Return of Friday shirts / patches

[WheelsOff]

This thread is getting interesting.

[Colokent]

I don't think anyone is saying CGOs always know better, however, sometimes they do. Thankfully my commander actually solicits the opinions and suggestions of their junior officers for solutions to problems. Also echo chambers and group think among leadership isn't helpful in solutions either so maybe that guy that new Lt who's only qualification is having 20/20 vision might hold an idea. The leader that doesn't listen to his subordinates because he has more experience is probably a "legend in his own mind", history has proved time and again that age and experience isn't the key to being a great leader or having good ideas.

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

[ElLoco]

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

Thank you God

[panchbarnes]

Liquid,

This is from TC's article that you promoted on this board and praised on his blog...

"Finally, hire the best commanders you can find to work the problem. Since you’re going to hire the best, you can (and you must) trust them and listen to them. Forget the modern tendency to treat majors and lieutenant colonels like overgrown children; these are solid, capable, experienced, educated leaders in their own right, and their performance will define the Air Force, for better or worse. "

https://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=641#more-641

[Bender]

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

I know we can be short, sarcastic, and/or witty at times...which is difficult to make out on a message board. Additionally, I do not agree with this concept of CGO greatness that keeps ping-ponging here.

However, if this is truely the attitude of an O-6...you need to know that you are making the job of a junior FGO much, much harder. I see CGOs all the time that feel like you (O-6, commander, etc) feel this way, internalize it, and subsequently stiffles out all initative. I can deal with that in my E's (to a certain point), but I simply should not have to deal with it in my CGOs.

So...thanks alot for that. I/We will work on unfucking that as able.

Bendy

[BitteEinBit]

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.

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.

[Liquid]

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.

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.

[Boxhead]

You all are not thinking from a Manpower perspective. They made this change. We are happy. We will get used to it for a month or so. Then, they will quietly change the rules back, possibly even more restrictive than before…and adding on a mandatory and minimum punishment (LOR, act) for even minor infractions, so they can expand the potential candidates for the next RIF.

Now, I don't really believe that, but boy, wouldn't that be something?

[BitteEinBit]

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.

Solid. There is no time or room for a full response on an internet forum, but this is solid. This subject matter is easily a PME paper (something to think about for you youngsters getting ready to start).

I agree with everything you said with the exception of no AAD for Lt Col. I actually think it can be valuable at that level, but those who need it should be identified and their area of study should be specifically targeted and tailored for their future job/command in a way that benefits the Air Force and not just checks a box.

I really agree with "past performance does not guarantee future performance" although the Air Force does promoted people based on their "potential to lead in the next higher grade." But, "past performance does not equal future performance" is the reason why I am completely against identifying our future leaders while they are still Capts...especially when we use the criteria we use to identify them. They may be great Capts, but may lack the personal social skills to effectively "lead" in a way that they connect with their people. There are great managers out there who are just socially awkward people. You've said it before, the top 10% stand out...that will always be the case. I'm talking about the middle 80% and how we select "leaders" from that pool.

I'm glad the CSAF is looking at it, but I'm sure, just as in the past, someone new will take the reigns and AADs will be important again. Plan accordingly. Sorry, didn't mean to derail this thread and turn it into another "Leadership" discussion. I'm going to shut up now...

Back to Friday shirts...

[Champ Kind]

Full disclosure: no personal dog in this fight, other than 36 credit hours of my life wasted in completing an AAD a few years ago specifically for the promotion requirements.

Simply saying to senior raters/board members "thou shalt not consider AAD for O-4/O-5" by itself will not work.

Access to the apparatus used to obtain those degrees on the AF's dime must be limited. I know this ruffles feathers because we are talking about messing with TA, but think about it. This CSAF can make the decree that AAD won't be considered. What happens when the next guy's term begins? That can be quickly changed.

Now, if access to TA was restricted to officers above/below a certain grade as a result of the policy, well, now we're talking. This will STOP some overachieving senior raters from saying, "Well, I know what the CSAF said, but this is my policy...", or, more likely, "I know what CSAF said, but who knows if that policy will last forever, so go ahead and start banging it out..."

[Learjetter]

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!

[Champ Kind]

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!

That should be part of it as well... Still think we should root out the avenue for funding it and acknowledge that CGOs pursuing AADs unless specifically assigned as part of their AFSC is a waste of time/money.

