Auditor General Suggests RMC Not Working

[Infanteer]

When I was a new subbie at the Regiment (1997) virtually all the officer intakes of the early/mid-nineties had been ROTP (to keep the Colleges open), so virtually all of the subbies were MilCol/ROTP officers. By 2005 it was more mixed with closer to a 50/50 split between ROTP/DEO. Nevertheless, when I was a senior officer at the Regt in 2012 virtually all of my fellow officers were MilCol/ROTP as the eligible population was still that one from 1997. The proportion will change as the population split moves through.

Oh man.  Someone introducing evidence....

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Interesting.  Is it possible that non-MilCol (DEO, ROTP-Civy U) individual have greater mobility due to a greater social network built outside the CAF?  Or, in other words, MilCol are not necessarily more vested, but less connected and less able to transition out?  Is it that they belong to the CAF, or that they don't belong to other, larger groups?

There are implications to that suggestion - a risk of increased dislocation between the CAF and Canadian society writ large.  Risk that rather than obtaining the best and brightest to command, that we're getting those with the least ability to cope outside a heavily regimented organization, with the least visibility and awareness to introduce transformational change.

An interesting question. Can someone without experience outside the CAF, particularly RMC grads who may never have even worked a civilian job, be transformational? Does this then have the potential to add to organizational issues such as op honour? If I remember correctly there were issues with a speaker at RMC and the "Hop-onher" issue. Of cadets have issues at that age than can they be a xpected to change to reflect society?

I am a DEO and admittedly glad to be so. My university days allowed me to meet a wide swathe of people and form distinct opinions. I wonder if RMC students have the same opportunity and if having a large percentage of our senior officers of the future taken out of the society they serve doesn't hurt their ability to understand that society.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

My uncle (son of an orphaned, immigrant Scottish baker) served in the Black Watch before and during WWII with Bill Molson.  My Dad remembers Bill visiting the house before the war.  The class distinctions didn't seem to matter.

Maybe part of the difference between the Canadian and British Armies is the difference of class mobility between the two countries.  Canada has very few true "old money" families.  In days past I think you did see members of those families (like in Britain) serving in the military as it was seen as an "honourable" profession. 

Perhaps because the "nouveau riche" don't have a "family name" to uphold they don't view military service in the same way.  And since Canadian society is in general much socially mobile than in Britain you don't see the same type of class differences.

I would say this has more to do with the Regular Force having little to do with this segment of society.  We don't engage them so they don't engage us.  We would rather have Rick Mercer as an honourary than somone with some actual money and power.

Plus flaunting the family name is very uncanadian. 

 

[mariomike]

Can someone without experience outside the CAF, particularly RMC grads who may never have even worked a civilian job, be transformational?

Should the CAF be the second ( third, fourth... ) career of an individual?
I ask because the PRes was my first and last part-time job, and my career was my first and last full-time job.

Are young people with limited life experience more easily "moldable", and less likely to question authority, than older individuals?

By hiring younger people, perhaps the CAF secures more chances that those individuals will have accumulated less "baggage" than older recruits.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Is switching from job to job always seen as a positive?
I'm asking because the PRes was my first and last part-time job, and my career was my first and last full-time job.

Should the CAF be the second ( third, fourth... ) career of an individual?

Are young people with little "life experience" more easily "moldable" than older individuals to the CAF subculture?

By hiring young adults, perhaps the CAF secures more chances that those individuals will have less "baggage" in their background checks than those with life experience.

I believe that life experience, particularly life experience within the culture and society is neccessaryparticularly for a career military person and that a lack of understanding of the society one lives in can have significant issues for the organization. Where this becomes an issue is in the growing civilian-military gap, which admittedly has largely been studied/discussed in the US vice Canada. However, shades of the gap can be seen in our own military (arguably are more apparent with the difference in cultural views of military service). The attached links provide some reading material of much that is available.

