# What makes a good Officer?  What makes a bad Officer?



## brad_dennis (19 Dec 2001)

In tangible, practical terms, what makes a good officer? Conversely, what makes a bad officer? Hoping to get an infantry slant to the replies and yes do know the 11 Leadership principles, the "dos", how bout some "don‘ts"?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (19 Dec 2001)

11?

Looks like it‘s gotten tougher to be a leader these days... I know only 10!  <img src="smile.gif" border="0" alt="" />


----------



## ender (20 Dec 2001)

This is all from my perspective as a troopie.

- Get to know your troops.  As people.
- Don‘t think you‘re better than them just becuase you‘re an officer
- Make sure your own kit is sorted out.
- Don‘t ask anything of your troops you wouldn‘t do yourself
- Don‘t be afraid to do work.  Obviously it‘s not always appropriate.
- Let your troops know, by your actions, that you will do whatever you can for them
- Think tactically.  Put everything in the perspective of what it would be like if there was an actual war.


----------



## Bill Green (22 Dec 2001)

Here are a few to think about and action:
do things with a sense of urgency to which one of my NCO‘s added bordering but not quite panic.
read professional bulletins and after action reports and apply the lessons learned.
learn existing strategies, tactics, use of ground, analysis but don‘t be afraid to change or add to it to make it work for you.
listen and learn from your NCOs they have the benefit of a wealth of experience and culture to draw upon.
add to your personal kit whether it‘s a patrol or ghillie suit, an extra knife or some bungy cord.
get personal and profficient with your personal and crew-served weapons.
take an ethical stand and keep the high moral ground. Be seen to be spiritual.
talk about what you envision your section, troop, squadron and regiment will become and then work towards that-ask yourself and your soldiers is what I am about to do going to take me closer to my end-state?
never pass a fault, persevere and use your God given initiative and accept the consequences
Have fun with your soldiers ie adventure training, sports, competitions. and
train as if it was a war because in a war you will fight only be as good as you have trained.


----------



## Art Johnson (22 Dec 2001)

A couple of things not to do if you are an officer.
1)Run up and down the station platform shouting "Arrest that man he is trying to steal the train." This actually happened in Japan.
2)Hang a bell outside your bunker and let it be known that anyone who wishes to speak to you must ring the bell. Frankly I think this guy‘s bell was rung too often I guess that is why he was known to his men as Clueless.


----------



## Gunner (22 Dec 2001)

I‘m a firm believer in the old adage that a leader has to be firm, fair and friendly.  I define friendly as being approachable by your soldiers, not their buddy.  This is a simple way of conducting yourself that is a time proven strategy.

An important don‘t as an officer...don‘t go drinking with your troops!  Reg or Res, if you wind up at a bar where your soldiers are, buy them a beer if you want, exchange pleasantries, then tactically disengage yourself and find somewhere else to drink.


----------



## portcullisguy (22 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by Gunner:
> [qb]An important don‘t as an officer...don‘t go drinking with your troops!  Reg or Res, if you wind up at a bar where your soldiers are, buy them a beer if you want, exchange pleasantries, then tactically disengage yourself and find somewhere else to drink.[/qb]



Would you say then that it would be inappropriate for the "lads" to buy their officer a beer or two?  Should this sort of gift be politely declined? 

If it were me, I couldn‘t accept a beer from someone and then not spend time drinking with them.  Buying a beer then nicking off is one thing, but when someone buys YOU a beer, you feel obliged to drink it with them, unless THEY duck out.

As a subordinate, I wouldn‘t mind a beer bought for me at all, even if the guy buying them doesn‘t wanna stick around.  I can work for beer, it‘s often more reward than money!


----------



## RCA (23 Dec 2001)

Gunner is exactly right. Familiarity breeds contempt. And to set the record straight, officers and NCMs are different and this is due to their different roles and responsibilities. Officers make policy, NCOs implement it and JRs carry it out. Pure and simple. Officers are not better but they do carry the burden of command (NCO‘s is leadership). Officers are not the enemy.

 If an officer makes a decision, he is not compelled to explain himself. Sometimes these decisions are seem arbitrary, hard or seemingly unfair, but necessary and it is up to the rest of us to carry it out. The good officer, when he has to make these tough decisions, will have the unconditional backing of his NCOs because they trust him/her, due to past performance, conduct, and example.  Those officers who have not proven themselves will only get the exact amount of cooperation that is required, nothing more, and nothing less.

Firm, fair and friendly is still the standard that works, no matter how antiquated it sounds. 
Remember also, officers (unit-wise) owe their loyalty to the CO. While keeping the best interest of his soldiers in mind, when there is a conflict between the two, the CO will (and should) always win out. (barring illegal command and acts of course) This is our system.

There has been discussion about becoming officers or being in the ranks first. There is nothing wrong with being an officer right off. Some CFRs make lousy officers because they are never able to break the bonds to the NCMs. (however also some make excellent officers due their previous experience.  The trick is to keep an open mind, be your own person, and sponge off your NCOs knowledge and experience. There is nothing more potent than an excellent Officer/SNCO working relationship


----------



## rceme_rat (24 Dec 2001)

There is so much that could be said - and so much that will only be believed once you have experienced it for yourself.

Some points for new officers --

If you are lucky, you will get an excellent WO who will tactfully train you in the Real World.  If unlucky, you‘ll get one who can snow you.  Trouble is, it might be years before you know which was which!  

Your WO can save your *** , or hang you out to dry -- no matter what you do.  You will find out which eventually, but it‘s more likely to be the former if you show your trust by seeking his opinion, and earn yours by explaining your decisions -- beforehand when you have time; afterwards if you don‘t.  

Know the difference between having a drink with the boys and drinking with the boys.  

Your orders are your orders, even when you think the OC, CO, and even the Bde Comd are all dinosaurs who are clearly out of touch with reality.  

Share the credit; take the blame solely upon your own shoulders.

Take your job seriously, but not yourself.


----------



## Marti (12 Feb 2003)

i just put in an app for ROTP at the UofC. my short with the military has shown me that a bad officer can be very damaging to his unit‘s morale, and is usually unaware of his personal deficiencies. if my app goes through, i‘d hate to turn into one of these. does anyone have any advice on becoming a good officer?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Feb 2003)

Serve in the ranks for a couple of years.

Learn to do everything you are going to ask your men to do.


----------



## combat_medic (12 Feb 2003)

Listen to your NCOs. Example:

A WO goes up to his (brand new) platoon commander and says

"OK sir, we have to get this task done, and we have options A, B, and C for completing it" 

Officer: "OK, let‘s go with option B"

WO: "You know, sir, I don‘t think you‘ve considered all of the merits of option A."

That‘s a subtle hint for your @ss to go with option A. Listen to your NCOs; they have a lot more time in, a better hands on experience, and will make you or break you in the field.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2003)

This probably won‘t be a popular opinion but it‘s something i‘ve thought about.

Concerning leadership, i‘ve found that people are often taught "if you don‘t know what your doing, pretend that you do".  A sort of fake confidence.  I‘m not sure how it works with other trades, obviously each trade has little differences in attitude and styles of leadership so i can only speak about the infantry. That being said a new recruit/private might be be effectivly tricked by an officers fake confidence (for lack of a better phrase) but anyone with a little time in is going to see right through it and you‘ll lose respect of your troops pretty quick. Not to mention you‘ll look dumb.

A good platoon will teach their new platoon commander how to be a good platoon commander.

Maybe on certian levels "pretending" you know what your doing has some bennificial effect but personally speaking when i see that i shake my head because my job just got twice as hard.


----------



## combat_medic (12 Feb 2003)

OK, I want to make an amendment to what Ghost said:

Yes, having confidence despite a lack of knowledge will instill confidence in your men, but if you really don‘t know what the he|| is going on, don‘t fake it. Ask questions, always. 

