Laughlin Buffoonery

[Guest pown3d]

Thought I'd share one of the more absurd e-mails to come out of Laughlin...

From: XXXXXXXX, XXXXX Maj USAF AETC XX FTS/T-6

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:40 PM

To: A bunch of people

Subject: Student Professionalism

XXXXXXXX flight commanders,

Several of us on this email list have noticed a serious lack of professionalism from students lately. We’ve all talked about it but have never done anything about it.

Specifically, the students have forgotten how to say the word, “sir.”

The next time a student says, “What’s up?”, “How’s it going?”, “Yeah”, or “Nope” to an IP, I’m going to stand him at attention in the hallway and leave him there the rest of the day.

This includes casual dudes and APT (awaiting pilot training).

Please pass this along at your next standup.

V/R,

XXXXXXXXX

Maj XXXXX XXXXXXXX

XX FTS IP, XX FTS ADO

------------------------------------

From: XXXXXXXX, XXXXX Maj USAF AETC XX FTS/T-6

Sent: Wed 12/3/2008 4:43 PM

To: A bunch of people

Subject: RE: Student Professionalism

Just a clarification, he will stand at attention by the step desk and when people say, "Why are you standing at attention by the step desk?" he will have to say, "Because I don't know how to say, 'Sir'...Sir."

Maj XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

XX FTS IP, XX FTS ADO

A couple of my favorite replies I saw attached to this e-mail chain:

Ahh, how I miss the UPT environment.

...

haha! wtf...

you know my favorite part of the email? when he says... "this includes casual dudes..." i'm not sure how you can complain about a lieutenant in the USAF, a commissioned officer, not calling you sir when you call him dude...

...

I like how he said “This includes casual dudes and APT (awaiting pilot training). “ Yeah, because “dudes” is a totally professional phrase, dude. And APT and Casual are the same thing. Good Work…

Don't get me wrong -- I understand that UPT requires a certain amount of... decorum, that you might not see in the operational Air Force. But this is so stupid it's almost humorous. Talk about a gross overreaction. Someone needs to get out of AETC for a while.

[Guest Cap-10]

While this guy has taken a things a little too far and I believe his 'stand at attention' routine to be a bit much, I do think he has a point.

IMHO, I think a little tightening of the reins will do the entitlement generation a little good. Everyone wants to be buddy-buddy with everyone, and no one wants to be the bad guy...but sometimes a little smack down is in order.

Example: When I was an FTU IP, I had a 1Lt argue with me in the debrief. I, with my 1,000+ hours, debriefed him on how things went during the engagement, and Lt Sh!tpants, with his 6.9 hours decided that I was way out in left field.

When I was an FTU student, I was afraid to blink too much, let alone open my cake hole to voice a protest.

I am sure this was not Lt Sh!tpants first time opening his man pleaser.

If the Flight Commander/IP, etc who first witnessed Lt Sh!tpants blatent lack of SA and violation of de-brief ROE, I wouldn't have had to take 6-9 minutes out of my debrief to tear his a new arse-hole.

EPIC FAIL: to Maj Douche for b!tching about people calling him 'dude', then addressing the APT Lt's as 'dudes'! LOW SA!

Cheers,

Cap-10

[brickhistory]

And, if true, was leadership by e-mail.

Add face to face contact to the list of 'forgotten' items.

[B*D*A]

And, if true, was leadership by e-mail.

Add face to face contact to the list of 'forgotten' items.

I think that's the worse part. Take 5 mins, get everyone together and practice, wait for it.......LEADERSHIP! If discipline is lax in a military unit, it comes from the top, the bottom totem pole dudes just don't decide to act that way all at once and on a whim.

[Skitzo]

WTF--- this is an example of leadership I would expect out of a clerk at the Deid. If you have such a problem with the decorum and you are an FING ADO, maybe you should man up and just do what it is you want to do, the repercussions would be a lot more effective than threats--that is if the SNAPS don't file an IG complaint against you for harassment. One scared crapless Lt and the rumors that would abound would be a much more effective than another useless email.

[Guest Homestar]

Have things really changed since I went through UPT (2004-5)? In my class each and every IP (even the FAIPs) were "Sir" to even the Major and Captain in our our class. The school house is a different place. I don't remember any 1 Lt FAIP asking to be called "Sir." It just happened. Your IP deserves your attention and respect. He/she knows more than you do.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Homestar

[Guest pown3d]

That's not even the issue here. The issue is with how the problem is being handled, and the absurd nature of the e-mail.

[Guest Smoke_Jaguar4]

This whole scenario goes to the heart of so much of what is wrong with the Air Force.

1. Leadership by email.

2. Threats rather than action.

3. Delegation of threats (he tells the flt/ccs to brief the students, yet he doesn't brief the flt/ccs in person).

4. Students with no sense of respect. This goes far beyond UPT students. This is a big problem between Os and Es.

5. "Experienced" officers who tolerate casual greetings in a formal training environment.

6. ADOs. What exactly are they for anyways?

7. Most officers are hypocritical without realizing it.

For the record, I think the major is spot on with his assessment, and he performed no differently in this situation than 90%+ of the other officers we have so don't rip him too badly. Actually, most other officers would just let it go, avoiding any type of confrontation whatsoever, and counting another day towards retirement. Unfortunately, the guy delivered his message completely wrong. This is the way of the modern Air Force. One person cannot change it. Attempting to change it invites mockery. Additionally, the major is obviously so entrenched in the casual culture he has been a part of for so long that he slips and calls the UPT students "dudes"---hypocrisy at its finest.

To your list I'd add:

8. Failure to take ownership

He starts his email with:

"Several of us on this email list have noticed a serious lack of professionalism from students lately. We’ve all talked about it but have never done anything about it."

This could have been more effectively stated as:

"I have noticed a serious lack of professionalism from students lately. We’ve all talked about it but have never done anything about it."

The scratched-out part is just wishy-washy. It raises the question: "Why have you, Major ADO, the #3 or #4 ranking officer in the SQ, let things deteriorate to this point?"

Also, how many Flt CC's are there in an FTS? Could it be so hard to get them all in a room and send his message directly? Reading this email, either this is coming directly from him and he's fustrated getting his message out, or the CC or DO are leaning on him to do their dirty-work for them.

SJ4

[PirateAF]

First day of UPT we all stood at attention in the flight room while our Navy Flt/cc walked around and looked each one of us in the eye.

His words: "Sh*t rolls downhill...and you live in the valley".

No problems with respect in our flight room.

[Hacker]

I don't see what the big deal is -- I think the Maj has a point that is valid.

The way you guys are nit-picking the way the message was transmitted is some of the most retarded sh*t I've seen on this site in a while.

So what if this ADO hadn't done anything about it YET. Having let it go in the past never prohibits you from taking action on it now. In fact, what he's saying is that he made a mistake in the past, and he's taking care of it now...and wants the rest of the IPs to do the same. I fail to see where there's a problem with that.

As for pot-calling-kettle with the Major complaining about professionalism and then calling Lieutenants "dude"...so what? RHIP. I don't remember anything about higher ranking officers owing any kind of customs and courtesies to lower ranking officers. He can call them "ass monkey" for all I care, and it still doesn't assauge the Lieutenants' need to use customs and courtesies when addressing higher ranking officers. The email was sent to other IPs, anyway. I can see that there would be a problem getting the message across if he was personally addressing the Lieutenants and calling them 'dude', but that's not what is happening here.

I'm not personally a fan of the 'stand at attention at the ops desk' part, but I'm thinking that was just hyperbole anyway.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Hacker

[BQZip01]

To your list I'd add:

8. Failure to take ownership

He starts his email with:

"Several of us on this email list have noticed a serious lack of professionalism from students lately. We’ve all talked about it but have never done anything about it."

This could have been more effectively stated as:

"I have noticed a serious lack of professionalism from students lately. We’ve all talked about it but have never done anything about it."

The scratched-out part is just wishy-washy. It raises the question: "Why have you, Major ADO, the #3 or #4 ranking officer in the SQ, let things deteriorate to this point?"

Also, how many Flt CC's are there in an FTS? Could it be so hard to get them all in a room and send his message directly? Reading this email, either this is coming directly from him and he's fustrated getting his message out, or the CC or DO are leaning on him to do their dirty-work for them.