The gap has roots in both military and civilian sides. As noted by Lt. Gen Dave Barno, "“troops and their families live and work on massive military bases, separated geographically, socially, and economically from the society they serve.” He also stated that “the military’s self-imposed isolation doesn’t encourage civilian understanding, and it makes it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate the outside world.” Moreover, as the members of the military are self-selecting, they tend to have a sense of moral arrogance and moral superiority (http://taskandpurpose.com/building-connections-conversation-review-new-film-civilian-military-divide/). This sense of exclusivity and being "special" further creates a divide between the military and civilian classes.

On the flip side, the lack of military presence in civilian universities, including Harvard and Columbia, when ROTC programs were cancelled in the 1960's has created a situation where the academic divide between the military and civilian academia grew.

In terms of the CAF, the demographics of the force must also be considered. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that the CAF continues to be largely a white male dominated institution with numbers far outside the society. To this end, in 2008 85.3% of the total force was male and only 6.4% of the forces were visible minority (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf). The reserves had a larger proportion of minorities, which is not surprising, meaning the regular force had a total of 4.5% visible minority, with only 3.4% of officers being visible minorities at that time. The bulk of the majority come from rural or small urban centres (Tracey Wait, Canadian Demographic and Social Values at a Glance: Impact on Strategic HR Planning (Ottawa, Canada: Department of National Defence, 2002) so tend to be more homogeneous in thought than those from larger urban centres with more exposure to different cultures. So, with the volunteer force it is arguable whether the CAF has ever been truly reflective of Canadian society due to the recruiting patters of the force.

So, how does this all apply to RMC? The segregation of military leaders, who by our own leadership doctrine we want to be transformational has the double edged sword of removing persons from that society at a young age and indoctrinating them into the military way of thinking. On the surface this would seem to be a largely positive thing. However, this contributes to further distancing the future officers from the population that they represent and creating a "warrior caste". Further, as noted, the majority of the force is still represented by a relatively homogeneous group within Canadian society who largely have similar socio-economic backgrounds and belief systems. This further separates the officer corps from society, particularly when they are grouped together to reinforce the beliefs that they arrived to RMC with. As the individuals are generally from the same background and have the same beliefs than how can they be expected to represent the larger Canadian society? How can they be expected to be transformational and move the CAF to represent a society they themselves largely don't understand since they spent the bulk of their time isolated at RMC and Gagetown/Borden/Portage-la-Prairie/Esquimalt? And conversely, how do we expect the larger society, including academic society, to understand the military when there is little to no presence on civilian campuses? Situations like the WLU one seen recently are the flip side of the isolation of ideas and I would argue a similar dynamic in RMC, where a feminist presenter can be booed and harangued by a largely male audience with little to no ramifications (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-cadets-struggled-with-questions-of-sexual-consent-educator-1.3083831). So, do we want future leaders who can be "molded" into the military or do we want future leaders who understand their society and can make decisions based on life experience? I argue the latter. Having officers, and by extension, a CAF that reflects Canadian society we strengthen the military, reduce the civilian-military divide, and improve our effectiveness by drawing in more diverse groups. This must be seen as a positive. I dont believe that we will ever get there by segregating the bulk of the officer corps in one institution.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no3/jung-eng.asp

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/287817-the-overlooked-civilian-military-divide

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-warrior-main-20150524-story.html#page=1

http://taskandpurpose.com/unpacking-civilian-military-divide/

 

[mariomike]

For reference to the discussion. Does not say what the average age of CAF recruits is in 2017.

