Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors

[Edward Campbell]

...
Exactly.  In fact, I'm a proponent of more numerous, smaller HQs.  Unscientifically, I believe that 2 x Bde Comds with 3000 men and 50-man HQs will accomplish more than 1 x Bde Comd with 6000 men and a 100-man HQ.

Even with the acknowledged increased complexity of operations, even with the acknowledged requirement to have PA and legal advisors, even with the acknowledged need for more specialist staff (EW, etc), I cannot believe that we need 50 officers to staff a brigade HQ. Twenty-five, yes; thirty, maybe even 35, OK, but 50? No. I can agree to 50, all ranks including staff clerks - and relying upon the supporting Signal unit for other admin and log support, but 50 staff officers/NCOs is too much.

 

[Infanteer]

Even with the acknowledged increased complexity of operations, even with the acknowledged requirement to have PA and legal advisors, even with the acknowledged need for more specialist staff (EW, etc), I cannot believe that we need 50 officers to staff a brigade HQ. Twenty-five, yes; thirty, maybe even 35, OK, but 50? No. I can agree to 50, all ranks including staff clerks - and relying upon the supporting Signal unit for other admin and log support, but 50 staff officers/NCOs is too much.

I'm with you on 25-35; I was using the numbers 50 and 100 to illustrate a point - but current authorized strength is 33-15-11 for 59 all ranks (and this doesn't include a legal advisor).

 

[McG]

Not with the level of knowledge current amongst most of our junior officers right now. I spent my last four years in the RegF at CLFCSC (2007-2010), two teaching on AOC and two of them running the training program for deploying operational HQs, OGDs and staff increments. I can assure you that unless we require officers to spend MUCH longer at the rank of Lt, they will not be capable of functioning as staff officers at Bde level as Lts, and I would seriously question their ability at unit level.

Aside from Adjt & Regt/Bn Ops O, no unit staff officer needs to be a Capt.  The only other Capt in a unit should be the sub-unit 2ICs (a leadership as opposed to staff position) or maybe a few filling special positions peculiar to some branches.  Admin Os, IOs, Trg Os, Asst Adjts, Sqn Ops O and so on can all be Lts.  All Pl/Tp Comd can also be Lt.

It may be fair to say that Lt is to junior for the working rank across the board in a brigade HQ.  Certainly, there should be a few captains in each of the G3 and G4 shops.  However, I am sceptical that (for example) the G1, G2, and G6 shops need more captains than each one's respective "G-man."  Properly supervised (and ideally paired with a Sr NCO) Lieutenants can be gainfully/effectively employed throughout the bde HQ, and when they do reach captain they will be better because of it.

As was mentioned above, unprecedented inexperience in many captains does not warrant rank inflation.  Merited promotions to Capt would go a long way to elevating ERE Lt and Capt experience to the levels needed.  There would be no more captain promotions on Ph IV grad parades - all would do a minimum of three years in rank post training in order to get the depth of PERs to support a promotion (some CFRs might merit a year or two sooner on the strength of pre-commissioning PERs).

Currently, BMOQ + undergraduate degree qualifies an officer to be a 2Lt.  Ph IV qualifies an officer to be Lt & Capt.  With merited promotions to Captain, we could be smarter about this.  The PRes used to have the Militia Officer Staff Course (MOSC) that was prerequisite for promotion to Captain - it covered all the things the Reg F officers were supposed to learn through osmosis (but my observations suggest this does not happen).  MOSC is now gone, but AJOSQ roughly emulates the curriculum for both Reg and Res now. 

With merited promotions to captain, would could split DP2 into a DP2A for the rank of Lt and DP2B for the rank of capt.  In DP2A I would see AJOSQ, the first two OPME (Def Mgmt and Mil Law), maybe ATOC and possibly some branch specific training.

Under this paradigm, lieutenants would have (and start developing upon) knowledge that we currently do not even expect of many captains, and captains arriving at AOC would have at least five years outside the training system (and likely more).

... junior officers should see their time as 2Lt/Lt extended and all of this time spent in Battalion.

I am not convinced time as Lt should be limited to Regt/Bn (although, absolutely agree that all 2Lt time should be expended in such locations).  Aside from a few staff positions in our lowest level formations, I see the Lt being gainfully employed in many of our training establishments which train NCM DP 1 - 2 or OSS courses. 

