DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Document created: 30 May 03
Air & Space Power Journal - Chronicles Online Journal

Leading = Influencing: A Simple Equation

Influence as the Essence and Foundation of Leadership

by

Russell C. Barnes, Lt Col, USAF

Introduction

There are numerous books and courses on leadership that discuss who should lead, how to lead, when to lead, and where to lead; yet they all seem to struggle when it comes to describing "what" is leadership. Some authors resort to describing what leadership is not, and others attempt to compare and contrast leadership with management and command. A few develop complex formulas and equations designed to capture the components of leadership. In the end, the sheer volume of theories and perspectives does little more than generate confusion.¹ My goal is to energize the concept by suggesting that the simple equation "Leading = Influence" is the essence and foundation of leadership.

Leadership can be viewed simply or in all its complexity. As an example, Thomas Sergiovanni’s equation represents complexity at the extreme end of the spectrum.² He describes quality leadership (QL) as the relationship between the compounding of leadership effects and leadership skill (LS). Leadership skill interacts with leadership antecedents (LA), which consists of perspectives, principles, platform, and politics; leadership meanings (LM) composed of proposing, planning, persisting, and peopling; and leadership as a cultural expression (LCE) which speaks to patriotism. His equation QL = LS (LA+ LM = LCE) lacks practical utility. It is difficult to imagine how this equation would be useful for identifying or evaluating leaders. Joseph C. Latona offers a simpler perspective. He indicates that Performance (P) as a function of Individual (I) and Group Behavior (GB) is represented by the equation (P = f(I and GB)) and that Individual and Group Behavior as a function of Leadership Style is characterized by the equation (I and GB = f(LS)).³ Therefore, by association, performance is a function of leadership style. Between these two equations, Sergiovanni’s complex example seems to leave out more than it includes--despite the number of variables. Latona’s simpler form is the more easily understood and applicable. If it holds true that the simpler equation is the more useful in application, then an even simpler equation, such as Leading=Influencing, should prove extraordinarily useful.

This paper will present the applicable definition of the term influence and then establish the context within which it is used in this proposition. It will explain why influencing is equivalent to leading and conclude by showing how this simple equation can be used to identify, train, and evaluate Air Force officers for future leadership responsibilities. Although this paper places emphasis at the officer level for the purpose of discussing specific reports and training issues, the conclusions may be applied universally across the remainder of the Air Force.

Influence, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is the power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or status.⁴ Coercing, compelling, cajoling, and persuading are all tools used to influence. Synonyms of influence include command, excite, impel, incite, induce, instigate, lead, mold, move, prompt, stir, sway, and urge. To urge and impel signify to produce strong excitation toward some act, while drive and compel imply irresistible influence accomplishing its object. One may be driven either by his/her own passions or by the external force of urgency. One is compelled only by some external power. In the context of this paper, the term influence is presented as a results-oriented, action verb. A word of caution--one must understand there is no inherent "goodness" in the use of influence. Influence techniques include manipulation, harassment, and even tricking people to get them to perform.⁵ Obviously, there are drawbacks to using these forms of influence, but we cannot simply ignore the fact that there is a dark side to leading and influencing.

The linkage between leading and influencing is not new. According to Air Force Pamphlet (AFP) 35-49, Air Force Leadership, "Leadership is the art of influencing and directing people (followers) to accomplish the mission."⁶ The introduction to AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership says "The fourth edition is founded on the principle that leadership is the art of influencing and directing people to successfully accomplish the mission."⁷ In "The Leadership-Integrity Link," Gen Fogleman quotes Bill Cohen, "Leadership is the art of influencing others to their maximum performance to accomplish any task, objective, or project."⁸ Lt Gen Walter F. Ulmer defines leadership as "essentially an influence process whereby one gains the trust and respect of subordinates and moves them toward goals…"⁹