"In 1981, the average age of a CF recruit was 20; in 1999 it was 23; in 2002 it climbed to 24.5 As a result, as of April 30, 2004, only 802 of 8155 Regular Force members at the Private Recruit and Private Basic level, and only 403 of 1780 Regular Force Officer Cadets, were under the age of 20."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=new-compulsory-retirement-age-for-the-cf/hnocfnhk

One thing I would say about starting the CAF, or any career, while young. The sooner you can max-out your pension, the sooner you can get out.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=mariomike]

By hiring younger people, perhaps the CAF secures more chances that those individuals will have accumulated less "baggage" than older recruits.
[/quote]

I'd argue schools today (specifically what teachers seem to push on students) seem to have younger people graduating with quite a bit of baggage already.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5jzvp/laurier-university-apologizes-to-ta-for-jordan-peterson-censorship-drama

 

[mariomike]

I'd argue schools today (specifically what teachers seem to push on students) seem to have younger people graduating with quite a bit of baggage already.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5jzvp/laurier-university-apologizes-to-ta-for-jordan-peterson-censorship-drama

Perhaps uniformed "in house" training by the employer may not be such a bad idea? 

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Personally I have a belief that most of the issues stemming from "the new generation" is older folks with preconceived notions of how bad the new generation is.

In my previous army NCO life, I had a troop of almost 50. Except for a few I could count on one hand, they were exceptionally hard working, intelligent and all in all excellent workers. The majority were in their early 20s so basically all "millennials". They nearly all were very mission/goal focused, it was a hugely high tempo section in a high tempo unit, and worked as a team, independently and approached problems with a strong desire to "do the job right".

Maybe my experience was abnormal, and I just lucked in 50 times over, or maybe I treated them like people, gave feedback and didn't dismiss them all just because of their birthdate. 

Same goes for RMC, when I worked there the cadets I did talk to seemed very motivated, they seemed quite accomplished for how young they were and really did seem like the all in all excellent officer candidates. Personally from my view, it wasn't the quality of the candidate coming out of the recruiting system that was the problem, it was dated mentalities and a lack of focus on how they wanted to train these cadets.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My observation of millennials is that the motivated ones are very, very switched on, far more than my generation. However the ones that are not are really bad. There seems to be very little "middle ground" which my generation was the majority.

 

[Remius]

Personally I have a belief that most of the issues stemming from "the new generation" is older folks with preconceived notions of how bad the new generation is.

In my previous army NCO life, I had a troop of almost 50. Except for a few I could count on one hand, they were exceptionally hard working, intelligent and all in all excellent workers. The majority were in their early 20s so basically all "millennials". They nearly all were very mission/goal focused, it was a hugely high tempo section in a high tempo unit, and worked as a team, independently and approached problems with a strong desire to "do the job right".

Maybe my experience was abnormal, and I just lucked in 50 times over, or maybe I treated them like people, gave feedback and didn't dismiss them all just because of their birthdate. 

Same goes for RMC, when I worked there the cadets I did talk to seemed very motivated, they seemed quite accomplished for how young they were and really did seem like the all in all excellent officer candidates. Personally from my view, it wasn't the quality of the candidate coming out of the recruiting system that was the problem, it was dated mentalities and a lack of focus on how they wanted to train these cadets.

The traits you describe are actually attributed to them.  However, there is the generation me aspect as well the demand for work versatility and flexibility and more work life balance that might account for those perceptions.

 

[SupersonicMax]

There is nothing wrong with seeking a work-life balance.  In fact, the CAF genrally encourage it.  Yes, they may seem "needy" but if you, to some extent, cater to their needs, you generally get more from them than what you had to give.

It goes back to taking care of your people.  It is just that how your people are and what makes them tick changed.

 

[ballz]

Since we're on this tangent, I think Simon Sinek has figured out a very key piece of this puzzle... the instant gratification and convenience that our advanced technological world provides... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Part of the issue is not the kids, but the education systems, listening to teachers and kids today, a A mark was a C in previous generations, kids are totally unprepared for university or higher skill functions. Teaching style is geared to girls and not boys. Out here in BC we are teaching a generation that for the most part will end up working for immigrants, because the immigrants have better education and harder work ethic, along with better access to starting capital. 

 

[Lumber]

Although you make a few decent inferences, I think that you are misreading the available factors.