For those who‘ve watched Band of Brothers, the officer there had no clue what was going on, and tried to fake his way through it, to the detrement of his entire company. He was one of those guys who would rather get lost then ask for directions, and had he gone into combat, would have gotten all of his men killed.

Besides, any Platoon Warrant or other Senior NCO would much rather have their officer ask them for suggestions or advice, then be led around by a numptie. But as for what Ghost said, look confident and composed in front of the troops, no matter what the situation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2003)

Eh? How can you ammend my own work    

Every soldier should always be composed and confident. I think were pretty much in agreement though. 
Just to clairify, I ment don‘t bull$hit and pretend you know something when you don‘t.
If your not sure on something then fess up and say it dont cover it up.
(hence the classic example of the lost platoon)


----------



## Marti (13 Feb 2003)

thank you all for the good advice, i‘ll make sure to follow it.


----------



## Illucigen (13 Feb 2003)

Im suprised more NCMs arent jumping on this hot topic ;-)

Every ncm ive met off-duty has taken upon themselves to tell me what I need to do.

The basic replies are:

1. Go see the QM, be friends with him.
2. Go see your Warrants. Be nice to him, respect him, and ****  respect you (and keep the sgts off your *** )
3. See your sgts, be nice to them. Theyll keep everyone off your ***  from stealing your equip. 

Or, you can be a snot-nosed prick and decide you know everything. But then, youll get it anyway.


Basically, nooone likes someone who has authority over them. Everyone thinks they can do it better. What makes sense is to listen to all the options, and do what you are paid to do= make the best choice possible.

(which you cant do without listening to ALL the options).


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2003)

3. See your sgts, be nice to them. Theyll keep everyone off your *** from stealing your equip. 
Well said!    

Some of the meaner troops will either 
a. grab your rifle by the barrel and wing it into the woods when your not looking, or 
b.grab your rifle and plunge it into the dirt Excalibur style.


----------



## Bograt (27 Aug 2004)

I am about to go to BOTC (January) and I would like to know what qualities/characteristics make for a good officer. I realize this question is fraught with various opinions- but on a general level (no pun intended) based on your experience what kind of characteristics have the great officers had, and likewise what makes a poor officer?

I am not trolling for negative comments- but rather would like to know what things I need to focus more attention on later in my career.

Thanks,


----------



## Inch (27 Aug 2004)

Look out for your guys, they're your #1 priority, you take care of them and they'll take care of you. Though you are going for pilot so it's a little different, but the same basic rules still apply, subordinates before self.

Cheers


----------



## CdnGalaGal (27 Aug 2004)

The best officers listen to the voice of experience. And those voices come from the seasoned Sgts, WOs as well as junior NCOs.

Oh, and careful of the ever present power trips some officers love to take. It usually doesn't fly.


----------



## ackland (27 Aug 2004)

Spend 5 years as a NCM and then go that way you will understand your men and have the back up experience to lead them.


----------



## Parasoldier (27 Aug 2004)

_"Since the soldiers entrust their lives to the officers, it is not too much to ask that the officers in turn dedicate their lives to the soldiers."_ - unknown


----------



## CdnGalaGal (27 Aug 2004)

TR said:
			
		

> Spend 5 years as a NCM and then go that way you will understand your men and have the back up experience to lead them.



That's a really good route too. And the best route in my opinion. But Bograt isn't going to be doing that so... any other advice?


----------



## Inch (27 Aug 2004)

TR said:
			
		

> Spend 5 years as a NCM and then go that way you will understand your men and have the back up experience to lead them.



I'm not even getting into this discussion again, if you're interested, have a read here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18201.0.html

Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2004)

Above all, integrity.


----------



## excoelis (28 Sep 2004)

My humble advice on leadership for military or civilian use: 

1.  Introduce your subordinates to the company's mission statement, ensure they understand the endstate, and assist them in understanding their role in achieving the endstate.  As a leader you have to both support the 'vision' and SELL IT.

2.  The old know your men and promote their welfare' - "Seek first to understand, then to be understood".  Understand the unique dynamic in your workplace.  Promote positive influences and attempt to correct negative influence through exemplary 'leadership by example' and constructive criticism in private and comfortable environments.

3.  Try to be non-confrontational in your approach when resolving disagreements.  Don't feed their primal instincts like 'fight or flight'.  Avoid embarrassing people.  NEVER undermine someone's authority in front of their subordinates or peers.  Be tactful in your approach to advising your superiors - if you have to, make it sound like it's their idea in the first place.  Subversion can be acceptable if the intent is pure and the delivery is tactful.

4.  Exemplify solid and unwavering personal virtues and ethos.  Reward integrity and honesty, openly and in public.  As we Royals like to say, "Never pass a fault" -  If you see a wrong, then right it.  Never compromise the core virtues based on an unpopular decision you have to make.  NEVER say "just this once" - it sets a dangerous precedent.  

5.  Hold YOURSELF and your people accountable for their actions.  Don't lose your temper when faced with lack of discipline in your subordinates.  If you resort to anger, yelling, and belittling; you have in essence, exacerbated the problem (IE...anger management) instead of helping them to acknowledge and correct the problem.

6.  Focus on your circle of influence:  Be proactive and positive within your own realm and it should, by virtue of its success, increase.  Take the time to present an intelligent and articulate argument when stepping outside your normal realm of influence - your credibility will speak for itself, and you should make an impact. 

7.  Respect your men and their input.  No leader with sound judgment should arbitrarily discount a reasonable or logical solution to a challenge - and this should apply both up and down in your hierarchy.  Never stop learning......or listening.  At the same time, avoid the Chinese Parliament approach to leadership.  There are times to listen, consider the options, develop a course of action, and act.  There are also times to use your command presence to present your plan and how you wish to achieve it.

8.  Conduct yourself with decisiveness and dash in stressful situations.  Others will feed off your strength and gain newfound confidence in the collective successes.  

9.  Build self-directing teams:  Put subordinates in positions of responsibility and let them reap the rewards of success.  Assist them subtly with experience or advice if need be, but don't superimpose your ideals on their style of leadership.  Rotate your men through the cogs of the machine so they get a better understanding of it's intricacies.  This includes leadership positions, because everyone who has been 'thrown in the breach' understands the unique challenges inherent to 'running the show', as opposed to the comfortable position of resident 'mushroom'.  'Teamwork' will begin to take on a whole new meaning.  The words 'empowerment' 'structural integrity' and 'interdependence' have been used to best describe this doctrine.

10.  The military culture:  Learn to subordinate personal needs to that of the 'Team'.  You volunteered to serve, and you don't complain when you go to the bank to collect the tax payer's coin; so hold up your end of the bargain.  Nights, weekends, holidays, operational tours, courses, etc......... they are all implied tasks when you sign on.  Garrison routine is not your job.......its battle procedure FOR YOUR JOB!!!  Having said that, when the tempo has lessened, the leadership should support the administrative needs and welfare of the troops.  I like the old saying "if you've got nothing to do, don't do it here"  and I absolutely hate the "standing around team".  The workplace should never be a place to play cards, and if it is then it is indicative of the initiative at all levels in that chain of command.......including those that are playing!

11.  Constantly seek self-improvement:  Never stop learning.  Never relegate yourself to 'good enough'.  Always seek new ways to 'skin the cat'.  Never subjugate your subordinates to a state of complacency.  Leadership is a challenge - rise to it.  Study your team's modus operandi, study the enemy's MO, study the MO of your allies, study everyone's MO - and most of all study yourself.  Never pass up a chance to 'sharpen the tools' - mentally, physically, literally, or figuratively.


Let me close by saying I wish these principles where as easy to follow as they are to write.  I have written out these thoughts, not to sound pretentious, but to help stimulate thought and conversation.  These are by no means my own ideas, they have been compiled from experience, and the learned writing of numerous 'others'.  Special thanks to men like Stephen R Covey who wrote 'The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People', and others of his caliber, who have had a profound influence on my leadership.  Most of all I credit the Canadian military for giving me the pleasure of working with, and for, some truly great men........ and leaders of men.   

