Promotion and PRF Information

[Jaded]

I'm guessing we haven't seen the end of the FY14 force shaping initiatives. If the budget gets slashed...

[AnimalMother]

I sincerely hope that you are correct sir.

[Dupe]

The funny thing is, some guys drive hard their entire careers to be Colonels. Then, when they make it, they complain about the 365, followed by assignment to crapville, and complain that they've lost all control of their careers. And they are correct; as a Colonel, you lose virtually all control over or input into your career. Except, of course, the day you retire (but even on that issue, there's only two windows during the year in which a Colonel can control his retirement date).

The really funny thing is when these guys then stand up and say "Life balance is important" when we all know these types Q3'd life balance in service to the AF. I've seen the life of 0-6s / GOs...that doesn't look fun. I sure hope it's rewarding. There's the rub for senior officers: convincing the right guys that further family sacrafice is actually worth it. The ego-driven micromanagers don't need convincing... the guys that should be leading the AF very much do. Right now, quite alot of those guys are punching.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Dupe

[NotADude]

"2."

Somebody once said, in answer to the question "are you going to do 20?"

"No, because I don't want to be that guy up on the stage at my retirement ceremony apologizing to my family."

That kinda stuck with me.

[Champ Kind]

I don't think having a happy/supportive family and serving 20 years are mutually exclusive...

[C-21.Pilot]

I've been told by many before me that choosing your family over the AF is the best decision you will ever make.

That's the route I choose....

[Crog]

"2."

Somebody once said, in answer to the question "are you going to do 20?"

"No, because I don't want to be that guy up on the stage at my retirement ceremony apologizing to my family."

That kinda stuck with me.

....and that was exactly what made my mind up. Watched my OG/CC at his retirement apologize to his family for placing them far down the list for the sake of his career. Talked about trying to make up for lost time. Never forget the dismissive, half-pissed, half-asleep scowl his punkish looking teenage son wore.

[Bobby]

I've been told by many before me that choosing your family over the AF is the best decision you will ever make.

That's the route I choose....

Big "2"

[NotADude]

I don't think having a happy/supportive family and serving 20 years are mutually exclusive...

I think there are definitely instances when it could work (being passed over might help), but to me it seems the exception to the rule in today's military. When I look at an O-6 and contemplate his/her schedule, I don't want to be showing up every day at 0630 and staying until 1900 (or later), then showing up every Saturday to work on OPRs etc. (I've even seen some O-5 SQ/CCs do this). I would rather be doing other things with my life.

[ClearedHot]

The funny thing is, some guys drive hard their entire careers to be Colonels. Then, when they make it, they complain about the 365, followed by assignment to crapville, and complain that they've lost all control of their careers. And they are correct; as a Colonel, you lose virtually all control over or input into your career. Except, of course, the day you retire (but even on that issue, there's only two windows during the year in which a Colonel can control his retirement date).

Maybe thats because some guys just worked hard, flew their ass off, supported their people, led and were promoted to O-6. The reward for all that sacrifice is to be treated like an indentured servant. I got it, most Col's have older parents, most Col's have kids in high school, needs of the Air Force....trust me, I get it. But why do we spend a lifetime developing a senior leader only to ride them like a wet dog? Sadly, it doesn't matter to most of them right now because they are staying in the USAF in record numbers...numbers so high they have force shaping and a SERB on the horizon...hell USAF even got the law changed so you can meet multiple SERBs. USAF is getting away with it right now because the economy is in the dumper...but it will get better and the only ones who will stay are the dirt bags who can't get a job on the outside.

What is truly amazing is how the current system became so brutal under Schwartz. In 2009 the Command Candidate Board met with horrible results. At that point you had to raise your paw if you wanted to be considered for senior command, then you got a nomination to back it up. When the board met they did not have enough folks in certain categories. They went back and did some research and found that a LOT of people including 54% of their high-speed below the zone folks declined consideration for command. The results were so bad the service was having a tough time sending all their NDU grads to the legal required (50%+1), joint jobs. Facing this dilemma USAF made an interesting choice, rather than address the problems that were causing so many people to tap out (Ops Tempo), they changed the policy to the "All In Policy". Now every Colonel is considered for Command and if you decline you have 90 days to get out of the service...thank you very much!

The problem persists today with some key career fields (Mx), critically short of qualified Col's. Some graduated commanders have been forced into a second command tour (several seven day opted), others are being asked to extend.

Oh well, we will just make more.

