- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
With my short time in the cCF I saw a recession in professionalism, often in places where need professionals the most. There are professionals unfortunately they are few and far between.(My opinion of a professional is how one conducts themselves on a personal level and what they dedicate to their job) And something has to change and Canada has too fill its role on the world stage. As being small but punching way above it's weight class.
I saw our PT levels drop, leaders lead by rank and right not by leading. I saw our training have nothing to do with the upcoming deployment and everything to do with getting officers promoted (check in the box training). And even then setting sub-standard training curriculums, one of repetition and never pushing new boundaries, staying within the comfort zone due to a fear of failure that the system produces. I have also witnessed the "drag your feet attitude towards everything" I could argue that this stems from the inability of leaders to be innovative. This though could be in kind too certain units poaching certain individuals from the ranks, as they should. I have seen units because of poor leadership hold back extremely capable people from trying out for these units because they felt it would be better for them in the long run. The effect of this takes the wind out of people's sails, not just too the applicants of those units. But the people around those people and future applicants. And then the worst of all is the sense of entitlement I see from people. I'm talking about the people who have been in such and such longer than another individual and they feel that they are entitled to the good go. Even though the other guy conducts himself on a way more professional level and his motivation is much higher. So, let’s call person A Mr. Entitlement. He always falls back on his time in to "prove" his worth and that he deserves that spot on course. And usually some incompetent "leader" or let's say person with rank believes he's right. So now person B, Mr. Motivated realises that hard work gets him nowhere and starts to slack off (waiting for his turn). As he should...Some may say, usually the guy that is lazier of the two. Others see this happen and fall into the same rut. I know I did and I allowed others lack of professionalism to affect my levels of professionalism. Which I can only blame myself for.
I will now touch on some of these topics on a more personal/in depth level.
The fear of failure created by the system causes leaders to have an approach of incrementalism and leads them to never try new things. I have witnessed this time and time again in my brief period in the 3rd battalion. We always start at the lowest level, pwt, pairs, group, section, etc. And then we peak out. It's a great way of doing things. As bullets are none too kind. But once we have achieved that no one knows how to progress. And we revert back to IBTS and thus there is no room for improvement or growth. Or even to experiment with new things. This is because a lack of vision that the leadership has and if they have vision it is because of who they are not the level of education they have . And they are not sure how to achieve their desired end state and in the worst cases even where to start. So they opt for normalcy because it is safe. When in reality we should get to point where we fail. Because then we will know what our limits are. So there should be bold moves to try new things in training.
As for work up training, it wasn't geared towards preparing the troops
for overseas. There was a severe lack of training for an operational
capacity. I felt it was designed for officers to practice/get a check in
the box so they could be on their way to their next promotion. We did
weeks of attacks in open fields. We never shook out in a patrol or came
up with sop's or gained any sort of cohesion in that capacity. We also did very
little convoy ops all it was, was a 15 min drive with one ied on a
bridge. And there was no room for teaching there was just an aar at the
end of it. Never once did we get to make adjustments for our errors. It
was all theory.
However at the time I believed we would receive more training as that
was just desert ram. Maybe it was just too shake out and work as a
company and the little things that would help soldiers out on a day to
day basis would come later. So on maple guardian I was expecting that.
But my platoon was the only ones who deployed on it and we only deployed
in support of it. We were to be ANA soldiers (actors). And the other members of
3VP were guys who would not be deploying, and they were going to be the
men actually receiving some training.
It was a good exercise but there was no time to teach and allow people
to practice skills. Maple Guardian was more of a test than it was to
develop or hone any existing skills. As you can only get so much out of
an AAR. Because of this lack of room too practice/experiment prior to
the ex. Soldiers did not get as much out of the ex as they could. So it
was more time and money spent without the best results. And I found that
there was hesitation, a lack of decisiveness and confidence by some
members of other units. Luckily the 3rd sent mostly men who had
previously been overseas so we faired out pretty good.
As for the leadership I don't think it is up to a standard it should be
at. There is plenty of people in leadership positions that aren't
leaders. It is not the individual’s fault it is the systems way of
selecting people to be in charge. They are leaders by title not
personality or experience.
Somewhere in my training it was said "leaders are the people selected by a
group of people with a common goal and he knows the best way of getting
there" (It's not 100% the same quote but same idea) Because they are
expected to make the best decisions with the group in mind and therefore
should not have personal interests in mind. That being said there cannot
be a complete lack of ambition.