Good luck to all.


----------



## Afenrich (1 Oct 2004)

I was just wondering what stupid things that jr officers do to piss you off???

I was in the reserves for 2 years when i was 16 and 17 so I know a lot of stuff that pissed me off.   however, seeing as I am an officer now
and i wasnt in the infantry in the reserves i thought why not figure out what pisses people off the most?


----------



## THEARMYGUY (1 Oct 2004)

I feel all those who have commented thus far have made excellent points.  I only want to add one thing.  I think it's important to always remember that no matter what rank you are, if you don't DESERVE the respect then you likely wont get it.  Granted I don't work with troops as I'm a CIC officer, however the same can be said for my branch.  Those who work to cultivate a relationship with their subordinates based on trust and a mutual goal will EARN the respect of those subordinates and their peers.

You don't just get respected.  You earn it.  For me it's one of the golden rules of leadership and command.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## pbi (2 Oct 2004)

> Here are a few to think about and action:
> do things with a sense of urgency to which one of my NCO's added bordering but not quite panic.
> read professional bulletins and after action reports and apply the lessons learned.
> learn existing strategies, tactics, use of ground, analysis but don't be afraid to change or add to it to make it work for you.
> ...



Well said Bill. Cheers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2004)

From the opinion of a NCM
*Drill / Dress and deportment:*
Theres so many things for officers to consider that they seem to forget about the little things sometimes. 

When your on parade in front of a company of troops and you march out looking like a bag of shit everyone laughs under the breath. Your going to be a joke told in the mess later.  Boot blousing undone,  boots shinning  but with your laces hanging out. Sleeves all uneven. Strings from your combat shirt hanging out. And marching! When you march across a parade square (Especially on parade!) and you look like your going for a walk in the park people just shake their head. Troops practice drill. Officers need to also. When a troop fucks up he's surrounded by 30 guys. It's easy to miss. When an officer screws up your in front of those 30 troops who are all watching you.  

I remember quite a few first impressions of officers I've got have been pretty bad. Why? Because the first time i seen them they looked worst dressed then an untrained private. How can you as an officer inspect me and comment on a thread hanging from my name take when yours is on crooked, you missed a button and the strings at the bottom of your shirt are hanging down 6 inches.  Troops always see the little things like that. It may not matter very much to you BUT it might be the deciding factor when it comes to a troop going the extra distance for you or doing you a favor when you need it.

On the other side of the coin, when I see a well dressed officer (with good drill) i subconsciously check myself over to make sure my pockets are done up. I  make sure my boots look at good as his. I make sure my drill is as good as his. I make sure my uniform looks as professional as his. (The mentality: no way is an officer gonna look better then me!) A professional looking officer will inspire his or her troops to look the same. When a checked out officer comes up to me and takes the time to say "good evening corporal, nice job on your boots" or "Nice uniform, good turn out" it prompts me (as a troop) to continute to put as much effort as I can because the well respected platoon commander/company commander noticed me.

I remember A platoon commander of mine was always the first one awake (and dressed) in the field. He was always the last one sleeping. He was always well dressed. Knew what he was doing when it came to drill. HE cleaned his own weapon WITH the troops. Troops couldn't have an excuse for not cleaning their rifle if the platoon commander (who had a billion things to do) took the time to properly clean his. Guys saw the example he set (without him pointing it out) and made sure to look/act the same.  I think it all starts with how you present yourself to the troops through drill, dress and deportment.


----------



## dglad (2 Oct 2004)

For me, the epiphany re what really makes a good officer came when I understood the awesome privilege being granted to me...that I was being given care and custody of the lives of Canadian men and women, wives and husbands, sons and daughters.  I do not believe there is a greater gift, nor a greater burden, to be given to a person.  You must accept that, and come to treasure it, in order to do what has to be done to be a "good officer".  You'll know you've achieved this when you can look at your troops sleeping, having just come back from a long, cold, wet, bag-drive of a patrol, and get that "warm fuzzy" knowing that you've lead them well and they've followed you willingly.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (3 Oct 2004)

dglad said:
			
		

> For me, the epiphany re what really makes a good officer came when I understood the awesome privilege being granted to me...that I was being given care and custody of the lives of Canadian men and women, wives and husbands, sons and daughters. I do not believe there is a greater gift, nor a greater burden, to be given to a person. You must accept that, and come to treasure it, in order to do what has to be done to be a "good officer". You'll know you've achieved this when you can look at your troops sleeping, having just come back from a long, cold, wet, bag-drive of a patrol, and get that "warm fuzzy" knowing that you've lead them well and they've followed you willingly.




AND......



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> From the opinion of a NCM
> *Drill / Dress and deportment:*
> Theres so many things for officers to consider that they seem to forget about the little things sometimes.
> 
> ...



You both understand what it is to be not only a good officer (dglad) , but also a soldier that knows what a good officer is.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## winchable (4 Oct 2004)

I asked my grandfather (a retired royal navy officer) for advice on how to be the best officer possible, being the man of the empire that he is, he wrote me a short letter that I always will have with me:

"Remember that the Queen has seen fit to grant you this commission and it is not a position to be taken lightly.
You stand on the shoulders of all the officers who have gone before you in the service of the empire. You have the sobering responsibility of serving with and for the men and women you lead, the memory of those who have gone before you and above all else you are a servant of the crown and the subjects thereof.
Always conduct yourself in a manner becoming this tradition. 
You have been charged with the sobering task of being both a ferocious warrior and gentle leader. Yours is not an easy task and it is a thankless job, it does have its rewards, but they should not be your concern at any time. 
Lead and serve with all of these ideas in mind and you will be endeared into the hearts of many; and may rest easy when your day comes.
Rule Britannia.
God save the Queen. "


So make what you will of it, as I said he's a "Man of the Empire" and will be damned if anyone tells him he's wrong. He obviously doesn't know they call it the Commonwealth now, or maybe he does and doesn't care..either way I think it's an excellent bit of philosophy and guidance for anyone in the position.

Edit, I should also mention that that is a condensed version, so anything lacking in it might be my editing of it, not his writing.


----------



## ACS_Tech (3 Mar 2006)

Can anyone give me their take on this question?  I am not looking for rank structure, or that they have been commissioned, or that they are leaders.  I know what an officer is, but rather want to know what differentiates one from an NCM.  (By the way, I have 8 years in, so I'm not a newb here...adjust your answers accordingly).  My BPSO asked me this question a while back and I kind of stumbled to answer her.  

I mentioned that they are leaders and somewhat equivalent to managers in the civillian world, but she countered with "NCMs can be leaders, too".  So then I said something about the commission, she said "That's not what I'm talking about.  Why don't NCMs get commissions?".  So the best answer I could come up with was that officers are generally concerned for the unit as a whole.  NCMs concentrate more on an individual or sectional level.  I also mentioned that officers create policy, NCMs put them into action and maintain them.  This seemed to be a suitable answer for her as she didn't press it any more, but now I'm wondering.

Any thoughts?

On a tangent, she asked me, if I were an officer, what would make me a good officer.  One of the things I mentioned was approachability.  She seemed almost insulted at this.  She then asked me if I thought it would be OK if a Corporal just walked up to my office and wanted to chat. (Although, I don't think this is such a bad ting, I kind of see her point).  She said that basically the only time a Jr NCM should be in an officer's office is when they are getting in trouble.  Thought it was a little funny, although I didn't tell her that!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (3 Mar 2006)

From the US Army recruiting site: 

Commissioned Officers are the leaders of the Army. They lead Soldiers during every aspect of a mission. Commissioned Officers make decisions quickly, always focusing on completing the mission successfully, and showing respect for their subordinates. Commissioned Officers lead from the front and adjust to environments that are always changing. To be a Commissioned Officer is to be respected as a Soldier, an inspiring leader and a servant of the nation. 

