• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Office Production Paths - CFR or Bust?

Honest question: Would 2-3 years as a Pte effectively show what they would be like as an Lt or Capt?
Absolutely. Someone who acts like an idiot as a private is going to act like an idiot as a Captain. Same with a private who lies, only cares about themselves, cheats, and so on. If we're hiring a dud we can save a lot of time, money, and pain by observing them for a couple years an an NCM.
 
The difference, I would think, is that we have set the bar so low IRT training and mentoring that... yes... we are having issues with junior leaders. That doesnt mean they're any better served by making them NCMs for a hitch (our crop of MCpl/Sgts is not any better to pull from).
Would you promote an NCM to a MCpl/Sgt who has a history of lying, always getting out of work, always finding a way to put themselves first?
 
OCTP, fixed period of service, release. If they want to rejoin, let them use the VAC stipend to get a BA then return.
As an OCTP guy with a 44 year career I can't get on board with that. I'm good with the fixed period of service but not with the need to get a BA afterward. At the end of the fixed term you keep them or not based on merit. I frankly think that at that point the civilian degree no longer has any value. You can accomplish much more by putting them through more senior and more complex military staff and leadership training than wasting three or four years of their lives on something as meaningless as a BA.

I'm an advocate for a four stream military:

1) Civilian university funded ROTP-like and direct entry officers with degrees leading to some of value to the CAF and with summer training so that at the end of university and training a DP1 qualified commissioned officer appears;

2) An OCTP-like stream for commissioned officers with something in the nature of a Sandhurst-like 1.5 years cadetship finishing with a DP1 trained officer;

3) A warrant officer stream for warranted officers providing both technical and leadership training for specialized fields with warrant rank pay and responsibilities roughly equivalent to Lt to LCol; and

4) An OR stream for all trades with ranks running from Pte to sergeant major.

There should be gateways where the OR stream can cross over to the warrant officer and/or commissioned officer streams and where warrant officers can cross over to the commissioned officer stream.

🍻
 
As an OCTP guy with a 44 year career I can't get on board with that. I'm good with the fixed period of service but not with the need to get a BA afterward. At the end of the fixed term you keep them or not based on merit. I frankly think that at that point the civilian degree no longer has any value. You can accomplish much more by putting them through more senior and more complex military staff and leadership training than wasting three or four years of their lives on something as meaningless as a BA.

I'm an advocate for a four stream military:

1) Civilian university funded ROTP-like and direct entry officers with degrees leading to some of value to the CAF and with summer training so that at the end of university and training a DP1 qualified commissioned officer appears;

2) An OCTP-like stream for commissioned officers with something in the nature of a Sandhurst-like 1.5 years cadetship finishing with a DP1 trained officer;

3) A warrant officer stream for warranted officers providing both technical and leadership training for specialized fields with warrant rank pay and responsibilities roughly equivalent to Lt to LCol; and

4) An OR stream for all trades with ranks running from Pte to sergeant major.

There should be gateways where the OR stream can cross over to the warrant officer and/or commissioned officer streams and where warrant officers can cross over to the commissioned officer stream.

🍻
Of course, the really important question is “what will said WO ranks look like” :sneaky:

1706191533408.jpg
 
Absolutely. Someone who acts like an idiot as a private is going to act like an idiot as a Captain. Same with a private who lies, only cares about themselves, cheats, and so on. If we're hiring a dud we can save a lot of time, money, and pain by observing them for a couple years an an NCM.
Someone who acted as an idiot as a Capt was probably also acting as an idiot while an OCdt, 2Lt ans Lt, so seems like there have been a chain of failures well before that point.

Making people do a token NCM tour seems like an unecessary bandaid to just actually training and disciplining people. If we've stopped sending people to civi U and forcing them all to go through RMC, and they are shitting the bed at officer development, really question what is the point. They have 1 job.

At least going to civvi U they would have to pay their own bills and no one would care if they failed, so a lot less hand holding then what they seem to get at RMC. They would still be back in military environment doing coursing and OJT at actual units subject to normal military discipline, but they wouldn't get away with stuff like catcalling underage kids at a civilian university, which was pretty disgusting.
 