[matmacwc]

This should be interesting

[Herk Driver]

CH, totally agree. I contend that the SERBs for O-5s and O-6s and changing the law as we go will continue until cuts to the GO ranks take place and collectively they start feeling the same "pain" that the rest of the force feels. One could argue that most of the GO cuts that have taken place are smoke and mirrors (i.e. the OIF drawdown allowed billets to be reduced but no substantive changes have taken place)

[BitteEinBit]

Just imagine...we are "making more" senior leaders using questionable qualification criteria. Don't get me wrong...we are promoting a lot of smart dudes who can manage things pretty well (for the most part) but lack interpersonal skills and basic leadership.

We really should be asking the question WHY qualified dudes are turning down opportunities to command and lead. We should be asking why dudes are "just trying to make it to 20" so they can get out or at least skate long enough for that bad deal comes along and THEN retire. We should be asking these questions ESPECIALLY if DoD is even considering changing our retirement system. I don't know any dudes who say "I can't wait till I get to 30 so I can finally retire!" but almost everyone I know can't wait to get to 20 and get out...to me, that is more alarming.

CH, you nailed it! We can get away with it because the economy isn't so great so no one is getting out...for now. We should really be concerned about maintaining minimum manning levels at a time there is a slowly improving economy and retention rates are at a record high, because what it means is that when the economy actually does improve and retention rates return to normal, you'll have a shortage of qualified bubbas as everyone walks out the door either "when I make it to 20" or at 10 years because their talents may be better compensated on the outside. It a complicated "readiness" issue, but a risk the AF is willing to take based on current administration foreign policy, national security strategy, and fiscal policy. IMHO, we are creating the perfect storm for a personnel and readiness disaster. I'm just glad the everyone all the way up to the SECDEF himself is at least acknowledging it and speaking up. I'm just not sure anyone above that is really listening...

[Ram]

CH, thank you for making an appearance in this thread.

[DFRESH]

This has probably been posted already:

https://byothermeans.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/08/an_air_force_officer_the_military_doesnt_want_to_retain_talent_or_at_least_that_s_t

Let's go ahead and admit it. The military stifles talent -- in fact, it seems almostdesigned to drive out talent. No rational actor would choose to play this game. Before you label me as bitter or disloyal, consider the following flaws endemic to our system. What I offer are the perceptions that junior officers have of the bureaucracy they're trying to navigate. Put yourself in their shoes. Ask yourself what your chances of staying in would be, once your four-to-five-year commitment was up. Caveat emptor: These are the observations of a top performing mid-career Air Force officer across four bases, five skill communities, and ten years, based on the beliefs observed among the company grade officers around him.

- The promotion system offers no opportunity to excel or advance. As an officer, the first truly competitive promotion (where you can get promoted ahead of your peer group) is at your 15th year. Fifteen years. Before that you can only disqualify yourself; you can miss a critical gate and fall behind the rest of your peer group.

- The retirement system discourages risk taking. It's an all-or-nothing, up-or-out system. If you fall behind your peer group, you will get passed over for promotion. Getting passed over makes it nearly impossible to remain in the force long enough to draw retirement. Retirement is only paid upon reaching 20 years; if you serve fewer than 20, you get nothing. Risks can only hurt you.

- The assignment system directs assignments based on the need for an officer of a particular career code (i.e., "Security Forces") and rank (i.e., "Major") in a location. It makes no attempt to catalog their skills, intentionally develop them, or track officers towards experiences they will need for higher command. Most officers don't even talk to their assignment team before being handed an assignment. Refusing any assignment means you must resign within seven days.

- Deployments, remote tours, hardship tours, and thankless staff jobs are frequently cited as ways to "pull ahead" of the pack. Successful senior leaders emphasize their divorces and flaunt how many years they've been away from their families. Rewards appear to be aligned with willingness to sacrifice work/life balance; no rational organization defines success by how much they can give up.

- Officer performance management offers no transparency; officers are not given real, honest, or timely feedback. Only the top 25% are ever quantified and stratified ("My #1 of 25 Captains!") in performance reports. The rest are left to assume they're doing ok; that they're somewhere just below that top 25%. Lacking stratification, reports are written as if each officer is fantastic. Grade inflation leads to ego inflation which encourages both complacency and mediocrity.

- Officer performance reports offer no objective measures of success or mission accomplishment. Absent objective measures, officers are left with subjective measures -- specifically, how much their bosses like them compared to their peers. When promotion and stratification depend on your boss' regard for you, a system creates perverse incentives toward politicking, backstabbing, and whitewashing your record. This system should naturally select towards the selfish and power-hungry.

