5 ms·

I had a friend who was involved in the early US Air Force cyberwarfare stuff. He had a story of a (much more) senior officer visiting, seeing the people, who we

I had a friend who was involved in the early US Air Force cyberwarfare stuff. He had a story of a (much more) senior officer visiting, seeing the people, who were also officers and had CS MSs and PhDs, doing their work, and throwing a fit. Air Force officers, you see, don't do work; they manage people who do work. Doing things was a job for the enlisted.

petschge 5y ago
Especially the Air Force should know better since the people doing the work for flying things are officers...
- manquer 5y ago
  Flying is at pinnancle of jobs at an airforce. There are thousands of roles that is needed for a one plane to be ready to fly by a pilot. Perhaps the more accurate statement officers do the what they see as cool jobs all boring ones are delegated.
  - QuarterReptile 5y ago
    Although the polar opposite can very often be true. The enlisted guy troubleshoots the obscure fault in the oxygen generator while his officer drafts messages detailing the problem, works to get parts ordered, and attends meetings about the whole fiasco.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Aren't the people doing the flying mostly low level officers such as lieutenants and maybe captains?
  - yutyut 5y ago
    No, tactical flying is highly technical and requires years to master. Most lieutenants and junior captains (winged aviators, mind you) that check into a squadron are tactically useless for the first 12-18 months as we train them up and they aeronautically adapt. Your three-to-four year Captains will do most of the flying but even the CO generally flies 1-2 times a week (Marine aviation).
    - hef19898 5y ago
      The only employer I had in my life, among quite a few, where leadership had that devotion t the operational aspects of their jobs was Amazon. I like to work with those people. I guess that culture is what gives Amazon its continuous edge over the competition.
      - yutyut 5y ago
        > I like the work with those people I agree. Developing my own technical proficiency and teaching the next generations has been the only thing keeping me going in an organization otherwise wrought with inefficiency and stupidity. In my experience aviation is fairly unique in this aspect (in the context of the military writ large).
        hef19898 5y ago
        Having returned to aerospace since then, I can agree. Also with military written large!
sokoloff 5y ago
That’s somewhat amusing coming from an Air Force officer, as all the pilots are officers.
warner25 5y ago
This is definitely the institutional culture within the US Army. Technical work is seen as being beneath an officer. I'm an officer in a specialized IT career field (BA and MS in CS, starting a PhD program next year) and we constantly struggle against this culture. The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions overseeing enlisted troops, warrant officers, contractors, and low-level federal civilians with high school diplomas doing the technical work. Those of us who get hands-on to be in touch with reality, add value, and sharpen our skillset do so at risk to our careers. We are only rewarded for what we do as leaders, especially expanding our scope of responsibility (mission, people, budget, etc.). When I was an officer in the aviation branch, it was the same problem. The rewards for briefing PowerPoint slides were greater than the rewards for competently flying helicopters.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions The former AF/SF CSO observed that the lack of technical expertise in commanding officers is a problem. [0] > Please stop putting a Major or Lt Col. (despite their devotion, exceptional attitude, and culture) in charge of ICAM, Zero Trust or Cloud for 1 to 4 million users when they have no previous experience in that field – we are setting up critical infrastructure to fail. [...] They do not know what to execute on or what to prioritize which leads to endless risk reduction efforts and diluted focus. IT is a highly skilled and trained job; Staff it as such. But 100% agreed with you that top-loading degrees isn't a solution either. It feels like the military's historical solution to a lot of problems (forced, regular duty station rotation, with assumed interchangeability based on rank) isn't suited to the types of technical project it's now being asked to execute quickly and successfully. There's a huge amount of good that comes from rotating people, but it feels like there's a new local optima that needs to be found. A starter might be to make technical position rotations more pull / resume / experienced -based, and less solely on billet rank. I.e. Does a given position want you? Or who of a stack of applicants do they want most, for the job they're currently executing? [0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-chaillan/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-ch...

petschge 5y ago

Especially the Air Force should know better since the people doing the work for flying things are officers...

manquer 5y ago
Flying is at pinnancle of jobs at an airforce. There are thousands of roles that is needed for a one plane to be ready to fly by a pilot. Perhaps the more accurate statement officers do the what they see as cool jobs all boring ones are delegated.
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  Although the polar opposite can very often be true. The enlisted guy troubleshoots the obscure fault in the oxygen generator while his officer drafts messages detailing the problem, works to get parts ordered, and attends meetings about the whole fiasco.
throwawayboise 5y ago
Aren't the people doing the flying mostly low level officers such as lieutenants and maybe captains?
- yutyut 5y ago
  No, tactical flying is highly technical and requires years to master. Most lieutenants and junior captains (winged aviators, mind you) that check into a squadron are tactically useless for the first 12-18 months as we train them up and they aeronautically adapt. Your three-to-four year Captains will do most of the flying but even the CO generally flies 1-2 times a week (Marine aviation).
  - hef19898 5y ago
    The only employer I had in my life, among quite a few, where leadership had that devotion t the operational aspects of their jobs was Amazon. I like to work with those people. I guess that culture is what gives Amazon its continuous edge over the competition.
    - yutyut 5y ago
      > I like the work with those people I agree. Developing my own technical proficiency and teaching the next generations has been the only thing keeping me going in an organization otherwise wrought with inefficiency and stupidity. In my experience aviation is fairly unique in this aspect (in the context of the military writ large).
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Having returned to aerospace since then, I can agree. Also with military written large!

sokoloff 5y ago

That’s somewhat amusing coming from an Air Force officer, as all the pilots are officers.

warner25 5y ago

This is definitely the institutional culture within the US Army. Technical work is seen as being beneath an officer. I'm an officer in a specialized IT career field (BA and MS in CS, starting a PhD program next year) and we constantly struggle against this culture. The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions overseeing enlisted troops, warrant officers, contractors, and low-level federal civilians with high school diplomas doing the technical work. Those of us who get hands-on to be in touch with reality, add value, and sharpen our skillset do so at risk to our careers. We are only rewarded for what we do as leaders, especially expanding our scope of responsibility (mission, people, budget, etc.). When I was an officer in the aviation branch, it was the same problem. The rewards for briefing PowerPoint slides were greater than the rewards for competently flying helicopters.

ethbr0 5y ago
> The Army wants us to have graduate degrees in engineering or scientific disciplines so that we can almost exclusively fill management positions The former AF/SF CSO observed that the lack of technical expertise in commanding officers is a problem. [0] > Please stop putting a Major or Lt Col. (despite their devotion, exceptional attitude, and culture) in charge of ICAM, Zero Trust or Cloud for 1 to 4 million users when they have no previous experience in that field – we are setting up critical infrastructure to fail. [...] They do not know what to execute on or what to prioritize which leads to endless risk reduction efforts and diluted focus. IT is a highly skilled and trained job; Staff it as such. But 100% agreed with you that top-loading degrees isn't a solution either. It feels like the military's historical solution to a lot of problems (forced, regular duty station rotation, with assumed interchangeability based on rank) isn't suited to the types of technical project it's now being asked to execute quickly and successfully. There's a huge amount of good that comes from rotating people, but it feels like there's a new local optima that needs to be found. A starter might be to make technical position rotations more pull / resume / experienced -based, and less solely on billet rank. I.e. Does a given position want you? Or who of a stack of applicants do they want most, for the job they're currently executing? [0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-chaillan/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-say-goodbye-nicolas-m-ch...