Jobs in Brigade that were done by Captains 50 years ago are now done by Majors.  Staffs have gone from a Major and a couple Captains to a LCol, 4-5 Majors and a hockey sock full of Captains.

Pfft.  I can point to an Army bde level formation with 5 LCol, 8-10 Maj and dozens of Capt.  Officer positions that could be effectively "down-ranked" begin as low as the Capt level.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Currently, BMOQ + undergraduate degree qualifies an officer to be a 2Lt.  Ph IV qualifies an officer to be Lt & Capt.  With merited promotions to Captain, we could be smarter about this.  The PRes used to have the Militia Officer Staff Course (MOSC) that was prerequisite for promotion to Captain - it covered all the things the Reg F officers were supposed to learn through osmosis (but my observations suggest this does not happen).  MOSC is now gone, but AJOSQ roughly emulates the curriculum for both Reg and Res now. 


I could not agree more.  It is important to note the entry program dictates the time in rank.  Too often we have folks that are caught in the training system that receive the automatic promotion to Captain.  This is a disservice to the soldiers in most cases as you learn the hard knocks as a 2Lt/Lt. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Aside from Adjt & Regt/Bn Ops O, no unit staff officer needs to be a Capt.  The only other Capt in a unit should be the sub-unit 2ICs (a leadership as opposed to staff position) or maybe a few filling special positions peculiar to some branches.  Admin Os, IOs, Trg Os, Asst Adjts, Sqn Ops O and so on can all be Lts.  All Pl/Tp Comd can also be Lt.

It may be fair to say that Lt is to junior for the working rank across the board in a brigade HQ.  Certainly, there should be a few captains in each of the G3 and G4 shops.  However, I am sceptical that (for example) the G1, G2, and G6 shops need more captains than each one's respective "G-man."  Properly supervised (and ideally paired with a Sr NCO) Lieutenants can be gainfully/effectively employed throughout the bde HQ, and when they do reach captain they will be better because of it.

You can do what you want to your units, but please leave the Armoured Regiments alone.  We have two fairly senior Captains in our Squadrons for very good reasons.

While I find the policy of making DEOs into Captains a little awkward, I don't see it being linked to rank inflation at higher levels. Neither is it linked to any experience gap at the junior officer level. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A platoon commander/troop leader who happens to be a Captain is still treated as a Lieutenant within the unit. How that fine young officer is perceived outside the unit doesn't really matter.

I don't think that putting Lieutenants in Bde HQ is good kung-fu. New officers need to be out with soldiers doing soldierly things - not making sure that the G3's coffee is stirred counter-clockwise. Once an officer has earned his spurs with troop/platoon command send him to the school to let him inflict his knowledge on the next generation or send him to RSS to let him finish his development without destroying his soul in a Bde HQ.

I do think that we need to slow down with officer throughput. Let young officers be troop/platoon commanders for at least two years. Have all units train - not just the ones going on operations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
I do think that we need to slow down with officer throughput. Let young officers be troop/platoon commanders for at least two years. Have all units train - not just the ones going on operations.

That, to me, is the key. They You We, Canadians, need to adjust the military compensation system to reflect the world in which we live: where young, beginning professionals, need time and a decent salary to learn their craft before becoming journeymen full fledged members of the profession of arms. Lt is that intern/resident rank and spending five or so years in the ranks of 2Lt and Lt ought to be the norm, after university graduation and after classification training - which probably means seven years or so for pilots. We should make the pay fit the rank requirements, not bend rank to a pay scale.

 

[pbi]

The echoes are deafening...

Since I became a 2Lt in 1983, we have struggled back and forth, up and down, around and around, with how long officers (in my case, Inf Offrs) should spend on first Regtl tour. I was extremely lucky to get two full years as a Rifle Pl Comd 83-85, but even then this was unusual: some officers had less than a year, and some of those went ERE quite quickly. The problem isn't just intake, although we have never (IMHO) been able to balance intake/trg throughput/attrition such that, somewhere in the chain, we've got a feast or a famine going. Sometimes we had so many 2Lts we used them as Recce Det Comds, sometimes we had not enough to go around.

