I had some early bosses and mentors who advised never to go about your job based on "working for a rating", but rather just do your job. And never worry about working to get some higher job. Just do your best effort on this job and the ratings and next jobs will come. That sounds good in philosophy, but i think now that was a little too simplistic and definitely missed the mark for advancement. But it did serve me well for doing what i believe was mostly ethically right. Doing what was ethically right and doing what was needed to advance was usually not in the same path, which is frustrating and saddening.
The more I think about this, I think there is a difference between "do your job" and "just do your job". The philosophy of "do your job and let the chips fall where they may" is probably smart for a couple of reasons. But when people add the idea of "JUST do your job", I think they start to set up specific things they WON'T do even if told by their SR to do them. That's not a great way forward.
I appreciated your point about prodding for problems that really eat at the SR. Sometimes what they'll TELL YOU they value or need doesn't match reality.
One key lesson I've learned and applied throughout my career is that every organization will eventually face an unplanned crisis that demands immediate attention. As the saying goes, 'Every crisis presents new opportunities,’ especially for those ready to seize them.
That's a good point. And I'd add on that for the person who pays attention, that crisis shows signs long before it cracks wide open...which means the attentive officer can begin to get the ducks lined up to be a valuable asset when the fan gets hit.
Thanks. I'm going back thru some of my very old stuff (like that crap with the animation) and redoing some of them...trying to make them make more sense.
One question not to ask: “What does it take to get a top block?” I did not believe people actually asked this question until I saw it backfire on a few. With regard to people the SR trusts: I had great success resolving issues when my SR, or even Rater, suggested I talk to a specific person. Didn’t know you also started your career as QM!
If a senior rater is being fair and honest, he will sit down with all the officers he SRs at one time and discuss expectations and what generally would put someone above or below the line. One of the more aggravating SRs I came across was when I was a member of a Active component Training Support Brigade (and organization that looks very very similar to the current SFABs for some reason). By regulation the senior rater should be focused on potential, consider many officers surprise when they saw a couple of ACOMs go to PCSing majors who had not completed ILE/CGSC. These officers were not being PCS'd to KD opportunities, so their lack of finishing required education made their long term career potential essentially zero. The next BDE CDR had a different approach. If you were not ILE/CGSC complete or selected and on order, you were not in the running for the ACOM. A very simple standard to understand.
@geomagnus4744...you are spot on about directly asking what it takes for a top block...even if you get away with it, there's no need to be that transparent (everybody knows what you want anyways).
@l4c390, I've watched a couple of careers dissolve into rotting jelly over ILE completion. It always blows me away that raters & senior raters aren't yelling in people's faces "GET EDUCATIONALLY QUALIFIED". Because you are 100% right...someone who isn't even qualified to go to a promotion board isn't really worth a top block.
@@the_bureaucrat The Army really isn't that difficult to be successful. Do the things that the Army tells you to do, and don't do the things that they tell you not to do. 95% of the officers I saw passed over to O3, O4, and O5 didn't seem to figure that simple sentence out. O6 is a whole other story though, just because the competition for that ACOM/HQ is pretty keen, as everyone is equally professionally competent at that stage of their career.
Watching this dropped me into the surreal world of staff in a near a PTSD memory. Especially the inset warehouse pic, which was identical if not the actual warehouse in a job I hated. (And got very poorly rated for though a civilian reading the rating would never know it by the accolades.) What really disturbed me is that the senior rater and the rater are not on the same page as far as their leadership objectives. I know in an ideal world the senior leader would have a meeting with his subordinate leaders, lay out his objectives, and they would all salute and do their best to accomplish them. In an ideal world. Similarly, the subordinates would identify problems they would like to solve to their leadership and ask for advice and/or support. Like you say, in the real world there are ankle biter problems and butterfly distractions. But at a minimum, both should be at least _aware_ of each other's objectives and at least on occasion align their efforts. I would submit the subordinate who negates annoying ankle biter tasks from a leader's day is as valuable as the one who directly implements his leader's objectives. (Those unfamiliar with military operations don't know those ankle biters can eat all the time and resources up.) But the former will rarely get the attention they deserve compared to the latter. Well, unless they're particularly skilled at conveying each instance. Like maybe a brief emails saying: _"Ma'am, I believe I resolved this annoying issue by simply doing X and Y. Though if we do this conventionally it involves the following: (insert elaborate two page PowerPoint decision wire diagram). I hope this meets with your approval. Respectfully, etc."_
True...To your final point about how a subordinate who "solved" an ankle biters should make themselves knows...I'm a bit suspicious that the answer is like the healthcare industry wanting to sell a treatment instead of finding a cure. If the subordinate simply "makes the problem go away forever", it's like they didn't do anything. But if the subordinate is the only one who can put the demon back in its box when it crops up...they get more notice. Personally, I prefer the first solution and don't like "fixing" the same problem over and over...but I wonder what would happen if someone tried it the other way.
@@the_bureaucrat I think every leader and staff officer's daily routine should include some time to think of potential/likely future obstacles and how they can be avoided/mitigated. Even a plan on a post it note is better than panic.
I had some early bosses and mentors who advised never to go about your job based on "working for a rating", but rather just do your job. And never worry about working to get some higher job. Just do your best effort on this job and the ratings and next jobs will come.