In the process of educating leaders to understand that leading=influencing, leadership theories and tools, such as motivation and management, can be placed in the proper perspective. According to John Kotter, "[T]he better performers tend to mobilize more people to get more things done, and do so using a wider range of influence tactics."¹⁰ Sticking with the example, influence is not comprised of motivating and managing, yet motivation and management are integral to the ability to influence. Motivation is important, but people will not necessarily get a job done because they are motivated. Managing includes building organizational structures, but people do not necessarily get a job done because they are organized. A leader will use motivation and organization to get the job done. Steven Covey states in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, "I have personally identified over 30 separate methods of human influence…[m]ost people have only three or four of these methods in their repertoire, starting with reasoning, and if that doesn’t work moving to fight or flight."¹¹ Once leaders understand the leading=influencing relationship, they can learn to use models, styles, and techniques creatively within the situations and circumstances they may encounter.

Understanding the relationship between leading and influencing can do a number of other things, as well. First, it can focus the leader on the essence of their responsibility. There is a direct line between the leader and mission accomplishment--that line is influence. Once a leader realizes that a job is not getting done, the first place he/she should look is at who is influencing that organization and to what end. Second, it can force the leader to get out and look about. It is difficult to wield influence from afar and without an adequate understanding of what is actually happening in the field. If the leader is reluctant to leave the sanctum of the inner office, someone in the field will take charge and fill the vacuum. Last, it can help superiors select and evaluate subordinate leaders. Gen William Creech told Gen John Piotrowski, "Spend at least 90 percent of your time picking your subordinate commanders; the 8 or 9 percent you have left will be sufficient to handle all the rest of your job, because you won’t have many problems."¹² Gen Creech did not offer an opinion on how to pick subordinate commanders, but high on the list of useful criteria should be the "ability to influence" as a measure of leadership effectiveness.

Influence as a Measure of Leadership Effectiveness

There are at least two reasons for using influence as part of the measurement standard for leadership effectiveness. First, a criterion for identifying future leaders does not exist. Leadership positions are filled based on word of mouth recommendations, on who needs the job because he/she is next in line for promotion, and on performance reports that are not designed to convey an officer’s ability to influence.¹³ This haphazard method leaves everyone wondering about the logic of the selection process. Second, the Air Force standard for evaluation is not a true measure of leadership potential. Since August 1988, officer performance reports (OPR) have required documentation of "accomplishments" and "impact", which do not necessarily communicate an officer’s ability to influence.¹⁴ This emphasis makes it difficult to accurately assess leadership attributes. The problem with documenting impact on mission accomplishment is that an officer may have had a significant impact on mission accomplishment without leading a single individual. Furthermore, the leadership skills section of the OPR requires an evaluation of whether an officer can set and enforce standards, work with others, foster teamwork, display initiative, and exhibit self-confidence. Oddly enough, this important assessment is pass/fail and is routinely checked off as "meets standards"; yet, even if verbiage were required in this block, these categories hardly inspire the glowing testimony of a dynamic ability to influence.

Improving this process by using influence as a measure of leadership effectiveness involves observing how a leader achieves results. The effective leader accurately identifies the objective, grasps the situation in context, and takes action. At this point, the leader has a number of options. If the leader performs the task, but does not influence anyone to act --that is not leading--by example or otherwise. If the leader assembles people assigned to his/her unit and provides direction, he/she is using influence based on rank or position. If the leader inspires his/her boss to take action based on the magnitude of the situation--that is influencing through persuasion. If the leader exercises initiative by issuing orders, demanding action, and threatening negative consequences, that is influencing through fear and terror.¹⁵ Of course, that sort of leader behavior is not the choice most followers would prefer, but it is a method that has been used effectively by successful leaders for ages. Alternatively, the leader might gather that same group of people and promise great rewards when the task is accomplished, in which case the influence mechanism is bribery or coercion. Another option for the leader is to build a team and influence the group to collaborate. The many leadership approaches listed here ultimately come down to influencing someone to do something, which is why our measurement model should focus on results.

