PVRs started.....
I claim no credit for these words but they are very useful.
The term indoctrination came to have awkward connotations during the 20th century, but it is necessary to retain it, in order to distinguish it from education. In education one is asked to stand as much as possible outside the body of accumulated knowledge and analyze it oneself. In indoctrination on the other hand, one stands within the body of knowledge and absorbs its teachings without critical thought
So it could be argued that Doctrine merely churns out process monkeys! Seen lots of those!
The term indoctrination came to have awkward connotations during the 20th century, but it is necessary to retain it, in order to distinguish it from education. In education one is asked to stand as much as possible outside the body of accumulated knowledge and analyze it oneself. In indoctrination on the other hand, one stands within the body of knowledge and absorbs its teachings without critical thought
So it could be argued that Doctrine merely churns out process monkeys! Seen lots of those!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
And there you have the corrosive recipe for discontent.
Standby for sweeping generalisations...
Hor d'ouvre:-
The RAF reserves the right to choose (fair cop) but uses a reverse promotion board (corrosion sets in) with an additional offset for volunteers (outrageous!)
A volunteer (generally speaking) would be someone who has a bit of go in him, a bit of ambition, and is fed up with the RAF.
A non-volunteer (possibly) might be working his ticket/less ambitious/less talented etc.
Main Course:-
Some people who want it, don't get it, and vice-versa. The unsucessful volunteer PVR's
Desert:-
That non-volunteer gets the full (and generous) redundancy package
The unsucessful volunteer PVR's & gets sod all.
Leftovers:-
Those left behind are demoralised, overworked, bewildered...and going to have to attend the others' leaving functions!
SPHLC
Five failed redundancy attempts, and proud of it.
(Left in April on a Med Discharge)
For most of these you got a score of between 0 and 5, with two notably exceptions I will expand on. The performance figure was arrived at by a board of 3 (hence the redundancy selection was referred to by some as a reverse promotion board!) who scored 1-9 each, giving a possible performance score for an individual of between 3 and 27. Hence you can see that the performance score dwarfs all the other scores.
If you were a volunteer you scored 0, a non volunteer scored 7.
So, a volunteer (0 points) who was doing a good job and got a performance score of 22 would have more points than a non volunteer (7 points) who wasn't doing as well and got a performance score of 14 (don't forget, more points equals retention, less equals redundancy!). Throw in a few differences in skill sets, med cat, etc, and volunteers/non volunteers with more similar performance scores than the example I quoted might find that it is the non volunteer who actually ends up with the lower points, and is made redundant.
If you were a volunteer you scored 0, a non volunteer scored 7.
So, a volunteer (0 points) who was doing a good job and got a performance score of 22 would have more points than a non volunteer (7 points) who wasn't doing as well and got a performance score of 14 (don't forget, more points equals retention, less equals redundancy!). Throw in a few differences in skill sets, med cat, etc, and volunteers/non volunteers with more similar performance scores than the example I quoted might find that it is the non volunteer who actually ends up with the lower points, and is made redundant.
Standby for sweeping generalisations...
Hor d'ouvre:-
The RAF reserves the right to choose (fair cop) but uses a reverse promotion board (corrosion sets in) with an additional offset for volunteers (outrageous!)
A volunteer (generally speaking) would be someone who has a bit of go in him, a bit of ambition, and is fed up with the RAF.
A non-volunteer (possibly) might be working his ticket/less ambitious/less talented etc.
Main Course:-
Some people who want it, don't get it, and vice-versa. The unsucessful volunteer PVR's
Desert:-
That non-volunteer gets the full (and generous) redundancy package
The unsucessful volunteer PVR's & gets sod all.
Leftovers:-
Those left behind are demoralised, overworked, bewildered...and going to have to attend the others' leaving functions!
SPHLC
Five failed redundancy attempts, and proud of it.
(Left in April on a Med Discharge)
Those left behind are demoralised, overworked, bewildered...and going to have to attend the others' leaving functions!
I didn't go to my own farewell dining out night at Brize because I happened to be down route. Enjoyed a good night in Louca's Bar instead!
brakedwell,
You were lucky to be offered a dining out night, even if you couldn't attend.
My farewell when I left after 27+ years was a corporal in P2 at Strike Command (remember that?) who said "best of luck sir" as he handed me a temporary F1250 to allow me to exit the site!
You were lucky to be offered a dining out night, even if you couldn't attend.
