On 23 Feb 2004 15:10:55 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we didn't
do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right. Show
me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp.

There is a difference between "griping"/complaining and whining.
Flying units are inherently comprised of officers, some in leadership
roles and some in subordinate positions. I'll bet there was a lot of
griping in your unit, regarding the weather, the chow, the mail, the
headshed decisions, etc. That generally isn't whining, it's healthy.

How an officer
behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an officer's
decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of weakness
and make for poor leadership.

We've got a disconnect there. Strength and confidence don't equate
with arbitrariness and dictatorship. Leadership isn't simply giving
orders, it's establishing the rapport with those being led that you
know what is required. You won't get them killed and you will do the
job. You'll lead from the front and share the risk, but you won't
waste your men.

Talking with Robin Olds last spring in Las Vegas, someone mentioned a
legend about a propaganda drop of leaflets over N. Vietnam airfields
in which Robin challenged the infamous Col. Tomb to an air duel. Robin
responded quite clearly that it never happened. He then went on to
explain that his job as commander of the 8th TFW was to bring his guys
home. His task was not to gain personal glory killing MiGs in general
or Col. Tomb in particular. It was to hit the assigned targets as
efficiently as possible and take care of his men. That's leadership
and it isn't done without explaining to your men what is going on and
why.

Hard to characterize Robin Olds as "weak" in any terms.

And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I was
trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
difference. No offense of course.

I'm not suggesting toleration of insubordination. That's a whole
different ball game. I learned that the value of a subordinate comes
from being willing to question the leader. Debate, discuss, argue if
you will in the staff meeting, then when the decision is made and the
door opens come out with a solid team in support of the agreed upon
policy.

If you see significant errors in the decision, you must raise the
questions. You don't do it to demean the leader and you do it in the
appropriate venue, but you must do it. A leader who refuses to be
questioned is going to sacrifice his men and will most assuredly lose
their confidence.

Simply gaining an "A" prefix (commander) does not suddenly imbue the
holder with papal infallibility.






Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8