Effective leaders understand there is no single leadership behavior, tool, or technique that works in all circumstances.¹⁶ Some people are effective at leading people in combat and others are effective in peacetime. Other leaders are good at the mid-level of command and fail miserably when given a large organization. Some officers do well operationally, but crash and burn on the staff. Why? Possibly because so many think that duplicating exactly what worked in their last command will work again, regardless of the size or scope of the new organization. If, however, the leader understands the connection between leading and influencing, then the size and scope of the organization is irrelevant because the leader will strive to establish a vision appropriate to the unit and influence people to realize that vision.¹⁷

Another word of caution--effective leadership is not determined by the virtue or morality of goals. People will try to classify leaders as "good leaders" or "bad leaders" based on whether they pursued righteous or unrighteous goals.¹⁸ There is no basis for this assessment. Leaders are leaders; yet, some leaders use their influence to move people to do evil things. That raises an important discussion on morality but does not minimize the essence of leadership. Whether that leader is well-liked or hated, despised or beloved, is of no consequence if he/she gets the job done. The fact that oppressive influence techniques may not be effective for long is irrelevant. In combat, for example, harsh leadership may be necessary because national security, not to mention life and limb, is on the line.¹⁹ An effective leader does not shy away from the need to be directive when the situation calls for that type of leader behavior, but a leader with high moral values will avoid the use of destructive forms of influence.

It is a uniquely military challenge to retain individuals who have led admirably in combat. Successful combat leaders will fail in peacetime by attempting to apply combat leadership techniques to non-combat situations. If leaders are trained to use a variety of leadership styles, they can apply situationally appropriate influence and perhaps perform just as well in peacetime as in war. 4

Accepting the premise that leading=influencing means taking the responsibility to train, identify, and evaluate leaders based on their ability to influence. To increase potential for success, a training program that nurtures ability to influence should be implemented before attempting to identify and evaluate leaders based on that criteria.

Training

Any training program designed to teach influence will be limited to academic instruction. Developing a practical exercise that consistently measures the ability to influence would be next to impossible since the ability to influence rests on variables as nebulous as how one feels on a particular day. An individual may successfully lead a group one day and fail dismally on a different day under what are perceived to be identical circumstances.²⁰ In reality, circumstances are never identical which is why leadership as a concept is so difficult to understand and teach.

What is possible, is teaching the concept that leading=influencing at all levels of professional military education from commissioning source through senior service school. Academic instruction should emphasize influence as the essence of leadership and then introduce leadership theory and models as tools to be used in the process of influencing. Academic instruction might include seminar discussions, role-playing, and case studies. Available literature contains myriad influence techniques that can be used to shape leadership style. These techniques include autocratic, bureaucratic, diplomatic, participative, consultative, and free rein styles (Appendix A); strategies, forms, and methods of influence (Appendices B-D); and leadership theories (Appendix E); all of which may be useful in helping individuals develop their leadership "personality." As leaders grow, they will continue to add to their leadership skill and eventually have at their disposal a number of tools they can call upon to exercise the appropriate influence over people in their organization.

Training should be "age-appropriate" such that cadets in a commissioning program will study tools that will be useful to them as lieutenants and junior captains. Squadron Officer School should provide the knowledge necessary to lead effectively at the senior captain/major level. Education at Air Command and Staff College should focus on theories that will serve the Lieutenant Colonel/squadron commander level and the Air War College should prepare one to assume large organization leadership above wing level.

The training program should provide leaders with self-assessments early in their careers to give them maximum time to develop, practice, and refine their leadership "personality." Currently, most of this work is left up to the individual. Those that perform these self-evaluations and develop a versatile leadership style succeed, those that do not, fail. Some of our greatest leaders took the initiative to develop their leadership skills, but how many leaders went unrecognized because "they didn’t know what they didn’t know?" Perhaps there is merit to this system, but the Air Force may be losing a large amount of leadership capital by not emphasizing the leading=influencing connection as part of a formal program to nurture potential leaders.

