# Constructive Criticism



## UnwiseCritic (21 Feb 2013)

With my short time in the cCF I saw a recession in professionalism, often in places where need professionals the most. There are professionals  unfortunately they are few and far between.(My opinion of a professional is how one conducts themselves on a personal level and what they dedicate to their job)  And something has to change and Canada has too fill its role on the world stage. As being small but punching way above it's weight class.
 I saw our PT levels drop, leaders lead by rank and right not by leading. I saw our training have nothing to do with the upcoming deployment and everything to do with getting officers promoted (check in the box training). And even then setting sub-standard training curriculums, one of repetition and never pushing new boundaries, staying within the comfort zone due to a fear of failure that the system produces. I have also witnessed the "drag your feet attitude towards everything" I could argue that this stems from the inability of leaders to be innovative. This though could be in kind too certain units poaching certain individuals from the ranks, as they should. I have seen units because of poor leadership hold back extremely capable people from trying out for these units because they felt it would be better for them in the long run. The effect of this takes the wind out of people's sails, not just too the applicants of those units. But the people around those people and future applicants. And then the worst of all is the sense of entitlement I see from people. I'm talking about the people who have been in such and such longer than another individual and they feel that they are entitled to the good go. Even though the other guy conducts himself on a way more professional level and his motivation is much higher. So, let’s call person A Mr. Entitlement. He always falls back on his time in  to "prove" his worth and  that he deserves that spot on course. And usually some incompetent "leader" or let's say person with rank believes he's right. So now person B,  Mr. Motivated realises that hard work gets him nowhere and starts to slack off (waiting for his turn). As he should...Some may say, usually the guy that is lazier of the two. Others see this happen and fall into the same rut. I know I did and I allowed others lack of professionalism to affect my levels of professionalism. Which I can only blame myself for.

I will now touch on some of these topics on a more personal/in depth level.
        The fear of failure created by the system causes leaders to have an approach of incrementalism and leads them to never try new things. I have witnessed this time and time again in my brief period in the 3rd battalion. We always start at the lowest level, pwt, pairs, group, section, etc. And then we peak out. It's a great way of doing things. As bullets are none too kind. But once we have achieved that no one knows how to progress. And we revert back to IBTS and thus there is no room for improvement or growth. Or even to experiment with new things. This is because a lack of vision that the leadership has and if they have vision it is because of who they are not the level of education they have . And they are not sure how to achieve their desired end state and in the worst cases even where to start. So they opt for normalcy because it is safe. When in reality we should get to point where we fail. Because then we will know what our limits are. So there should be bold moves to try new things in training. 

       As for work up training, it wasn't geared towards preparing the troops
for overseas. There was a severe lack of training for an operational
capacity. I felt it was designed for officers to practice/get a check in
the box so they could be on their way to their next promotion. We did
weeks of attacks in open fields. We never shook out in a patrol or came
up with sop's or gained any sort of cohesion in that capacity. We also did very
little convoy ops all it was, was a 15 min drive with one ied on a
bridge. And there was no room for teaching there was just an aar at the
end of it. Never once did we get to make adjustments for our errors. It
was all theory. 
       However at the time I believed we would receive more training as that
was just desert ram. Maybe it was just too shake out and work as a
company and the little things that would help soldiers out on a day to
day basis would come later. So on maple guardian I was expecting that.
But my platoon was the only ones who deployed on it and we only deployed
in support of it. We were to be ANA soldiers (actors). And the other members of
3VP were guys who would not be deploying, and they were going to be the
men actually receiving some training.
       It was a good exercise but there was no time to teach and allow people
to practice skills. Maple Guardian was more of a test than it was to
develop or hone any existing skills. As you can only get so much out of
an AAR. Because of this lack of room too practice/experiment prior to
the ex. Soldiers did not get as much out of the ex as they could. So it
was more time and money spent without the best results. And I found that
there was hesitation, a lack of decisiveness and confidence by some
members of other units. Luckily the 3rd sent mostly men who had
previously been overseas so we faired out pretty good. 
As for the leadership I don't think it is up to a standard it should be
at. There is plenty of people in leadership positions that aren't
leaders. It is not the individual’s fault it is the systems way of
selecting people to be in charge. They are leaders by title not
personality or experience. 
Somewhere in my training it was  said "leaders are the people selected by a
group of people with a common goal and he knows the best way of getting
there" (It's not 100% the same quote but same idea) Because they are
expected to make the best decisions with the group in mind and therefore
should not have personal interests in mind. That being said there cannot
be a complete lack of ambition.
The system does not allow the group too select their leaders. And the
followers should select their leaders because it can be dangerous when
leaders select fellow leaders. As there may be a tendency to pick people
with weak personalities because they won't oppose the person above them
and may not have the groups best interest in mind so decisions will be
made for personal gain.
In my personal opinion a leader should be picked by the group. He should
be someone that others strive to be. And the said person should have vision
and a strong personality. With experience to back up the decisions they
make. So they should be hand picked from the ranks and should be
silently rated by their associates. That way the people picking them will have
a better understanding of them and know that these are the leaders the
followers are picking. Because what good is a leader if he has no
followers, could you even call him a leader? The chosen leader should be able to enable others to do
things they would not have been able to do without said leader. That is what I saw the army lacking in.