The system does not allow the group too select their leaders. And the
followers should select their leaders because it can be dangerous when
leaders select fellow leaders. As there may be a tendency to pick people
with weak personalities because they won't oppose the person above them
and may not have the groups best interest in mind so decisions will be
made for personal gain.
In my personal opinion a leader should be picked by the group. He should
be someone that others strive to be. And the said person should have vision
and a strong personality. With experience to back up the decisions they
make. So they should be hand picked from the ranks and should be
silently rated by their associates. That way the people picking them will have
a better understanding of them and know that these are the leaders the
followers are picking. Because what good is a leader if he has no
followers, could you even call him a leader? The chosen leader should be able to enable others to do
things they would not have been able to do without said leader. That is what I saw the army lacking in.
If you look at the history of leaders and followers in armies it was
based on a gap. That gap at first was based on family name and what came
with that name. Then it was based on wealth, only when people realised
that being someone's ancestor (being of blue blood) did not make you a better leader. So
people started buying their commission. But that didn't work either
because people realised it was stupid. How could wealth make someone fit
too lead? So in essence it has always been the haves and have nots. I
would argue that during those periods those were the two groups of
people who were educated and time to worry about things other than the next meal. So in modern times we based leaders on
previous education. But currently I believe we are passed that as the
gap between an NCM and commissioned member is getting smaller every day.
So as I have mentioned personalities previously I would go as far too
say that leaders should be based solely on personality. Take Lord Nelson, Chruchill, Rommel, or my favourite TE Lawrence (only because he managed to lead a foreign people and practically invented modern guerrilla warfare). What separated them from others? Was it their education? Wealth? Family? Probably all of them too some extent. As these would have shaped their personalities. They personalities polished by certain factors from the previously mentioned made them good leaders.
So I could now argue that one of the only discernible gaps between the two groups (commissioned and non-commissioned) in our army is an individuals personality.
Some examples of poor leadership, all because of weak personalities; on
a mountain ex in Kamloops we had the privilege of being accompanied by
our OC and CO. At one halt we had a guy pass out and CO decided to have
a nap on the side of the mountain and our OC felt that the best thing to
do was jack the guy up. Even though he was pretty much having heat
stroke and couldn't do anything about it. And the whole time we were out
there the OC was telling our nav team what to do and on multiple
occasions sent us in the completely wrong direction.
On desert ram we had our day company attack. Our OC sent us over the top
before H-hour. Honest mistake, somewhat understandable. So we opened up
on the enemy. But then a ceasefire came over the radio because we were
supposedly out of range. But my section had M203s landing on target. The
weapon that had the least amount of range. We didn't listen, we kept
firing after a brief 3 seconds of looking at each other with dumbfounded
looks on our faces. So during our AAR our CO says the troops didn't know
the max effective range of their weapons and that is why we opened up.
He was just trying to save face for our officer. Also understandable.
But if our OC had a strong personality he would have admitted his
mistakes there and told us good job. And we only would have thought more of him. He was a decent officer though.
As for the low standards set all you have to do is look at jump company,
our supposed "elite". The minimum standards makes it so most everybody can
make it. So how can one take pride in what they do if they have one of
the worst and least fit soldiers in battalion beside them doing the same
thing as him. Because what good is gold if it is tainted with led?
On the last coopers test I bombed it on purpose. I got 8/100 just to
see if anything would happen, nothing happened. Aside from the small
jacking I received for my sideburns being half a centimetre too long. So
why do the coopers test if the results don't matter. At minimum
they should be posted up and spur on some competition.
And when we train we should train not just do things for the sake of
doing things. An example of this is jumping for the sake of jumping.
What's the point of taking a bunch of guys that just got back from an
airborne exercise and jumping them out of a sky van and all they do is
pack their kit and walk off the drop zone? The time and money spent
versus training value is way out of proportion. If your going to jump,
jump them tactically and have a couple hour ex out of it where they
either hit an objective or seize an objective. Also I believe you
shouldn't strive for the minimum standards set by your unit. You should
look at the people who are better than you and try to get as close as
possible to achieving their standard and do things that they do to get
there. This is at unit level and as small as something as mountain man.