Even better (in addition to the above): remove everything except "Performance in Primary Duty" from award templates/1206s. No more "Base/Community Involvement". No more "Significant Self Improvement".

Edited January 21, 2014 by Champ Kind

[Bender]

Still think we should root out the avenue for funding it and acknowledge that CGOs pursuing AADs unless specifically assigned as part of their AFSC is a waste of time/money.

Even better (in addition to the above): remove everything except "Performance in Primary Duty" from award templates/1206s. No more "Base/Community Involvement". No more "Significant Self Improvement".

I find your suggestion to bar people from TA over the top, but I do agree that there should be a much more reasonable connection to it being useful to the officer and the AF.

The award process currently in place at Bagram is exactly as you describe. There is also a ban on qualifying statements like, "Great Dude!", etc. Oddly there is no FGO wing level award, I'm still trying to figure that one out.

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.

This is a good idea. It's not a novel one, but an additional twist on the concept of "skill pairing" that is already (or was) part of the developmental vector process. If you look at your AMS surf, you'll see the reference to "skill pairing". The concept doesn't apply directly to AADs, more so experience. It is something AFPC still dumps money into studying at all levels (why is beyond me). It is not, however, something the AF does well and they don't seem to act on RAND's recommendations to alter course. I can personally vouch for resultant value in the "skill pairing" vector that the board provided me (MAJCOM Staff and RAS/PAS). Thanks, I hope you didn't spend to much time coming up with that!

Yes, yes...back to Friday Shirts!

Bendy

[HeloDude]

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!

Sorry, Lear--should have been an 'up-vote'! We need a way to re-vote haha.

[Champ Kind]

The award process currently in place at Bagram is exactly as you describe.

It's a freakin' deployed location... I would hope so!

[BB Stacker]

It's a freakin' deployed location... I would hope so!

Not the case at KAF, at least not as of a couple of months ago. Maybe it's changed now that the completely worthless AEW has gone away.

[StoleIt]

Anyone have a good link to a company that makes Friday shirts? (Ie: will embroider/put a logo way high on the neck?)

My Google skills have failed me at this task.

[HU&W]

Anyone have a good link to a company that makes Friday shirts? (Ie: will embroider/put a logo way high on the neck?)

My Google skills have failed me at this task.

I need the same info.

[B*D*A]

Bush hat left behind. Approve for FDU at least on Friday's please, boss.

[busdriver]

RAND's recommendations to alter course.

Bendy, do you have a link to that study?

[one1]

There might be more than one research report but here is the one I know of....

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR332/RAND_RR332.pdf

[Liquid]

Liquid,

This is from TC's article that you promoted on this board and praised on his blog...

"Finally, hire the best commanders you can find to work the problem. Since you’re going to hire the best, you can (and you must) trust them and listen to them. Forget the modern tendency to treat majors and lieutenant colonels like overgrown children; these are solid, capable, experienced, educated leaders in their own right, and their performance will define the Air Force, for better or worse. "

https://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=641#more-641

This was one of several great points TC made. I completely agree that we should hire the best, but I don't think we always do. Smaller DTs that select commanders they personally know have better success than NAF or MAJCOM-wide command screening boards that only score records. There are too many Majs and Lt Cols (and Cols and Generals) who act like complete jackasses, but we should not treat all officers like overgrown children...only those who deserve it. Rank and experience alone do not make capable, educated leaders. I also agree that Maj and Lt Col performance defines the AF. We (CGOs, Es, senior leaders) should all be focused on enabling and assisting the Majs and Lt Cols to lead and work these problems.

[Chuck17]

Anyone have a good link to a company that makes Friday shirts? (Ie: will embroider/put a logo way high on the neck?)

My Google skills have failed me at this task.

www.baddude.com

I worked with these guys a few years back. Not the cheapest but they do good work and they work quick.

Chuck

[17D_guy]

I made a brief mention of this in the beginning of the thread, but this is what I thought was interesting. I remember many years ago talking to a maintainer who had tried (along with his buds) to wear Friday shirts, and they were slammed by their superintendent because they weren't in regs. This almost strikes as something that nobody was against on principal, but simply because it didn't apply across the board. I have no issue with the REMFs (not referencing MX) wearing colored shirts, and if that's what it takes to get our shit back, then more power to them.

Already designing mine...

[busdriver]

I'm rattling around the idea that "the timeline" is at the core of the problem. We "have" to put certain people in certain positions to keep them "on time" and I think it hurts the overall organization.