If you look at the history of leaders and followers in armies it was
based on a gap. That gap at first was based on family name and what came
with that name. Then it was based on wealth,  only when people realised
that being someone's ancestor (being of blue blood) did not make you a better leader. So
people started buying their commission. But that didn't work either
because people realised it was stupid. How could wealth make someone fit
too lead? So in essence it has always been the haves and have nots. I
would argue that during those periods those were the two groups of
people who were educated and time to worry about things other than the next meal. So in modern times we based leaders on
previous education. But currently I believe we are passed that as the
gap between an NCM  and commissioned member is getting smaller every day.
So as I have mentioned personalities previously I would go as far too
say that leaders should be based solely on personality. Take Lord Nelson, Chruchill, Rommel, or my favourite TE Lawrence (only because he managed to lead a foreign people and practically invented modern guerrilla warfare). What separated them from others? Was it their education? Wealth? Family? Probably all of them too some extent. As these would have shaped their personalities. They personalities polished by certain factors from the previously mentioned made them good leaders.
 So I could now argue that one of the only discernible gaps between the two groups (commissioned and non-commissioned)  in our army is an individuals personality.
Some examples of poor leadership, all because of weak personalities; on
a mountain ex in Kamloops we had the privilege of being accompanied by
our OC and CO. At one halt we had a guy pass out and CO decided to have
a nap on the side of the mountain and our OC felt that the best thing to
do was jack the guy up. Even though he was pretty much having heat
stroke and couldn't do anything about it. And the whole time we were out
there the OC was telling our nav team what to do and on multiple
occasions sent us in the completely wrong direction. 
On desert ram we had our day company attack. Our OC sent us over the top
before H-hour. Honest mistake, somewhat understandable. So we opened up
on the enemy. But then a ceasefire came over the radio because we were
supposedly out of range. But my section had M203s landing on target. The
weapon that had the least amount of range. We didn't listen, we kept
firing after a brief 3 seconds of looking at each other with dumbfounded
looks on our faces. So during our AAR our CO says the troops didn't know
the max effective range of their weapons and that is why we opened up.
He was just trying to save face for our officer. Also understandable.
But if our OC had a strong personality he would have admitted his
mistakes there and told us good job. And we only would have thought more of him. He was a decent officer though.
As for the low standards set all you have to do is look at jump company,
our supposed "elite". The minimum standards makes it so most everybody can
make it. So how can one take pride in what they do if they have one of
the worst and least fit soldiers in battalion beside them doing the same
thing as him. Because what good is gold if it is tainted with led?
On the last coopers test I bombed it on purpose. I got 8/100 just to
see if  anything would happen, nothing happened. Aside from the small
jacking I received for my sideburns being half a centimetre too long. So
why do the coopers test if the results don't matter. At minimum
they should be posted up and spur on some competition.
And when we train we should train not just do things for the sake of
doing things. An example of this is jumping for the sake of jumping.
What's the point of taking a bunch of guys that just got back from an
airborne exercise and jumping them out of a sky van and all they do is
pack their kit and walk off the drop zone? The time and money spent
versus training value is way out of proportion. If your going to jump,
jump them tactically and have a couple hour ex out of it where they
either hit an objective or seize an objective. Also I believe you
shouldn't strive for the minimum standards set by your unit. You should
look at the people who are better than you and try to get as close as
possible to achieving their standard and do things that they do to get
there. This is at unit level and as small as something as mountain man.
I did the training program last year and it injured and beat up most
guys and none that did the program even did extremely well. The people
who did the best in out battalion didn't even train with us one bit. So
why not look at the winners and train like they train. I think it to be
rather obvious but this unit seems to be going backwards rather than
forwards. 

