# Moral vs Manning



## Radop (25 Nov 2006)

I have been discussing the above issue with other Snr NCOs and thought I would put it out in this forum.  Are we actually loosing more people by keeping the deadwood by negatively influencing the good ones to get out because they feel they are getting the same treatment as those who perform poorly?

In Pet, we released people who were not performing and made sure that our paperwork was completed properly and all the related information could be easily obtained to prove the point.  In Kingston, when the subject was brought up, it is always said that "We can't do that right now because our numbers are too low."  We maintained our numbers but the number of people who could not deploy kept climbing.  We have soldiers now with Developing PERs who will be promoted to MCpl this year.  This situation eventually will hurt the Sig Op trade and other trades were it doesn't matter how you do, you will get promoted due to a lack of numbers.

What I would rather see is that we be short at the MCpl/Sgt level and work at getting the younger soldiers experienced to fill the role as MCpls.  Have the Cpls fill the role of a MCpl to prove that they can do the job and send them on a PLQ course to see if they can handle the leadership role.  Once they have proven themselves as reliable leaders, then promote them.


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Nov 2006)

This is a HUGE problem in the Comm Res.

You are constantly finding fresh young Masterjacks filling in the roles of Tp WOs, and people who are just not ready being sent on courses, such as PLQ, and then automatically getting their leafs.

I would rather see senior Cpls being given more leadership roles, and once having some experience, getting their leafs. Gives them a better background trade and experience-wise.


----------



## 211RadOp (27 Nov 2006)

I hate to say this, but I agree with you RadOp 



			
				Radop said:
			
		

> We have soldiers now with Developing PERs who will be promoted to MCpl this year.  This situation eventually will hurt the Sig Op trade and other trades were it doesn't matter how you do, you will get promoted due to a lack of numbers.



This is a trade problem, not a Regimental one, but we will see some of them here. A soldier who is developing at any rank should never be promoted. If a unit, even a pri 2, can not be filled by qualified pers, then, yes, put in your stronger pers at one rank level lower to allow them to gain the valuable training for promotion. To merely promote an individual to fill a position can only create problems.




			
				Radop said:
			
		

> ...  In Kingston, when the subject was brought up, it is always said that "We can't do that right now because our numbers are too low."  We maintained our numbers but the number of people who could not deploy kept climbing.



This is were we, as leadership, have to put things on paper. Use the PDR system. If they deserve verbal, written or any other type of warning, document it. I have and will continue to do so.


----------



## Radop (27 Nov 2006)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> This is were we, as leadership, have to put things on paper. Use the PDR system. If they deserve verbal, written or any other type of warning, document it. I have and will continue to do so.



I am talking about the leaders (MCpls, Sgts) doing up the paperwork and officers saying that it cannot be done because of the numbers.  I would rather see us undermanned than keep the dead wood around.


----------



## MOOXE (28 Nov 2006)

Radop said:
			
		

> I have been discussing the above issue with other Snr NCOs and thought I would put it out in this forum.  Are we actually loosing more people by keeping the deadwood by negatively influencing the good ones to get out because they feel they are getting the same treatment as those who perform poorly?
> 
> In Pet, we released people who were not performing and made sure that our paperwork was completed properly and all the related information could be easily obtained to prove the point.  In Kingston, when the subject was brought up, it is always said that "We can't do that right now because our numbers are too low."  We maintained our numbers but the number of people who could not deploy kept climbing.  We have soldiers now with Developing PERs who will be promoted to MCpl this year.  This situation eventually will hurt the Sig Op trade and other trades were it doesn't matter how you do, you will get promoted due to a lack of numbers.
> 
> What I would rather see is that we be short at the MCpl/Sgt level and work at getting the younger soldiers experienced to fill the role as MCpls.  Have the Cpls fill the role of a MCpl to prove that they can do the job and send them on a PLQ course to see if they can handle the leadership role.  Once they have proven themselves as reliable leaders, then promote them.