SJ4

I am so glad someone else pointed this out. Respect is a two way street. I specifically remember a Major telling me to stand up whenever an IP or superior officer is addressing you. I have no problem with that and I was out of line/out of practice. I did as requested and continued to do so for the rest of my time there. Mind you I wasn't the only one doing it, but this particular Major felt a need to single me out. I was the class leadership and making an example may have needed to be done. I've got no problem there. Later that day, I was told to go talk to the flight commander. He asked me about the incident and told me the Major had written me up for a lack of military bearing. While I still think it was excessive, it also was well within his rights to do so. I signed the form acknowledging the "counseling" provided (the Flt commander actually shook his head in disbelief, but went through the procedures anyway).

Now, I want to make it perfectly clear, everything to this point, I was in the wrong and, regardless about my feelings about the severity of the lashback, it was within the Major's perogative to do so...

I made sure to tell everyone in the class (either in person or by e-mail for those I wasn't able to talk directly to)

The same Major the next day was just chilling with several Studs with whom he was buddy-buddy and he got up to leave. They all snapped to attention and he said, "Ya'll don't have to do that." and then looked at me.

Another example along this thread of thought was at ROTC field training where almost all the cadets in our flight were being mercilessly chewed out by the flight commander. He yelled at everyone and got in their face about every single infraction

"Fix your fvcking gig line! You look like crap!"

"What the fvck is your problem? Do you not understand basic directions?!"

"How the hell do you fvck something up so badly?!?"

Now the entire day he talked with one of our fellow cadets (one from his detachment) like he was his buddy. Marching to and from chow they chatted: "So how are you doing so far in training? Got to talk to your family since you got here? You can use my phone after dinner if you want." This was all interspersed with more profanity at the other cadets.

At the end of the day none of us had any respect for him...including the cadet from his detachment.

favoritism=poor leadership

The last story I have is from a Colonel who was kind enough to spend some time mentoring me. He was at West Point as the Air Force rep. A decision came down from the officer leadership for the cadets. It wasn't very popular and many of the cadets were badmouthing the decision (it was something about uniform regs that had been allowed by the cadets, but was now being enforced). After talking to the commandant (I assume that's who is in charge over there), the Corps commander came to him and asked him some advice as to what to do since his buddies were badmouthing the decision. He told him 3 things:

1. If it is a lawful order, you must obey it. If you have concerns, take it to the source through the proper chain of command, but when the final decision is made, that's final

2. Your buddies can badmouth it to let off steam, but as the commander, it is yoru responsibility to implement it.

3. To fall back on "The commandant says XYZ so we're going to do it" is not leadership. It is followership and it shows mild contempt/apathy towards leadership. It places the leadership role on those above you when they are expecting YOU to carry out the marching orders. Instead, go with"We're going to do XYZ now." Cite the same rationale and, if desired, expound upon it. "Regulation ABC says...and we're going to follow it. Here's how were going to do that. Any cadet caught will..." Be explicit with the punishment for failure to comply and give clear boundaries (no one likes getting sideswiped by some vague interpretation or unknown punishment).

apathy=poor leadership

This example is leadership by popularity, IMHO.

"Several of us on this email list have noticed a serious lack of professionalism from students lately. We’ve all talked about it but have never done anything about it."

Shows that there is a de facto failure in leadership and that you haven't done anything. It is not only wishy washy, but it only degrades your own authority.

It should have simply been "Professionalism is lacking and we need to step it up. From now on, any Student or Casual Lt who doesn't..." Cite a regulation if necessary, not as backup, but for example on how to fix the problem; to show where this came from. It should have been sent down to the flight commanders and let them deal with the students. To not do so shows a lack of faith in your subordinate leadership. This would be an effective policy letter when accompanied by a meeting with the Flt commanders.

One last little tidbit from a prior squadron commander:

Your order of interaction with people (subordinates or superiors) should be "sneaker mail (a.k.a. face-to-face), phone, and then e-mail. E-mail is a last resort. If you can't look someone in the eye and tell them what you need to do, you're in the wrong business.

[BQZip01]

As for pot-calling-kettle with the Major complaining about professionalism and then calling Lieutenants "dude"...so what? RHIP. I don't remember anything about higher ranking officers owing any kind of customs and courtesies to lower ranking officers. He can call them "ass monkey" for all I care, and it still doesn't assauge the Lieutenants' need to use customs and courtesies when addressing higher ranking officers.