Finally, training should include a detailed study of leaders who have shaped the Air Force. Studying the careers of "Great Captains" is an excellent way to gain insight and perspective on the "ability to influence."²¹ As part of this detailed study program, active Air Force leaders should also be called upon to provide a modern perspective on developing an ability to influence. Some may not have given "influence" a moment’s thought, while others may have worked hard to improve their ability to influence people. All perspectives are valid and useful to the training process.

Identifying

Senior leaders have the responsibility of identifying future leaders early enough in their careers to facilitate the grooming process. This is difficult when new leaders are typically "leading by example." Commanders must project whether the selected officers will learn, over a period of twenty years or so, to influence people in large organizations. Leading by example may not be a viable option at the upper echelons of command, particularly if the leader does not possess the technical expertise to be credible. Therefore, to give supervisors and commanders a chance to observe their ability to influence, individuals must volunteer for opportunities to lead early in their careers.

Educating future leaders to understand that leading=influencing and counseling them to prepare, by volunteering for leadership opportunities that span a variety of conditions and situations, will guide them in developing the skills necessary to influence people and will help them excel when placed in positions of formal leadership. Alternatively, they might recognize personal preferences that indicate a lack of leadership ambition and elect to pursue a less people oriented occupation.

Evaluating

Evaluating ability to influence is not a radical new idea. The Army evaluates their officers, in part, on their ability to influence--and has done so since 1997.²² Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, describes the rationale and criteria for evaluating the ability to influence. The regulation lists subcategories of communicating, decision-making, and motivating as basic to the ability to influence effectively.²³ The Army also holds supervisors and commanders responsible for mentoring junior officers in the art of influence. DA Forms 67-9, "Officer Evaluation Report" and 67-9-1A, "Junior Officer Developmental Support Form" are used to document evaluation and training. These forms describe influence as "the method of reaching goals while operating/improving" (Appendix F).

Conclusion

Leadership is still an art, despite the efforts of researchers to make it a science. There is no single way to lead people. There is no best way to lead people. Potential leaders must develop skill and gain useful experience with various methods of influence by actively pursuing opportunities to practice what they have learned in the classroom.

This paper set out to show that if an officer subscribes to the idea of leading=influencing, then that leader will learn, practice, and ultimately select, from a robust assortment, appropriate "influence" tools as the means to an end. The leader will realize that an emphasis suitably placed on influencing can result in the ability to better evaluate the criticality of a task, the urgency of that task, and the significance of the task in relation to the overall mission objective. With that information, a leader can choose an appropriate leadership style or influence tool; yet, retain the flexibility to adjust if the original choice was made in error.

If you are not influencing, you are not leading.²⁴ Influence is an active verb that entails moving one person or a group of people to accomplish a goal. It is the essence of leadership. Theorists have proposed cosmic theories and complex formulas, but if we just keep it simple we can grow a larger crop of leaders who are widely capable of adapting influence techniques to assigned tasks and getting the job done.

Notes

1. Robert L. Taylor and William E. Rosenbach, Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence.  (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1996), 5

2. Gordon L. Lippitt, “Leadership: A Performing Art in a Complex Society,” in Air University (AU)-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Dr Richard Lester, et al. (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, September 2001), 178.  Selected from an article by T.J. Sergiovanni, “Ten Principles of Quality Leadership” Educational Leadership, February 1982.

3. Joseph C. Latona, “Leadership Style and Managerial Effectiveness: An Exercise in Self-Analysis,” in AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Dr Richard Lester et al. (Maxwell AFB, Ala.:Air University Press, September 2001), 271

4. Webster’s II, New Riverside University Dictionary, 1994 ed., The Riverside Publishing Company, 627

5. Ibid, 116

6. Air Force Pamphlet (AFP) 35-49, Air Force Leadership, 1985, 2.

7. AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, “Introduction to the Fourth Edition”, xv

8. Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, “The Leadership-Integrity Link,” in AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Dr Richard Lester et al. (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, September 2001), 39