As of December 06 there will be no more acting lacking promotions in our trade. To back up this claim all I can say is that it was passed down to me through my Sig O. I believe it always better to be top heavy than bottom heavy when the ranks get thinned out, like they have been. Reason being, you have room for expansion and all the leadership is there ready to take on the roll. All the promotions we've seen lately were needed to fill huge gaps, now that they are filled we can go back to what you said about sending Cpls on thier leadership training.

The release section would be the best place to ask why people get out, as they "have" to fill out reasons why they are leaving. Whether or not we are allowed to read this information is another question. Someone obviously does though. I do find it difficult to blame the deadwood before a real hard look is goven to the chain of command.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (28 Nov 2006)

I do agree with the argument that deadwood does hurt the moral and overall effectiveness of those who actually care. I know that in my unit our CO is actively pushing out those who simply are not pulling their weight,  he has said so on a few occasions. (Yes I've seen it.)  The unit was under staffed before,  this pruning of the org chart of course made things worse; however, I can honestly say that the moral boost from having almost exclusively people who are ... well I'll just say keener is increadable. I notice that the overall the 'feel' around the armoury is better and I see people getting more involved.

Right now the only thing slowing down our unit from growing back to full strength is that it takes time to properly train, and there are length of service requirements for a few people who clearly deserve promotion.  We have a MCpl doing a Sgt's job - a thousand times better than the Sgt he replaced IMHO, but I'm told he can't be promoted because he hasn't been in the required length of time. ( I don't like it, and if I ever have any say in the matter I'd ensure that if you're doing the job of a certain rank, then you are at least paid like that rank. )

I think it comes down to the whole question,  slow or fast.  How do you pull the bandaid off? I know my CO took a big gamble on booting so many so fast and having a huge gap in the middle of the ranks, but from what I'm seeing it is paying off. I think that the deadwood doesn't just take up a spot that could be filled with someone usefull, I think that they bring down the whole unit by setting bad examples and lowering the moral of everyone.  (Plus they take forever with the paperwork  :threat


----------



## Canadian Sig (28 Nov 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> As of December 06 there will be no more acting lacking promotions in our trade. To back up this claim all I can say is that it was passed down to me through my Sig O.



I havent heard anything like that yet around the Sqn in Pet but who knows. The only problem with it is that there are still Cpls waiting for their 5's course so the Ptes can't get on course and therefore could not get promoted. The same would be true for PLQ and Cpl promotions to Master Jack ( not that I'm ever gonna get to that lofty rank eh Radop? ;D ). I have only seen 2 pers who were "dead-wood" removed from the Sqn since Radop left  (and another is on his way ), unfortunatly I have seen much more coddling and hand-holding for these individuals and that has led to ignoring or not recognising the efforts of keener soldiers. I try at my own level to bring those keener soldiers to the attention of the higher members of the CoC and it has worked out well in a few cases. I think that this problem can be addressed at all levels; the MCpls and Sgts need to used the PDR system and the warning system to take care of both the "dead-wood" and the keeners and the Cpls need to provide input to those Mcpls and Sgts where appropriate. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## 211RadOp (28 Nov 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> As of December 06 there will be no more acting lacking promotions in our trade....



With Cpl's being promoted with "Ready" PERs, then there is no substance to what your CO is saying.


----------



## MOOXE (28 Nov 2006)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> With Cpl's being promoted with "Ready" PERs, then there is no substance to what your CO is saying.



Not sure what you mean by saying theres no substance. I can see that these are 2 different subjects but they both feedback into each other.


----------



## MOOXE (28 Nov 2006)

Moral vs Manning.. after thinking about it some more I have something else to say..... The "influential" powers of deadwood in ref. to moral would be miniscule in the grand scheme of things. I think job fullfillment, operations and superiors are really the factors that make people want to stay in or not. The deadwood can have a dampening effect on people, but is it noticable in the big picture?


----------



## 211RadOp (28 Nov 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> Not sure what you mean by saying theres no substance. I can see that these are 2 different subjects but they both feedback into each other.