That sounds good in philosophy, but i think now that was a little too simplistic and definitely missed the mark for advancement. But it did serve me well for doing what i believe was mostly ethically right.
Doing what was ethically right and doing what was needed to advance was usually not in the same path, which is frustrating and saddening.
The more I think about this, I think there is a difference between "do your job" and "just do your job". The philosophy of "do your job and let the chips fall where they may" is probably smart for a couple of reasons. But when people add the idea of "JUST do your job", I think they start to set up specific things they WON'T do even if told by their SR to do them. That's not a great way forward.
@the_bureaucrat yes I can see that distinction for sure.
I appreciated your point about prodding for problems that really eat at the SR.
Sometimes what they'll TELL YOU they value or need doesn't match reality.
Excellent point. Or as soon as the problem is fixed...out of sight out of mind.
One key lesson I've learned and applied throughout my career is that every organization will eventually face an unplanned crisis that demands immediate attention. As the saying goes, 'Every crisis presents new opportunities,’ especially for those ready to seize them.
That's a good point. And I'd add on that for the person who pays attention, that crisis shows signs long before it cracks wide open...which means the attentive officer can begin to get the ducks lined up to be a valuable asset when the fan gets hit.
Don’t succeed at the wrong things in life.
Well said.
Still loving these.
Thanks. I'm going back thru some of my very old stuff (like that crap with the animation) and redoing some of them...trying to make them make more sense.
One question not to ask: “What does it take to get a top block?” I did not believe people actually asked this question until I saw it backfire on a few.
With regard to people the SR trusts: I had great success resolving issues when my SR, or even Rater, suggested I talk to a specific person.
Didn’t know you also started your career as QM!
If a senior rater is being fair and honest, he will sit down with all the officers he SRs at one time and discuss expectations and what generally would put someone above or below the line.
One of the more aggravating SRs I came across was when I was a member of a Active component Training Support Brigade (and organization that looks very very similar to the current SFABs for some reason). By regulation the senior rater should be focused on potential, consider many officers surprise when they saw a couple of ACOMs go to PCSing majors who had not completed ILE/CGSC. These officers were not being PCS'd to KD opportunities, so their lack of finishing required education made their long term career potential essentially zero.
The next BDE CDR had a different approach. If you were not ILE/CGSC complete or selected and on order, you were not in the running for the ACOM. A very simple standard to understand.
@geomagnus4744...you are spot on about directly asking what it takes for a top block...even if you get away with it, there's no need to be that transparent (everybody knows what you want anyways).
@l4c390, I've watched a couple of careers dissolve into rotting jelly over ILE completion. It always blows me away that raters & senior raters aren't yelling in people's faces "GET EDUCATIONALLY QUALIFIED". Because you are 100% right...someone who isn't even qualified to go to a promotion board isn't really worth a top block.
@@the_bureaucrat The Army really isn't that difficult to be successful. Do the things that the Army tells you to do, and don't do the things that they tell you not to do. 95% of the officers I saw passed over to O3, O4, and O5 didn't seem to figure that simple sentence out.
O6 is a whole other story though, just because the competition for that ACOM/HQ is pretty keen, as everyone is equally professionally competent at that stage of their career.
Watching this dropped me into the surreal world of staff in a near a PTSD memory. Especially the inset warehouse pic, which was identical if not the actual warehouse in a job I hated. (And got very poorly rated for though a civilian reading the rating would never know it by the accolades.)
What really disturbed me is that the senior rater and the rater are not on the same page as far as their leadership objectives. I know in an ideal world the senior leader would have a meeting with his subordinate leaders, lay out his objectives, and they would all salute and do their best to accomplish them. In an ideal world. Similarly, the subordinates would identify problems they would like to solve to their leadership and ask for advice and/or support. Like you say, in the real world there are ankle biter problems and butterfly distractions. But at a minimum, both should be at least _aware_ of each other's objectives and at least on occasion align their efforts.
I would submit the subordinate who negates annoying ankle biter tasks from a leader's day is as valuable as the one who directly implements his leader's objectives. (Those unfamiliar with military operations don't know those ankle biters can eat all the time and resources up.) But the former will rarely get the attention they deserve compared to the latter. Well, unless they're particularly skilled at conveying each instance. Like maybe a brief emails saying: _"Ma'am, I believe I resolved this annoying issue by simply doing X and Y. Though if we do this conventionally it involves the following: (insert elaborate two page PowerPoint decision wire diagram). I hope this meets with your approval. Respectfully, etc."_
True...To your final point about how a subordinate who "solved" an ankle biters should make themselves knows...I'm a bit suspicious that the answer is like the healthcare industry wanting to sell a treatment instead of finding a cure. If the subordinate simply "makes the problem go away forever", it's like they didn't do anything. But if the subordinate is the only one who can put the demon back in its box when it crops up...they get more notice.
Personally, I prefer the first solution and don't like "fixing" the same problem over and over...but I wonder what would happen if someone tried it the other way.
@@the_bureaucrat I think every leader and staff officer's daily routine should include some time to think of potential/likely future obstacles and how they can be avoided/mitigated. Even a plan on a post it note is better than panic.