Leaderboard

Fun. Our WG/CC's guidance to the SQ/CCs was "There is no guidance, fuck it up and I'll fire you".

Brownie you're doing a heckuva job.

I'd say, "no." For the majority of officers, the senior rater has about as much understanding as a random board member. Thus, they have to use discriminators like SOS in-res, AAD, Wing Holiday party planner, etc etc etc. From my experience, even the Group CC doesn't have a clear picture of all the officers in their group, depending on the size. I know for certain in my Ops Group, one of the SQ/CCs was pushing for CGO Group strats for officers that would be in the bottom third to bottom quarter in my current squadron. Yes--Group Strats for officers who wouldn't sniff a top 50% squadron strat in another squadron in the same Ops Group. The system is broken, which is what Zach Braff was hinting. IMO, strats should stop at the SQ level, because at the Group level and higher, you are simply comparing apples and oranges.

You're right… I'll bet the T-Bird ranked #7 of 7 should get working on that ATP right away! You should ask the SOLL II Commander in Charleston back in 2006 about when none of his 6 Left Seat, Evaluator pilots got school slots that year and they all took VSP because a barrage new "co-pilots" in the C-17 from KC-135 cross flows and AF Intern suddenly made them "average" on the Wing and OG Strat list. That was my first real eye opening experience where I saw that the AF had no real focus on actual pilot retention when the Wing lost what you could argue were 6 of its top pilots. If the AF is looking to keep the best party planners and queep managers then by all means just use Strats… if we want to keep our best pilots in these specific fields then we need to use a different method (of course starts will still be part of the mix). I honestly just think it depends on what the actual goal of the AF is as to who they want to keep. Then again… I'll go out on a limb here and say that most of your best pilots (if eligible) will be more concerned with their VSP paperwork being filled out correctly than their strat on an RRF.

Honestly? That's easy. i) They live way the fuck above their means (their wives demand it). ii) They were gonna attempt to stay in anyways (and don't kid yourself, that's a mere corollary of i ). Over at the other airline forum there's a couple of retired mobility O-5 bitching about not being able to make ends meet on retired mil pay and regional FO pay. One went so far to admit he needed an additional 5K above his retired pay (4K) in order to make black for his particular family situation. 9K to cover the expenditures column of the ledger, every month. LOL. You tell me why people take such a piddly bonus to lose all control.

How long has ACP been $25K, since the mid 90s? Base pay for an O-4 with 10 years of service in 1995 was $3432. Today it is $6593. ACP needs to increase commensurate with inflation, or it's not an effective tool--particularly with airline hiring.

Was reading this and thought of this: Here are 10 ways to guarantee that your best people will quit: 10. Treat everyone equally. This may sound good, but your employees are not equal. Some are worth more because they produce more results. The key is not to treat them equally, it is to treat them all fairly. 9. Tolerate mediocrity. A-players dont have to or want to play with a bunch of C-players. 8. Have dumb rules. I did not say have no rules, I said dont have dumb rules. Great employees want to have guidelines and direction, but they dont want to have rules that get in the way of doing their jobs or that conflict with the values the company says are important. 7. Dont recognize outstanding performance and contributions. Remember Psychology 101 Behavior you want repeated needs to be rewarded immediately. 6. Dont have any fun at work. Wheres the written rule that says work has to be serious? If you find it, rip it to shreds and stomp on it because the notion that work cannot be fun is actually counterproductive. The workplace should be fun. Find ways to make work and/or the work environment more relaxed and fun and you will have happy employees who look forward to coming to work each day. 5. Dont keep your people informed. Youve got to communicate not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. If you dont tell them, the rumor mill will. 4. Micromanage. Tell them what you want done and how you want it done. Dont tell them why it needs to be done and why their job is important. Dont ask for their input on how it could be done better. 3. Dont develop an employee retention strategy. Employee retention deserves your attention every day. Make a list of the people you dont want to lose and, next to each name, write down what you are doing or will do to ensure that person stays engaged and on board. 2. Dont do employee retention interviews. Wait until a great employee is walking out the door instead and conduct an exit interview to see what you could have done differently so they would not have gone out looking for another job. 1. Make your onboarding program an exercise in tedium. Employees are most impressionable during the first 60 days on the job. Every bit of information gathered during this time will either reinforce your new hires buying decision (to take the job) or lead to Hires Remorse. The biggest cause of Hires Remorse is the dreaded Employee Orientation/Training Program. Most are poorly organized, inefficient, and boring. How can you expect excellence from your new hires if your orientation program is a sloppy amalgamation of tedious paperwork, boring policies and procedures, and hours of regulations and red tape? To reinforce their buying decision, get key management involved on the first day and make sure your orientation delivers and reinforces these three messages repeatedly: A. You were carefully chosen and were glad youre here; B. Youre now part of a great organization; C. This is why your job is so important. https://www.tlnt.com/2013/04/08/hiring-wisdom-top-10-ways-to-guarantee-your-best-people-will-quit/

Late. As usual. Afpc clownshow standard

FIFY.

More than the other guy.

