When I finished Air Command and Staff College via correspondence, I posted a 2,800-word critique on my blog. I spent days on it, because I actually care what the Air Force is teaching and I care about trying to improve PME. The responses have all been favorable. Colleagues told me that I hit on many of the same issues that nagged them when they took ACSC. Others were about to begin the course, and found my thoughts to be a helpful introduction. Apparently the critique is pretty high on a Google search for "ACSC", because I continue to get occasional comments. It seemed that I achieved my primary goal of helping people think critically about their education.
Many Air Force officers who read my critique ask the same question: what did the ACSC administrators say when they read this? The answer is "nothing." I sent the critique via established feedback channels to the ACSC program, and never received a word of response. Because the critique was so substantial, I assumed it would ruffle some feathers and was braced for the worst. I still can't believe that I never got any reply at all. Something, anything, would have been better than silence. I would have preferred a "cease and desist" letter, because at least it would have proved to me that somebody cared.
I share this to make a point about "disruptive thinking", which so appeals to innovative younger officers and so aggravates some senior military leaders. These leaders point out that the military has established channels for dissent, innovation, and improvement; younger officers with bold ideas should use these established channels, rather than going rogue and disrupting the organization. I actually agree with this, but it's a two-way contract. If senior leaders want dissenting views to flow through established channels, they need to ensure those channels are open and functioning properly. All too often, those channels are blocked or appear broken. When that happens, it is extremely tempting to turn towards alternative means of expression--whether that's a lowly guy like me critiquing ACSC on my personal blog, or Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn publishing his critique of a broken intelligence system through a private think tank.
Many Air Force officers who read my critique ask the same question: what did the ACSC administrators say when they read this? The answer is "nothing." I sent the critique via established feedback channels to the ACSC program, and never received a word of response. Because the critique was so substantial, I assumed it would ruffle some feathers and was braced for the worst. I still can't believe that I never got any reply at all. Something, anything, would have been better than silence. I would have preferred a "cease and desist" letter, because at least it would have proved to me that somebody cared.
I share this to make a point about "disruptive thinking", which so appeals to innovative younger officers and so aggravates some senior military leaders. These leaders point out that the military has established channels for dissent, innovation, and improvement; younger officers with bold ideas should use these established channels, rather than going rogue and disrupting the organization. I actually agree with this, but it's a two-way contract. If senior leaders want dissenting views to flow through established channels, they need to ensure those channels are open and functioning properly. All too often, those channels are blocked or appear broken. When that happens, it is extremely tempting to turn towards alternative means of expression--whether that's a lowly guy like me critiquing ACSC on my personal blog, or Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn publishing his critique of a broken intelligence system through a private think tank.
No comments:
Post a Comment