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
This is a combination of blind faith, supposition and conjecture. It’s a just like voting in an election, you vote for someone who broadly supports your views/opinion and you put faith in them, hoping that things will become more to your liking, whether they do or not, will only be borne out over the coming years. Only difference we weren’t allowed a say on a change in the system. Don’t get me wrong I felt there needed to be change in the system, but it should have been at the next stage, with more emphasis on what it means to be an Officer,in the ATC and being able to deal with the many and varied curved balls that come your way. Those that are deemed lacking go away to acquire real world experience. Too much preparation for staff seems to be about marching up and down and not what really happens at squadrons.
A few people here seem to be putting their faith in OASC in turning round, what they seemingly regard as decades of decline, but we’ll only know this in a minimum 10 years, but more like 20, which is when the “improved leadership” skills OASC supposedly recognises, will come to the fore at squadron level, as they may have had a few years in the big chair and be filtering in to Wing Staff. If this decline people speak about had been real, then I doubt we would have an organisation now.
It is worth remembering that no matter how good the new breed will be compared to all of the supposed duffers who have gone before, they are still youth organisation volunteers, doing the ACO in their spare time and sneaking more and more time at work, as there are only so many “spare” hours in the day, which as a sqn cdr the ACO seems to be increasingly happy eating into. So regardless, the new breed of VR(T) will suffer the same problems wrt ACO/work/home life and other interest balance that we all struggle with. As I don’t see any part of the process / training that covers this or even mentions it fleetingly, this won’t change. Which then makes going to OASC no more relevant but more stressful than sitting down for a chat with an RC, ARC and A N Other Wg Cdr,
GHE2 you’re completely missing the point and you should stop taking personal offence that OASC ‘probably’ sets a higher standard of Officer than the previous system did. If you’re not one of the people who let down the organisation then what are you worried about?
Additionally try comparing apples to apples for a change - time and work life balance, along with challenges an Officer faces are the same if you went through either system and therefore irrelevent - the point is that the OASC Officer is a consistent ‘product’ which the old system did not provide. End of.
OK potentially consistent (not something I particularly relish when related to people), but please let’s stop with this OASC derived VR(T) will be better, because they won’t be. By saying they will be a higher standard ergo better, is disrespectful to generations of officers who were bloody good, especially when none of those VR(T) who have been through OASC will have been around long enough to make a judgement on, one way or the other. I don’t understand why questioning this is such a problem for people, has to be better than going along with the crowd? Unless we are all supposed to just ask how high and how wide? Our management at work would think they’ve moved into a alternate universe if we just went along with everything they suggested. May be this is the difference between the military and civilian workplace. It would make our CO’s get togethers very dull indeed.
Intriguingly many of those at HQAC went through OASC and I don’t think we all feel they are all the mutt’s nuts. Which throws a question into the consistent ergo better argument for VR(T) coming through OASC. IIRC there has only been one Commandant who has been eulogised about, the others, people haven’t always been so complimentary about.
Nobody is denying that the ACO had some good officers before the OASC path was introduced, not least those officers who got their VR(T) commissions by the old method
The trouble is that there were a significant number of oxygen thieves who managed to get their commissions through the old system too because the RC thought their face would fit at the bar or some other utterly subjective group of criteria. Similarly, there were potentially excellent officers who were rejected for much the same reason.
We have moved to a system with a greater level of consistency and a higher level of confidence in the choices made. We will still end up commissioning some prats just as we will continue to reject people for seemingly tenuous reasons but there will be greater transparency and I do believe that the ratios will slide in a favourable direction.
On top of that, the process itself is valuable to the candidates in numerous ways, whether they pass or fail.
No system is infallible and I would find it very hard to believe that a few regulars don’t get through OASC and IOT on a nod/wink/handshake or have people wondering on how on earth.
Not a troll Prune, I would say an utter [color=#ff0000][IDIOT] :worthy: [/color]
GHE2, is your New Year’s Resolution to [color=#ff0000][ANNOY][/color] as many people as possible?
This may have happened years ago, but as with most things, especially these days, everything has to be accountable and auditable. The Boarding Officers will record their decisions, and their rationale and evidence for making them. People do wonder why some get through, but don’t believe that it isn’t questioned. I was an instructor at Cranwell and had a couple of iffy Phase 2 students; we asked for their OASC and IOT reports to check their backgrounds and used that to eventually back course them for further training.
Whilst there may be nepotism within the selection process for Regular officers of all 3 services, I doubt that even senior members of the VR(T) have the clout to achieve the same thing with the Board at OASC.
Maybe it’s a personal thing or how I was brought up, not to take offence nor nor be afraid to ask questions nor herded to just accept a consensus perspective, but why do people take offence at questions and POV that don’t just accept decisions made that affect what we are and how we do things?
Because you don’t debate a point GHE2, you take a completely anti-establishment and anti-authority view every time regardless of what the discussion is. Every single time, your arguments come down to that it is the fault of HQAC or the RAF or someone in authority. You never accept what pressures they may have on them, nor do you appear to see any other perspective to an issue other than your own seemingly very blinkered viewpoint.
In common with most on here I imagine, I too like debate and that is the point of this forum, informed debate or genuinely proffered advice. People are getting fed up with your endless moaning and whinging about higher authority. OK, our leaders perhaps aren’t the best, but I have no doubt that they do what they do with the best intent and with the underlying aim of making this organisation better. Unfortunately, very often their hands are tied by organisations external to the MoD, so it would be refreshing if you tried to see that and perhaps even acknowledged it sometimes.
Even if his opinions can be frustrating to hear, there are plenty of CFAVs that think in a similar way. I think it’s useful (and interesting) to hear GHE2’s opinions, even if they are sometimes a bit predictable.
While we do need to be aware of pressures on senior figures from above, CFAVs have a valid role in putting pressure on them from below. We need to fight our corner.
There’s a different between fighting your corner and spouting off. One is constructive and one is just being an oxygen thief. If someone is concerned, don’t start gathering an army of supporters and ganging up - that is tantamount to mutiny.
When the sycophants and the institutionalised elders drive their version of the ACO vision we can find ourselves led astray so we need people who will put their heads above the parapet and sing a different song. Beware.
