# Officer positions



## scouthern

I was browsing through the forces.ca website looking at the combat arms jobs. And all the officer positions (which I am interested in) do not show any "advancement" in their career. 

For example. NCM Infantry can advance to rappelmaster, sniper etc. Can an Infantry Officer ever become a sniper?

Edit: To add, can Officer's also take specialized courses such as winter warfare, jungle warfare etc.?


----------



## Michael OLeary

The short answer:

Sniper - while theoretically possible ... no
Other courses, yes, depending on your Commanding Officer's desire and the CF's need for you to have the qualification

This thread from the Infantry FAQ is a little dated, but applicable:

Life as an Army officer


----------



## Kebel

If someone could give a more detailed answer i'd be happy to read too since i'm applying for Infantry officer.


----------



## Michael OLeary

There are too many variables, some combat arms officers spend over half of their career in the field units, and others spend most of their career on the staff.  It's not always by choice and very few choose those trades planning to spend a career going from desk job to desk job - but every one of those jobs needs to be done as well, and done well to support the troops in the field.


----------



## Kebel

Can a Infantry officer get job related to intelligence during its career?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Kebel said:
			
		

> Can a Infantry officer get job related to intelligence during its career?



Related to?  Yes if you consider an officer in a planning cell in an operational headquarters who works closely with the G2 (Int) staff to be sufficiently close..

If you mean can he/she get an Intelligence Officer's position, no, not likely.


----------



## Shamrock

Kebel said:
			
		

> Can a Infantry officer get job related to intelligence during its career?



As Mr. O'Leary stated, but there's also occupational reassignment, in which case the former infantryman would become an intelligence officer.


----------



## Kebel

Alright thx for the answers. 

Now, back to the original topic


----------



## Gasplug

> Can a Infantry officer get job related to intelligence during its career?



There really are only two jobs that fit that description... The Battalion Int O in garrison is an infantry officer who is sent to the Basic Intel Course. The bad part about that job is that on most missions he will be replaced by a professional Int O.  The second job is that once you become a general, usually a BGen or MGen, you can become CDI for Chief - Defence Intelligence.

Good luck getting that last one!  ;D

Gasplug


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kebel said:
			
		

> Can a Infantry officer get job related to intelligence during its career?



Intelligent infantry oficers are hard to find. It gets in the way of smashing things up and generally running amok in large gangs in a disciplined fashion... which is essentially what infantry is all about a.k.a. fun.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

At the risk of being labelled a spoil sport, I know several infantry officers who filled intelligence positions at brigade and higher levels, including at the national level.


----------



## Cleared Hot

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intelligent infantry officers are hard to find. It gets in the way of smashing things up and generally running amok in large gangs in a disciplined fashion... which is essentially what infantry is all about a.k.a. fun.  ;D



Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.  He's talking about Intelligence officers not intelligent ones - two very different beasts! ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.  He's talking about Intelligence officers not intelligent ones - two very different beasts! ;D



Ugh... me no understand too good. Sorry. Must smash things up.... drink beer  :blotto:


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

scouthern said:
			
		

> ...combat arms jobs. And all the officer positions ... do not show any "advancement" in their career....NCM Infantry can *advance* to rappelmaster, sniper etc....
> specialized courses such as winter warfare, jungle warfare etc.?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Sounds about right to me too


----------



## aesop081

scouthern said:
			
		

> What I essentially mean is, the occupation "developments" available to an NCM are not available to an Officer in the same occupation.



Nor should they be. The occupations are not the same.


----------



## Gasplug

> Then my terminology was incorrect. What I essentially mean is, the occupation "developments" available to an NCM are not available to an Officer in the same occupation.



Scouthern,

There are only a few fields where the only course available to learn a new qualification is the same for NCMs and officers.  The specific examples I am thinking of for the Infantry are advanced anti-armour gunner, advanced mortarman and advanced reconnaissance.  We used to have the advance pioneer course but that went the way of the dodo back in the early 00s. I did that course myself in 1988 and it was exactly what I needed so that I could apply the qualifications of my pioneer platoon correctly.  

This is where I agree with CDN Aviator, the officer needs to apply the capabilities of the multiple systems he is given to command while his NMC apply the capabilities of a single system they are given to operate.

Cheers,

Gasplug


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Commanding one of these is challenging and enjoyable... a pretty good "development", I'd say.  If you want to be a sniper, be an enlisted soldier.  If you want to command diverse groups of soldiers and a lot of combat power across the combat arms spectrum, be a combat arms officer.

It all depends where and how you want to work.


----------



## Rowshambow

I can't talk about an Infantry Officer job, but an Armoured Officer spends more time behind the desk, then behind the controls. The only "field" time we see is when we do a Brigade Ex, or build up training for a tour.

after training here is what to expect from Armoured O
1-3 years at the Regt, as a Troop Leader (if you are lucky) for 1 -2 years, the 3rd being an Administrative roll, i.e. AO for a Sqn
then posted to ? If you do Gagetown or Wainwright, you might get more field time, as you will be constantly teaching on courses, maybe some of the pers who are at the Armour School on this site can elaborate their field time, but I can tell you they are short manned and do allot of field time, more prevalent for the NCM's though!
After posting back to Regt, come back as a Battle Captain, or Sqn 2 I/C depending on your experience, mostly desk work though! Then posted again to ?
and except for courses or tours most of your time will be spent at a desk. Its the nature of the beast.
We also have Int O's at my regiment it is handled by a new Lt or 2Lt (yes Armoured) they put them through the combat int course first, but don't be fooled, it is all desk type work! except for the field (if you go) but even then you are pretty much a duty O in the CP.

Also for your knowledge, right now and for the next year, we have an abundance of young Officers, and another 24 slated for EACH Regiment next summer (we just had our career manager brief) so that is a shitload, seeing as we used to get like 5 or 6 at the end of summer from the phase 4. So because of the influx, you might not get any Troop leading time, or your Troop leading time might be spent in Wainwright, in charge of of enemy force for 6 months, like some of the people that are doing it (from all 3 Regiments) now.

So basically if a desk job is not what you are looking for this might not be the career for you. Some of the new guys are realizing that now! I mean it is cool to blow shit up, but it can be few and far between, for Armour Officers at least!


----------



## Marshall

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> I can't talk about an Infantry Officer job, but an Armoured Officer spends more time behind the desk, then behind the controls. The only "field" time we see is when we do a Brigade Ex, or build up training for a tour.
> 
> after training here is what to expect from Armoured O
> 1-3 years at the Regt, as a Troop Leader (if you are lucky) for 1 -2 years, the 3rd being an Administrative roll, i.e. AO for a Sqn
> then posted to ? If you do Gagetown or Wainwright, you might get more field time, as you will be constantly teaching on courses, maybe some of the pers who are at the Armour School on this site can elaborate their field time, but I can tell you they are short manned and do allot of field time, more prevalent for the NCM's though!
> After posting back to Regt, come back as a Battle Captain, or Sqn 2 I/C depending on your experience, mostly desk work though! Then posted again to ?
> and except for courses or tours most of your time will be spent at a desk. Its the nature of the beast.
> We also have Int O's at my regiment it is handled by a new Lt or 2Lt (yes Armoured) they put them through the combat int course first, but don't be fooled, it is all desk type work! except for the field (if you go) but even then you are pretty much a duty O in the CP.
> 
> Also for your knowledge, right now and for the next year, we have an abundance of young Officers, and another 24 slated for EACH Regiment next summer (we just had our career manager brief) so that is a shitload, seeing as we used to get like 5 or 6 at the end of summer from the phase 4. So because of the influx, you might not get any Troop leading time, or your Troop leading time might be spent in Wainwright, in charge of of enemy force for 6 months, like some of the people that are doing it (from all 3 Regiments) now.
> 
> So basically if a desk job is not what you are looking for this might not be the career for you. Some of the new guys are realizing that now! I mean it is cool to blow crap up, but it can be few and far between, for Armour Officers at least!



Id like to personally thank you for destroying my dreams.
 ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

Marshall said:
			
		

> Id like to personally thank you for destroying my dreams.
> ;D



From all of us, you're welcome.