Let the fireworks begin


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Feb 2013)

Holy fu*cking wall of text....


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Feb 2013)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Holy fu*cking wall of text....



 :nod:

Too long, didn't read.....   :


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Feb 2013)

I had to go back and check the date of this post a couple of times as I thought I was back in 1981 for a minute


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2013)

Thank you for a thought provoking first post.

First: it would have benefitted from a few minutes of formatting work on your part, making it easier to read.

Second: I will address just one of your points. You said:



> In my personal opinion a leader should be picked by the group. He should be someone that others strive to be. And the said person should have vision and a strong personality. With experience to back up the decisions they make. So they should be hand picked from the ranks and should be silently rated by their associates. That way the people picking them will have a better understanding of them and know that these are the leaders the followers are picking. Because what good is a leader if he has no followers, could you even call him a leader? The chosen leader should be able to enable others to do things they would not have been able to do without said leader. That is what I saw the army lacking in.



This topic is debated again and again in both civil and military circles. _Situational leadership_, which is one popular form of it, is not well regarded in the military, primarily because it is situational. The best leader for task A might not be the most suitable leader for task B and so on. It makes _organization and administration_, sometimes called _management_, very, very difficult. But, interestingly enough, we have, traditionally, used just that technique to *select* potential leaders ~ many "selection board" tests employ situations that test for the "emerging leader." So, we they (the CF) ('m long retired) recognize that you are, probably, right: it would be _ideal_ to have the best leader for each situation ~ best but not practical.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (21 Feb 2013)

I just want to emphasize a different way of thinking, the military has it's reasons. I have seen lots of good officers and thus a good investment for the CF. It's just too bad that a lot of officers come along that can't do their job aka a bad investment. It's money wasted and potentially dangerous. And I have seen these officers promoted time and again just too get rid of them. But I only got one view of system, the recieving end. I just don't like always thinking inside the box. Innovation wins wars. Though I'm out now so I guess it doesnt matter. But I'm hoping this forum gets people thinking. Identifying problem areas in the CF and coming up with ways too solve them. But take what I say with a grain of salt as I only attained the lowly rank of Pte.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Feb 2013)

Not slagging you for being a "lowly Pte", but your appreciation of a good officer and mine are likely to be entirely different. I think a grain of salt may be several metric tonnes short of the requirement.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (21 Feb 2013)

Yes that is a valid point as there is a lot more to being an officer/nco than what I always saw. But I came to a conclusion that a leader is there too serve the troops and the troops are in turn there to obey them. Obviously this balance can't always happen or we wouldn't battles, but I have had people in charge of me who I wouldn't trust at all to lead me in any real situation. Which is ultimately what leaders are for, at least in the infantry. But once again I never got too see the whole picture.


----------



## garb811 (21 Feb 2013)

Strangely enough, as a leader, I have had troops who I didn't trust would follow orders in any real situation as well.  It's a two way street.


----------



## 57Chevy (21 Feb 2013)

What is your impression of a good officer, unwisecritic ?