In addition to exhibiting self-discipline, initiative, confidence and intelligence, Commissioned Officers are physically fit and can perform under physical and mental pressures. They are judged by their ability to make decisions on their own and bear ultimate moral responsibility for those decisions.


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Mar 2006)

ACS_Tech said:
			
		

> She said that basically the only time a Jr NCM should be in an officer's office is when they are getting in trouble.



Or getting praise for something exceptionally well done.................


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Quite simply.........Officers Command, NCO's Lead!!!!


----------



## ACS_Tech (3 Mar 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> From the US Army recruiting site:
> 
> Commissioned Officers are the leaders of the Army. They lead Soldiers during every aspect of a mission. Commissioned Officers make decisions quickly, always focusing on completing the mission successfully, and showing respect for their subordinates. Commissioned Officers lead from the front and adjust to environments that are always changing. To be a Commissioned Officer is to be respected as a Soldier, an inspiring leader and a servant of the nation.
> 
> In addition to exhibiting self-discipline, initiative, confidence and intelligence, Commissioned Officers are physically fit and can perform under physical and mental pressures. They are judged by their ability to make decisions on their own and bear ultimate moral responsibility for those decisions.



Yes, but there's nothing there that an NCM doesn't do.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Quite simply.........Officers Command, NCO's Lead!!!!


I would not agree with that.  Yes, officers are commissioned, Warrant Officers have a warrant and so forth, but in the end, these are just words.  
My very first OC (after I became an officer myself) was both an excellent commander and an excellent leader.  He was approachable (eg: the troops didn't fear him: that was the CSM's job!  :rage, he was fair in his dealings with the troops, and like that King in the play by Shakespeare (can't remember which one), he was comfortable mingling with the troops, keeping his ear to the ground. 
Having said all that, there was a distinct divide between him and the men.  EVERYONE knew who was in charge and he was well respected.  
In short, an officer is a special kind of leader.  The NCOs and WOs are the technical experts (eg: weapons, drill, dress and deportment, stuff like that), whereas the officers are the tactical experts.  One without the other is virtually useless.  
For example, the Platoon Commander may say "left flanking, H Hour at 0900", the Platoon WO may say "Bloggins, set the MG up here, high mount, make sure the dangerous zone covers the entire objective", and the Sgt may say "Jones, move yer friggin' arse!  Keep up!".  All leaders, and they are a potent team.


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Mar 2006)

The urge to launch an extremely smartass answer is almost overwhelming! ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> The urge to launch an extremely smartass answer is almost overwhelming! ;D



It is an inhuman, saddistic Test.   ;D


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

I am soooooo biting my toungue....







Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

OK, okay.  Let 'er rip, knowing that I am not too far off the mark  




 ;D


----------



## glock17 (3 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> that King in the play by Shakespeare (can't remember which one)



Henry V - Truly outstanding work  " we few, we glorious few, we band of brothers"


----------



## raymao (3 Mar 2006)

I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion in regards to this post as I am currently contemplating my application with CF. The officer's route utilizes my education versus the NCM which would utilize more of my work experience. I have more or less differentiated the two as being, officers take care of the operations on a wider perspective, while NCM's are specialized positions. If one were to compare the CF to a business, officers are more of the executive class, which look after larger organizational issues, while NCM's are the experts in the field and need more technical knowledge. While officers should know what NCM's do in the field on a general level, they could probably never acquire the hands-on skills that NCM's exhibit. Vice-versa, while NCM's need to relay information that is useful for the officers, there is a level of responsibility that transfers up the chain of command as well that an NCM would never have to concern him/herself with. In regards to leadership, everyone has to display a level of leadership if there are subordinates below that position. The level of responsibility is what probably differentiates the two classes the most. I have heard a few members defending NCM positions as being sometimes well educated, of course they can be, but the difference in positions are the levels of responsibility they choose. This does not mean one responsibility is necessarily more important than the other, they are simply different. In a hospital, there is no question about the importance of the surgeon performing an operation on a patient, but can you imagine the effectiveness of a hospital that failed to have a proper staff of administration as well? Supplies, paycheques, quality of the training, quality of the environment would deteriorate very quickly to the point that it may even interfere with the performance of that surgeon.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Mar 2006)

The scale of accountability of one's actions and those under one's command certainly are different for officers and NCMs.  A CO for example, through his or her actions, is responsible and held accountable for the conduct and well-being of hundreds of soldiers.  If somthing happened to any one of them through improper actions or lack of action by anyone under the CO's command, he/she would wear a lot of the responsibility.  As an interesting question, how much responsibility/accountability would the RSM bear?  Had a good friend demoted and eventually leave the CF for his acceptance of responsibility for events that resulted in a soldier's death.  Interestingly, the CO and the Base Comd accepted no blame whatsoever, especially after the OC verbally accepted responsibility before the BOI even hit the ground.  No responsibility was attributed to the CSM or other NCMs...OC took it all.  A particular and unfortuante case, perhaps, but it does point out differences between responsibility of one's personal actions and responsibility for the actions of those in a unit/organization.

Cheers,
Duey

p.s. some officers are not only commanders and leaders, but also technical experts in their duties...I don't have a Flt WO or SWO advising me how best to operate and employ my aircraft, while I also would affect command of a flight or squadron.


----------



## TN2IC (3 Mar 2006)

Officers make the work
NCM's get the job done


Quote from my PLQ.


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> The scale of accountability of one's actions and those under one's command certainly are different for officers and NCMs.  A CO for example, through his or her actions, is responsible and *held accountable for the conduct* and well-being of hundreds of soldiers.



Hate to bring this oldie up but......as an example only....

What happened then during the Somolia debacle? 

I'm not trying to stir up the hornets nest on this but a fair amount of "responsible" officers and NCOs walked away from it all.

Responsibility only goes so far in regards to the actions of the soldiers under their command.

Just my $0.02 worth

Regards


----------



## scoutfinch (3 Mar 2006)

Re Somalia

Perhaps the proper wording is "should be held accountable".  Unfortunately, you are correct that those that *should* have been held accountable in Somalia simply weren't.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

Another example from a war between Great Britain and France many a moon ago.  Apparently some ship was in battle, all the officers were dead, save one very young midshipman.  The Cox'n had someone throw salt water in his face to rouse him.  The Cox'n advised him that the battle was lost, and that the colours must be struck.  The young midshipman agreed.  The ship was captured by the French.  A few months later, in a prisoner exchange, the ship's company returned to Ol' Blighty.  The midshipman was found guilty of cowardice in the face of the enemy for surrendering a battle-worthy ship to the enemy, and hanged by the neck until dead.  The Cox'n had no charges laid against him.  (I'll have to research a reference: learned this story many moons ago during one of my phases)

So, in essence, Somalia notwithstanding, that's what officers are supposed to do: accept responsibility.  Ultimate responsibililty.  Perhaps what happened over Somalia was a text book example of how NOT to be an officer.  
My $0.02 worth

Cheers


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Mar 2006)

If there is a single test of what distinguishes an Officer from and NCM, it is that, while hoping to celebrate victory, he accepts the risk of being branded a loser; and a loser whose failure condemns not only himself, but his Army and perhaps his Country to the most painful of consequences.

John Keegan


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Hate to bring this oldie up but......as an example only....
> 
> What happened then during the Somolia debacle?
> 
> ...



Franko, more than "fair enough"...you are absolutely right and I am with you 110% on that one!  

Somalia was, in my personal opinion, the worst example of the opposite happening to the example I gave above.  I think that was the lowest of low points in officership in the CF, without doubt.  Shameful.

Leadership happens at all levels but the overall tone of where that leadership develops clearly comes from the top.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## GINge! (4 Mar 2006)

ACS_Tech said:
			
		

> She said that basically the only time a Jr NCM should be in an officer's office is when they are getting in trouble.  Thought it was a little funny, although I didn't tell her that!



I love it when BPSO's try to relate to an NCM what it means to be an officer. Especially BPSOs who are fresh off the street and have never had to lead.


----------



## Wookilar (4 Mar 2006)

I hated that question.   :-\ He must of liked my answer though (but I can't really tell you what it was, that was almost two years ago now). I also have to agree with GINge!.
We all have our own ideas of what the differences are between NCM's and the officers are, but I can tell you some of the "official" differences are (according to what is being taught to the CF's "young" leaders). Officers do swear another oath upon commissioning. Due to this second oath, those with the Queen's Commission are considered to be the "professionals" of the CF. Then we get into the level of responsibilities, accountability for others, etc, yada yada.
Now, this opens up a whole other can of lung in a bag. The whole issue of being a professional being reserved for officers is a bit of a sore point for me. It doesn't matter to me whether you are a 031 Death Tech or a 411 Veh Tech, we are all "professionals." However, the official stance is that those with a Queen's Commission are compared to other trades (civvy, mostly) that require another oath. Doctor's, lawyer's, any job where the individual is not only responsible for their duties, but also answer to another "higher" call.
Don't know if I exactly buy the entire line of reasoning, as I would hope that anyone considering the CF for a career is answering to a kind of a higher call in the first place.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Mar 2006)

As was explained to me by my first Tp WO, in '80: "See that office over there?  That's the Troop Commanders office.  He's an officer. He's called that because he never comes out of his office, and you have to call him sir.  'Office + Sir= Officer'.  That's all you need to know about him, Sapper".


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> As was explained to me by my first Tp WO, in '80: "See that office over there?  That's the Troop Commanders office.  He's an officer. He's called that because he never comes out of his office, and you have to call him sir.  'Office + Sir= Officer'.  That's all you need to know about him, Sapper".



 :rofl:

That's great...can't believe I haven't heard that one before!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Wookilar (5 Mar 2006)

LOL, that's excellent.
When I get an office, would you mind if I put that on my name plate? ;D


----------



## cdnsignaller (5 Mar 2006)

Some of the best officers that I ever met are mustang'd NCM's


----------



## reccecrewman (5 Mar 2006)

I'd concur with that - one of the best troop leaders I ever had was an ex Corporal on the Guns.


----------



## raymao (5 Mar 2006)

Would this suggest that someone cannot become a good officer without experiencing the CF as an NCM first? And if so, how much experience, and does it apply for all MOC's or just some specific ones?


----------



## Gunner (5 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> Would this suggest that someone cannot become a good officer without experiencing the CF as an NCM first? And if so, how much experience, and does it apply for all MOC's or just some specific ones?



This has been thoroughly discussed in the recruiting forum:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/22686.0.html


----------



## hockeysgal (6 Mar 2006)

I have just recently stumbled upon a CF publication that discusses this exact topic, here is a link: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/leadership/doc/DND_Doctrine_e.pdf
The article is called Leadership in the CF: Doctrine.  I don't know if this is exactly what your are looking for but it should give you the "official" view of the CF on what an officer is and should be.

Cheers
Inf Off


----------



## DG-41 (6 Mar 2006)

> Another example from a war between Great Britain and France many a moon ago.  Apparently some ship was in battle, all the officers were dead, save one very young midshipman.  The Cox'n had someone throw salt water in his face to rouse him.  The Cox'n advised him that the battle was lost, and that the colours must be struck.  The young midshipman agreed.  The ship was captured by the French.  A few months later, in a prisoner exchange, the ship's company returned to Ol' Blighty.  The midshipman was found guilty of cowardice in the face of the enemy for surrendering a battle-worthy ship to the enemy, and hanged by the neck until dead.  The Cox'n had no charges laid against him.  (I'll have to research a reference: learned this story many moons ago during one of my phases)



The incident you're thinking of is probably the story of Midshipman Cox, who was serving on the _Chesapeake_ when it tangled with (and was captured by) the _Shannon_.

This story is related in _Starship Troopers_ which is why it's so famous.

In reality, Midshipman Cox was court martialed and cashiered, but not hung. Furthermore, he was retried in 1952 and found innocent

DG


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> The incident you're thinking of is probably the story of Midshipman Cox, who was serving on the _Chesapeake_ when it tangled with (and was captured by) the _Shannon_.
> This story is related in _Starship Troopers_ which is why it's so famous.
> In reality, Midshipman Cox was court martialed and cashiered, but not hung. Furthermore, he was retried in 1952 and found innocent
> DG


Just googled it.  This might be the story related to me.  Thanks!


----------



## scoutfinch (22 Mar 2006)

I know that I have probably just opened up a huge can of worms with this thread; however, this is a sincere question so I would ask for legitimate answers!!!!  

I was sworn in and received my commission on February 28, 2006.  I am 39 years old, highly educated (as in far too many degrees to be proud of) and have always demonstrated strong leadership skills in my civilian life.  

I was hoping to canvas experienced CF members (both NCMs and officers) for their opinions as to what constitutes a good officer, particularly with respect to leadership.  

Although I suspect I am too long in the tooth to change my personality type drastically, I would like to be the best officer I can be.  Given my relative unfamiliarity with uniformed life (my only real experience is as a dependant) I was hoping your comments might provide insight as to what I can do to improve weaknesses or highlight strengths.

Thanks in advance for your comments and opinions.

SF

Many thanks to the mod that moved my post.  Most appreciated because I had totally missed the thread in the first place!   (Hmmm... quality No. 1 -- attention to detail)


----------



## GINge! (22 Mar 2006)

scoutfinch:

Be an example to your men, in your duty and in private life. Never spare 
yourself, and let the troops see that you don't in your endurance of fatigue 
and privation. Always be tactful and well-mannered and teach your 
subordinates to do the same. Avoid excessive sharpness or harshness of 
voice, which usually indicates the man who has shortcomings of his own to 
hide."
   - Field Marshall Erwin Rommel


----------



## pbi (24 Mar 2006)

GINgel:

Excellent choice of a quote. If an officer can master those things Rommel identified, he will probably go far towards winning the respect of his subordinates. However, I also believe that subordinates demand competence and decisiveness, particularly if they are expected to risk their lives to execute the orders an officer gives. The truly successful officer will strike a balance between the qualities that Rommel identified, and the latter two. An officer can't  be a mindless, heartless, orders-spitting machine any more than he can be a cuddly-wuddly Boy scout type. It's always a question of judgement and balance.

Cheers


----------



## jasper (24 Mar 2006)

There is alot of good advice here for young officers trying to gain the respect, and trust of their troops. Respect is earned, not automatically given. A good soldier will always respect the Rank. This doesn't mean that same soldier will automatically respect the person wearing that Rank. Young Officers must learn their job, as well as anyone else. Good WO's, SGT's etc have a huge amount of experience that everyone, not only officers should take notice. Junior officers who do not respect their Snr Nco's experience, and opinions will have an unforgiving uphill battle. In short, don't wander around with your head up your ass thinking you know all, and your way is the best way. This attitude will only earn you contempt, a quality that will come back to bite you. Never leave someone in your command hanging for your miscues, be friendly, and approachable, but not one of the Boy's. Lead by example.


----------



## The Six (27 Mar 2006)

A good officer shares the hardships of his men, and does not seek special comfort through his position.  There was this company commander on a recent arctic ex who scarfed up a bunch of extra sleeping furs for himself...many more stories about the guy.  How can someone become an infantry major with that kind of leadership???  In combat they die quickly.


----------



## probum non poenitet (28 Mar 2006)

Hello,

I had to jump in on this post.
There have been many excellent points made, but there are some with which I do not agree.

The advice of "listen to your NCOs all the time, they have experience, you don't" is true, but only true to a point.
We have all seen the American Vietnam movies where the competent sergeant saves the platoon time and time again from the "L.T." who is always cast as a completely incompetent buffoon.

