Air Force Commander Relieved - Favoritism or Engaged Leadership?

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

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??

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.

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.