Officers do not necessarily have to be such great leaders of men
but, by reason of their accountability to the crown, they must be able to make an appropiate decision based on information coming from their NCMs,
such as Section Commanders, Sgts, WOs. etc.
That is to say that leadership abilities are so much more important within the ranks than they are for officers.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (21 Feb 2013)

Yes it's definetly a two way street, just some people have a higher level of accountability and responsibility..

A good officer to me is someone with extremely good judgement, listens to his warrants, sgts, mcpls and even here's out a pte from time to time. He puts his mens need before his own, yet not before the mission. Though there is that balance of is the mission more important than the man, and what good is the mission without the man. He/she pushes there troops asks a lot of them but not more than they themselves can give. As I said before they enable their troops to accomplish more than they thought. They mentor future leaders. They don't use an extremely authorative approach. They don't put themselves above the people below them, if that makes sense.

There is a lot to a good leader. I can give examples of people but through this website that is impossible. It's just that too many times I've seen potentially good officers use there troops to advance their own careers. Sometimes just to get a better pension and that is not only my opinion but one that was shared by a lot of my old bn. I am glad too say that things changed as I left. I'm not entirely slagging them off as they did a lot of good with the bad. I may just expect too much from people. I know people on these forums see problems with the cf everyday but never do anything to change it. I guess it's kind of like the genovese syndrome. I myself am guilty of it.


----------



## Remius (21 Feb 2013)

I'd like to point out that inovation and outside the box thinking has likely killed a lot of people as well.

I'm not sure I get what your gripe is.  It seems it might be the training and or the leadership.  Or both?  

As far as leadership goes not every officer is going to be Alexander the Great.  And frankly it would be a disaster if they all were.  imagine every platoon commander or OC coming up with their own unique way of thinking outside the box.  What a goat rodeo that would be.  What the CF needs are solid leaders that can follow orders, make solid sound timely decisions and get the job done.  We have doctrine and ways of doing business.  We do the mundane training like open field company attacks and craptacular defensive position exercises because it is part of the basics.  Solid soldier skills.  Skills that unfortunately are perishable if not practiced. Skills that will let you undertake any kind of task that is asked of you.  If and when a situation arises that an officer (or any leader) has to think outside the box and do something unconventional it is precisely because of the mundane, repetitive soldier skills that we instill in our soldiers that will allow a leader to be successful in whatever rare gamble he may have to make.

Or maybe I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.  What sort of out of the box thinking would you like to see in our leaders?


----------



## UnwiseCritic (22 Feb 2013)

Yes outside the box thinking has inevitably got people killed, failing to keep up in tactics has too.

 I don't mean individual pl commanders coming up with completely new ways of doing things. But every attack I ever did was a frontal. I have done company night live with compounds and then 2 weeks later I was doing dry fire pairs and working my way up again. There just seemed to be nothing beyond company night live frontal. So we immediately went back to what we knew. So by outside the box I mean progression.We should be exposed to things in training, rolling firebase, change of direction in section attacks. Or do those attacks in c-can village after having done so in open fields. The last time I was exposed to that was in dp1. The more exposure in training the better. So things arent off the cuff in real time. Becuase that has got a lot of people killed as well. Knowing what happens if you do this or that is good training. And we do produce a lot of good leaders. Say a leadership course produces 65% good officers and 35% bad. I would just like to see it become 75 vs 25. I don't have a particular gripe, as we do a lot of things well but there is a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## FJAG (22 Feb 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> ... It's just too bad that a lot of officers come along that can't do their job aka a bad investment. It's money wasted and potentially dangerous. And I have seen these officers promoted time and again just too get rid of them.... But take what I say with a grain of salt as I only attained the lowly rank of Pte.


I don't know why I'm bothering with this other than feeling compelled to throw in my  :2c:

We do not promote officers (or NCOs for that matter) "just to get rid of them." Our system works on observing their performance and attempting to predict their potential to succeed at the next higher rank. We then compare them to their peers and choose the ones that are the best.

