Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Catbox

What's wrong with the Air Force?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, brabus said:

Next AD retention initiative: Sizzlers gift cards. This has promise...

And there it is, crisis solved 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, torqued said:

Genius. Free steak dinners would certainly improve morale and productivity. 

Too expensive. Free AAFES pogs might work better with the MWR budget. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, torqued said:

Genius. Free steak dinners would certainly improve morale and productivity. 

Don't forget the all you can eat shrimp :rock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 6:27 AM, zachbar said:

Too expensive. Free AAFES pogs might work better with the MWR budget. 

Better idea, fire AAFES all together, they are worthless at most bases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Performance ranking reduces meritocracy...

"Many of us have given in to “adopt and adapt” at some point in our careers, and not always comfortably.

You’re sitting in front of a manager for an annual review, thinking: well, how’s this going to work? The manager in question is universally regarded as average, but he’s the one that gets to rate you, and the shortest path to a better ranking is probably to follow his advice."

Link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/maybe-you-shouldn-t-follow-the-leader

Study: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191255

 

Common gripe in the OPR / EPR threads is the strat methodology and favor given to the junior O's who conform earlier to the game. I'm not sure the authors fix, serendipity (fancy word for luck), is any better due its unpredictable nature...but it's refreshing to see a study confirming my preconceived notions.

 

Post could have gone in the Promotion thread just as easily

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GKinnear said:

Performance ranking reduces meritocracy...

"Many of us have given in to “adopt and adapt” at some point in our careers, and not always comfortably.

You’re sitting in front of a manager for an annual review, thinking: well, how’s this going to work? The manager in question is universally regarded as average, but he’s the one that gets to rate you, and the shortest path to a better ranking is probably to follow his advice."

Link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/maybe-you-shouldn-t-follow-the-leader

Study: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191255

 

Common gripe in the OPR / EPR threads is the strat methodology and favor given to the junior O's who conform earlier to the game. I'm not sure the authors fix, serendipity (fancy word for luck), is any better due its unpredictable nature...but it's refreshing to see a study confirming my preconceived notions.

 

Post could have gone in the Promotion thread just as easily

All the gripes about the promo system are valid, but I’ve seen positive changes: 2 line PRFs (forcing board members to actually read your OPRs), getting rid of school selects of the majors board, rehaul of the promotion system with AFSC specific boards, now there is talk of getting rid of BTZ.) At least some of our senior leaders are realizing that choosing your golden children when they are young captains is ridiculous.   

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dream big said:

All the gripes about the promo system are valid, but I’ve seen positive changes: 2 line PRFs (forcing board members to actually read your OPRs), getting rid of school selects of the majors board, rehaul of the promotion system with AFSC specific boards, now there is talk of getting rid of BTZ.) At least some of our senior leaders are realizing that choosing your golden children when they are young captains is ridiculous.   

Checks in the mail, bro.  I’ll bet you a drink that the number one indicator of promotion is still a DP on the PRF, regardless of OPRs.  And the Air Force will never get rid of BPZ, it’s the number one indicator of future O-7 potential in this organization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brawnie said:

Checks in the mail, bro.  I’ll bet you a drink that the number one indicator of promotion is still a DP on the PRF, regardless of OPRs.  And the Air Force will never get rid of BPZ, it’s the number one indicator of future O-7 potential in this organization. 

Should be changed (kinda) by the end of next year - promotion window will go to a five year block. That's right five looks where you are eligible, no more BPZ, IPZ, APZ.

CSAFs main hangup is going to the five year look vs killing BTZ altogether (USMC) vs limiting BTZ to one each per grade for O5/O6 (Army). Time will tell how it falls out, but my gut is he will push toward using what the law authorizes for the service secretaries to use (five year window).

The info backing up he change is pretty amazing - we don't retain BTZ superstars at anywhere near the rate we retain on time dudes... so the data is showing we invest lots of time, money, leadership opportunity in these folks, and they bounce by the 25 year point. Which makes sense considering when the old "pole year" was - if they don't make GO, they retire... so we end up pushing people and weeding out other potential leaders to end up holding an empty bag when the shiney pennies retire... thereby calling into question the entire logic of how we position and choose leaders.

...You get promoted earlier, you get more opportunities... Either way, the 'BTZ' tag will be removed from SURFs/records. You'll just be promoted earlier should that be the case. The end result will likely not change much, but there won't be a moniker hanging on anyone's record.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck you have a source on that?  Because I haven’t seen or noticed any institutional desire to do that whatsoever.  What I’ve seen from the O-7/O-8 level is that they think the system works, as it got them promoted.  

Personally, I think all of this is kind of pointless until they fix the root cause of talent management woes: forced stratification on OPRs is stupid and a bad way to retain folks in a high talent organization.  Yet the Air Force has a hardon for this indicator.  And I haven’t heard anyone talk about how to fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brawnie said:

Chuck you have a source on that?  Because I haven’t seen or noticed any institutional desire to do that whatsoever.  What I’ve seen from the O-7/O-8 level is that they think the system works, as it got them promoted.  

