On a normal ACO Sqn, the Plt Off is often left in a corner to fend for themselves with rarely any help from a SNCO.
Lets take the supposition to extremes - as everyone agrees the cadets are the most important, should CWO be on Wng Cdr Boards?
While good in theory, how many squadron staff have the experience and or time for this mentoring/guiding? You can’t compare the regulars with us wrt what happens in the regulars on this one. The majority of Officers and SNCOs in the regulars have come through the ranks and seen and been able to learn what they might need to do over a number of years, in the ACO they start at Sgt or Plt Off learning as they go with little or no experience of the organisation. Which makes any guidance they could give as worthless. You can’t easily get others in from other squadrons. I’ve tried for months to get our area SNCO (a DI) to come and give some training / guidance to my SNCOs on drill and as yet the availibilities haven’t matched. Now in the regulars if you wanted this sort of support, provision in the working day would be made. We don’t have that luxury. We rely on a number of random variables aligning.
In my view it is inappropriate to have individuals on the board who do not hold the rank (or greater) of the position being assessed. (i.e. on Fg Off Board no-one below the rank of Fg Off).
This maintains that the peers will select those that meet the criteria, (one hopes) on an objective level. I would also argue that the 2 year timeframe could be reduced or increased dependent on the individuals commitment and ability. Likewise for SNCO’s.
As for the RWO or WWO having a say - what happens if they have no idea who the person is? What basis (facts) are they forming an opinion? Some of the characters I have met out there seem to exist only to ‘brass up’ Officers and build their own empires?
To balance this I will also say that I have met some very professional WO’s /SNCO’s who are a fountain of knowledge. Most however, are ‘middling’ and if we were honest with ourselves wouldn’t promote some of them past Sgt, let alone to WO.
Those who say lets keep a tick box exercise and promotion boards sound like too much hard work - why bother with promotion at all? Why not just have all SNCO’s at WO and save the effort? Just like the Good Old days eh?! :unsure:
Overall Chief Tech has it right - it’s all about the training, support and mentorship of those under review.
…and also I think, about viewing promotion as the appointment of the right people to positions of leadership in their field; instead of viewing it as a reward to keep volunteers happy.
There’s absolutely nothing to be gained by promoting people to FS when they’ve not achieved anything special above other Sgts. Likewise from FS to WO.
Personally I think the current approach to SNCO promotions is getting to be about right. It was not fair to those who were approaching promotion to suddenly have the criteria placed before them, but now we should be letting them know from the start the sort of activities and milestones that are required.
As long as we provide the opportunities for them to acheive these, and then have some way yo evidence them at the 4 or 8 year point. the requirement does not seem unreasonable. A Wing is not be so big that the WSO and OC Wing should not know enough about the candidates to require giving them a grilling at a board.
That said I would like to see the board route as an alternative where a candidate has not managed to acheive one or two of the milestones, but there are genuine extenuating circumstances, as this can exclude otherwise entirely suitable candidates.
Personally I would like the Promotion routes for Officers to be equally robust, with some set milestones and a requirement to evidence them. The currently development guidance is, imho, too weak.
I do think there is a balance to be struck, and by introducing too many board requirements we would be in danger of having the uniformed staff tied up in administering attending or sitting on boards to the detriment of what we are actually here for.
MW
The matrix was brought in to provide ammunition not to promote and put caveats in place, it seems folly to put more hurdles in the way. It’s almost like someone has thought after the fact, we have make this more awkward and make it look like we’re doing them a real favour and pretending it’s a real achievement. We’re volunteers in a youth organisation and the ranks / positions we hold in the main, mean very little outside of that organisation.
Who does or will do this? We do mentoring at work and it’s not an easy thing to do properly. Initially you meet and agree timescales for get togethers (I’ve done these as a week for the first month, fortnightly for 2 months and then monthly for 3 months) and preferred method of communication. You meet and chat about what’s happened, offer advice and discuss anything that might be needed. I’ve been assigned new starters in the past and some you get on with and some you don’t, the former works the latter doesn’t and people get moved on. But in either case you must have and be able to give the time. At work it’s fine, book a meeting or time to chat in the working day. In the ATC or similar organisation, finding a time that is mutually conducive becomes awkward. If I’m honest if it wasn’t on a parade night, I wouldn’t do it, given that my life doesn’t revolve around the ATC.