Do we make mistakes in this process? Undoubtedly. Its not perfect because assessing potential is ethereal at best. Some individuals are perfect examples of the "Peter Principle" and will be promoted beyond the level of their competence because the system recognized that they performed very well at their last rank but failed to accurately assess the individual's potential at the next. Its a human system filled with human errors.

That said, any corporate structure which promotes on the basis of achievement and merit has this failing and at some point individuals will not be as competent in the jobs that they have been promoted to as their superiors predicted they would be. It's not just a failing of the CF but one in most large organizations.

Once you mature a little and become a little more tolerant of others maybe you'll begin to understand that not every human being is as perfect as you are and that sometimes, just sometimes some of us see things from a different viewpoint.

Best of luck in your future endeavours. I hope you find the bosses you're looking for.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Feb 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> It's just that too many times I've seen potentially good officers use there troops to advance their own careers.



Too many times?  

I gather that you are now out, and that you achieved the rank of Private.  That means you did a single BE, of which no more than 2 years was spent in a Battalion.  

I wonder if that is a long enough observation period to come to such a dire conclusion.


----------



## 57Chevy (22 Feb 2013)

I have the distinct notion that you are holding something back,
like the reasons you are no longer in the forces.

Something you should realize about a good leader is that he will always hold you accountable for your actions,
and in doing so, he is not only accountable for his own, but sets the example of the high standard required
of his subodinates.


----------



## GnyHwy (22 Feb 2013)

I think your moniker speaks volumes, and your argument is all over the place, not to mention the word soup of your original post.  Word of advice for the future.  If you have a complex point or question, it is better to break it down into digestable chunks, solve them individually and then reassemble later.

You do seem sincere though, and that is why I care enough to entertain your thread.

If you want to get all philosophical, here you go.  Outside the box thinking deserves attention, and I believe myself to be a practitioner, but remember this.  In order to think outside the box effectively, you must understand the inside of the box first.  It takes many years for that, and if you think the answers to problems are simple and obvious, then you haven't done your homework or you don't understand the problem yet.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (22 Feb 2013)

I never claimed to be perfect just trying understand why things are the way they are. I am hoping to get shot down and set straight becuase then I will see clearer picture at the end of the day. And even get people thinking. Yes I know you already do, maybe I just want to poison your minds with some of my thinking. 

Yes I may only have just over 2 years experience but I had the privilege to attend mod 6 and get a chance to gain some insight on future jr leadership. I saw some things I liked and didn't like. (I was not on the course by own merit, just circumstances)

As for the original post being soup and all over the place. Correct, but it was an almagamation of notes and word was not cooperating with me. Should I have refined it, yes.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Feb 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> ..... maybe I just want to poison your minds with some of my thinking.


 I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any particular "thinking."  I'm seeing bucket-loads of bemoaning that the world hasn't played out the way you'd like, but "thinking" suggests you could come up with at least _a few_ potential solutions.

Go on, give it a shot.


----------



## Lardofthedance (22 Feb 2013)

Sounds like a case of reality not being like it is in the movies. You have the right to form your opinions about the CF, right or wrong, and you are correct, there are some truly disappointing and self serving leaders in all elements of the CF, but with that said, it's on the member to conform and accept the CF, not the other way around. Your OC being covered by the CO may not be all that you perceive, there is always more that happens behind closed doors and the CO would be wrong to tear a leader apart in front of subordinates. You can learn from mistakes and bring change when the chance arrives or you can complain in public.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2013)

Before this spins away , as so many other threads a word of caution is in order.

Let's make sure, that if you don't agree, you attack the premise...........and not the person.

No one is getting slapped yet, just saying.

--Staff--


----------



## UnwiseCritic (22 Feb 2013)

Potential solution, recruit officers from within the ranks, minimum rank of cpl so that they understand the inner workings before they go on to be in a position of power. Have people assessed by both highers and peers annually. 

Or lets say mod6 for instance, they micro managed every minute of our life. But on a leadership course should you not maybe make them take responsiblity for themselves as they will be responsible for otheres. Let them be their own best friend or worst enemy. 

