CGO PME undergoes transformation

[nsplayr]

My new commander recently wanted a rack & stack cheat sheet, so everyone in the squadron filled out this form that basically had your year group, your duty position (CO, AC, IP, etc.), if you had BAC +, MA, PME done in correspondence and/or in-residence, and the first and last lines of your 1st and additional rater blocks from your last 3 OPRs. That pretty much summed it up to me...all those bullets in between the first and last ones in each section mean absolutely dick.

[ThreeHoler]

My new commander recently wanted a rack & stack cheat sheet, so everyone in the squadron filled out this form that basically had your year group, your duty position (CO, AC, IP, etc.), if you had BAC +, MA, PME done in correspondence and/or in-residence, and the first and last lines of your 1st and additional rater blocks from your last 3 OPRs. That pretty much summed it up to me...all those bullets in between the first and last ones in each section mean absolutely dick.

Welcome to the abortion known as a Ribbon Chart.

[Champ Kind]

Yet another way for managers to strat without actually having to know their people!!

Yay!

[17D_guy]

I had to do one of those at my last base where the Comm Sq was in the Ops Group. I thought it was strange since I had been asked to brief the OG CC face-to-face many times as part of our ORI/UCI spin up.

Not sure what I strat'd because I PCS'd before they dropped final rankings. I wouldn't have been really competitive anyway lacking "operational mission execution", BAC+, and community involvement the Operators had in buckets.

In before the hate - it was an AFSPC base.

[abmwaldo]

Learned this from my first operational WO six years ago. "Carry a sheet with you that has your 'people' stratified based on YOUR assessment of their PRIMARY DUTY performance and that assessment better be backed up with personal observation; when the Boss asks show him and be ready to answer 'why.'" He later went on to say "that 'why' better not include Masters, Shoe flag completion, etc... that's his (CC) job to worry about."

[Champ Kind]

when the Boss asks...

You are assuming the "boss" cares/will even ask.

[abmwaldo]

You are assuming the "boss" cares/will even ask.

Sad but true... typically DOW/DOK, at least in my 8 years, gets the question asked.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Learned this from my first operational WO six years ago. "Carry a sheet with you that has your 'people' stratified based on YOUR assessment of their PRIMARY DUTY performance and that assessment better be backed up with personal observation; when the Boss asks show him and be ready to answer 'why.'" He later went on to say "that 'why' better not include Masters, Shoe flag completion, etc... that's his (CC) job to worry about."

When you say "primary duty" surely you can't mean "in the jet". I've been very clearly told MANY times that what I do in the jet doesn't mean one damn thing. It is assumed that I am doing as good a job as literally every other pilot in the unit in the jet, and the discriminators for promotion were only your office job related queep. The only time "in the jet" stuff is looked at is when you are being vetted for upgrade.

[DC]

When you say "primary duty" surely you can't mean "in the jet". I've been very clearly told MANY times that what I do in the jet doesn't mean one damn thing. It is assumed that I am doing as good a job as literally every other pilot in the unit in the jet, and the discriminators for promotion were only your office job related queep. The only time "in the jet" stuff is looked at is when you are being vetted for upgrade.

That checks.

For promotion, they're looking at your ability to be a staff officer and beyond. The theory is: The "office related queep" is practice for that, and you're evaluated on your potential for staff and beyond. If you can't do CGO queep, how can you be expected to do staff queep? And nevermind the queep a Sq/CC and above sees on a daily basis.

Learn your jet and fly it well. Do that because lives are at stake.

If you want to be promoted check your boxes and do your "office related queep" well.

If you want to fly airplanes forever this probably isn't the right gig for you. There will always be younger, fully qualified pilots to replace you.

Those are the rules. They're not entirely fair, but they're clear as day. Get our your blue crayons, stay between the lines, and get promoted.

I see two problems with the current system:

1. There is far, far too much queep. I could elaborate, but there's no point.

2. The discriminators (PME, AAD) are based on no real ability or potential and serve only as self-highlighting eliminators for those that choose not to do them.

I'm in no position to fix the system. I can only play by the rules as they stand.

[aspec]

I think CGOs should be completely focused on their primary duty and strive to be the absolute best in their MDS. Additional duties should only be what is essential to keep the squadron running efficiently. I disagree with the notion that if you can't do CGO queep, then you will not succeed as a staff officer for a couple reasons. The first reason goes back to my first statement - CGOs should be focused on their primary duty. These are the folks that should be at their absolute peak in their ability to employ their MDS. Second, do we really believe how well a person can plan the squadron's Christmas party to be indicative of how well they will perform as a staff officer? Most of the queep I've seen is mindless work that requires little to no skill or thinking, just a significant amount of time (unless you believe Powerpoint to be a skill which I guess requires thinking if you're trying to make animations). How well a Mission Commander plans and executes an LFE holds far more weight than how well a person planned and executed a change of command. Personally, I would rather be in a service led by folks who were the best and brightest from each MDS rather than folks who got their masters before pinning on 1LT, PME in correspondance twice before going in residence, but just "got by" in their primary job. Why? Because I want the people making the higher level decisions to truly know what's best for our primary mission.

