21.2 Airman Leadership Qualities (ALQs)

Why the ALQs Matter for the SJT

The SJT is keyed to Air Force foundational competencies (AFH 36-2647). The Airman Leadership Qualities (ALQs) are a closely related framework — the Air Force's operational statement of the same underlying expectations, used in feedback and evaluation.

The two frameworks are not identical, and it is worth being precise about that. But they describe the same behaviors, they were built from the same body of work, and the ALQs have the practical advantage of being short, published, and definitional. Ten named qualities with one-sentence definitions is a workable mental checklist during a timed exam; the full competency handbook is not.

Use the ALQs as your working vocabulary for identifying what a scenario is testing, then rank the four options by how well they demonstrate that quality. That is the method, and the rest of this section supplies the vocabulary.

The Four Major Performance Areas

Per AFI 36-2406, ALQs are "ten qualities grouped into four major performance areas (MPAs) that are valued in our Airmen; used to develop and evaluate Airmen; and which are indicative of potential for greater responsibility." They are "evaluated via a proficiency-level scale."

The four MPAs stem from AFI 1-2, Commander Responsibilities, and — as the Air Force noted when announcing them — coincide with the Major Graded Areas of the Unit Effectiveness Inspection program and with the language used to describe expected performance factors provided to promotion boards.

That is a useful connection back to AFH 1 Chapter 20: managing resources, leading people, improving the unit, and executing the mission are the same four Major Graded Areas the UEI evaluates. The Air Force uses one set of categories to inspect a wing, evaluate an Airman, and — through the competency framework — write SJT items.

The Ten Airman Leadership Qualities

Executing the Mission

Leading People

A currency note worth knowing. When the ALQs were first announced, the first Leading People quality was titled "Inclusion and Teamwork." AFI 36-2406, dated 22 August 2025, lists it as Collaboration. The definition changed with the title: the older entry read "collaborates effectively with others to achieve an inclusive climate in pursuit of a common goal," while the current rubric reads "works with others to achieve shared objectives and complete tasks or missions as a cohesive unit." Study aids that still print the older label are describing a superseded list. If a question turns on the exact name of a Leading People quality, the current instruction is the authority.

Managing Resources

Improving the Unit

Three, three, two, two. That distribution is the easiest way to check whether you have recalled all ten: Executing the Mission and Leading People carry three each; Managing Resources and Improving the Unit carry two each.

Where the ALQs Appear in Your Career

The ALQs are not an exam-only construct. They appear on the AF Form 724-A, Airman Comprehensive Assessment Addendum, which AFI 36-2406 describes as "designed to guide raters and facilitate discussion when providing constructive feedback to their ratees," used in conjunction with the primary AF Form 724 and AF Form 932, not in lieu of it.

The instruction adds a judgment rule that also applies to reading SJT scenarios: "A rater should use their best judgement when determining the proficiency level of their ratee, bearing in mind that each definition should be relative to the ratee's specific grade, AFSC, and assigned duties."

Relative to grade and duties is the key phrase. An SJT scenario written for the E-5 cycle expects a Staff Sergeant's judgment — a first-line supervisor with training responsibilities — not a flight chief's and not an Airman's. The informational guide notes that scenarios are relevant to the potential rank and duties of the examinee.

Reading a Scenario Through the ALQs

Most SJT scenarios make the relevant quality identifiable once you know the list:

That last row is the official sample item from the informational guide — the NCO from a different background — and its keyed answer (discuss your opinions and try to learn from them) is exactly what Collaboration plus Emotional Intelligence looks like in practice.

Using the Qualities to Rank the Four Options

Once you have named the quality, evaluate each option against it. Two patterns recur often enough to be worth memorizing.

Patterns that usually mark the LEAST effective option:

• Avoiding the problem entirely — ignoring it, waiting to see whether it resolves itself, working around the person
• Acting one-directionally — making sure the other person understands you, without listening
• Escalating immediately past an action clearly within your own authority
• Acting outside regulation or ethics to get a faster result
• Correcting or confronting publicly what should be handled privately

Patterns that usually mark the MOST effective option:

• Engaging directly and two-way — discussing, asking, listening, learning
• Gathering facts before acting, then acting within your authority
• Balancing mission accomplishment with care for people — neither abandoning the mission nor treating people as expendable
• Following through — documenting, checking back, closing the loop
• Using the chain of command appropriately — escalating when the issue genuinely exceeds your authority, but not before

Note how the sample item confirms both lists. Option D ("ignore the NCO as much as possible") is the classic avoidance pattern and is keyed least effective. Option A ("discuss your opinions with the NCO and try to learn from them") is the classic direct-and-two-way pattern and is keyed most effective. Option C ("make sure the NCO fully understands your point of view") is the one-directional variant — plausible, but not the best.

The Competency the Air Force Rates Highest

AFH 1 Section 15A supplies a data point worth carrying into the exam:

"In surveys of USAF members, accountability has been consistently rated as the most important foundational competency for success in a USAF career."

AFH 1 defines it as "demonstrating reliability and honesty and taking responsibility for the behaviors of self and team," and states that it "requires leading by example, admitting mistakes, and doing the right thing even when it is unpopular or difficult."

When a scenario pits an accountable response against an easier one that shifts blame, defers, or lets something slide, the accountable response is very likely the keyed answer. That is not a guess — it reflects the framework the SMEs used to build the key.