Customs are EVERYONE's responsibility. Courtesies are expected by both sides (unless there is reason not to do so) and are backed up by AFI. Professionalism runs both ways. If you are the exception, then everyone will see that you make an exception for yourself and follow your example.

The email was sent to other IPs, anyway. I can see that there would be a problem getting the message across if he was personally addressing the Lieutenants and calling them 'dude', but that's not what is happening here.

It was official Air Force correspondence; a public document. It wasn't private since the information was intended to be passed down.

I'm not personally a fan of the 'stand at attention at the ops desk' part, but I'm thinking that was just hyperbole anyway.

I would hope so, but I've seen weirder things happen. He might let it happen once, but I can't see him canceling lines because of a simple slip up.

Are we being hypercritical? Maybe. But it serves as an example of what to do and what not to do and how we can better our own leadership. It serves as a great example as to how we can improve ourselves and how we can be better leaders (this goes for officer and enlisted alike). Some of the best leaders I've seen are senior airmen. Some of the worst have stars on their shoulders or (worse) are in the senior civilian category.

First day of UPT we all stood at attention in the flight room while our Navy Flt/cc walked around and looked each one of us in the eye.

His words: "Sh*t rolls downhill...and you live in the valley".

No problems with respect in our flight room.

If you don't mind, I'm going to keep that one in my hip pocket for later use.

[Hacker]

Customs are EVERYONE's responsibility. Courtesies are expected by both sides (unless there is reason not to do so) and are backed up by AFI. Professionalism runs both ways. If you are the exception, then everyone will see that you make an exception for yourself and follow your example.

I'm interested to see the "AFI" reference that addresses how a superior officer is supposed to address a subordinate.

It was official Air Force correspondence; a public document. It wasn't private since the information was intended to be passed down.

That wasn't my point at all.

It is one thing to be standing in front of a Lieutenant, addressing him/her personally, and using the term "dude".

It is another entirely to be addressing a group of your squadronmates and referring to a third person who is not there as "dude".

Seriously...if we (you) are to the point where we are critiquing the colloquial terminology used in a YFG email, there has been a complete loss of perspective.

[slacker]

I don't see what the big deal is -- I think the Maj has a point that is valid.

The way you guys are nit-picking the way the message was transmitted is some of the most retarded sh*t I've seen on this site in a while.

2.

This is not leadership by email- this Maj didn't ask his troops to charge a hill. He brought up a trend he was seeing in students- big deal. It was not intended for public consumption, if it was, I'm sure he would have taken some more time and omitted "dude."

What would have been more logical- calling a meeting for all IPs to discuss this- maybe if it was a big problem. But now you're sacrificing folks' time by attending another f-ing meeting.

It wasn't a big problem- he sent an email for a specific audience to read at their leasure. Don't make it more than it is.

[HerkDerka]

I don't see what the big deal is -- I think the Maj has a point that is valid.

The way you guys are nit-picking the way the message was transmitted is some of the most retarded sh*t I've seen on this site in a while.

So what if this ADO hadn't done anything about it YET. Having let it go in the past never prohibits you from taking action on it now. In fact, what he's saying is that he made a mistake in the past, and he's taking care of it now...and wants the rest of the IPs to do the same. I fail to see where there's a problem with that.

As for pot-calling-kettle with the Major complaining about professionalism and then calling Lieutenants "dude"...so what? RHIP. I don't remember anything about higher ranking officers owing any kind of customs and courtesies to lower ranking officers. He can call them "ass monkey" for all I care, and it still doesn't assauge the Lieutenants' need to use customs and courtesies when addressing higher ranking officers. The email was sent to other IPs, anyway. I can see that there would be a problem getting the message across if he was personally addressing the Lieutenants and calling them 'dude', but that's not what is happening here.

Completely agree.

HD

[brickhistory]

Not been to UPT, so not qualified to comment on the environment.

However, on the 'leadership' by e-mail, yeah, I think it is.

Any comm sent out to subordinates - ADO to Flt/CCs is public comm. He directed them to fix the problem as well as put a spurious 'threat' of what would happen to the next guy. He'll never do the entire day brace. First, it's probably not valid and second, it's not the way to do it.