- Promotion boards appear arbitrary and capricious. The Air Force freely admits that each officer's paper records get fewer than 30 seconds of review when being scored for promotion. Given the lack of stratification on most officers' records and the grade inflation for lack of objective criteria, most officers can only guess at what might be missing. The board presents no feedback to the officers being considered for promotion.

- The career field structure creates sub-competitions which do not select the best available talent for senior leadership. Some career fields top out at Major, meaning those career fields are effectively ineligible for senior leadership. Others are disproportionately selected because of cultural bias (e.g., fighter pilots) despite being relatively less equipped to manage large organizations. Note that your career field is selected for you, after you've agreed to commission, and is exceptionally difficult to change.

- Promotion is a one-way street -- officers cannot be demoted and then promoted again -- so one mistake (sometimes one bad performance report) can be a career killer. Negative feedback will only occur when someone is already on the way out -- this pattern encourages passive aggressive leadership. Officers will not be afforded a chance to learn from their mistakes or grow.

- There are no established success criteria for reaching senior leadership; officers are left to infer the right career path from anecdotes, most of which are not positive. Since generals are most exposed to promising and like-minded colonels within their career field, the flag officer ranks appear to be primarily driven by nepotism and politics.

- The decision structure is exceptionally vertical, resulting in a top-down economy of ideas even though the information resides at the bottom. Important decisions must go through multiple levels of commanders, each time being "fixed" by officers with less knowledge of the problem. Much of an officer's time (and career) are spent simplifying complex problems to be presented to a flag officer who has very little time to understand them. New ideas and initiatives are generally unwelcome, and especially from the junior ranks.

Why would a bright and enterprising young officer want to compete in this Air Force? Is there a sense of efficacy? Can they expect to manage their growth, develop their skills, or guide their own career? What young strategic thinker would choose this life? What senior leader would design this system?

The key issues in retaining top talent, at least for the Air Force, revolve around transparency, efficacy, and the incentive structure. Most of these rules are self-imposed. This is the culture we've ossified into. If we want to keep our top talent as we downsize and pivot to newer and more complex warfighting domains (e.g., drones, cyber) we have to fix this now.

[Ram]

This has probably been posted already:

https://byothermeans...._least_that_s_t

Most of those bullets above are identified gaps in "the system" of promotion/recognition that SHOULD be filled/countered with good leadership at the Flt/CC and Sq/CC level.

[BitteEinBit]

This has probably been posted already:

https://byothermeans...._least_that_s_t

- Deployments, remote tours, hardship tours, and thankless staff jobs are frequently cited as ways to "pull ahead" of the pack. Successful senior leaders emphasize their divorces and flaunt how many years they've been away from their families. Rewards appear to be aligned with willingness to sacrifice work/life balance; no rational organization defines success by how much they can give up

This is the only bullet I disagree with. I think it is actually the opposite. Seems like the ones who take these deployments/hardships because the mission dictates it are the ones most often being left behind. I've seen far too many "senior leaders" with less total flying hours after 15 years of "flying" than a some FAIPs after their first tour. I've seen deployed commanders(s..plural) (16+ years of service) who were on their first, yes FIRST deployment in the Herk since OEF/OIF. I can't even begin to think about how that could happen...but I know the answer in their cases. The secret to success in this Air Force is take care of yourself first...at least until the rules change. The AF doesn't care about how many flying hours or deployments you have under your belt...only that you check your boxes. Until that changes, these gaps will stay gaps in "the system." We keep feeding it, so that is how it will stay...for now.

Most of those bullets above are identified gaps in "the system" of promotion/recognition that SHOULD be filled/countered with good leadership at the Flt/CC and Sq/CC level.

Ram, I agree with you here. These are issues GOs can't, and quite frankly shouldn't, worry about at their level. This is a GP/CC and below leadership issue. The problem is, our leadership is too worried about self preservation (see my comment above) to fix any of these problems. These "problems" just happen to be how one gets ahead in this Air Force...so we groom our future leaders this way...all to grow up to groom other future leaders this way. The Air Force forces us to do it...or you get sent home with nothing to show in the end.

Yes, FLT/CCs and SQ/CCs should be grooming our young officers..yes, even the slugs. Instead, we just "evaluate" those young officers based on how fast they check boxes and "what projects they've done for ME lately." In an organization with good, effective leadership, you shouldn't have any "slugs" in your unit because you should have already identified them, "coached" them on how they can do better, and watch them excel along with your organization. If they don't excel, you give them honest feedback and let them go. That is what leadership should be all about. We just don't have much of that kind of leadership at those levels anymore in today's "take care of yourself" culture. That is why these "gaps" still exist.