The stat you have is that 62% of the senior officers are MilCol grads. While all senior officers have clearly stayed in the CAF beyond the nine-year mark, not all officers who stay for 20+ years become senior officers. The stat you have has nothing to say about retention or motivation. I think that much of your post is you thinking aloud to defend your university.

We will see variation in population percentages due to variances in past intakes (I call it the pig in the python) as the present military population is a prisoner of past decisions. We didn;t have enough Sgts/Capts in 2006 because we didn't enrol them as recruits in 1994. Of course we overcorrected with hiring/promotions. Park that. When I was a new subbie at the Regiment (1997) virtually all the officer intakes of the early/mid-nineties had been ROTP (to keep the Colleges open), so virtually all of the subbies were MilCol/ROTP officers. By 2005 it was more mixed with closer to a 50/50 split between ROTP/DEO. Nevertheless, when I was a senior officer at the Regt in 2012 virtually all of my fellow officers were MilCol/ROTP as the eligible population was still that one from 1997. The proportion will change as the population split moves through.

The report on RMC might make you uncomfortable - that's OK.

Cheers,

T2B

For the bit in yellow, I never actually said anything to defend RMC, or milcols in general; all I've been doing is trying to come up with a reason that 62% of senior officers are milcol grads.

To that end, your post just highlights the lack of hard data on this, and my own lack of experience to speak authoritatively on the matter, and therefore I will differ to your experience. If you're saying that in the mid 90s the proportion of officers who came from milcols was greater than 62%, then we have the opposite result; a disproportionate number of non-milcol grads making up the senior ranks. Although I have to admit, I didn't really follow your first paragraph; if we're trying to examine the path from enrolment to senior officer rank between intake streams, what does the number of career captains matter?

 

[Lumber]

I believe that life experience, particularly life experience within the culture and society is neccessaryparticularly for a career military person and that a lack of understanding of the society one lives in can have significant issues for the organization. Where this becomes an issue is in the growing civilian-military gap, which admittedly has largely been studied/discussed in the US vice Canada. However, shades of the gap can be seen in our own military (arguably are more apparent with the difference in cultural views of military service). The attached links provide some reading material of much that is available.

The gap has roots in both military and civilian sides. As noted by Lt. Gen Dave Barno, "“troops and their families live and work on massive military bases, separated geographically, socially, and economically from the society they serve.” He also stated that “the military’s self-imposed isolation doesn’t encourage civilian understanding, and it makes it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate the outside world.” Moreover, as the members of the military are self-selecting, they tend to have a sense of moral arrogance and moral superiority (http://taskandpurpose.com/building-connections-conversation-review-new-film-civilian-military-divide/). This sense of exclusivity and being "special" further creates a divide between the military and civilian classes.

On the flip side, the lack of military presence in civilian universities, including Harvard and Columbia, when ROTC programs were cancelled in the 1960's has created a situation where the academic divide between the military and civilian academia grew.

In terms of the CAF, the demographics of the force must also be considered. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that the CAF continues to be largely a white male dominated institution with numbers far outside the society. To this end, in 2008 85.3% of the total force was male and only 6.4% of the forces were visible minority (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf). The reserves had a larger proportion of minorities, which is not surprising, meaning the regular force had a total of 4.5% visible minority, with only 3.4% of officers being visible minorities at that time. The bulk of the majority come from rural or small urban centres (Tracey Wait, Canadian Demographic and Social Values at a Glance: Impact on Strategic HR Planning (Ottawa, Canada: Department of National Defence, 2002) so tend to be more homogeneous in thought than those from larger urban centres with more exposure to different cultures. So, with the volunteer force it is arguable whether the CAF has ever been truly reflective of Canadian society due to the recruiting patters of the force.

