Pennington Partners & Co.’s Post

This post lacks context, but captures an essential truth. And it sits at the intersection of a bunch of recent discussions. ❓ Why do military #veterans struggle to implement their #leadership styles in civilian jobs? ❓Why is the United States Air Force struggling with recruitment, retention, and morale? ❓Why is it also struggling with readiness despite huge budgets for decades? The answers are complicated. But one commonality stands out: over-reliance on #authority to get things done. Authority in combat is necessary. Authority in training for combat is necessary, because we train like we fight. Or so we say. Authority is a core facet of military indoctrination and initial training. Authority beyond those contexts should almost never be a first move, and should be used sparingly overall. Authority is the least resonant, least inspiring, least useful of the tools in a leader's kit. People know when it's being used as a shortcut through actual leadership. And it pisses them off. Authority suppresses collaboration. It suppresses creativity. It relies on the fear of consequences for non-compliance, which stunts imagination. Because imagination cannot be afraid. Authority alienates, because the human spirit craves latitude and self-determination. And most of the time, this is all completely avoidable. There are 100 ways to get what you want out of your team. Authority is just 1. It is drastically overused by USAF leaders, for many reasons: ➡ Getting promoted by being great at tactical command, which is all about directing others. ➡ Making fast decisions at high speed, with no time for questions, and therefore becoming accustomed to the absence of challenge. ➡ Chronic resource shortages that foster constant task saturation, causing leaders to just shut people down rather than take time and listen. ➡ Centralized execution, drunk with the belief that technology can equip a general in a distant chateau for effective control of tactical engagement. ➡ The laziness of mediocre individuals only promoted because more worthy candidates left service. ➡ Misprioritization to attack easy issues at the expense of hard ones. The former respond to authority while the latter require material effort. And many other reasons. If an authority figure is telling me to solve a combat problem or is giving me direction in circumstances where questions are not appropriate, I salute and execute. At other times, especially when the directive is a bad idea, is unethical, is un-resourced, tramples on a principle, or violates a conviction, I challenge back. That is my own duty as a leader. It is the only hope of preventing stupidity taking over the whole circus. Leaders who got to where they are by not being stupid understand that. But the USAF has been stuck on stupid for a while. Many generals got promoted as approval for championing stupidity. ⚡ Using authority is sometimes necessary. ⚡ Using authority at any other time means you already lost.

This post lacks context, but captures an essential truth. And it sits at the intersection of a bunch of recent discussions. ❓ Why do military #veterans struggle to implement their #leadership styles in civilian jobs? ❓Why is the United States Air Force struggling with recruitment, retention, and morale? ❓Why is it also struggling with readiness despite huge budgets for decades? The answers are complicated. But one commonality stands out: over-reliance on #authority to get things done. Authority in combat is necessary. Authority in training for combat is necessary, because we train like we fight. Or so we say. Authority is a core facet of military indoctrination and initial training. Authority beyond those contexts should almost never be a first move, and should be used sparingly overall. Authority is the least resonant, least inspiring, least useful of the tools in a leader's kit. People know when it's being used as a shortcut through actual leadership. And it pisses them off. Authority suppresses collaboration. It suppresses creativity. It relies on the fear of consequences for non-compliance, which stunts imagination. Because imagination cannot be afraid. Authority alienates, because the human spirit craves latitude and self-determination. And most of the time, this is all completely avoidable. There are 100 ways to get what you want out of your team. Authority is just 1. It is drastically overused by USAF leaders, for many reasons: ➡ Getting promoted by being great at tactical command, which is all about directing others. ➡ Making fast decisions at high speed, with no time for questions, and therefore becoming accustomed to the absence of challenge. ➡ Chronic resource shortages that foster constant task saturation, causing leaders to just shut people down rather than take time and listen. ➡ Centralized execution, drunk with the belief that technology can equip a general in a distant chateau for effective control of tactical engagement. ➡ The laziness of mediocre individuals only promoted because more worthy candidates left service. ➡ Misprioritization to attack easy issues at the expense of hard ones. The former respond to authority while the latter require material effort. And many other reasons. If an authority figure is telling me to solve a combat problem or is giving me direction in circumstances where questions are not appropriate, I salute and execute. At other times, especially when the directive is a bad idea, is unethical, is un-resourced, tramples on a principle, or violates a conviction, I challenge back. That is my own duty as a leader. It is the only hope of preventing stupidity taking over the whole circus. Leaders who got to where they are by not being stupid understand that. But the USAF has been stuck on stupid for a while. Many generals got promoted as approval for championing stupidity. ⚡ Using authority is sometimes necessary. ⚡ Using authority at any other time means you already lost.

