Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Dude, my post was all sarcasm. No one in the airlines gives a shit if you were a DG. No one.

Posted

The issue isn't whether or not the airlines care about SOS DGs, or even why SOS DGs are leaving the Air Force. The issue is why the Air Force has determined that SOS DG is somehow an accurate indicator of leadership ability/potential. It's truly amazing how content the Air Force is to watch so much talent and potential walk right out the door everyday. "Thanks for your service!"

  • Upvote 2
Posted

You know who cares about SOS DGs? Other Captains at SOS. And maybe some Lts hoping to someday go to SOS. I have never once heard anyone above O-3 talk about SOS DGs. Will it make it to the PRF? Yep. That's pretty much it.

Posted (edited)

You know who cares about SOS DGs? Other Captains at SOS. And maybe some Lts hoping to someday go to SOS. I have never once heard anyone above O-3 talk about SOS DGs. Will it make it to the PRF? Yep. That's pretty much it.

Unfortunately, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen commanders ask for year group lists that included if they have been a Flt/CC, completed a masters and if they were an SOS DG. Every rack and stack that I've seen at the Group and Wing level had a column for whether or not you were an SOS DG. Oddly, the people at the top of the lists were always SOS DGs. Recently a "nobody" in my Wing went from barely having a crappy squadron level strat to suddenly getting a Wing CGO strat. The only reason that I could see for this happening was that he "returned from SOS as a DG."

I can't tell you how much I hate SOS and the weight that SOS DG carries. It makes me sick.

Edited because I can't write good.

Edited by Spartacus
Posted

As an SOS DG, I can tell you that it is complete crap how much weight is put on it. I got DG because my flight did really well at the point earning events and I tried to help out in that regard. I have several bros that were better individually than I was while at SOS but did not earn DG due to the fact that their flight didn't do well.

Posted

Dude, my post was all sarcasm. No one in the airlines gives a shit if you were a DG. No one.

I'm kinda new here, it's gonna take me a while to learn my way around!

Need to get my sarcasm meter calibrated.

Posted

You know who cares about SOS DGs? Other Captains at SOS. And maybe some Lts hoping to someday go to SOS. I have never once heard anyone above O-3 talk about SOS DGs. Will it make it to the PRF? Yep. That's pretty much it.

I got back from SOS and the first thing the CC asked was, "Did you reing home any hardware?" I started laughing and he knew that was a completely ridiculous question.

After speaking with an SOS instructor I went to college with, it turns out you just have to be a good writer with the current SOS system. It's based on grades and nothing else. DG is determined before the final peer evals.

And lastly, you say no one cares about DG. I knew a fellow capt who posted that shit on Facebook when he DG'd...yea, drink it in. Future commander in the making.

Posted

No, I said that only other Captains care about DG at SOS. Maybe I should qualify it by saying that nobody in my community ever cared about your SOS DG, or your ROTC DG, or your USAFA Top 10%, or your UPT DG. Nobody. Ever. Except on your PRF...where it belongs.

Posted

The issue is why the Air Force military has determined that SOS any DG is somehow an accurate indicator of leadership ability/potential.

This is an issue across all branches of the Armed Forces.

Posted

I distinctly remember giving a shit about SOS DG (seeing what a huge leg up it could be) until day 1 of the course, when I saw we had a 300lb "Six Sigma Sensei" civilian in our flight. After that, I just drank heavily with the operators & maintainers & gave zero fucks about the whole dance.

Posted (edited)

No, I said that only other Captains care about DG at SOS. Maybe I should qualify it by saying that nobody in my community ever cared about your SOS DG, or your ROTC DG, or your USAFA Top 10%, or your UPT DG. Nobody. Ever. Except on your PRF...where it belongs.

Why does it belong on your PRF? How does being a good writer = potential to lead in the next grade? How is it that your performance amongst a bunch of random capts means that you'll be the next chief of staff? I understand what you're saying, but it goes back to the fact that we weigh DG so heavily when it doesn't mean shit.

I know another DG who's got a fukcin 15lb brain but can't perform the simplest of tasks. What leadership quality does he have?

Sure it's a good way of identifying a few truly good dudes, but that would mean DG is voted on by your peers. Who do we collectively think is a good dude who can get shit done? I'm not saying we wait til Nov and vote on our DG's/future AF leaders, but if they valued the peer evals then I think the DG would be a little more accurate.

I've had 2 good Sq/CCs that I would follow anywhere. But I've also had about 5 others who were SOS DG and can't lead for shit.

We all know they're out there, the trick is to fly low enough to avoid them.

Edited cause I don't spell so much goodly

Edited by Herkasaurus
Posted

Why does it belong on your PRF? How does being a good writer = potential to lead in the next grade? How is it that your performance amongst a bunch of random capts means that you'll be the next chief of staff? I understand what you're saying, but it goes back to the fact that we weigh DG so heavily when it doesn't mean shit.

I know another DG who's got a fukcin 15lb brain but can't perform the simplest of tasks. What leadership quality does he have?

Sure it's a good way of identifying a few truly good dudes, but that would mean DG is voted on by your peers. Who do we collectively think is a good dude who can get shit done? I'm not saying we wait til Nov and vote on our DG's/future AF leaders, but if they valued the peer evals then I think the DG would be a little more accurate.

I've had 2 good Sq/CCs that I would follow anywhere. But I've also had about 5 others who were SOS DG and can't lead for shit.

We all know they're out there, the trick is to fly low enough to avoid them.

Edited cause I don't spell so much goodly

So does any DG belong on a PRF or should we eliminate all DGs across all programs in the AF? I'm talking ROTC, SOS, FTUs, all initial skills training?

