10
10
0
It's still very early on in my career but I am seriously debating following one of these two paths. Can some of you current or past First Shirts / officers of any rank give me some insight? My main goal here is to be a positive role model, mentor and leader to young Airmen. My mom is a First Sergeant and she is nothing short of perfect at her job. I want to be able to see my troops succeed and grow, but I'm still not quite sure which viewpoint I want to do so from.
Commission
Role Model
Leadership
Airmen
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 52
1
1
0
First off, Happy 4th and thanks to all for their service!
The question you should ask yourself A1C Murray is do you want to follow a career path as a supervisor or a manager? IMHO, that is the basic difference between the O & E career paths. A lot of valid and excellent points brought up in this discussions by our esteemed colleagues so hopefully you are taking it all in. Supervisors are there with the SMs, more individual guidance and nurturing - the "moms" of the organization. The managers - the "dads" deal with the unit as a whole, the overall direction, quality etc.
The question you should ask yourself A1C Murray is do you want to follow a career path as a supervisor or a manager? IMHO, that is the basic difference between the O & E career paths. A lot of valid and excellent points brought up in this discussions by our esteemed colleagues so hopefully you are taking it all in. Supervisors are there with the SMs, more individual guidance and nurturing - the "moms" of the organization. The managers - the "dads" deal with the unit as a whole, the overall direction, quality etc.
(1)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
I'll 2nd the major's comment. I loved loading bombs on A-10 for 12+ years. And maybe more importantly, I loved the people with whom I worked. You are going to have to make new connections regardless of whether you leave your AFSC to become a shirt or an officer. After several deployments and having had the opportunity to achieve all of the goals I had as an NCO, I was ready for a new career. It turned out that would be in Public Affairs, which drew on my undergraduate degree in communications.
It's tough to compare a special duty to a career path. You have to love what you do every day. There is a big difference between what we think about when we decide what we are going to be when we "grow up", and what that job is like every day. I will appreciate my officer pension at some point, but money won't make a job that you don't enjoy any more enjoyable.
Between then and now, it's pretty much the exact same things you should be doing in your career as an Airman regardless of whether you aspire to the SNCO Corps or the Officer Corps. And while it might take a while, there is no reason that you could not do both if that's your dream!
It's tough to compare a special duty to a career path. You have to love what you do every day. There is a big difference between what we think about when we decide what we are going to be when we "grow up", and what that job is like every day. I will appreciate my officer pension at some point, but money won't make a job that you don't enjoy any more enjoyable.
Between then and now, it's pretty much the exact same things you should be doing in your career as an Airman regardless of whether you aspire to the SNCO Corps or the Officer Corps. And while it might take a while, there is no reason that you could not do both if that's your dream!
(1)
(0)
CCMSgt Michael Sullivan Ph.D
I entered the AF at 17 right after HS. While in the AF I received my BS, MBA, and PHD. At 16 years I made E-9. I new if I became an officer I would to have to slow down on my education. After I made E-9 everyone I knew tried to convince me to become an officer. I had only planed to stay for 20 year, ( ended spending 21). I looked at my last 4 years and though do I want to go from the cream of the crop in the enlisted field to being a 2Lt and everyone that did not know me personally think I was just a peion. I got out of the AF at 38 and started a second career.
My point is if you you OTS early in your career the better.
My point is if you you OTS early in your career the better.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
When you say "Airmen" you can mean many things. As a First Sergeant or Officer you can influence Airmen of all ranks. As a commissioned officer you'll still be a role model, but typically for junior officers. As has been stated before, there is a bit of an institutional barrier between officers and enlisted. If your heart is for the enlisted Airman, you may luck out if you get your commission and serve in an enlisted heavy career field (medical, maintenance, CE, SF, etc.). As far as a First Sergeant goes, you'll definitely be in the thick of peoples' professional AND personal lives. The things you want to do with your career is the job description of the 1st Sgt. With that position being a Developmental Special Duty these days, you are not guaranteed to get that position. On the other had, who knows how our force will look in ten years. Good luck either way!
