Promotion and PRF Information

[backseatdriver]

So, while being a mission commander was definitely the most fun leadership job I had, it didn't really teach me much I hadn't seen before.

When you and Dirk say "Mission Commander" I'm fairly confident you're not talking about the same things.

[Mark1]

I don't love Chang either, but he is right on one thing. Exec and aide jobs lead to schools and promitions. I think the single biggest factor in a promotion is who you work for and when you work for that person. Primary job performance, strats, DGs, etc only matter so much when you aren't in a key position. Guess what, if you are the aide to some General, you are going to be promoted and will go to school. That is a fact. So if you want to be promoted, get those jobs.

The lack of S.A. and general comprehension associated with this post makes my brain hurt.

[di1630]

Being an exec is not the same as being a secretary.

That's what the USAF would have you believe because you are given a #1 strat and sent to a worthless school as a reward for your outlook skills, OPR organizing and deciding to put the USAF bureaucracy #1.

In the real world, exec duties are done by secretaries. And in not knocking secretaries, it's just not why I joined the AF. Here's the definition.

(USAF exec) A secretary, personal assistant, or administrative assistant is a person whose work consists of supporting management, including executives, using a variety of project management, communication, or organizational skills. These functions may be entirely carried out to assist one other employee or may be for the benefit of more than one. In other situations a secretary is an officer of a society or organization who deals with correspondence, admits new members, and organizes official meetings and events.

-sounds a lot like exec duties to me.

[Dupe]

I don't know how other organizations work, but I've never seen an exec picked for secretarial experience. In my experience, squadrons typically nominate quality people for execdom. I know that's not the case everywhere, but damn people sure are cynical about execs around here.

A really good WG/CC told me this about how he picks his exec:

"I solicit for volunteers and I ask the SQ/CCs who they think should be sent up. I then ignore all that crap and interview the top 3-5 guys on the rack and stack. I find the best exec is usually someone who didn't volunteer and a guy who the SQ/CC was trying to hide from exec duty. I always give my exec a 1, 2, or 3 strat."

[Gravedigger]

In the real world, exec duties are done by secretaries.

(secretary description)

-sounds a lot like exec duties to me.

No, that sounds like what the squadron/group/wing secretaries do. If your units have used execs solely to perform secretarial work, that's a shame.

When you and Dirk say "Mission Commander" I'm fairly confident you're not talking about the same things.

Not the point, but I'll bite. I'm also fairly confident we're talking about different things, but the common ground is leading a group of Airmen conducting ops that directly contribute to national security and saving lives. If you think that only happens in the flying world, you're mistaken. Our mission commanders lead crews of young Airmen operating multi-billion dollar satellite constellations that the DoD, President, and entire world depend on. Do you know what would happen if we lost GPS, even for a minute? How many other Air Force missions do billions of people depend on every day?

I don't think leading a crew from the safety of an ops floor in Colorado is the same as being a flight lead, especially in combat, but it's not any less important.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Gravedigger

[di1630]

Somebody please tell me these super awesome exec duties that I missing? Granted, execs do more than the GS-6 secretary, I get that.

But in the end, proofreading OPRs, writing eSSS' for staffing, making schedules, organizing paperwork...

That's what a good secretary does in the business world.

The sad part is reading on here how many people are buying the "become an exec, get a strat, go to school, guaranteed O-5, don't rock the boat, make your bosses goals "your" goals to succeed" bullshit.

And we wonder why many of our current leaders can't speak with credibility, can't identify with the masses and why a ton of good leaders go guard/reserve and say f-you to the system that promotes mediocrity instead of actual leadership.

Because the guy slugging it out on line, doesn't get stratted because while he's teaching tactics in the bar, talking with the young guys, the careerist pussy is hobnobbing with leadership knowing that hard work only matters in the USAF when seen.

That's the issue.

[Danny Noonin]

Guess what, if you are the aide to some General, you are going to be promoted and will go to school. That is a fact. So if you want to be promoted, get those jobs.

Newsflash...if you get picked to be an aide de camp or a 2-star or better's exec, you were getting promoted anyway.

[HossHarris]

No, that sounds like what the squadron/group/wing secretaries do. If your units have used execs solely to perform secretarial work, that's a shame.

Not the point, but I'll bite. I'm also fairly confident we're talking about different things, but the common ground is leading a group of Airmen conducting ops that directly contribute to national security and saving lives. If you think that only happens in the flying world, you're mistaken. Our mission commanders lead crews of young Airmen operating multi-billion dollar satellite constellations that the DoD, President, and entire world depend on. Do you know what would happen if we lost GPS, even for a minute? How many other Air Force missions do billions of people depend on every day?

I don't think leading a crew from the safety of an ops floor in Colorado is the same as being a flight lead, especially in combat, but it's not any less important.

We are, after all, Warriors each and every one.

(Off to collect my participation trophy)

[Duck]

I was an exec for two commanders. Not by choice. One was the best commander I ever had and one was the absolute worst. Both of them at the end of the day would pour a glass of scotch and mentor me. Throughout the week they would also call me into their office tell me what they were thinking and ask my opinion. Occasionally I had the opportunity to save the squadron from a morale busting mandatory morning formation run (etc).

Bottom line I learned just as much about how to not be a commander from the bad one as I learned how to take care of people (promotions, assignments, etc) from the good one. I also learned that while I was just flying the line I didn't always have the big picture (and sometimes neither did they as the CC).

The good commander got tired of the BS and left for the airlines. The bad is now an O-6 school dude.

[DirkDiggler]

I know this sounds crazy, but for me the ops stuff was the easy part. You go through a ton of training and spend a lot of time studying and doing your primary job as an Lt, with very little else to worry about. So, while being a mission commander was definitely the most fun leadership job I had, it didn't really teach me much I hadn't seen before. The exec job was the exact opposite. It was totally foreign and unnatural to me, and that is what made it so challenging and rewarding in the end.

I don't think being an exec makes me or anyone else better than anyone, it is just a different perspective than most CGOs get to experience, which can be very beneficial moving forward.

I'll agree with the last part of your statement there, that being an exec gives you a different perspective. For the me the exec job was learning how the daily administrivia sausage making process of a unit functions, nothing more, nothing less.

What it wasn't was leadership. Its been mentioned a lot in other threads but there's a serious trust issue between the rank and file and upper level leadership. A lot of people in the AF have a very difficult time differentiating between leadership and management and this is one of the sources, among others, of this mistrust. From my experience and the input of my bros, exec jobs show you the daily processes necessary for a unit to function. The exec job only offered snippets of true learning about true leadership. The higher level exec jobs will give guys exposure to higher level sausage making and those guys will get to see senior leaders make decisions, but those execs aren't deciding anything nor are they exercising leadership.

The Marine exchange officers here at the wayward school by the river vary from bemused to saddened by AF efforts to define, describe, and discuss leadership. The Marines have a very focused and defined way of discussing leadership and leadership attributes. When the Marines talk about leadership and leadership case studies they never start inside the exec shop.

[ThreeHoler]

make your bosses goals "your" goals to succeed" bullshit

Because railing against your boss is such a good idea...

Making your boss's goals for the organization your goals for the organization is the right thing to do.

You can argue in private, but at the end of the day, you need to support your boss in public.

[dream big]

Because the guy slugging it out on line, doesn't get stratted because while he's teaching tactics in the bar, talking with the young guys, the careerist ###### is hobnobbing with leadership knowing that hard work only matters in the USAF when seen.

That's the issue.

FWIW, the best C130 instructor I ever had WAS the guy teaching tactics in the bar to LTs, he was also the wing exec yet one of the most proficient pilots I've met. He's a school select now and a U2 driver.

Not sure why being tactically proficient and getting promoted/checking boxes is mutually exclusive.

[di1630]

di1630, have you ever been a group/wing exec? Have you attended one of the military's "worthless" schools?

No, married to one so I've seen the work, but being a glorified secretary was never my goal when joining the AF.

I've attended a few worthless USAF schools but not ACSC in res as I presume you are inferring. All my knowledge of the happenings are from friends and colleagues who have.

I'm not sure why my attitude seems the exception but I could think of nothing worse than spending a year of my life at Maxwell. The only good thing I've heard is its a year long vacation from the CAF and it's easy.

But I don't hate the CAF so I'm fine sticking around. I fly my lines, do my work and go home to my kids while the careerists slug it out with extra work and politics for the same paycheck. While they take on an extra meaningless project to impress the boss, I have a jack and coke in the bar.

Someday their hard work might pay off with a sweet Pentagon staff tour or being a generals aide. Good for them if that's what they want.

Climbing the big blue ladder by being an exec and doing school was never a dream of mine. Getting paid to fly jets and have a family was. And I'm succeeding.

Cheers

[Runr6730]

The most valuable experience I took away from my 2.5 years as a squadron and group exec was how to look after the people I supervise to help them succeed, which is something I wish I had gotten from my Flight Commanders when I was younger. I had the opportunity to go straight into a Flight Commander position immediately following my exec tours and took every opportunity to mentor my young Lts, NCOs, and Airmen, push them for opportunities to excel, and ensure their OPRs/EPRs/award packages were the best they could possibly be.

This, IMO, is where the value is in being an exec. Not the strats.

