Leadership and the new science

  • Published
  • By Master Sgt. John Guse
  • 56th Communications Squadron first sergeant
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFPN) --  My wife says I do it because I care.

An old boss says I do it because I “bleed blue.”

I honestly don’t know why I choose to write and speak out about Air Force issues, but I have found that wearing all my stripes has some inherent responsibilities attached.

One of my favorite authors, Margaret Wheatley, wrote two books on new concepts in management. She is described by others as a chaos management theorist, but I choose to regard her as insightful and poetic.

Wheatley wrote one book titled "Leadership and the New Science." In this book, she explores how current management theories are more related to Newtonian physics than quantum physics.

I know what you’re thinking, “Put down this article before it gets confusing.” I implore you to read on, if you dare.

Newtonian physics is primarily how we operate as people. Newtonians believe that if we separate and investigate all the parts, we will figure out how something works. Take the car mechanic as an example. When told that the car sputters and stalls, the mechanic begins investigating the fuel source. It might be bad fuel, or a broken fuel line, or even a dirty fuel filter. Checking to see if the headlights work is not part of the analysis.

If we translate this Newtonian philosophy to management, we learn that it is helpful in determining the root cause of a problem, but not necessarily in how to fix that problem. For the car mechanic, replacing parts is often times the ideal solution, but can we afford to do this same surgery with people?

To the rescue comes Wheatley’s examination of quantum physics and management theory. Basically, quantum physics claims that the smallest part of the universe IS the universe. In other words, everything is interrelated. For example, if we decide to move our moon closer to Earth so that we can have a jumping off point for further space exploration, we would make it exceedingly uncomfortable on Earth. Changes in tides, shifting plate tectonics, violent volcanic eruptions, unusual weather patterns would all take place because we chose to take a gamble on a solution for one cause without considering the negative impact that solution has on other critical situations.

OK, let’s back up a bit. You are now asking, “Why have I gotten myself into this commentary without hope of getting out until I’m finished reading the article?” Bear with me, please.

Let’s assume a flying squadron has a problem with a certain fuel cell on a particular aircraft. The analysis done to determine the problem is Newtonian in nature; however, the solution involves quantum application.

While the Newtonian analysis lets us know that the fuel cell is defective and needs replacement, the quantum application involves a variety of agencies to include supply, contracting, finance, maintenance, training, communications, safety -- well, you get the point. In other words, the solution involves organizations that are more than two streets off the runway.

What Wheatley identifies is that one thing impacts everything else, whether we want it to or not.

When we take this concept one step further into management, we discover that we apply a Newtonian philosophy to a quantum world. If we address the issues of a particular Airman within our organization, does that not carry over into his or her personal life? Years ago we would say, “Don’t go home and kick the dog over this.” Today, it’s different.

My true confusion on all of this is that we ask our people to achieve the “whole person concept.” In the new Enlisted Force Structure (AFI 36-2618), it doesn’t truly identify what the “whole person concept” means. For that matter, the old version of AFI 36-2618 didn’t really clarify the “whole person concept” that well. Today, the Enlisted Force Structure document alludes to the “whole person concept” being a part of overall readiness in terms of technical, physical, mental and spiritual health.

Here is where my confusion sets in. Teaching supervisors, leaders, and managers, invokes using Newtonian philosophy with our people and their development. When we provide feedback to our people, we adopt a problem/solution mentality to help our people achieve “whole person concept” nirvana. The troubling question is, do we evaluate the whole person?

Consider this example: A young married troop with a six month old child is counseled on her need to incorporate more community involvement in her overall performance. This would be a good thing. Given this Newtonian analysis, is the supervisor considering the impact the volunteerism will have on this troop’s family life? In other words, when the first sergeant gets called out to investigate a domestic violence issue, could it be because the troop was trying to fulfill his supervisor’s “whole person concept” wishes by becoming more involved in the community? In other words, what started as a good thing becomes a bad thing in someone else’s arena of management.

To put it bluntly, we appear to want “whole person concept” people without treating the whole person. To the rescue comes quantum analysis!

As a former professional military education instructor and curriculum writer, I would challenge my students with a series of four questions.

“How many of you know your troops' first names?” All hands would go up.

“How many of you know your troops' spouses first names?” Some hands would still be up.

“How many of you know your troops' children’s first names?” A few hands remained.

“How many of you know your troops' children’s birthdates? GOTCHA!!

I would end that discussion with a final question. “Why is it important to know the birthdates of your troops' kids?”

Eventually, they would discover that their people had vibrant, full lives outside of the Air Force that they needed to become increasingly aware of in their efforts to supervise effectively. Recognizing your troops might like a day with their children on their birthdays, or would like to accompany their children on their first day of school means that we not only become involved in our people’s “whole person” development, but we mentor them on behaviors necessary for them to effectively lead and manage people in the future.

One final thought in this mass of confusion I have conveyed to you. It is Wheatley’s unique analysis of our lives.

“While we humans observe and count separate selves, and pay a great deal of attention to the differences that seem to divide us, in fact we survive only as we learn to participate in a web of relationships.”

Our “relationships” with our people have invoked the gravity of Newton while the world demands our quantum leap of faith in our people’s ability by knowing their “whole person” as a complete “concept.”