If they are promoting "Ready" Cpls to MCpl, they will not all have leadership training, therefore will be acting/lacking.


----------



## MOOXE (28 Nov 2006)

Ok so I have more to say...


_the MCpls and Sgts need to used the PDR system and the warning system to take care of both the "dead-wood" and the keeners and the Cpls need to provide input to those Mcpls and Sgts where appropriate._

Good point. I think the problem with this is very deep rooted. From my own perspective of Pte/Cpl & MCpl levels, work relationships easily become personal relationships. It can be very hard to write up a bad PDR on a guy you know by 1st name regularly. Our career instincts tell us to hold onto our integrity and call a spade a spade. Our personal relationship instincts tell us to be nice, be thoughful and praise the individual. Its hard to separate the personal and career relationships because of this. Another point is teamwork. Theres really not alot of teamwork in 215 when compared to a trade such as the infantry. For example where I work, we have 4 separate sections, each section can go days without ever having to work with another. In our trade dont have to look out for each other so much, were not there to lift a person up when they are failing, a failing person cant recognize his shortcoming when theres no team to tell him what hes doing wrong. When you put these all together, people turn into deadwood.


----------



## MOOXE (28 Nov 2006)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> If they are promoting "Ready" Cpls to MCpl, they will not all have leadership training, therefore will be acting/lacking.



Understood. My point was they will not be promoting people to acting lacking MCpl regardless of what the promotion reccomendation states.


----------



## Canadian Sig (28 Nov 2006)

MOOXE said:
			
		

> Understood. My point was they will not be promoting people to acting lacking MCpl regardless of what the promotion reccomendation states.



Except that they are promoting more than 100 per year ( 116 rumoured this year and 100+ for the last 2 years ) and there are not that many at the "imediate" stage. They might like to have no more acting lacking but if they want to fill the slots and positions ( by rank ) then they have no choice.


----------



## JSR OP (28 Nov 2006)

People seem to be hung up on this "Ready" vs "Immediate" issue.  Just because someone is rated at a "Ready", it doesn't mean that the individual is not deserving of the promotion.  Gone are the days where you needed at least three "Immediate" PERS to get promoted.  Remember, back then, there were hardly any promotions, and it took an act of God, plus the three "Immediates" to get one.  Things are different now.  With the amount of people retiring, the increase in the numbers of pers in the trade, not to mention the increase in the defense budget, there are a lot of positions to fill, and they are being filled.  Being rated as a "Ready", and of course are within the promotion zone, and being PLQ is enough, is respectable, and should not be looked down on.



These are from the Administrative Instructions from the CFPAS website:

Promotion Recommendation. The promotion recommendation indicates the member's overall readiness for promotion to the next rank based on the member's assessed potential. The promotion recommendation categories are defined as follows:


*No. Member has demonstrated low potential for progression to the next rank as described by the "LOW" category in the Potential Rating scale. A "NO" recommendation must be substantiated with specific reasons in the narrative of section 4B;


Developing. Member has demonstrated a minimum of "NORMAL" or higher potential as described by the Potential Rating Scale. A member receiving one or more low ratings in the potential AF's must be assigned a "NO" promotion recommendation;


Ready. Member demonstrates consistently high potential for progression to next rank as described by the "ABOVE AVERAGE" category in the Potential Rating Scale; and


Immediate. Member is considered to have outstanding potential for progression to the next rank as described by the "OUTSTANDING" category in the Potential Rating Scale.*


----------



## MOOXE (28 Nov 2006)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> Except that they are promoting more than 100 per year ( 116 rumoured this year and 100+ for the last 2 years ) and there are not that many at the "imediate" stage. They might like to have no more acting lacking but if they want to fill the slots and positions ( by rank ) then they have no choice.



From what I was told they have caught up the system with the requirements so the need for acting lacking is gone. Atleast for now. Just the messenger.... It could not be valid anymore....