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Regarding influence, depending on the scope of influence you want to exert will also inform which road you will take. NCOs get to influence more directly to very specific populations (their platoon, company, etc). Officers influence across a larger scope.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was once told that If you want to have more of an impact on airmen then go enlisted and become a first Sergeant. If you want to be more of a leader and manager then become an officer. I say you can have the best of both worlds by enlisting, working hard, getting a commission. By doing that you gain the respect of the enlisted, as you know where they come from and the respect of officers because even as a second lieutenant you have more experience than some Captains and even majors.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
If you are thinking of joining the Dark Side, it is never too early...the earlier the better in my opinion, as it can take some time to set the necessary gears in motion. If you want to do ROTC or the Academy, you'll naturally have to hold off on starting/completing your Bachelor's (as far as I know). But if you want to go the OTS route then you'll want to get it out of the way. I have always been under the impression that ROTC is the easiest/simplest path to a commission, considering their selection rates vs the other options. I joined ROTC right out of HS, so I don't know much about transitioning to college/ROTC from AD though.
As a rated officer, I have a very different experience with enlisted than non-rated do. As such I can't really provide any advice regarding which is the better path to growing your troops. A lieutenant is the bottom of the totem pole in my world haha...for the most part anyway. The officer-enlisted relationship is very different for aircrew. From that perspective, I'd say it may be your job itself, rather than your commission or lack thereof necessarily, which would determine whether you get to have troops, mentor them, and see them grow.
As a rated officer, I have a very different experience with enlisted than non-rated do. As such I can't really provide any advice regarding which is the better path to growing your troops. A lieutenant is the bottom of the totem pole in my world haha...for the most part anyway. The officer-enlisted relationship is very different for aircrew. From that perspective, I'd say it may be your job itself, rather than your commission or lack thereof necessarily, which would determine whether you get to have troops, mentor them, and see them grow.
MSgt (Join to see)
LT,
You likely fly planes that have colleagues of mine on the back of them. How do you feel you relate to lower enlisted as a junior officer? In my unit, we are obviously still very professional but can still feel as if we are somewhat of a peer-to-peer standing.
You likely fly planes that have colleagues of mine on the back of them. How do you feel you relate to lower enlisted as a junior officer? In my unit, we are obviously still very professional but can still feel as if we are somewhat of a peer-to-peer standing.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
MSgt (Join to see), the Officer-Enlisted line is much more blurry in a flying squadron, at least as far as fraternization goes and how we interact with each other. This is largely because we all have to function as a crew together, which is aided by everyone having a more personal understanding of each other (I think "understanding" is a more accurate than "relationship"). Sure, one could say an infantry platoon has to function together, and yet more rigid boundaries may be maintained, but the dynamic that needs to exist within a crew is very different than that which must exist in other groups. There can be no rank in the airplane, which is critical to safe flying. Once we're in the plane, it's a level playing field. The only ultimate authority is the Aircraft Commander, and that is a unique role played by the left-seat pilot. As such, this rank-blind mentality tends to bleed over into our roles on the ground/in the office a bit.
Anyway, to finally get to your specific question: In the social hierarchy of my squadron (and other officer/enlisted-crew flying squadrons as far as I know), a Lt is roughly on par with a SrA, and so we relate to them accordingly. There are unspoken boundaries - unlike the lack thereof between CGOs - but the relationship is very relaxed. Use of first names both ways is not uncommon, but I wouldn't say it's common either. Generally, we have no problem relating to each other, similar to how you mentioned feeling peer-to-peer; but we may have a different view of what constitutes "professional". There is less "sir/ma'am" and general formality, and to be able to behave in such a relaxed manner while simultaneously respecting the invisible boundary is "professionalism" for us. Basically, we care more about how good you are in the plane than we do about how formally you can behave in the office. Once again, there is no rank in the airplane, so that bleeds over a bit. I'll note though, that the dynamic between rated officers and non-aircrew-enlisted in the squadron is much more akin to the officer-enlisted dynamic in the rest of the AF.