9. Taylor and Rosenbach, Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence, 199

10. John  P. Kotter, What Leaders Really Do, (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999), 160

11. Stephen R. Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, (New York: Fireside, 1990), 86

12. Gen John L.Piotrowski, “A Perspective on Effective Leadership”, in AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, ed. Dr Richard Lester et al. (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, September 2001), 521

13. Informal survey, AWC, Seminar 13.

14. AF Form 707A and B

15. Noel M. Tichy, The Leadership Engine, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1997), 36

16. Taylor and Rosenbach, Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence, 207

17. John C. Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Press, 1998), 36

18. Taylor and Rosenbach, Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence, 5

19. Ibid., 207

20. Ibid., 45

21. Perry M. Smith, Rules and Tools For Leaders, (New York: Avery, 1998), 91

22. DA Form 67-9, Oct 97, replaced DA Form 67-8, 1 Sep 79, which is obsolete, 1 Oct 97

23. Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do, August 1999, 6-12

24. Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, 20

Appendix A 

The autocratic leader has authority, from some source such as position, knowledge, strength, or power to reward or punish and uses this authority as the principle, or only, method of getting things done. The autocrat "tells" people what their work assignments are and demands unquestioning obedience. The autocrat permits people little or no freedom.

The bureaucratic leader also "tells" people what to do, but draws influence from the organizations policies, procedures, and rules. For the bureaucrat, these rules are absolute and no exceptions are permitted. The bureaucrat permits people little or no freedom.

The diplomatic leader lives by the art of personal persuasion. The diplomat relates organizational goals to the personal individual needs and aspirations of people and retains authority by knowing and insisting on a particular course of action. The diplomat allows limited freedom by allowing people to react, question, raise objections, discuss, and even argue their side of the issue.

The participative leader openly invites people to participate and share in decisions, policymaking, and operation methods. The participative leader is either democratic or consultative. The democratic leader joins the group and abides by the group’s decision. The consultative leader invites frank discussion and involvement, pro and con argument, and recommendations, but makes it clear that he alone is accountable and responsible for the final decision.

The free-rein leader sets a goal, establishes clear parameters such as policies, deadlines, and budgets, and leaves the subordinates free to operate without further direction or control, unless requested.

Source: AU-24, pg 266-267, James Owens, Michigan Business Review, January 1973.

Source: David A. Whetten and Kim S. Cameron, Developing Managerial Skills (Glenview, Ill. Scott Foresman, 1984), 267

Source: David Kipnis, et a.., "Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders,"
Organizational Dynamics 12, no.3 (New York: American Management Association, 1984), 62.

achievement-oriented leadership (path-goal theory). Encouraging employees to perform at their highest level by setting challenging goals, emphasizing excellence, and demonstrating confidence in employee abilities.

behavioral styles theory. Focuses on leader behavior. Leader behavior directly affects work group effectiveness. Researchers identified patterns of behavior (called leadership styles) that enabled leaders to effectively influence others. Emphasis on leader behavior challenges theory that leaders are born, not made. Ohio State Studies, Michigan State Studies, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial/Leadership Grid.

charismatic leadership. Emphasizes symbolic leader behavior, visionary and inspirational messages, nonverbal communication, appeal to ideological values, intellectual stimulation of followers by the leader, display of confidence in self and followers, and leader expectations for follower self-sacrifice and for performance beyond the call the duty.

directive leadership (path-goal theory). Providing guidance to employees about what should be done and how to do it, scheduling work, and maintaining standards of performance.

Fiedlers Contingency Model (situational theory). - The performance of a leader depends on two interrelated factors: the degree to which the situation gives the leader control and influence and the leader’s basic motivation (i.e. task-motivated or relationship motivated).

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory. Effective leader behavior depends on the readiness level of a leader’s followers. Readiness is defined as the extent to which a follower possesses the ability and willingness to complete a task. There are four categories: able/willing, able/unwilling, unable/willing, unable/unwilling. Leadership style should be selected based on the readiness. The four styles are delegating, participating/supporting, persuading/coaching, and telling or directing.