I largely agree with this but notice you abbreviated one part of the instilled in leadership that I consider important. Your job is to move heaven and earth to ensure they are well treated and taken care of which does fall under well led but I think needs to be spelled out as many don't get it. Too often juniors in both ncms and officers (sometimes seniors too) think well led means micro-managed.

I do not agree with the servant-leadership concept. I have never been a servant and never will be.
If you have served in the CAF in any capacity you have been a servant. The only person who isn’t in the CAF would be the King himself. We are all servants of the crown, it’s all where we fall in the pecking order.

Some of our ranks have origins in the title of servant as well, specifically sergeant. Some cavalry units in the UK have the rank Corporal of horse as the ‘well bred’ didn’t want a rank title with servant in the name.

Servant (noun) - a person who performs duties for others. a person employed in the service of a government.
 
If you have served in the CAF in any capacity you have been a servant. The only person who isn’t in the CAF would be the King himself. We are all servants of the crown, it’s all where we fall in the pecking order.

Some of our ranks have origins in the title of servant as well, specifically sergeant. Some cavalry units in the UK have the rank Corporal of horse as the ‘well bred’ didn’t want a rank title with servant in the name.

Servant (noun) - a person who performs duties for others. a person employed in the service of a government.

Nope. Not just government.

The guy who is most closely associated with the Servant as Leader moniker is Robert K. Greenleaf. It's a term intended to be applicable to everyone, although he was mainly involved in the not for profit sector.

Interestingly, RMA Sandhurst's motto is: Serve to Lead. So I don't think the concept is pretty much timeless and doesn't have any proprietary ownership involved ...

THE SERVANT AS LEADER​

While servant leadership is a timeless concept, the phrase “servant leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in The Servant as Leader, an essay that he first published in 1970. In that essay, Greenleaf said:

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?“

A servant-leader focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong. While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid,” servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible.

THE INSTITUTION AS SERVANT​

Robert Greenleaf recognized that organizations as well as individuals could be servant-leaders. Indeed, he had great faith that servant-leader organizations could change the world. In his second major essay, The Institution as Servant, Greenleaf articulated what is often called the “credo.” There he said:

“This is my thesis: caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to person, now most of it is mediated through institutions – often large, complex, powerful, impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.”

 
Would you promote an NCM to a MCpl/Sgt who has a history of lying, always getting out of work, always finding a way to put themselves first?
Not in the least. Nor would I promote a Lt/Capt eho were acting in a simar manner.

In both cases, I would be having very pointed discussions with their CoC and starting a few rounds of paperwork to correct what should have been dealt with much sooner.

Again, clay and sculptor. We have the same raw material our forebears had to turn civilians into soldiers and officers. What we do to develop, improve, and maintain that those soldiers and officers matters more than if they served in the ranks or not.

If we walk past shitty behaviours because "ah well... not my problem..." we aren't serving the institution and reap what we sow.
 
Not in the least. Nor would I promote a Lt/Capt eho were acting in a simar manner.
Exactly. A bone head captain is still a captain that needs to be employed. At best NCOs are going to suffer under them while trying to babysit them.

4 years of salary, instructors time, and school resources is a lot to put into someone only to find out they're crap.

If we walk past shitty behaviours because "ah well... not my problem..." we aren't serving the institution and reap what we sow.
But you've been in long enough to know it's not simply a matter of someone walking past shitty behaviour. You've heard all the excuses that get made for these people, and you've seen the CoC turn a blind eye over and over and over. We just play hot potato and wait for someone to get posted somewhere else, or promoted.

Making someone spend a year or two as an NCM to see what we're buying doesn't seem like a waste of money in my books.
 
Making someone spend a year or two as an NCM to see what we're buying doesn't seem like a waste of money in my books.
That presupposes that we can punt them out quickly if they don’t work out. Like a 1-year contract.

