When speaking to students taking this course several years ago, Lieutenant General Jim Clapper USAF (Ret.), then the former Director of DIA and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and now the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) gave intelligence professionals  “Some Rules of Good Staff Officership” for guidance at staff meetings:

·        "Don’t make the boss have to ask the ‘perfect’ question.

·        Tell the boss ‘the emperor has no clothes’.

·        Admit screw-ups/ignorance.

·        Be anticipatory; follow up.

·        Remember bad news doesn’t get better with age.”

Certainly, he will expect the same from his new staff.

For more information on staff work, go here_____.

James R. Clapper: A Higher Level of Commitment, Ethics and Leadership

When senior military officers reach the point of retirement, they have spent a career of thirty or more years committed to serving their country.  The high level of their commitment has been demonstrated by their willingness to put up with frequent family moves, endure long deployments away from the family, suffer considerable  hardships during training and face great dangers during operations.  The strength of that commitment has been demonstrated as it persisted for their entire career, despite the opportunities available to them to make more money if they had left the military for the business world.  But, during the course of that career they also had challenging assignments, rewarding experiences and the enjoyed the feelings of accomplishment and success.  Upon retirement they receive a guaranteed life-long generous retirement and medical care. 

Because of their continued commitment to the defense of their country, many retired senior officers accept positions as consultants to industry to insure that companies understand the needs of the military services and design products that meet those needs.  That is a necessary and worthy endeavor and should be compensated.  Recently, some of those senior retired military officers have been asked to become “mentors” to officers now serving in positions similar to those that they held during their long careers.  For that effort they have been offered and accepted additional compensation beyond their military retirement and business consulting fees.  That has raised the issue of “conflicts of interest” between their business interests and their advisory role as mentors.  The Defense Department is now investigating how serious that conflict may be and how to resolve it.

But, beyond the issue of possible conflicts of interest, the real issue is one of ethics and leadership.  Why should or would officers already receiving retirement from any organization receive additional compensation for giving back to that organization and the people of that organization the knowledge that the organization once gave them through training, education and opportunities to develop experience?  Why should they be paid for mentoring their former subordinates now, when they should have been doing so as a leadership responsibility all during their career?  To accept payment in such circumstances suggests a failure of personal character; in terms of virtue ethics by placing excess above moderation or in terms of duty ethics by placing personal gain above responsibility.  To review ethical values, go here____.    Furthermore, throughout their careers, when in leadership positions, these officers espoused for themselves and urged their subordinates to adhere to the military core value of “selfless service”, “service above self”, “selflessness”.   To see the military core values, go here.____.    If those officers who are asked to continue their commitment to service as mentors would agree to do so at a level of compensation that covers no more than the amount required to cover out-of-pocket expenses, they would set an example of ethical Leadership for those whom they are mentoring and for the members of their military service at large,

Fortunately a number of other senior military officers have chosen to continue their commitment to service in different ways, some by teaching, others by taking government positions.  Consider Lieutenant General James Clapper USAF (Ret.).  Immediately after retirement from a long career in military intelligence, General Clapper, even while serving in defense industry, was teaching as a part-time adjunct professor at the Joint Military Intelligence College mentoring new intelligence professionals and doing so at a minimal level of compensation.  Soon, he was back in government, relinquishing a portion of his military retirement and working for a salary less than he would have been able to earn as a private defense consultant. At the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) he is still remembered by students who have taken the course “Leadership for Intelligence Professionals” as an effective manager who brought together and revitalized the agency and a caring Leader who rejuvenated and mentored the workforce.  Not long after completing that service he returned to government service at even a more responsible level as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. During all of that time he has gained more knowledge of and more diverse experience in the Intelligence Community.  Now at the request of the President he has agreed to continue his commitment to service in the most difficult and, one might add, thankless job in government.

In considering James Clapper to be the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the members of the Senate should recognize him as an example of sustained high level of commitment to service and ethical Leadership in addition to his extensive knowledge and wide experience in the Intelligence Community.   The Intelligence Community deserves such a Leader.

The Director of National Intelligence: The Power to Lead

Recently, Joseph S. Nye the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University has returned to the University to teach a course in Leadership.  During his absences from Harvard, Professor Nye served as an Under Secretary of State, an Assistant Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council.  Professor Nye is someone with long experience dealing with and serving within the Intelligence Community.

To support his leadership course, Professor Nye has written a book; The Powers to Lead   (Harvard University Press: 2008).  He reiterates the long understood array of powers available to any Leader:

·         Coercive power which is “based on fear and relates primarily to the ability of the leader to punish the subordinates for non-conformity.”

·         Reward power: which “relates to the ability of the leader to provide positive rewards, such as income or other benefits, to people who cooperate.”

·         Legitimate power:  which “relates to the position of the leader in the organizational hierarchy.”

·         Expert power based on “unique expertise or skills in particular areas that are regarded as important to subordinates.”

·         Referent power: “essentially the power of personality and relates to the leader’s ability to be admired because of one or more personal traits.”

But, he goes further by calling the first three powers “hard power” and the second two “soft power”.  Many authorities on leadership believe that the power position of the Leader with regard to subordinates is a critical factor in determining leader effectiveness. Thus, while acknowledging that, today, especially in the governmental bureaucracy, it is preferable to use soft power,  Nye recognizes that to Lead effectively, Leaders often need to use a combination of both hard and soft power.  He calls this “smart power”.

Unfortunately, the establishment of the Director of National Intelligence created what many have called an “impossible job” by depriving the incumbent most of the authorities of hard power, making it impossible to Lead by using smart power.

The requirement to use only soft power creates the need for constant meetings and  inflated staffs to continually negotiate and oversee the cooperation and coordination desired of the Intelligence Community.  The lack of the ability to use, or threaten to use, hard power permits resistance and sabotage of the negotiated improvements to create the desired cooperation and coordination.  Without giving the Director of National Intelligence, a full array of the powers to Lead, progress in improving the capabilities of the Intelligence Community will be painful and exhausting for the Director and slow in coming.  Without those powers the Director and staff become just another layer of bureaucracy  wasting the time of all concerned.

Given that Congress placed such limitations on the power of the Director of National Intelligence, the continual harsh criticisms aimed at the recent Directors are both unwarranted and hypocritical.

For more information on Influence and Leadership, go here____ and use the index.