Army.ca, destroying dreams by spreading the truth since 1993.    ;D


----------



## Marshall

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> From all of us, you're welcome.
> 
> Army.ca, destroying dreams by spreading the truth since 1993.    ;D



Hehe, well I always knew Officers had a large amount of desk work. I think I read at least 2/3rds of your time? 66% sounds better then the detail he gave is all


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> From all of us, you're welcome.
> 
> Army.ca, destroying dreams by spreading the truth since 1993.    ;D



I'll drink to that









 ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

"In the World War nothing was more dreadful to witness than a chain of men starting with a battalion commander and ending with an army commander sitting in telephone boxes, improvised or actual, talking, talking, talking, in place of leading, leading, leading."

J. F. C. Fuller  http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/j_f_c_fuller.html

Having said that though, in the infantry you will certianly have a good opportunity to 'lead, lead, lead' which, in this day and age, means being good at fulfilling your duties in both the field and the office. And, depending on how busy your unit is, the latter will be a welcome break from the former.


----------



## Run away gun

Don't be fooled about NCMs either though, while it is true that privates and corporals spend their time "hands on" at work, as they progress up the latter there is less and less "hands on" and more driving a desk. Especially once you become a SNCO.


----------



## Marshall

So the bottom line: Desk work is inevitable, even as Combat Arms


----------



## Old Sweat

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Also for your knowledge, right now and for the next year, we have an abundance of young Officers, and another 24 slated for EACH Regiment next summer (we just had our career manager brief) so that is a shitload, seeing as we used to get like 5 or 6 at the end of summer from the phase 4. So because of the influx, you might not get any Troop leading time, or your Troop leading time might be spent in Wainwright, in charge of of enemy force for 6 months, like some of the people that are doing it (from all 3 Regiments) now.



Is this systemic? This type of situation has been around for decades. In the early sixties in Gagetown there were RCD officers in the Black Watch commanding platoons because there was a shortage of junior infantry officers and a surplus of armour infantry officers in 3 CIBG at the time. In the mid seventies when I was in the artillery school my colleagues in the armour school were faced with the prospect of producing too many subalterns who would never command a troop in an armoured regiment. This also was the situation in the late seventies when I was in the individual training shop at FMCHQ; each year the NDHQ forecast requirement for armoured subbies was totally off the wall compared to the ability of the army to train and employ them. In the last case at least this apparently was based upon the large number of unfilled positions in the ranks of armoured captains and the attempts by the centrailized personnel system to address the shortage.


----------



## dapaterson

Problem is, a shortage of Capts today requires recruiting too many subbies so those positions can be filled in the future.  Things will get worse before they get better; there are stresses throughout the officer and NCM corps of the Regular and Reserve Forces.

So more junior folks underfoot for the foreseeable future, who need to be shaped and formed.

Part of the problem today is that when we did FRP and its realted reductions in the 1990s we fired all the long-term HR planners.  So people who looked and saw all their Capt positions were filled said "No problem", instead of noticing that their Capts were aging badly and there was no pool coming up behind them.

Promotion rates in 08/09 for certain ranks and trades are alarming; the experience deficit is getting larger.  Interesting times, to say the least.


----------



## Marshall

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Problem is, a shortage of Capts today requires recruiting too many subbies so those positions can be filled in the future.  Things will get worse before they get better; there are stresses throughout the officer and NCM corps of the Regular and Reserve Forces.
> 
> So more junior folks underfoot for the foreseeable future, who need to be shaped and formed.
> 
> Part of the problem today is that when we did FRP and its realted reductions in the 1990s we fired all the long-term HR planners.  So people who looked and saw all their Capt positions were filled said "No problem", instead of noticing that their Capts were aging badly and there was no pool coming up behind them.
> 
> Promotion rates in 08/09 for certain ranks and trades are alarming; the experience deficit is getting larger.  Interesting times, to say the least.



Would you say that this means the CF would want MORE or LESS officers in the future to balance out the experience through the ranks/years?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Marshall said:
			
		

> Would you say that this means the CF would want MORE or LESS officers in the future to balance out the experience through the ranks/years?



The CF wants enough officers.    

Keep in mind it's a double-edged sword.  The last really big surge for the combat arms was in the early and mid 1980s, and many of those officers have now or are releasing at 20 and 25 years of service, which has compounded the usual attrition rates.   Because of the cyclical nature of these surge intakes, the chances of advancement changes with the size of the cohort you are part of.  If you consider that each generation (of a few years breadth) must produce a generation of generals, any one officer's chances are (proportionally) better in a recruiting period of small intakes.  In periods of large intakes, the bar may seem lower to get in the door, but it's also proportionally higher at each successive advancement checkpoint with larger numbers of officers competing for each level of promotion.  A given officer who may progress within a lean recruiting era cohort may simply miss the numerical windows within a strong cohort.   Large recruitment cohorts produce large numbers of staff Captains and Majors because they have the relative population density to fill those billets and still provide their contribution to the promotion stream.  But those officers all age together and the bulk of them may release within a similar spread of years.  And the cycle begins anew.

So, while you may have glorious visions of going over the top, sword in hand, you should also read this.

And if you're fated to be a captain, it's not so bad:



> "Captain is such a dashing title. I've always thought." She gave him a bright, brittle smile. "I mean, colonels and so on are always so stuffy, majors are pompous, but one always feels somehow that there is something delightfully dangerous about a captain." - Terry Pratchet, Guards, Guards


----------



## Marshall

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The CF wants enough officers.
> 
> Keep in mind it's a double-edged sword.  The last really big surge for the combat arms was in the early and mid 1980s, and many of those officers have now or are releasing at 20 and 25 years of service, which has compounded the usual attrition rates.   Because of the cyclical nature of these surge intakes, the chances of advancement changes with the size of the cohort you are part of.  If you consider that each generation (of a few years breadth) must produce a generation of generals, any one officer's chances are (proportionally) better in a recruiting period of small intakes.  In periods of large intakes, the bar may seem lower to get in the door, but it's also proportionally higher at each successive advancement checkpoint with larger numbers of officers competing for each level of promotion.  A given officer who may progress within a lean recruiting era cohort may simply miss the numerical windows within a strong cohort.   Large recruitment cohorts produce large numbers of staff Captains and Majors because they have the relative population density to fill those billets and still provide their contribution to the promotion stream.  But those officers all age together and the bulk of them may release within a similar spread of years.  And the cycle begins anew.
> 
> So, while you may have glorious visions of going over the top, sword in hand, you should also read this.
> 
> And if you're fated to be a captain, it's not so bad:



Good link. I am not joining the Combat Arms family solely for the chance to fight. It just seems more of the getting out and doing things area. 

As for hitting the wall at Captain (which I am sure is not that bad...), I will worry about that down the road.. far down the road  ;D


----------



## Rowshambow

Old Seat and DA got it right on the head, we need Capt's, so hire lots of young'uns and hopefully down the road we will have enough that stick around! Sucks if you don't get troop time, but we need staff officers too! Oh just as a side note old sweat, we have 2 LdSH(RC) Officers that are going to 1 PPCLI to fill voids in the LAV Capt roll, both are excellent choices, and both are ex rankers, one a Sgt and one an SSM!
Yes remaining a Capt is not so bad, 10 incentives!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Old Seat and DA got it right on the head, we need Capt's, so hire lots of young'uns and hopefully down the road we will have enough that stick around! Sucks if you don't get troop time, but we need staff officers too! Oh just as a side note old sweat, we have 2 LdSH(RC) Officers that are going to 1 PPCLI to fill voids in the LAV Capt roll, both are excellent choices, and both are ex rankers, one a Sgt and one an SSM!
> Yes remaining a Capt is not so bad, 10 incentives!



Good point. We also need to get over our traditional reluctance to give deserving NCOs 'battlefield promotions', as well as make better use of the CFR process. It's an army folks, not a private club.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Everytime I see this thread title in unread posts, I think - _'bent over a table'_ or some such. :blotto:

Sorry, probably the old NCO coming out in me. Now you can go back to the serious discussion. ;D


----------



## pbi

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good point. We also need to get over our traditional reluctance to give deserving NCOs 'battlefield promotions', as well as make better use of the CFR process. It's an army folks, not a private club.



This is already happening. In the PPCLI we are in the process of CFR several quite senior WOs, and we have a number of junior officers who were in the JR's. I have 25 years in the Regt and I've never seen this high a percentage of CFR and NCM entries as we currently have. This is not just true of the PPCLI: when I was teaching at Foxhole U, I noticed the higher percentage of CFRs and NCM entry Capts in each serial. In one of my syndicates the top candidate was a former Inf Sgt Maj. This is driven to a great extent by the shortages at the Capt/Maj level in the Inf, but it's sustained by the extremely high quality of NCMs we have in our Army. Man for man, the human material is at least as good as any other Army I've seen and probably much better. With the much more liberal and intelligent approach to providing formal higher education today, if a guy CFR's young enough he can probably have similar chances for advancement to any other officer with equal number of years left to serve.