How many do we need? Well, since we have launched exactly zero missiles with a nuclear warhead at another country, then I would say we need...probably a lot less than we have now.

One of the flaws of our evaluation system is that we stratify people into two groups; top 20% and bottom 80%. All records without a strat look essentially the same. With exception of the Art 15s, DUIs and fitness test failures, figuring out a pecking order among that bottom 80% is rather difficult. All of our performance writing is geared toward identifying that top percentage for school, and all the great prose in the world is meaningless without that x/xx number on the push line. So to now turn around use the same system for identifying top performers to weed out the bottom 10% does not work well. I think the Air Force will be content with eliminating any of the bottom 80% by voluntary or other means, but may run into problems for people with the top records looking for a way out.

I agree. Make it more attractive to become a pilot. Start with a six year commitment (a RAND Study MG-855 Fighter Drawdown Dynamics calls the ten year commitment an "extraordinary measure"). This will create accountibility for leaders to manage the work force appropriately, attract the best and brightest America has to offer, and in the end, increase combat capability. Pilots are the backbone of the Air Force's combat capability, if we lose our expertise and experience we may still look okay on paper but we certainly won't be able to fight. No way in hell I am getting locked in for another decade. I am not bitter, I just have zero faith in big blue.

My quick math of all overages for the FSB and RIF indicates 3946.

Because the bonus means AFPC stops having to think, and Sq/CCs don't have to think, because people on the bonus are "all-in." It's a trap, and AF leaders won't have to learn to properly lead/inspire people in service, or properly manage careers, until it's no longer an option. I've said it before: kill the bonus, and reduce UPT commitments to six years (max)...everyone wins!

Ah, so you are advocating the ICBM gnomes.

Standardized morale...literally. Sweet.

The one that I love the most is for FGO Personnelists. 2001 YG is looking to cut 50 people with 36 eligible! Good luck and thank god. Maybe this will help reduce the AFPC debacle of 2016! 2004 11S's still getting hosed, not that I am surprised. I'll keep the countdown to terminal leave ticking away on my Ipad.

No Yes No

. I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that these are nuclear tipped ballistic missiles and you might want to have a hard wired connection to them to prevent jamming or hacking. Just a thought

At any level, you should be concerned when your boss asks you to brief him on your plan to get done what he told you to get done, when he resourced you with everything you said you needed to get it done and he fully expected you to get it done. When your boss specifically asks you to include in this new plan your assessment on your leadership, management principles/practices, personnel health/culture and proposed remedies for gaps in personnel growth and development, you are probably close to getting replaced because he is telling you to do something you should already be doing (leading and taking care of your people). When your boss tells you to get all this done very quickly, then brings in outside help to check the accuracy of your assessment and suitability of your new plan, you probably need to start thinking about doing another job. My guess is that we will see the abrupt removal of a few GOs by the time this is over.

No, I think the little things slipping were a symptom of a bigger problem (lack of discipline in mission planning and execution). Failing to enforce easy standards does not necessarily cause larger discipline issues. There are plenty of units who may look undisciplined (uniforms, mustaches, attitudes) but have skilled aviators and great mission hackers. In this case, the lack of discipline and lack of SA were only parts of a larger leadership problem. Fixing the little stuff helped, but it was the focus on all standards that worked. We should enforce standards, but we need to make sure we aren't making up unnecessary standards (the wrong shit), like the color of your athletic shoes or requirements to wear reflective belts during the day or with PT gear.

Your advice sucks because it does not address the challenge CSAF just presented Sq CCs and Wg CCs. You naively think that broad "go do the right thing" guidance equals leadership. One reason we trust officers to go execute combat missions is because we are confident that they understand their mission, they are trained to competently execute their portion of the mission, they are properly resourced, they understand the constraints and restraints required by relevant authorities, we are confident in their leadership abilities and there are appropriate C2 mechanisms to adjust the mission when the planning assumptions are wrong or the enemy changes the environment. We don't just trust officers to kill without making sure they understand the standards, expectations and mission and that they are prepared to make those important decisions. We also continuously assess the judgement, performance and leadership of the officer (we should probably do more of this). CSAF changed the AFI to give Wg CCs the authority to allow morale patches on Fridays and special events, but requires Sq CCs to maintain a list of acceptable patches and tabs. I asked the leadership pros at BODN what they thought the standard should be and how it should be enforced. You reply with a cheap shot about email leadership and the simplistic "act like officers". I'm no longer a wing commander, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I am curious to know what advice, guidance, intent, standards the Wg CCs are going to give Sq CCs about acceptable morale patches. I think written supplemental guidance (MFRs on the wall) and emails are overused and ineffective. Personal mentoring, where your subordinate commanders understand your intent and expectations, is much better. However, you would be surprised how many people ask "where is that written" when given feedback on how well they are meeting a standard that officers should know. I think the Friday morale patches should be authorized by all Wg CCs and the Sq CCs should approve patches that balance unit pride, humor, cleverness and professionalism. I think Sq CCs should standardize the morale patches worn in their unit and not allow the freestyle expression of individual taste and humor. We wear a uniform, not walking billboards. Sports teams, offensive material, and commercial product endorsements should not be allowed on our uniforms. You say this is common sense and we should trust our officers to make the right call. I agree, but there will still be a need for Wg CCs and Sq CCs to talk about where we draw the standards line and how we will enforce the predictable deviations from common sense. What we wear on our uniforms transmits information to those who see us. Our joint partners, civilian leaders, allies and subordinate Airmen make leadership and competence assessments when they see these patches. There are plenty of examples of officers wearing morale patches that do not belong on a uniform. The leadership challenge for our officers is creating a force that knows how to make the judgement and has the courage to enforce the standards, without specific written guidance from above. And I agree. This is the easy shit. It should not take more than a few minutes to define the expectations. We have much larger and more complex leadership challenges we should all be concerned about.

