What's wrong with the Air Force?

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Careful what you wish for. This complaint led to a former CC to agree with the shop chiefs and he decided to resolve flight commanders and make shop chiefs rate on everyone. 

I’m not talking about someone remotely related or assigned to my shop, I’m talking someone in an entirely different section of the squadron I have no responsibility for whatsoever. 

[Skitzo]

And don’t get me started on qweep awards. Eff you Bob Hope and your 30 line 1206. Being an exec sucked enough without seeing TMT blow up with things like the “Ron Jeremy Hard Worker” award or whatever other garbage keeps getting added to the list every year. 

Awards would be so much more fun if they had names like the Ron Jeremy award.

“The Jon Holmes - Professional Innovator Award”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I’m not talking about someone remotely related or assigned to my shop, I’m talking someone in an entirely different section of the squadron I have no responsibility for whatsoever. 

Ahhh I got ya. Well it is getting ridiculous. If they go to officer static closeouts I think they need to get rid of annuals. Award the annual based of OPR at that point. Who had the strongest OPR that year. No sense in having two systems to say the same damn thing. 

[Magnum]

6 hours ago, Skitzo said:

 

Awards would be so much more fun if they had names like the Ron Jeremy award.

“The Jon Holmes - Professional Innovator Award”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That or give dudes something they actually care about, not a service dress picture up in the hall way and a trophy of an eagle with a $0.25 plaque. Time off, CT, X/C, DBFM, gift card to the sizzler.

[brabus]

Next AD retention initiative: Sizzlers gift cards. This has promise...

[Sprkt69]

22 minutes ago, brabus said:

Next AD retention initiative: Sizzlers gift cards. This has promise...

And there it is, crisis solved 

[gearhog]

Genius. Free steak dinners would certainly improve morale and productivity. 

[zachbar]

3 minutes ago, torqued said:

Genius. Free steak dinners would certainly improve morale and productivity. 

Too expensive. Free AAFES pogs might work better with the MWR budget. 

[iRobot]

52 minutes ago, torqued said:

Genius. Free steak dinners would certainly improve morale and productivity. 

Don't forget the all you can eat shrimp 

[dream big]

On 9/19/2019 at 6:27 AM, zachbar said:

Too expensive. Free AAFES pogs might work better with the MWR budget. 

Better idea, fire AAFES all together, they are worthless at most bases. 

[GKinnear]

Performance ranking reduces meritocracy...

"Many of us have given in to “adopt and adapt” at some point in our careers, and not always comfortably.

You’re sitting in front of a manager for an annual review, thinking: well, how’s this going to work? The manager in question is universally regarded as average, but he’s the one that gets to rate you, and the shortest path to a better ranking is probably to follow his advice."

Link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/maybe-you-shouldn-t-follow-the-leader

Study: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191255

 

Common gripe in the OPR / EPR threads is the strat methodology and favor given to the junior O's who conform earlier to the game. I'm not sure the authors fix, serendipity (fancy word for luck), is any better due its unpredictable nature...but it's refreshing to see a study confirming my preconceived notions.

 

Post could have gone in the Promotion thread just as easily

[dream big]

5 hours ago, GKinnear said:

Performance ranking reduces meritocracy...

"Many of us have given in to “adopt and adapt” at some point in our careers, and not always comfortably.

You’re sitting in front of a manager for an annual review, thinking: well, how’s this going to work? The manager in question is universally regarded as average, but he’s the one that gets to rate you, and the shortest path to a better ranking is probably to follow his advice."

Link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/maybe-you-shouldn-t-follow-the-leader

Study: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191255

 

Common gripe in the OPR / EPR threads is the strat methodology and favor given to the junior O's who conform earlier to the game. I'm not sure the authors fix, serendipity (fancy word for luck), is any better due its unpredictable nature...but it's refreshing to see a study confirming my preconceived notions.