Crap. Self-serving crap.

In an infantry platoon, if you have a strong platoon commander (2Lt or Lt usually) and a strong 2ic (WO usually) the rest of your issues will generally fall into line. If one of those two positions is lacking, the platoon has an uphill climb.

A 2Lt is inexperienced yes, and the smart ones acknowledge that. They will seek advice from their NCOs, and from other officers, both peers and superiors (a point rarely made here). They will learn fast.
But here's the bottom line - if you are a raw officer cadet put in charge of a platoon, you are just that - IN CHARGE OF THE PLATOON.
Even if your 2ic has 40 years in the army, if one of your troops dies on the range, guess who is ultimately responsible?

You've heard the phrase "Command is lonely"? Wait till things go wrong.
Suddenly you transform from that "new cherry Two-L-T" to "Mr. Jenkins, the Platoon Commander." Right this way, Mr. Investigator from the AJAG.

That is the essence of being an officer - even the most junior officer - the buck stops with you. There is nobody to blame. Unless you are General Boyle.
I digress.

If you know an order is crap, you fight it, you argue it behind closed doors, but at the end of the day you come out and pass it on without showing your feelings one way or the other. You get it done, or you are a weasel. 
Never NEVER say "Gee, guys, I don't like this, but Major Bloggins wants us to ..."
It's weakness.
Listen to advice, honour the experience of your subordinates, but you are in charge. They are not.

And guess what - troops are like girlfriends - do what they ask all the time, and pretty soon they will figure out you have no spine and hate you for it, even as you give them another afternoon off (or mink coat).

Now as to that amusing NCO who made the office+sir joke - very funny.
And guess what? He's a lousy NCO.
If you need to gain popularity/respect with your soldiers by cracking off on other leadership, you are on an ego trip, but you are not helping discipline.

If the troops see the WO cracking on the officer "Well, SIR, maybe you better let me see the map ..." the WOs popularity goes up a point, the officer's goes down 10, but most importantly, the cohesion of the platoon suffers.
It's garbage, and I've seen it from both sides of the fence.

A good NCO will always endeavour to make his officer look competent. If the officer is screwing up, a good NCO will point it out subtly and out of sight of the juniors.
It goes both ways, an officer who tries to embarrass or show disdain for NCOs isn't doing any good either.

That's why the statement 'officers command' 'ncos lead' disturbs me.
Officers had better lead, or they aren't officers.

A platoon commander and 2ic know each other's jobs. If one becomes a casualty, each is expected to fill in for the other. They had better have the physical and mental stamina to perform their duties.
Most can, some can't: there are bad officers and bad NCOs.

In a fighting withdrawal, the last soldier off the position is the officer. That is leading.
In a platoon attack, the officer is with the forward elements, directing the battle from the front.  That is leading.
Any officer knows that he cannot show weakness, fear, despair, or lack of confidence or it will destroy morale. That is leading.
If a platoon commander is doing his job correctly he will be working harder than anyone else in the platoon - with a tie going to the 2ic.

Good NCOs and officers are equally vital to the success of any mission.
ALL lead by example, or da*n well should. 

The general difference is that the NCO came up from the ranks, and by proximity has more day to day dealings with the younger ranks. Some officers do this as well, some not so much.

We all have known 'leaders' that led from a sleeping bag; some wore bars, some wore hooks.
Likewise, we all have our favourite leaders that you would follow anywhere.
Some were officers, some NCOs.

You want to know the secret of leadership?
Figure out what the right thing to do is, do it the best you can, no matter how personally difficult. Always.

The rest is details.


----------



## WogCpl (28 Mar 2006)

I tend to lean towards the LICK princapal when it comes to leadership,
Loyality: Both up and down
Integrity
Courage
Knowledge. 

Fight only two kinds of battles, the ones you can win and the ones you look good losing!!!! 

At the end, remember, as a Commander there are usually a great number of soldiers behind you with loaded weapons, if that makes you feel uncomfortable, you are probably doing something wrong.

The only bad officer is one that thinks he is too good to listen to his troops!


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Mar 2006)

"Now as to that amusing NCO who made the office+sir joke - very funny.
And guess what? He's a lousy NCO.
If you need to gain popularity/respect with your soldiers by cracking off on other leadership, you are on an ego trip, but you are not helping discipline."

That NCO who cracked off became the best RSM that regiment ever saw, bar none.  It was said in 1980, when the officers of our unit were seen less often than unicorn sh*t. They could not be bothered to get involved in the day to day mundania of soldiering, undoubtedly too busy out foxing, then back for brandy and cigars in the drawring room.  Our officers couldn't lower themselves to do PT with the troops at that time. Most promotions to the lofty heights of one-hook-sapper were handled by the Tp WO, or the SSM on rare occasions.  His comment reflected the way things were, not slagging, and I resent the implication that one of the finest men I ever served with was a lousy NCO....Rant over, the vein in my forhead is making it hard to concentrate..... :rage:


----------



## scoutfinch (28 Mar 2006)

"You want to know the secret of leadership?
Figure out what the right thing to do is, do it the best you can, no matter how personally difficult. Always."

I think this answers all of my questions.  Thank you for your sound advice.


----------



## Echo9 (1 Apr 2006)

A few points of opinion

1.  Time spent in the ranks before commissioning is at best neutral.  Yes, it gives an impression of what the world is like for those in the ranks, but I've often found that those officers are more likely to max out their talent at the platoon level.  An officer is a platoon commander for 2-3 years at most.  Of course, if you're in the ranks, you probably don't see much of officers above the platoon level...

2.  Listening to NCO's is great- to a point.  I've seen many YO's get into trouble by listening to their NCO's.  NCO's are there because they know the SOP.  Officers are there for their judgement- in other words, knowing when SOP is appropriate, and when something else is in order.  I view lapses in judgement in NCO's as being regrettable.  In officers they are terminal.

3.  Any NCO that is denigrating the performance of officers in front of subordinates is undermining unit cohesion, and deserves to be fired.  Where does it stop- is it just the Platoon Commander that's not worthy of being followed?  Is it the Company Commander?  Is it the Battalion Commander?  Pretty soon, you have a unit that has gone rogue, and a unit that does not support the chain of command is little better than a street gang.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Apr 2006)

Reference to Echo 9…

1.  Out of about 15 officers I worked with and for over my last five years, over half were from the ranks.  They were far superior in leadership qualities than the ones who came in through RMC or, even worse, retrades who failed their first attempt at a career. (I tell you, why the hell would I want an Intelligence officer who FAILED his trade, when Int officers need to have more brains than the average joe). And sorry, as an Int analyst I worked with and for officers ALL the time. 

2.  Listening to NCO's is great – period.  Then the officer can make his own decision.  And for your info, officers and senior NCOs are equally good at making bad decisions.  The difference is in who takes most of the blame.  Once the officer makes his decision, the NCO is supposed to shut up and help make it work, because if it doesn’t work, it’s the officer who suffers (unless youve got an officer with lack of ethos problems).  

3.  “Any NCO that is denigrating the performance of officers in front of subordinates is undermining unit cohesion, and deserves to be fired.”  This works both ways you know…

Reference that CF Doctrine, I agree with the infantry officer that it represents ‘policy’.   Some of this doc is rather lame.  E.G., “complete the mission?” is the most important?  That’s not part of leadership, that’s what happens when you properly apply leadership and successful planning.  The mission isnt going to succeed just by being a good leader(i.e. Dieppe) , its got to have a good plan (i.e. Vimy Ridge).  The problem with this statement is that too many officers translate ‘mission success’ into ‘my future good PER’, at the sacrifice of their troops. (“Its okay boys, your brave sacrifice will be noted in my upcoming evaluation report!”) Leadership is about how you represent yourself and the soldiers who work for you, not whether a mission gets accomplished.  Are you looking out for their best interests or just yours? Plus, there is a time and place for sacrificing your troops, and teaching officers that its okay to do so all the time is how many soldiers get put into hospital or killed, just because some striper (both young and old) got it into their head that it was more important to ‘complete the mission’.  