Anyway, to finally get to your specific question: In the social hierarchy of my squadron (and other officer/enlisted-crew flying squadrons as far as I know), a Lt is roughly on par with a SrA, and so we relate to them accordingly. There are unspoken boundaries - unlike the lack thereof between CGOs - but the relationship is very relaxed. Use of first names both ways is not uncommon, but I wouldn't say it's common either. Generally, we have no problem relating to each other, similar to how you mentioned feeling peer-to-peer; but we may have a different view of what constitutes "professional". There is less "sir/ma'am" and general formality, and to be able to behave in such a relaxed manner while simultaneously respecting the invisible boundary is "professionalism" for us. Basically, we care more about how good you are in the plane than we do about how formally you can behave in the office. Once again, there is no rank in the airplane, so that bleeds over a bit. I'll note though, that the dynamic between rated officers and non-aircrew-enlisted in the squadron is much more akin to the officer-enlisted dynamic in the rest of the AF.
Maj (Join to see)
I have 14 years enlisted under my belt and 6 years commissioned. I feel that after having worked my way from an AB all the way up to where I am now, I can better connect with my airmen. I have been where they are and have gone thru some of the same things they are going thru now. In my opinion, I think officers that were prior enlisted make better all around officers, but if you want to be a General then you need to go to the Academy and conform.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Well they both take orders from the top and need to follow thru with the mission till it is completed. The good shirt does need to investigate when problems with persons occur. Sometimes it is plainly written other times not. A good shirt insures upper management nco or officer is not trying to make a name for themselves at someone's expense, or visa versa. Not an easy job unless you take time to know your people. Not to mention the job of making the unit cohesive and remembering everything everyone else forgets. Both jobs require overtime.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Your ability to mentor young airmen will be much easier as an NCO, simply put you'll spend far more time with them. As an officer you spend most of your time with the ones who've made serious mistakes. The enjoyable part of the military is closer to the NCO side. An officer should be selfless and empowering, if you are mentoring junior airmen how many NCO did you just remove from performing their jobs?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Like many others who've responded, I implore you to take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you while you're still on active duty. Even if you don't take the officer route, you will be better prepared for your post-military career. To answer your question, I can only say that being a first sergeant was the most rewarding job I had in the Air Force. It was the most demanding as well. You are always on call and you need to be prepared to handle a wide variety of personnel issues ranging from professional development to deeply personal matters involving your people. But the reward of knowing that you made a difference in the life of someone who came to you for help makes up for any of the disadvantages of being the "Shirt." I loved that job, and it prepared me for a career in human resources, although I did that for only a few years while attending law school. I can't speak to the advantages of being an officer (other than the pay difference), so you might want to take the excellent advice of those who have been in your shoes and gone that route. Good luck on whichever road you decide to take.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Depends on why you want to become an Officer. If you want to be a leader being an officer is a Great Way Of Life, but if want to be an officer just to boss people around then I wouldn't want to serve with or under you. I became on one because as an enlisted Radar Tect the Radar Maintenance Officers I served under were not Engineers they were Math, History, and any non Technical Degreed body who for the most part wore their rank on their skivvies. I went through OTS and became and went to a Civil Engineering Officer, lasted 3 years and found I got additional duties up the gazoo. Crossed over to Comm Electronics and functioned as an Engineer. I was also respected by the enlisted under me and other squadron enlisted because I had been one of them. If you want to be a "Leader" go for it, if you just want to boss people around become a correctional officer in civilian life.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I had the same opturnity and stayed and enlisted man, I should have taken the officer position" the perks of even a poor position are better than Staff Sargent"
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I know that I'm early in my career when I say this, but if you want to make a difference, you WILL. It isn't about position, pay, or commissioning. It all has to stem from you and what you are willing to take while trying to make that change. Too many great individuals won't deal with some of the random things that get piled on their plate. No matter what happens, either path you choose, just remember that after you make NCO or CO, it's not about you anymore, it's about the people under you. Every action that you make reflects the legacy that you chose to leave. I love the people under me and I do what I can to make sure they see that and let them see what I do for them. It doesn't take stripes, bars, stars, leaves, or birds to make a difference, it takes individuals.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google