[brabus]

Except people can and should learn that exact lesson (take care of your people, find opportunities for them, mentor them, put effort into their OPRs, etc.) without having to be an exec. In my experience, I've worked with a good amount of dudes who clearly did learn that lesson and did well as flt/cc's, ADOs, etc. who never did an exec job. If an exec job is the only way in community X to gain those skills/learn those lessons, then that community is epically failing. I'm glad you took something positive out of your experience (and a very important lesson in my opinion), I really am, but its a shame you spent 2.5 yrs as an exec and got the same lesson you should have received well prior to exec-dom.

You're not the exception di1630, lots of dudes think that way, myself included. I don't shit on guys for wanting to go to school, be an aide, etc. Great if that's for them, even better if a good bro decides to walk that path...hopefully it results in a good dude being a CC. But, it's not for all of us, and choosing to not walk that path should in the same manner not be looked down upon by the school-types, etc.

[brabus]

I didn't read his post to say he thought anyone doing the "leadership" route were auto-douches, just that it's not for him and he shouldn't be looked at like he has a dick sticking out of his cranium for professing said stance. Maybe I missed some other post earlier, but if not, I think you're putting a lot of words in his mouth. Bottom line, there are a lot of great leaders who did school/staff, and came back to the jet with a decent amount of tactical ability given their position at the time; as you said, there are several who are great leaders and good in the jet as well. However, it shouldn't be a shock that the path they walked is not desirable for a lot of dudes, including A LOT of dudes who are not "off the path" because of a lack of capability to do so, but by choice alone.

[DirkDiggler]

Except people can and should learn that exact lesson (take care of your people, find opportunities for them, mentor them, put effort into their OPRs, etc.) without having to be an exec. In my experience, I've worked with a good amount of dudes who clearly did learn that lesson and did well as flt/cc's, ADOs, etc. who never did an exec job. If an exec job is the only way in community X to gain those skills/learn those lessons, then that community is epically failing. I'm glad you took something positive out of your experience (and a very important lesson in my opinion), I really am, but its a shame you spent 2.5 yrs as an exec and got the same lesson you should have received well prior to exec-dom.

You're not the exception di1630, lots of dudes think that way, myself included. I don't shit on guys for wanting to go to school, be an aide, etc. Great if that's for them, even better if a good bro decides to walk that path...hopefully it results in a good dude being a CC. But, it's not for all of us, and choosing to not walk that path should in the same manner not be looked down upon by the school-types, etc.

Checks

Edited February 15, 2015 by DirkDiggler

[Azimuth]

It's not shocking that guys don't want that path. At all. It's shocking when a guy who's never done exec/school/staff claims to know with certainty that all are "worthless," meaningless," etc. How the ###### does he know?! In what other facet of military life is it acceptable to heed the advice of someone who hasn't been there, done that? Does a B-courser/wingman get to say with certainly that WIC is a worthless waste of time? Does a KC-135 boom get to compare the capabilities of the B-2 versus a B-52 just because he's refueled them? No. We roll our eyes at those people and tell them to shut the ###### up.

That's what I think is lame. Those things don't seem appealing to you? Cool, don't do them. But don't turn around and A) act like you know about them, and B) that your chosen path is so far superior/righteous to someone else's.

Why is it that you never see a "school/staff" path guy criticize the "career flyer" guys, but that every page here is littered with the career flyer guys condemning the school/staff guys and reminding them, constantly and with an eerie hint of insecurity, that they care about flying and their family and that they're succeeding?

Believe it or not, the school/staff guys top priorities are oftentimes flying and family too. They're just also willing to take other career avenues along the way, and without the need for constant reaffirmations to anonymous peers on the internet.

What staff or IDE have you done (if eligible)? Have you been an exec at any level?

[brabus]

But don't turn around and A) act like you know about them, and B) that your chosen path is so far superior/righteous to someone else's.

Agreed - it's a two way street.

Why is it that you never see a "school/staff" path guy criticize the "career flyer" guys

I've seen it several times, just luckily haven't been the poor bastards directly under that "school/staff" guy's command. Like I said, everyone should chill the fuck out and thank the dude who is willing to walk the career path to leadership, as well as thank the dude who says it's not for him and stays on board in some manner to continue the tactical advancement of our Air Force from a flying standpoint. The problem is the latter are more commonly shit on/shoved aside than those who check the appropriate career advancement containers the AF deems more important. You can absolutely do both, the problem is not many people do both; I am grateful there are good dudes who can do both, just wish there were a lot more of them.

Edited February 15, 2015 by brabus

[Homestar]

Here's the dilemma: I want to chose when and how I leave the Air Force. In order to do that, in today's Air Force, I have to make O-5 or I run the risk of not receiving continuation once passed over. To have a better than 50/50 shot at making O-5 I need a DP at my primary board. To get a DP at my primary board I need to be in a position where the Wing Commander believes I deserve one of the few he has to hand out. Showing up and flying the line doesn't get you a DP these days. So I have to take jobs I otherwise wouldn't take during the years between pinning on O-4 and meeting my primary O-5 board. It sucks for a couple years, but hopefully I get promoted and get to stay doing what I wanted to do when I joined (fly).