I did the training program last year and it injured and beat up most
guys and none that did the program even did extremely well. The people
who did the best in out battalion didn't even train with us one bit. So
why not look at the winners and train like they train. I think it to be
rather obvious but this unit seems to be going backwards rather than
forwards.
Let the fireworks begin
I saw our PT levels drop, leaders lead by rank and right not by leading. I saw our training have nothing to do with the upcoming deployment and everything to do with getting officers promoted (check in the box training). And even then setting sub-standard training curriculums, one of repetition and never pushing new boundaries, staying within the comfort zone due to a fear of failure that the system produces. I have also witnessed the "drag your feet attitude towards everything" I could argue that this stems from the inability of leaders to be innovative. This though could be in kind too certain units poaching certain individuals from the ranks, as they should. I have seen units because of poor leadership hold back extremely capable people from trying out for these units because they felt it would be better for them in the long run. The effect of this takes the wind out of people's sails, not just too the applicants of those units. But the people around those people and future applicants. And then the worst of all is the sense of entitlement I see from people. I'm talking about the people who have been in such and such longer than another individual and they feel that they are entitled to the good go. Even though the other guy conducts himself on a way more professional level and his motivation is much higher. So, let’s call person A Mr. Entitlement. He always falls back on his time in to "prove" his worth and that he deserves that spot on course. And usually some incompetent "leader" or let's say person with rank believes he's right. So now person B, Mr. Motivated realises that hard work gets him nowhere and starts to slack off (waiting for his turn). As he should...Some may say, usually the guy that is lazier of the two. Others see this happen and fall into the same rut. I know I did and I allowed others lack of professionalism to affect my levels of professionalism. Which I can only blame myself for.
I will now touch on some of these topics on a more personal/in depth level.
The fear of failure created by the system causes leaders to have an approach of incrementalism and leads them to never try new things. I have witnessed this time and time again in my brief period in the 3rd battalion. We always start at the lowest level, pwt, pairs, group, section, etc. And then we peak out. It's a great way of doing things. As bullets are none too kind. But once we have achieved that no one knows how to progress. And we revert back to IBTS and thus there is no room for improvement or growth. Or even to experiment with new things. This is because a lack of vision that the leadership has and if they have vision it is because of who they are not the level of education they have . And they are not sure how to achieve their desired end state and in the worst cases even where to start. So they opt for normalcy because it is safe. When in reality we should get to point where we fail. Because then we will know what our limits are. So there should be bold moves to try new things in training.
As for work up training, it wasn't geared towards preparing the troops
for overseas. There was a severe lack of training for an operational
capacity. I felt it was designed for officers to practice/get a check in
the box so they could be on their way to their next promotion. We did
weeks of attacks in open fields. We never shook out in a patrol or came
up with sop's or gained any sort of cohesion in that capacity. We also did very
little convoy ops all it was, was a 15 min drive with one ied on a
bridge. And there was no room for teaching there was just an aar at the
end of it. Never once did we get to make adjustments for our errors. It
was all theory.
However at the time I believed we would receive more training as that
was just desert ram. Maybe it was just too shake out and work as a
company and the little things that would help soldiers out on a day to
day basis would come later. So on maple guardian I was expecting that.
But my platoon was the only ones who deployed on it and we only deployed
in support of it. We were to be ANA soldiers (actors). And the other members of
3VP were guys who would not be deploying, and they were going to be the
men actually receiving some training.
It was a good exercise but there was no time to teach and allow people
to practice skills. Maple Guardian was more of a test than it was to
develop or hone any existing skills. As you can only get so much out of
an AAR. Because of this lack of room too practice/experiment prior to
the ex. Soldiers did not get as much out of the ex as they could. So it
was more time and money spent without the best results. And I found that
there was hesitation, a lack of decisiveness and confidence by some
members of other units. Luckily the 3rd sent mostly men who had
previously been overseas so we faired out pretty good.
As for the leadership I don't think it is up to a standard it should be
at. There is plenty of people in leadership positions that aren't
leaders. It is not the individual’s fault it is the systems way of
selecting people to be in charge. They are leaders by title not
personality or experience.
Somewhere in my training it was said "leaders are the people selected by a
group of people with a common goal and he knows the best way of getting
there" (It's not 100% the same quote but same idea) Because they are
expected to make the best decisions with the group in mind and therefore
should not have personal interests in mind. That being said there cannot
be a complete lack of ambition.