We have to be very careful,though, not to rob Peter to pay Paul. Each sharp, capable young NCO who commissions is one less great WO, Sgt Maj or RSM. Our NCO situation is, if anything, as dismal or worse than our officer situation, so we need to be careful how we cherry pick. Service as a WO must be seen as a respected, honoured and valued path, not just a stepping stone to the Officers' Mess. Without a solid NCO/WO corps we will be useless.

Cheers

pbi


----------



## Marshall

pbi said:
			
		

> This is already happening. In the PPCLI we are in the process of CFR several quite senior WOs, and we have a number of junior officers who were in the JR's. I have 25 years in the Regt and I've never seen this high a percentage of CFR and NCM entries as we currently have. This is not just true of the PPCLI: when I was teaching at Foxhole U, I noticed the higher percentage of CFRs and NCM entry Capts in each serial. In one of my syndicates the top candidate was a former Inf Sgt Maj. This is driven to a great extent by the shortages at the Capt/Maj level in the Inf, but it's sustained by the extremely high quality of NCMs we have in our Army. Man for man, the human material is at least as good as any other Army I've seen and probably much better. With the much more liberal and intelligent approach to providing formal higher education today, if a guy CFR's young enough he can probably have similar chances for advancement to any other officer with equal number of years left to serve.
> 
> We have to be very careful,though, not to rob Peter to pay Paul. Each sharp, capable young NCO who commissions is one less great WO, Sgt Maj or RSM. Our NCO situation is, if anything, as dismal or worse than our officer situation, so we need to be careful how we cherry pick. Service as a WO must be seen as a respected, honoured and valued path, not just a stepping stone to the Officers' Mess. Without a solid NCO/WO corps we will be useless.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> pbi



Newbie question here, but when a WO commissions does he or she start out as 2Lt? (and I'm am guessing they do not need a degree at that point, having so much hands on experience anyways)


----------



## pbi

Normally an Inf WO would become at least a Lt. An MWO/CWO will normally commission as a Capt.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## George Wallace

.....and ALL officers are encouraged/expected to have a Degree.


----------



## Marshall

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .....and ALL officers are encouraged/expected to have a Degree.



Can never hurt a person in their position I suppose 



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Normally an Inf WO would become at least a Lt. An MWO/CWO will normally commission as a Capt.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> DJB



Thank you.


----------



## Rowshambow

The only problem with the CFR program is that you can be a MCpl, but usually at least a Sgt to go the CFR route and also must have 10 years experience, and UTPNCM, although you can be a Cpl or higher, you have to do school first, so you lose the SA of whats going on right then on the battlefield and way of doing things can change in 4 years. The best program for getting soldiers into the job right away is the CEOTP, which you can also do as a Cpl, but you do you training right away and get the degree "while working on your own". This way it does not deplete the Snr Ncm ranks as a typical CFR program might.


----------



## George Wallace

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> The only problem with the CFR program is that you can be a MCpl, but usually at least a Sgt to go the CFR route and also must have 10 years experience, and UTPNCM, although you can be a Cpl or higher, you have to do school first, so you lose the SA of whats going on right then on the battlefield and way of doing things can change in 4 years. The best program for getting soldiers into the job right away is the CEOTP, which you can also do as a Cpl, but you do you training right away and get the degree "while working on your own". This way it does not deplete the Snr Ncm ranks as a typical CFR program might.



I don't agree with some of your figures, and you must also remember that things will always change.  Even those who are returning to do another Tour will find things have changed since their last one, so that was a rather moot point.  

Sometimes in order to promote, room at the top has to be made.  CFR, UTPNCM, and CEOTP are ways of doing so, without loosing all that experience to people Releasing.   The CFR of a MWO, may create several positions below him to open up for promotions: MWO, WO, Sgt, MCpl, and even Cpl's.  Stagnation at the bottom Ranks, will only create larger gaps in experience and leadership.


----------



## ltmaverick25

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't agree with some of your figures, and you must also remember that things will always change.  Even those who are returning to do another Tour will find things have changed since their last one, so that was a rather moot point.
> 
> Sometimes in order to promote, room at the top has to be made.  CFR, UTPNCM, and CEOTP are ways of doing so, without loosing all that experience to people Releasing.   The CFR of a MWO, may create several positions below him to open up for promotions: MWO, WO, Sgt, MCpl, and even Cpl's.  Stagnation at the bottom Ranks, will only create larger gaps in experience and leadership.



Thats a really good point.

I dont think CFR's should be limited to Sgt and above though.  The one danger you run into there is you have a bunch of NCOs running around with bars on their shoulders.  I think its important for officers to employ a different style of leadership then a hard army NCO would typically use.  There is nothing worse then working for a Capt that still thinks he is a Sgt!  

I think a balanced approach to the CFR process would work well though.  Get some of the SNCOs commissioned thus filling some officer gaps, and also making room for advancement for Junior NCOs and NCMs. 

But also take a decent amount of Cpls up as CFRs too.  This way you are not wiping out your NCO corps, and you still have a solid and diverse experienced officer corps.


----------



## Rowshambow

Well George, agree or not, those are the numbers on the Edmonton Garrison BPSO website. Yes sometimes you have to promote or move people as you indicated, but as some of the others have pointed out, right now the Snr NCM ranks are very short, I know in my Regt it is very very short, and I know the Armour school is also very very short, so tapping into the Snr Ncm world (at least right now) can be detrimental as others have also said. Don't get me wrong, I also agree in promoting people, and moving them, but right now we in the military are in dangerous times, in regards to our Snr Ncm experience. I also agree that the CFR program should be open to different rank levels, I was just showing the numbers from the BPSO website on a couple of different programs.
Yes things will change and always will, and I was just trying to say that there can be better ways to get people into the job, that are needed now, and not 4-5 years down the road, as we will then be in even worse shape!


----------



## Redeye

I've seen how bad that can be first hand on a couple of occasions.



			
				ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> There is nothing worse then working for a Capt that still thinks he is a Sgt!


----------



## Infanteer

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Oh just as a side note old sweat, we have 2 LdSH(RC) Officers that are going to 1 PPCLI to fill voids in the LAV Capt roll, both are excellent choices, and both are ex rankers, one a Sgt and one an SSM!



I've heard this rumour as well - I don't know where it's coming from because there is no need for LAV Captains in that battalion.  As well, I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it, as it doesn't seem to make sense.  A LAV Captain is going to be a Company 2IC for a spell overseas, and I know one who led Infantry Company attacks due to OC and 2IC being absent.  Would the Armoured Corps want a relatively junior Infantry Captain (ATOC qualified) filling in the Battle Captain position in a Tank Squadron?


----------



## pbi

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think a balanced approach to the CFR process would work well though.  Get some of the SNCOs commissioned thus filling some officer gaps, and also making room for advancement for Junior NCOs and NCMs.



Overall, this is the way it works right now. Some branches do more CFR than others, some do more UTPNCM, but of course a secondary effect is that a slot is opened for advancement for other folks in the ranks. Unfortunately, in our Army (esp the Inf) the problem isn't lack of slots: it's lack of people available/willing to fill them. That's why we have to be very careful about "poaching" the ranks to get officers: it's all part of the same machine.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## Cleared Hot

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Oh just as a side note old sweat, we have 2 LdSH(RC) Officers that are going to 1 PPCLI to fill voids in the LAV Capt roll, both are excellent choices, and both are ex rankers, one a Sgt and one an SSM!



And someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't they also sending one to 1 RCHA as a FAC?  Not CFR though I don't think.



> Overall, this is the way it works right now. Some branches do more CFR than others, some do more UTPNCM, but of course a secondary effect is that a slot is opened for advancement for other folks in the ranks. Unfortunately, in our Army (esp the Inf) the problem isn't lack of slots: it's lack of people available/willing to fill them. That's why we have to be very careful about "poaching" the ranks to get officers: it's all part of the same machine.



This is the point, with units promoting every mod 6 Cpl and even bringing back DAPS to promote Ptes straight to MCpl, I don't think there is an argument to be made that we need to open spots at the top for the advancement potential of the young guys.

In my opinion there are three reasons people CFR:

1 - People who have taken time to "better themselves" i.e. get a degree etc. and shown the aptitude and leadership potential with enough time to have a career as an officer are either identified or volunteer to CFR.

