Reconstitution

[MJP]

Which is the downside of 'zero tolerance' for some things. Have had a few people with minor drug/alcohol issues really turn themselves around and turn into high performers, where they might have been released now under an AR, even though they didn't do anything significant enough to catch a normal charge, or was just settled with a fine.

If someone has no hope of redemption, may as well lean into it, and really no wonder why so many people become career criminals.

There is a line between a person making a mistake or so and the CAF trying to be social workers. Too often we choose to try and save someone vs what is good for the institution.

Given the process to release someone through DMCA 2 it is rarely folks with just a brush with breaking the rules whose files grace their door. I suspect we give to much latitude to currently serving members.

For prospective members I agree that the line may be too restrictive in many cases. The problem is many striped tigers never lose their stripes when they become CAF members, so how is the CAF to guess? I would argue a better less restrictive regime wrt releasing shit birds may work .

 

[dimsum]

The lack of of said characters leaves the CAF with so few stories

The problem is when said stories usually end up involving law enforcement.

 

[NavalMoose]

Those are usually the best stories

 

[dimsum]

Those are usually the best stories

Yes, until the media gets wind of them.

"CAF personnel [insert bad thing they did]..."

Somehow I don't think that "sailors will be sailors" doesn't really get a chuckle and an "oh, shucks" response anymore.

 

[btrudy]

Yeah, it's been my experience that such characters, when you get a bit of booze in them, are also the direct cause of the bulk of our sexual misconduct crisis.

Allowing low level misbehaviour to fester is exactly how we get people escalating to major issues.

Proper corrective action taken at the first sign of an issue can save a career. Letting it slide because they're a "good guy", not so much.

 

[Quirky]

I’ve lost all faith in the CAF and CoC to hold anyone accountable anymore. The shit pumps aren’t disciplined and the good workers see this and lose motivation to care. Why break yourself when you can do the bare minimum and still make the same. This promotion freeze isn’t going to help.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Caution: Geezer Eruption

In there 1950s and '60s the consensus, amongst the politico-military grownups was that we were gonna fight the "big one," complete with nukes, fairly soon. Those politico-military grownups had been part if the leadership tweak IN 1939-45 and in 1950-53 som they knew what worked and what didn't. They also understood the society in which they operated and they knew that young people were, at least, often aimless or disconnected from their parents' values or even delinquents and they knew that those kinds could be first rate sailors and soldiers. Both the Navy and the Army developed "apprentice" programmes - the RCN's was more ambitious but, I think, based on very limited knowledge I hasten to point out, that the Army's programme (two years after successful 9th or partial 10the grade) was better.

The Army's programme, as I recall, as confined to 4 corps: Artillery, Engineers, RCEME and Signals. The graduation requirement were that the apprentice soldier must have advanced one (general programme) academic grade and earned a trade. The aim was to build a solid, career NCO cadre.

I'm going to say that the "green monsters" as we called them - apprentice soldiers wore a green band on their epaulettes - was a resounding success, going well beyond achieving its aim. It was cancelled because it didn't fit with either unification or, slightly later, late 1960s/early1970s, with the government's general anti-military/there'll be no war stance.

Personally, I'm not worried about recruiting officers - especially not fighter pilots - in peace or war. But our lack of young men and women in the hard sea trades and combat soldier trades scares the f_ _k outta me.

I think the the "big one" feels closer than ever and I also think that the CF "feels broken" as someone else said about a bigger issue and my sense is that the biggest problem is that we cannot or have decide not to try to attract the people who make the best sailors and soldiers.

Im know I'm old and old fashioned, but I think I know what works.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Yeah, it's been my experience that such characters, when you get a bit of booze in them, are also the direct cause of the bulk of our sexual misconduct crisis.

Allowing low level misbehaviour to fester is exactly how we get people escalating to major issues.

Proper corrective action taken at the first sign of an issue can save a career. Letting it slide because they're a "good guy", not so much.

What you're describing is proper leadership and mentorship, something that was once the KPI for future advancement and larger responsibility.

That was washed away relatively quickly when it became more important to have a Master's, BBB, and all the credentials on the SCRIT filled. Leadership abilities be damned.

I was very lucky to have really good "big brothers" when I got to my first unit who took me under their wing. They were very quick to reign me when I was about to do something stupid.

Today, I don't see that happening. We have become the 8 to 4 military we used to deride Europeans about.

Once we start putting value back into having leaders vice grossly accredited managers, maybe we can start getting some applicants that are rougher around the edges. Until then, it serves as another headache and even more paperwork.

 

[Furniture]

What you're describing is proper leadership and mentorship, something that was once the KPI for future advancement and larger responsibility.

