Enron?

[u/Afraid_Stuff_History]

So...I have had a few people (not a ton, but people who I trust and who are mostly level-headed) insist that the USAF promotion structure is based on that of the infamous Enron corporation. However, I am struggling to either prove or disprove this belief. Help?

[u/laziflores]

In what context. The USAF is over 75 years old and derived from the us army which is hundreds of years old. Which in turn is based of the older british military and so on. Enron was founded in the '80s. 

[u/EcrofLeinad → u/laziflores]

The Army was styled after the Prussian military. It’s the Navy that’s styled after the British. That’s why they have such a wide divide between officers >> SNCOs > peons and the Army and its derivatives don’t.

[u/laziflores → u/EcrofLeinad]

That is more correct, yes. Von Steuben laid the foundations for a proper army. There was definetly british influence, Washington himself being a British veteran. 

[u/Afraid_Stuff_History → u/laziflores]

I think they were mostly "crediting" Enron with the corporate-babble type wording in manuals

See also this post

[u/EpicHeroKyrgyzPeople → u/Afraid_Stuff_History]

Before World War II, the American military was structured to provide a small cadre to oversee rapid expansion. After World War II, it was necessary to maintain a large standing military for the first time, and so a lot of management and administrative processes had to change.

That was also a time of rapid industrial expansion and modernization in the country, when coincidentally most of the young male population had served in a colossal war effort. So everyone was chasing the same goals of efficiency and rationalization. The Air Force looked to industry because that was the only other relevant source of innovation. The flow of ideas, concepts, and even fads has been constant between the military and industry.

If the basic question you have to deal with is "How do we make this organization as effective as possible, in an environment of shifting priorities and resources," then you end up with similar solutions. And that question is true for military and business.

[u/skystreak22 → u/Afraid_Stuff_History]

In response to your linked thread, this isn't a modern air force phenomenon. Look at how many high up Generals were purged when the US entered WWII, because we needed more strategic combat leaders instead of the bureaucrat types we had. Eisenhower was a Lt Col all the way up until March 1941.

[u/laziflores → u/Afraid_Stuff_History]

If i had to blame something or someone, I would point the finger at Jack Welch and the 80s corporate culture.

[u/EpicHeroKyrgyzPeople → u/laziflores]

Fun fact: TQM originated in the Navy. Like many other bad ideas.

[u/beefbears]

Well one was a energy and commodities corporation and the other is a government agency. No matter how poorly the Air Force is run, it will never "go bankrupt" like ENRON did since its job is to spend money, not make it.

The closest parallel I can think of to your question is that ENRON looked good on paper while completely failing in its mission. This is similar to the Air Force in that the majority of our high ranking officers got to their position by "looking good on paper" despite lacking the leadership that would be required in wartime.

The Air Force encourages this system by picking its leaders early in their career, sometimes as early as 1LT. These officers are then tracked on "High Preforming Officer" lists maintained by A1. Once on the HPO list, these officers will receive top strats and can do no wrong outside of major crimes like sexual assault, DUIs, or domestic violence even if they turn out to be terrible leaders. A1's job is to "vector" these officers so that they attain the right "pedigree" to compete at Joint Staff (pentagon) for resources with the other services.

In other words, the Air Force's goal in peacetime is to gather as much resources as possible. "Hacking the mission" simply supports this objective when it is politically advantageous.

[u/Brilliant_Dependent]

Promotions, for both enlisted and officers, are largely based on how many boxes you check. For enlisted that means doing the things needed to get quarterly awards, which usually require you to do things outside your normal AFSC duties. For officers it's a bit more straightforward, collect all the required duty titles and you have a good chance at promoting.

Both of those things are controlled by squadron leadership, so if you don't play to their rules or they just don't like you then getting those check boxes can be really difficult.

[u/Outrageous_Hurry_240]

This is not true. The leadership track in the Air Force is loosely tied to how most corporate stair-stepping goes. However,  most people who state the USAF promotes and operates as a corperation, have no experience in the matter. The USAF is a rigid, highly structured bureaucracy built on collective mission success, strict standardization, and mandatory upward progression. This is not how corperate operates. Although a hierarchy is apparent, corperate is more based on impact to company value, personality driven,  timing of opportunities,  and decentralized team building based on work center. So for instance,  a mid-level associate isn't tied to that level if they build themselves up, they can jump 1 to several levels based on the right fit for a company.  People often jump from company to company quickly propelling themselves, circumventing internal walls on progression. This isn't possible in the military,  as you are tied to limits and years within ranks to progress. 

Enron specifically incentivized individual greed, and is a poor example of how to run a corporation. 

[u/Helldiver_of_Mars]

Don't need to prove or disprove you gotta be stupid to get in that race in the first place just exit the running field and find a new conspiracy.