Personally, I think all of this is kind of pointless until they fix the root cause of talent management woes: forced stratification on OPRs is stupid and a bad way to retain folks in a high talent organization.  Yet the Air Force has a hardon for this indicator.  And I haven’t heard anyone talk about how to fix that.

Source on the change to the five year window? It's in the NDAA. Read for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515enr.pdf go to section 507 subsection 649d.

As to the rest, I'll leave it at "very important meeting slides." 

The products of the system by and large DO think it works, because it produced them (we had that conversation with one of them who was adamant there was nothing wrong with it). Yet the CSAF also sees how many people have been relieved of squadron, group, and wing command under his tenure. That's part of the logic. Something is not working... now theres a way to make a small change, hopefully for the better.

Strats won't go away - they'll always be there in some form. Large organizations love easy to digest quantification of potential and performance. Nature of the beast...

Change is hard, slow, messy and can only be driven by failure or strong (authoritative... bold...) leadership. We have an outgoing CSAF who wants to lead and leave a legacy, and a new SecAF with an open mind. The timing works... short of a crisis, only strong leadership will suffice.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

Source on the change to the five year window? It's in the NDAA. Read for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515enr.pdf go to section 507 subsection 649d.

As to the rest, I'll leave it at "very important meeting slides." 

The products of the system by and large DO think it works, because it produced them (we had that conversation with one of them who was adamant there was nothing wrong with it). Yet the CSAF also sees how many people have been relieved of squadron, group, and wing command under his tenure. That's part of the logic. Something is not working... now theres a way to make a small change, hopefully for the better.

Strats won't go away - they'll always be there in some form. Large organizations love easy to digest quantification of potential and performance. Nature of the beast...

Change is hard, slow, messy and can only be driven by failure or strong (authoritative... bold...) leadership. We have an outgoing CSAF who wants to lead and leave a legacy, and a new SecAF with an open mind. The timing works... short of a crisis, only strong leadership will suffice.

Chuck

You mean this section?

 

‘‘(b) LIMITED AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES.—The Secretary of a military department may modify the number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as previously specified by the Secretary pursuant subsection (a) or this subsection, not more frequently than once every five years. 

 

I didn't read that as five year promotion timelines.  I read that as SECAF can change the number of times someone can be considered (currently two) before they get kicked out or continued, once every five years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You mean this section?

‘‘(b) LIMITED AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES.—The Secretary of a military department may modify the number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as previously specified by the Secretary pursuant subsection (a) or this subsection, not more frequently than once every five years. 

I didn't read that as five year promotion timelines.  I read that as SECAF can change the number of times someone can be considered (currently two) before they get kicked out or continued, once every five years.  

No... keep going.

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES SPECIFIED.— The number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as specified or modified pursu- ant to any provision of this section, may not exceed five opportunities.“

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

No... keep going.

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES SPECIFIED.— The number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as specified or modified pursu- ant to any provision of this section, may not exceed five opportunities.“

Chuck

May not exceed... Meaning it can be less than, depending on what the service secretary wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, pawnman said:

May not exceed... Meaning it can be less than, depending on what the service secretary wants.

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

this going to apply to the reserves too? would be helpful to not get me booted for non promotion when i go up for O-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if 5 year-buckets are because some O-4(S) two boards ago were 8APZ...

100% promotion "opportunity" (98% in reality was it?) had some interesting effects. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the AF realized they need to enable career broadening and joint officers who get their experience outside the tribe and this is their solution to keeping them competitive.  Fact remains that when people continue to promote below their peers they will still leave for greener pastures even when they have 4 more “IPZ” looks on the way. At some point they need to stop blaming and tinkering with processes and work on values... and not the abstract read-between-the-lines, try to evaluate performance on a piece of paper, and play the strat game crap, but what skills, knowledge, and experience to we need to win wars stuff. We need more bomb droppers? Promote them, and if necessary promote people who could cross train to be them. We need folks with PHDs on China? Promote them. Quit playing games trying to nudge boards to do this or that with fancy career briefs, categories, or SECAF memos. Just hurry up and get the job done. Set floors to AF needs and let’s get back to our jobs, or getting passed over and making 6-figures with a 3 on the front-end.

Edited by K_O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

Chuck,

any idea if this applies to promotion to O-5 or O-6? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

Wonder if 5 year-buckets are because some O-4(S) two boards ago were 8APZ...

100% promotion "opportunity" (98% in reality was it?) had some interesting effects. 

Yeah, I wonder if it just means people will be completely ineligible for promotion at 5+ APZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yeah, I wonder if it just means people will be completely ineligible for promotion at 5+ APZ

Checks with how I read that legal'ese, outside their "window-of-opportunity"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 6:05 AM, Chuck17 said:

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

I can second that I’ve heard similar rumblings in my corner that this may be coming down the line soon, though I haven’t seen specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soo... 2-line PRFs and all the associated racking and stacking hustle and bustle for our next groups of 2-BPZ and 1-BPZ folks meeting this next O-5 board or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, K_O said:

soo... 2-line PRFs and all the associated racking and stacking hustle and bustle for our next groups of 2-BPZ and 1-BPZ folks meeting this next O-5 board or not...

Ours are due to the wing Nov 14.  This Thursday.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...