It seems as if contracting offices seldom have strong top cover. Oftentimes, when the preaward process becomes mired in conflict or when contractor performance goes sour because the program office has neglected to conduct its own due diligence, contracting personnel are automatically expected to resolve/manage the fallout.

I haven't personally seen contracting functional leaders hold their counterparts accountable in these instances, so I'm curious as to others experiences.

Does contracting tend to suffer from poor leadership? Does the nature of the contracting role itself predispose its personnel to such circumstances?

On the flip side, for those who benefit from strong contracting leadership, what are some actions yours leaders take in order to preclude/resolve irresponsible/lackadaisical behaviors of counterparts?

I've observed and pondered the dynamics you're referencing. I have several thoughts as to why this seems to be the rule of thumb, but here is my primary hypothesis: The people who are responsible for hiring the Head of the Contracting Activity are themselves customers and/or are accountable to the organization's customers. Thus, when they are hiring, they are seeking foremost an HCA with a strong inclination toward customer service, not necessarily one who takes a nuanced view of the contracting process and its responsibilities. Once hired, that HCA wants to keep her job and obtain a favorable annual review just the same as anyone else. In order to ensure this, the entire contracting office must be customer-focused, not just the HCA. So, the HCA sets expectations with the rest of leadership and management, who themselves will be inclined to comply in order to receive favorable reviews. 

The result, unfortunately, is a lot of kowtowing, which can be confusing and difficult to navigate for operational personnel trying to do their jobs with integrity. The upshot of this is poor morale among the acquisition workforce, and particularly among newer, motivated 1102s, who learn one thing in class only to find a much different reality.  

I don't necessarily think it's as simple as calling it "poor leadership," as you say. While frustrating to the (relative) handful of contracting personnel in your agency, the rest of your agency might view this as extremely effective leadership if they are able to consistently get what they want when they need it, while providing minimal support to the acquisition process. Also, you can hardly blame a person for acting in her own career and financial interests by meeting or exceeding the expectations set for her. Instead, I think the problem resides either with the acquisition process itself or with the organizational structures under which the acquisition process operates. That's a much bigger discussion, though...

 

 

FrankJon is right. "Don't hate the player, hate the game." Contracting is considered to be an administrative function that should be seen and not heard. The only time you hear from contracting is when there are problems. Leadership doesn't like problems.