By chance last year I got introduced and connected Karrie Sullivan into my LinkedIn network. She also studies leadership, particularly those leadership qualities demanded in transformation. Results driven, empathic and systemic thinkers. I draw comparisons to these qualities with what you describe: the results driven piece is clear. The "game changer" is the bridge building you describe which I compare with the necessary qualities of empathy and systemic thinking. Systemic because these types of people understand the holistic nature of organisations and see beyond their own empires, and how the systems of organisations work and can be improved through more connections.
I do observe that there is a lot of overlap between the population of leaders I would characterize as "connectors" and those who inspect system/structure when analyzing performance rather than double-click on "execution" or human performance. It's an interesting overlap that I suppose makes sense given these people are tuned into an organizational wavelength.
There is also a humility that we find in this kind of leader which is consistent with such high empathy levels. The guy I discuss in this piece was quick to tell me he didn't deserve the analogy ... which only further proves he does deserve it.
This one hits home for our company directly. We have been pushing for years to be the digital backbone for AF training. Our software MOTAR is device and software agnostic…meaning we work with anything the AF wants. Our enterprise features are designed to present information from various training nodes to whomever needs it in a user friendly fashion. The objective…get all the content creators out in the cyberspace to do what they do best…create content for the warfighter. Get all the siloed training sites integrated with us…we do the rest. We even put up 90% of the security needs for authority to operate and provide the template for the last 10%….normally takes years to get through ATO. This speeds up access to leading edge technologies.
We don’t know how these different capabilities will build bridges across the force, especially in sharing best practice training capabilities, but housing them all in one area makes it easy, searchable and will allow cross command synergies in training development that does not exist today. It breaks down the stovepipe structure the AF uses in all of its digital capabilities and investments. This structure is infuriating for warfighters and leaders….we burn so much time and effort just accomplishing lame CBTs and tracking them. We can’t get what we want easily. We don’t know what’s out there already. And we don’t share what we have…not even among similar MWS squadrons. Nothing is easy and so we lose out on numerous potential synergies. So we built MOTAR to be the bridge.
One day Tony…we will break completely through the AF’s antiquated training systems and be the bridge and superhighway for training.
It will be rare you'll have a more receptive senior leadership team atop the USAF than you do now. It is populated with intelligent and open-minded leaders who want what is best for airmen. But the bureaucracy is still there, and its antibodies will attack anything that looks like it makes too much sense or cuts through too much red tape. Good luck to you though ... I will follow along.
Funny…that’s exactly what happened at AETC. Kind of embarrassing when they threw all their balls into the MyLearning basket when it is not a platform capable of housing everything. The civilian structure was very much anti MOTAR because it invaded their perceived territory.
Eventually it will make it across the right desk of decision makers. We already have huge support from folks with money…but that is not the objective. We don’t want to benefit only one MAJCOM…that is how we lose the synergies. But…one step at a time.
The interesting dilemma is that the key to the USAF staying agile is to stop demanding universal solutions across a 1.2M person enterprise ... yet sometimes a common framework is more effective and cheaper. Getting a hidebound bureaucracy to have a nuanced discussion about this at a useful pace is very tough, as you obviously know first-hand.
Exactly. Because the AF is so broken down into MAJCOMS and separated, no one knows what the other MAJCOMS are doing, no one is sharing innovation at a macro level. This is why we are floundering about with no unity of effort or direction. Perfect example is multi capable airmen. Everyone has been doing their own thing…no best practices are being shared that I know of or my buddies still in.
Having just a common framework so that everything else can be added as desired, while being visible to anyone who has the access, bam! Unity of effort. Unity of direction. It’s training…not rocket surgery.
My goal is to be your #1 commenter. This is brilliant. It's also easier to see in the breach than to spot successes. What you're describing as a leadership capability has been sorely missing among strategic leaders for whom I've worked, in the Marine Corps, but particularly in NATO. Rather, the seniors used their authority and power to create divisions and manufacture rivalries, rather than to create synergies. The resulting dysfunction can be crippling. I loooooooove to hear stories like this about leaders you can believe in. I've found myself becoming jaded about that over time, and clinging to memories of effective leaders whose legacies sometimes drown in the marsh of their ineffective peers. I had a guy in the Marines who was like this officer you described -- I believed in him, I wanted to be him when I grew up, I modeled my career (less successfully) after his. I found out last week he had been fired as an agency head after a public DODIG investigation skewered him for sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. It can just be so disheartening. And also, so when I find guys like Tony Carr, Rich Bew, Brian Palmer, Rusty Blackman and a few other leaders I've had over my career who never ever disappoint me, I cling to them like a needy girlfriend.
It's hard to get the right balance in a leader. And even when we find a leader who really inspires us, we sometimes learn later they were a mere mortal or maybe even hid serious character flaws. This tempts a digression into how our promotion systems ignore character for the most part, favoring operational results and political influence ... assuming these things are the result of high character when it's perfectly possible to achieve them with low character.
The balance being so hard to find, it drives me insane when organizations let these kinds of leaders slip away or fall behind, usually as a result of skewed incentives or other pathologies. Many times in Amazon I saw the best leaders stuck in "pace car" role while others of lesser capability were allowed to speed away. The compound problem is that when everyone knows the wrong people are getting promoted at the expense of an obvious strategic leader, it undercuts overall confidence in the system, engendering apathy and cynicism that act as brakes on inspiration.
Thank you for reading and engaging as always Butch. We see this the same way, which is why when I see guys like Corey Simmons ascending, I want everyone to notice and celebrate.