This post lacks context, but captures an essential truth. And it sits at the intersection of a bunch of recent discussions. ❓ Why do military #veterans struggle to implement their #leadership styles in civilian jobs? ❓Why is the United States Air Force struggling with recruitment, retention, and morale? ❓Why is it also struggling with readiness despite huge budgets for decades? The answers are complicated. But one commonality stands out: over-reliance on #authority to get things done. Authority in combat is necessary. Authority in training for combat is necessary, because we train like we fight. Or so we say. Authority is a core facet of military indoctrination and initial training. Authority beyond those contexts should almost never be a first move, and should be used sparingly overall. Authority is the least resonant, least inspiring, least useful of the tools in a leader's kit. People know when it's being used as a shortcut through actual leadership. And it pisses them off. Authority suppresses collaboration. It suppresses creativity. It relies on the fear of consequences for non-compliance, which stunts imagination. Because imagination cannot be afraid. Authority alienates, because the human spirit craves latitude and self-determination. And most of the time, this is all completely avoidable. There are 100 ways to get what you want out of your team. Authority is just 1. It is drastically overused by USAF leaders, for many reasons: ➡ Getting promoted by being great at tactical command, which is all about directing others. ➡ Making fast decisions at high speed, with no time for questions, and therefore becoming accustomed to the absence of challenge. ➡ Chronic resource shortages that foster constant task saturation, causing leaders to just shut people down rather than take time and listen. ➡ Centralized execution, drunk with the belief that technology can equip a general in a distant chateau for effective control of tactical engagement. ➡ The laziness of mediocre individuals only promoted because more worthy candidates left service. ➡ Misprioritization to attack easy issues at the expense of hard ones. The former respond to authority while the latter require material effort. And many other reasons. If an authority figure is telling me to solve a combat problem or is giving me direction in circumstances where questions are not appropriate, I salute and execute. At other times, especially when the directive is a bad idea, is unethical, is un-resourced, tramples on a principle, or violates a conviction, I challenge back. That is my own duty as a leader. It is the only hope of preventing stupidity taking over the whole circus. Leaders who got to where they are by not being stupid understand that. But the USAF has been stuck on stupid for a while. Many generals got promoted as approval for championing stupidity. ⚡ Using authority is sometimes necessary. ⚡ Using authority at any other time means you already lost.

This post lacks context, but captures an essential truth. And it sits at the intersection of a bunch of recent discussions. ❓ Why do military #veterans struggle to implement their #leadership styles in civilian jobs? ❓Why is the United States Air Force struggling with recruitment, retention, and morale? ❓Why is it also struggling with readiness despite huge budgets for decades? The answers are complicated. But one commonality stands out: over-reliance on #authority to get things done. Authority in combat is necessary. Authority in training for combat is necessary, because we train like we fight. Or so we say. Authority is a core facet of military indoctrination and initial training. Authority beyond those contexts should almost never be a first move, and should be used sparingly overall. Authority is the least resonant, least inspiring, least useful of the tools in a leader's kit. People know when it's being used as a shortcut through actual leadership. And it pisses them off. Authority suppresses collaboration. It suppresses creativity. It relies on the fear of consequences for non-compliance, which stunts imagination. Because imagination cannot be afraid. Authority alienates, because the human spirit craves latitude and self-determination. And most of the time, this is all completely avoidable. There are 100 ways to get what you want out of your team. Authority is just 1. It is drastically overused by USAF leaders, for many reasons: ➡ Getting promoted by being great at tactical command, which is all about directing others. ➡ Making fast decisions at high speed, with no time for questions, and therefore becoming accustomed to the absence of challenge. ➡ Chronic resource shortages that foster constant task saturation, causing leaders to just shut people down rather than take time and listen. ➡ Centralized execution, drunk with the belief that technology can equip a general in a distant chateau for effective control of tactical engagement. ➡ The laziness of mediocre individuals only promoted because more worthy candidates left service. ➡ Misprioritization to attack easy issues at the expense of hard ones. The former respond to authority while the latter require material effort. And many other reasons. If an authority figure is telling me to solve a combat problem or is giving me direction in circumstances where questions are not appropriate, I salute and execute. At other times, especially when the directive is a bad idea, is unethical, is un-resourced, tramples on a principle, or violates a conviction, I challenge back. That is my own duty as a leader. It is the only hope of preventing stupidity taking over the whole circus. Leaders who got to where they are by not being stupid understand that. But the USAF has been stuck on stupid for a while. Many generals got promoted as approval for championing stupidity. ⚡ Using authority is sometimes necessary. ⚡ Using authority at any other time means you already lost.