Leaderboard

"We're past the point of doing everything just because it says so in an [Air Force Instruction]," Welsh said. "If it wastes our time, we should stop, and we should stop today."

You make some very good points. I don't have the time for a proper response, but here are a few choppy thoughts. Yes, we focus on the wrong shit too much and we let it take too much of our time. We need to stop sweating the small shit. CSAF helped us with that. CSAF will release guidance to not consider AAD for Maj and Lt Col. I wish he would move faster on that. Just finished the O-5 MLR and most had it done. We did not deduct points for no AAD, but the lack of AAD was probably a factor for no strats. He will need to put out guidance to sr raters to not consider AAD during strats or job selection for it to be truly effective. It was the promotion board that held AAD in such high regard. The senior raters and commanders were trying to align their priorities with the board priorities. We need to fix it and stop telling Capts and Majs to get AADs done to be competitive. That one comes from the top. Agree, leadership by email and MFR sucks. Group and wing commanders don't have time to sit in 2-6K offices and chat, but their target audience to lead is commanders and chiefs. Getting out and staying in touch with the force is very important. Sq CCs need to do this all the time. We pick the wrong people because you never know how someone will do at the next level. We can mentor and guide, but sometimes we need to remove and replace. Nothing personal but past performance does not guarantee future performance. Not all officers are professional and most need to be mentored regularly. Trust and empower, but monitor, mentor and adjust when required.

I suspect that the 3 year TIG isn't directed at O-4s, but O-6s. Retire as an O-6 and you're a DV for life. Same thing for Chiefs. I think this is a quiet way for Big Blue to incentivize senior personnel to stick around past 20.

It is embarrassing how long it took me to figure out why Alaska's clear superiority to Arkansas had anything to do with M2.

This is about right.

I don't think the regular American would know the difference.

This is all very interesting to me...only my 2 cents: How Morale Tab Patches are a Leadership Challenge Prior to this change being published, tab/morale patches have been authorized on a case-by-case basis for wear (even in the AOR, gasp, amongst our coalition partners). How can this be? These patches were not allowed by AFI. There is a difference between enforcing rules and leading, and they often only have an indirect, and occasionally direct, connection to one another. Sadly, when direct connection is necessary, it is not ever a good day (for anyone involved). Buddy Spike's email suggestion is actually fine to me (although I would suggest some minor word-smithing) from the wing level straight down to the squadron level (this is where this issue belongs; wing commanders out and about looking into tab patches is laughable). However, from the squadron commander's purview, it really isn't that simple...not from a perspective of leadership. A commander/leader does not need to express his expectation that officers act like officers. However, he does have the responsibility to ensure that each officer knows what that means. Morale patches are a very minor wave in what should already be a riptide of influence a commander has on each officer in his unit. A "my door is always open" policy is essential, but it is far from leadership. He must actively engage every person and challenge them to think a step or two farther through each issue. Some issues do not have many steps, as may be the case here. If this is not done, those that follow in their foot steps will be forced to think farther later, making the same mistakes over again when it is their turn to lead; nothing will ever improve. Those who mostly understand already lead their peers, this is most difficult. Those who truly understand lead their leaders, and the good ones encourage this. This must happen more often now than before if we are to fix whatever leadership deficiencies are believed to exist. As it stands, the majority of tomorrow's leaders will be no better and no more successful than the leaders drawing criticism today nor are they any more capable (they will succumb to the same pitfalls already in play). There is a deep rooted lack of understanding in the CGO corps that initiative and leadership is expected of them. It has nothing to do with burger-burns, Christmas parties, or morale patches. If you don't understand, seek out the right person to ask (sadly, you'll need to look hard). There was a reason the AFI was changed, removing the things that were now reinstated. Squadron Commanders will set expectation, they may or may not follow through...CGOs will decide when it's time to change the AFI back to it's more restrictive version. There are many people who want to lead. There are many more that only want to follow. The Air Force is unfortunately currently over manned in the followership career field. There are almost unlimited possibilities for sharing what morale, pride, confidence, initiative, and character are, by both CGO and FGO alike (commander or not)...it does have something to do with morale patches, but not if the Chiefs logo specifically is appropriate or not. The ability to wear a Chief tab on your flight suit will not improve your morale, nor anything else about you. Bendy

Did you correct the captain for having a placard without the DV on board?

This entire thread is why I cannot wait to get out. If people equal leadership with patches, fvck this sh!t…. We got much bigger fish to fry.

It's easier than that: just eliminate the data fields on SURFs and DQHBs and such that contain the AAD info. For all officers. Create an SEI for tech or specific job-required AADs, and award it as necessary. I'm going to continue to wear my Friday name tag as I always have...and now will encourage others too, as well!

I know that couch from somewhere....