Establish a training value vs cost ratio aka the suggestion I gave about maybe jumping and doing a mini ex with it.

I also suggested maybe progressing forward instead of reverting back into that known comfort zone. Eg not doing company night live then 2 weeks later doing pairs dry. Or maybe not always doing a frontal.


Of course things don't play out the way I like thats life. But what I saw and experienced effected a lot of others. There is a reason retention in the 1st and 3rd is ridiculously low. They came out and asked us for the problem. We had an "emergency" company meeting due to all the vr's. But all they did was shoot guys down when they tried to give some honest feed back. And when I tried to give honest feed back to my oc in my interview he shot me down. Needless too say he was fired shortly after my leaving and then sent overseas... or so the grapevine says. And telling someone to conform too the CF sounds like the easy way out. Yes some things are the way they are and they know better. However not trying to improve and just becoming a stale place is no way to go either. And you always here the old guys say it's not like it used to be. It's becuase were putting people that can't hack it into places where they can make decisions. And the standards of the CF in some ways are going down. I did find though that the current generation of sgts of warrants is extremely switched on. This may be becuase they were brought up in a war time army. The future is bright.

I also said understandably that the co was right not do say anything in front of the guys. But the OC should have came forward and admitted it. 


"You can learn from mistakes and bring change when the chance arrives or you can complain in public"
That is what I am trying to do, people here who read this hopefully will take something away. Including myself. There was nothing i could do at the rank of pte, so hopefully some officer can see the other side of the spectrum through some of these "complaints" as this is the only chance I have.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2013)

Sense of entitlement is a sore spot for me. Troops who "work" from 1000 to 1130 then 1300 to 1500 and ass cry if they are still at work at 1501.

This sucks why are we still here this is bullshit we never do any good training.
We set up good training[Urban Ops, FRIES, CQC, white water rafting PD] This is stupid this is bullshit why the fuck are we here when can I go home.

I think the truth is sometimes uncomfortable and you may have touched on some valid points (others not so much).

Sure some officers are shitty, like some troops.  I'd jump into a bear pit with anyone here for the honour of deploying with my OC or previous RSM who mentored me. 
My wet behind the ears platoon commander fresh out of RMC with no military experience is all about the welfare of the troops in the platoon, promoting their welfare, putting them on courses and all around taking care of them. Probably one of the most selfless officers soldiers I've ever met. 

You've had bad luck.


----------



## FJAG (22 Feb 2013)

:deadhorse:



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Potential solution, recruit officers from within the ranks, minimum rank of cpl so that they understand the inner workings before they go on to be in a position of power. Have people assessed by both highers and peers annually.
> 
> Or lets say mod6 for instance, they micro managed every minute of our life. But on a leadership course should you not maybe make them take responsiblity for themselves as they will be responsible for otheres. Let them be their own best friend or worst enemy.



When armies were large, some armies (like the Germans in WW2) did that or promote from the ranks to fill vacancies but modern armies simply haven't the time in an officer's career to waste. Nowadays officers require a university degree which means they'll be 22 yrs old by the time they start service. In addition I would suggest that they don't need the training you suggest because they already get it in all their basic officer and leadership courses. This training includes everything which you mentioned plus much, much more.

During basic officers' training assessments are continual. After that its annual although they aren't peer assessments. I've seen peer assessments in civilian jobs. They are rarely helpful and usually say more about the writer of the peer review than the subject.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Establish a training value vs cost ratio aka the suggestion I gave about maybe jumping and doing a mini ex with it.
> 
> I also suggested maybe progressing forward instead of reverting back into that known comfort zone. Eg not doing company night live then 2 weeks later doing pairs dry. Or maybe not always doing a frontal.