I'm a retired O-6 (Reserve, though my last 12 years were spent attached to AD units)...been in several command positions, been in ICBMs (where the active duty Wing/CC was a good sh*t [made 2-stars, BTW], but trying to be a "good soldier" by **vaguely** enforcing the ban on morale patches...all while the Vice Wing/CC and OG/CCs [two other good sh&ts, BTW] wore them!!!). All I can say is (other than "RustyPipes" and "FlyinGrunt" are probably geniuses without knowing it for their comments above) is: I personally cannot for the life of me...understand the **obsession** (read that "hard-on") that leadership has for "Friday" patches-- I personally think that it's BULLSH&T, and an unnecessary morale-buster. 2nd best one I ever saw was a desert subdued "New Belgian Brewing" logo on a guys flightsuit in "The Muff" at Al Udeid (okay, #2 is a tie...the other one was a tab I also saw in the desert saying "F&ck it's hot here..."). Here's the cleverest I ever saw: Again, just my .02 cents. IMHO, the current-day AF is a morale-devoid wasteland, where in near-hysterical efforts to be promoted, many senior leaders are working overtime to ensure it is a politically correct Mecca...NOT the world's most capable air and space force. Kent

Yep...this time will be different. This time we'll be able to trust them.

RIQ/RFC is at Randolph, but I digress, semantics. I don't know your personal situation, if you're coming from another AFSC or if you're brand new, so: Brand new accession: You will PCS to Randolph, and be expected to find an apartment or house off base. You will receive BAH for the San Antonio area, so yes family is welcome. Cross-training: You will be TDY to Randolph, so it is better to leave your family at your home station. You will be living in on-base lodging. At Holloman, you are TDY en route, so your family is kind of in limbo. You can either leave them in San Antonio (or your previous home station), or take them with you, but they will have to live in a hotel-size room with you on base unless you have a cat or dog and can secure a pet-friendly TLF. This is not much better, but it has a full kitchen and a separate living room from the bedroom. It's a pretty terrible situation for possibly four to five months if you get MQ-9's. I've seen some people forgo lodging on base and find a fully-furnished apartment off base, but I'm not too knowledgeable about that stuff in Alamogordo. There were plenty of people that sent their families ahead to their gaining base, but you run the risk of washing out of training at Holloman, and then being stuck with a home at a location you are no longer going to and having to go through the pains of convincing the military to repack your things after you've unloaded already. I strongly advise against sending family ahead. Though failing out seems like a remote chance, it's happened and can cause even more heartache and headache on top of having to get reclassed again.

My buddy got there in October and is pretty busy. Dyess is sitting alert to help offset the ops tempo. PM me if you want my buddy's info. WxMan

Dude......it affects your retired pay. 50% of the average of your last 3 years of service, for the rest of your life. Retiring one grade lower will cost you half a million dollars in the long run. I'd call that a disadvantage personally.

If I were an -11U, I would not automatically assume that I can apply for various separation programs based upon a mobility aircraft RDTM, despite the guidance. That mistake will likely be rectified; keep your eyes peeled for potential future updates. Thanks to everyone for your candor over the last 2 weeks.

I agree with everything you said...except your analogy. The Air Force is not locking down a 'best of the best' or 'top talent'...they are locking down a skill-set to perform a mission, no more, no less. I would be curious to see what would happen if the AF decided to not give out a bonus for 2 years...one year for people to be shocked, and one more year to show it wasn't an accident. As as far as commitments go, I bet Big Blue could raise the commitment to 13 years and they'd still not have a problem getting qualified (as well as quality) young guys to accept the service commitment as long as it meant that they get to go to UPT, get paid to fly military aircraft, and even have a chance at flying those super awesome shiny F-22's. Thank about it...how many of us at 17-18 were concerned about a longer commitment (compared to the standard commissioning commitment) as long as it meant we were going to get to fly? Even when it came down to us 22-23 year olds going to UPT, most of us (at least not me and my friends) were not too worried about the 10-year commitment, even when we saw it go from 8 to 10 when we were half way done with ROTC. Are the 22-23 year old kids thinking much differently than we thought 12 years ago? Going to the 10 year commitment was a smart move for the AF. They no longer had to offer excessive bonuses to all the pilots (some guys signed 14 year long bonuses).