As for training and support, the ATC has never been good at this and has got worse IMO with relation to staff, too little and or too infrequent. If you were mentoring someone and they saw their progression required training in a particular area and there wasn’t anything available within that area and or no one qualified was willing to do it, what then? At work we can find a course or someone to help and it’s either paid for or the person agrees times to assist, if it’s outside your dept you arrange it with their line manager. Can you see this happening easily in the ATC?
Given that people give their time freely in for the Corps, greater effort should be put into making things easier not more difficult or awkward for the sake of making it more difficult or awkward, mostly to accommodate egos and or outdated thinking. Over the years (not just the current Cmdt) there has been so much talk about recruitment and retention of staff, yet there seems to be little evidence of it, because people join and after a while come to the conclusion, it’s not worth the effort. We all have busy lives and it will be an epiphany moment when the higher organisation realises it.
I think the problem may lie in the fact that each Wg adds it’s own ‘spin’ to things which has the knock-on effect of throwing the Corps system into disarray, with a variety of standards being introduced. Ergo, the Corps standard is no longer ‘the’ standard to achieve and until HQAC get a grip of that, we’ll continue to see the same varying standards of SNCO across the Corps. I feel that HQAC should issue a non-negotiable standard which OC Wg’s and their entourage aren’t permitted to interfere with. Either that, or have SNCO’s attend formal boards at Rgn level, in the same style as OASC.
We also have the problem of subjectivity taking precedence over objectivity. The WWO in my former Wg has his favourites and I’ve seen - like wdimagineer2b - his favourites (often bloody useless) get promoted to WO whereas those who put effort in and tick all the boxes, don’t get his recommendation because they don’t suck up to him. It’s very frustrating to see and something like Rgn boards\OASC would go a long way to removing that subjectivity.
Isn’t this the reason why OASC was introduced - to raise the standard of applicant being commissioned? I’m not entirely sure that we need anything more than ACTO94 to be fulfilled for promotion from Plt Off to Fg Off but I feel certain that there should be a more rigorous training regime put into place for newly-commissioned candidates and as I’ve mentioned several times in the past, something akin to what RAuxAF officers receive.
I would also advocate some sort of formal selection process for Flt Lt to Sqn Ldr. In a lot of cases we have the same issue with those promoted into senior rank as with those who get promoted to WO. How many times have we all seen some who aren’t very good at their jobs get sacked upwards where they then continue the trend that got them there in the first place?
I find its particularly sad that as a training organisation, we provide loads of training for cadets but fall down heavily on formal training for the staff. Before GHE2 jumps on my back(!), like it or not, we’re members of a Reserve Air Force of the Crown and as such should receive the appropriate amount of training and development to enable us to do our jobs professionally and not have to worry about the varying standards of adult staff and what the rest of the RAF and wider public think of us. Yes, we work solely with kids but some of us hold the Queens Commission and that in itself carries responsibility and to carry that responsibility; and to discharge our duties as officers, I would argue that it requires a certain level of selection and training which at present, I think is woefully inadequate.
I’m not sure that’s fair to be honest mate.
The situation of favourites was quite possibly in place, but it wasn’t the WWOs favourites.
Under the previous Wg Cdr, our WWO was forbidden from attending SNCO promotion boards, was not consulted, and also wasn’t even informed when people were promoted.
I know for a fact that some people were fudged through having not ticked all the boxes on the matrix.
The only thing that will realistically improve the quality of SNCO promoted is a major shift to the attitude of those doing the promoting.
They’ve got to stop looking at it as something that everyone will get eventually.
GHE2 would have us believe that putting obstacles in the way of promotion and expecting people to achieve something more than the rest of their peers is unfair and is “making the organization into something it isn’t”.
Frankly that’s exactly what we should be doing!
If a Sgt doesn’t stand out above every other Sgt then why should they be promoted?
They can continue to deliver the same good service they have been quite happily at Sgt rank.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone staying at Sgt for their entire time in the ATC if they are unable to improve themselves beyond not only a set standard but also above everyone else.