Kerr and Jernier’s Substitute for Leadership Model. The key to improving leadership effectiveness is to identify the situational characteristics that can either substitute for, neutralize, or improve the impact of a leader’s’ behavior.

leader-member exchange model. Based on the assumption that leaders develop unique one-to-one relationships with each of the people reporting to them. There are two distinct types of leader-member exchange relationships. One is the in-group exchange where leaders and followers develop a partnership characterized by reciprocal influence, mutual trust, respect and liking, and a sense of common fates. The other is the out-group exchange where leaders are characterized as overseers who fail to create a sense of mutual trust, respect, or common fate.

participative leadership (path-goal theory). Consulting with employees and seriously considering their ideas when making decisions.

path-goal theory (situational theory). Focuses on how leaders influence followers’ expectations. Leader behavior is acceptable when employees view it as a source of satisfaction paving the way to future satisfaction. This theory includes four leadership styles: directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership.

servant-leadership. Focuses on increased service to others rather than to oneself. Great leaders act as servants, putting the needs of others as their first priority.

situational theory. The effectiveness of a particular style of leader behavior depends on the situation. As situations change, different styles become appropriate. This directly challenges the idea of one best style of leadership.

substitutes for leadership. Employees are guided more by their own initiative than by managerial directives.

superleadership. Empower followers by acting as a teacher and coach rather than as a dictator and autocrat. Followers are encouraged to engage in productive thinking.

supportive leadership (path-goal theory). Showing concern for the well-being and needs of employees, being friendly and approachable, and treating workers as equals.

trait theory. Leaders are born, not made. A leader trait is a physical or personality characteristic that can be used to differentiate leaders from followers. Five traits differentiate leaders from followers: intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, level of energy and activity, and task-relevant knowledge (Stogdill’s and Mann’s Findings).

Transactional. Leadership that helps organizations achieve their current objectives more efficiently by linking job performance to valued rewards and ensuring that employees have the resources needed to get the job done.

Transformational. Leadership perspective that explains how leaders change teams or organizations by creating, communicating, and modeling a vision for the organization or work unit, and inspiring employees to strive for that vision.

Source: University of Phoenix Online (Ed).(1984) Organizational Leadership and Change Management. Phoenix

Air Force Pamphlet (AFP) 35-49, Air Force Leadership, 1985.

Covey, Stephen R. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, New York: Fireside, 1990

Field Manual (FM) 22-100. Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do, August 1999

Fogleman, Gen Ronald R. "The Leadership-Integrity Link," in AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, Edited by Dr Richard Lester et al. Maxwell AFB, Ala.:University Press, September 2001

Kotter, John P. What Leaders Really Do, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999

Latona, Joseph C. "Leadership Style and Managerial Effectiveness: An Exercise in Self-Analysis," in AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, Edited by Dr Richard Lester et al. Maxwell AFB, Ala.:University Press, September 2001

Lippitt, Gordon L. "Leadership: A Performing Art in a Complex Society," in Air University (AU)-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, Edited by Dr Richard Lester et al. Maxwell AFB, Ala.:University Press, September 2001

Maxwell, John C. The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Press, 1998

Organizational Leadership and Change Management. Phoenix, AZ: University of Phoenix Online (Ed). 2002

Phillips, Donald T. Lincoln on Leadership, New York: Warner Business Books, 1992

Piotrowski, Gen John L. "A Perspective on Effective Leadership", in AU-24, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, Edited by Dr Richard Lester et al. Maxwell AFB, Ala.:University Press, September 2001

Puryear, Edgar F. Jr. 19 Stars: A Study in Military Character and Leadership, Novato, CA.: Presidio Press, 1994

Sergiovanni, T.J. "Ten Principles of Quality Leadership" Educational Leadership, February 1982.

Smith, Perry M. Rules and Tools For Leaders, New York: Avery, 1998

Taylor, Robert L. and Rosenbach, William E. Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1996

Tichy, Noel M. The Leadership Engine, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1997

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.

This article has undergone security and policy content review and has been approved for public release IAW AFI 35-101.