Assuming you don't inflate Rifle Pl to a Capt's job, if you keep folks too long as Lts at the unit, they will begin to age out too quickly as they go up the chain, and you will end up with shortages or "air bubbles in the line" further along: these can translate into hasty promotions of people who may not really be the best choice. You need the best people all the way up. As the Army is a hierarchical, complex machine, screwing with the supply of good people at higher levels (command AND staff) can damage the whole system. We've all lived that.

If you give offrs too little exposure to unit life before kicking them out into the ERE world, you will certainly launch some brilliant "thrusters" on their way, but you will also send forth a cohort of officers who have not had much rounding or development, and may have only a vague idea of what impact their actions will have on real units with real soldiers in them. We've lived that one too, right?

My rough guess is about three years on first Regtl tour, with two as a Pl Comd, then the third as Asst Adjt, in the Ops shop, sp pl, etc, is about right to sartisfy both ends of the equation.  Then, promotion to Capt and off to first ERE.

The debate about promotion to Capt is a venerable one also. Guys in my Inf School year saw other guys get promoted to Capt a year ahead of us because they had gotten their commissions earlier, under DEO. There was no particularly demanding merit requirement for promotion to Capt (apparently there still isn't): it was basically the officer equivalent of promotion to Cpl to recognize the "journeyman" status that ERC alluded to earlier. (Perhaps a slight to the journeymen...)

As for the current trg program, I agree fully that ATOC was just not cutting it, with the CSS ATOC being a particular crippler for the CSS officers who came on AOC, most of whom were otherwise capable, enthusiastic types who wanted to contribute and do well. The knowlege levels I referred to earlier are partly (but not wholly...) due to weaknesses in ATOC. That said, as I left the College, work was underway to fix the ATOC, both CbtA and CSS.

The MOSC was replaced years ago by the PRes AOC, which grants the same qualification as AOC (itself a shadow of the six month residency my peers and took in 1990). I have taught on both RegF and PRes AOC, and the quality of  the end product graduate  is very similar (almost indistinguishable), even though in my opinion the PRes candidate has by far a much bigger challenge to try to get to where  his RegF peer is by Grad. 

Cheers

 

[McG]

You can do what you want to your units, but please leave the Armoured Regiments alone.  We have two fairly senior Captains in our Squadrons for very good reasons.

The Battle Captain would be one of those additional positions peculiar to a branch that I had mentioned earlier.  For the infantry, LAV Capt might be another example.

The MOSC was replaced years ago by the PRes AOC,

PRes AOC replaced MCSC.  MOSC was distinct from and junior to MCSC.  In the PRes MOSC was a prerequisite for Lt promotion to Capt.  MCSC was the prerequisite for Capt promotion to major.  In the regular force, we should move to a similar model in which the difference between a Lt and a Capt is experience, training and merit (as opposed to simply time in rank).

I do think that we need to slow down with officer throughput. Let young officers be troop/platoon commanders for at least two years. Have all units train - not just the ones going on operations.

I like this.

 

[pbi]

PRes AOC replaced MCSC.

Right you are-my mistake.

In the regular force, we should move to a similar model in which the difference between a Lt and a Capt is experience, training and merit (as opposed to simply time in rank).

Agreed, but it would require all MOCs to agree to do this and "play fair", or those that did it honestly would find their officers badly disadvantaged for promotion and selection after Capt. It's easy to say "but that would be the policy, and everybody would follow it". In response I would point you to what has happened to every single officer PER system I have ever served under: everything "drifts right" very quickly (led by certain organizations....), and you are faced with a Hobson's choice about how you score your own people: accurately, or "competitively".

Cheers

 

[Snakedoc]

It has been proposed previously (many times & in many places), but I suspect that merit based promotions to Capt (and the replacement of all Lt/Capt positions with hard Lt positions) would reduce rank inflation through intermediate levels.

I fully agree with making the Lt(N)/Capt rank a merit-based promotion.  From a naval reserve unit perspective, the only senior officer in a unit is oftentimes the CO.  Making Lt(N) merit-based helps move the mentality of more junior officers from one based on making sure they simply have all the checks in the box and meet the minimum requirements for promotion, to one where they are evaluated based on how they excel and contribute at the unit level as officers.

