PDA

View Full Version : Toughest Troop?



imported_KnuckleDragger
02-26-2013, 10:14 PM
On average, what makes the toughest troop for you to supervise?

One that is:

1 - Different gender
2 - Different race
3 - Different religion
4 - Different sexual orientation
5 - Different socio-economic background
6 - Different national origin
7 - Much older
8 - Much younger
9 - The same age
10- A friend
11- A love
12- A H.S. graduate
13- A C.C.A.F graduate
14- A 4-year graduate
15- Other

imported_KnuckleDragger
02-26-2013, 10:16 PM
To be honest my toughest troops were very similar to me, except a little younger.

VCO
02-26-2013, 10:50 PM
I agree with the above poster. My toughest troop would have been me.

raider8169
02-27-2013, 04:31 AM
My toughtest troop has been the ones that I was I have not figured out how to motivate yet. Good worker but if I disappear for a while, they forget what I tasked them with and needs micromanaging.

I think I would be annoyed if I had a troop like me.

Drackore
02-27-2013, 05:33 AM
Ya know, this is a tough question! I've had my share of challenges for sure. I'd have to say that the toughest troops to supervise, for me, were ones that had trouble with alcohol.

Quixotic
02-27-2013, 05:41 AM
15 - Other: worthless, dumb a**, pay check collectors, who don't even try. Which can be found throughout 1-14.

combatrob
02-27-2013, 06:11 AM
For me, it was the much older troop who was the same pay grade...but I had several years TIG on him. He had a huge chip on his shoulder that I was not able to overcome.

sgtpotsie
02-27-2013, 06:31 AM
Other - The habitual line crosser. The one who will spend more time researching AFIs to figure out how to skirt the rules than it takes to actually abide by them.

Also, the ones who just can't seem to stop fucking up and have a PIF that rivals War and Peace in its word count.

Sergeant eNYgma
02-27-2013, 02:11 PM
Don't have a troop yet but I would assume it'd be a much older Airman.

BISSBOSS
02-27-2013, 02:28 PM
16 - "Just doesn't Get it" guy (or gal). NONE of the rest of it ever mattered to me.

-BB-

OtisRNeedleman
02-27-2013, 06:25 PM
People with bad attitudes. As long as someone had a halfway decent attitude, I could work with them. Didn't care about age/gender/etc.

LogDog
02-27-2013, 07:14 PM
16 - "Just doesn't Get it" guy (or gal). NONE of the rest of it ever mattered to me.

-BB-
I have to agree with you on this. That person is there only to receive a paycheck and can't figure out why they have to do something.

sandsjames
02-27-2013, 07:24 PM
Definitely women are the toughest for me to supervise, for a couple reasons:

1. When they say they are having "female problems" there doesn't seem like there's much I can do.

2. I'm a bit "old-fashioned". It's not that I don't think women should be at home. It's that I'm much more likely to send guys out to do the jobs which require more physical type work. I also feel sympathy for women much easier. Very naive that way.

3. It's hard to give a fair appraisal of someone when you're sleeping with them. I once had 4 women in my shop. It was difficult to keep up with it all. I was going through my Cialas prescriptions very quickly. I was also going through an excessive amount of ether.

imported_Renazance
02-28-2013, 08:21 AM
On average, what makes the toughest troop for you to supervise?

One that is:

1 - Different gender
2 - Different race
3 - Different religion
4 - Different sexual orientation
5 - Different socio-economic background
6 - Different national origin
7 - Much older
8 - Much younger
9 - The same age
10- A friend
11- A love
12- A H.S. graduate
13- A C.C.A.F graduate
14- A 4-year graduate
15- Other

I would say that #1 is the toughest if you're a guy. From my experience, having a female troop means you have to walk on eggshells whenever you interact with them because anything you say or do can be misconstrued as sexual harrassment, being too harsh, discrimination, you name it. Also, some females are just too damn sensitive and don't take feedback very well and I just don't have the personality or skills to talk and understand them like Oprah or other females do.

Number 7 is a close second, especially if it's a much older troop who's been in longer but is junior in rank. This type is akin to being resentful to the fact that they have a younger, less experienced supervisor. Plus, how do you mentor and provide guidance to someone who's seen more shit throughout their life and career than you and has the "I was in 'Nam while you were in Mom" mentality?

Robert F. Dorr
03-11-2013, 05:31 PM
I would say that #1 is the toughest if you're a guy. From my experience, having a female troop means you have to walk on eggshells whenever you interact with them because anything you say or do can be misconstrued as sexual harrassment, being too harsh, discrimination, you name it. Also, some females are just too damn sensitive and don't take feedback very well and I just don't have the personality or skills to talk and understand them like Oprah or other females do.

Number 7 is a close second, especially if it's a much older troop who's been in longer but is junior in rank. This type is akin to being resentful to the fact that they have a younger, less experienced supervisor. Plus, how do you mentor and provide guidance to someone who's seen more shit throughout their life and career than you and has the "I was in 'Nam while you were in Mom" mentality?

