Autorotate
FAC, former Phrog pilot
Oh boy. We've got all the flavors here at the MEF COC...
Interesting thread from over at the Baseops forum from our friends in light blue:
http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13965
I don't think the Navy has had anyone who compares to this ^&%#*^$|.
Interesting thread from over at the Baseops forum from our friends in light blue:
http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13965
I don't think the Navy has had anyone who compares to this ^&%#*^$|.
Probably just hasn't got promoted that high yet. They're out there.
Or LtGen Delong, USMC(ret). He introduced himself to a room full of Harrier guys as "Mike Ryans best friend". Below for SA. You literally could have heard a pin drop.
Did you read the blurb immediately above that one? Where I said that he was universally hated by every Harrier pilot?
...Just because one has a check in the box on a piece of paper doesn't mean that person can lead.
I was wondering how the Navy would do with a 360 performance review, or a peer input into fitreps. My first thought is that it would be disastrous (as fellow J-holes can hurt you), but nonetheless interesting. Maybe just as an unoffical tool to say "Hey skipper, this guy is a tool...just thought you should know."
Leadership is very hard to quantify for fitrep purposes. If a bad leader is evaluating another guy for leadership, what's the standard? Just because LT XX made a tracking tracker and meticulously and expertly managed the FY08 4th quarter OPTAR fuel money thus saving the command over 95 milllion hours and 7.5 billion dollars doesn't mean he/she could lead anyone. The fitrep form itself doesn't address leadership well. IMO the only way to truly capture if a guy is a good leader is observation and input from those he leads. I don't think that's the standard now.
Agreed. I've heard some rumor of the Navy moving towards a peer type of evaluation, including those who you lead. Certainly would change the dynamics of things.
I don't think that this would necessarily give accurate input. Sometimes you have to make decisions that your subordinates will not like, even though the end result is good for them.Agreed. I've heard some rumor of the Navy moving towards a peer type of evaluation, including those who you lead. Certainly would change the dynamics of things.
In the business of fighting wars, I would say a good leader is someone who ensures that his men are in prime fighting condition and understands warfare tactics and strategy enough to win battles. Everything else is secondary to that. Since we're most likely not going to face a full scale Naval war anytime in the near future, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern who those people are.IMO the only way to truly capture if a guy is a good leader is observation and input from those he leads. I don't think that's the standard now.
I don't think that this would necessarily give accurate input. Sometimes you have to make decisions that your subordinates will not like, even though the end result is good for them.
In the business of fighting wars, I would say a good leader is someone who ensures that his men are in prime fighting condition and understands warfare tactics and strategy enough to win battles. Everything else is secondary to that. Since we're most likely not going to face a full scale Naval war anytime in the near future, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern who those people are.