Oftentimes I've seen some great initiatives led by NCO's (which I surmise is in part due to the merit based nature of their promotion structure) but admittedly, fewer by junior officers which I believe is due to the fact that many don't have the incentive to excel beyond getting their mandatory 'checks in the box' to move to the next level.  And where I've seen junior officers below Lt(N) lead some amazing initiatives, this is often not recognized because these don't contribute to their mandatory requirements.  Changing the structure of how junior officer promotions work can arguably help to increase unit effectiveness.

As a base of comparison, does anybody know how junior officer promotions work in other militaries (i.e.  RAN, USN etc.)?  Are they merit-based, course based, qualification based etc?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Oftentimes I've seen some great initiatives led by NCO's (which I surmise is in part due to the merit based nature of their promotion structure) but admittedly, fewer by junior officers which I believe is due to the fact that many don't have the incentive to excel beyond getting their mandatory 'checks in the box' to move to the next level.  And where I've seen junior officers below Lt(N) lead some amazing initiatives, this is often not recognized because these don't contribute to their mandatory requirements.  Changing the structure of how junior officer promotions work can arguably help to increase unit effectiveness.

What is the experience level of these NCOs with whom you are comparing your subbies? A freshly minted DP1 officer who has just taken command of his first platoon/troop is still finding his way under the tutelage of the Tp WO and his OC/BC/2IC. Comparing him with his WO isn't really going to reveal anything startling.

I tell my subbies to work hard and work together. I don't want them to be afraid of mistakes or start competing with each other for promotion to Captain. I think that they have enough to worry about.

I'm not worried about the Lt/Capt rank issue. I do worry about the experience that we give new officers, which has nothing to do with how me promote.

 

[CombatDoc]

Oftentimes I've seen some great initiatives led by NCO's (which I surmise is in part due to the merit based nature of their promotion structure) but admittedly, fewer by junior officers which I believe is due to the fact that many don't have the incentive to excel beyond getting their mandatory 'checks in the box' to move to the next level.  And where I've seen junior officers below Lt(N) lead some amazing initiatives, this is often not recognized because these don't contribute to their mandatory requirements.  Changing the structure of how junior officer promotions work can arguably help to increase unit effectiveness.

Snakedoc, I am going to disagree with your statement regarding junior officers.  My experience - albeit only in the Reg F - has been that most junior officers are trying hard to do their best.  Often, they are limited by their relative inexperience (they don't know what they don't know), but usually their work ethic and "heart" are in the right place.  It usually has nothing to do with getting ticks in the box and more to do with professionalism and a desire to learn more.  This takes nothing away from NCOs, who are the backbone of any professional military, and whom I agree often have excellent proposals and initiatives.  As T2B notes, we need to compare apples with apples in terms of experience and training levels.

 

[old medic]

Top general fights to cut the fat in the Forces
By MERCEDES STEPHENSON, Parliamentary Bureau
25 Feb 2011
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2011/02/25/17415176.html

OTTAWA — A top Canadian general wants to cut the fat at national defence headquarters in Ottawa, a move he says will help create a leaner, meaner fighting machine.

Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie was heavily critical of a system that favours headquarters staff members over soldiers in the field.

“Before you want to talk, and none of you should be, about cutting one ship, one reserve or regular unit, or one capability that can contribute to operational outputs, let’s talk about HQ staffs,” Leslie told a conference of defence analysts and military officers.

His heaviest opposition is coming from the bureaucrats he is facing off against.

“Nothing will defend itself so vigorously, much akin to a wounded badger, as a HQ that is threatened with being shut down.”

Leslie, who once commanded Canada’s army, argued money and resources must be reallocated to field units and not to those who sit behind desks at headquarters.

More than 15,000 people work in various headquarters jobs in Ottawa. Leslie is the three-star general who has been tasked with job of getting rid of as many desk jobs as possible.

“The status quo is not sustainable,” Leslie said. “We are spending many, many, many, many dollars on consultants, contractors and professional services.”

 

[GAP]

He's retiring soon isn't he......