So, how does this all apply to RMC? The segregation of military leaders, who by our own leadership doctrine we want to be transformational has the double edged sword of removing persons from that society at a young age and indoctrinating them into the military way of thinking. On the surface this would seem to be a largely positive thing. However, this contributes to further distancing the future officers from the population that they represent and creating a "warrior caste". Further, as noted, the majority of the force is still represented by a relatively homogeneous group within Canadian society who largely have similar socio-economic backgrounds and belief systems. This further separates the officer corps from society, particularly when they are grouped together to reinforce the beliefs that they arrived to RMC with. As the individuals are generally from the same background and have the same beliefs than how can they be expected to represent the larger Canadian society? How can they be expected to be transformational and move the CAF to represent a society they themselves largely don't understand since they spent the bulk of their time isolated at RMC and Gagetown/Borden/Portage-la-Prairie/Esquimalt? And conversely, how do we expect the larger society, including academic society, to understand the military when there is little to no presence on civilian campuses? Situations like the WLU one seen recently are the flip side of the isolation of ideas and I would argue a similar dynamic in RMC, where a feminist presenter can be booed and harangued by a largely male audience with little to no ramifications (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-cadets-struggled-with-questions-of-sexual-consent-educator-1.3083831). So, do we want future leaders who can be "molded" into the military or do we want future leaders who understand their society and can make decisions based on life experience? I argue the latter. Having officers, and by extension, a CAF that reflects Canadian society we strengthen the military, reduce the civilian-military divide, and improve our effectiveness by drawing in more diverse groups. This must be seen as a positive. I dont believe that we will ever get there by segregating the bulk of the officer corps in one institution.

It sucks having the last post on a page; this was a great post and I don't think anyone has paid much attention to it.

I'm not sure where to start. I was going to first counter that, as a member of the Navy, the navy isn't isolated, we work and live in cities (Victoria, Halifax), and not on large isolated basis in the sticks of Manitoba. However, then I thought about it, and as far as major Canadian cities go, they are pretty homogeneous (7% and 10% visible minority populations, respectively). For comparison, the Canadian average is 19.1%. So, being in the Navy doesn't help with our experience much.

As for the rest, I think these are two separate issues. According to your numbers, the CAF has trouble hiring anything but white males; closing RMC wouldn't solve this.

So, either close RMC and send all our white males to civi-U and hope that they acclimatize themselves to other cultures; or
Figure out how to hire more women and visible minorities, and send them to RMC (and civi-U) and hope that their unique perspectives change the mold at RMC; or
Figure out how to hire more women and visible minorities, AND close RMC.

Maybe I'm just getting more conservative in my old age, but I'm not sure I want the military to change that much. While I agree, our members need to be more representative of the Canadian population, I must ask, does our military culture need to be more representative of the Canadian culture? Or, are we suppose to have a culture that is different from the mainstream culture, and that is more concrete and unchanging (aside from eliminating aspects of discrimination, and any other negative traits that come up).

People said on here have said that the predominant up and coming culture in Canada is self-entitled snow-flakes who don't want to work and expect to get everything. If the CAF is supposed to be "representative of the Canadian population", then shouldn't we allow our military culture to evolve similarly?

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

People said on here have said that the predominant up and coming culture in Canada is self-entitled snow-flakes who don't want to work and expect to get everything. If the CAF is supposed to be "representative of the Canadian population", then shouldn't we allow our military culture to evolve similarly?

People on here say a lot of things. Personally I think there's a group of dinosaurs that are disappointed they can't (mis)-treat their people in the same manner they were. I don't think it's a problem with the "new generation" but with those dinosaurs who really have no idea how to motivate and lead people, and what's worse, have convinced themselves that everyone else is wrong and their leadership style isn't the problem.

 

[Jarnhamar]

People on here say a lot of things. Personally I think there's a group of dinosaurs that are disappointed they can't (mis)-treat their people in the same manner they were. I don't think it's a problem with the "new generation" but with those dinosaurs who really have no idea how to motivate and lead people, and what's worse, have convinced themselves that everyone else is wrong and their leadership style isn't the problem.