Have passed over Majors been offered continuation lately?

[Danny Noonin]

The problem is the latter are more commonly shit on/shoved aside than those who check the appropriate career advancement containers the AF deems more important.

Serious question: how so?

What do you consider "shoved aside" for an older (O-4/O-5) fighter pilot who is not (by choice or otherwise) on a leadership track?

Edited February 15, 2015 by Danny Noonin

[di1630]

Fucking lame...,, But don't broadcast your low SA by assuming that's everyone, and/or babbling about things you've never actually done or been a part of.

Wow....Chill out, take a midol there Nancy.

I'm not bashing ALL the dudes who take the exec>school>staff>whatever the f-else route. Some of them are my good buddies. A lot are complete f-ing d-bags.

What I will bash is the system that seems to think someone who is an exec, goes to school for a year etc. is the best person to lead.

The best leaders I know didn't need that crap to lead.

And finally, you think I need to go to school or be an exec to have any SA about it? Bulllllllsh!t!

I have plenty of experience at all levels, I've seen the game, I know how it works and what it takes to "usually" get ahead in the USAF.

Edited February 15, 2015 by di1630

[Danny Noonin]

What I will bash is the system that seems to think someone who is an exec, goes to school for a year etc. is the best person to lead.

Dude, I'm the first person to bash anything and everything that is Maxwell AFB. I think it's a low-payback investment for a years worth of time and money (for the AF, not necessarily for the person). But I think you've got it backwards.

The AF picks those that it feels has the most potential to be commanders, etc, and sends them there for development. They don't get to lead because they went there. They get to lead because they were high-enough quality to get picked up in the first place. IDE, SDE, etc. are the results of that, not the other way around.

Execs are a slightly different animal (drastically different in some cases) because of the ways those are chosen. OG/wing exec decision process may be affected by deployment cycles, PCS cycles, other jobs/needs within a wing, etc....i.e. timing. But it still is seen by many as a developmental job intended to show a guy a bit about how the world works outside of a squadron. Some are more developmental than others. I'm sure some are quite secretarial as someone said and a million examples of bottom feeders being execs. But that's the general intent.

It's a perfectly fair argument to say that we pick guys too early for the leadership track. But IDE is when it is. It's only a couple of years before command anyway. So we have to make a cut somewhere. This is where the AF does it. I don't necessarily like it, but I don't really have a better idea either when taking into account the big picture.

I'm the worlds biggest proponent that operational squadrons are the heart of the AF. But there is a bigger AF too, and we need to develop people to function in roles outside a squadron too. There is a big world out there that requires people with operational SA to be involved with (i.e. Staff shit). Like it or not, we can't scoff that stuff entirely or the real results will be that squadrons and their capabilities will suffer. Group/Wing Commanders who understand nothing about the outside world are frequently ineffective. A large part of what they do is interact with staffs and the outside world on behalf of their organization. There's way more to it than just personal leadership skills.

[brabus]

Danny - what I mean is seeing dudes who are good officers and pilots, but because they choose (I agree, it is a choice) to not walk the more or less "cookie cutter" path to leadership big AF traditionally desires (school-staff-DO and on), they start getting the shit deals (TDYs, deployments, etc), undesirable assignments, being directly told "do this or get out," etc. A lot of good O-4s get out of AD because their option is do it the big AF way or face a very increased probability of the aforementioned. Or at the O-5 level, good dudes play the game and then get the "have we got a command deal for you!...or go fuck yourself and get out, your call" line, and now the poor bastard who's put in almost 20 years to the AF is faced with a undesirable deal that sucks wholesale for his family or he can decline and get out...great. The AF "raises" officers to all be on a track to WG/CC, COCOM, etc., but doesn't seem to understand that not everyone wants to be on that track. It subsequently doesn't understand what to do with these officers when they try to jump off the track - which I think is a big reason AD is bleeding so much officer and tactical talent into the guard, reserves or worse, completely gone from military service. It's a shame and something that needs some real, hard looks from senior leadership. I do not have a great answer, what do you think? There has to be something real the AF can offer to keep talent on AD who aren't going to be the next WG/CC or higher, but they still offer a great service to the Air Force.

All that said, there are certainly the O-5s that somehow stayed mostly on their desired "non-standard" career track and are doing just fine. But, they're certainly in the minority.

[SurelySerious]

I'm a tool, I'm a tool, I'm a huge huge huge huge tool

Edit: https://youtu.be/uaPWwyC6CDI

Chill the fuck out.

Because I guarantee you that every one of them has gone to school in residence and

Absolutely false. My precious sq/cc has never had an assignment outside of flying. Dealing in absolutes is a dangerous business from both sides. Edited February 15, 2015 by SurelySerious