Creating training plans and developing exercises is very much dependant on costs, state of training of the troops and scheduled tasks/missions for the unit. These days there is rarely the time or the money available to waste on meaningless exercises. There may, on occasion, be the perception that a certain aspect of the training is meaningless but believe me when I tell you that in any battalion there will have been much thought by many people put into developing the plan for maximum benefit to the unit as a whole.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Of course things don't play out the way I like thats life. But what I saw and experienced effected a lot of others. There is a reason retention in the 1st and 3rd is ridiculously low. They came out and asked us for the problem. We had an "emergency" company meeting due to all the vr's. But all they did was shoot guys down when they tried to give some honest feed back. And when I tried to give honest feed back to my oc in my interview he shot me down. Needless too say he was fired shortly after my leaving and then sent overseas... or so the grapevine says.



Retention is based on many things and I think at this time the fact that we're going back to a "peacetime" model with large budget cuts has a significant impact on retention. I don't want to minimize that poor morale can also be a factor but when you say that all the 'honest feedback' was shot down all I can say is I'd have to have been there to see if the feedback was "honest" or if it was just "bitchin'". During my days I listened to many subordinates with good ideas which were put to good use but I also heard some of the most useless, god-awful drivel that was ever spouted.

Believe me when I tell you that we do not fire officers and send them overseas. Fired officers go to civy street or, if they have the ability, to another job or officer classification which is not as demanding and where they might still be able to make a contribution to the forces.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> And telling someone to conform too the CF sounds like the easy way out. Yes some things are the way they are and they know better. However not trying to improve and just becoming a stale place is no way to go either. And you always here the old guys say it's not like it used to be. It's becuase were putting people that can't hack it into places where they can make decisions. And the standards of the CF in some ways are going down. I did find though that the current generation of sgts of warrants is extremely switched on. This may be becuase they were brought up in a war time army. The future is bright.



I'm an old guy who joined in 1965 and retired in 2009. I've seen the old army and I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that year by year the forces and its soldiers have gotten better. The state of the army today, its equipment, its training and the standards of its soldiers is better than it's ever been. I particularly agree with you about the state of our senior NCOs. During much of my service in the "good ole days" all too many of the Senior NCOs were old and tired and marking time before retirement. The vast bulk of the current crop are outstanding troops. 

Yup. We have more damn bureaucracy these days than we need but that's unfortunately what happens when government creates so many regulations and processes and checks and balances that you need a massive staff just to keep the paper turning over. Luckily in your short career you've never had to serve in Ottawa. I can add that much of the garbage that comes down out of Ottawa is probably what made some of your leaders less effective than they could have been.


----------



## garb811 (22 Feb 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Potential solution, recruit officers from within the ranks, minimum rank of cpl so that they understand the inner workings before they go on to be in a position of power.


My observation on this suggestion is it is flawed.  Although I know very, very fine officers who have taken a commissioning plan as a Cpl, I also know a few abject failures because they remain a "Cpl" in thought and deed.  Two totally different functions in the military, some can make the transition, some can't.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Feb 2013)

Let me second FJAG's comments. I joined as a gunner in 1957 and finally hung up my kit in 1994 as a lieutenant colonel. Believe me, I heard all your complaints (and made some of them myself) when I was serving in the ranks 1958-1960. The regiment had served in Korea 1953-1954 and Germany 1955-1957 and then found itself in Petawawa without an operational role. Back then shiny boots and knife-edged creases on the battledress trousers were accepted as the mark of a good soldier, physical fitness was ignored, quarters inspections were common place and training was something we did in the May-July time frame. Our battery commander, who was a pre-1939 regular and a graduate of RMC with extensive operational service in the Second World War, was an incompetent fool who would not have lasted 30 seconds in one of today's regiments.

Retention virtually did not happen, at least in the junior ranks. The vast majority of the young gunners who had signed up for three years left at the end of their enlistment. There was some wastage among the junior NCOs while the sergeants and above realized they had found a home to wait for retirement which did not require much thought or effort on their part. There were exceptions, and they were an inspiration to all they met.

In an army that has transitioned to peace there will be a lot of odd things happening as the organization comes down off its high. In my opinion the world is too unstable for the CF to wait too long before another mission comes along, no matter what the government would like to see.