That was washed away relatively quickly when it became more important to have a Master's, BBB, and all the credentials on the SCRIT filled. Leadership abilities be damned.

I was very lucky to have really good "big brothers" when I got to my first unit who took me under their wing. They were very quick to reign me when I was about to do something stupid.

My experience has been that the SCRIT chasers tend to be the worst leaders, and the worst for letting things slide so they don't look bad because of their troops.

Edit: I think one way to minimize the race to the top SCRIT chasers is to increase the minimum time in each rank before EPZ. It would at least allow for more time to see if they person is actually a leader, or just good at getting ticks in boxes.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

My experience has been that the SCRIT chasers tend to be the worst leaders, and the worst for letting things slide so they don't look bad because of their troops.

"I could write up this RW....but I'm also writing my thesis... so... just don't beat your wife anymore ok?"

 

[dapaterson]

"I could write up this RW....but I'm also writing my thesis... so... just don't beat your wife anymore ok?"

Truth.

Duty.

Valour.

Don't get caught.

 

[btrudy]

Truth.

Duty.

Valour.

Don't get caught.

God I hate that motto.

As for the SCRIT chasers, I think ultimately the issue is the fact that we're trying to evaluate how good of a leader someone happens to be, but only evaluating it from the top down, without ever checking in with the people actually being led.

Was that person effective in motiving the troops because they're a no-nonsense lead by example walking inspiration, or is it because they're a god damned micromanaging tyrant? If all you're looking at is how well the section / unit does, it's kinda hard to tell from above which is which, and there's no method to query subordinates to help tell the difference between "leadership" and "being an asshole". Not under CFPAS, and I don't think under PaCE until you get to the GOFO levels, by which point it's far too fucking late.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm sorry but I nearly pissed myself laughing when I saw this on CAF Reddit....



To whomever made it.... well done!

 

[Eaglelord17]

God I hate that motto.

As for the SCRIT chasers, I think ultimately the issue is the fact that we're trying to evaluate how good of a leader someone happens to be, but only evaluating it from the top down, without ever checking in with the people actually being led.

Was that person effective in motiving the troops because they're a no-nonsense lead by example walking inspiration, or is it because they're a god damned micromanaging tyrant? If all you're looking at is how well the section / unit does, it's kinda hard to tell from above which is which, and there's no method to query subordinates to help tell the difference between "leadership" and "being an asshole". Not under CFPAS, and I don't think under PaCE until you get to the GOFO levels, by which point it's far too fucking late.

One thing to consider is sometimes you need a micromanaging tyrant. Sometimes letting people go and take care of themselves works, but sometimes you need to direct people very specifically because they are either too lazy, incompetent, or not trained/experienced enough to make it happen otherwise.

Sometimes the troops do not understand what management is dealing with and assume that person is doing nothing because they don't see them digging a trench beside them when in reality they have some substantially more important things to do which can have peoples lives depend on it. To the troops that might seem lazy, when in reality there is much more going on behind the scenes than what they comprehend. Some troops/combinations of troops are absolutely terrible and consider being made to do work having a 'asshole' of a boss.

 

[btrudy]

One thing to consider is sometimes you need a micromanaging tyrant. Sometimes letting people go and take care of themselves works, but sometimes you need to direct people very specifically because they are either too lazy, incompetent, or not trained/experienced enough to make it happen otherwise.

Sometimes the troops do not understand what management is dealing with and assume that person is doing nothing because they don't see them digging a trench beside them when in reality they have some substantially more important things to do which can have peoples lives depend on it. To the troops that might seem lazy, when in reality there is much more going on behind the scenes than what they comprehend. Some troops/combinations of troops are absolutely terrible and consider being made to do work having a 'asshole' of a boss.

I'll buy that sometimes good leaders need to adapt their style to become more micromanaging.

The problem isn't when people find themselves in charge of troops who need a more direct and detail focused approach.

The problem is when you have people for whom that's the only leadership style they know.

Far too often "being a loud asshole" gets mistaken for "leadership" and people get promoted for it. Granted, not nearly as often as in the past. Things are changing for the better, culture wise at least.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One thing to consider is sometimes you need a micromanaging tyrant. Sometimes letting people go and take care of themselves works, but sometimes you need to direct people very specifically because they are either too lazy, incompetent, or not trained/experienced enough to make it happen otherwise.

Sometimes the troops do not understand what management is dealing with and assume that person is doing nothing because they don't see them digging a trench beside them when in reality they have some substantially more important things to do which can have peoples lives depend on it. To the troops that might seem lazy, when in reality there is much more going on behind the scenes than what they comprehend. Some troops/combinations of troops are absolutely terrible and consider being made to do work having a 'asshole' of a boss.

