TL;DR: We like to think that pilots have to run the Air Force, but they got us into this mess.
What other conclusion is left to be drawn? With very few exceptions, the Air Force is helmed up and down the chain by pilots. Groups, wings, NAFs, MAJCOMs, staff positions, functionals, CAOC spots, deployed units, IGs... Lots and lots of pilots. Who is responsible for the failings of an organization if not for the leaders? How many excuses are we supposed to make for them? And let's not play the "good dude" game either. Being a successful organizational leader is not about how fun you were to drink with 10 years ago, or how sh*t-hot you were in the jet, or how much you "get it" when you're having a closed door town hall with a random unit in their bar heritage room. There is only one measure-- how is the organization doing.
The examples are legion. I'll give a few that have, over the years, stood out as very distilled, specific instances of poor leadership.
1. DV visits. If I had a dollar for every DV that said they didn't want the base to stop doing it's mission to prepare for their arrival after they arrived, you'd think I was paying my way through medical school the old fashioned way. If you can't fathom the way your rank and position affect your subordinates in an organization you've been a part of for 30+ years, on what planet should you be leading it? Can we all just finally admit that yes, they do want it? They like it a lot. Even if not for themselves, then for what they believe the military should look like. But most likely because that type of treatment is addictive. Name one theory of leadership taught in any level of PME that promotes the type of behavior we see when senior leaders visit a base. Did they skip those classes? Because I have a f*cking masters degree in it from ACSC.
2. We have been at the Deid since what? 2002? I have no clue. A long time. And of those years, every. single. summer. has been excruciatingly hot. Yet somehow, despite there being an airport right down the road in the exact same climate with hundreds of flights per day, leadership at AUAB has not figured out how to get every plane suitable air conditioning for the preflight. Seriously? Some flight doc measured the internal surfaces of the aircraft at over 160F, and the air temp inside a boom pod at over 140. This isn't a war against the Axis in an austere location, it's normal ops. If you can't look at that as a leader (and one who has flown planes!) and deduce that there should be adequate cooling for the aircraft... RyanAir is the human equivalent of a Pakistani poultry trailer without the rights activists, yet they manage to keep the planes cool on the ground. Oh, and let's not forget about the black mold that no leader saw fit to address until Congress heard about it.
3. Of course, the pilot crisis. And not that it happened, not the years of neglect that led up to it, not the countless forums and round-tables, and hangar-flies that went ignored, while the CGO/Maj force screamed for attention. I actually understand how we got to where we are today. What I don't get is how now that the problem exists, announced, published, and even presented to congress, how can we still be bungling the response? This thread is proof. Changes to the promotion process? Secret. Timeline? Mystery. People who apply for the bonus early? Gotcha!
I'm not saying pilots can't make great organizational leaders. I'm sure some are great. But we have two things to compare:
A. That a war-fighting organization can be effectively led by selecting from a small percentage of the overall population (pilots) those who demonstrate over the first half of their career a talent for paperwork, physical fitness, administrative tasks, and personal presentation, but who generally have little to no experience leading people until squadron command. This, as of today, is an unproven theory.
B. That a war-fighting organization led by a small percentage of the overall population (pilots) who demonstrated over the first half of their career a talent for paperwork, physical fitness, administrative tasks, and personal presentation, but who generally have little to no experience leading people until squadron command, will crumble under external pressures, e.g., Congressional inquiries, workforce competition, etc. This, as of today, is supported by the evidence.
If pilots make such great organizational leaders, I'd love to see it. Check rides aren't graded on who had the best attitude. I'd rather choke that go through it, but I'm guessing WIC grads, the best of our pilots, didn't get their patch because they filled out the 781s better than anyone else. No one cares how your flight suit looks if you show up the the ARCP late. The flying world, last I checked, prides itself of results-based assessment, yet when it comes to leading the organization, we abandon the principal for proclamations of past dudeliness... At some point we have to assign responsibility. If you want to say that it's just because we are picking the wrong pilots for the job, fine, but guess what? Pilots are the ones doing the picking. Pilots are the ones who have signed off on our ludicrous promotions system. Pilots are the ones standing by silently while the legal system is twisted to suit the preferences of a vindictive wing commander. Pilots are the ones telling congress it's pretty darn good. Pilots are the ones telling young captains to quit if they don't like it, someone will gladly replace them.
Please, tell me why I'm wrong.