The system does not allow the group too select their leaders. And the
followers should select their leaders because it can be dangerous when
leaders select fellow leaders. As there may be a tendency to pick people
with weak personalities because they won't oppose the person above them
and may not have the groups best interest in mind so decisions will be
made for personal gain.
In my personal opinion a leader should be picked by the group. He should
be someone that others strive to be. And the said person should have vision
and a strong personality. With experience to back up the decisions they
make. So they should be hand picked from the ranks and should be
silently rated by their associates. That way the people picking them will have
a better understanding of them and know that these are the leaders the
followers are picking. Because what good is a leader if he has no
followers, could you even call him a leader? The chosen leader should be able to enable others to do
things they would not have been able to do without said leader. That is what I saw the army lacking in.
If you look at the history of leaders and followers in armies it was
based on a gap. That gap at first was based on family name and what came
with that name. Then it was based on wealth, only when people realised
that being someone's ancestor (being of blue blood) did not make you a better leader. So
people started buying their commission. But that didn't work either
because people realised it was stupid. How could wealth make someone fit
too lead? So in essence it has always been the haves and have nots. I
would argue that during those periods those were the two groups of
people who were educated and time to worry about things other than the next meal. So in modern times we based leaders on
previous education. But currently I believe we are passed that as the
gap between an NCM and commissioned member is getting smaller every day.
So as I have mentioned personalities previously I would go as far too
say that leaders should be based solely on personality. Take Lord Nelson, Chruchill, Rommel, or my favourite TE Lawrence (only because he managed to lead a foreign people and practically invented modern guerrilla warfare). What separated them from others? Was it their education? Wealth? Family? Probably all of them too some extent. As these would have shaped their personalities. They personalities polished by certain factors from the previously mentioned made them good leaders.
So I could now argue that one of the only discernible gaps between the two groups (commissioned and non-commissioned) in our army is an individuals personality.
Some examples of poor leadership, all because of weak personalities; on
a mountain ex in Kamloops we had the privilege of being accompanied by
our OC and CO. At one halt we had a guy pass out and CO decided to have
a nap on the side of the mountain and our OC felt that the best thing to
do was jack the guy up. Even though he was pretty much having heat
stroke and couldn't do anything about it. And the whole time we were out
there the OC was telling our nav team what to do and on multiple
occasions sent us in the completely wrong direction.
On desert ram we had our day company attack. Our OC sent us over the top
before H-hour. Honest mistake, somewhat understandable. So we opened up
on the enemy. But then a ceasefire came over the radio because we were
supposedly out of range. But my section had M203s landing on target. The
weapon that had the least amount of range. We didn't listen, we kept
firing after a brief 3 seconds of looking at each other with dumbfounded
looks on our faces. So during our AAR our CO says the troops didn't know
the max effective range of their weapons and that is why we opened up.
He was just trying to save face for our officer. Also understandable.
But if our OC had a strong personality he would have admitted his
mistakes there and told us good job. And we only would have thought more of him. He was a decent officer though.
As for the low standards set all you have to do is look at jump company,
our supposed "elite". The minimum standards makes it so most everybody can
make it. So how can one take pride in what they do if they have one of
the worst and least fit soldiers in battalion beside them doing the same
thing as him. Because what good is gold if it is tainted with led?
On the last coopers test I bombed it on purpose. I got 8/100 just to
see if anything would happen, nothing happened. Aside from the small
jacking I received for my sideburns being half a centimetre too long. So
why do the coopers test if the results don't matter. At minimum
they should be posted up and spur on some competition.
And when we train we should train not just do things for the sake of
doing things. An example of this is jumping for the sake of jumping.
What's the point of taking a bunch of guys that just got back from an
airborne exercise and jumping them out of a sky van and all they do is
pack their kit and walk off the drop zone? The time and money spent
versus training value is way out of proportion. If your going to jump,
jump them tactically and have a couple hour ex out of it where they
either hit an objective or seize an objective. Also I believe you
shouldn't strive for the minimum standards set by your unit. You should
look at the people who are better than you and try to get as close as
possible to achieving their standard and do things that they do to get
there. This is at unit level and as small as something as mountain man.
I did the training program last year and it injured and beat up most
guys and none that did the program even did extremely well. The people
who did the best in out battalion didn't even train with us one bit. So
why not look at the winners and train like they train. I think it to be
rather obvious but this unit seems to be going backwards rather than
forwards.
Let the fireworks begin
