Air Force Commander Relieved - Favoritism or Engaged Leadership?

CSM Mike Maynard — Sat, 31 May 2014 18:05:11 -0400

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140531/NEWS/305310038/Relieved-command

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made May 31 at 2014 6:21 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Sat, 31 May 2014 18:21:04 -0400

It is hard to tell from the article. Most of the statements are from the wife and others that supported him and said was just good leadership. We don't hear from the others that actually said favortism was ahppening. Unforunately even doing the right thing can get you in trouble if it portrays in a negative way within the unit.

Response by CMC Robert Young made May 31 at 2014 6:32 PM

CMC Robert Young — Sat, 31 May 2014 18:32:05 -0400

Good case study in leadership and it's possible pitfalls.

From reading the article, I'm inclined to believe that LTC Perry is the victim here. My observation is based on the statements made by other senior commanders that endorse his actions as appropriate in the Air Force's culture. It seems that if other commanders had practiced similar engaged leadership and it is recognized as the cultural norm, then the catalyst for this investigation lies somewhere else...perhaps there is more to the disagreement between him and his direct supervisor??

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 6:42 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 18:42:22 -0400

I am just reading between the lines here, but I am guessing that another commander realized that they were being put to shame by what Lt Col Perry was accomplishing, looking out for his troops and taking care of his own. As a result, they did not want to be outdone and decided to report it as favoritism, instead of heeding the example for other leaders to follow. No good deed goes unpunished. Very sad!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 7:18 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 19:18:11 -0400

This guy sounds like an AMAZING CO. There is no better feeling then when your CO actually knows your name and gives a damn about you and what you have to say. This guy made it a point to visit every single shop once a week. I've had department heads who weren't even able to say they did that. I can understand where favoritism can be alleged here, all it takes is one individual with the right amount of butthurt to feel slighted.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 31 at 2014 7:18 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sat, 31 May 2014 19:18:24 -0400

CSM, it's hard to know what may have actually happened here -- in truth, probably only a few people know. I read the article a few times, and many of the descriptions were vague enough to leave me wondering if this Officer was a 'victim' from trying to do the right thing, or whether he actually did participate in unprofessional conduct that crossed the line. For example, why did he and his wife do nice things for Airmen A, B, and C -- but not Airmen X, Y, and Z? Could that leave Airman X feeling like he/she is not being treated equally? I could imagine that happening. The way the article is written, it feels like the author is implying that the Officer here was just trying to be a really good leader.

Response by SFC Michael W. made May 31 at 2014 10:22 PM

SFC Michael W. — Sat, 31 May 2014 22:22:37 -0400

Another clear cut case of "Do your job...but, don't do YOUR JOB" again. This senior ranking officer is punished for following his orders delegated to him from the US Air Force! They are sending out the wrong kind of message about taking care of your subordinates which can become a ticking timebomb. Now, this officer's career is over thanks to something as petty as this...sad.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 31 at 2014 11:30 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 31 May 2014 23:30:50 -0400

I wrote a very long response to this article, which I decided to not post, due to the fact that I find this case very inflaming and, on reflection, my long post veered into what is definitely unprofessional ranting. Maybe I'll put it on an account where I don't represent the military...

That said, here is your pull quote from the article for the next time it seems like that senior leader is cold/aloof/distant/uncaring: "This is a business. Commanders have to ensure they are taking care of business equally.”"

Arguably, this Officer's career has been ended by an attempt to be an engaged, caring commander. As a result, I am willing to bet a lot of other new (and future) commanders got the message loud and clear. Regardless of what the AF Reg on command responsibility says.

In all fairness, I wasn't the Investigating Officer, and there may be information that I don't know. That said, I have seen similar facts to what is reported in the AF times end careers. And I've seen others around the targeted Officer say "Roger, not me."

Reference back to the recent discussion of Es and Os dating...

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jun 1 at 2014 1:08 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:08:17 -0400

CSM Maynard,
Obviously, as LTC Stoneking stated, we do not have all of the information. And as SSgt Guina related there is a lot of information coming from Mrs Craig.

It is difficult to accurately assess what was put into the media. What I can say is this, The "Key Spouse" program was pushed recently in the Air Force. The goal was for the key spouse to not be related to the Commander or senior staff in the unit, so that the "troops wives" would not feel that they were reaching out to the command for assistance. Designed to help with the burdens of deployments on spouses and families.

In reading the AF Times article, it sounds like LtCol Craig and his wife were exceptional. That they truly were trying to be involved in their unit. It sounds as if the troops probably enjoyed him as Commander. Obviously someone did not (and filed a complaint-likely and IG complaint) that started an investigation....