Fair enough. But I think the theme is the same....we focus on the wrong shit. I wasn't in your unit so I don't know what the climate was like. But, in my opinion, if the Air Force wants superior mission planning and execution, then we need to focus on planning and execution at the appropriate levels. We aren't doing that as well as we could be. I think it is because we focus too much on this "easy shit" that really should be entrusted with the people whom we call our professional officers. Yes, there is a point where we have to start focusing on the strategic level of planning and execution and identifying those leaders, but the time for that isn't for the young CGOs, especially on the flying/operations side of the house. Focus on flying and operations and worry about the strategic stuff (PME, AAD...yeah, I brought it up again) at the appropriate times. Lt Schmukatelli isn't at the appropriate time as a new copilot in the squadron. Are we professional officers? Then treat us that way and trust us to make those decisions. The ones who aren't there yet, mentor them...don't label them and then brush them off as someone that just doesn't have the potential to bloom as a future leader. The more experienced officers (leaders) need to mentor them and shape them. But we don't do that...we look at a guy with no AAD as a Capt and say "This guy doesn't care enough about his career to get his AAD done in time," and now that guy just doesn't make the rack and stack...regardless of leadership potential. I equate that mentality the same as an instructor who flys with a student, but doesn't instruct...they just "evaluate" and conclude that the "student" sucks at flying. Maybe he sucks at flying because you sucked as an instructor. Doesn't happen all the time, but it happens enough. Not everyone develops as a leader or even a pilot at the same rate. I've seen dudes struggle in pilot training only to become chief of STAN/EVAL at their follow on units. Either we are making the wrong people chief of STAN/EVAL or he actually grew as a professional aviator over time...just didn't have it in pilot training. I got off track a little bit, but the point I was trying to make is that, in my opinion, the "bigger problems" you're talking about are the result of us being too busy to care enough to develop our young officers (and enlisted) airmen. It is the culture we have created in the Air Force with focusing on the little things. It has become the norm all while the big things are secondary focus and are now becoming the problems. "Leadership" by e-mail doesn't work. "Leaders" who do this don't know it doesn't work because in their minds they are doing something THEY think is leadership. As a guy on the other end of that e-mail chain, I can tell you that it is not effective. The commanders I respected the most took the time to come to the office, sit, chat, connect with their people and made sure they focused on the right things...being ready to fly, fight, win. We didn't have sloppy mission planning and execution problems. That was my experience...YMMV.

LOL...Or 26.2.7. "Any officer possessing a skill (to include capabilities, experiences, and other attributes) approved by SecAF and identified in the board details as critical to the Air Force." Wonder if flying an airplane is a skill critical to the AF. Probably not.

Yeah...that's kind of the problem, isn't it? K

No problem. The whole reason we stayed there for 8+ years was to help a new government get on its feet without the risk of being toppled by an insurgency and to also train their military to be able to defend their government against such an insurgency when we left. The Iraqis are more than capable of defeating a relatively small insurgency. They (Iraqis) are extremely resourceful when they chose to be. Going back to doing their job for them will keep them from growing to the point where they need to be militarily. And if they fail because they couldn't figure out something that they are capable of doing, then so be it. When they become a safe haven for terrorists wanting to invade/harm our homeland (and actually attempt to do so), then I'll be concerned, but until then...not so much. Same goes for the Afghans...with the caveat that I don't believe they have a chance against the Taliban when we pull out. Time will indeed tell.

Couldn't even get an f'in dip clearance for overflight last month...now they are crying for help.

Two years ago on BODN: "Man, I can't believe the spineless leaders that took away our black shirts, friday patches, and morale meters." Two days ago on BODN: "Man, I can't believe that the spineless leaders think that giving us back our morale shirts and patches is leadership."

I don't think you understand math. The question was, if you retire as an O5 with only two years in grade....what's the practical effect? It has zero effect on your retirement income, it means your retired ID card says says you're a major.

Yep I couldn't remember Taji's runway length.....Balad would be better........I just like the thought of a relatively low risk way to keep killing insurgents a very long way from our shores. Having talked to a few less than respectable types from that area a long time ago the bad guy's definitely fear UAVs and Hellfires..... I knew Iraqis were using 208s with Hellfires but admittedly I can't speak to which is more effective.

I spent considerable time in Fallujah during the spring of 2004 and that whole town can be turned into glass for all I care!

Life is a contact sport, it takes SA to play. If people don't know when or how to choose what is or is not out of line, then educate them. This doesn't mean that we need a list, like the commandments from down on high to micromanage each and every aspect. Leaders should educate and allow their subordinates to make decisions on their own with a basic commander's intent/direction specified. This should be the main reason we have people doing this job, if it was black and white, robots would do it.

This thread went from good to bad. Makes my head want to explode.

It 'should' be easy shit. But when senior officers and politicians have allowed an over aggressive PC culture to take over, then nothing is easy when every stupid complaint of being offended is considered worth investigating. I'm being a little facetious, but this is what has taken over. A bottle of scotch says that if NFL teams are allowed on tabs (again, Flight Med troops were wearing NFL jerseys last year at work), that someone will complain about the 'Redskins' being offensive. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if a college team bearing the word 'Indian' or 'Chief' would also not be allowed...the Seminoles might also be banned. The Vikings and Fighting Irish will be ok though.

