I accept they couldn’t organise a piece of chicken in Kentucky Fried Chicken and we have to live with this state of affairs.
BUT they should have issued rank slides in Feb/Mar this year (2017) in time for the original implimentation date of 01 APR 17, bearing in mind this commission change had been in the pipeline for 2 or 3 years at least and don’t mention the pretentious charade of the “what do you want to be called” survey. You have to wonder if the delay was due to not having the rank slides etc sorted and done.
Everyone involved in this must think themselves lucky that they don’t work in an environment where constantly missing deadlines invariably means a P45 and trip to the job centre.
Sometimes we have to live with decisions that are made and make the most of it. There’s a lot of that happening at the moment and it’s easy to attack the decision makers.
If you’re a decision maker there’s always somebody that will disagree with your decision and decision makers sometimes make mistakes.
Unfortunately you get to the anger/frustration stage which is where we appear to be on this thread. It’s worth bearing in mind that many people will have very different views…
Perhaps it might be that, with the delay they decided to spend the money for badges on something else and wait to fund from FY 17-18? I don’t know? Just a suggestion?
Change in any environment doesn’t always go smoothly.
The reason for arbitrary deadlines is because CACs know they have a finite shelf-life and if it’s a pet project they want to see it through, that the others aren’t interested in it won’t happen. Gordon Moulds’ big thing was BADER and was pushed through at a rate of knots and squadrons were left with bills of many hundreds of pounds to buy IT kit and broadband and some getting telephones in, which HQAC didn’t fund.
People I know who have worked at HQAC, have said there can be endless meetings where people charged with doing things don’t do them because they aren’t interested in it and baulk knowing that a new CAC will come along and not be interested in it, so they don’t have to do it. I have no idea what is going on at the moment.
she still has 3 years left of her second ‘tour’ and it won’t be cut short as previously due to the move to FTRS, there is talk of a 3rd ‘tour’ taking the stint to 12 years…
What a load of twaddle, this hasn’t been ballsed up because they listened to objections, it’s been ballsed up because the project was never properly planned at the highest levels in the first place.
We may have to live with the decisions, but 1) it doesn’t make them right & 2) it doesn’t mean you have to suck it up quietly. It’s called a lessons learned process.
As alluded to by someone else on here, some of us hold or have held senior positions in either Industry or the Military - so we are well versed in being those decision makers. Yes we and indeed I have of course made mistakes. The difference being the readiness to understand the issues and learn the lessons between someone like myself and those of the CoC are diametrically opposed.
Its not anger - it is pure disbelief on my part. I am increasingly at odds with myself as to why I put up with the nonsense. It is only the satisfaction of seeing young people achieve that keeps me interested and even that trade off is being severely diminished by the succession of issues that have come to pass.
Indeed we do have differing views and that is the rich tapestry of life - the system seems to denigrate the disenfranchised as being the one in the wrong as they are perceived as not a team player. The reality is we’re the ones keeping the system together - the fall out from this could have been much, much worse than it is.
If you don’t agree with a decision then of course you should say something. There’s a way of doing that through the CoC. Unless people do that then top brass with continue to be happy with that decision?
General criticism of individuals or decisions in my experience gets you nowhere? You have to be specific yet respectful? Even then an individuals opinion isnt necessarily a reason to change unless they highlight an obvious bloomer?
You are at the risk of appearing to be sanctimonious and patronising - nowhere have I criticised an individual and I am not naïve enough to expect wholesale change on the back of my constructive feedback.