2 - Older SNCOs and WOs who are reaching the end of their advancement potential and are looking for new challenges or frankly to pad their pension a bit.

3 - Disgruntled SNCOs and WOs who think that CFRing will give them more of a "voice".

In the end, taking people from category 1 doesn't rob from the top and they still have the potential to have a fulfilling careers as officers - good for all.  2 is fine but has to be managed properly.  In the interest of "looking after our guys" we almost never say no to these guys because they have usually served well and we feel they have earned it, but in the end the needs of the CF must be weighed against "doing right by an individual" and sometimes like it or not, the right thing overall to do is say no.  As for 3, those individuals couldn't be more wrong, but depending on the situation they can be hard to identify as they can sometimes sell themselves as 2.  I don't know why some people think this, an experienced WO has more credibility than a junior Capt let alone a Lt.  In the end if there is one thing we can agree on it is that the CF does not do a great job at "man management" which is why they find themselves in these cyclical problems in the first place.


----------



## Rowshambow

Infanteer, I was talking to one of the OC's at the mess, (from 1VP) and he said they were short of Officers for those postions, he said there were like 3 Officers for 6 positions or something like that (I was a little wobbly, and wasn't really paying too much attention), as for the Jr Inf Officer being a Battle Captain, with ATOC, that's what our BC's have, I know what you are saying though, an Infanteer with Armoured (regardless of courses) won't know the equipment etc. I don't think it is ideal, but at least the 2 pers going know the vehicles, and tactics very well, and that is better than not having someone at all is it not? after all it was those units that put the call out to the other units looking for the help! Why does that unit not need a LAV Capt (sorry I don't know) you said they preformed Coy attacks, so did they walk to the attack from a FOB? If not who took care of the Zulu veh's when they dismounted? I think (in that scenario) an Armoured person would be great, who better to contol the veh's or run a firebase than someone who does it for a living? When he has to dismount though, look out fire and brimstone everywhere!!
As for the FAC, I am not sure, I know there is a Capt from Gagetown posted to Shilo as a FAC, but haven't heard about him going overseas, or what unit he is posted too, I think he starts his FAC course in January, and no he is not a CFR, he is a grad of RMC.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> In my opinion there are three reasons people CFR:
> 
> 1 - People who have taken time to "better themselves" i.e. get a degree etc. and shown the aptitude and leadership potential with enough time to have a career as an officer are either identified or volunteer to CFR.
> 
> 2 - Older SNCOs and WOs who are reaching the end of their advancement potential and are looking for new challenges or frankly to pad their pension a bit.
> 
> 3 - Disgruntled SNCOs and WOs who think that CFRing will give them more of a "voice".
> 
> In the end, taking people from category 1 doesn't rob from the top and they still have the potential to have a fulfilling careers as officers - good for all.  2 is fine but has to be managed properly.  In the interest of "looking after our guys" we almost never say no to these guys because they have usually served well and we feel they have earned it, but in the end the needs of the CF must be weighed against "doing right by an individual" and sometimes like it or not, the right thing overall to do is say no.  As for 3, those individuals couldn't be more wrong, but depending on the situation they can be hard to identify as they can sometimes sell themselves as 2.  I don't know why some people think this, an experienced WO has more credibility than a junior Capt let alone a Lt.  In the end if there is one thing we can agree on it is that the CF does not do a great job at "man management" which is why they find themselves in these cyclical problems in the first place.



All good reasons to run something like a 'Potential Officer' course to sort the wheat from the chaff and formally look over applicants for CFR. 

I was part of one such course in the UK and it included serving SNCOs, Cpls, Ptes, as well as new applicants... just about anyone who wanted to be an Officer in the regiment. Out of 60 who started, about 25 finished the 2 month course and went to the Regular Commissions Board at Westbury. 15 made it into Sandhurst. 2 from my course (me and one other) made it through Sandhurst into the regiment, the rest joined other regiments/ corps as Officers. All those serving soldiers who didn't make it through to Sandhurst just went back to the battalion and resumed soldiering with a 'thanks for coming out' noted on their PERs.

The only downside would be the resources required to run such a program, but the benefits may outweigh the costs.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> All those serving soldiers who didn't make it through to Sandhurst just went back to the battalion and resumed soldiering with a 'thanks for coming out' noted on their PERs.
> 
> The only downside would be the resources required to run such a program, but the benefits may outweigh the costs.



Would they be permitted to try out again as they matured through their careers?


----------



## daftandbarmy

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Would they be permitted to try out again as they matured through their careers?




Yes. It was a ridiculously difficult course, so they actually went back to the unit with a big pat on the back and, unless RTU'd for some kind of heinous reason, had an opportunity to try again.

I should also have mentioned that there was the normal CFR routing for older guys, the QM types, who would typically CFR from WO2 or WO1 to Captain, and then progress through the QM chain.

This PO course was for 'younger' guys who would emerge from the sausage machine as Platoon Commanders.


----------



## ltmaverick25

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> All good reasons to run something like a 'Potential Officer' course to sort the wheat from the chaff and formally look over applicants for CFR.
> 
> I was part of one such course in the UK and it included serving SNCOs, Cpls, Ptes, as well as new applicants... just about anyone who wanted to be an Officer in the regiment. Out of 60 who started, about 25 finished the 2 month course and went to the Regular Commissions Board at Westbury. 15 made it into Sandhurst. 2 from my course (me and one other) made it through Sandhurst into the regiment, the rest joined other regiments/ corps as Officers. All those serving soldiers who didn't make it through to Sandhurst just went back to the battalion and resumed soldiering with a 'thanks for coming out' noted on their PERs.
> 
> The only downside would be the resources required to run such a program, but the benefits may outweigh the costs.



That is a good idea in principle.  The other downside however is the morale issue.  Especially the junior rank types like Cpls ect...  Think about being one of the 25 that passed this course but being one of the 10 that did not get to go to Sandhurst.  Its pretty hard to get yourself stoked for that sort of thing, make it, be turned down and then go back to being a Cpl.  I can imagine those people being pretty miserable afterwards.

Can you give details about this course?  What did they teach you, what sorts of things were you evaluated on, how did it differ from the training you had already received?  Also, of the ones that did make it through, how many were NCOs, junior NCMs and walk in off the street types?


----------



## daftandbarmy

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> That is a good idea in principle.  The other downside however is the morale issue.  Especially the junior rank types like Cpls etc...  Think about being one of the 25 that passed this course but being one of the 10 that did not get to go to Sandhurst.  Its pretty hard to get yourself stoked for that sort of thing, make it, be turned down and then go back to being a Cpl.  I can imagine those people being pretty miserable afterwards.
> 
> Can you give details about this course?  What did they teach you, what sorts of things were you evaluated on, how did it differ from the training you had already received?  Also, of the ones that did make it through, how many were NCOs, junior NCMs and walk in off the street types?




As always, the British select and train their officers differently from anyone else. Everyone who goes to Sandhurst must be sponsored by a regiment or corps. While at Sandhurst you can choose another regiment/ corps if you like, and are accepted, but will always be there with the 'stamp of approval' of the one that originally sent you. The PO Courses were run by several regiments in the UK to make sure that the people they sent there would give a good account of themselves, and be well prepared to add value as a commissioned officer anywhere in the army. I think they still run them? The main goal was to prepare you to pass the Regular Commissions Board 'unconditionally', that is, go straight to Sandhurst without having to first attend Rowallan Company, for younger applicants who needed some 'character development', or Beaconsfiled, for NCMs who needed educational upgrading in some cases.

I was accepted into the Parachute Regiment's PO Course. I flew from Canada to the UK, joined up as a Pte soldier in the Parachute Regiment and went to Aldershot which, at that time, was the Regiment's depot. Previous to this I had completed Phase III Infantry on the RESO program, as well as the Airborne Course, so was pretty confident in being able to do well. I changed my mind after the first couple of days.

The course formed up with about 60 people. There were 'new recruits' like me, experienced NCMs from the Parachute Regiment battalions, back squads from other courses etc. A pretty mixed bag. Most of the 'new recruits' had previously attended an orientation day targetted at those wanting to join the Paras as an officer, so they knew what lay ahead pretty much.

The course syllabus was what I would call 'Recruit Training on Steroids' with a buch of leadership and writing thrown in. The platoon staff took us through all the normal stuff that recruits go through including weapons handling, drill, room inspections, sigs, navigation, basic fieldcraft and tactical exercises etc etc. We also did the usual orders process and led section/ platoon attacks, and recce patrols. Then there was the gym... my God... the Gym, and Battle Fitness. They worked us up from running the BFT (1.5 miles with boots on), through assault courses, log races and all that stuff to a 50 miler (in teams of 2) along the South Downs Way carrying 60lbs folowed by a CTR and extraction. I had recently completed the Airborne Course at CABC but was really pushed to keep up. Fitness was obviously a big thing for these guys and not eveyone made it - including some of the experienced Parachute Regiment NCMs.

Concurrent with all this was what I would call a 'Political science program on steroids'. We had to read every 'quality' paper every day, as well as the Economist etc, and learn how to write a high quality essay on any aspect of Defence and Foreign Policy from the point of view of the UK. I still remember to this day that Leo Genshcer was the West German Foreign Minister and, given a little studying, could write you a pretty good 1500 word essay on German foreign policy in 45 minutes - the maximum time we were allowed. 

And concurrent with all of this were the 'Command Tasks'. These feature large at RCB, so we ran through lots of them: getting the box of gold across the bottomless chasm, extracting the secret radar from the pool of radioactive waste etc. The ultimate interesting individual leadership challenge came one day when we were marched individually to the Pl Comds office, and handed a sealed envelope after which he said 'see you in the Lake District on Monday'. It being Friday, we deduced this would be a weekend task. On opening the envelope, we each discovered three questions that we had to answer on our own by going to the location given, somewhere in the UK, without using PMT and finding out in person. I, for example, had to hitchhike to Evesham and find out what was underneath each window of this place: http://www.thefleeceinn.co.uk/ and bring back proof that I had been there. Answer: Three white crcles of course, to keep the witches out C. 1400. In the Lake District and we did 20 milers - and navexs and basic mountaineering - through the mountains for a week. 

At then end of the 2 months we were graded and sent off to RCB - or not, in the case of those who didn't make it. I think we had the weekend off before the actual RCB started, and that was about all the time off I remember getting during the course. But we were stoked...

How was it different from training I had done previously? All the basics were pretty similar except the fitness, which was light years harder than anything I'd done before. But there was a greater emphasis on being both a good follower and leader under very stressful conditions and earning the respect of your peers as well as the staff. In this course, unlike many I have done before or since, the staff did EVERYTHING we did too, often carrying more weight and with less sleep. So they were clearly leading by example as opposed to getting us to read about it somewhere. I can respect a guy who sleeps in same sheep **** as me. There was also a huge emphasis on an intellectual approach to leadership integrated with the physical side. No one at Gagetown insisted that I know alot about the political situation in Nigeria, for example, or what impact the latest political initiative or new aircraft acquisition would have on my country's foreign policy. There was an expectation that you knew about this stuff because one day you might have to explain to your platoon/company/battalion why you were parachuting into that particuylar country. I liked that.

What did it teach me? Lead by example, good infantry leadership is based on high levels of fitness, sort yourself out first, tape your toes and go like hell, it's OK to not know what the answer is but it's not OK to hide it, simple orders and good drills are the key, don't lose your rag unless the situation calls for it, demand participation and involvement from everyone, hot tea with lots of milk and two sugars can cure hypothermia - or just about anything else, you don't need very much stuff to survive and get the job done, think and think in teams, planning is important and doing is critical, if you think this is hard just wait until next time, having a sense of humour is essential. It prepared me very well for RCB and Sandhurst and taught me loads of stuff I did not learn in Canada.

What were we evaluated on? I can't really remember any detailed 'PER - type' assessment, although I'm sure there was one in the system somewhere. We were constantly evaluated by the staff on our various technical skills, of course. We did TOETs, range work, sigs training and tests etc. The PT sessions were pretty simple: keep up or miss your timings (and go hungry) or get a kick in the ass from the Pl Sgt. Our essays were graded by the resident Education officer at the Depot (the British have an Army Education Corps). The ultimate assessment was at the end where they decided whether they would send you to RCB sponsored by the regiment, or not. 

Of those that made it to Sandhurst I think about 1/3 were former NCMs and the rest were 'off the street'. Of those that did make it through, none who made it to the regiment were former NCMs. Just me and one guy 'off the street'. Those RTU'd were all big boys and didn't take it too hard. It was one of those courses where you couldn't believe that you'd passed it - I'm STILL not sure how the heck I made it through!

Could it have been done better? I'm sure... but what a ride it was!


----------



## I_Drive_Planes

Daftandbarmy,

This sounds like an excellent selection process.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> Daftandbarmy,
> 
> This sounds like an excellent selection process.



It sure sorted us out or, at any rate, kept us humble.

I'm not sure you need to do that amount of tabbing though. For me, the keys were excellent staff leadership, tough, no nonsense training, and a solid blend of academic and military components with lots of hands on leadership opportunities in a 'safe to fail' environment. When you land in the canal with all your kit on and emerge spluttering in the mud on the near side, it was educational to watch the staff rolling on the ground laughing then shouting 'try again!'.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Wow that sounds like quite the experience and just a little intimidating, thanks for the insight!


----------



## Infanteer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There was also a huge emphasis on an intellectual approach to leadership integrated with the physical side. No one at Gagetown insisted that I know alot about the political situation in Nigeria, for example, or what impact the latest political initiative or new aircraft acquisition would have on my country's foreign policy. There was an expectation that you knew about this stuff because one day you might have to explain to your platoon/company/battalion why you were parachuting into that particuylar country. I liked that.



I've been critical of this as well - for some reason, our Army has a PO Check mentality when it comes to training.  You are only really assessed on the PO's (although other things go into your written assessment and - probably more importantly - your reputation in this small Army) and you are only pass/failed on the POs.  And POs are only formed around things that can be assessed by a simple tick-in-the-box form or crappy multiple choice exam and can be taught in a generic, 45 minute powerpoint presentation.

I think we were generally regarded as an "uneducated" Army in the past, and this is probably a vestige of it.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've been critical of this as well - for some reason, our Army has a PO Check mentality when it comes to training.  You are only really assessed on the PO's (although other things go into your written assessment and - probably more importantly - your reputation in this small Army) and you are only pass/failed on the POs.  And POs are only formed around things that can be assessed by a simple tick-in-the-box form or crappy multiple choice exam and can be taught in a generic, 45 minute powerpoint presentation.
> 
> I think we were generally regarded as an "uneducated" Army in the past, and this is probably a vestige of it.



I think the PO check in the box mentality stems from a number of other things that were or maybe are still wrong with our army.  I think the idea of our PO check system is to ensure a standardized, fair assessment of all candidates regardless of who they are, or where they took their course.  In my opinion the PO check system is the army's way of eliminating the subjective evaluation from staff and instructors.  In a perfect world this would not be the case, but I have taught on several courses, some recently where it was evident that a subjective approach would have unfairly failed a candidate.

How many times have we all heard a fellow DS staff member say "I want to fail this guy but I cant".  (I have been guilty of this too).  In a good number of cases the sentiment is justified and well grounded, but in a number of cases it is not.

Overall I agree that the example of the British system relayed to us certainly sounds amazing in many ways and I hope we can get to that type of training as well.  In so doing there would need to be some method of balancing out the "fairness" and check and balance system we have in place now with alot of what is posted above.

You also bring up a good point about reputation and small army.  In a small army like ours reputation is extremely important.  However this has an ugly downside.  I have seem some guys have their reputations unfairly ruined out of pettyness and spite.


----------



## daftandbarmy

One of the interesting differences between my experience in Canada and the UK was that in the UK, we were being selected by Regimental staff (all the way up to the Regimental Colonel, who was the overseer for these courses) to be Officers in their Regiment. The staff were accountable to their chain of command at the Depot for running a tough, but fair and accountable, process. I know this because when I went back to our Depot as a Pl Comd I had the opportunity to be peripherally involved in other PO Courses, and it was quite an interesting display of concern that, first, we selected people to be Officers in our Regiment and, second, they could also go on to other Regiments/ Corps, if we were not keen on them, with no hard feelings. POs were seen as a valuable Army resource which was not to be squandered or abused. 

I also encountered many of the staff on my PO course throughout my career in the Regiment, and we obviously knew each other quite well - which is a good team building experience! Where Officers are being selected and trained in a generic way, as in Canada, IMHO there are lower levels of accountability for staff actions and decisions, and less motivation from the trainees to exceed all Regimental expectations and go the extra mile (or 50).