----------



## Radop (29 Nov 2006)

That has not been valid for over 5 yrs.  One of my friends who was promoted to MCpl before me had to wait 6 yrs to get on a course (some mitigating circomstances such as tours also contributed) and I actually was an instructor on the course.  A/L is not going away anytime soon.  The last canforgen on the subject set timelines (18 mos) for getting the course except for those with exceptional reasons as to why they could not attend a course.  If they could not attend one or turned one down, then they would have to take down the rank.  It will be years before they catch up and they are going to be adding more to the PLQ in light of the feedback from Afghanistan.  I don't know were your Sig O is getting his info but it seems a little off.  Maybe he is refering to his unit.  In the infantry for instance, they will not promote a person to MCpl until he has a leadership course.  They send there most deserving Cpls and Ptes on the course.  With all the promotions that will be taking place right up to 1 Dec, there will be no place for Cpls to take a leadership course.  The good news is that a lot of people are joining from the reserves who are already qualified and once they get promoted, they don't need that billet on a course.  Furthermore, our trade may require that we do PLQ part 6 in the near future.  That may just extend the backlog from what it is right now.


----------



## Darth_Hamel (5 Jan 2007)

I think the problem of dead weight is a lot more wide spread than the promotion to MCpl issu [not that anyone on this threat has denied that]. The easiest stage to release someone from the CF for being incompetent, and cheapest, is during their basic training. When I did BMQ/SQ in Shilo with the Com Res and CAP at Gagetown with the Infantry School 2 years later the commandant had ruled that EVERYONE was going to pass, leaving the weeding out to their trade specific trg. Since we all no CFSCE doesn't fail incompetent people I now know 3 Cpl det cmdr's who cannot raise a VIXAM mast or even dress themselves without help; and about 8 2Lt's that cannot complete a patrol without walking on the road the entire way.

It seems to me that the current "everybody passes" BRT/BOTP system results in us just hoping the clusterf**ks get the hint and quit of their own free will, because the CF is never going to let them go. This may have been tolerable in a peacetime army, not so in the current CF.


----------



## JBP (30 Jan 2007)

Wow... Reading all this and a few other threads about the trade really opened my eyes I'd have to say... 

Comming from an Infantry background (I'll be swearing in as Sig Op recruit sometime this March/April) in the reserves to fulltime Sig Op will be very interesting. I can see that the Infantry background will come in handy it seems, being a 'gung-ho' individual who isn't afriad to get dirty, play rough or be deployed on tour or training courses... 

From what I can tell, you guys mean deadwood by pers who simply come up with all kinds of reasons to not be able to deploy or go on training and who consistently can't even do thier own jobs properly right? In the Infantry this would be the d*ckhead who can't make timings, looses his rifle at times, can't carry his own rucksack all the way on a march...? ... 

So, if I'm understanding this right people, if I work my ass off, score high on my initial training in Kingston and then prove myself 'on the job' for awhile, I can expect to at least be a Cpl within 4 yrs or so? That would be bloody nice... 

I thought that with all the new Sig Ops being hired I'd be stuck for quite some time and not have a chance at promotion to Cpl until about 5-6yrs or so... Not the case then? Good chance of promotion if I'm not a tool in this trade?


----------



## 211RadOp (30 Jan 2007)

Pte Joe,

Pay attention to your enrollment message. It will tell you how much time towards promotion, if any, that you have. Subtract this from 4 yrs, and that is when you should be recieving your Cpls. As for your MCpls, not difficult in this trade. During the Career Managers general briefing this year, the numbers of people being appointed to MCpl is shocking, and you can see why in the above posts.

I've been a Rad Op/Sig Op since '89 after finishing my TQ3 (now called apprentice) and have had many good times, but as with any type of employment, it's what you make of it.

Welcome to the trade.