Regarding #1: I would have hoped we'd have been past this concern many years ago.

Regarding #2: How does being a certain type make one "akin to being resentful"? Approaching a subordinate with this attitude is discrimination based on age. That's both unwise and illegal.

imported_KnuckleDragger
03-11-2013, 06:03 PM
RFD proves that OLD PEOPLE are the toughest to deal with.

RobotChicken
03-11-2013, 06:59 PM
:clock Ohhhhh noooooooooooooo! :croc

imported_chipotleboy
03-11-2013, 11:32 PM
I would have to say the ones who despite being given ample reminders to keep their mouths shut and not brag about their off duty activities still insist on talking themselves into a court martial.

tiredretiredE7
03-12-2013, 02:27 AM
On average, what makes the toughest troop for you to supervise?

One that is:

1 - Different gender
2 - Different race
3 - Different religion
4 - Different sexual orientation
5 - Different socio-economic background
6 - Different national origin
7 - Much older
8 - Much younger
9 - The same age
10- A friend
11- A love
12- A H.S. graduate
13- A C.C.A.F graduate
14- A 4-year graduate
15- Other

Man hating, extreme feminist lesbian; who also hates the military and causes problems to get attention to her "cause".

combatrob
03-25-2013, 12:02 AM
Don't have a troop yet but I would assume it'd be a much older Airman.

Having been in this situation twice, it isn't easy. The first troop felt because "she was older than me, she didn't have to report to me." This, despite our pay grade difference (she was an E-4, me an E-5). I'm an egalitarian leader; all I ask of high speed Airmen is they keep me posted on what they have planned. She refused to do this. When I disabused her of the notion she did not have to comply with my directions, she got nasty mean.

The second guy was 15 years older and had been in the AF longer...but I outranked him by several years. When he found out I was inbound, he tried to get the Chief to make him the NCOIC by virtue of "he'd been in the squadron longer". Fortunately, the Chief told him that just wasn't the way it worked. I say fortunately because that was the only thing the Chief and I saw eye to eye on and I wouldn't have been surprised (later) if he'd decided the other way (Chief ran the squadron and he was a good old boy kind of manager).

AJBIGJ
03-25-2013, 12:44 AM
Regarding #1: I would have hoped we'd have been past this concern many years ago.


Unfortunately it's a little bit naive to assume such a thing. Our society hasn't reached that point yet entirely so why would we expect an organization that is a representative of that society, plus still mostly male dominated, and very physical in many respects, to be significantly better? Having about a dozen females working under me currently, none of whom probably weigh more than a buck fifty soaking wet, some things, especially the physical things become more difficult for them. Like fully closing a valve that rivals in age with yourself or pull-starting a portable firefighting pump. They more frequently than not come to the table with great enthusiasm and really can be pleasant to work with in a professional environment, but the fact still remains that sometimes leadership has to appreciate diversity in the sense that not all of one's "troops" will be capable of performing every action required of them as efficiently as every other, and sometimes gender factors into that. A true leader can manage their people despite these challenges, but there's no "How to" manual explicitly defining how to make it work in every instance.

tiredretiredE7
03-25-2013, 03:23 AM
Unfortunately it's a little bit naive to assume such a thing. Our society hasn't reached that point yet entirely so why would we expect an organization that is a representative of that society, plus still mostly male dominated, and very physical in many respects, to be significantly better? Having about a dozen females working under me currently, none of whom probably weigh more than a buck fifty soaking wet, some things, especially the physical things become more difficult for them. Like fully closing a valve that rivals in age with yourself or pull-starting a portable firefighting pump. They more frequently than not come to the table with great enthusiasm and really can be pleasant to work with in a professional environment, but the fact still remains that sometimes leadership has to appreciate diversity in the sense that not all of one's "troops" will be capable of performing every action required of them as efficiently as every other, and sometimes gender factors into that. A true leader can manage their people despite these challenges, but there's no "How to" manual explicitly defining how to make it work in every instance.

Great points but it still does not correct the loss in team effectiveness. A team is only as strong as its weakest link. It is simply impossible for a team of all men to be outperformed by a team of all women when it comes to tasks requiring physical strength. I know it is politically incorrect to make this statement but it is true. The challenge it to find the task which requires the least amount of strength and place the women in that task to mitigate having women on the team.

RobotChicken
03-25-2013, 03:33 AM
Great points but it still does not correct the loss in team effectiveness. A team is only as strong as its weakest link. It is simply impossible for a team of all men to be outperformed by a team of all women when it comes to tasks requiring physical strength. I know it is politically incorrect to make this statement but it is true. The challenge it to find the task which requires the least amount of strength and place the women in that task to mitigate having women on the team.
:nonoYou do that and you know what the first question is going to be.......:drama:hurt

AJBIGJ
03-25-2013, 03:39 AM
Great points but it still does not correct the loss in team effectiveness. A team is only as strong as its weakest link. It is simply impossible for a team of all men to be outperformed by a team of all women when it comes to tasks requiring physical strength. I know it is politically incorrect to make this statement but it is true. The challenge it to find the task which requires the least amount of strength and place the women in that task to mitigate having women on the team.