My farewell when I left after 27+ years was a corporal in P2 at Strike Command (remember that?) who said "best of luck sir" as he handed me a temporary F1250 to allow me to exit the site!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus:
"However, from the "company's" point of view, why shouldn't it retain fit well performing individuals in preference to unfit individuals who aren't performing as well?"
"However, from the "company's" point of view, why shouldn't it retain fit well performing individuals in preference to unfit individuals who aren't performing as well?"
A much more realistic approach would have been to select all of the volunteers for redundancy, and then use the reverse appraisal to decide who goes compulsorily. I'm probably wrong, but legally, I thought that was the way things had to happen within each trade/qualification/skill.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being funny, but while it would be lovely for those who want to leave to get redundancy, as they will probably go anyway, what they should have done is take no notice of preferance at all.
The only good thing about redundancy is the chance to get rid of dross.
The dross will never volunteer because most of them know they are dross and may never get such a good gig again, and the good guys who want to leave have no complaint since they new the deal they signed up to.
The guys who want to go will leave anyway, albeit annoyed, but at least you have chopped some dead wood.
The only good thing about redundancy is the chance to get rid of dross.
The dross will never volunteer because most of them know they are dross and may never get such a good gig again, and the good guys who want to leave have no complaint since they new the deal they signed up to.
The guys who want to go will leave anyway, albeit annoyed, but at least you have chopped some dead wood.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: in a state of flux
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many interesting and simulating posts - thank's all for your intelligent and relevant replies.
As far as appraisals go, the Wg Cdr made the point that some who left were 'weak', and others were strong - there was no consistency - weak people stayed, strong people were thrown out, and vice-versa. The only thread she could identify was that everyone who applied was rejected, and everyone who was thrown out, did not apply. Similar jobs and reports, and some good went, some stayed, some weak ones went, some stayed - she was adamant that if somebody had deliberately only thrown out those who wanted to stay, and kept volunteers, it could not have been more obvious. I stand absolutely by my comments.
Far more important to the future of the military is this:
When we look to our leaders, we look for someone we can follow. Who is that? Who would you follow - who do you aspire to be?
It must be a person of character.
That simple.
A person of character.
A person who has the courage of their convictions and will defend what they believe to be right, not matter the consequences. They must be scrupulously honest, and work for the greater good - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. That last sentence rules out every Boss I have ever had save one. He was superb, and decided that as he was not a YES man, he had no future, and he left (Now a Trg Capt with Aer Lingus - an absolute star) - the RAF's loss. I had a female Sqn Boss also, in the early noughties - she epitomised bullying, selfishness, and cared nothing for her people - the RAF loved her (or at least the AOC did - less said the better...). She was hated by everyone who worked for her. Fortunately she left in a fit of picque when she was found out and not promoted - there is some justice I suppose. She got where she did for obvious reasons - an example of leadership? - no - an example of how not to treat people?? and an example of what happens when a bully is put in charge? Absolutely. Disaster.
Our leaders (CAS, CDS etc) are lost, and they must know it - When we watch leadership videos, or do courses at JSCSC on leadership, we exclusively look to leaders from the past for our lessons. Is that a lesson in itself? (rhetorical - answers not req'd)
We are better than than this. We really are.
As far as appraisals go, the Wg Cdr made the point that some who left were 'weak', and others were strong - there was no consistency - weak people stayed, strong people were thrown out, and vice-versa. The only thread she could identify was that everyone who applied was rejected, and everyone who was thrown out, did not apply. Similar jobs and reports, and some good went, some stayed, some weak ones went, some stayed - she was adamant that if somebody had deliberately only thrown out those who wanted to stay, and kept volunteers, it could not have been more obvious. I stand absolutely by my comments.
Far more important to the future of the military is this:
When we look to our leaders, we look for someone we can follow. Who is that? Who would you follow - who do you aspire to be?
It must be a person of character.
That simple.
A person of character.
A person who has the courage of their convictions and will defend what they believe to be right, not matter the consequences. They must be scrupulously honest, and work for the greater good - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. That last sentence rules out every Boss I have ever had save one. He was superb, and decided that as he was not a YES man, he had no future, and he left (Now a Trg Capt with Aer Lingus - an absolute star) - the RAF's loss. I had a female Sqn Boss also, in the early noughties - she epitomised bullying, selfishness, and cared nothing for her people - the RAF loved her (or at least the AOC did - less said the better...). She was hated by everyone who worked for her. Fortunately she left in a fit of picque when she was found out and not promoted - there is some justice I suppose. She got where she did for obvious reasons - an example of leadership? - no - an example of how not to treat people?? and an example of what happens when a bully is put in charge? Absolutely. Disaster.