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Posted

So does any DG belong on a PRF or should we eliminate all DGs across all programs in the AF? I'm talking ROTC, SOS, FTUs, all initial skills training?

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Wait, what?

Lots of difference between DG at an FTU and DG at SOS. One shows you have skills in your primary duty. The other one shows.......

Posted

Wait, what?

Lots of difference between DG at an FTU and DG at SOS. One shows you have skills in your primary duty. The other one shows.......

Wait, what? All of them are of limited value since it is an evaluation over a short period of time. C-130 FTU is for example is 4-6 months long...why should a DG there catapult you to the top of the heap versus a guy out hacking the mission everyday. Primary duty performance is evaluated 24/7, 365 through your OPR. Eliminating all DGs would take out short periods of performance "surge" graded against only those in your class versus the larger pool of CGOs in your unit. Why not eliminate them all and only allow duty performance evaluation by your supervisor, Sq/CC and Wg/CC documented through your OPR?

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

Lots of difference between DG at an FTU and DG at SOS. One shows you have skills in your primary duty. The other one shows.......

Take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, and you will have answered your own question. For better or worse, the AF believes its PME is a critical piece of crafting it's senior officers (enlisted, too, but we're talking about SOS). You can argue for or against that all day, and possibly even have a case against it, but that's clearly the state of affairs as it exists today. Another "clearly the state of affairs" is that every officer is to be groomed as a potential general. Put those two together, and the "primary duty" you cite becomes being an officer, and a PME DG (to the institutional eyes of the AF) is therefore more important than DG from an FTU.

A better question altogether is why DG (from any source) is assumed to be such an indisputable indicator of quality. It's a snapshot--no more, no less.

I don't have an answer to the problem. As an ORF, I also don't sweat it any longer.... :beer:

ETA: Herk Driver beat me to the "snapshot" comment....

Edited by Jughead
Posted

Wait, what?

Lots of difference between DG at an FTU and DG at SOS. One shows you have skills in your primary duty. The other one shows.......

Please, as a prior FTU instructor getting DG sometimes is just luck of who you flew with/checked with and whatever grade they wanted to fill out in the Rec/Check database. It's as flawed as PME DG.

Posted

I've always thought DGs were shady. In pilot training I saw a guy bust 3 checkrides in 38s but still get DG. The most checkride busts anyone else in the class had was 1. I've seen supervisors and leadership basically pull DGs out of their a$$ to take care of guy that they liked. I also recently saw someone who is a complete slug get a Wing level strat because he was a DG out of the FTU.

DGs are definitely flawed.

Posted

The reason why promotion boards love the SOS DG discriminator is because it's the first time since you commissioned that you are stratified against all your peers regardless of your career field..

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted

The reason why promotion boards love the SOS DG discriminator is because it's the first time since you commissioned that you are stratified against all your peers regardless of your career field..

Shouldn't the peers you're being compared to be the peers in your career field?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Posted

Shouldn't the peers you're being compared to be the peers in your career field?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? You don't promote against the peers in your career field.

Posted

The reason why promotion boards love the SOS DG discriminator is because it's the first time since you commissioned that you are stratified against all your peers regardless of your career field..

That's what they say. However, when you really think about it this statement is totally inaccurate.

Posted

How many times does this make that have we had this DG discussion on baseops?

zb

Posted

Unfortunately, you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen commanders ask for year group lists that included if they have been a Flt/CC, completed a masters and if they were an SOS DG. Every rack and stack that I've seen at the Group and Wing level had a column for whether or not you were an SOS DG. Oddly, the people at the top of the lists were always SOS DGs. Recently a "nobody" in my Wing went from barely having a crappy squadron level strat to suddenly getting a Wing CGO strat. The only reason that I could see for this happening was that he "returned from SOS as a DG."

I can't tell you how much I hate SOS and the weight that SOS DG carries. It makes me sick.

Edited because I can't write good.

...and there is part of the problem. Every situation is different, but if the people closest to the "nobody" at the squadron level can't give the guy a decent strat, then why should the Wing? If the only reason is because the guy can study at SOS or possibly have gouge to help them ace a test at SOS, then we are "stratting" the wrong people the wrong way. Don't know the guy or his story, but the AF has a hard-on for "nerds" who are book smart, but have little to no application or required "people skills" to execute efficiently. It is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in now.

I'm not at all saying education isn't important, but it isn't the only thing that is important. Believe me, the AF has a good mix of great leaders and great managers, but what is most important (IMO) to mission execution is how well you work with the people you're supposed to lead. Who would you rather work for? 1) a timid, nutless, manager who is academically smart and will press forward ONLY on the black line because that's all they know and they aren't comfortable deviating from said line because what they studied at whatever school doesn't cover deviations from the norm. Or 2) a proven manager who can also lead because they understand the black line, but understand more importantly that the black line should be a guide to move forward but requires, on occasion, some deviation along the way to get the most efficient end result.

I haven't been to SOS in a long time, but the DG in my class had no leadership qualities, was timid, average briefer, but aced the final test. I can't speak for other DGs. I'm sure there were some great, well-rounded ones out there, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should go from "stratless" in their workplace to #1 of 30 WG CGOs just because they aced a test. The longer the AF keeps this hard-on for academics as its top priority, especially in a time where personnel trust leadership less, the more personnel problems we will continue to have. There are just some managers who are better left behind the scenes and not in charge of people.

This is "Revenge of the Nerds" at an institutional level...although sometimes I think I'd rather have "Booger" leading the squadron.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...