 

[REDinstaller]

He has a point though. We in Edmonton had a brief a short time ago from his CWO about the transformation. HQ's grew in size since the 1990s. Meanwhile the line units have shrunk, and there are budget shortfalls for training. Meanwhile why does a HQ for say Cancom need multiple staff officers for each J level. If we want the forces to be effective, then we must look at reducing HQ and their attendant appetite for Staff officers and civilian staff. When the gov't is short of money, DND is always the first stop as we have the most.

 

[Gunner98]

Agreed, the LGen's legacy will be to gut the Forces' bureaucracy or at least recommend it.  His emphasis has always been on the troops.  We have recruited young people in record numbers and then retained people beyond age 55, which end do you think sees more people sitting behind desks.  Unfortunately both ends have seen an increase in support costs (recruit physical fitness preparation, physical/bio/mental health care for both the younger and older folks), therefore we need to find a trade-off somewhere.

 

[Pusser]

Although I agree that there is fat to be trimmed, all too often I have seen the "tail" cut far too much.  Just because folks are not in the field doesn't mean they aren't doing something important.  Operational units often complain that they don't get the support they need, but support doesn't just materialize as required.  It needs to be procured and coordinated, which is what headquarters do.  If they're looking at trimming down, perhaps we need to start with why we have the environmental commanders and the dot.coms...

 

[SevenSixTwo]

Although I agree that there is fat to be trimmed, all too often I have seen the "tail" cut far too much.  Just because folks are not in the field doesn't mean they aren't doing something important.  Operational units often complain that they don't get the support they need, but support doesn't just materialize as required.  It needs to be procured and coordinated, which is what headquarters do.  If they're looking at trimming down, perhaps we need to start with why we have the environmental commanders and the dot.coms...

I really think that HQ units need to be slimmed.


Example:

Up until last year there was a HQ that had only ONE reserve unit under it. (The HQ is now disbanded).

Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[George Wallace]

OTTAWA — A top Canadian general wants to cut the fat at national defence headquarters in Ottawa, a move he says will help create a leaner, meaner fighting machine.

Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie was heavily critical of a system that favours headquarters staff members over soldiers in the field.

“Before you want to talk, and none of you should be, about cutting one ship, one reserve or regular unit, or one capability that can contribute to operational outputs, let’s talk about HQ staffs,” Leslie told a conference of defence analysts and military officers.

His heaviest opposition is coming from the bureaucrats he is facing off against.

“Nothing will defend itself so vigorously, much akin to a wounded badger, as a HQ that is threatened with being shut down.”

Leslie, who once commanded Canada’s army, argued money and resources must be reallocated to field units and not to those who sit behind desks at headquarters.

More than 15,000 people work in various headquarters jobs in Ottawa. Leslie is the three-star general who has been tasked with job of getting rid of as many desk jobs as possible.

“The status quo is not sustainable,” Leslie said. “We are spending many, many, many, many dollars on consultants, contractors and professional services."

And why do we have to be "spending many, many, many, many dollars on consultants, contractors and professional services"?  Could it be that we have been cut to the bone and have no one left in the CF to do those jobs, and the Public Service Contracts prevent CF members from doing "union" work on sites.  Why is it I can not go to the QM to get a light bulb and change a burnt out bulb, but have to have someone from a union come in and do it?  Why is it that we have so many civilians filling RMS clerk positions?  Why is it that at NDHQ there is a civilian or two or three of "equivalent or greater rank" for every officer? 

I have seen some of the cuts that this General has done to the Reserves, and they have not been pretty.  I have seen our Pay Clerk laid off, and heard similar stories of other units doing the same with Pay Clerks and other efficient clerks who have kept the administration of units in order.  I have seen our QM staff (one member) laid off and we can not have our IT equip upgraded because a Class A person can not hold and be responsible for a DA.  Not to mention that this person was also the Transport NCO, and responsible for our fleet and pers qualifications. 

What cuts I have witnessed have not been to the abundance of senior officer ranks, but in the worker bee ranks. 

 

[PuckChaser]

What cuts I have witnessed have not been to the abundance of senior officer ranks, but in the worker bee ranks.

Thats because he didn't micromanage the cuts. He directed we trim the fat, where does that order go to? The people who are the fat. They want to keep their jobs, so they hack and slash at the Jr NCMs who are actually required on a daily basis as Cl B individuals.