[Jaded]

It's just a bad system. Just because some people can make it work despite the system doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Do you think it's easier to find more awesome squadron commanders or to just fix the broken system?

[Dupe]

This is the only bullet I disagree with. I think it is actually the opposite. .

I suspect the author was not rated: Within the MX, CE, or Contracting world, those with the most deployments and highest alimony payments are the "winners."

[BitteEinBit]

It's just a bad system. Just because some people can make it work despite the system doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Do you think it's easier to find more awesome squadron commanders or to just fix the broken system?

Jaded, I absolutely think it needs to be changed, but I think it is less the fact what we don't have awesome SQ/CCs and more the culture that we have created so deeply, that it covers every active year group currently in the Air Force. Our youngest officers are already thinking this way and I'm sorry, but it does not help the organization to have 90% of its people focusing mainly on doing things that will get them promoted. We need people focused on making the organization better...and in theory, the promotions should come.

We are in the mess we're in now because for too long we've been making decisions with the assumption that we have unlimited money. Now we have to make tough decisions because of budget constraints, and our leadership doesn't know what the fuck to do. Their solutions to problems have been "throw money at it" instead of fixing the root causes. Now there is no more money to throw at the problems. It is time to fix them.

It is going to take time to change the mindset. Upper management needs to trust their SQ/CCs to make the right calls on leadership potential and not just tie it to dudes who have AAS/PME completed. SQ/CCs are reluctant to support a sharp dude who doesn't have his/her boxes checked because they know their O-6 above them is going to not only override them, but then question their judgement. So we just do what makes the boss happy. WG/CCs are literally putting PRFs in separate piles (PME complete, AAD complete) without even looking at them. This is a sad reality. Leadership means knowing your people...and we are so strung up on e-everything, that we have resorted to e-commander's calls. Back to the basics. Maybe an E-mail For Life down day is what we needed to get MFs out of the office and down the hall for once. Fucking LEAD!

I suspect the author was not rated: Within the MX, CE, or Contracting world, those with the most deployments and highest alimony payments are the "winners."

Dupe, good point. I also got the impression he/she was not rated, but I didn't know how they identified their "winners." I stand corrected.. I guess in certain AFSCs the AF does care about deployments...

[Herk Driver]

If they don't excel, you give them honest feedback and let them go.

Can you explain what you mean by "let them go?"

[BitteEinBit]

Can you explain what you mean by "let them go?"

Meaning exactly what we are doing now, releasing them from service. I think we all agree that the bottom 5% are pretty easily identifiable, but if you're RIFing a dude for performance and he is surprised, that is a failure of leadership. All these secret codes in OPRs and PRFs do nothing to help us realize true officer potential. Who knew that "MAJCOM staff next" was a negative? All it does is give a secret code message to the board, while at the same time makes Capt Schmukatelli think he's doing such a great job that he should be going to staff next. Save everyone the time deciphering codes and just tell Schmukatelli that he's below average and he needs to do X, Y, and Z to improve. If he is truly an untrainable dirtbag, we need to let him go, but if you're going to "let someone go" or non-select them for promotion it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Be a leader, identify his strengths, and help him focus on those strengths to make the organization better. I may be way off base here, but that was always my understanding of what leaders do...they motivate people to succeed. Some won't make it...and it will be obvious.

[Herk Driver]

Meaning exactly what we are doing now, releasing them from service.

If there is a RIF or after they get passed over twice...got it. One a separate note, I disagree that a MAJCOM staff push is a nail in the coffin. A senior Capt or Maj having no staff push or a HAF or Wing Staff push is a nail in the coffin. MAJCOM isn't the best push out there but it is not a career killer as some have alluded to.

Back on topic, I thought you had figured out some easy way to show an officer the door when their performance was below standards. Brief them up on their shitty performance, document in an OPR and then a 'good game' as they head out the door to greener pastures when they don't improve. BTW, it is not easy to get an officer out of the service before their ADSC is up unless through VSP, RIF or other approved programs (i.e. Palace Chase) even when they have serious misconduct. It takes SECAF decision/approval and their is due process involved to make that happen. Just trying to clarify what you meant.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Herk Driver

[FUSEPLUG]

I'm curious if anyone has a good list of good vs bad push lines. If MAJCOM staff is bad, is HAF staff good? Having never been an exec, I want to scrub my OPRs for mediocrity.

Edit: Not trying to derail, just want to know what sort of crap I'll be putting on my PRF whenever '05 gets a chance to submit one.

Edited July 31, 2013 by FUSEPLUG

[Herk Driver]

JS or HAF is good.