Our leaders (CAS, CDS etc) are lost, and they must know it - When we watch leadership videos, or do courses at JSCSC on leadership, we exclusively look to leaders from the past for our lessons. Is that a lesson in itself? (rhetorical - answers not req'd)
We are better than than this. We really are.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beefer,
Top post, I just wonder if one of us enlisted filth had posted such heresy would it have been received so well.
30 plus years has taught me that in general the stuff that the College of Knowledge instills means that any questioning in the ranks means said individual is chipped.
The sooner folk come to grips with the fact that every bolleaux decision made in all 3 fighting arms is as a product of an important person the sooner we could get to grips with this sad sorry state of affairs
Top post, I just wonder if one of us enlisted filth had posted such heresy would it have been received so well.
30 plus years has taught me that in general the stuff that the College of Knowledge instills means that any questioning in the ranks means said individual is chipped.
The sooner folk come to grips with the fact that every bolleaux decision made in all 3 fighting arms is as a product of an important person the sooner we could get to grips with this sad sorry state of affairs
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our leaders (CAS, CDS etc) are lost, and they must know it - When we watch leadership videos, or do courses at JSCSC on leadership, we exclusively look to leaders from the past for our lessons. Is that a lesson in itself? (rhetorical - answers not req'd)
Actually I found quite a lot of officers I would have followed, I think good guys existed at least until 2000 when I left, but part of why I left was the realisation that the good guys often didn't get very far while some absolute gits went up the ranks like rockets. I think the highest ranking chaps I encountered who I'd willingly follow were one stars - one of them from the fast jet world who I only worked with a few weeks. Some good guys did better, I liked them when I knew them (Sqn Ldr/Wingco level tops). They might be great guys, but how promotion affected them I don't know (but hope for the best).
SFFP - I think us enlisted (and ex) filth are often accorded a very respectful (sometimes positively indulgent) hearing, you'd be a happier camper if you'd discard that big chip...don't automatically go for the stereotypical disgruntled NCO act, you're probably better than that but your natural humour and cuddliness isn't coming across well and it undermines the points you make.
Dave
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP - I think us enlisted (and ex) filth are often accorded a very respectful (sometimes positively indulgent) hearing, you'd be a happier camper if you'd discard that big chip...don't automatically go for the stereotypical disgruntled NCO act, you're probably better than that but your natural humour and cuddliness isn't coming across well and it undermines the points you make.
Dave
You really could not be further from the truth if you tried but you fall into the classic trap that others do when someone rather bluntly points out the elephant in the room.
Pretty much everything we buy is either late, over budget, not quite what actually asked for or a combination of all 3.
Pretty much everything we buy is signed for by the offices cadre or their MOD equivalent.
To not recognise that is plain daft but as you have aptly proved to mention it always always always invites the "chip" quip.
Imagine how much money would have been saved over the years if all 3 services had employed specialist purchase folk. Folk whose only job was to deal with industry, not worry about promotion, not be moved every 2 or 3 years and who already had all the smarts needed to deal with industry and get us precisely what we want.
Instead of criticism please show me where I am wrong, as I said no chips here just a healthy dose of realism.
Pretty much everything we buy is either late, over budget, not quite what actually asked for or a combination of all 3.
Pretty much everything we buy is signed for by the officers cadre or their MOD equivalent
Imagine how much money would have been saved over the years if all 3 services had employed specialist purchase folk. Folk whose only job was to deal with industry, not worry about promotion, not be moved every 2 or 3 years and who already had all the smarts needed to deal with industry and get us precisely what we want.
Then there is the numbing bureaucracy where a draft contract will meander from desk to desk awaiting someone's attention ... but that is another story!
I regret to say that I speak from experience.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, the problem with specialist purchasing folk is they're a bit like middle to senoir managers... fall into the trap of thinking anyone with technical knowledge of what's actually under discussion is 'too close to see the whole picture' - I'm not convinced that the real problem isn't the balance of power between those who have a good idea of what we want (the sharp end or ex sharp end blue suit input) and the civvies from MoD etc who are good at being hosted and don't always have much actual idea of what the kit needs to be like.