I think this is mitigated at least somewhat by the fact that very few occasions exist where tasks of sheer brute strength are not compimented by tasks that require other skill sets that are not as dependent on simply physical capabilities. That's where a smart manager comes in who appreciates true "diversity". Who cares that the division has a black guy or an API female or a homosexual hispanic or whatever. The better question is what tasks is that individual particularly adept at doing and how can we as leaders utilize those personal strengths and augment their weaknesses with the skill sets provided by the remainder of the team. I tend to think just about any chain of command organization that cannot manage its personnel assets to accomplish its overall mission in an effective manner is more a failing in leadership than the specific combination of elements it is comprised of. It's not about "political correctness" really but more of just a general level of awareness of what your people know how to do well and how augment the capabilities that are lacking effectively, Basic Leadership 101 really.

tiredretiredE7
03-25-2013, 03:39 AM
:nonoYou do that and you know what the first question is going to be.......:drama:hurt

No, actually most women who worked for me understood since they got the hint early in our tech school during the heavy weapon phase of training. Our staff positions were very female heavy (pun intended) in our large squadrons. Most women are professional enough to accept the role they are most effective.

RobotChicken
03-25-2013, 03:52 AM
No, actually most women who worked for me understood since they got the hint early in our tech school during the heavy weapon phase of training. Our staff positions were very female heavy (pun intended) in our large squadrons. Most women are professional enough to accept the role they are most effective.
:thumb I'll accept that as true in general, when the brute force wears down and the heat is on, what's the back up plan? After all you have been staffed with the troops to do the appointed mission,regardless of m/f; if all have passed PT? :noidea

tiredretiredE7
03-25-2013, 04:01 AM
:thumb I'll accept that as true in general, when the brute force wears down and the heat is on, what's the back up plan? After all you have been staffed with the troops to do the appointed mission,regardless of m/f; if all have passed PT? :noidea

Again, the team will only be as strong as the weakest link and a good leader will mitigate the impact of having a woman on the team by placing her in the role she can be the most effective asset for the team. For example, you will see a lot of women drivers instead of women on a heavy weapon in a convoy in the AO.

We are lucky to be in the AF which limits the requirement for brute force. The real challenge is going to be the integration of women in an infantry/combat role for the Army and Marines.

imnohero
03-25-2013, 04:19 AM
Someone is always the weakest link. Leadership accounts for the best assets of the team and assigns tasks accordingly, period. Going in with the assumption of what men or women are capable of doing is bad leadership. Good leaders assess they team they have, not the one they wish they had. For myself, I'll take a mixed gender team any day over all male.

tiredretiredE7
03-25-2013, 04:29 AM
Someone is always the weakest link. Leadership accounts for the best assets of the team and assigns tasks accordingly, period. Going in with the assumption of what men or women are capable of doing is bad leadership. Good leaders assess they team they have, not the one they wish they had. For myself, I'll take a mixed gender team any day over all male.

So you can choose to ignore the difference in physiology between men and women if you wish but that is a luxury of being in the AF where most jobs do not have a brute force physical requirement. SF and Fire (as previously mentioned in the post) do have some brute force physical requirements which require a leader to correctly place the people in the roles they maximize the team's effectiveness. Overlooking the physical capabilities of the strength of a man over a woman would jeopardize the effectiveness of the team and to state otherwise is simply being politically correct. The difference in the FA scoring also demonstrates the AF DOES recognize the differences in the physical capability of a man over the physical capabilities of a woman. So your politically correct post has been exposed.

imnohero
03-25-2013, 12:23 PM
So you can choose to ignore the difference in physiology between men and women if you wish but that is a luxury of being in the AF where most jobs do not have a brute force physical requirement. SF and Fire (as previously mentioned in the post) do have some brute force physical requirements which require a leader to correctly place the people in the roles they maximize the team's effectiveness. Overlooking the physical capabilities of the strength of a man over a woman would jeopardize the effectiveness of the team and to state otherwise is simply being politically correct. The difference in the FA scoring also demonstrates the AF DOES recognize the differences in the physical capability of a man over the physical capabilities of a woman. So your politically correct post has been exposed.

On your soap-box much? If it will help you, I agree with you. There are some jobs, like firefighters, that required physical strength that GENERALLY men are better at it than women.

Now that that is out of the way, it's not a "luxury" to be living and working in the world outside of those few professions or job, it's the majority of the world. Politically correctness has nothing to do with it.

Shrike
03-25-2013, 01:41 PM
The two toughest troops I had to supervise in my career had one glaring commonality: they were both an only child.

sandsjames
03-25-2013, 03:12 PM
I agree that a good leader will determine the best role for the personnel they manage. That's why I always keep the women back at the shop to make coffee, prepare lunch, and vacuum/clean the office while the men are out doing the real work!

edit: I also give the females an extra hour for PT. Don't need a frumpy chick serving me lunch.