That's exactly right and it's the reason we have recruit training (for officers and ORs) is to weed out the "too lazy" and chronically "incompetent" and to give the "not trained/inexperienced" the training and experience they need. My memory - old as it is - says that Cpl Bugler (who seemed, then about 7 feet tall) micromanaged the bejeezus out of me for 16+ hours a day until I could, finally her trusted to tie my own boots; ditto, eventually, other corporals and sergeants until I was, finally, to everyone's amazement (mine included) a useful soldier. Then it all happened again when someone decide I might do less damage if I was an officer.

But almost all 120,000 of us were, eventually, adequately trained and had enough experience so that leadership in ships, battalions and squadrons didn't need "micromanaging tyrants" and colonels and WOs worked hard to weed them out - or send them back to the Depot.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's exactly right and it's the reason we have recruit training (for officers and ORs) is to weed out the "too lazy" and chronically "incompetent" and to give the "not trained/inexperienced" the training and experience they need. My memory - old as it is - says that Cpl Bugler (who seemed, then about 7 feet tall) micromanaged the bejeezus out of me for 16+ hours a day until I could, finally her trusted to tie my own boots; ditto, eventually, other corporals and sergeants until I was, finally, to everyone's amazement (mine included) a useful soldier. Then it all happened again when someone decide I might do less damage if I was an officer.

But almost all 120,000 of us were, eventually, adequately trained and had enough experience so that leadership in ships, battalions and squadrons didn't need "micromanaging tyrants" and colonels and WOs worked hard to weed them out - or send them back to the Depot.

The cruel-tyrant-sergeants they watch 'im 'arf a year;
They watch 'im with 'is comrades, they watch 'im with 'is beer;
They watch 'im with the women at the regimental dance,
And the cruel-tyrant-sergeants send 'is name along for "Lance."

Poetry Lovers' Page - Rudyard Kipling: The 'eathen

 

[ballz]

I'll buy that sometimes good leaders need to adapt their style to become more micromanaging.

The problem isn't when people find themselves in charge of troops who need a more direct and detail focused approach.

The problem is when you have people for whom that's the only leadership style they know.

Far too often "being a loud asshole" gets mistaken for "leadership" and people get promoted for it. Granted, not nearly as often as in the past. Things are changing for the better, culture wise at least.

For all the talk of micromanagement, I think back to the toxic situations I was on the receiving end of and it wasn't being micromanaged that was the problem. It's difficult to put a finger on but it generally came down to competence, or the lack thereof, and the direction that came from that incompetence. I'm someone who enjoys autonomy in how I go about completing my task probably more than most, but I can live with someone being a little too deep in the weeds if they're competent - hell, contrasting two extremes here, two people who are similarly "into the weeds" and your experience with one can be that guy's a "micromanaging tyrant" and with the other "that guy's a fucking genius that I learned a lot from" and the difference comes down to competence.

One thing to consider is sometimes you need a micromanaging tyrant. Sometimes letting people go and take care of themselves works, but sometimes you need to direct people very specifically because they are either too lazy, incompetent, or not trained/experienced enough to make it happen otherwise.

Sometimes the troops do not understand what management is dealing with and assume that person is doing nothing because they don't see them digging a trench beside them when in reality they have some substantially more important things to do which can have peoples lives depend on it. To the troops that might seem lazy, when in reality there is much more going on behind the scenes than what they comprehend. Some troops/combinations of troops are absolutely terrible and consider being made to do work having a 'asshole' of a boss.

Those troops should at best remain as a Private until they choose to leave, or be shown the door. Ditto for 2Lts. Instead they hang around long enough and they become WOs and LCols, and then that brings us back full circle to what I wrote earlier about incompetence being the premier toxic trait.

and colonels and WOs worked hard to weed them out - or send them back to the Depot.

I'm curious to know how promotions/career management worked back then and if it was more decentralized. One issue I think the CAF has is, in the attempt to be "fair" to everyone, they've created a system that is - on the whole - more unfair and dysfunctional then if they just decentralized promotions and accepted that every now and then someone's going to be treated unfairly.

I'm sorry but I nearly pissed myself laughing when I saw this on CAF Reddit....

Must be the new theme for memes...

 

[ueo]

"I could write up this RW....but I'm also writing my thesis... so... just don't beat your wife anymore ok?"

Reminds me of lines in the Clint Eastwood movie on the Fubar in Grenada, spoken by the pl comd several different times.

 

[dimsum]

Must be the new theme for memes...

That and the pay increase RUMINT. Although I've seen pushback on people randomly speculating now.