The fact that you called this a "challenge" shows just how clueless you and the rest of the "leaders" truly are. If this is a challenge to you on any level, you're not qualified to stand in front and lead people. You're just a glorified manager. Leadership is setting the standard and trusting your people to do the right thing (and course-correcting when necessary). If you seriously have to get this worked up about "OMG WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WITHOUT MICROMANAGING GUIDANCE!" then you have much bigger issues.

Having spent more than my fair share of time on the ground in that hell hole, I say stack Taji with as many Preds/Reapers and Hellfires as they can fit and go to town on the SOBs. Let them take Falluja/Ramadi and the surrounding areas so they're drawn out into the open and kill them in easier to hit clusters........as for ground troops......beyond some SOF troops....no way

I think it shows a profound lack of trust in your people if you automatically believe they won't do the right thing. When I fly, I usually wear a baseball cap under my headset. Am I stupid enough to wear it outside of the airplane? Hell no. As soon as the squat switch in my ass opens up as I get out of my seat, the hat comes off. Shockingly, the hat even stays in my bag if I happen to have a VIP onboard. It's scary how smart I am sometimes. When I was a young LT, I wore a subdued tab patch with a silhouette of a Herk. Most everyone else in the squadron wore some variation of that. I didn't have to be told not to wear a patch with a stripper on it, or even one with my school's logo. I knew damn well that if I did, I was going to get the stink eye from someone in the squadron, or worse yet from the DO or CC. I didn't need it written down, nor did anyone else. We had enough sense to know where the line was and policed ourselves in those rare instances when that line got crossed. SQ/CC's rarely, if ever, got involved, much less WG/CC's. Put a little trust in your people, you might be surprised at how they respond.

How many people would voluntarily work for a company that furloughs and terminates people with little notice? Demands a one way employment contract? Will deploy you to some crap-hole-country for a year to teach people to fly who want to kill you? It becomes a job after a few years. Benefit of staying must be greater than the benefit of leaving. For most people TriCare and the Pension weigh very heavily in that calculation. Good people know what they are worth and where they are going.

It's a trap

Well said, couldn't agree more.

It's their country now, they can do what ever they want with it. If they don't like terrorists taking a city, then they'll go kick ass. If they tolerate it, now we know how much they care. If we even hint at bailing them out, then will always seek to have us bail them out. Time to stand like a man or cower like sheep. It's fucking pathetic that our military leaders are even putting intent on newspaper to bail them out. Out

I hate to answer a question with a question, but maybe you and the people you work for need to ask yourself this… How can you manage to take some of the smartest, most highly motivated, talented, skilled, unselfish, mission oriented, succeed at all cost, patriotic citizens this country has to offer… and make them want to do something other than what many of them have dreamed their whole lives about doing??? I have learned by being on this forum long enough not to speak for others, so I will just speak for me. Since I was 4 yrs old I wanted to be a pilot. I didn't want to be just a pilot, I wanted to be a military pilot. The proudest day of my life aside from becoming a Dad was pinning my Wings on my chest… I love wearing a flight suit and I love each and every crew dawg that straps into the seat to go to every shit country that ends in "stan" so that hopefully my kids won't have to!!! It has no kidding been my dream my entire life to be able to do what I do… but I don't want to do it anymore! It's not that I don't want to hack the mission or deploy or put on a tan flight suit anymore (I'll honestly eventually miss all of that)… its that I don't want to deal with moron managers who couldn't lead a bowling ball down a hill. Patton, LeMay, Mitchell… they probably wouldn't make Captain in today's Air Force because they (like most of those who bail AD at the first opportunity) had the balls to look at the boss and say, "Sir, this is fucking stupid!" Somehow with the amazing talent pool that we have to choose from we manage to drive most of our leaders out… for some unknown reason you and your bosses can't figure out why. And for some ungodly reason… you and your bosses actually think that YOU are leaders. You're not...

That's painting with a pretty broad brush. So let me get this straight... Staff workers and leadership = automatically stupid, unenlightened UMB wearer who passed his eye test at age 20 but has next to ZERO developed leadership skills = automatically brilliant, enlightened Somehow, I don't think so... Friendly prediction/advice: You're headed for a great big surprise once you leave the AF, unless you lose your attitude and start showing other people respect in a hurry. Discounting others' opinions and ideas because you come across as a "legend in your own mind" will prove to be a quick path to the door for you. Final thought: Remember that life outside the AF is not optimized for pilots, and they are pretty much a dime a dozen (translation - MANY more applicants than positions)-- it's how well you are able to work with others that will determine whether you remain employed, or end up an unemployed blowhard. Best of luck... K

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.

I'm not familiar with this program, but I'm guessing this is a top 3 waiver for retirement calculation. If so, I know multiple NCOs who would jump at this, particularly as HYT for E6 is now 20 years, so plenty of recent MSgts could bail at about 21 to 22 years instead. Also, this factors into plenty of E-to-O programs which require extra years to retire in the O category. It could definitely be the deciding factor for some folks.

Who would the regular American believe more on Fox/CNN? Maj John Doe or Lt Col John Doe?

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.

Your advice sucks. Nice try.

Glad you understand CGOs have their place and time..We'll ask for their opinion when we want it and when it is appropriate... K