# The Need for Progression in Rank...



## Meridian (16 Dec 2004)

Alright, this discussion topic comes partially out of a Cadet thread I was reading earlier....
Im especially interested in the viewpoints of the more senior ranking people around here (Sgts  +) but all are of coure welcome, since I have no rank at all 

In today's hierarchial world (even in corporate politics) everyone seems to be in a rush to get up the ladder.
With respect to the CF, I constantly see discussions about differences in pay, "finally getting promoted to Mcpl/sgt", etc.
OTW, it seems that it is almost expected that for a career to be a successful one, you should be promoted continually until you reach CWO, or until you commission and keep going higher (at least for the NCM world).

Now I've met some fine Corporals in my short time in, and many had nearing 20 or even more years of service in...Regarded as exceedingly competent at their jobs by me (a rather casual observer, I admint), others wondered why they were only a corporal, rumours abounded regarding (he must have pissed off a WO, or he hit a senior officer) the reasons for the non-promotion.


Thus, I ask you...  is/are there "working" ranks of the Forces... ie ranks that once you are fully trained in your trade, unless you display EXTRAORDINARY aptitude and/or request to move onto leadership positions you can respectfully sit at and remain?  Or are you forever doomed to be regarded as someone who never met their full potential if you do not always seek to reach out for the highest rank?

(On the side, I heard mention of "CPl" and "Capt" being the "working ranks" for the NCM's and officers, respectively).

Cheers!


----------



## aesop081 (16 Dec 2004)

Troughout my career i have met allot of "career corporals".   Some of them were at that rank after allot of years because they did not posses any skills whatsoever but also some who chose to remain there because they enjoy the work and have no desire to be faced with paperwork and having to supervise vice doing the work.   I submit that the military depends on these guys because they are very good at what they do. Yes, IMHO, Corporal and Captain are the ranks that most commonly come to mind.

This is my second time being a corporal and i would gladly remain there but i can't, working rank in my MOC starts at Sargent right on trough CWO.   My trade is weird because you can have a Mcpl in charge of a CWO and all ranks work on crew so basically all ranks are "working" ranks.   Promotion to MCpl is automatic one year after graduation from CFANS and the attrition rate being so high, you get your Sargent's after 2 years unless you have been in jail or something.   To make a long story short, no career corporals in this MOC..... Also, being promoted for Aesop's sometimes mean ground jobs flying mahogany bomber !!!!

 I agree with you that there is a stigma associated with cpl's who have not been promoted despite their years of service.   My contention is that we tend to promote so fast that there is not always the experience that should come with that rank.   I have personally seen 2 individuals make it to Sgt in 6 years, which i though to be extremely fast.

I would also submit that the rank of Sgt could also be one of those "plateau" ranks.   I have met allot of sergeants that have held this rank for quite a few years for one reason or another.   I know that in my previous MOC , Sgt would have been the ideal "end" rank....any higher than that means too much paperwork for me.

I'm afraid that i cant speak for the officer side of your question but i suspect that the ranks of Captain and major would fit the bill.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Dec 2004)

So true aesop081.
Beware of those hungry for rank,offen they prove to be unworthy leaders.


----------



## Bomber (17 Dec 2004)

The Army definitely runs on the backs of those two ranks, I think it is just sometimes the way it has to be.  Many things in the Army are decades old, and the only people that can use them properly are the CFL's.  I know a couple of guys like this, and respect them for what they do.  However, there is also a large part of this category that are just in for a pay check.  They get good money for little responsibility.  There was a "fictitious list" going around comparing the Army of the 40's and 50's to the Army of today.  And one of the points was that in the old days, they called people that stayed in the same rank and never stepped up "ambitionless losers" or Oxygen thief's.  It pointed out that now these same people are often referred to as "experts" or SME's.  I have seen a bunch of guys like this get into the leadership mode when they watch guys that the drove around on basic get promoted to master and start doling out orders to them.  For a long time I thought I would just stay a bomber for life and live well doing it, but I wanted to start doing more than always driving the truck or loading the gun.  And promtions promote comraderie, cause you have to feed beer to everyone in the mess, the worst though is leaving the JR's, a double whanmy buying for two messes.