 

Post could have gone in the Promotion thread just as easily

All the gripes about the promo system are valid, but I’ve seen positive changes: 2 line PRFs (forcing board members to actually read your OPRs), getting rid of school selects of the majors board, rehaul of the promotion system with AFSC specific boards, now there is talk of getting rid of BTZ.) At least some of our senior leaders are realizing that choosing your golden children when they are young captains is ridiculous.   

[Negatory]

4 hours ago, dream big said:

All the gripes about the promo system are valid, but I’ve seen positive changes: 2 line PRFs (forcing board members to actually read your OPRs), getting rid of school selects of the majors board, rehaul of the promotion system with AFSC specific boards, now there is talk of getting rid of BTZ.) At least some of our senior leaders are realizing that choosing your golden children when they are young captains is ridiculous.   

Checks in the mail, bro.  I’ll bet you a drink that the number one indicator of promotion is still a DP on the PRF, regardless of OPRs.  And the Air Force will never get rid of BPZ, it’s the number one indicator of future O-7 potential in this organization. 

[Chuck17]

5 hours ago, brawnie said:

Checks in the mail, bro.  I’ll bet you a drink that the number one indicator of promotion is still a DP on the PRF, regardless of OPRs.  And the Air Force will never get rid of BPZ, it’s the number one indicator of future O-7 potential in this organization. 

Should be changed (kinda) by the end of next year - promotion window will go to a five year block. That's right five looks where you are eligible, no more BPZ, IPZ, APZ.

CSAFs main hangup is going to the five year look vs killing BTZ altogether (USMC) vs limiting BTZ to one each per grade for O5/O6 (Army). Time will tell how it falls out, but my gut is he will push toward using what the law authorizes for the service secretaries to use (five year window).

The info backing up he change is pretty amazing - we don't retain BTZ superstars at anywhere near the rate we retain on time dudes... so the data is showing we invest lots of time, money, leadership opportunity in these folks, and they bounce by the 25 year point. Which makes sense considering when the old "pole year" was - if they don't make GO, they retire... so we end up pushing people and weeding out other potential leaders to end up holding an empty bag when the shiney pennies retire... thereby calling into question the entire logic of how we position and choose leaders.

...You get promoted earlier, you get more opportunities... Either way, the 'BTZ' tag will be removed from SURFs/records. You'll just be promoted earlier should that be the case. The end result will likely not change much, but there won't be a moniker hanging on anyone's record.

Chuck

[Negatory]

Chuck you have a source on that?  Because I haven’t seen or noticed any institutional desire to do that whatsoever.  What I’ve seen from the O-7/O-8 level is that they think the system works, as it got them promoted.  

Personally, I think all of this is kind of pointless until they fix the root cause of talent management woes: forced stratification on OPRs is stupid and a bad way to retain folks in a high talent organization.  Yet the Air Force has a hardon for this indicator.  And I haven’t heard anyone talk about how to fix that.

[Chuck17]

3 hours ago, brawnie said:

Chuck you have a source on that?  Because I haven’t seen or noticed any institutional desire to do that whatsoever.  What I’ve seen from the O-7/O-8 level is that they think the system works, as it got them promoted.  

Personally, I think all of this is kind of pointless until they fix the root cause of talent management woes: forced stratification on OPRs is stupid and a bad way to retain folks in a high talent organization.  Yet the Air Force has a hardon for this indicator.  And I haven’t heard anyone talk about how to fix that.

Source on the change to the five year window? It's in the NDAA. Read for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515enr.pdf go to section 507 subsection 649d.

As to the rest, I'll leave it at "very important meeting slides." 

The products of the system by and large DO think it works, because it produced them (we had that conversation with one of them who was adamant there was nothing wrong with it). Yet the CSAF also sees how many people have been relieved of squadron, group, and wing command under his tenure. That's part of the logic. Something is not working... now theres a way to make a small change, hopefully for the better.

Strats won't go away - they'll always be there in some form. Large organizations love easy to digest quantification of potential and performance. Nature of the beast...