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> One of the interesting differences between my experience in Canada and the UK was that in the UK, we were being selected by Regimental staff (all the way up to the Regimental Colonel, who was the overseer for these courses) to be Officers in their Regiment.



That was being perpetuated in many of Canada's Reserve Units into the 1970's.  I think today, many are simply accepting any officer prospect who is attending university at face value, with little or no selection process.   I am amazed at the feeling of entitlement many young people have today, expecting to be accepted as an officer (Reserve) simply because they are in their first year of university.   Reserve Units can still carry on these methods of selection.  It is a much harder thing for the Regular Force Units to do, simply due to the width and breadth of this land, not really being "Regional or County" Regiments.


----------



## Redeye

Coming from a Reserve Regiment with a critical shortage of qualified junior officers, I can attest to this.  We ran an Officer Selection Board (which I had the honour of sitting on) and it was difficult to be able to say "No.  Not this guy."  The reason is simple - the commitment breaks some people (even students), and then there are injuries and failures to content with.  What we did ask every candidate was something along the lines of "If we decided that we didn't think you were ready to be an officer and instead offered you a position as an NCM, would you accept?", to see if they were really committed to the idea.  A few of the folks we looked at had former service in the ranks though, and that should serve them well.  On top of them though I know that the RSM was looking at some of the Corporals who he viewed as having good officer potential with a view to discussing their futures, too.  There are some who I think would make excellent officers.

I'm not positive, but I am reasonably sure that there are some Reserve units that make a point of not hiring DEOs - individuals who apply as officers are enrolled first as NCMs, get qualified, and then are commissioned from the ranks after a term of service as a private soldier.  If I could do it all again I would have gone this route, I think - but when I applied, they saw "university student" and I got steered toward the officer side of the house pretty quickly.  I just didn't know any better.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> That was being perpetuated in many of Canada's Reserve Units into the 1970's.  I think today, many are simply accepting any officer prospect who is attending university at face value, with little or no selection process.   I am amazed at the feeling of entitlement many young people have today, expecting to be accepted as an officer (Reserve) simply because they are in their first year of university.   Reserve Units can still carry on these methods of selection.  It is a much harder thing for the Regular Force Units to do, simply due to the width and breadth of this land, not really being "Regional or County" Regiments.


----------



## dapaterson

There are also Reserve units that would never accept into their officers' messes anyone who previously darkened the doro of their Jrs mess.

The challenge at attracting and retaining junior officers is significant; it may even be time t oslightly expand the structures to permit more Jr officers in the Reserves, who can then be more readily poached by the Regular Force.  This would also help mitigate against the "Last Man Standing" scenario in too many units' succession plans.

There does have to be a note of caution, as emptying the Jrs and WO/Sgts Messes to fill the Officers' mess just moves the problem.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are also Reserve units that would never accept into their officers' messes anyone who previously darkened the doro of their Jrs mess.



Ah yes!  The "Social Regiments".  Throwbacks to the 1800's.  Many of those regiments also didn't hold much credibility outside of their own Lines.


----------



## George Wallace

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, seems like a lot of those units tend to wear black hats.



I have found it varies from the more urban/metropolitan Units to the more rural/smaller centers.  Even with two units within the metropolitan areas, one will find one unit more "Social" than another unit of the same Branch, who may be more for the "hands on-lets get dirty and play soldier" type of unit.  You can see examples of this in Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton, Victoria and Vancouver.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've been critical of this as well - for some reason, our Army has a PO Check mentality when it comes to training.... simple tick-in-the-box form or crappy multiple choice exam and can be taught in a generic, 45 minute powerpoint presentation.


----------



## Cleared Hot

Well said, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Old Sweat

It's too close to Christmas to get into a rant about the introduction of performance oriented training with performance objectives, standards cells, tons and tons of paper and all the rest back in the heady early post-integration days. All this was supposed to streamline training, to eliminate needless theory in favour of actually being able to do things and to save a hockey sock full of resources. It didn't.


----------



## ltmaverick25

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are also Reserve units that would never accept into their officers' messes anyone who previously darkened the doro of their Jrs mess.
> 
> The challenge at attracting and retaining junior officers is significant; it may even be time t oslightly expand the structures to permit more Jr officers in the Reserves, who can then be more readily poached by the Regular Force.  This would also help mitigate against the "Last Man Standing" scenario in too many units' succession plans.
> 
> There does have to be a note of caution, as emptying the Jrs and WO/Sgts Messes to fill the Officers' mess just moves the problem.



I dont have any experience with how the regular force handles these things but on the reserve side I unfortunately have too much!  I have been a part of 3 different reserve army units in my time and ALL of them were exceptionally poor on this "previously darkened" aspect.  

We had a number of guys, myself included who would try to CFR from the ranks and it just would not happen.  Maybe for a Sgt or higher but even they had to jump through hoops and in many cases not succeed.

I remember in my first unit, there were 3 of us applying, we were all Bombadiers at the time, all of us had maybe 5 years under our belts.  There was only 3 positions available.  They all went to civvies walking in off the street.  My second unit was very much the same way.  My third unit seemed to only take new officers if those officers were already officers from elsewhere who decided to transfer in.  Everyone who tried to CFR from the ranks had gotten shot down.  At this point I was extremely frustrated and started looking towards the Navy.  It was like day and night by comparison.  NAVRES actually has a very well defined process for CFR's and it is an extremely routine process for them.  They are constantly canvasing the ranks trying to identify possible officers and it is encouraged.  I remember on the army side of things being shunned by my peers for wanting to CFR..  At any rate, all too annoying CFR route was finally a success for me, but I have several friends still trying to do this on the army side and getting nowhere with it.


----------



## aesop081

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I remember in my first unit, there were 3 of us applying,



One does not "apply" for CFR.



> we were all Bombadiers at the time,



You must be thinking of another commisioning program. For CFR, Corporals need not "apply".


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Former Service is the program or entry scheme IIRC


----------



## ltmaverick25

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> One does not "apply" for CFR.
> 
> You must be thinking of another commisioning program. For CFR, Corporals need not "apply".



I guess im not following.  CFR is the term that was always used by the units I was in.  What exactly would it have been called then?  Either way I gues the results were the same.  Im glad I finally made it past all that BS, but, I still feel for everyone else stuck trying to go through it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

IIRC CFR is used for Sgt's and above.. Exceptional MCpl's may be considered.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

From here:

Commissioning Programs

There are three basic in-service commissioning programs. Each one has a different purpose and different eligibility requirements. Depending on where you are in your career, it is likely that only one or two of the programs will apply to you. Below are brief descriptions of the different programs. 





> The Commissioning From the Ranks Plan (CFRP)
> 
> For members who have achieved the rank of MCpl or above. One of the goals of this program is to transfer the knowledge gained at the SrNCO level and move it to the Officer Corps. For that reason, members are commissioned in the Officer MOC which is most closely aligned with their current NCM MOC. (i.e. a 031 Inf Sgt would be commissioned as a 23 Inf Officer.)


----------



## ltmaverick25

hmm, I must have been an SCP then, at least its done and over with now!


----------



## daftandbarmy

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think the PO check in the box mentality stems from a number of other things that were or maybe are still wrong with our army.  I think the idea of our PO check system is to ensure a standardized, fair assessment of all candidates regardless of who they are, or where they took their course.  In my opinion the PO check system is the army's way of eliminating the subjective evaluation from staff and instructors.  In a perfect world this would not be the case, but I have taught on several courses, some recently where it was evident that a subjective approach would have unfairly failed a candidate.
> 
> How many times have we all heard a fellow DS staff member say "I want to fail this guy but I cant".  (I have been guilty of this too).  In a good number of cases the sentiment is justified and well grounded, but in a number of cases it is not.
> 
> Overall I agree that the example of the British system relayed to us certainly sounds amazing in many ways and I hope we can get to that type of training as well.  In so doing there would need to be some method of balancing out the "fairness" and check and balance system we have in place now with alot of what is posted above.



Yes, balancin the two is a good idea. We shouldn't bash our system too much. If anything, one of the problems I saw with the British system was that it was too much the 'other way'. Phase III certainly prepared me for Pl Comd role from a technical point of view. I was most impressed, however, by the differences in the way I was _treated _ as a junior officer in each system. This article from Gen Kirby, posted by me earlier, captures the essence of the difference from my point of view:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58250/post-536427.html#msg536427


----------



## aesop081

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> CFR is the term that was always used by the units I was in.