A good Commander loves his troops and his unit, enjoys their successes and mourns their losses (much like a parent). A good Commander is involved in the unit. The larger the unit, the less personal that involvement becomes (i.e. you can't have 1000 troops to the house for dinner).

In a way, what I see here is "damned if you do, damned if you don't": What I mean is that if the Commander does something kind for one, and then not for every single one, it is considered favoritism. If he does nothing for anyone, it is considered that he doesn't really care. Don't get to have it both ways.

What I have learned is that you cannot make everyone happy. That a Commander's decisions will make some troops happy and piss off others.

Based solely upon what was in the article, it sounds as if LtCol Craig is someone that would be worth working for, but I will never know, because I will never see the full investigation. Just the headlines.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 1:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:27:00 -0400

This experiment sums it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbb27GQ_X1I

One monkey gets an OK treat for a task and the other monkey gets a really good treat for performing the exact same task. The monkey who gets the boring treat gets angry.

I go to work, do my job, and I get a paycheck and my family lives within those means. But PFC Snuffy is kind of a screw up. He has an expensive hobby (whatever it is) and spends all of his money on that instead of taking care of his wife and kids. Then, his kid has an accident and needs special equipment and suddenly we are doing a unit fundraiser, buying his wife flowers, toys for the other kids...WHAT? Here I am, paying my bills like a sucker. Who will by crap for my family? Can we have a unit fundraiser so I can get a decent car instead of my clunker? No. Now I'm jealous because in my perception, Snuffy doesn't "deserve" the attention, money, gifts, etc. I know I would look bad if I went after Snuffy so who can I go after? Who can I make a secret IG complaint about? Hmmm...

Monkey's reaction to fairness experiment

A monkey's funny reaction when he is treated unfairly.lol

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 1 at 2014 3:04 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:04:09 -0400

Right or wrong I always maintained a barrier between myself and, "the gang" for fear of something like this happening. I didn't host off-duty parties or gatherings unless it was an all-hands invite. The only exception to this was meeting with my SNCO off duty to discuss business over a beer here and there. I believe in the ideals LTC Perry was striving for and from all indications he went about it properly. I cared deeply for my subordinates and made sure I did right by all of them. Some needed boots in the butt others needed a more gentle hand. Hopefully I never came across as favoring anyone based on the fact that I treated soldiers individually as I felt they needed to be treated to keep them to standard and in line.

I think LTC Perry here got a raw deal. one or more person(s) misconceptions or misinterpretations, possibly improperly reported may be the cause - it really doesn't say. Lets hope this issue gets properly and professionally resolved.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jun 2 at 2014 1:32 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:32:57 -0400

another take fro a source I generally respect.
http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/basic-military-abuse-lackland-trade-recruit-abuse-toxic-leadership/

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 11:27 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:27:23 -0400

I hate to say it but since Ive been in the Army, I have learned that people only tell when they are mad. They never tell because its wrong or the right thing to do. Someone got mad and told.

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Jun 2 at 2014 11:20 PM

SSG Zachery Mitchell — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:20:00 -0400

It seems to me that he was an engaged leader, but we are only getting one side of the story. Everything is based off of perception. It seemed to me like his unit was split. Half of them thought he was great and the other half percieved him to be playing favorites. We also don't know what kind of professional working relationship he had with his commander either. Maybe that had something to do with it? The whole thing just seems kind of fishy to me.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 11:30 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:30:05 -0400

I definitely need more info to go off of. To me, it sounds like he was a good leader. I hate to admit it, but pretty everyone shows favoritism, whether intentional or not. The thing that bugs me is that I have read nothing but good things about him. I've known good leaders that were taken down for one reason or another, that I PERSONALLY know to be amazing leaders, yet I didn't see nearly as many speaking well of them. The fact that they have so many coming to their defense and speaking highly of their character is what leads me to be skeptical. I have yet to hear anything negative. It almost resounds of a "good guys finish last" scenario.
I will reserve final judgement until I can make a better decision, but as of now, it looks to me that they got screwed.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 3 at 2014 12:56 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 00:56:06 -0400

It's sad. Some leaders do nothing, some leader do enough and this leader, LTC Perry, did more and cared too much for his Airman.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Oct 17 at 2014 3:39 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:39:48 -0400

CSM Mike Maynard ,

The perception of impropriety is enough in many Commands to result in action, investigation, and even discipline. As others have stated, the article did not provide enough information for me to make an informed decision, but an O-6 decided something was amiss.

This could be a case of a great leader being punished for being an engaged leader, or it could be a case of favoritism and poor leadership.

This article was a very interesting read and reminder of the pitfalls of Command.