Like you, I'm no where near the position to fix the system either. I have very little motivation to "play by the rules as they stand" because when the balloon goes up, I know that useless degree from AMU, time spent on queep, and PME that is 90% useless is not going to save me from the emerging threats in this world or more importantly, perhaps save someone else's life.

Edited July 6, 2012 by aspec

[DC]

aspec,

I agree with your sentiment. I'm not saying the situation is right, I'm just saying it's the situation. You can do the queep and be the best in your MDS. What the Air Force is telling us is you should unless you want to be on the sidelines after non-continuation when the next emerging threat pops up.

[Karl Hungus]

aspec,

I agree with your sentiment. I'm not saying the situation is right, I'm just saying it's the situation. You can do the queep and be the best in your MDS. What the Air Force is telling us is you should unless you want to be in the Guard/ Reserve/ a civilian when the next emerging threat pops up.

FIFY.

[Chida]

Right on Karl H. As an aside I've encountered many active duty "lifers" who have an attitude that if you "quit" or are "kicked out" of active duty your life is over. But that is so far from the truth it's laughable. Cue the guy who says, "What are you going to do?"

To all DBs who have such sentiments, and this is directed to no one in particular, I'll remind you that one day or another and sooner or later we all leave active duty. "But what are you going to DO?!"

[17D_guy]

To all DBs who have such sentiments, and this is directed to no one in particular, I'll remind you that one day or another and sooner or later we all leave active duty. "But what are you going to DO?!"

Usually these A-holes have either built themselves a GS job, or have one at a contractor of sorts. We just had a Col retiree here who became a high school teacher. He was a great leader.

[sweet I'm SOF]

CGOs,

The queep is never going to go away. And it is no different in the civilian world. But it is a wash. In the civilian world, if you are in a section that steadily excels in productivity, guess what...your boss is going to focus on other things as a discriminator, such as how many picnics you were at, how many times you volunteered to host the holiday party, etc. I think a hazard in thought is that we focus on those organizations that do not meet that criteria. They are out there, but they are not large corporations, and in the big picture, they are exceptions. As an example, an enterprise in Destin, Florida does not have a dress code. They do not have professional education requirements. But if you work there, you will never have the opportunity to make it to the top level, those details have been worked out long before you were hired. The example I'm referring to is AJ's bar and grill. There are not very many Air Force officers that are knocking down the door to work at AJ's. There are literally thousands of other examples. The Air Force is different than AJ's. You have an opportunity to move up, and the criteria is spelled out succinctly. If you choose to scoff at the requirements, I would ask that you take another look at the landscape. SOS in correspondence isn't asking that much. ACSC in correspondence isn't the end of the world. Another way to look at this, is to consider what you have, vice what you could have. If, in your opinion, what you could have is more than what you have or more than what you think you will have if you "play the game," then you should probably consider getting out.

When ranking my officers, the number one discriminator is how they performed downrange. We deploy often, so I have to temper that with other factors. Yes, the "queep" plays a factor. But to the officer that I counseled today, who has never deployed, he was at the bottom of the rank, even though he was a champion of the queep. As a CGO, you're going in argument is that you are tacfully sound. As a stock brocker, you're going in argument is that you are turning a profit (productivity). Going back to the 4th sentence above, it goes beyond that if the expectation is that everyone is productive. I'm trying to shoot you straight...the rest of the queep matters to the institution. If it doesn't matter to you, fair enough. But don't be cajoled into a life-changing COA by those that don't understand how the institution works. The queep is an asspain, but that asspain isn't going away. I expect officers to do better than to grumble about the requirements of the institution. If you are in my unit, you had better be the best in the world at the tactical level, that is baseline. If one of those raises my interest because they supported a Red Cross event or some other non j.o.b. function, that is a discriminator to me. I consider PME as a baseline. I'm respectfully interested in where you think I'm going wrong here.

[nsplayr]

When ranking my officers, the number one discriminator is how they performed downrange.

Ok, great; not every rater feels this way and even if they talk the talk sometimes they don't walk the walk and dudes who are average in the jet are at the top of the heap on the rack & stack.

As a CGO, you're going in argument is that you are tacfully sound.

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.

I expect officers to do better than to grumble about the requirements of the institution.

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.

If you are in my unit, you had better be the best in the world at the tactical level, that is baseline.

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.

Other stuff (i.e. additional duties, etc. etc.) comes into play in rack & stack when it's something that actually made a large, positive impact on unit ops or when two people truly have very similar performance in their primary duties and are of the same experience level (i.e. you always expect better performance to follow more experience).

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.

Edited July 6, 2012 by nsplayr

[busdriver]

you always expect better performance to follow more experience

Not even remotely an "always" thing.