Change is hard, slow, messy and can only be driven by failure or strong (authoritative... bold...) leadership. We have an outgoing CSAF who wants to lead and leave a legacy, and a new SecAF with an open mind. The timing works... short of a crisis, only strong leadership will suffice.

Chuck

[pawnman]

21 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

Source on the change to the five year window? It's in the NDAA. Read for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515enr.pdf go to section 507 subsection 649d.

As to the rest, I'll leave it at "very important meeting slides." 

The products of the system by and large DO think it works, because it produced them (we had that conversation with one of them who was adamant there was nothing wrong with it). Yet the CSAF also sees how many people have been relieved of squadron, group, and wing command under his tenure. That's part of the logic. Something is not working... now theres a way to make a small change, hopefully for the better.

Strats won't go away - they'll always be there in some form. Large organizations love easy to digest quantification of potential and performance. Nature of the beast...

Change is hard, slow, messy and can only be driven by failure or strong (authoritative... bold...) leadership. We have an outgoing CSAF who wants to lead and leave a legacy, and a new SecAF with an open mind. The timing works... short of a crisis, only strong leadership will suffice.

Chuck

You mean this section?

 

‘‘(b) LIMITED AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES.—The Secretary of a military department may modify the number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as previously specified by the Secretary pursuant subsection (a) or this subsection, not more frequently than once every five years. 

 

I didn't read that as five year promotion timelines.  I read that as SECAF can change the number of times someone can be considered (currently two) before they get kicked out or continued, once every five years.  

[Chuck17]

29 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You mean this section?

‘‘(b) LIMITED AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES.—The Secretary of a military department may modify the number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as previously specified by the Secretary pursuant subsection (a) or this subsection, not more frequently than once every five years. 

I didn't read that as five year promotion timelines.  I read that as SECAF can change the number of times someone can be considered (currently two) before they get kicked out or continued, once every five years.  

No... keep going.

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES SPECIFIED.— The number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as specified or modified pursu- ant to any provision of this section, may not exceed five opportunities.“

Chuck

[pawnman]

11 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

No... keep going.

‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES SPECIFIED.— The number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as specified or modified pursu- ant to any provision of this section, may not exceed five opportunities.“

Chuck

May not exceed... Meaning it can be less than, depending on what the service secretary wants.

[Chuck17]

25 minutes ago, pawnman said:

May not exceed... Meaning it can be less than, depending on what the service secretary wants.

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

[tunes]

5 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

this going to apply to the reserves too? would be helpful to not get me booted for non promotion when i go up for O-5

[Swizzle]

Wonder if 5 year-buckets are because some O-4(S) two boards ago were 8APZ...

100% promotion "opportunity" (98% in reality was it?) had some interesting effects. 

[SFG]

Seems like the AF realized they need to enable career broadening and joint officers who get their experience outside the tribe and this is their solution to keeping them competitive.  Fact remains that when people continue to promote below their peers they will still leave for greener pastures even when they have 4 more “IPZ” looks on the way. At some point they need to stop blaming and tinkering with processes and work on values... and not the abstract read-between-the-lines, try to evaluate performance on a piece of paper, and play the strat game crap, but what skills, knowledge, and experience to we need to win wars stuff. We need more bomb droppers? Promote them, and if necessary promote people who could cross train to be them. We need folks with PHDs on China? Promote them. Quit playing games trying to nudge boards to do this or that with fancy career briefs, categories, or SECAF memos. Just hurry up and get the job done. Set floors to AF needs and let’s get back to our jobs, or getting passed over and making 6-figures with a 3 on the front-end.

Edited November 10, 2019 by K_O

[NUKE]

17 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it.

Chuck

Chuck,

any idea if this applies to promotion to O-5 or O-6? 

[pawnman]

47 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

Wonder if 5 year-buckets are because some O-4(S) two boards ago were 8APZ...

100% promotion "opportunity" (98% in reality was it?) had some interesting effects. 

Yeah, I wonder if it just means people will be completely ineligible for promotion at 5+ APZ