That's not to say that the blue suits are always working towards getting the right kit, or that the CS are necessarily ignorant of what they should be asking for, good and bad on both sides... but both need to watch the civvy supplier like hawks, and in my limited experience I found very few who seemed to think that important.
Dave
(Apologies if this doesn't read well at the end of the Chinny dining in night thread).
That's not to say that the blue suits are always working towards getting the right kit, or that the CS are necessarily ignorant of what they should be asking for, good and bad on both sides... but both need to watch the civvy supplier like hawks, and in my limited experience I found very few who seemed to think that important.
Dave
(Apologies if this doesn't read well at the end of the Chinny dining in night thread).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough,
in my past life I was involved for a while in procurement as a v low level part of the blue chain - the general idea that the blue suiters knew what they wanted and were frustrated by CS and suppliers was not what I saw... I saw the suppliers making damn sure that they got their way more often than not, in a rather more determined fashion than the CS and blue were prone to behave - resistance was non-existant. It was all far too cosy, and that seemed to me to be the root cause of not getting it all sorted efficiently - I can easily imagine BAE manipulating CS/RAF by presenting a united and well drilled front, especially if you juggle the RAF around every couple of years to ensure lack of continuity.
It's basic tactics to attack an enemy where their forces meet - supplier drives in between CS and RAF, CS and RAF find they're not quite on the same hymn sheet while supplier insists it's all going great, job done - rubber stamped for another 3 months....
The bit you are wrong in, SFFP, is in your assumption that you have people who are trained in procurement and also know what they want - what you get is people who know what they want, and people who know procurement, and unfortunately they tend to think each other always has the wrong end of the stick and end up working at odds with each other.
Dave
in my past life I was involved for a while in procurement as a v low level part of the blue chain - the general idea that the blue suiters knew what they wanted and were frustrated by CS and suppliers was not what I saw... I saw the suppliers making damn sure that they got their way more often than not, in a rather more determined fashion than the CS and blue were prone to behave - resistance was non-existant. It was all far too cosy, and that seemed to me to be the root cause of not getting it all sorted efficiently - I can easily imagine BAE manipulating CS/RAF by presenting a united and well drilled front, especially if you juggle the RAF around every couple of years to ensure lack of continuity.
It's basic tactics to attack an enemy where their forces meet - supplier drives in between CS and RAF, CS and RAF find they're not quite on the same hymn sheet while supplier insists it's all going great, job done - rubber stamped for another 3 months....
The bit you are wrong in, SFFP, is in your assumption that you have people who are trained in procurement and also know what they want - what you get is people who know what they want, and people who know procurement, and unfortunately they tend to think each other always has the wrong end of the stick and end up working at odds with each other.
Dave
Sffp
Branson got lucky in his very early days when he set up Virgin records - a company selling records at very much discounted prices to his student mates from borrowed premises in a cellar. His overheads were so low that he could afford to undercut the High Street significantly and we all know that Students like cheap.
Granted in later life, he has developed into a sound business man, but if he had not had his piece of luck in the late 60s and early 70s he would not be where he is today. Sir Richard suffers from dyslexia and so was unlikely to have ever secured a place in a good business school...
LJ
Branson got lucky in his very early days when he set up Virgin records - a company selling records at very much discounted prices to his student mates from borrowed premises in a cellar. His overheads were so low that he could afford to undercut the High Street significantly and we all know that Students like cheap.
Granted in later life, he has developed into a sound business man, but if he had not had his piece of luck in the late 60s and early 70s he would not be where he is today. Sir Richard suffers from dyslexia and so was unlikely to have ever secured a place in a good business school...
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ,
Branson is nowt more than a lucky illiterate chancer who is now worth more money than I will ever be able to comprehend.
The military employ some of the sharpest minds on the planet but cant even collectively negotiate a sensible price on a photo copier cartridge.
Your point is what Sir
Branson is nowt more than a lucky illiterate chancer who is now worth more money than I will ever be able to comprehend.
The military employ some of the sharpest minds on the planet but cant even collectively negotiate a sensible price on a photo copier cartridge.
Your point is what Sir
SFFP
I'm afraid you are misinformed. The military is NOT permitted to negotiate on costs or the Terms and Conditions of a contract ... only MoD Commercial Branch does that.
I'm afraid you are misinformed. The military is NOT permitted to negotiate on costs or the Terms and Conditions of a contract ... only MoD Commercial Branch does that.