Re:Boeing's Managerial Revolution Created the 737 Max Disaster
by frankharv on Saturday September 21, 2019 @09:05PM
(#21038967)
How about the requirement for Navy Officers and Chief Perry officers to have a picture in their service record.
This always struck me. Why?
So they would not advance ugly people? I never understood that. Maybe you had a mole in the wrong place?
When people were going before the selection board they would pay for a professional picture to make them look the best.
That seemed like the least thing to judge a person by.
Their 'looks'.
The whole selection process was bullshit and not based on merit.
I can't imagine the politics involved at the flag level.
Re:Boeing's Managerial Revolution Created the 737 Max Disaster
by Paperweight on Saturday September 21, 2019 @08:15PM
(#21038777)
When you give a bunch of boys a $1T use-it-or-lose-it budget to run around playing with guns and buy shiny toys (no offence), with no war to fight and no metrics for success, well, you're not going to end up with a real efficient operation staffed with smart go-getters firmly based in reality. :)
Re:Boeing's Managerial Revolution Created the 737 Max Disaster
by tzs on Saturday September 21, 2019 @07:56PM
(#21038692)
How does pay work at a given rank in the US military? Looking at a table of pay [1] it lists a range for most ranks. For example, it lists for O-3, Captain, a range of $48560 to $79002. What determines where you are in that range if you are a Captain?
Ranges for consecutive ranks overlap quite a bit. O-4, Major, is $55231 to $92218. If you are promoted from Captain to Major, and were at the high end of Captain pay, I assume you don't drop down to the bottom of Major pay. Do you go to about the same percentile in Major pay that you had in Captain pay?
This has created a new problem, where the existing leadership is looking for traditional signals for promotion and seeing this bizzaro world of incompetents doing the key thing it takes to promote: exercising power at a fairly senior level (a typical officer in the O-6 grade is responsible for about 1000-5000 people), and remember, the flag officers have those deep connections, they know who's competent and they know those people aren't seeking additional responsibilities. So they got Congress to authorize bringing in outsiders at the O-6 level (clearly competent, and have exercised authority at that key 1000-5000 head-count level, or at least 500-1000), which pisses off the career-competents to no end and puts the fear of god into the career-incompetents, exacerbating the situation. Yet it did nothing because who in god's name, making 500k on the outside, is going to take a $150k job at the Pentagon and live in a shack 20 miles outside the Beltway and endure that commute on the 66?
So now the flag officers have finally also gotten authority (finally) to start forcibly retiring the dead wood from the senior ranks: O-4s, O-5s, and O-6s who have failed to select for the next rank several years in a row, frequently sitting in jobs that could be filled by O-2s or O-3s. Keep in mind, the head-count at each rank is capped by Congress, so the competents can't even promote around the incompetents. It's a war of attrition where the dead wood wins because the opportunities outside outweigh the opportunities inside. At which point it really does start looking like a jobs program. Thus these new "continuation selection boards".
This is a real problem. I had one of these incompetent O-5s sitting in an O-3 billet working for me and getting that person transferred out of my group was the single best thing I ever did for group morale. And before you accuse of me of just pushing the problem onto another group, let me just say that steps were taken to ensure this individual will also be seen further up in the CSB list.
But even that new culling process seems insufficient. The standards for record review are too high, and the observed number of forced retirements is too low. The system is driven by fear, uncertainty, and doubt. All the way down.