It’s the way we assess cadet promotions - pick the best person for the job to fill the available role - so why shouldn’t it be the same for staff?
In the SNCO world, we do not currently promote people to fill specific vacancies or posts, we promote freely once the necessary criteria have been met. As such, there is no need whatsoever for a Sgt to stand out above every other Sgt for them to be promoted to FS: They need only have met the necessary standard and the rank is theirs.
Is that the right way for this organisation to handle SNCO promotions? Should we have a limited number of FS positions so that we do have that sort of competition? Should WO be limited only to those filling established positions?
I have a number of concerns with the criteria currently appearing in the SNCO matrix. While I agree that some of them need to be hard prerequisites I think that the others are more arbitrary and do not really fit: While they could be seen as recommendations there needs to be the ability for a promotion board to override a “no” in some of the criteria if there is a legitimate justification for doing so. To do otherwise is not good personnel management.
The matrix was brought in to provide ammunition not to promote and put caveats in place, it seems folly to put more hurdles in the way. It’s almost like someone has thought after the fact, we have make this more awkward and make it look like we’re doing them a real favour and pretending it’s a real achievement. We’re volunteers in a youth organisation and the ranks / positions we hold in the main, mean very little outside of that organisation.[/quote]
One man’s Hurdles and Caveats are another man’s Standards - that is what this is all about - trying to achieve consistency and improve the standard/quality of the staff - particularly if the SNCO ATC cadre are to go VR(T). This has been debated many times - yes it might lead to a reduction in volunteers, but I think it’s a step worth taking and we volunteers see it as such, rather in such pessimistic terms.
You know what? Not everyone can be a winner, but that’s life. Maybe by having credible people in post the RAF will look upon the volunteer in a better light, than perhaps the viewpoint we currently ‘enjoy’?
Who does or will do this? (Wall of Text).[/quote]
Training and mentoring can take place at any time and I would be surprised if you weren’t actually mentoring your staff - even if you don’t realise it.
Training, like anything, is as difficult as people want to make it. I have come up against a wall of opposition when trying to put together Cadet training activities by people, who enjoy spouting rules and regs – both imaginary and real. I am happy to operate within the rules and will fill out any amount of paperwork both to get what I want (cadet training) and to prove a point. I am also equally happy to upset those who enjoy hiding their inadequacies or laziness with invented arbitrary hurdles by ‘doing the impossible’ (according to them).
The current set-up is equipped to deal with training, which I agree is currently inadequate. There is no reason why there isn’t a blended approach to training where volunteers can learn about some subjects online at a time and place suitable to them. Some of it will be via specific physical, mandated courses (i.e. Shooting Quals, SSIC, OIC etc.) and guess what? If people can’t attend because real life gets in the way then, they don’t shoot, lead expeditions, become an SNCO/Officer, or get promoted if that is what is mandated.
All of what you describe is no different to the working environment and deal with - you can recruit and train staff, but there is no guarantee that they won’t leave (hence the demise of the ‘old’ Apprenticeships). The only thing tying an individual to their employment are the notice terms (scalable with service), but even then you don’t get real work out of the leaver, so therefore no different to life in the ACO.
My thoughts, and apologies if I repeat anything, I got kinda bored sifting through various posts on here.
NCOs on Officers boards… Total rubbish and wholly inappropriate.
Boards for promotion (either to FS or Fg Off)… Really? Do people have nothing better to do with their time?
Generally… As an OC I have a number of staff including officers and NCOs. One NCO is approaching the date for eligibility for promotion to FS. I as OC have a box on the current form to put my thoughts, and ability to recommend/not recommend promotion, as do about half a dozen offer officers (ok I may exaggerate a little) and the WWO. Isnt that enough?
Yes we want to improve the professionalism of the organisation, but If I am not able to make the correct recommendation then perhaps I am not fit for the job of OC. Or perhaps others arent fit?
And if an NCO isn’t promoted despite a tick box list - perhaps theyre not fit.
Suffice to say, my view of the OP is that its WAH, or someone got the wrong end of the stick, or someone has an over inflated sense of their own importance.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=21102]I’m not sure that’s fair to be honest mate.