That doesnt make it right.


----------



## ltmaverick25

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes, balancin the two is a good idea. We shouldn't bash our system too much. If anything, one of the problems I saw with the British system was that it was too much the 'other way'. Phase III certainly prepared me for Pl Comd role from a technical point of view. I was most impressed, however, by the differences in the way I was _treated _ as a junior officer in each system. This article from Gen Kirby, posted by me earlier, captures the essence of the difference from my point of view:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58250/post-536427.html#msg536427



Excellent read, I just tossed a quote from David Bercuson up into that thread explaining his thoughts on careerism.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout....


Allow employees to act courageously

http://working.canada.com/victoria/resources/story.html?id=89d866a2-de94-4750-a691-9d2cbcac5001

Take courage, everyone. The economy is teetering, no one knows what the future holds, yet we've got to manage better than ever before in order to right this foundering ship.
From the U.S., we're getting the message that Obama has courage, and he will surely need it.Here at home, we need courage, too, in order to stay competitive in business and keep our economy afloat.

But how do we, in the business model, reward courage?
How do we make sure that courageous behaviour in the workplace is rewarded rather than punished?
How do we create a climate in which making mistakes doesn't mean you're discredited and sidelined?

Courageous behaviour just won't happen in a workplace where managers spend their time reminding people of the consequences of failure rather that focusing on what happens when things go right, warns U.S. consultant Bill Treasurer.
How much effort will anyone make to solve a problem, he points out, when the boss says: "Whatever you do, don't screw up!" Or: "If you drop the ball on this, you're toast!"
Paying too much attention to what can go wrong effectively ends up filling workers with anxiety and undermines their confidence. So forget courage in that kind of environment.
To support courageous behaviour, Treasurer says, you've got to build safety nets for those individuals who are putting themselves on the line.
First, they've got to be given permission to be courageous, just as Treasurer was when at some point in his consultant career he was given the job of coaching upper management. These were people senior to him. He agonized so much over messing up that he went to his own boss at the management consulting company, Accenture, Hines Brannan, and confessed that the thought of coaching those senior people was too intimidating.
"Hines listened patiently," Treasurer writes in his new book, Courage Goes to Work. "Then, instead of telling me what a wuss I was being, he simply said, 'But Bill, you coach me.' "
What Treasurer received from this boss was permission to express his fears without embarrassment, which, in turn, allowed him to see that he could indeed meet the challenge. Imagine if his boss had been someone to whom he couldn't express those feelings.
"Permission enhances safety," writes Treasurer, who is founder and "chief encouragement officer" of Giant Leap Consulting, with clients like CNN, the Centres for Disease Control and EarthLink.
The manager who encourages people to express their true concerns can then concentrate on shifting their thinking to ways in which they can get the job done.
Second, companies must avoid seeing all mistakes as bad ones. Instead, they need to value what he calls "forward-falling" mistakes.
AT&T president David Scobey makes this point: "Mistakes are critically important to growth, not just individually but collectively as well. Growth is driven by innovation, and innovation often comes from making the right mistakes."
One of his clients, Treasurer writes, conducts monthly "lessons learned" breakfasts attended by the company's 100-plus project managers during which project mistakes are discussed by the team responsible for making the mistake. But the focus is not on punishment; rather it's on the lessons to be learned from the mistake and teaches the staff that "mistakes are a normal and necessary part of business - as long as the mistakes are put to good use by the company."
Third, company managers need to be very considerate how the staff perceives them as they "manage up" as well as "manage down."
Employees, Treasurer writes, are very sensitive to how their own managers respond to the boss's request and possibly ignore their own.
"Workers want to know that you're courageous enough to stick up for them and provide them with a safety net," he writes.
So, when a manager can show that she or he is as attentive to the needs of staff as to the boss's, they are, in turn, much more willing to respond to urgent requests with a sense of confidence and courage.

It's a simple demand, yet difficult: help workers feel safe and they will have increased commitment to carry out uncomfortable tasks - and even to make mistakes from which they can learn.

donnanebenzhl@videotron.ca
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008


----------



## ltmaverick25

I think its also important to allow officers to "rock the boat" in order to get things sorted out.

One of the themes in Bercuson's book that I highlighted above was the military's new tendancy to adopt a beaurocratic managers approach.  Officers are posted to their respective billets for a couple of years at a time and usually, according to Bercuson are not in a position long enough to champion any long term change.  Most officers prefer not to rock the boat, instead electing to get their ticks in their PER box and move on without ever having made any significant "impact" in their posting but being rewarded with promotion none the less.  When the bullets start flying I would imagine you want someone at the helm who is not afraid of "rocking the boat".


----------



## Pointer

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think its also important to allow officers to "rock the boat" in order to get things sorted out.
> 
> One of the themes in Bercuson's book that I highlighted above was the military's new tendancy to adopt a beaurocratic managers approach.  Officers are posted to their respective billets for a couple of years at a time and usually, according to Bercuson are not in a position long enough to champion any long term change.  Most officers prefer not to rock the boat, instead electing to get their ticks in their PER box and move on without ever having made any significant "impact" in their posting but being rewarded with promotion none the less.  When the bullets start flying I would imagine you want someone at the helm who is not afraid of "rocking the boat".



While the bureaucrat bit is spot on, I haven't found the "don't rock the boat" thing much.  Maybe it's different between elements, or even units, but if you have a sound idea it's generally well received.  The problem, often times, is that your actual ability to bring about substantial change is more/less constrained by your rank and/or position.  

Example: a Pl Comd generally doesn't have much leeway to reinvent the wheel and, particularly if he's new, shouldn't.  The wheel, often times, is the way it is for a good reason.  Given the lack of experience that most junior officers have, the extremity of "mission command" required to really be able to bring about substantial, earth-shattering change isn't present.  That, and the resources available usually aren't substantial. 

At the OC's level, there's far more wiggle room and I've watched quite substantial changes take place under new OC's.  Likewise with CO's. 

Officers do move on too quickly many times - particularly in the infantry where a major shortage in senior officers has translated into a glut of subbies - thereby requiring fast and furious rotations to get everyone through the obligatory command roles.  That's where the NCOs are so important (and why it's so important for the officers at all levels to listen to them).  The NCOs serve as the corporate memory of the unit/sub-unit/sub-sub-unit.  If something doesn't work, they let the officers know (hopefully) and if the officers are half-intelligent, they listen, consult, decide, and act to make the appropriate changes.  

That being said, if many officers gave the appropriate amount of autonomy to their snr NCO's, the NCOs could make their own changes instead of having to wait for an officer to do it.  The token "do you mind if I do XXXXXX, sir" should really be all that's required.


----------



## ltmaverick25

I can agree with alot of that.  But what about the junior officer who has defective NCOs that require sorting out?  Ive seen that many times, and the officers usually dont have the wherewithall to do anything about it.


----------



## Pointer

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I can agree with alot of that.  But what about the junior officer who has defective NCOs that require sorting out?  Ive seen that many times, and the officers usually dont have the wherewithall to do anything about it.



I had occasion to have to deal with that twice in the last few months.  I'm not sure I'd call them "defective", just in need of improvement.  In the one case, the mbr recognized his problems, some of which stemmed from operational experiences and others simply as a function of his not being particularly leadership/command oriented.  He graciously "bowed out" but he's still a very valuable member and has an excellent attitude. 

In the other case, I tried counselling on the performance deficiencies, though the issues were such that there wasn't much chance of counselling being able to substitute for on-the-job learning over time.  Unfortunately, due to operational constraints, there was no time to really address the problem over time with a mix of mentoring and experience.  In that case, I spoke with my superior on the officer side and the mbr's superior on the NCO side (both of which were already aware of said issues) and we proceeded with the necessary remedial measures and pers shuffling. 

Another guy was just junk.  I don't use that term lightly and never with regards to someone whose issues are solely performance-related.  This guy's attitude, conduct, AND performance were all crap - the latter primarily due to his issues with the first two.  Its been over a year now and the appropriate administrative action is only now taking place, largely due to the MAJOR shortcomings in Ottawa with regards to timely processing of requests for release and the ridiculous amount of recourse available through the military justice system. 

In all these cases, I had the full support of the CoC - there was absolute cooperation, both up and down.  The primary problem was just bad timing, circumstances, and bureaucratic tripe.


----------



## George Wallace

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I can agree with alot of that.  But what about the junior officer who has defective NCOs that require sorting out?  Ive seen that many times, and the officers usually dont have the wherewithall to do anything about it.