----------



## Radop (30 Jan 2007)

211radop,

I thought you got in when Jesus was a lance cpl. HEHE

This year's CM's brief was also interesting in that he said they promoted 89 to MCpl yet they had to go to number 116 because of medical bipasses.  That means almost 40 pers were medically unfit to receive a promotion last year.  I could hardly believe there was that many Cpls who had medical conditions that would preclude them from getting promoted.  I just wonder how many are permanent med catigories and how many are temp?


----------



## 211RadOp (5 Feb 2007)

Radop said:
			
		

> 211radop,
> 
> I thought you got in when Jesus was a lance cpl. HEHE



What happened to the HÈHÈ!!

Don't I rate.

And it was when Centurian was a rank, not a tank. Remember, that's when I said I completed my Rad Op 3's.


----------



## Radop (9 Feb 2007)

HÈHÈ

sorry man.  You can whip me with a wet noodle the next time I come over there.  lol or rdf


----------



## steen15 (18 Feb 2007)

I heard a lot of this at the Regiment the last little while, that so many are getting there leaf.  I am one of those that falls into the group that believes there are too many undeserving people getting promoted this year.  There are a lot of Sig's out there that deserve them, but then there is a lot that don't.  I know the whole promote and post attitude is a great army tradition, but seeing at JSR how people can do nothing and others do so much with out any real recognition as to what either has done.  Don't get me wrong most of the MCpls there that I have worked with are great but theres some people getting promoted this year that I would trade for a wet sandwich as a det Cmdr.   Oh well, theres my rant for the night.


----------



## JBP (7 Mar 2007)

I just got the call today, I'm heading to CFB Kingston for March 31st for Sig Op training. I'll find out next week if I'm going to be on Pat Platoon or straight to trade training. I imagine I'll be doing some time on Pat just like most new Sig Ops... I'll just use it to absorb as much as I can and bring myself to a new fitness level if that's the case... 

Anyone know the dates of the upcomming courses for Sig Op QL3 that they could PM me? 

Thanks,
Joe

C U in Kingston soon...  >


----------



## 211RadOp (8 Mar 2007)

PM inbound


----------



## steen15 (8 Mar 2007)

Good luck on your 3's and remember to take what ever is thrown at you in stride and know that there is an end point to it all.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Mar 2007)

steen15 said:
			
		

> Good luck on your 3's and remember to take what ever is thrown at you in stride and know that there is an end point to it all.



Don't make the mistake of wasting all your money on Princess St, either.....Don't deny yourself some fun, but save some money!


----------



## JBP (8 Mar 2007)

Yeah I kind of expect to have to take some of it in stride. It's Reg Force, not Reserves anymore so it will be different. I'll just try to remember the worst points of my Infantry DP1/QL3 when we go through 'interesting character building' times...  

And I intend to be saving money and paying down debt. Sure I'll have some fun with the boys, but not too much... I'm 25 so I had some fun earlier on. 

Thanks again by the way folks for the advice and chitter-chatter over the past couple of months, really helped out. I talked to a few Sigs in the chatroom here in Army.ca and retained some very useful information which helped me make this career decision and helped me out big time in the interview!


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Mar 2007)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> And I intend to be saving money and paying down debt. Sure I'll have some fun with the boys, but not too much... I'm 25 so I had some fun earlier on.
> 
> ...



Heck, I'm 46 and I'm STILL having "some fun with the boys" - and yes, sometimes "too much".

Life ain't over, young Padawan.  It's just beginning.

Good luck to you - reading your posts, I'm sure you'll do well.


Roy


----------



## Radop (11 Mar 2007)

If you are having any problems with the concepts learned on your 3s, look me up as I have a little experience with this stuff.  (look at my profile)


----------



## JBP (11 Mar 2007)

Radop said:
			
		

> If you are having any problems with the concepts learned on your 3s, look me up as I have a little experience with this stuff.  (look at my profile)



Thank you very much, I'm sure I could absorb a great deal from your experience, I will definitely keep you in mind. I imagine it gets pretty fast and furious once we get past the "This is how to type... This is Microsoft Office Suite... This is how you make a Spreadsheet!"... Lol.... I'm hoping it does anyway....


----------