Why say that? Because in the real world, the mission often gets thrown out the window when something more important happens.  The only time the mission is predominant is during war operations; every soldier knows that their life can be sacrificed for the greater good.  I just don’t having my life sacrificed for a good report on a training exercise.


----------



## Echo9 (3 Apr 2006)

Centurian

Seen.  Emotion aside, your responses aren't that far different from what I said.  The reason that I said "to a point" is exactly for the reason that you highlighted.  Listening is great, just not to the point where your Sgt is writing your PER.

I'm not going to argue the point that there are officers who make really bad decisions, and officers who undermine unit cohesion.  In fact, in both cases when it's an officer doing it, it's many times worse.  That's the reason for my comment on the importance of a sense of judgement- note that terminal means fired, or worse.

I'd also agree with your remark about RMC- notice that most (and the best) CDS' have not come from that small provincial college in Kingston- I think that Boyle was the last who did.  There are some great officers that come from there, but it does seem to instill that careerist instinct in many.

Something also to remember is that Int is a weird trade.  The average Int Cpl is probably smarter than 90% of the army, all ranks, and is involved in situations that most JNCO's are not.  Int O's are also a weird group, and I'd agree that you don't want retreads, but recognize that they need a much different skill set than most officers.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 Apr 2006)

Thanks Echo 9.

Now that ive had my blast at soldiers inside the org, lets look outside.

When I retired I thought that the quality of managers, surpervisors and other leader was going to improve. After all, its about money, right? To make money you want the best people in the right job, right? Boy was I surprised!

They are on average worse! I had to re-evaluate and found that our average military 'worst managers and leaders" were actually not bad as bosses compared to the average worst in the business world.  

Guess what? As an HR consultant I currently design and develop training programs to help business managers and otehr workforce leaders to become better managers and leaders! I also coach many business owners on how to improve their company image during recruitment drives! What irony!


----------



## pbi (4 Apr 2006)

Centurian:

Interesting comment, particularly in view of how the military periodically stumbles all over itself (and wastes amounts of public $$$ into the bargain...) by bringing in civilian "experts" in management, performance measurement, etc to tell us how to do things "better". On the occasions that I have dealt with these organizations (as recently as last month) I find that in fact they usually have little of any subtance to offer the military (especially the Army...) and in fact are often peddling recycled versions of techniques and theories that we know and practice under other names. Worse, sometimes their complete unfamiliarity with military organization, culture and imperatives renders them even less useful.

My (limited) observations of the civilian organizational world (both business and govt) suggest to me that the great majority of people in what we would call "leadership" positions have precious little appreciation of what leadership really is. Perhaps this is why so many civilians hate their jobs, why abssenteeism is so high, or why unions are so strong. Conversely, by exception maybe it explains why some (few) civilian organizations are made up of happy, motivated people who willingly work hard, and would never think twice about organizing into a union. (Stelco and Dofasco, two major steel producers near where I live in Ontario, remind me of the two poles of this argument). Stelco is unionized. Dofasco, next door, is not. I would be willing to bet that good leadership is what makes most of the difference. After all, if we had a military unit that had as many internal problems as some unionized workplaces do, who would we look at firrst? The leadership, right?

This deficiency was brought home to me during an Officer professional development session we ran in 1PP back in the 90's. We did a session on "Leadership", in which we invited senior officers of the Calgary Police and Fire Services to take part. Each organization was to talk about how they approached tactical leadership (ie: Leading People in today's CF leadership terminology). Despite providing considerable reading-in material in the weeks preceding, the event was a bit of a disappointment. Neither civil agency seemed to have much in the way of a clearly defined idea of leadership (as opposed to technical procedures such as  the "size-up" that fire officers do in place of a combat estimate). It seemed to me that neither one had devoted much effort to developing an art or science of leadership to anything like the extent that we have in the CF, especially in the Army.  Since that time, through my connections with civil protective services both through military duty and my involvement in various firefighting museum groups around Canada, I have come to believe even more strongly that the civil forces that are supposedly the most "like us" have in fact only a very weak instutional grasp of leadership, often subsituting technical knowledge or management techniques in its place.

My impression is that this situation is even worse in the business world, especially retail and "quick profit" oriented operations. I have two friends who run a small company that provides leadershp training, including ethics, and they have commented with horror on the utter lack of anything approaching ethical leadership in many of the executives they deal with, especialy younger ones. Ethics tends to be regarded as either "checklist" window-dressing, or an annoying obstacle to success.

None of this is to say that we in the CF are perfect. Anybody who has been paying attention over the last couple of decades will quickly remember that we have had some pretty hideous people in our uniform, some of them quite senior. Much damage was done. But, I suggest, this was because these people chose to ignore our system and its values, pervert our leadership theories, and  just tear the *** out of everything. Our system was always good, at heart, and in many ways (IMHO) is even better and more professional than it was when I joined in 1974. IMHO it is certainly far superior to most of what is "out there".

Cheers


----------



## DG-41 (4 Apr 2006)

I moved to Windsor to work for Chrysler, in Detroit. I worked at Chrysler World Headquaters for a while, was there when the merger with Daimler happened. Thanks to the position I was in, I had a front-row seat for a lot of this stuff. Since then, I left DCX to work for a smaller supplier (who had a race team) I was the race team engineer for a while (until the team folded) and then I was punted sideways into IT.

I've also had to work with industry standard bodies, other suppliers, etc. I've seen a lot of how the business world operates.

I say, without hesitation, that the majority of people in management and leadership positions in the business world don't have the slightest clue as to what they are doing. There are many, many bright and good people out there - the problem is not that there is an excess of idiots. The problem is that almost all of the people doing the leading and managing have absolutly no training whatsoever on HOW to lead or manage.

Some figure it out intuitively, or from trial and error, but most are floating rudderless in the dark.

And MBAs are the WORST, because they get some exposure to the theory, but no practice - so they consider themselves experts, but are usually clueless.

A typical civvie business, in military terms, is populated by BMQ graduates, the senior guys are junior corporals, and the execuatives are 3rd-year RMC cadets. If it wasn't so pathetic, it'd be funny.

When I see civvie-manager-speak bleeding into the CF, I react with outright horror, because I have seen these guys in their native habitat and they are CLULESS.

That's not to say that *everything* in the civvie world is completely out to lunch; a lot of pure management theory is actually pretty good - especially modern quality control and process management theory and practice (although things like QS9000 are really more lip service than actual practice out in the wild) When they have to deal with managing *things*, civvie companies can do very well, especially when they focus on science (back up everything with measurable metrics).

I've just finished most of the AOC "training" module (the ASAT process, the deployment cycle, etc) and this has "civvie process management" stamped all over it, and I think for the better. That's an example of learning fom business in a place where they do well. But on the man management and leadership side of the house, a green MCpl has more leadership training and a a better leadership ethos than 90% of the managers/leaders in major corportations. 

DG


----------



## Centurian1985 (4 Apr 2006)

In effect, they are all 'managers' not 'leaders'; one of the arguments I often get into with other consultants is that I say not everyone can be trained to be a 'leader'.  Leadership is not only self-leadership but group leadership skills and the willingness to take responsibility for decisions which a lot of managers refuse to do.  In addition to needing a minimum level of knowledge/skills/aptitude, you must be willing to make a decision and accept responsibility for that decision. Then, based on the situation and the employees perception of your history and ethics, you can achieve a level of trust and respect from your subordinates.  In the civi world the employee cannot be prosecuted for failing to obey an order, only fired, and even then the employee has legal rights that can prevent being fired, especially if the order was unlawful or outside the realm of their occupation.       