----------



## SHARP WO (17 Dec 2004)

First, just to clear a point for you.

No one is ever promoted to MCpl they are appointed.

Now my opinion, I think the best rank is WO. When you hit WO you are considered to be an SME in your field. I know many Sgt's who are skilled in their work but I have noticed that it is the WO who is the expert. You have to think about the role WO plays in the BN. He is the enforcer of rules and regs, the administrator, the disciplinarian, the one who gets everything done on time.

You really notice the difference when on course with a course WO and course 2/ic(Sgt).

SHARP WO


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

SHARP WO said:
			
		

> First, just to clear a point for you.
> 
> No one is ever promoted to MCpl they are appointed.



Yes, i forgot about that.............but still, the meaning and intent of my post remains unchanged.


----------



## Meridian (17 Dec 2004)

If you ask the majority of members in the CF of corporal rank or less, if they would like to be promoted to MCpl one day, I doubt very many will clarify that it is just an appointment.

Obviously it is just an appointment. But its a PROMOTION to that appointment. 

It is not a new rank, but it does carry additional responsibilities, expectations and pay, no?


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 Dec 2004)

Some people just dont want it. There is a certain ex.Sgt, in my unit, now a Cpl. I was a C6 gunner on SG04, and I let him do my zeroing for me on my barrels, the firstthing he said was, man I love being a Cpl again. It was the first time in about a decade since he had fired a C6. Also sometimes promoting people, gets them out of the feild and into an office, thus taking away an effective member of the team/leadership.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

Meridian said:
			
		

> If you ask the majority of members in the CF of corporal rank or less, if they would like to be promoted to MCpl one day, I doubt very many will clarify that it is just an appointment.
> 
> Obviously it is just an appointment. But its a PROMOTION to that appointment.
> 
> It is not a new rank, but it does carry additional responsibilities, expectations and pay, no?



Yes it does but it IS an appointment not a promotion.....period !


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Also sometimes promoting people, gets them out of the feild and into an office, thus taking away an effective member of the team/leadership.



Yes sometimes this is the case......this is the number one reason i do not wish to move up in my new MOC.................desk jobs start...i joined to fly......planes not desks !!


----------



## foerestedwarrior (17 Dec 2004)

I heard of a guy who was a trucker, he is a Cpl, and they wanted to send him on his PLQ, to get him promoted to MCpl, he said why, he joined the army to drive trucks, not teach.
In some ways we need peopl like that, but we also need the people that want to get promoted so they can become the leadership and teach others.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> I heard of a guy who was a trucker, he is a Cpl, and they wanted to send him on his PLQ, to get him promoted to MCpl, he said why, he joined the army to drive trucks, not teach.
> In some ways we need peopl like that, but we also need the people that want to get promoted so they can become the leadership and teach others.



True....some people simply do not have the abilities needed to lead troops buy they should not be looked down upon for it.


----------



## Meridian (17 Dec 2004)

Right, but this guy actually HAS the ability to lead, he just doesn't want to.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Right, but this guy actually HAS the ability to lead, he just doesn't want to.



principle of leadership : SEEK AND ACCEPT RESPONSABILITY


----------



## Meridian (17 Dec 2004)

noted.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> principle of leadership : SEEK AND ACCEPT RESPONSABILITY



Don't confuse that with seeking higher rank though, the two are not the same thing.  As a corporal I am now the senior clerk in my regiment, though I am employed in clothing stores.  I am also the regimental webmaster and run our heritage section (re-enactment/historical display group).  I field emails once in awhile for the regimental museum and am assistant editor of the regimental association's newsletter.  Plenty of responsibility, some of which I sought, and I don't need crowns or leafs to do it.  I'm lucky that way; there aren't that many plum jobs like that to go around.  There are other corporals in the unit who do the same; we have another long-service corporal who does lots of volunteer stuff for the regimental hockey team, for example.

I made corporal back in the 1980s, incidentally.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Don't confuse that with seeking higher rank though, the two are not the same thing.