What would they be doing in that 1 year? Depending on trade, they wouldn’t even finish training. Make them a GD?

If that’s the case, I can’t see too many folks who are looking to be Pilots, etc joining up. We would be actively pushing some of them away - this wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t already have a recruiting problem.
 
We haven't settled the toques and gloves thing yet - can't move to buttons and bows just yet!!!

I did not wear a toque nor gloves today as it was quite mild out here.
Oh yes we have. HAIRFORGEN had a line about that in some of the explanatory presentations, I think.

I remember people (like me) being giddy when it was written out. Whether some dinosaurs decide to “ignore” it is another issue.
 
Exactly. A bone head captain is still a captain that needs to be employed. At best NCOs are going to suffer under them while trying to babysit them.
This is why we need to:
a) vet members better when they're recruited
b) identify shortcomings in training and have a "come to Jesus" moment when given correction
and
c) Punt those who fail to make the cut before they reach those line units.

4 years of salary, instructors time, and school resources is a lot to put into someone only to find out they're crap.
The same can be said of NCMs as well. This is why we need to be diligent of the "shit in shit out" problem we have seen on recent years by training establishments kicking the can down the road to the line units.

But you've been in long enough to know it's not simply a matter of someone walking past shitty behaviour. You've heard all the excuses that get made for these people, and you've seen the CoC turn a blind eye over and over and over. We just play hot potato and wait for someone to get posted somewhere else, or promoted.
I have also been in long enough to call that what it is: shitty and lazy leadership.

In most cases, if someone is as junk as you say they are, there should be a papertrail. If there is, you bury the numpty in the paperwork of their own incompetence. If there isn't, someone passed the buck on to you and you now have a chance to correct that oversight.

5D and 5F releases are a lot easier prior to OFP (School COs are the Release Authority for all pers Pre OFP btw...)

Making someone spend a year or two as an NCM to see what we're buying doesn't seem like a waste of money in my books.
How does that properly assess "what we're buying?" Getting a horse to see how well it performs as a motorcycle is a fools errand; much like assuming a Pte/Cpl doing hood rat shit with their friends qualifies them to be a leader more than someone entering the CAF through the door of the Officer's Mess.

In any case, where we fail most is assessing character and potential upon entry. That's across the CAF, NCM and Officer of all ranks, trades, and elements.

Worse, we fail again when we wish away the problem instead of actually holding people to account and pushing the paper to see those problems no longer be the CAF's problem.

Sometimes, uniforms are better kept at Clothing Stores than filled with subpar soldiers and officers. The sooner we recognize and accept that, the better.
 
Exactly. A bone head captain is still a captain that needs to be employed. At best NCOs are going to suffer under them while trying to babysit them.

4 years of salary, instructors time, and school resources is a lot to put into someone only to find out they're crap.


But you've been in long enough to know it's not simply a matter of someone walking past shitty behaviour. You've heard all the excuses that get made for these people, and you've seen the CoC turn a blind eye over and over and over. We just play hot potato and wait for someone to get posted somewhere else, or promoted.

Making someone spend a year or two as an NCM to see what we're buying doesn't seem like a waste of money in my books.
The NEP might be a starting point: front load all the CAF-wide and element-wide material, then spend the balance of the year GD'ing aboard ship, in garrison with field units, or at a wing. After that, send them off to trade training as officers or NCMs, technical degrees, etc.
 
Why not just bite the bullet and connect the Cadet Program directly to the supply chain for the CAF. Invest resources in increasing the skills of the Cadet program's leaders, and post more CAF (ARes or otherwise) trainers into the Cadet Corps to ensure that higher quality material is more likely to emerge.

Give Gold Star cadets an opportunity to fast track to Officer Cadet, join a Reserve unit, and send them off on RESO training the summer they graduate from High School. Provide a modest education subsidy/ scholarship to encourage them to go all the way through to Phase 4 while concurrently finishing their degrees.

By the time they graduate they'll be a 22 year old Lt with, including Cadet time, 8 continuous years in a military environment.
 
Back
Top