By chance last year I got introduced and connected Karrie Sullivan into my LinkedIn network. She also studies leadership, particularly those leadership qualities demanded in transformation. Results driven, empathic and systemic thinkers. I draw comparisons to these qualities with what you describe: the results driven piece is clear. The "game changer" is the bridge building you describe which I compare with the necessary qualities of empathy and systemic thinking. Systemic because these types of people understand the holistic nature of organisations and see beyond their own empires, and how the systems of organisations work and can be improved through more connections.
I do observe that there is a lot of overlap between the population of leaders I would characterize as "connectors" and those who inspect system/structure when analyzing performance rather than double-click on "execution" or human performance. It's an interesting overlap that I suppose makes sense given these people are tuned into an organizational wavelength.
There is also a humility that we find in this kind of leader which is consistent with such high empathy levels. The guy I discuss in this piece was quick to tell me he didn't deserve the analogy ... which only further proves he does deserve it.
This one hits home for our company directly. We have been pushing for years to be the digital backbone for AF training. Our software MOTAR is device and software agnostic…meaning we work with anything the AF wants. Our enterprise features are designed to present information from various training nodes to whomever needs it in a user friendly fashion. The objective…get all the content creators out in the cyberspace to do what they do best…create content for the warfighter. Get all the siloed training sites integrated with us…we do the rest. We even put up 90% of the security needs for authority to operate and provide the template for the last 10%….normally takes years to get through ATO. This speeds up access to leading edge technologies.
We don’t know how these different capabilities will build bridges across the force, especially in sharing best practice training capabilities, but housing them all in one area makes it easy, searchable and will allow cross command synergies in training development that does not exist today. It breaks down the stovepipe structure the AF uses in all of its digital capabilities and investments. This structure is infuriating for warfighters and leaders….we burn so much time and effort just accomplishing lame CBTs and tracking them. We can’t get what we want easily. We don’t know what’s out there already. And we don’t share what we have…not even among similar MWS squadrons. Nothing is easy and so we lose out on numerous potential synergies. So we built MOTAR to be the bridge.
One day Tony…we will break completely through the AF’s antiquated training systems and be the bridge and superhighway for training.
It will be rare you'll have a more receptive senior leadership team atop the USAF than you do now. It is populated with intelligent and open-minded leaders who want what is best for airmen. But the bureaucracy is still there, and its antibodies will attack anything that looks like it makes too much sense or cuts through too much red tape. Good luck to you though ... I will follow along.
Funny…that’s exactly what happened at AETC. Kind of embarrassing when they threw all their balls into the MyLearning basket when it is not a platform capable of housing everything. The civilian structure was very much anti MOTAR because it invaded their perceived territory.
Eventually it will make it across the right desk of decision makers. We already have huge support from folks with money…but that is not the objective. We don’t want to benefit only one MAJCOM…that is how we lose the synergies. But…one step at a time.
The interesting dilemma is that the key to the USAF staying agile is to stop demanding universal solutions across a 1.2M person enterprise ... yet sometimes a common framework is more effective and cheaper. Getting a hidebound bureaucracy to have a nuanced discussion about this at a useful pace is very tough, as you obviously know first-hand.
Exactly. Because the AF is so broken down into MAJCOMS and separated, no one knows what the other MAJCOMS are doing, no one is sharing innovation at a macro level. This is why we are floundering about with no unity of effort or direction. Perfect example is multi capable airmen. Everyone has been doing their own thing…no best practices are being shared that I know of or my buddies still in.
Having just a common framework so that everything else can be added as desired, while being visible to anyone who has the access, bam! Unity of effort. Unity of direction. It’s training…not rocket surgery.
My goal is to be your #1 commenter. This is brilliant. It's also easier to see in the breach than to spot successes. What you're describing as a leadership capability has been sorely missing among strategic leaders for whom I've worked, in the Marine Corps, but particularly in NATO. Rather, the seniors used their authority and power to create divisions and manufacture rivalries, rather than to create synergies. The resulting dysfunction can be crippling. I loooooooove to hear stories like this about leaders you can believe in. I've found myself becoming jaded about that over time, and clinging to memories of effective leaders whose legacies sometimes drown in the marsh of their ineffective peers. I had a guy in the Marines who was like this officer you described -- I believed in him, I wanted to be him when I grew up, I modeled my career (less successfully) after his. I found out last week he had been fired as an agency head after a public DODIG investigation skewered him for sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. It can just be so disheartening. And also, so when I find guys like Tony Carr, Rich Bew, Brian Palmer, Rusty Blackman and a few other leaders I've had over my career who never ever disappoint me, I cling to them like a needy girlfriend.
It's hard to get the right balance in a leader. And even when we find a leader who really inspires us, we sometimes learn later they were a mere mortal or maybe even hid serious character flaws. This tempts a digression into how our promotion systems ignore character for the most part, favoring operational results and political influence ... assuming these things are the result of high character when it's perfectly possible to achieve them with low character.
The balance being so hard to find, it drives me insane when organizations let these kinds of leaders slip away or fall behind, usually as a result of skewed incentives or other pathologies. Many times in Amazon I saw the best leaders stuck in "pace car" role while others of lesser capability were allowed to speed away. The compound problem is that when everyone knows the wrong people are getting promoted at the expense of an obvious strategic leader, it undercuts overall confidence in the system, engendering apathy and cynicism that act as brakes on inspiration.
Thank you for reading and engaging as always Butch. We see this the same way, which is why when I see guys like Corey Simmons ascending, I want everyone to notice and celebrate.