I can see a problem with this, especially if an officer tries to be an "NCO" and a "Disciplinarian".  That is not an officer's job.  That is what Snr NCOs are for.  Micromanaging your troops, or overstepping the bounds and trust of your troops is a grave mistake for an officer to make.  In some instances it is a problem of NCOs, who may not have succeeded as Junior and Snr NCOs becoming officers.


----------



## ltmaverick25

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can see a problem with this, especially if an officer tries to be an "NCO" and a "Disciplinarian".  That is not an officer's job.  That is what Snr NCOs are for.  Micromanaging your troops, or overstepping the bounds and trust of your troops is a grave mistake for an officer to make.  In some instances it is a problem of NCOs, who may not have succeeded as Junior and Snr NCOs becoming officers.



I agree completely, ive always thought the same thing myself.  But what happens when situations arise where you need to take more active intervention.  Thats pretty tough for a bran new junior officer to do.  Say for example, and this is something I ran into all the time in the reserve combat arms world.  You have an NCO that is abusive to the troops, not physically, thats a pretty obvious flag, but verbally, mentally ect...  How do you stop something like that?  What sort of intervention is the best way to go?  Ive seen alot of junior officers ignore or avoid the issue altogether.  A rare few have tried and had the whole world blow up in their face.


----------



## Pointer

I find the NCOs generally like to "shoot their own dogs".  I have no issue with it, as long as it's done properly and isn't just a shit-on-the-downtrodden kind of thing.  That being said, if the problem NCO is, for example, in a section command role, that's definitely the officer's responsibility to sort out but it should be done in conjunction with the advice of a more snr NCO - like the 2IC.  He can relate better since he was a sect comd once whereas, unless he's a CFR, the only sect commanding that the officer has done was as a candidate on CAP and that's hardly a legitimate frame of reference. 

I agree that there's nothing worse than an offr playing the NCO.  That being said, there are some people that use that line of reasoning to get out of doing crappy jobs when there's nothing more pressing to do - like filling sandbags, cleaning up brass, etc.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Pointer said:
			
		

> I find the NCOs generally like to "shoot their own dogs".  I have no issue with it, as long as it's done properly and isn't just a crap-on-the-downtrodden kind of thing.  That being said, if the problem NCO is, for example, in a section command role, that's definitely the officer's responsibility to sort out but it should be done in conjunction with the advice of a more snr NCO - like the 2IC.  He can relate better since he was a sect comd once whereas, unless he's a CFR, the only sect commanding that the officer has done was as a candidate on CAP and that's hardly a legitimate frame of reference.
> 
> I agree that there's nothing worse than an offr playing the NCO.  That being said, there are some people that use that line of reasoning to get out of doing crappy jobs when there's nothing more pressing to do - like filling sandbags, cleaning up brass, etc.



This is certainly a helpful discussion.  Thanks for the input.

What do you mean by some people using that line of reasoning to get out of crappy jobs?


----------



## George Wallace

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> ............  You have an NCO that is abusive to the troops, not physically, thats a pretty obvious flag, but verbally, mentally ect...  How do you stop something like that?  What sort of intervention is the best way to go?  Ive seen alot of junior officers ignore or avoid the issue altogether.  A rare few have tried and had the whole world blow up in their face.





			
				Pointer said:
			
		

> I find the NCOs generally like to "shoot their own dogs".  I have no issue with it, as long as it's done properly and isn't just a shit-on-the-downtrodden kind of thing.  That being said, if the problem NCO is, for example, in a section command role, that's definitely the officer's responsibility to sort out but it should be done in conjunction with the advice of a more snr NCO - like the 2IC.  He can relate better since he was a sect comd once whereas, unless he's a CFR, the only sect commanding that the officer has done was as a candidate on CAP and that's hardly a legitimate frame of reference.



It is not the officer's place to do this.  In the case of a the Section Comd, then that is the job of the Platoon WO and/or the CSM to sort out, keeping the officer informed; not for the officer to physically do him/herself.  Remember, the RSM is the CO's "Righthand man" and the Unit's "Disciplinarian", not just a pretty face.  It is the RSM who has to bring the fear of God down on the troops (and Junior officers), not a Platoon/Troop officer. 









			
				Pointer said:
			
		

> I agree that there's nothing worse than an offr playing the NCO.  That being said, there are some people that use that line of reasoning to get out of doing crappy jobs when there's nothing more pressing to do - like filling sandbags, cleaning up brass, etc.



[EDIT: Forgot to comment on this quote.]  Now some of our finest officers haven't been above getting their hands dirty and picking up brass or filling sandbags.  I know one very fine officer who so impressed me many years ago when he put on coverals and filled sandbags for ballast at Swim Camp in Hohne.  He has continued to impress.


----------



## Pointer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is not the officer's place to do this.  In the case of a the Section Comd, then that is the job of the Platoon WO and/or the CSM to sort out, keeping the officer informed; not for the officer to physically do him/herself.  Remember, the RSM is the CO's "Righthand man" and the Unit's "Disciplinarian", not just a pretty face.  It is the RSM who has to bring the fear of God down on the troops (and Junior officers), not a Platoon/Troop officer.



I agree - I meant with performance.  If a commander's performance is sub-par, it's the next highest commander that should sort him out.  I wouldn't run around jacking up my section commanders for shitty boots.  I might make a crack, but if there's face-screaming to be done, my 2ICs far better at it than I. 









> [EDIT: Forgot to comment on this quote.]  Now some of our finest officers haven't been above getting their hands dirty and picking up brass or filling sandbags.  I know one very fine officer who so impressed me many years ago when he put on coverals and filled sandbags for ballast at Swim Camp in Hohne.  He has continued to impress.



True, but there's also plenty that stand around or find more "pressing" matters, like staring intently down at the range clearance certificate for 15 minutes as though it poses some life-altering, mind-blowingly difficult dilemma.


----------



## bdave

Hello

I've been reading this thread and i just want to be clear on one thing:

If i decide to become NCO (reserve) while i do my university and then after i finish and acquire my degree i apply for officer...i will be refused unless i am above corporal?
So i might as well apply for officer right now instead of joining in as NCO.

Is this correct?


----------



## ltmaverick25

No that is not correct.  There are multiple ways to commission from the ranks.

I was a Cpl and commissioned as an officer.  You dont have to become a Sgt first.  The CFR is for Sgts and up, but there is another option for NCMs.

Also, in the reserves you do not have to wait for your degree to be complete before becoming an officer.  As long as you are enrolled in  university you can apply straight as an officer and the rest is history.


----------



## bdave

Do you think it would be more beneficial to stay NCO reserve until i get my degree and then become officer (regular) or just go officer from the beginning?
I would think being NCO and changing to officer would allow you to see both worlds and allow you to function more completely as a leader.

Is this assumption correct?


----------



## ltmaverick25

Your assumption is potentially correct.  Having experience as an NCM can certainly help you be a better leader when you become an officer if you apply that experience correctly.

However, you need to understand that reserve units do not get administrative things done quickly or smoothly (that has been my experience over the past 15 years).  The other thing to consider is, just because the option is available to switch from NCM does not mean that they will say yes to you. 

My advice to anyone who wants to be an officer is to be go be an officer if that is what you want to do.  You may not have NCM experience behind you, but neither do most officers out there and there are still several that manage to lead effectively and do a good job.


----------



## George Wallace

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Your assumption is potentially correct.  Having experience as an NCM can certainly help you be a better leader when you become an officer if you apply that experience correctly.
> 
> However, you need to understand that reserve units do not get administrative things done quickly or smoothly (that has been my experience over the past 15 years).  The other thing to consider is, just because the option is available to switch from NCM does not mean that they will say yes to you.
> 
> My advice to anyone who wants to be an officer is to be go be an officer if that is what you want to do.  You may not have NCM experience behind you, but neither do most officers out there and there are still several that manage to lead effectively and do a good job.



At the same time you have to realize that even if you apply as an officer, it does not guarantee that you will be accepted.  The "Officer Corps" is a fraction of the number of the members that make up the rest of the CF Reg and Reserve.  If there are no positions for officers, then you will not become one.

Becoming an officer is not a 'Right', it is a 'possibility' if positions exist.


----------



## ltmaverick25

That is true, but if he applies as an officer and they turn him down, or tell him there are no positions available, he can easily move in to an NCM position at that point assuming he is deemed suitable.


----------

