CGO PME undergoes transformation

[Danger41]

Check out this article about Officer retention in the Army. Apparently it's not just us dealing with the clown act.

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/8346/1/

[nsplayr]

I think that was posted here before somewhere. Good article either way...the Boss man will be in for a big surprise when a lot of dudes can get out and the outside economy is looking better, but like the old hats always say, the institution will live on without us who choose to punch.

[BQZip01]

Check out this article about Officer retention in the Army. Apparently it's not just us dealing with the clown act.

http://m.theatlantic...leaving/8346/1/

"Why does the American military produce the most innovative and entrepreneurial leaders in the country, then waste that talent in a risk-averse bureaucracy?"

Why indeed...

[Magellan]

Check out this article about Officer retention in the Army. Apparently it's not just us dealing with the clown act. http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/8346/1/

An interesting article in theory, but I think implementing it would be a little more difficult than the author realizes. For example how do you fill the assignments that no body wants? The free market is driven by consumer demand...how many guys with wives and kids want to demand a 365 unaccompanied?

[nsplayr]

An interesting article in theory, but I think implementing it would be a little more difficult than the author realizes. For example how do you fill the assignments that no body wants? The free market is driven by consumer demand...how many guys with wives and kids want to demand a 365 unaccompanied?

Offer incentives until somebody takes the job. If the cost of offering those incentives begins to outweigh the benefit of filling that particular job then stop doing it or find a way to do it differently. That's what a perfect market would do anyways; clearly the military is not quite able to do that but that's the theory.

[Danger41]

Since we all have Masters degrees now, we should be able to use some of that next-level thinking to come up with a solution.

[guineapigfury]

An interesting article in theory, but I think implementing it would be a little more difficult than the author realizes. For example how do you fill the assignments that no body wants?

By recognizing them as shit sandwiches. Right now we lie to ourselves that "every assignment is a good assignment." This is not true. It wouldn't be rocket science to keep track of guys who got an assignment that wasn't even close to anything on their ADP, then let them cut to the front of the line a few VMLs down the road. Morale would be a lot higher in my community if the UAV shit sandwich came with a nice slice of "back to a real airplane" pie afterward.

[Homestar]

An interesting article in theory, but I think implementing it would be a little more difficult than the author realizes. For example how do you fill the assignments that no body wants? The free market is driven by consumer demand...how many guys with wives and kids want to demand a 365 unaccompanied?

Do what the civilian world does when they need to send employees to Afghanistan...pay them $250,000 for a year of work and let them come home for two weeks every four months. I'm certain you'd see more volunteers if there were improved incentives.

[Prosuper]

Do what the civilian world does when they need to send employees to Afghanistan...pay them $250,000 for a year of work and let them come home for two weeks every four months. I'm certain you'd see more volunteers if there were improved incentives.

Which job is that? Send me that application. I do good but not that good.

[Homestar]

Talk to any L-3 contract pilot in-country.

[Fud]

By recognizing them as shit sandwiches. Right now we lie to ourselves that "every assignment is a good assignment." This is not true. It wouldn't be rocket science to keep track of guys who got an assignment that wasn't even close to anything on their ADP, then let them cut to the front of the line a few VMLs down the road. Morale would be a lot higher in my community if the UAV shit sandwich came with a nice slice of "back to a real airplane" pie afterward.

One has to realize that almost every commander is chosen because they drink the blue Kool Aid or have already sold their soul (or both). The commander should be doing this for his guys, but I rarely see it happen in my community as well. I think some bases (Canon, Minot) should have guaranteed follow-on assignments in hotter/sexier locations. This would incentivize the assignments process, and more people might do a remote 1-2 year tour in these locations with options of being flight commanders/execs for a 3rd year at the end.

[Guest]

...pay them $250,000 for a year of work...

Impossible.

[17D_guy]

Sounds like a party, what's the problem?

which he planned.

FIFY

CC wasn't drunk, was in front of everyone (75+ enlisted Amn), and random.

This fine fellow was on the hot ticket (allegedly) to RIF; no PME, AAD, community service, arrive late/leave early, and certainly no X-mas planning. But apparently he's now decided to play the game. Hopefully he's also decided to stop the DUI lottery he thought was fun.

I'd do a remote for normal bene's and that 2 weeks leave every quarter. Guess I'm a AF Whore.

