because they can be cultivated.
Show me the leader and I will know his men. Show me the men and I will know their leader. Therefore, to have loyal, efficient employees, be a loyal, efficient employer.
During the years that I have worked for Ronald Reagan, I discovered that one of his outstanding characteristics is his loyalty. In California, I worked for him as director of finance and made mistakes, as we all do. I have seen him appear before a press conference where a reporter would say, "Verne Orr made a mistake." Now Ronald Reagan would never agree that Verne Orr made a mistake. What he said was, "If I had the facts Mr. Orr had when he made that decision, I would have made the same decision." That's why President Reagan commands such tremendous loyalty. He earned it. He gave it first.
I've observed two basic styles of leadership in the armed forces. One is the leadership of fear; the other is the leadershipof encouragement. Both styles can be effective. I've seen four-star generals land at the end of the ramp and cause everyone's heart to triple-beat because they knew they were going to be chewed out for something. I know many in the Air Force have served under this style of leadership. It works. It certainly keeps an organization on its toes. My preference is the other style––the more laid-back style in which everyone works together in the confidence of camaraderie to solve problems and get things done. I think that it can be more effective.
While both styles work, let me caution you not to mix them. If a leader commands through fear and wants people to tremble and be on their toes, then he shouldn't think that he can approach someone, put his hand on the person's shoulder, and ask about the spouse and children. The employee will be suspicious and mistrustful. Likewise, the leader who leads through camaraderie and encouragement can't count on responses if he suddenly turns bitter and begins dressing people down. His loyalty to his subordinates will be at risk. A leader should be consistent in his approach.
A good leader can lead regardless of the structure of his organization. There is a current proposal circulating that says that if we will only give more power to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), we can end inter-service rivalry and become more effective in our military planning and programming. Faults, if any, lie less in the organization than with the individuals; we can't blame the organization for an individual's faults. Good leaders can make any organization work; by the same token, poor leaders will be inept and unsuccessful regardless of the organization's structure. This JCS is working well and is effective. Far-reaching inter-service Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) have been signed between the Air Force and the Army and between the Air Force and the Navy, which streamline our inter-service cooperation and reduce overlap and duplication. The CINCs are being included early in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) development process to ensure that the resulting product considers their high-priority needs. The JCS organization is developing the ability to provide joint analysis and recommendations for service POM development. These improvements are occurring in the present JCS structure, without reorganization. Their success is a function of leadership.
So we don't need reorganization; we need leaders committed to inter-service cooperation, which we have. I recently read a report on JCS reorganization by Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the JCS, and agree with his assessment: More power a good chairman doesn't need and a poor chairman shouldn't have.
What are some of the challenges that leaders will face as commanders?
First, our people and their quality of life will be the most persistent challenge. We are faced with a declining number of military-age people, yet our systems remain manpower-intensive. How shall we make up the deficit? Are we overspecializing our support troops, making them more and more qualified to do fewer and fewer tasks? The Egyptians tell me that when one of their French-manufactured Mirages has a serious malfunction, the French send out two or three technicians to fix it. When one of our aircraft breaks down, we send out a team of twelve to fifteen specialists to fix it. Can we train more "generalist" support troops? If we train them, can we keep them in the service? We face tough competition now from private industry, and the perception is growing that many of the benefits of military service are eroding––retirement and pay comparability, in particular.
The second challenge will be to train combat leaders. The nature of warfare is changing as technology becomes more advanced; if we must fight a war, it is not likely to be like those we have already fought. Moreover, our combat experienced leaders are beginning to retire; if we go to war, it may be with leaders having little or no combat experience. Will a master's degree in business administration, management, or even engineering guarantee a good combat leader?
A third challenge to leadership will be to make sure that our military doctrine keeps pace with the evolving threat. We need only to go back in history to illustrate that we must never again prepare to fight "the last war." Future warfare may not even exist in the traditional sense. It may be nothing more than well-organized and coordinated terrorism, perpetrated by highly dedicated and heavily armed terrorists on a mass scale. Does our current military doctrine accommodate this new threat? I think not.
Finally, leaders will be challenged to institutionalize innovation. Our greatest strength now is the quality of our people. They always have good ideas. We do better than anyone in educating them but may not do well afterward in encouraging them to be innovative. Henry Kissinger may have had this problem in mind when he wrote: "One of the paradoxes of an increasingly specialized bureaucratized society is that the qualities rewarded in the rise to eminence are less and less the qualities required once eminence is reached."
Perhaps our military organization has moved too far toward conformity. Some of our best ideas come from the first level of supervision, but many of them die there, no doubt because they threaten the stability and security of established supervisors. While change for change's sake may be dangerous, the greater danger is in refusal to accept change.
An early edition of The Officer's Guide states:
Inferior numbers and inferior material, coupled with superior leadership, may always be counted upon to win against superior numbers, superior material, and inferior leadership.
This truism has been proved over and over throughout history and reinforces our commitment today to strong leadership qualities. We can improve leadership by studying other successful leaders and by practicing, and we must do that to guarantee our children that the world's best leaders will safeguard their national security.
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Verne Orr (B.A., Pomona College; M.B.A., Stanford University; LL.D., Pomona College) has been Secretary of the Air Force since February 1981. While on active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserve, he served in both the American and Pacific theaters of operations. He entered the business community in California after his release from active duty and stayed until 1966. Secretary Orr then began service in California state offices, including director of motor vehicles, director of general services, and director of finance. From 1975 to 1980, he taught government finance courses at the University of Southern California Graduate School of Public Administration. Secretary Orr has served as president in numerous organizations and has been honored by many groups.
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.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor