It’s nothing that anyone should be worried about. Just put your time into it. Put your mind to it. And the Boarding Officers manage to drag the best out of you anyway!
Will your opinion change if you get a negative outcome?
I know of 5 who have been and were full of it before and after. But 3 changed when they got turned down and the other two still think it’s the mutt’s nuts … but they haven’t got to go again.
[quote=“ears” post=12604]Just thought I’d share my opinion on OASC… (Whether its welcome or not!)
Went on the most recent selection board. Still not sure on outcome yet.
I think its possibly the best step the ACO has taken with regards to VRT Recruitment and Selection in a very long time (Ever)!
The board was challenging, fun. And by the end of it you left really wanting it and feeling pushed.
I guess before it possibly felt a little bit easy to get (IMHO).
The boarding officers are fantastic and don’t care you’re ACO they treat exactly the same as any other candidate going through OASC.[/quote]
I just came back and have the same opinion as above.
It’s good fun and needs to be approached as such.
However, my one complaint would be that people on my syndicate had two gobby females to contend with who didn’t shut up on discussion topics or in the hangar. No respect for others at all.
It is a recognised problem with syndicates that you can have people who are either naturally disposed to speaking incessantly and blanking others, or people who think they need to do that to be noticed as a contributor. Others can be left to either wait for a polite gap or to try to barge in and risk appearing rude.
I’m the sort who prefer to think before I speak in these situations so I’m often watching in despair as the mouths blather on. I’ve taken to jumping on the smallest gap then absolutely refusing to be interrupted until I have finished explaining my point (which, as some seem surprised to discover, will tend to take more than 8 words)
In real teams this is all avoided by having a good manager - is electing oneself chairperson seen as good leadership or arrogance?
Syndicates throw people together and in the case of OASC for only a couple of days and very rarely if ever get the best out of everyone. The problem is teams require doers but in these false situations everyone wants to be the lead / make a lot of noise, it’s what makes The Apprentice watchable and annoying when it comes to boardroom analysis.
It will be interesting to see how the gobby females get on, probably OK as positive discrimination wrt females has become a mantra in society.
When I did my IOT the report was satisfactories and goods, overall good, but said a bit quiet and needs more time to develop before getting a command, I was already running a unit sucessfully, so me and my WSO at the time had a chuckle and my Wg Cdr was less than complimentary. The reason I was a bit quiet was I was there to do what was needed and not spend my time sucking up to people I would instantly forget on leaving the room. It seems that the OASC process wouldn’t suit me if they are looking for people to be “shouty” and I cannot be bothered with that sort of person, due to personal experiences with someone like that. It’s one thing to have an opinion or view and state it regardless whether or not people like / agree with it, rather than just adopting a ‘party line’ and another to be overbearing.
Having done the OASC Personnel Selection Cse as a pre-requisite for a job at (as it was then) DIOT at RAFC Cranwell, I hope I can comment with a little bit of authority about what OASC look for. Our main instructor was a wg cdr, who could produce multi-facial expressions as per Mr Bean; he was an expert about interviews, assessment & watching candidates. His stories about some candidates were mind-boggling - such as carrying on an interview with a self-confessed drug addict = led to a major drugs bust for a supply chain approaching Service personnel!
In short, the key to passing OASC was being yourself. It was very easy to identify the over-zealous “artificial” character who would go over-board with inputs just for effect. Equally, it was important to judge the right time to make a pro-active suggestion or calmly tell the "leader’ that his/her plan would not work - but being able to back this up with an authoritative alternative. It was quite an eye-opener to see how much of an insight could be seen (with the relevant trg) into a candidate running through the set exercises (written, verbal & practical). As an aside, it was also excellent value as an instructor to see how much a student would pick up as the “observer” on a leadership exercise at DIOT; try it with cadet exercises & be surprised how much they will pick up.
I think that in this day & (informal) age, people are not used to (a) being watched critically for a protracted period of time (several days) & (b) have someone give them a critical assessment of their character & potential ability. OASC is an excellent evaluation facility; make the most of it.
I couldn’t agree more, it’s probably why a lot of atc personnel are against oasc and prefer the old way. There are quite a few vrts that would not have a commission had they had to go through oasc.these are the ones that can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Oasc I’m is slowly and surely raising the standard of Vrt officers.the aco will be a better place and it’s officers more thought off in the wider raf once all its officers go through oasc.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=22923I think that in this day & (informal) age, people are not used to (a) being watched critically for a protracted period of time (several days) & (b) have someone give them a critical assessment of their character & potential ability. OASC is an excellent evaluation facility; make the most of it.[/quote]
I don’t know if this is correct. My dad throughout his working life said that he felt under more scrutiny towards the end of it in the late 80s. He said to me that even doing his apprenticeship in the early 40s, he wasn’t under as much scrutiny and as a supervisor having to do the same to others he felt under even more scrutiny. His view was actually doing your job became less and less important and I feel this even more than he did.
We have biannual reviews and being in a position of having to do them to others, they are a waste of my time and I don’t know anyone in our company who doesn’t think this. My view is if someone isn’t doing as they should or doing better, tell them at the time, not when it’s box ticking time. This was an annual character assassignation, until some senior type, thought that doing them twice a year was a good idea. Getting new people in hasn’t just been an interview for 12 years and has morphed into this protracted process of interviews, tests and presentations, which is a waste of time for all concerned.
Many employers look on social media as a screening tool for applicants, I know our personnel dept does this. So there’s another level of scrutiny that I doubt many are aware of, until it’s too late.
When I started work targets were the preserve of senior management but then in about 1992-3 some moron said that everyone should have targets. These are like a broken pencil.
So being watched critically, having to almost reinvent yourself every year and being constantly assessed is very much part of daily working life for most, if not all. Maybe not in the style of the artificial sphere of OASC, but a lot of people are exposed to this mndset.
Overall whether the OASC process for the VR(T) is a good thing, it is far too early to make any sort of objective, qualitative analysis, all people are able to do is make subjective, speculative judgements, either way. Given that the old process had been in place for donkey’s and the organisation didn’t collapse in on itself it couldn’t have been that bad a process and you won’t be able to carry out any proper analysis of the new vs old for at least 20 years. But you know what they say, the more things change the more they stay the same. My speculation is that in 20+ years the irony will be that (if the ATC still exists) despite going through the hallowed halls of OASC, VR(T) officers will still be pilloried.
I do wonder what differences people expect to see in VR(T) that have been OASC’d from those who did it the old way? My only hope is that they don’t turn out to be nodding dog, yes men/women as they and that mindset wouldn’t be good for the organisation.
Targets are good, they encounrage people to develop themselves. They provide a chance for the employer to say to the employee, you aren’t measuring up and if you don’t cut your cloth differently, you are out. They remove dead wood and stop faceless people drifting along collecting a paycheck when their harder working colleagues carry them to the end of year bonus (whatever if anything that may be).
In the early days the majority of staff had military experience so the old ways didn’t matter. As time has gone on this has declined. The effect of the wrong people in leadership positions equals declining numbers so anything that can filter out more of the bad kind can only be a positive thing. As the Aco increasingly becomes the face of the RAF, our parent service is going to shine the microscope on us and expect more professionalism and higher standards as the old and bold leave and the oasc officer becomes more dominant the types of staff that let the side down should decrease