This is a big stumbling block beacuse if you want to sell a program to a company, they dont want to hear that over 50% of their managers will fail a course in leadership.  They dont understand that a manager with a history of poor ethical actions and mistreatment of employees will not be accepted as a group leader in times of stress or emergency.


----------



## pbi (4 Apr 2006)

Centurian/Recce DG: What you guys are saying, IMHO, reinforces what I tell a lot of people who worry that service in the Combat Arms will not leave them with any useful skills in civvy street, unlike a more technical (read "saleable") MOC (Or MOSID, or WTF we call it now...) From my (few) conversations with employers, what they really seem to value are not so much the technical skills (most people can be taught these, either at school or on the job) but the human qualities that good service, particularly in the Cbt Arm and especially as an Officer/WO/NCO, tends to develop. Reliability, team work, dedication, ability to put up with BS and still function (to a point...) and basic leadership are all vital to organizations. As we have all highlighted, these traits tend to be sadly lacking. I will say, though, that there are a few progressive organizations that do try to develop leaders, selecting from within based on human qualities. Unfortunately, the tight grip of the union movement, (which IMHO is bitterly opposed to merit-based promotion), tends to exclude these policies from a goodly part of  the work force, especially the uniformed protective services. In the commercial world, especially retail, promoting seems to be based on sales volume, another incentive to let the wrong people get in the driver's seat.

Cheers


----------



## Centurian1985 (4 Apr 2006)

That just leads to another ranting subject: are retirees being given the right information about how to write their resumes?

The help I got from base HR staff about resume writing was not useful.  I got a lot of help from HR people at university and in business and went through over ten versions before I got it to a level where mine is now considered an industry standard.  

It is rather depressing to know that noone wants to see your military service and achievements. 
(Not true in the US, a retired memebr can get a job anywhere with a clean military record.  In canada you have to, not ignore it, but tone it down.)  

The most important part to put in (and that they dont tell you at the BPSO/HR office) is your transferable skills. 

Heres are your general titles and what you need to mention in your resume.

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
- put in your transferable skills!	
highly skilled 
energetic
self-motivated
experience in management
seeking a challenging position
level of creativity
problem-solving capabilities
excellent verbal, written, and interpersonal communications skills
effective and creative leader
instructor and mentor (if you have been in those positions)
team player (if you are applying for a job as an employee)
team leader (if you are aplying for management positions)
cultural effectiveness
proven record of success and achievement (give examples under achievements!!)
mature, dedicated, and ethical
proven ability to successfully plan, coordinate, and execute complex tasks with little or no direction.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

List educational facilties attended and/or certifications obtained
(DO NOT list battle school, but can use other schools like CFSIS or CFSAS)

I.E. 2004-2005:	Human Resources Management Diploma; (Institution, City, Province).
or
1999:	 	Certification in Targeting and Analysis; Royal Military College Air Warfare School, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
or
1994:	 	Leadership Qualification 6A; CFSIS, Canadian Forces Base Borden, Borden, Ontario.

ACHIEVEMENTS	
- list recognized achievements related to your transferable skills, and preferably ones you can back up with a piece of paper; doesnt have to be a formal commendation it can be backed up by a statement from your annual PER.
- mention level of success, training positions, leadership positions, any transferable skills related to business, and work in other countries! 
- indicate how many courses and training sessions you have been in over the past 5-10 years to show you are a 'continuous learner'.

EXPERIENCE

Mar 05 to Present:	Company Name, City, Province 
                                Current Position: Project Consultant
                                (phone number and contact name)

Mar 85 to Apr 05:	Department of National Defence, (last city and province worked in)
                                Last Positon title: xxxxxx
                                (phone number and contact name of good reference for you)
Thats it for your service - unless you are applying for close protection or overseas private security, then no units, no weapons quals, no postings, if they are interested in that then you can tell them later. 

PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

(now you can list your other skills)
X years experience as an instructor and trainer.
x years experience in leadership, management, team-building, or analysis.
x years experience in interviewing, briefing, or presentation techniques. 
x years experience in interpreting human rights or other laws. 
x years experience in crisis and change management.
- dont forget volunteer experience especially if you were a president, VP, coach, or committee member!
- mention your skill on computers and which programs you know

I.E. Highly adaptive and skilled in the use of computers and application of computer operations and programs, with training and extensive experience in most Microsoft Office suite products, and additional training and experience on over a dozen other software packages and unique computer configurations.

List other signficant courses, 
I.E. Feb 1997:	St. John’s First Aid Instructor qualification

REFERENCES AND AVAILABILITY

Available for full-time employment after (Day Month Year).
- Exceptional work and personal references, and letters of reference, are available upon request. 
(you do not by law have to provide your references when you apply, but some companies still ask right away; its your choice whether to give it to them or not)
(get reference letters written by people you know BEFORE you leave the military) 

Any questions?


----------



## Roy Harding (5 Apr 2006)

My Father was a senior executive in a civilian company.  He was was what used to be called a Registered Industrial Accountant - now designated as a Certified General Accountant, I believe.

He was never happy with my career choice in the military - I was supposed to be a Doctor, or an Engineer, or a Lawyer, or something.

Anyway - I recall having dinner with him one night, and I happened to bring up the military definitions of "management" and "leadership".  He was amazed - he told me that they didn't teach such things in the civilian world.  This was a man in a very senior position in a civilian organization admitting that he had never been taught how to "manage", or how to "lead".

Having been in the civilian world for over two years now, I can verify his observation.


----------



## pbi (5 Apr 2006)

Roy:  A similar, if not so profound, example from the civil protective services world. A friend of mine was Deputy Chief for Operations of a large Canadian fire service. Following a major multiple alarm fire incident that had a somewhat embarassing outcome for the fire dept, he told me that he and the District Chiefs were looking over how to establish a better command and control system at a major, multi-agency incident, where the scope of incident was too big for the incident commander to be able to see it all from one vantage point. He described that their current system was not very effective, and in fact might have conrtibuted to the bad outcome at the recent fire.

All I did was to describe the very basic C2 setup of a battlegroup HQ, which was the closest thing I could think of to what he was talking about. He was amazed, and very appreciative. Now, I am not trying to mock my friend nor his fire service. I am trying to make the point that in the Army we make a real art and science out of leadership and C3I, far more than any organization I know of. We have a depth of knowledge and experience in these areas that IMHO has no equal. Much of what we see trumpeted about by civil management experts (and sold back to us by consultants) is clearly based on techniques and theories that we have known and practiced for years, if not centuries.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (5 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> That just leads to another ranting subject: are retirees being given the right information about how to write their resumes?



I have an excellent little book that I picked up a few years ago in a US Army PX. It is written by a former Command Sgt Maj of the Army, and is entitled "Does Your Resume Wear Combat Boots?. The author wrote it to help retiring US Army personnel get a leg up on getting good civvy jobs.

He identified that a major problem in the US was that an increasing number of employers had little or no understanding of military service, nor of the potential value of transferable skills. For example, a retiring Armor Capt might write:

"I commanded an M1 tank company for two years"

The author said that most employers in the US would have little or no idea how to assess the experience and skills this represented. Instead, he suggested that the officer should have "translated" his military experience something like this:

"For two years I was the CEO of an organization of 120 people, and was responsible for the effective and efficient operation of inventory and infrastructure worth over 100 million dollars. I controlled an annual operating budget of 1 million dollars (or whatever amount...) to ensure the operational readiness of the organization to relocate rapidly anywhere on the globe, complete its mission, and return to its home location. I was personally accountable for all aspects of the training, leading and management of the organization."

Anyway--you get the idea. It's a great book, and one I highly recommend if you can still find it.

Thanks for the info on resume preparation: it is interesting to see what is currently "market standard" these days.

Cheers


----------



## DG-41 (5 Apr 2006)

I've lost count of the number of times I have walked co-workers through simplified versions of a time estimate, a mission analysis, an estimate, or orders....

DG


----------