Yup there's some old and new dinosaurs for sure. There's also a group of leaders who actually give a shit about both the establishment and new members coming in to replace the old who have, through instructing on various courses, watched the changes in the quality and attitudes of new members and speak to it. That doesn't make them power-abusing dinosaurs.

I've personally seen at least two future officers throw away their potential careers because they had their cell phones taken away during training.  I trust you don't consider that mistreatment  or abuse by instructors do you?

As well some of the students I had from RMC reported being told by officers there to absolutely not trust or listen to NCOs. I can't imagine that being helpful.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It sucks having the last post on a page; this was a great post and I don't think anyone has paid much attention to it.

I'm not sure where to start. I was going to first counter that, as a member of the Navy, the navy isn't isolated, we work and live in cities (Victoria, Halifax), and not on large isolated basis in the sticks of Manitoba. However, then I thought about it, and as far as major Canadian cities go, they are pretty homogeneous (7% and 10% visible minority populations, respectively). For comparison, the Canadian average is 19.1%. So, being in the Navy doesn't help with our experience much.

As for the rest, I think these are two separate issues. According to your numbers, the CAF has trouble hiring anything but white males; closing RMC wouldn't solve this.

So, either close RMC and send all our white males to civi-U and hope that they acclimatize themselves to other cultures; or
Figure out how to hire more women and visible minorities, and send them to RMC (and civi-U) and hope that their unique perspectives change the mold at RMC; or
Figure out how to hire more women and visible minorities, AND close RMC.

Maybe I'm just getting more conservative in my old age, but I'm not sure I want the military to change that much. While I agree, our members need to be more representative of the Canadian population, I must ask, does our military culture need to be more representative of the Canadian culture? Or, are we suppose to have a culture that is different from the mainstream culture, and that is more concrete and unchanging (aside from eliminating aspects of discrimination, and any other negative traits that come up).

People said on here have said that the predominant up and coming culture in Canada is self-entitled snow-flakes who don't want to work and expect to get everything. If the CAF is supposed to be "representative of the Canadian population", then shouldn't we allow our military culture to evolve similarly?

I think that the recruiting and RMC issue are one and the same. Having the future leader's segregated at a young age and not largely involved in the larger mosaic of society can be seen as a detriment to their personal development of people. However, as I noted, the reverse is also true- not having those officers in civilian institutions also robs those places of contrary and different points of view. Unfortunately in Canada we'll never have enough bulk to have ROTC cadres like in many US universities, but having a military presence to speak for military issues can only help in the discussion and help to offset the overly liberal environments in some places. Like a cultural and academic exchange, which is what universities are supposed to be.

As for representation, there's a way for the military to appeal to people outside of the traditional recruiting base while maintaining military virtues and values. IMHO, closing places such as Calgary, Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Downsview, and London were huge mistakes that were undertaken with little foresight. If we had done the opposite- keep isolated places such as Petawawa and Shilo as training areas and keep garrisons in larger urban centres we would benefit from massive advantages in civilian support (imagine how much easier mental health support would be in metro areas), recruiting (one key reason why minorities don't enter is that they have strong family connections largely rooted in major centres, notably Vancouver and Toronto), and overall visibility. If we maintained a military presence in the larger cities, offset with military presence in universities than we could benefit from the immersion in Canadian society as an institution and perhaps Canadian society could benefit from exposure to military culture. As it is now, we isolate ourselves in our own versions of enclaves.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The whole RMC makes you disconnected from society is such a load of baloney it isn't even funny.  It's a stupid argument lacking any sort of substance or facts to back it up. 

Maybe we all just need to go to Queens University, have our parents pay for everything, snort some cocaine at Stages on Monday, and call it a day!?  This sort of lifestyle will definitely produce a superior officer  :nod:.  Lets not pretend that the life skills we are holding up as the reason RMC should be closed are hard to learn or some sort of "voodoo magic".

I've met very few people outside the military that even know how to turn an iron on, much less use one.