----------



## GnyHwy (23 Feb 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Potential solution, recruit officers from within the ranks, minimum rank of cpl so that they understand the inner workings before they go on to be in a position of power. Have people assessed by both highers and peers annually.



We do both of these things.  To suggest that it be the normal progression is not possible.  Os, by virtue of their education have proved their ability to comprehend complex information or problems.  Is that true for all cases?  No, of course not, but many Snr NCMs will tell you that once they reach Sgt or WO and they have to dive into the extensive OP Os, that it can be pretty overwhelming (if they are actually reading it and do the analysis).

Being assessed by your peers happens indirectly in the sense that "do the troops/peers listen to you" when you're put in charge.  Being a Cpl in charge of other Cpls is difficult, and it is a tell tale sign if a person has what it takes.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Or lets say mod6 for instance, they micro managed every minute of our life. But on a leadership course should you not maybe make them take responsibility for themselves as they will be responsible for otheres. Let them be their own best friend or worst enemy.



This one is simple, and although my PLQ was almost 20 years ago, one of the strongest memories I have of it relates to your point.  There were a few of us that were considered by others to be getting away with murder, while the others were being "punished" or "micromanaged".  The simple answer to this was that we were taking charge, and not waiting to be told what to do.  The majority of the time that we made a decision (that wasn't absurd), the staff let it go; if at least out of morbid curiosity.  

Believe me, the staff do not want to have to babysit.  It is a huge pain in the ***.  The exceptions are the few douchebags that are on a power trip, but thosee guys get weeded out eventually.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Establish a training value vs cost ratio aka the suggestion I gave about maybe jumping and doing a mini ex with it.



This is done all the time.  Mostly when the troops are sitting around wondering why they can't go home, is when O Gps, or ICs are in their office pounding out the staff work that needs to be done to make it happen.  Something you left out, that is more valuable than money is time.  Trying to coordinate all the moving parts within the Regt/Btln, and with other units can prove difficult.  Combined arms training is considered by most to be the most valuable training, but unfortunately it is the most difficult to coordinate; not necessarily because of money, but mostly because of time coordination.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I also suggested maybe progressing forward instead of reverting back into that known comfort zone. Eg not doing company night live then 2 weeks later doing pairs dry. Or maybe not always doing a frontal.



Once again, time coordination is a factor.  If the Coy range is available now, but not later, then maybe you need to do training bass ackwards.  Troops shouldn't underestimate the importance of the default setting, and basics, and it is up to ICs to make them understand that.  They are what keeps you going in the most severe and stressful conditions.  

Being a football fan, I like to think of it as keeping it simple, and weighing your options in order to get the most gain with the least amount of risk.  Google game theory to see what I mean.  Some person take this to a negative extreme and try to remove all risk, which either isn't possible or doesn't produce any positive results.  

If you could do the same play or slight variations of it over and over again and get 4 yards a play, you are unstoppable.  When you go for the trick play, you may get a big payoff, but it also may end in catastrophe as well.  Playing it too safe i.e. not doing a frontal at all, produces no results, but going deep is too risky; especially when you are responsible for actual lives.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (23 Feb 2013)

I understand the football analogy, but if it comes down to a trick play. Don't you want to have at least practiced it a couple times. Too minimize the risk associated with it? Sometimes a trick is required especially when playing against a team that learns quickly and then learns to counter said plays.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Feb 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Too long, didn't read.....   :



Didn't read the original post, but I found some of the follow-up posts interesting.


----------



## 57Chevy (23 Feb 2013)

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I understand the football analogy, but if it comes down to a trick play. Don't you want to have at least practiced it a couple times. Too minimize the risk associated with it? Sometimes a trick is required especially when playing against a team that learns quickly and then learns to counter said plays.



I played football in highschool and I can assure you that we did the safety blitz only once during the entire year.
We practiced the blitz a number of times and played it against a superior team. We gained a few yards for a 1st down.



* but we lost the game anyway  :nod:


----------