Thas what i meant !

Incidently since i used to be a MCpl and that this is my second time being a Cpl..........i am well aware of that..thanks


----------



## Steel Badger (18 Dec 2004)

Just posted in the "ranks to be re-introduced thread" on the subj.

Not all who remain CPls are oxygen thieves or losers, just as there are some "old CPLs" out there who are Queens hard-bargins.
Some who remain CPls are better soldiers than those who strive for promotion.
The current pay system firmly links rank with pay. IMHO decoupling rank from pay grade would be better.
base it on Qual level (in trade), merit and TI.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Dec 2004)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Just posted in the "ranks to be re-introduced thread" on the subj.
> 
> Not all who remain CPls are oxygen thieves or losers, just as there are some "old CPLs" out there who are Queens hard-bargins.
> Some who remain CPls are better soldiers than those who strive for promotion.
> ...



That would be a good idea IMHO


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2004)

Many, many years ago we had the CGS as a dinner guest (Walsh, a RCE officer, by the way, for those who wonder if a Sapper can be chief of staff â â€œ and, as an even further aside, he followed Clark, a Signals officer).   He, Walsh, was a fearsome and much feared fellow but after the port had been 'round the table two or three times and cigars were burning well he mellowed a bit and then turned and bellowed at no-one in particular and everyone in general: â Å“What is the first duty of an officer?â ?

There were many, many tries for a 'right' answer: 'look after your men' and 'develop good leadership skills' were pretty high on the list I guess.   Walsh scoffed and snorted and sputtered a bit and finally said: â Å“Your first duty is to prepare yourselves for promotion.â ?

His explanation was this: if you are any good at all, anything other than a time-waster and ration-thief, then you *must* want, need to advance so that you can impose your good ideas, your values, your aims on as many soldiers as possible.   The only way you can be sure of doing that is to advance as high as you can as fast as you can.   He reminded us that, in '39 and '40 the Canadian Army (at unit and formation levels) was led, if that's the right word, by wonderful men â â€œ all in their '40s and '50s.   World War I veterans who had stayed the course during the dirty thirties, when the country forgot about its army ... fine men, he said, but useless in war.   By '43 and '44 they were all gone, replaced by colonels and brigadiers who were barely '30 â â€œ young, fit, tough, aggressive men who had worked hard to climb the ladder as quickly as possible because they knew that every less than good leader/commander meant that Canadian soldiers died in vain, victims of stupidity.

I never liked General Walsh; I never met anyone who did; he was a tough, aggressive man who ensured that the Army, _*his*_ Army reflected his ideas and his values.   He fought hard â â€œ helped to kill the AVRO Arrow before it killed the Canadian defence budget, and then helped and directed the reorganization and reequipping of the post Korea army into a tough, superbly disciplined, well trained, highly professional mechanized force which was the envy of every single allied commander â â€œ including the biggest and best of the British, French, German and American commanders because the worst of Walsh's Army was, clearly, demonstrably, better than the best of their armies.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Dec 2004)

WOW....ROJ, you are taking us back a few............... 

You do make a valid point IMHO...something for me to consider.


----------



## pbi (19 Dec 2004)

We could expand upon ROJ's observation by considering the approach taken by the German Reichsheer in the years 1920-1933 in order to get around the effect of the Versailles restrictions on the size of the Army's officer cadre. The Germans knew that the hardest thing to do when rapidly expanding an Army for war is the production of quality leaders who have been properly selected and trained. Since Versailles imposed a strict limit on the number of commissioned officers (but nt on NCOs) they applied the methodology of training every soldier to be a leader. In fact, the retention of a soldier in the Reichsheer past his first engagement was based to a great extent on the leadership potential that he displayed.

Although we face somewhat different conditions in our Army today (perhaps too many officers rather than not enough...) I think that for an Army such as ours, which has an expeditionary and "surge" history, the idea of deveoping and enforcing a high level of leadership potential in the force IMHO has some merit.