[GoAround]

I think some bases (Canon, Minot) should have guaranteed follow-on assignments in hotter/sexier locations.

Or they should have put the RPA locations at Charleston, MacDill, etc...i.e. anywhere other than the armpits of the AF like Clovis, Creech, Alamogordo. So, although they might have to stay in the RPA community, they have a decent locale to chill off-duty.

[Duck]

Or they should have put the RPA locations at Charleston, MacDill, etc...i.e. anywhere other than the armpits of the AF like Clovis, Creech, Alamogordo. So, although they might have to stay in the RPA community, they have a decent locale to chill off-duty.

Yeah, but you can't control a UAV from just anywhere... oh wait, yeah you can. Nevermind.

[sweet I'm SOF]

"May want to revise this sentence chief. But I know what you mean, and what you mean is in direct conflict with your above statement. If "your going in argument as a CGO is that you are tactically sound," they how do you discriminate based on downrange performance if you expect that everyone is "tactically sound?" That's the rub...as an institution we assume everyone that's "qualified" is "proficient" or even "excellent" at their primary job and this is simply not true. IMHO a boss that truly does discriminate first and foremost based on primary job duties (as informed by his own observations and those of his instructor/evaluator corps) is doing it right."

Fair one. My grammar has atrophied. Not everyone deploys, that is one way that I discriminate. It is usually (but not always) a timing issue. When one is deployed, I receive LOEs and on rare occasion, a call from someone directly who tells me what one of my guys did that is above and beyond. That is a discriminator. Likewise, if I get the unwanted call that a deployer is want of skill, that is also a discriminator in the other direction. There is a spectrum of ability that your reply is not accounting for.

"So shut up and color, am I reading your advice correctly? There are actual requirements and then there is unnecessary BS or undue ass-pain. Dude, if you're aircrew and you can't appreciate some good ole' fashion bitchin' you would not fit in with the guys I know and work with. Since I'm forced by an ADSC to bend over and take whatever Big Blue has in store for me, I figured the very least I'm gonna do is request some lube. Saying "yes sir, how many buckets full sir?" will put you on the fast track to leadership but it does no good for the organization in the long-term."

I'm not one of the guys that you know and work with. Everything I've read on this forum, I hear it in my unit. My guys bitch up or sideways, never down. If they break that rule, we have a problem. At the end of the day, if you are not shutting up and coloring, what are you doing? I'm not talking about the forum, I'm talking about in your unit. You know the rules. Bitch all day in here, but day to day I submit that you are shutting up and coloring. Back to my earlier post, it isn't any different anywhere else. You probably don't believe this, but I don't like it anymore than you do. Neither of us have enough rank yet to effect a change. Sports bitching on baseops is one thing. I hope you do not bring this into your unit, and if you do, I hope you have the stones to vector it up or sideways, and not down. Yes, I realize that is a few sips of kool aid. That's the institution.

"Is everyone meeting this baseline? I've found that it's relatively easy to rack & stack based on primary duty performance alone because frankly everyone is not Captain America of our tactical mission, it's just the facts of life."

No, they are not. Example: Lt X is a stellar tactician, not only knows the mission, but makes others better at the mission. More than once, I've had to put Lt X on the carpet because of his sideburns, or the fact that he showed up to PT in civvies. Lt Y is still finding his way tactically, but does a shitload of volunteer work, runs a pretty dang good para ops program, and will never be caught out of uniform regs. Lt X is the number one out of those two. This may come as a shock, but the group commander will immediately zero in on Lt X's chops, or heaven forbid that he is in civvies at the gym. The ensuing dialogue is frustrating as hell, but I'd be short-changing Lt X if I didn't say hey man, you are killing it on the tactical side, but help me out with the sideburns. Such is life in the institution.

So there's my thoughts and I think your assumptions of across-the-board tactical prowess are where you go wrong along with your overly compliant attitude toward the Man's unnecessary shenanigans.

I'll take the hit on the overly compliant attitude perception. But at some point you have to lead. A sometimes ugly part of that is understanding the environment, and adapting accordingly. As long as they put humans in leadership positions, we are all subject to the subjectiveness.

Edit: I am challenged with several things, including how to make my response to a previous post look correct on here. I placed nsplayer's comments in italics.

Edited July 17, 2012 by sweet I'm SOF