[RescueRandy]

Fortunately, as long as your bros are appropriately hooking you up, the current SOS-C course takes a total of about 1.05 hours of effort.

As a guy that did USAFA, did the 6-week ASBC course, did the AAD, did SOS-C, will do the retarded 8-week SOS-R course, and will (probably) do ACSC, both (at least) in correspondence... I've learned one thing: It's all about checking the right boxes.

Of course the redundant programs are ridiculous, but at the end of the day we can only do two things about it: Commiserate with our bros, and respectfully give our chain feedback.

But take comfort in the fact that you have a choice! You can decline to do any of these programs at any time. We all know the state of play with regard to PME; and if you don't, here it is... every time you have an opportunity to do PME -- do it -- or risk having your choice to not do it used as a discriminator between you and me. Easy, right?

When you take away all the ridiculousness that we deal with, it all boils down to one simple truth for me. Most of the time, I do what I have to do (including PME) to ensure that I'll be able to pay the bills and feed my family for the foreseeable future. The rest of the time, I do what I want to do.

When I look at it this way, 8 weeks in Alabama collecting per diem doesn't sound so bad.

[NKAWTG]

As many have mentioned, not playing along and getting SOS and your masters done just eliminates you from consideration. SOS is rather worthless for what it gives to you to perform your job, but invaluable to leadership to figure out how pick the next batch of Lt Cols. Here is the reasoning: 20% go in residence to IDE (ACSC). In residence to IDE has been almost automatic for promotion to O-5. 10% of SOS graduates get a DG from SOS. A DG from SOS eliminates the need for the Senior Rater to make qualitative judgement on your potential, because some Captain teaching SOS made it for him. It allows the promotion board to make an easy call on school selects because that marker fills half the quota.

As much as I would like flying ability and the ability to lead a crew to matter, it really doesn't. The only aviation marker is becoming an instructor in a MWS (sorry FAIPs), and that is the weakest marker overall and the most easily overcome for promotion. Everyone's aviation record looks the same in the eyes of the promotion board, unless you are really bad at the flying thing. Even then, it can be easily compensated for because your FEF is never under review by the board, only inferred from your records.

From this cynic's perspective, here is what matters in judging your potential for promotion:

DG from SOS is single most important marker you can get. Finishing first in your class or getting an annual award from SOS will make you very competitive for BTZ for O-5

When you get your masters done is more important than where it is from, or what it is in. There is an Air and Space Journal piece which gives a good analysis on why that is. The premise is a masters is a signal of commitment to the Air Force, rather than a measure of ability or potential. Getting it done ahead of your peers will get you stratified higher earlier, and once you get on the #1/XX train, you tend to stay on it unless you screw it up. Mediocrity isn't enough to knock you down at that point.

The qeep involved in planning the Christmas party becomes important because everyone's job performance is about the same on paper, and how you spend the rest of your time is the only differentiators for the boards judging quarterly and annual awards. Leadership has been brought up in a system that passes the buck on making qualitative decisions on the people they lead, and instead relying on quarterly award boards and Maxwell to make those calls for them.

You really can't fight the system. To be in a position to effect the system, you need to play the game, which in turn makes you value playing the game above all else.

[Guest]

DG from SOS is single most important marker you can get.

Fact.

Outweighs FWIC DG 10:1.

No shit.

[BQZip01]

The only good thing that came of it was a little extra cash in hand and a few lbs fron drinking as soon as the uniform came off at the end of the day.

We didn't wait for the uniform to come off and had beers IN the classroom

Decs are coaches awards more times than not. Having written a couple, I'm generally embarrassed listening to them when they're read, since I realize that half the stuff on there is a gross exaggeration/borderline lie.

Most awards are permitted to have narratives and the best award presentations are those that do not take all 12-18 lines, but those that use the required header + state what the award was for in a single concise sentence + required closing. Put the rest of that sh*t in the narrative and save us ALL the collective man-hours standing at attention for these awards. This used to be policy in the 67th IO Wing (now the 67th NWW) and it should have been implemented across the AF.

[Guest]

Can you gin up a couple dozen ppt slides on this? Please?

[BQZip01]

Fact.

Outweighs FWIC DG 10:1.

No shit.

WAY too true. How many outside the Ops group can honestly say they know what WIC even is...

Can you gin up a couple dozen ppt slides on this? Please?

Powerpoint: it's the gift that keeps on giving...no matter how much you want it to end...

Edited July 11, 2012 by BQZip01

[Muscle2002]

Fact.

Outweighs FWIC DG 10:1.

No shit.

Seriously? Is this by the AF in general? I wouldn't be surprised.

In every OG I've been in, WIC DG was held in much higher regard...of course, leaders in the OG generally understand what it means to earn that distinction as opposed to the shoes outside the OG.

[Jaded]

In every OG I've been in, WIC DG was held in much higher regard...

However, on a promotion board, guess which one matters more.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Jaded