Remember praise in public, criticize in private? Generally good advice. A curt "Lt, I'd like to see you in my office," followed by a one-way conversation is the way to go. Not a stooge on public display. Ever wonder why officers are treated with contempt by junior enlisted at training bases? Here's a classic example. Permanent party tend to adopt an attitude towards students. Perpetuating it is not good leadership. Again, this isn't just a UPT thing, assuming that exists there, but it does exist at other training bases.

Actually talking to his Flt/CCs and/or making an example of 'the next guy' are examples of leadership. Venting in an e-mail shows a lack professionalism. If he vented here on baseops, fair enough.

To do it at work, on e-mail, with the inherent risk that it will be forwarded to all and sundry, is not.

Finally, are there really that many meetings at the squadron level that another one is a pain?

I would think/hope that any unit leadership directed meetings were few and far between and therefore carry some weight.

If not, disregard. But that'd be a whole different leadership problem.

[JP84U2]

Clipped for bevity

Remember praise in public, criticize in private? Generally good advice. A curt "Lt, I'd like to see you in my office," followed by a one-way conversation is the way to go.

There it is boys and girls- the correct answer. That is leadership! Sending an email threatening to "stand him at attention in the hallway and leave him there the rest of the day" for behavior that apparently up to this point has been tolerated is ass-clownery pure and simple. This kind of nonsense is exactly why we have so many of the problems we have today, it is a lack of leadership and lack of mentoring!

Humps

[Hacker]

It floors me that nobody is grasping here that the "attention at the ops desk" part of the email is one of those "this is how mad I am" threats that this ADO has no intention of actually executing.

Better, I love it when people think that all there is to leadership is the singular rule to "praise in public, punish in private."

Well, that phrase is a guideline, and not a black and white rule by any means. There absolutely ARE times to openly hammer someone's nuts in front of the crowd. It can be -- depending on the situation -- a phenomenally effective means of modifying behavior.

Again, it's not a binary either/or issue. There certainly are times when the bean-cracking needs to take place behind closed doors (ergo, most of the time). But there are definitely OTHER leadership techniques that are effective and CAN be used...and public humiliation is one of them.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Hacker

[brickhistory]

Hacker, I did include 'generally' in my comment. Absolutely there are times to hammer in public.

A blatant disrespectful attitude by a subordinate to a superior in front of a crowd is one such example. Rain down pain upon his skull at that moment.

For the given example in the e-mail, I'd go with a private, directive conversation.

As a rule, I stand by "praise in public, criticize in private."

Technique only and moot for me anymore.

Dealing with/in the civilian world is a whole different ballgame although the basics still apply, just the 'niceness/everbody's special' factor has to be there lest HR/the civvie equivalent of social actions roll in.

[Guest pown3d]

As I look over the e-mail again, there is at least one 2LT in the To: block, meaning this wasn't an e-mail sent singularly to Flight CCs. If you're going to blow off steam and make empty threats in an e-mail to the Flight CCs, eh... Still wouldn't be the approach I'd take, but whatever... But to include students in the e-mail just doesn't make any sense.

In any event, the intent of the e-mail was obviously to get people to comply... And people probably will, for a while at least. But if he was hoping to motivate people to comply through respect, he obviously missed the mark, based on the reactions in this thread. Anyone can get people to comply by threatening/beating them into submission. But that never lasts as long as people who are motivated out of respect for the person setting the standards.

[slo_goin]

So I can't help but notice that a 5 line email has now been parsed inside and out over 21 posts...

The AF always gets hung up on the details... and I thought the flying side would be different than space command :D

Edited December 9, 2008 by slo_goin

[brickhistory]

Read the guy's e-mail and you'll see that it's not.*

*Chicago Handbook of Style consulted to ensure proper use of "you'll" and "it's."

[BQZip01]

I'm interested to see the "AFI" reference that addresses how a superior officer is supposed to address a subordinate.

AFIs 36-2706 and 36-2909 come to mind off the top of my head.

[slacker]

if you knew those regs "off the top of your head," you need help.

[matmacwc]

"2" on the regs thing. I'd put him on MIL CAP then wonder why an ADO is fvcking up my timeline...jackass

Edited December 10, 2008 by matmacwc