Staffing levels
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a pretty high-pressure tour in town and I was blessed with good, hard thinking team mates, AD and Director; most have now left out of frustration with 'the system'. I've chosen my own course, yet daily I hit the key-board with my head out of frustration dealing with the friction of a sclerotic support system
However you will be pleased to note that when one reaches the late fifties almost everything comes into focus and the things that made you hit your head on the keyboard become an amusing distraction...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a discussion with a colleague over Christmas on the topic of the quality of senior leaders in the military and we agreed that they currently(in general, there are of course exceptions) tend not to be of the top drawer. We appear to be led by what the army would term as "top of middle third". Why? The top third recognise their value (or have it recognised for them) and are invited/convinced to employ it elsewhere, the bottom third are recognised as such and are required to leave the service at the earliest opportunity. That leaves the middle third who, naturally, sit somewhere between the two and it's from that layer that we select our current and future leaders.
They end up with a "sent down with the rations" MA, having conformed for a year on ACSC and climb the greasy pole by sticking to the regulations and avoiding controversy. When they get to a position of substance we all of a sudden expect them to ditch that which has got them there (risk aversion, conformity and not putting their name to controversial decisions) and become dynamic leaders. Funnily enough, as they are at this point in their late 40s/early 50s they unsurprisingly fail to change their behaviours.
As an army colleague of mine put it, the best Generals leave the army as Captains. I'm not overly cynical, just experienced enough to have seen how we tend to promote managers/those willing to flog themselves in an outer office (other similar roles are available); valuing managers (of time, workload, process) over leaders.
No I didn't get staff college (thankfully, in retrospect), no I've never worked an outer office, yes I've op tours under my belt (and not just ones that kept me out of the redundancy bracket) and no I'm not bitter, over-promoted yes, bitter, no!
They end up with a "sent down with the rations" MA, having conformed for a year on ACSC and climb the greasy pole by sticking to the regulations and avoiding controversy. When they get to a position of substance we all of a sudden expect them to ditch that which has got them there (risk aversion, conformity and not putting their name to controversial decisions) and become dynamic leaders. Funnily enough, as they are at this point in their late 40s/early 50s they unsurprisingly fail to change their behaviours.
As an army colleague of mine put it, the best Generals leave the army as Captains. I'm not overly cynical, just experienced enough to have seen how we tend to promote managers/those willing to flog themselves in an outer office (other similar roles are available); valuing managers (of time, workload, process) over leaders.
No I didn't get staff college (thankfully, in retrospect), no I've never worked an outer office, yes I've op tours under my belt (and not just ones that kept me out of the redundancy bracket) and no I'm not bitter, over-promoted yes, bitter, no!
Nothing changes much. It was back in the sixties I first heard the lament, and I guess it wasn't new then.
" We used to have aircraft made of wood commanded by men of steel: it's the other way round now".
" We used to have aircraft made of wood commanded by men of steel: it's the other way round now".
I think there's another element here. As people get to Air Rank, they get exposed to issues that are invisible, irrelevant or trivial to those at lower rank. My own rank doesn't start with 'Air' but I've been close enough to see the amount of time our 'stars' have to devote to public engagement, ministerial concerns, inter-service and international negotiation, service complaints (huge for some), promotion boards, routine meetings and the like, before they can even think about the day job! Now perhaps some of all that is true for many these days, but fortunately for most of us, our ranks don't expose us to the level of public judgement that is easy to make on a forum such as this!
So if we expect them to have the headroom to really make a difference, maybe we should have more, not fewer (the OP would love that!).
So if we expect them to have the headroom to really make a difference, maybe we should have more, not fewer (the OP would love that!).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MB, probably something in that.
The officer pool is comprised largely of JO and SO, the worker bees if you like and essential to any organization to staff the organisation. Now in the military the VSO are drawn entirely from this pool. The gene pool is small compared with industry or civil service (which can draw from industry).
The up or out amongst VSO is certainly necessary to thin the upper ranks. If you want to serve to 55 stay as a wg cdr.
Met one OC Eng, amazing CV, oil exploration in Saudi, worked in Antarctica, then joined RAF. Reached OC Eng by 40, and said there is nothing I can see for me in the RAF now. Off he went.
The officer pool is comprised largely of JO and SO, the worker bees if you like and essential to any organization to staff the organisation. Now in the military the VSO are drawn entirely from this pool. The gene pool is small compared with industry or civil service (which can draw from industry).
The up or out amongst VSO is certainly necessary to thin the upper ranks. If you want to serve to 55 stay as a wg cdr.
Met one OC Eng, amazing CV, oil exploration in Saudi, worked in Antarctica, then joined RAF. Reached OC Eng by 40, and said there is nothing I can see for me in the RAF now. Off he went.
public engagement, ministerial concerns, inter-service and international negotiation, service complaints (huge for some), promotion boards, routine meetings and the like, before they can even think about the day job!
Mahogany Bomber:
MB - I could not have put this better myself - you are spot on and this supports my thesis (above) concerning risk averse and banal middle and senior ranked officers. Again, I see these officers with a string of degrees (all Masters') after their names and wonder how on Earth they obtained them, knowing them when they were junior officers. I joined the RAF after a 'proper' five year Masters' - but not Shrivenham, so, in effect, it didn't count. Moreover, a number of people I know who have done both - the fellowship at Cambridge and then ACSC - also confirm that they found the Dissertation at Shrivenham particularly easy and not particularly demanding, rating it as undergraduate level. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am; I did a foreign staff course and was awarded a Masters' Degree from that, which I don't bother to list because it is largely meaningless.
I had a discussion with a colleague over Christmas on the topic of the quality of senior leaders in the military and we agreed that they currently(in general, there are of course exceptions) tend not to be of the top drawer. We appear to be led by what the army would term as "top of middle third". Why? The top third recognise their value (or have it recognised for them) and are invited/convinced to employ it elsewhere, the bottom third are recognised as such and are required to leave the service at the earliest opportunity. That leaves the middle third who, naturally, sit somewhere between the two and it's from that layer that we select our current and future leaders.
They end up with a "sent down with the rations" MA, having conformed for a year on ACSC and climb the greasy pole by sticking to the regulations and avoiding controversy. When they get to a position of substance we all of a sudden expect them to ditch that which has got them there (risk aversion, conformity and not putting their name to controversial decisions) and become dynamic leaders. Funnily enough, as they are at this point in their late 40s/early 50s they unsurprisingly fail to change their behaviours.
As an army colleague of mine put it, the best Generals leave the army as Captains. I'm not overly cynical, just experienced enough to have seen how we tend to promote managers/those willing to flog themselves in an outer office (other similar roles are available); valuing managers (of time, workload, process) over leaders.
They end up with a "sent down with the rations" MA, having conformed for a year on ACSC and climb the greasy pole by sticking to the regulations and avoiding controversy. When they get to a position of substance we all of a sudden expect them to ditch that which has got them there (risk aversion, conformity and not putting their name to controversial decisions) and become dynamic leaders. Funnily enough, as they are at this point in their late 40s/early 50s they unsurprisingly fail to change their behaviours.
As an army colleague of mine put it, the best Generals leave the army as Captains. I'm not overly cynical, just experienced enough to have seen how we tend to promote managers/those willing to flog themselves in an outer office (other similar roles are available); valuing managers (of time, workload, process) over leaders.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 19th Jan 2015 at 13:56.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius - I think you'll find that being elevated to ones level of incompetency is "the Peter Principle"
Parkinsons Laws are "work expands to fill the time available" and " Senior managers generate subordinates"
All of them all to true
Parkinsons Laws are "work expands to fill the time available" and " Senior managers generate subordinates"
All of them all to true
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comparison with the US Army is quite something - they have 50% more SO's to run 500% more men
and no-one ever claimed the US Army was exactly lean and mean................ half of them seem to be in Washington DC
One thing is for sure - the Army won't take that hit on their own - a lot of SO's in the RAF and Navy will be looking for work soon I think
and no-one ever claimed the US Army was exactly lean and mean................ half of them seem to be in Washington DC
One thing is for sure - the Army won't take that hit on their own - a lot of SO's in the RAF and Navy will be looking for work soon I think
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if this has been covered, but what is the ratio of Squadron Leaders to Squadrons in the current RAF?
I mean that to only include "proper" Squadrons, not the bits that were previously sections of Ops wing, like the Air Traffic Control squadron at every station.
I mean that to only include "proper" Squadrons, not the bits that were previously sections of Ops wing, like the Air Traffic Control squadron at every station.
Something tells me that the review into senior officer numbers might not yield the results that will produce the more slimline, efficient command structure General Carter talks of.......oh yes I remember now, previous experience.
When Gp Capt Beetham was station master at Khormaksar in 1965, I remember him saying, "An officer is not an officer until he reaches the rank of Wing Commander".