Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 2-star general puts wasteful 'queep' duties in crosshairs

  1. #1
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,928
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)

    2-star general puts wasteful 'queep' duties in crosshairs

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/m...airs/83873648/

    Queep: From the flightline to the Pentagon, airmen can be found grumbling about it.

    In an April 19 memo, Maj. Gen. Michael Fortney, vice commander of Global Strike Command, told leaders that they need to get serious about identifying and rooting out queep.And now, one general officer wants to actually do something about the pointless, annoying duties that are the bane of airmen everywhere.

    "We've been talking about this for too long ... let's do something!" Fortney scrawled at the bottom of the memo.

    In the memo, Fortney defined queep as "mandates that exceed wing capacity, 'don't make sense,' and/or add little or no value to mission accomplishment (and possibly detract from it)."

    "We are empowered to stop doing the things that don't make sense and detract from the mission as long as it does not violate law and endanger our airmen," Fortney said, citing recent guidance from Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein.

    Fortney said he first tried to tackle the problem when he sent another memo in December, asking commanders to relay instances of queep that their own airmen had identified. But that memo only yielded one example of queep being reported, Fortney said. So Fortney is asking commanders again to try to find examples.

    But in what may have been an effort to avoid creating queep while trying to end it, Fortney cautioned that his memo shouldn't result in a bunch of new busywork for airmen.

    "The intent of this is not for your airmen to have to do a great deal of research/validation," Fortney wrote. "Their role is simply to identify to you things that don't make sense (queep). Then, if you agree with their assessment and you need some sort of policy relief to deal with it, you then submit the suggestion to us in the HQ for a more detailed review. We'll take it from there."

    Former airman Steven Mayne posted the memo on his unofficial Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page April 30.

    Global Strike Command spokeswoman Linda Frost confirmed Fortney signed the memo, but said he was unavailable for further comment.

    "Queep exists throughout the Air Force," Frost said in an email Tuesday. "It's the additional duties and requirements often levied through [Air Force Instructions] and [major command] supplements that don't make sense or offer little value to the mission. They end up taking away the time, focus and energy of the airmen who are working to accomplish the mission. This is a part of Global Strike's effort, which is in its infancy, to rein in queep."

    But in an aside in the memo, Fortney acknowledged that it won't be easy.

    "This will take a while," Fortney wrote.
    Man... I really think that this is something that needs to go to the DoD level, because it's not just the Air Force that's having this problem.

    In the Navy, there's a famous saying that refers to this: "Float she may, shine she must."
    Last edited by Rusty Jones; 05-04-2016 at 03:29 AM.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  2. #2
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,928
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Bump..........
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  3. #3
    Senior Member Shrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Local Group
    Posts
    653
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I just now saw this. I was an "original" AFGSC staff member - which contributed greatly to me retiring from the USAF - and while I'd love to believe that they're eliminating BS I'd have to see it to believe it. I was there from the beginning and the bureaucracy and accompanying BS involved in staff work was deeply ingrained in that organization, which was strange as you'd think that establishing a new MAJCOM would be the perfect time to set up a streamlined bureaucracy.
    Here's one example: one of my "victories" before retirement was eliminating the need for our directorate to do a complete ESSS, signed by the Director, for taskers that had nothing to do with our mission. For example, if we had a tasker to review an AFI that had utterly, absolutlely nothing to do with our mission, we had to complete an ESSS, staff it through the directorate, and forward it for a friggin' SES's signature...simply to let the AFGSC/CC's COS know we have no input. What we should have been able to do was simply reply "This is wholly outside our directorate's mission and we have no input". One sentence, no wasted time doing an ESSS, no wasting other's time having to review document's outside their functional area.
    If you're not familiar with staff work, imagine if your unit's sole mission had to do with fixing jet engines. You did nothing else but that. And out of nowhere you got a request from your higher-ups to review the procedures used by Security Forces to man the gates during exercises and real-world scenarios. You, being a rational person, push back and say "That has absolutely nothing to do with our mission of fixing jet engines and we're not qualified to comment on it." And they come back and say "Well, put that in an ESSS, make sure it's worded real pretty, get all the flight chiefs to sign off on it, and we'll get the CC to approve it, then send it up as our response". THAT was how my directorate did business.
    I ultimately had to circumvent an O-5 and go to an O-6 in order to get people to realize "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be tying up SNCOs and officers with ridiculous crap that has nothing to do with our mission!"