The situation of favourites was quite possibly in place, but it wasn’t the WWOs favourites.
Under the previous Wg Cdr, our WWO was forbidden from attending SNCO promotion boards, was not consulted, and also wasn’t even informed when people were promoted[/quote]
Mate, during the 5 years I was on Wg Staff, I was privy to a lot of goings-on which occurred behind the scenes…
The matrix was brought in to provide ammunition not to promote and put caveats in place, it seems folly to put more hurdles in the way. It’s almost like someone has thought after the fact, we have make this more awkward and make it look like we’re doing them a real favour and pretending it’s a real achievement. We’re volunteers in a youth organisation and the ranks / positions we hold in the main, mean very little outside of that organisation.[/quote]
One man’s Hurdles and Caveats are another man’s Standards - that is what this is all about - trying to achieve consistency and improve the standard/quality of the staff [/quote]
i could not agree more!
i know a few SNCOs who have found the promotion route simple and straight forward but their often out 2/3 times a month on the weekends, have 90%+ attendance at Squadron, are part of a Wing team (or teams) and although specialise in an activity (through certification/qualification) are still seen doing the nitty gritty.
others bimble along “getting by” and find the criteria far more challenging…these are the ones who either give up and stay at their current rank, or pull their socks up to meet the standards.
some will breeze it and others wont…there is a (minimum) expectation to reach.
much like when i turn to an unknown Cadet NCO i can only judge their competence based on what is on their shoulders, I have an expectation on their abilities the same should be application to Staff…irrespective if they are SNCO or Officer.
I take these are single / unemployed / divorced with no kids / heading for divorce due to ATC / husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend also in the ATC / married but kids a lot older / independently wealthy / married no kids / no life and other personal situations which lend themselves to such behaviours. I think to the days before I was married and then had a family and going out at the weekends on ATC stuff was relatively easy. It’s easier now the kids are older, but I’m very selective and why not.
So, the committed, dedicated ones then. Seems fair to me.
So, the committed, dedicated ones then. Seems fair to me.[/quote]
But not so for those who can’t just do things at the weekends without having to juggle their real life.
But not so for those who can’t just do things at the weekends without having to juggle their real life.[/quote]
Those who can commit the effort to one particular interest (work, hobby, family) will tend to do better in that aspect than in others. That’s life.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=21145][quote=“incubus” post=21139]
So, the committed, dedicated ones then. Seems fair to me.[/quote]
But not so for those who can’t just do things at the weekends without having to juggle their real life.[/quote]
but when ever is promotion fair?
it rewards/recognises based on merit whether that is via competence, skills, or experience.
i am sympathetic to people in your situation but based on your point we should be promoting the Cadets in the same situation, those who only turn up once a week or less so, who rarely attend a weekend event?
it isn’t the role model we’d use for the Cadets so why do so for the Adults?
So, the committed, dedicated ones then. Seems fair to me.[/quote]
But not so for those who can’t just do things at the weekends without having to juggle their real life.[/quote]
If they can’t then they will be far less experienced than others who put the time in.
Absolutely!
It seems that GHE2 is exhibiting exactly the ‘promotion as a reward’ mentality that we need to get away from.
The only way that basing promotion primarily upon merit and performance above peers could been seen as ‘making the organization into something that it’s not’ is if we are happy to encourage a Corps where many of our top ranks - those who should be subject matter experts - were put there simply because someone felt that they should have some sort of right to get it regardless of whether they are capable or suitable.
There is nothing wrong at all with someone staying at Sgt for 20 years if they only want/are able to perform to that rank.
Does it mean that they aren’t giving a valuable contribution? Certainly not!
A good Sgt is a valuable asset. But simply being a ‘good’ Sgt like many others shouldn’t necessarily warrant a promotion to FS.
At the moment what’s really the difference between any of the SNCO ranks? Very little. We all do pretty much the same job and it’s just different badges. So what’s the point in having a rank structure at all?
What we should have is a rank structure where FS are demonstrably proven to be more competent, more experienced, and generally better in their field than the Sgts - so that they are able to effectively lead and train them. WOs should be outshining everyone else.
A system where a WO is equal or even less capable than a FS or Sgt is a broken system in my opinion.