On the other hand, ather thread, I think it is long past time that we decoupled rank from technical skill for soldiers in support MOCs. A revival of old Cdn Army Group Badge system would let us reward those support soldiers who are excellent technicians (and soldiers...) but do not want to advance in rank. In the early 90's I sat on a board back at the old FMC HQ at St Hubert, at which we considered bringing back this concept in the Army. It was called "TASK"-Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge and would have essentially reinstated the Group system. Beyond bringing in the Army cuff badges, it was never really implemented: I was told that due to the purple nature of some trades, with the MA for those trades being non-Army, the Army could not impose this system unilaterally. Another reason why, IMHO, the Army should own its support soldiers lock stock and barrel. Cheers.


----------



## Steel Badger (19 Dec 2004)

RCASC.....falllllll in!


----------



## JBP (20 Dec 2004)

> He fought hard â â€œ helped to kill the AVRO Arrow before it killed the Canadian defence budget



YEAH! And look where that got us! That sure turned out just dandy!... Anyway, that's for another thread which has already been discussed several times on this board in detail.
 :crybaby:
I believe rank is there for the taking. If you want it bad enough, if you work hard enough and fight for it and if the military finds the skills it needs in you and wants to promote you, so be it. I say charge onward soldier! There's always going to be those who are angry you got promoted because your younger or don't have as many courses under your belt, but there is a reason you were promoted obviously... 

In almost every civvy job I've faced, promotion was 40% what you knew/could do and 60% who you knew or drank beer with! I'm hoping the military isn't as corrupted that way otherwise it defeats the purpose of appointment/promotion in the armed forces. It will eventually degrade our abilities/training. Like corrossion of metal.

For the guys who don't want a promotion/appointment, so be it. If they're happy and they do a good job then good on them! Maybe they excel so much at thier current posting their unit doesn't want to loose them in that capacity also... Many factors I imagine but my hats off to them anyway!  

Joe


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Dec 2004)

I also beleive we should bring the skill and rank system back. I have met some tradesman who were great at their trades but far from being the best leaders.
Also it makes training people in some trades ridicolous. You do alot of technical training  and then you have to attend leadership training on top of all that.
Some people in the CF, want to advance just for the purpose of making more $$$. 
The old system would be perfect for guys seeking technical advancement (pay them based on the more skill and courses they have).
For guys in EME, LOG, and some engineer trades come to mind.
The rank advancement should be for those seeking to lead and train troops....


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Dec 2004)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I also beleive we should bring the skill and rank system back. I have met some tradesman who were great at their trades but far from being the best leaders.
> Also it makes training people in some trades ridicolous. You do alot of technical training  and then you have to attend leadership training on top of all that.
> Some people in the CF, want to advance just for the purpose of making more $$$.
> The old system would be perfect for guys seeking technical advancement (pay them based on the more skill and courses they have).
> ...



The problem that arises out of this Rick, and I know some in here are going to say it's PC crap, is that unless you can guarantee courses to everyone equaly based on merit then the first time Cpl A gets a course which will boost his pay and Cpl B doesn't even though their performance is comperable, Cpl B will have grounds for a harassment suit. After all he is being denied the opportunity to make more money not because he can't do it but because he can't be placed on a course.


----------



## Steel Badger (21 Dec 2004)

Recce

Thats just the point tho....

The harrasement suit would be BS, because it is the leadershiop who decides what stream to put a troop trhough...

Leader or trades qual.

Courses within each stream ould be merited the same way......


----------



## YukonJack (21 Dec 2004)

Anybody remember TASK (Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge) that was being looked at a while back? Man, that would have done a lot of trades pretty good. As it is now, a good solid worker is rated pretty high come PER time. That gets him promoted in due course, but the down side is that they were doing so well because they liked what they were doing. And nobody could touch them when it came to knowing their stuff. What a catch-22...
At Cpl, with TASK, a guy (or gal) could progress laterally instead of upwards, yet still achieve higher pay and a modicum of status within the trade.
No, for the most part, I'd put my money on most old Cpls and MCpls. They may have pooched-up somewhere that prevented them from getting promoted, but they're still here and dedicated. What's more, darn few have the experience they have. IMHO..


----------