  4. #4
    Senior Member giggawatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    447
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shrike View Post
    I just now saw this. I was an "original" AFGSC staff member - which contributed greatly to me retiring from the USAF - and while I'd love to believe that they're eliminating BS I'd have to see it to believe it. I was there from the beginning and the bureaucracy and accompanying BS involved in staff work was deeply ingrained in that organization, which was strange as you'd think that establishing a new MAJCOM would be the perfect time to set up a streamlined bureaucracy.
    Here's one example: one of my "victories" before retirement was eliminating the need for our directorate to do a complete ESSS, signed by the Director, for taskers that had nothing to do with our mission. For example, if we had a tasker to review an AFI that had utterly, absolutlely nothing to do with our mission, we had to complete an ESSS, staff it through the directorate, and forward it for a friggin' SES's signature...simply to let the AFGSC/CC's COS know we have no input. What we should have been able to do was simply reply "This is wholly outside our directorate's mission and we have no input". One sentence, no wasted time doing an ESSS, no wasting other's time having to review document's outside their functional area.
    If you're not familiar with staff work, imagine if your unit's sole mission had to do with fixing jet engines. You did nothing else but that. And out of nowhere you got a request from your higher-ups to review the procedures used by Security Forces to man the gates during exercises and real-world scenarios. You, being a rational person, push back and say "That has absolutely nothing to do with our mission of fixing jet engines and we're not qualified to comment on it." And they come back and say "Well, put that in an ESSS, make sure it's worded real pretty, get all the flight chiefs to sign off on it, and we'll get the CC to approve it, then send it up as our response". THAT was how my directorate did business.
    I ultimately had to circumvent an O-5 and go to an O-6 in order to get people to realize "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be tying up SNCOs and officers with ridiculous crap that has nothing to do with our mission!"
    I wish this victory would have found it's way to USAFE. I hated being the TMT bitch for the week. Oh well. I'm no longer that staff weenie.
    Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop, TSgt, USAF
    Deputy Executive Assistant for the Assistant Deputy Chief
    HQ COBRA
    867-5309
    :ranger

    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do taskers on their behalf.

    "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali

    "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer!"- Arnold Schwarzenegger

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Good luck. No one in any branch is going to get rid of the bullshit. Bullshit tasks have existed from the beginning of the military I'm sure and will continue until there is no longer a military.

  6. #6
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    What this sounds like to me is that they are looking at going back to having orderly rooms, or something similar. I'm all for that. It was always a nice one stop shop. Plus, for some squadrons, it was the only chance you had of having an attractive female in the squadron.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,307
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    In the Navy, there's a famous saying that refers to this: "Float she may, shine she must."
    I remember on all 3 ships i served on, during our 'monthy all hands field days, we went for time, even if all the areas were cleaned top to bottom.. So that saying of yours holds true!

  8. #8
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    I've seen several attempts at this over the years...and it usually amounts to maybe moving where the duties are done, but does not eliminate the duties.

    Unless leadership is willing to just stop doing certain things, then this is just a shell game.
    The Voice of Reason

  9. #9
    Senior Member Rollyn01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Unless leadership is willing to just stop doing certain things, then this is just a shell game.
    But isn't that the main problem? Most of this is because of those who are in command trying to make it look like they are actually having an effect on their subordinates using busywork. There's very little problem solving actually going on to address any of the major issues due to the added work that is meant to mitigate the problem rather than directly solve it. It's almost as if the solution to the problems, in their minds, is to keep servicemembers too busy to cause any problems. And it's a crying shame.
    Efficiency through redundancy is a contradiction in terms.

    Attrition is not an effective means of combat.

    “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.” – James Nicoll

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •