# Offr-NCO-NCM Relationships



## Pikache (3 Feb 2004)

I‘ve never quite understood the reason why officers aren‘t suppose to fraternize with the troops.

Apparently Canadians are a bit lax in this standard, but still, why does it exist?


----------



## chrisf (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
> [qb] I‘ve never quite understood the reason why officers aren‘t suppose to fraternize with the troops.
> 
> Apparently Canadians are a bit lax in this standard, but still, why does it exist? [/qb]


Two reasons.

Tradition. Traditionally, officers were members of the upper class, or even aristocracy, and as such didn‘t WANT to associate with the troops, who were members of the lower classes.

Need. It‘s harder to order somone to do somthing potentionally life threatening, no matter how nessascary, if you‘re good friends with them.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (3 Feb 2004)

Would it still be habitual behavior (re: tradition) from bygone days where class differences were more evident? I still believe that there is a certain requirement for this distance. It may even be reinforced into their psyche during officer training. 

Not many supervisors/managers/leaders in the civilian world order their personel into a task that may destroy them. A military leader can in fact destroy the very thing they love or care for deeply.  Perhaps by limiting the amount of fraternization this avoids conflicting self doubt during crucial events.

Or am I being to mushy? It may be just the way it is.

Slainte,


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (3 Feb 2004)

Sorry the post from my fellow Jimmy made it as I was typing this one up. So my post is somewhat redundant.


----------



## dano (3 Feb 2004)

There are points in the Cadet Manuals of the Relationship Between Officers and NCMs.

Though, those are points I know that you are not referring.

I have a example that may un-shroud you‘re understanding. 

For example, In a school. There are Teachers, students and principle(s) (Admin).

Students are the new recruits. Teachers are the NCMs. The Principle(s) are the officers.

Now from personal experience, have you seen generally, teachers talking to the principle like a old chum, or friend. Likely no. Some cases yes of course, but you can say the same for any other Military/school.

I don‘t want to have to go in to detail since, I know you are not in kindergarten.

The principle is to have an image that is professional as well as smart. 

Fraternizing, can ruin that image.
Mind you, that is only one example. Could be right, could be wrong, I just think it is a good referent.


----------



## kurokaze (3 Feb 2004)

Being one of the stripes, one reason you do not fraternize with the troops is that you are never to be in a position where you can take something from them.

This is especially true in romantic relationships, and made much worst if the male is an officer and the female is an NCM.


----------



## Pikache (3 Feb 2004)

I personally don‘t buy it.

Any one in leadership position (MCpl/Sgts and warrant officers) may also be in position as an officer would, such as ordering someone on dangerous missions.

Personally I‘d like to know the people I‘m working with.


----------



## kurokaze (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
> [qb] I personally don‘t buy it.
> 
> Any one in leadership position (MCpl/Sgts and warrant officers) may also be in position as an officer would, such as ordering someone on dangerous missions.
> ...


Agreed, and during their leadership training they have the same "maintain your distance" lecture drilled into them as it was into me.  It becomes more important the further up the chain you go.

This of course, doesn‘t mean you can‘t be personable, just have to know where to draw the line.


----------



## Pikache (3 Feb 2004)

The thing is that a sergeant and a corporal may be friends.
Heavens help a CFR ending up commanding a platoon full of guys he knows when he was a troop.

Personally I think our profession needs us to be sometimes as ruthless as possible in order to do our job, even if it means sending a buddy to danger.

But, I believe that shouldn‘t prevent us from having few pints with people we work with and get to know them a bit.

We are after all, only human.


----------



## winchable (3 Feb 2004)

Be a friend, Not a Pal or a buddy.

I would like to hear more thoughts on this idea of a tradition from the days of rigid class structure, I think it has a little more to do with it then we are giving it credit for.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (3 Feb 2004)

I think we are looking at this with the views and attitude of modern 21st century soldiers. Now that officers can often be the guy you hung out with as a kid, or the tenant in the apartment next to yours we see each other in a more socially equal setting. This is even more so if CFR‘d. It maybe simplistic of me to say but all that separates Offr and NCM is university education, at least initially. 

Being a NCM I do feel uncomfortable being too close with an officer. I‘d rather keep it professional. That is not to say that I won‘t exchange pleasantries with him as we wait for our kids to get out of kindergarten or BS each other when we run into one another at the pub saturday afternoon. A good place to notice this is in the dressing room at inter section hockey games where the teams are combined.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Feb 2004)

This is slowly coming to a topic that I wanted to post before but did‘nt want to start a holy war. In this day and age do we really need the officer system? I‘m not trying to insult anybody here but I firmly believe that a high school dropout could turn out to be as good a leader as anyone in history but with the system we have now, how would we ever know? However I must admit I used to hate seeing our 20 year TSM following around a recent grad. on morning inspections so if I have a little bias, there it is.  OK start throwing fruit at me!   CHEERS


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (3 Feb 2004)

It‘s only as recent as WW1 that many offr from the Brittish army were almost totally from the middle and upper class. Those few that were CFR were almost always put in positions where their previous skills would be most useful, and more importantly, deemed not proper work for offr. An example of this would be QM or Tpt sections. Yes there are a few soldiers who went on to make fine company comanders and Bn comds. However, there were very very few who went on to command Bde or Div.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (3 Feb 2004)

Didn‘t the German army of WWII implement something along those lines? I mean did they start recruiting from combat experienced Sgts (or similar ranks) to turn them into offrs? Taking the top 25-20% of applicants and put them through offr training and accept only the best of those graduates?


----------



## kurokaze (3 Feb 2004)

Going back to what Che said.  You can be friends with an officer, and officers can be friends with the troops but it has to stop there.

Part of it has to do with respect and discipline from the troops (which in most cases isn‘t an issue if both sides are professional enough).  The officer must always be able to maintain control of his troops.  It becomes far more difficult to do that if the troops think of him/her as a buddy.

Secondly it also serves to prevent potential immature or immoral officers from using rank to pursue personal interests at the expense of the troops.

Thirdly I think it‘s also an image issue.  An officer must set the example to be followed.  The troops should never see an officer piss drunk and making an *** out of him/herself.  That‘s why we‘re told that can you accept a drink _from_ the troops but you can‘t drink _with_ the troops.  

All this of course is not meant to be a complete dossier on how to be an officer, and different units/officers will have different styles of leadership (some even becoming very involved with the troops).


----------



## kurokaze (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Bruce Monkhouse:
> [qb] This is slowly coming to a topic that I wanted to post before but did‘nt want to start a holy war. In this day and age do we really need the officer system? I‘m not trying to insult anybody here but I firmly believe that a high school dropout could turn out to be as good a leader as anyone in history but with the system we have now, how would we ever know? However I must admit I used to hate seeing our 20 year TSM following around a recent grad. on morning inspections so if I have a little bias, there it is.  OK start throwing fruit at me!   CHEERS [/qb]


Yes but who would the senior NCOs blame when things go wrong    

Basically, an officer is the policy maker and the NCOs implement the policy.


----------



## winchable (3 Feb 2004)

It is possible for a highschool dropout to be commissioned from the ranks is it not? I am not sure on the exact policy, but I suppose it could happen.

Here‘s a little article  I found a while back about the value of officers having degrees etc.


----------



## winchable (3 Feb 2004)

I think the current situation is a mixture of old tradition of officers being from the upper class, and the recognised need for officers to be seperated from the men in order to do their job as effectively as possible.


----------



## Pikache (3 Feb 2004)

> Kurokaze
> Part of it has to do with respect and discipline from the troops (which in most cases isn‘t an issue if both sides are professional enough). The officer must always be able to maintain control of his troops. It becomes far more difficult to do that if the troops think of him/her as a buddy.
> 
> Secondly it also serves to prevent potential immature or immoral officers from using rank to pursue personal interests at the expense of the troops.


Again, I don‘t buy it.
If everyone follows work hard/play hard philosophy and be professional, knowing when it‘s okay to joke around and when to be serious and do as ordered, I don‘t see a problem.



> Thirdly I think it‘s also an image issue. An officer must set the example to be followed. The troops should never see an officer piss drunk and making an *** out of him/herself. That‘s why we‘re told that can you accept a drink from the troops but you can‘t drink with the troops.


I can only speak from my own personal perspective, but I‘ve seen my pl. comd. drunk.
Heck, I‘ve seen my OC drunk. (very rare)

So what. They are human, and they are having a good time with troops on special occassions. The troops bought them so much drink because they like them and respect them and their ability to lead them.

To me, seeing officers spending time with troops, getting to know them and showing the troops that they are human after all is better than those who the troops don‘t know them at all.

Mind you, the officer has to be switched on first. If he‘s a bag in the field, then no matter what he does, he‘s junk.


----------



## Franko (3 Feb 2004)

Personally...I keep it on the professional side. My troop and officers have gone out together for a night on the town...relieving some stress and such. It‘s a good thing...builds bonds of confidence(to a point) and familiarity with each other. But there must be a limit. Too much of a good thing and it may be misconstrued as "brown nosing".

There is no harm with this until the NCO starts refering to the officer by their first name...then it‘s gone TOO far.

As for one officer who I can actually say he has my respect(not naming names...don‘t want his head to get too big) he actually knows EVERYTHING about the men in his troop. From daughters names and birthdates to how your wife(insert name) is doing at her job at(insert name). He did research on everyone and memorized it all..including boot sizes. A good troopie indeed. He HONESTLY cared about his guys and their welfare.

Regards


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2004)

Having a few drinks with your troops is okay, but going out with them is a bad idea.  How can an officer realistically expect to enforce discipline within his platoon if they show up looking like **** and he was out with them the night before.

The more professionalism within a small unit, the more relaxed the relationships can be up and down the chain, but we should never forget that we are soldiers first, and a central part of our way of life is the hierarchy of what we are a part of.  I remember how poorly we thought of the incoming company overseas because the troops were calling their Warrant Officers by their first names.  Doing so can lead to things getting sloppy when play time ends.

I remember one of the senior gunners posting an excellent reply to this topic; I‘ll try and find it and post it here.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Padraig OCinnead:
> [qb] Didn‘t the German army of WWII implement something along those lines? I mean did they start recruiting from combat experienced Sgts (or similar ranks) to turn them into offrs? Taking the top 25-20% of applicants and put them through offr training and accept only the best of those graduates? [/qb]


The German Army had far fewer officers than we did.  In a German infantry company, often only the company commander was an officer; all the platoons were led by NCOs.  At full establishment, only two officers were in the rifle company, and a normal peacetime company had two platoons commanded by NCOs with one platoon led by an officer.

Contrast this to the Canadian Army, where we experimented with Platoon Sergeants Major in 1939, hated the idea (along with the British), and ended up commissioning all the platoon commanders.  So every rifle company had 5 officers - an OC, a 2 i/c and three platoon commanders.

Outside the infantry, there were fewer officer jobs in the German Army also.  The _really_ important jobs were left to the officers, while NCOs had a lot the ‘lesser‘ responsibilities within troop units.

They could afford to be picky, and they generally did not like commissioning directly from the ranks.  The ‘normal‘ progression for an officer cadet was to have served in the ranks first, then as an Officer Aspirant (_offizieranwärter_)in a troop unit, and moving between classroom courses and field experience, until finally being commissioned.  Senior NCOs did go this route, but it wasn‘t as simple as our present day Canadian CFR, where you are a WO one day, and commissioned as a captain the next with a promise to take a qualifying course when you got the chance.

The Germans had several ‘weird‘ ranks for aspiring officers (such as _Fähnrich_) that do not have any equivalents in the Canadian Army.  Like so much else, they did things very differently than we did.

Our officers started (and still do) as Officer Cadets and  did not get any front line field experience during their training as was the case with German officer candidates.


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Feb 2004)

Ah Michael the main reason in the German Army not commisioning from the Rank‘s was the ever present class system at the time.
You still had the Prussian etho‘s ruling.
Even Rommel was looked down upon by some because he did not go to the right school‘s,did not have the Hiedelburg Scare etc etc.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb] Ah Michael the main reason in the German Army not commisioning from the Rank‘s was the ever present class system at the time.
> You still had the Prussian etho‘s ruling.
> Even Rommel was looked down upon by some because he did not go to the right school‘s,did not have the Hiedelburg Scare etc etc. [/qb]


This isn‘t true at all.  Under National Socialism, everyone was considered to be of the same class.  The SS even did away with addressing their superiors as "Herr", they just used the rank title.

German infantry companies tended to be very close to their officers, usually nicknaming the OC "Chief".  There was a sense of cameraderie in German units that other armies like the British or US were often unable to emulate on the same scale.

For example, German officers were permitted to eat off of tin plates in the field rather than out of mess tins, but it ended there.  There were no such thing as "officers messes" as in the Canadian Army, and German officers ate the exact same food the men ate while in garrison.

In WW I, German officers had to be addressed in the third person (ie "Herr Major is correct" rather than "You are correct, Herr Major"), but by WW II this had all been done away with.

AFAIK, university education, the prefix "von", or ownership of a tract of land were not requirements for being a German officer.

Not to say that class systems were totally abolished with in Nazi Germany, but Party members tended to get the favours regardless of their wealth or lineage, rather than the landed aristorcracy class.  

And in the Army, all of that rarely mattered.  Unless you had some specific cases in mind?  I don‘t think Rommel was ever really held back; in fact, due to his National Socialist leanings and his direct line to Hitler, he achieved a favoured status right up until the Bomb Plot and his implication in it.  Rommel got away with murder in North Africa, disobeying and exceeding orders from the first week he was in the theatre, and yet he was never replaced.  Quite the contrary, he was made Field Marshall.  He also never got sent to the big league - Russia - which was probably good for his career.


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Feb 2004)

My post was just a spur of the moment from my recall of reading Rommel‘s Bio.
Rommel got away with what he did was because he won!
The only reason for the Loyalty was the TOTAL NAZIFICATION of sociaty at that time.
Read 
Hitler‘s Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich.

By Omer Bartov


OH I also hate the acronym NCM!!!!!


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2004)

Yeah, I hate it too Earl, I always refer to my self as a "rank" or an "OR"...even "enlisted" sounds better then that bureaucratic term "NCM".


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb] My post was just a spur of the moment from my recall of reading Rommel‘s Bio.
> Rommel got away with what he did was because he won!
> The only reason for the Loyalty was the TOTAL NAZIFICATION of sociaty at that time.
> ...


Bartov‘s book is horrible, actually.  He draws his conclusions from thin air and has terrible methodology.  He is also Israeli, so one may forgive him for a bit of bias....I‘ve read his HITLER‘S ARMY which was just - - bad, in my opinion.

The German Army never nazified though.  The Navy was largely Christian, the Army largely reactionary, and the Luftwaffe was the only really National Socialist branch of the Wehrmacht.

You may be right in Rommel‘s case, though, if I understand your use of the word "nazified."  Rommel was beholden to Hitler personally.  Hitler was not one for the chain of command, and to keep his subordinates from amassing too much power, he encouraged his favourites to circumvent the chain of command whenever possible.  Rommel should have reported to his Italian superiors in North Africa, as well as Kesslering, the theatre commander.  When it suited Rommel personally, he did, when it suited him better to report to Hitler, he did that, and when it suited him to report to no one, well, he did that too!

Quite a way to run a railroad...

Are we off topic enough, yet?     

I dislike NCM also, and usually use the term OR even though that phrase was SUPPOSED to have gone out of style before I ever joined.  Most people still know what it means.  I guess in a politically correct world (which I agree with, to a point), calling people "Other" just isn‘t on.

You old guys can probably remember when 60 Minutes introduced all the stories and ended with "those stories and more tonight on 60 Minutes".  Many years ago, they finally changed it to "those stories, and Andy Rooney, tonight...."

I actually picture Spr Earl as looking just like Andy Rooney, too for some reason.

And Infanteer....


----------



## winchable (3 Feb 2004)

Right Gents, so I know you must have some more thoughts on the officer/ncm relationship, the need for officers, and the class structure in the army hierarchy.

Maybe save Rommel for another day/thread?
Or Guide Rommel back to the current situation.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (3 Feb 2004)

Thanks Mike D. for that post of yours. I wasn‘t sure exactly how Fritz did the transition from the ranks to officer. I knew that there was some training involved but that was the extent of my knowledge. I‘ve always been curious on this subject WRT Offr/OR relations. 

Slainte,


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Feb 2004)

Mike I have more hair than Andy Rooney    

Yes Che we have gotten off topic.
Sorry     

I have had many a good time with Officer‘s and called them by first name when partying but have never forgotten my place in the Grand scheme of thing‘s.

That is the clue!! Never forget your place in the Grand Scheme!


----------



## Pikache (3 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb] Mike I have more hair than Andy Rooney
> 
> Yes Che we have gotten off topic.
> ...


Couldn‘t say it better myself.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Feb 2004)

We must remember that, at the heart of it, the regulations and traditional behaviours exist to protect from themselves those officers and NCM who would forget their official roles the next day. It takes a certain amount of morale courage on the part of soldier and officer who may be friends from the past to both understand that the officer must stand aside when the soldier is getting a deserved reaming from an NCO who may be in the chain of command between them. One cannot compromise his position by intervening, and the other cannot compromise the officer‘s personal trust in him by expecting it. And if the only basis of ‘friendship‘ is that they drink together, could either expect that understanding to hold firm?

Mike


----------



## Franko (4 Feb 2004)

Well I have a good friend whom I met while in the reserves, he was a Mcpl I was a Trooper. We both went up for promotions and such...always stayed good buds.

He and I are both in the Regs in the SAME Regiment...he is now a Capt...I am still a NCO. We still go fishing, chat about home and our wives/ families...even have a few together. The next day he is SIR or Capt______. I am Cpl or Franko....the professionalism is still there. He respects me and I return the compliment.

I‘ve even been his driver during courses...as soon as the doors open we revert instantly back to our roles.

Regards

BTW...I can‘t stand being called by my last name only...I have a rank, for Pete‘s sake use it. I have corrected a few officers who have addressed me by my last name...usually they are initially shocked but then they think about it for a second and correct themselves.

Anyone else have that probelm? How do you deal with it?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Feb 2004)

I understood addressing Privates by last name only was acceptable, but any other ranks should be addressed with their rank. Open to correction on that one...

As a side note, I‘ve served near my brother and father both of whom have outranked me. It was never "pass the salt sir," at home but proper respects were always shown when in uniform. Or at least when in anyone else‘s earshot.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Feb 2004)

Talk about ranks in family - at one point, I was a Sergeant, my brother was a Bombardier, and my mother was Fin O (Captain) all in the same Regiment. Oh - and dad was the District RSM.

Being called by my last name never bothered me, but I had a Captain (RSS O). Who called me "Sarge" all the time, and that really grated on me. Didn‘t mind ORs calling me that, but from him it was annoying. Seemed to resolve itself, when I started calling him "Cap"


----------



## kurokaze (4 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Mike Bobbitt:
> [qb] I understood addressing Privates by last name only was acceptable, but any other ranks should be addressed with their rank. Open to correction on that one...
> [/qb]


I was definately taught different on my basic course.  My platoon commander told us: "you always have to refer to the other ranks by their rank and last name, they deserve it. Just like you deserve to be called sir"

And the CSM of that course also went on later and talked with us about officer/ncm relationships and basically it was you have to maintain a certain distance from the troops.

At my unit, that policy is practiced when it comes to officer and junior ranks (though myself and one other officer are probably more friendly with them than the rest), but the senior NCO and officer relationship is closer.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

My biggest pet peeve is first names.  I see privates calling master corporals by their first name during business hours.  To me, that can stay in the airforce.

Any good unit will develop handles (No joke)  Handles were completely acceptable and encouraged in our platoon overseas (Of course, some handles happened to be Sergeant, Warrant, and Sir(EllTee))


----------



## Yeoman (4 Feb 2004)

I had my platoon commander on my bmq (they called it something stupid, but getting experience with troops and what not basically). we had gotten to be real close, even accidentally slipped out the first name a couple of times in the past 2 years.
over in my company, maybe it‘s because we‘re such a small unit (platoon at most) that we all pratically go by first names, senior nco‘s included. but when we‘re actually doing the training, that‘s when we use the proper ranks, and names. we‘re a very close knit unit over here, and everybody looks out for everbody, wether they‘re an officer, nco, or ncm.
personally I think it‘s good to know everything about each other; because I know when I get over to the other company in the battalion, other then pte‘s and cpl‘s I know jack squat about the rest pretty much. I think you can be buddy buddy with anyone, so long as you know when the apporpriate times are to be serious.
Greg


----------



## chrisf (4 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Mike Bobbitt:
> [qb] I understood addressing Privates by last name only was acceptable, but any other ranks should be addressed with their rank. Open to correction on that one...
> 
> As a side note, I‘ve served near my brother and father both of whom have outranked me. It was never "pass the salt sir," at home but proper respects were always shown when in uniform. Or at least when in anyone else‘s earshot.        [/qb]


It‘s been my experience that the practice of calling privates by their last name sans ranks is more often used with regard to no hook privates, though not exclusively...

On the subject of relations between NCMs and officers, I have a good friend who‘s a CIC officer, I call him sir regularly, along the lines of Marcy and Peppermint Patty.


----------



## Slim (8 Feb 2004)

I guess that there is a time and place for everything.

While in recce out in a three man patrol someplace we tended to let the rank thing drop...Having said that we were all experienced soldiers who knew the rules and never forgot who the Boss is! Having never been in the SAS the concept of a Chinese parliment is not one I‘m familier with...

I have gone to the pub more than once with officers and had a great time...Just so long as you remember that the next day the rules apply.

Slim


----------



## nbk (8 Feb 2004)

This thread is interesting...talking about names...and talking about Rommel...

Well my last name is Rommel...coincidence or conspiracy? Hmmmm...


----------



## Mr. Ted (12 Feb 2004)

I think the old adage, "Familiarity breeds contempt" is a nice summary for the idea of maintaining distance between NCMs and comissioned officers.

Mr. Ted


----------



## CF_MacAulay (12 Feb 2004)

Okay i dont know much but by what i have been reading and what i have expirenced in personal life is that an Officer needs to be a role model, een though he could be 2 inches from your face screaming at you, you still follow him, if he was personal with you, he  would hesitate about yelling, he wouldnt be as aggressive he needs to be with you to show you the prper know how, and all of those officers have earned there right to be where they are, even if it wasnt going on tour to bosnia, but instead going through 2 years community college...so what, they used their heads to work for them...an officer is ther to do his job...and so are you..the military isnt a club or personal hobby..someday you could be faced with the order to go into a dangerous situation and fire at people..and if an officer had the thought of sending a "buddy" into that danger...he wouldnt use his professional knowledge, he would use his instincts. but really im not saying anything that wasnt mentioned in this post...so sorry if i wasted any ones time, but thats what these posts are for, our opinions..


----------



## 043 (16 Feb 2006)

Okay, lets put it out there for comments, both pos and neg.

I am off the opinion and always have been that Offrs hang with Offrs, NCO's hang with NCO's, and NCM's hang with NCM's. Reason being is that familiarity breeds contempt.
There are a few occasions where it is okay but only on a professional basis.....Mess Dinners and Official Functions, Christmas parties without extensive mingling.


Anyways, lets here your comments please................and I would like to here why anyone thimks that it is okay.

Not that I want to stop people from commenting but please if you are reg, res, or civ, please indicate as such. If you haven't lived it or don't understand the military CoC please don't comment.

Chimo!


----------



## ChopperHead (16 Feb 2006)

Well as im not in the military yet i dont understand the complexitys of it all but could someone explain why it would be an issue at all? why is it such a horrible thing that an officer actually talks to or befriends a NCM? I would think that it shouldnt matter, If so and so are friends then I wouldnt care personally and going for NCM myself I wouldnt mind being friends with Officers or if Officers wanted to sit with me or whatever.


----------



## Scott (16 Feb 2006)

Did you actually read the above post?

Here's the quote from the post that answers your question:


> Reason being is that familiarity breeds contempt.



2023, how do you think the military's way of doing things should translate into para military type organizations? ie. Fire Dept's (Yes, there is a gooooood reason I ask)

Edit: Sorry 2023, you must have edited your post while I was composing mine. I am a civvy firefighter former PRes.


----------



## 043 (16 Feb 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> Did you actually read the above post?
> 
> Here's the quote from the post that answers your question:
> 2023, how do you think the military's way of doing things should translate into para military type organizations? ie. Fire Dept's (Yes, there is a gooooood reason I ask)



Well I am not really qualifed to answer however I can give you my opinion on what I would expect...I would expect it to be along the same lines as the Military.  If I am a Captain or sometihing similar and I have a constable who I am responsible to write assessments on, how can I be expected to fairly assess him if I am involved socially with him? Even if I could, I am afraid that the perception would be something that would be difficult to deal with whether it was true or not. Better off just to stay in my own world as far as I am concerned.

Make any sense out of that?


----------



## NCRCrow (16 Feb 2006)

Navy is traditionally divided --Officers and NCO's never "hang out" (I am sure there are exceptions)

better that way!


----------



## 043 (16 Feb 2006)

Edit: Sorry 2023, you must have edited your post while I was composing mine. I am a civvy firefighter former PRes.


No sweat Scott, it's all good!


----------



## Scott (16 Feb 2006)

2023, it's all good.

I expected that answer and have to say that I agree, to a point. I think we are a bit more social in the fire service and a bit more informal, it's the nature of our job compared with a member of the CF. That's not to say that there isn't segregation, because there is, I just don't see it as clearly defined. We don't have tables for Chiefs, tables for Captains, tables for firefighters and tables for rookies - but you will see most officers sitting out of the banter, for the most part - just as an example.

IMO, it works. But it also works for those who are more personal with their crew. The crew they have understands that when the bell rings it's not playtime anymore and they are still able to function to their fullest, I see no harm in that. Can the military operate this way? No, not in my opinion, too big and too diverse. Plus the system they have inplace is tried, tested and true.

That's the end of my babble for now.


----------



## 043 (16 Feb 2006)

Well said!


----------



## gnplummer421 (16 Feb 2006)

Greetings,

I've had both positive and some negative experiences with Officers while I was in the army. In  2 Svc Bn, we had a Col. who loved to move at night constantly during Ex's and then work all during the day, dig trenches yadda yadda, but he kinda forgot about what happens to a soldier's driving skills after being awake for extended periods of time. He was should I say...overly ambitious. 

On the other hand, while I served with the Hussars in Germany I had the privilege of knowing some outstanding examples of the Officer Corps. Strong leaders, fair, protective of the troops, and they let the RSM/SSM's do their jobs. God knows our Maint. troop could have gotten our butts thrown in jail a few times for our shenanigans (sp) but let's not go there 

I firmly believe that the Officer who is genuinely passionate about the welfare of his/her troops, ends up getting the most respect in return...and respect is the key ingredient.

Gnplummer421


----------



## OLD F of S (16 Feb 2006)

I agree with the post , but there are some exceptions while I served in CFS Bermuda i belonged to a combined mess Snr Ncos and Officers in many ways this complimented our day to day work. I was posted from there to a sigs regt where a combined mess could not have worked without affecting the chain of command. Besides it is not good policy for Sgt Majors to punch out Jr Officers.



                                   Regards OLD F OF S


----------



## on guard for thee (16 Feb 2006)

Ahh...The Officer / NCO / NCM question...

Let's start by addressing the word relationship...It seems to me that many of us are guilty of tying certain connotations to this word that are not always appropriate. Two members (regardless of rank) who interact in this profession have, by definition, a relationship. The nature of military service makes this a reality. I believe that the type of relationship is the question.

I, as an officer, can have a positive working relationship with my NCOs and NCMs. This does not prohibit us from being a bit on the jocular side when discussing our hockey pool standings. That being said, it is the *duty and responsibility * of Officers and NCOs to ensure that the degree and nature of these relationships do not, and will not, inhibit the professional requirements of our profession. This can be a fine line, and therefore some common sense should prevail:

As a leader, ensure this line is never approached, let alone crossed. If you are uncertain you can do this, then do not entertain this type of relationship.

My 2 cents...

(Officer, Reg Force)


----------



## 043 (16 Feb 2006)

Very well said and I agree with you 100%!!!!


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2006)

sort of like playground politics if you ask me.  I had lots of GOOD FRIENDS who got promoted.  They were told that they were no longer allowed to play with me, I suppose I was no longer worthy of their friendship, as I was one of those fat, lazy, stupid lifer Cpls everyone on here likes to run their gobs about.  My opinion, if you can just turn off a lifelong friendship, you weren't a friend in the first place, so go piss up a rope.


----------



## beach_bum (16 Feb 2006)

That's exactly it.  Over the years a lot of my friends have been promoted (I'm on the CFL program) or become Officers.  We have remained friends throughout all of this.  When we are at work however, we maintain a professional relationship.  That's work.  Outside of work though...we are friends.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2006)

that wasn't the gyst of the OP.  it was a question on whether we should "stick to our own, dear boy, eh, wot" or not, in and out of a work environment.  As an addition to this, it used to drive me up a wall when an "old buddy" would conveniently remember who I was when he  needed wanted something.  Good thing I'm just a thick old sod, or I might have caught on to that trick eventuallty.


----------



## ZipperHead (16 Feb 2006)

I think that the issue here is when people "cross the line" and become too familiar and friendly with the troops. I have friends that are Corporals, but at work they know where to call me by rank, and where they can call me by first name. And I also know the game, and play accordingly. I still have a hard time calling people above me by their first name, unless I know them socially, and/or went through the ranks with them once upon a time.

I have a hard time imagining myself "friendly" (first name basis, going to their house for drinks) with an officer (especially one in the Corps). Because there could come the day when they order me to place my life, and my troops lives in harm's way (corny saying, but gets the point across), and the last thing that needs to be going through anyone's mind is "I can't do that to my bud!!". Or if they have to charge me. 

There is a reason why there is a rank structure, and I cringe when those that come through the huggy-kissy system say that we shouldn't have ranks, and we should all be on a first name basis. That's what the Air Force is for, for crissakes, not the Army. And when was the last time they ever went to war?! Cool your jets, any boys (or girls) in blue. I'm only sort of kidding (and what are you doing at Army.ca, anyway? Seeing how the other half live (from your 5 star hotel)??? Virtual slumming, I 'spose  > )

Al


----------



## Gunnar (16 Feb 2006)

> Because there could come the day when they order me to place my life, and my troops lives in harm's way



You don't have that problem with NCM's?  Because strictly speaking there could come a day where YOU have to give the order that they will hold "X hill" and that "they will remain".


----------



## Fraser.g (16 Feb 2006)

It was one of the hardest transitions for me personally. Not only did I commission but transferred from the Combat arms (Combat Engineer) to CFMS (Nur). 
The change in social and work conduct was shocking to say the least. Although there is a more relaxed atmosphere as far as using ones rank is concerned there is still no doubt at to who is in charge. 
It does not matter if we are talking about in th facility, in the platoon or in the secton. First names may be used between members who have served for while togeather IF it is mutually agreeable but that is a big if.
This also give the extra trump card or shock value if a subordinate steps out of line and the superior rank changes from first name to a more formal address.
Some of my most valuable personal and professional associates are NCOs. I would not have it any other way. When push comes to shove in the Fac I know who is capable and who is not. I know who knows what and everyone knows the rank structure and pecking order.

GF


----------



## reccecrewman (16 Feb 2006)

Well, I have to say that relationships between the ranks are nothing but good if handled in the right context.  There are several reasons for it.  One being listed right on our Principles of Leadership;

Know your soldiers, promote their welfare.

This is crucial.  I think every NCO and Officer should be aware of their soldiers personal side.  Nothing overly in depth, but these are people you have to work with, you want them to work for you and if you treat them as a service number and never get into the personal side, they're not going to respond as well as a soldier who knows his Sergeant or Warrant actually has some interest or concern for the troops in his charge.  You're not going to have your subordinates (or vice versa) over for dinner, but it doesn't hurt to ask a few questions from time to time. "How's your newborn daughter making out? "  Not only that, but if you stay strictly in your circle of peers, you can't really get a feel of the pulse of your troops.  After the uniform comes off, you're name is Dave and his is Micheal.  He has a wife named Sharon and a son named Christopher.  Just because at work, by the chain of command you may be his superior, but on civvy street, you're not superior - you're both equal men.  I've worked for numerous Sgt's, WO's and Officers who believed in this and I appreciated it and would work a little harder for them.  

I don't believe Officers-NCO's & NCM's should be pals after work (Too many conflicts of interest if they are in your Unit or CoC) but I know I sure don't enjoy having some Sgt., WO or Officer seeing me in Wal-Mart with my wife and son and saying "Corporal......"  People who insist on wearing their rank as a badge on their NorthFace coat have a few issues.  There's a time and place for everything...... including showing the human side.  On a side note, if you meet someone in your hometown on leave and start shooting the sh!t and it turns out he's a Corporal and you're a WO, are you going to abort the conversation and leave?  If he ain't in your CoC, Unit or trade, I see nothing wrong with being social.  

My .02


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Feb 2006)

My personal policy was always "Firm, fair, friendly" in that order.  An officer has to understand that he is more of a management unit, not a college.  Not to say that you should be aloof and dickish to your men, just know when to pull pin.  If you are having a smoker at the end of an ex, then have some bevies with the lads for sure.  But if you are knocking off at the end of a parade night, and the troop is going to a bar, best skip the fun.  Plus, don't forget--if things go to a dump, the most ranking person will be held responsible for everyones actions.  
A good officer will buy his troop a round at functions, or spring for a toast to the Queen.


----------



## Pikache (17 Feb 2006)

Sheesh. I forgot all about this thread. 

The key thing that most seems to say is, don't forget to be human and use rank as an excuse to stop having relationships.

Rank is artificial. Humanity is not.
As long as both parties know where they stand in the food chain and how to conduct themselves professionally, what's wrong with being pals?


----------



## 043 (17 Feb 2006)

It's pretty interesting reading the comments and then checking the profiles of the posters. I was expecting what exactly is happening. The reg force has a stricter view than the Res for obvious reasons. 

Very interesting.


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Feb 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> It's pretty interesting reading the comments and then checking the profiles of the posters. I was expecting what exactly is happening. The reg force has a stricter view than the Res for obvious reasons.
> 
> Very interesting.



Great minds think alike (and fools seldom differ). I did the same (matched comments to profiles), and came to the same conclusion. And when you compare elements (army, air, sea) you see a similar pattern.

Al


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2006)

2023 and Allan

Your percieved 'Demographic Survey' is wandering away from the Topic.  We have been down that 'Road' before and we all know where it will lead.  Let's just concentrate on 2023's original questions on Offr-NCO-NCM Relationships when he reactivated this thread and leave other 'divisions' out of the equation.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Feb 2006)

From my limited experience (IAP/BOTC/SLT/ULO dealings), a degree of jovial interaction never hurts but the maintenance of the officer-troop gap is essential to maintaining the image of the officer. I found that too much friendly interaction with superiors led to some loss of perspective by both sides. 

I think drilling the "officers are the superior, so act like it" mantra into the Ocdts can do some harm, though, as I found some of my fellow human-shields gave it a little bit too much credence when establishing their attitudes towards the troops - with some, there was a definite attitude of inherent aristocratic superiority (not of rank, but of intelligence, ability, etc) that seemed fuelled by an over-subscription/misinterpretation of doctrines on the nature of officers, NCOs, NCMs, and the reasoning behind the commissioned-NC gap. Of course, I suspect they'll get sorted out pretty quickly by their first warrant.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Feb 2006)

Well, as much as I hate to skew the stats...  

I have always been more comfortable in a "stratified" world than not. I was "at home" in my years as a TSM. I loved being a Snr NCO. I prided myself in not fraternizing up nor down, and keeping professional lines drawn.  So much so that 9 years after my release, I still practice it in my civvie job. I am not buds with my employees, I don't go golfing with the President. Years later, I still call my old BSM "Sir" when I see him. I met Maj Baker for a coffee one day, and wouldn't call him by his first name - called him Sir. Of course, that's just me. Being raised by an RSM helped, I am sure


----------



## DG-41 (17 Feb 2006)

> I think drilling the "officers are the superior, so act like it" mantra into the Ocdts can do some harm, though



If that's what is going on, somebody somewhere didn't get the memo. That's not how an OCdt should be taught.

As an officer, your job is primarily to make decisions based on the situation and your commanders aim & intent, and then see that decision carried out (either until it is successful, or it is discovered that the plan of action chosen is suboptimal, at which time you are to come up with a new plan and execute that one to successful conclusion)

Part of that execution is convincing your subordinates that the plan is a good one and getting them to carry out their roles in the plan. Having a superior rank is a tool that helps this along. But it is not the *primary* tool. The primary tool in your leadership armoury is the confidence your men have in you and your decisions.

There are many, many things that go into building that confidence; most of them out of scope for this discussion. Some of them are acting confident, cool, and decisive, no matter the circumstances (an exited, panicy vacillator does nothing to inspire confidence in his decisions)

But there is a big difference from "decisive and confident" and "superior". There is nothing inherent in being an officer that makes you "superior" to your men. In a Reseve unit, it is not at all uncommon to have soldiers working for you who are better educated, better paid, and who come from more elevated levels of society. And certainly, the Quarter Inch Admiral stripe is no indication of superior IQ.....

An officer, especially an officer cadet, who puts on airs and acts all hoighty-toighty doesn't Get It. That's not what this is about. Similarly, an officer who panders to his men, sucks up to them, and tries to be their best buddy also doesn't Get It. Instead, you need to cultivate a manner that states "I know what I am doing, I will listen to what you have to say (if we have time) and not every idea must be my idea, but ultimately I am in charge and I will make the decisions".

It's hard to put into words... but when one is in the presence of someone who Gets It, one can usually tell. Emulation of good officers is never a bad plan.

Excessive familiarity poisons this. An officer must retain a certain professional distance, and the distance will follow you for the rest of your life. An officer is always an officer, no matter if he is in uniform or in his skivvies. There are times when the formality can be relaxed somewhat, but it never really goes away.

I and my troops are not on a first name basis. If we meet in public, in civvies, I am Lt, Mr, or Sir. It's not something that I'm prepared to make a big fuss over... but if you have the attitude right, it's something the troops will do automatically anyway (and I count your troops being excessively familiar as a danger sign that you are doing something wrong). Similarly, even though I have the right to use first names when I address them, I choose not to, because again, it establishes that little bit of professional distance (and seems unfair to me). Rank is always appropriate (there no shame in having a military rank) but in social situations where bringing up rank may be a little awkward or clunky, "Mr" works just fine.

The guys I really feel for are those commissioned out of the ranks. It's tough to go from being Private Numpty to OCdt Numpty. One second you're one of the boys, the next you're the little Boss - and it's hard to tell where to draw the line between excessive familiarity and Mad With Power. That's something that comes with time and experience, and usually results in a few bruised egos along the way.

Bottom line though, anybody who is teaching an OCdt to act "superior" - or witness one doing so with out stepping in to correct the issue, is doing them no favours.

DG


----------



## c_canuk (17 Feb 2006)

I think there are many other ways to quickly breed contempt than being too friendly with the troops

ie.
Standing behing me asking pointed questions for hours at a time, when you have never been in my place before, because you currently have nothing better to do and figure you can make me more efficient at my job. Some of us don't see it that way, some of us see it as a reasons to jack you up fishing trip.

Ordering me to "Just Make it Happen" before or even after I've explained why I need something to change in order to carry out some orders but you can't be bothered to think about the problem.

Saying "We'll have to sort that out", when in reality, they will be no where near me and mine while we do the sorting out at great hardship to us without even a nod in our direction for our efforts. Usually in the rain and mud with diesel fuel while you sit in an office with a coffee. No I don't want you to help, because when I get crud in my eyes or stub a digit it's nice to be able to curse, just don't pretend you're helping.

Micromanaging me without going through my chain of command, I don't want an Lt telling me what to do every 5 minutes without my Sgt knowing. Come to think of it, neither does he.

Disregarding the fact that I'm not in your chain of command... I don't mind helping out, but don't assume that because you don't know what I'm doing, that it's not important and therefore can carry your bags to your accomidations (Brit in this case)

Don't correct a SNCO with twice the time in as you in front of his troops.... EVER

Don't ask how things are going unless you really want to know.

No the troops are not happier when they are busy. No really I'm serious, after 12 hours of constant activity, it's nice to sit down and have a coffee for 10 minutes, better yet it would be nice to have a nap at that point, cause it's dark now, and we're gonna get tasked for a recce in a minute.

One man, one kit, if you want that damn cot/lantern/heater/coffee maker you carry it and police it, I've got enough on my plate already thanks.


----------



## Adam (17 Feb 2006)

My first posting as a no hook Private Med tech was with the Navy and Air Force.  I worked closely and associated with Medical and nursing officers everyday.  It was a very friendly environment and a great working team.
  I'm now posted to Petawawa where NCM's have very little contact with our Officers, except for the occasional salute in the parking lot.  I have been with this unit for 8 months and tonight I couldn't tell you my Commanding officers name. Today's O group points included possible new saluting areas within our warehouse.  The Army is a different place for better or worse I'm not sure but I would rater follow someone I know and respect than a stranger.


----------



## 043 (18 Feb 2006)

Adam said:
			
		

> My first posting as a no hook Private Med tech was with the Navy and Air Force.  I worked closely and associated with Medical and nursing officers everyday.  It was a very friendly environment and a great working team.
> I'm now posted to Petawawa where NCM's have very little contact with our Officers, except for the occasional salute in the parking lot.  I have been with this unit for 8 months and tonight I couldn't tell you my Commanding officers name. Today's O group points included possible new saluting areas within our warehouse.  The Army is a different place for better or worse I'm not sure but I would rater follow someone I know and respect than a stranger.



Yeah, because you will have to follow alot of Doctors on the battlefield or on Operations. Weak arguement IMHO


----------



## Scants (19 Feb 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Don't correct a SNCO with twice the time in as you in front of his troops.... EVER



Should a snr NCO correct an offr in front of his troops ? Does time in automatically make someone infallable? So, when a snr NCO is in front of the troops and is doing/saying something wrong/dangerous should the offr (or for that matter, anyone) let it pass until they have a moment alone? What if the offr has more time in than the snr NCO?

Correction of faults by anyone should not be done in public view. This being said, if a person is doing something that could put people in danger "here and now" is the right time to make corrections.



			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> The guys I really feel for are those commissioned out of the ranks. It's tough to go from being Private Numpty to OCdt Numpty. One second you're one of the boys, the next you're the little Boss - and it's hard to tell where to draw the line between excessive familiarity and Mad With Power. That's something that comes with time and experience, and usually results in a few bruised egos along the way.


CFRs are Sgt and higher (and as of a few years ago Mcpl) so they were already the boss. It isn't that far of a leap. These people would have been a Cpl, been made a MCpl and then been put in charge of the people who moments ago were their peers. It is called professionalism. Many of my friends from when I was a Cpl are now Sgts and WOs. Can these people DS me on phase trg? Sure they can as we are professionals. When I was a MCpl and had to give orders to guys I had been Cpls with for years was there any problems? No as we are professionals. When a person joins the army as an officer, their experience is limited to books and movies for the most part. A person who was in the troops has had the benefit of seeing throughout the years what makes both a good and bad leader. This exposure helps them figure out what kind of leader they want to be. 

Tim


----------



## gnplummer421 (19 Feb 2006)

A bit off topic...but;

I remember a thing our Squadron used to do when New Troop Officers would come to us while we were on Fall-ex. They would arrive on a Helicopter and would be dropped off a few clicks away from camp. Then once we had word they would soon arrive, we would exchange shirts...so the Major would actually be a Trooper, and the Trooper was actually the Major, Techs would be Tankers etc. etc. Then that night we would put on a welcome smoker for the Officers and everybody would have fun.

The following morning, we would have a muster parade with everyone wearing their proper attire. A great icebreaker, and the looks on the faces was sooo funny. After that, the Troop Warrants would "guide" the Officers until they knew their stuff, and then they would gradually take over the Troop. Armoured Officers always seemed to be glad that they were eased in rather than to take Command right away..almost as if they were told this was the best way to integrate.

Anyhoo, just an old tale...

Gnplummer


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Feb 2006)

Relationships should be borne out of respect both vertically and horizontally through the ranks.  I'll stick with 'vertically' in keeping with the thread's subject.

A number of issues come into play, including personal experience levels, responsibilities and trusts, and the nature of the particular environment (which I will address in a manner that I feel is in keeping with the intent of this thread without digressing.)

One of the issues that seems to come to the fore is the experience that a member may have accumulated before being placed in a position of responsibility for the effective  completion of a task or mission all the while ensuring the welfare of those for whom one is responsible.  The young Platoon Commander and the experienced Senior NCO Section Commanders within an infantry company, for example, where the experience gap may be greatest represents a different situation than an OC or CO's relationship with his or her CSM/FWO or RSM/SWO/Cox'n.  

The first example (Pl Comd/Sect Comd) is perhaps the most challenging on a personal level as the young officer has little practical experience upon which to base his or her command decisions.  At this point, the young officer would profit from actively seeking his/her NCO's advice in conducting particular tasks, then choose an appropriate course of action having considered all factors, clearly including the experienced input from the NCO.  This is certainly a point where the officer/NCM relationship has the potential to head South in a hurry...a close-minded, headstrong officer looking to effect his/her recently endowed command position on the troops through the chain of command is not a good way to start, nor equally is a senior NCO trying to bully or prove superiority of his/her greater tactical experience to the young sub-altern.  

Later in the careers of both senior ranks and officers, the relationship can be a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship.  I have had much wisdom passed to me by officers senior to me in rank and experience, but I have also had the great fortune to benefit from the wisdom of excellent NCMs as well.  An officer would be foolish indeed to not only not consider but fail to actively seek advice from his/her senior NCMs.  As well, never overlook the opportunity to learn from situations in dealing with even the most junior of ranks...they may not know they are passing on valuable experiences but I have picked up much in dealing with junior members even just in terms of interacting with them directly or through observation from a bit of distance.  No one, whatever their rank, should be so arrogant as to believe they have nothing to learn from the experiences of others, no matter the other member's rank!

My second point regards responsibilities and trusts.  As an officer, none of my actions should betray the responsibilities I have to those whom I command and for whom I am ultimately responsible.  Some responsibilities are very clearly delineated in a number of regulations, orders and directives -- they are not negotiable.  If an order says thou shalt not [  ]...it isn't done...period.  This ensures that no "downward" trusts are betrayed.  Those NCMs under my command have the right to trust without question the conduct of my actions.  When issues are not so clear cut, however, is where professional rubber truly hits the road, and it is here that the relationship between officer and NCM is critical to ensuring the welfare of those members within the chain of command.  This is perhaps where some of the situations that others have mentioned may occur and where experience and judgement fill in the multiple shades of grey that don't neatly exist in a black and white world.  Having a unit beer call after an exercise and buying a first round for the troops...absolutely.  Don't, however, place the troops in the awkward position of hanging around, round after round, and not taking your leave when it's time to let the troops have time to themselves and unwind -- this could lead not only to an implied acceptance of a more familiar relationship between NCM and officer than should exist, but potentially impact in a negative manner the trust that soldiers have in an officer's ability to effect their command in a firm but fair manner.

Thirdly there is no doubt that there are environmental differences in how the NCM-officer relationship unfolds.  I won't stray too far out of my lane except to say that my impressions from speaking with other officers and NCMs is that the Navy maintains a very traditional NCM-officer relationship and that the Army, on the whole, while perhaps not as "traditional"/rigid as the Navy, has strong beliefs about the relationship and in some branches definitely more so than in others.  

Regarding the relationship between NCMs and officers in the Air Force, I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that there isn't a less formal relationship.  Yes, I have used first names in an aircraft with NCOs whom I trust with my life to ensure the airworthiness of the machine I am flying us in, especially where a first name immediately and unquestioningly grabs hold of the attention of the person you want to be paying attention to what you're saying.  This is especially true where SA around the aircraft (like on top of a building at night, on NVG, with wires and aerials all over the place maintaining precise hover within half a rotor separation horizontally and far less vertically with other soldiers depending on you to put them on a platform literally only several feet in either dimension) is critical to the safety of all personnel involved.  Some can judge me on that, but there is literally sometimes not enough time to verbalize, "Master-Corporal Bloggins, moving obstacle on the left, clear me to move right three feet" and "Bob, clear me right three" is all you have time to say.  I give that NCO the courtesy when back on the ground, and in especially in front of other NCMs, to call him by the rank he has worked hard to be awarded/promoted to.  I have no issue with that example occurring in the revers either...the mark of professionals, either NCM or officer is knowing the time and place.  I have not experienced any issues with those NCO's with whom I have such a relationship with, nor have they voiced concern to me in return...time and place.  In other aspects of squadron life, I treat each member with respect for their skills and conduct in accomplishing their individual tasks in support of the unit's accomplishment of its mission.  Outside the aircraft, the most informal I may get with NCMs in "guys" or "gents" [if no women around] or "folks" [mixed company].  I'm sure there will be some who may not agree with my approach, but then again, I'm not asking anybody to do so.  I think that mutual respect, rank notwithstanding, is a quality that gives the CF the overall reputation of quality.

On the final point that was mentioned by some, correction of facts or procedures...again, respect should come into play here.  I would not think of correcting an NCM in front of subordinates or superior NCMs unless there was an immediate issue of [flight] safety [in my world] or clearly inappropriate behaviour.  Anything corrective should be respectfully be done behind a closed door...I do believe in the "Praise in public, punish in private" tenet.  Only the most extreme case would make me consider otherwise, and I can say that in 21 years of service, I have not had any issue that had to be dealt with in public. 

Mein 2¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## ZipperHead (19 Feb 2006)

Very good post, Duey.

I think that there is always a certain time and place for certain things, and when you are in your vehicle/aircraft/spacecraft, you are essentially on your own doing your thing, and talking to people as "humans" rather than faceless individuals becomes the norm. However, once you are back on terra firma/base camp/garrison, you are back to being a part of the machine, and first names/nicknames should get dropped.

Professionalism is the key word here, and respect. A problem that many people have is determining that respect (for the individual) is earned, although respect for rank is automatic. Abusing this concept is where things go to hell in a handbasket. Too many people feel that they should get respect, yet show none to others, and then wonder why they are held in contempt. The best officers and NCO's that I have ever had the pleasure of serving with understood the concept of gaining respect, and showing respect. The worst, well they just never got it (in many ways).

An aspect of professionalism that many people don't "get" is that you can't have it both ways: you can't be the big bossman, and also be "buds" with everyone. I despise seeing officers (and NCO's for that matter) trying to be one of the "guys" (smokin' and jokin'), and then have to play the officer (or NCO) card when something happens that they feel merits it (somebody dares to make a joke at their expense, for example). There's a name for what needs to be maintained: professional distance. If a person can't accept this, there are other lines of work that they should pursue.

Al

Al


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2006)

Now that was very well put, Duey.

Thanks


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Feb 2006)

Great post Duey,
For those who just skim, here is what I think you need to know from his post,

_No one, whatever their rank, should be so arrogant as to believe they have nothing to learn from the experiences of others, no matter the other member's rank!
and,
...time and place._

...and this can be applied in every facet of ones life, not just in the military.


----------



## Lou-Dog (19 Feb 2006)

To sum up the reasons why Officers and NCM's don't fraternize here they are:

 An Officer can not  effectively lead his troops if he can not properly maintain good order and discipline. An Officer can not properly discipline the people he fraternizes with, there's a conflict of interest.

 How can an officer be drinking buddies with a guy on the one hand, then discipline him next?? It doesn't work, there are biases.

 This is also why different ranks have different messes, it's unprofessional for a subordinate to see his superior piss drunk or to get piss drunk with him or her.


----------



## 043 (19 Feb 2006)

Johnny Canuck71 said:
			
		

> To sum up the reasons why Officers and NCM's don't fraternize here they are:
> 
> An Officer can not  effectively lead his troops if he can not properly maintain good order and discipline. An Officer can not properly discipline the people he fraternizes with, there's a conflict of interest.
> 
> ...



Chhhhaaaaaaaaaaa CHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pikache (19 Feb 2006)

Johnny Canuck71 said:
			
		

> To sum up the reasons why Officers and NCM's don't fraternize here they are:
> 
> An Officer can not  effectively lead his troops if he can not properly maintain good order and discipline. An Officer can not properly discipline the people he fraternizes with, there's a conflict of interest.
> 
> ...


So, what about MCpl disciplining a Cpl or Pte? Same mess, same drunken debaucheries.

Or a buddy who goes CFR and now in higher chain of command position?

If there has to be non fraternization between officers and NCMs in the name of discipline, somewhere down the line, someone forgot to tell everyone what professionalism means, meaning, if someone higher up in chain gives you a lawful order, you do it, no matter how close you are or buddies or whatnot.


----------



## medicineman (19 Feb 2006)

I think what people like 2023 and Al are trying to get at is that how can you follow an order from someone that drinks, parties, acts like a dumb ass and such with everyone else - I find it difficult to take people that do that all time seriously.  When I have problems taking that person seriously, that leaves an awful lot of doubt in my mind and makes me think twice about not only the order itself, but the motive behind it - like am I being directed to do something because I don`t hang out with this guy and his buddy/buddies/buddyettes and it`s distasteful to them and therefore am I getting it dumped on me? etc ad nauseum.  That is a rather contagious problem and it`s something other subordinates pick up on quite readily and it continues to roll down hill.  This is a problem I`ve seen alot of and it can ruin a unit - it causes an awful lot of division.

Professionalism is like loyalty - it goes both ways.  You follow orders when they`re given, but the person that gives the orders has to act in a professional manner as well.

My $0.02.

MM


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Feb 2006)

The onus is on the higher rank to conduct themselves professionally.  If you can spend some time with your troops and kick back a bit, you can get some valuable insight into the inner workings of the group.  But it will all go to a dump if you have to discipline someone and hesitate because you are to "buddy buddy" with them.  Being able to drop the hammer despite the closeness will foster respect, since your subordinates will realize you will do what you have to in the long run no matter what.  If you can't do that, time to create some distance.  
I agree with Medicineman that perceived favoritism will create all kinds of hassles and dissention.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Feb 2006)

Quote from Johny Canuck 71,
_it's unprofessional for a subordinate to see his superior piss drunk or to get piss drunk with him or her._

I call BS on this. Gee, heavens forbid one sees that his superiors are human too.  It would be unprofessional if thats what they were doing all the time.
I used to enjoy when we had a chance to have a troop smoker and make things a little more informal if only for a couple of hours.
Made me think more of, not less of, when the ones that were true leaders had no problem popping a few cans with those whom they wish to lead.
...and then like 2B said depart at the appropriate time. [ and again, one in tune with his troops would know when that was]

On my French course there was an Arty MWO and a {CAR} PPCLI WO [whom at 37 SMOKED me in the SSF Ironman ] who we called Roger and Earl for the 10 months.
[course policy then, not sure now] After 10 months of that informality I would have followed them anywhere/anytime/anyhow as they showed true leadership by accepting these conditions even though they had spent many years working to a point where I should've had my heels together addressing them. 

Thats what leadership is about.......again, like 2B said......time and place.


----------



## mover1 (21 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Johny Canuck 71,
> _it's unprofessional for a subordinate to see his superior piss drunk or to get piss drunk with him or her._
> 
> I call BS on this. Gee, heavens forbid one sees that his superiors are human too.  It would be unprofessional if thats what they were doing all the time.
> Itime and place



Johnny Canucks point was very direct. There are always eceptions to every rule. IE Sqn Smokers, Mess Dinners etc etc. ButI think he was getting more on the point of hanging out and watching NASCAR together.
In our Regiment in Germany we has an individual MCPls Mess where they could go and relax by themselves.   
We have lost this, and it puts us with the leaf in an odd predicament when we have to put our game face on to hand out discipline.


----------



## reccecrewman (21 Feb 2006)

I have to say I don't think you've lost anything by not having your own mess to go to as a MCpl.  The vast majority of Trooper / Corporal types know that when a Jack tells them to do something, they're not to screwed around with.  Everybody knows that MCpl's are the ones down on the hangar floor making sure things are running smoothly, the Warrants orders are carried out and handle 90% of the Troops Admin issues.  They also are the Troops first contact with the leadership and as such, they should be in the same mess.  However, I also believe that once a Corporal has been promoted to the MCpl. rank, he should be immediately removed from his Troop (preferrably the whole Squadron) but this doesn't happen very often.  This is where I've seen the most problems for MCpl's.  One minute they're peers with the Troopers / Corporals, next, they're the whip.  Quite often, the poor S.O.B's are left in the Troop (Usually as the Troop leaders Gunner) and they're placed in an unfortunate situation because now the boys in the Troop still see him as (insert first name here).

My .02


----------



## ZipperHead (21 Feb 2006)

I think that there should be a place for MCpl's to hang out, separate from the soldiers. In the LdSH, they have the Green Point Lounge rest area, and I have heard some other units have similar set-ups. Why? So that they can relax, and let their hair down, so to speak, without worrying about some Tpr or Cpl overhearing the MCpl talk about another soldier. We had our own tent lines for MCpl's in Bosnia (jn our Sqn), and I think it was very effective, as it allowed the soldier's to vent without the MCpl overhearing, and vice versa. I know when I was a Tpr I thought it was bullshit for the MCpl's to have their own mess in Cyprus, but then again I was only a Tpr and didn't understand these things.

I also agree regarding once promoted a MCpl should move to another troop or Sqn, but it can depend on circumstances, obviously. In some ways it would be better for them to stay put, as they are more comfortable in that environment and it will make for an easier transistion, but the familiarity aspect can also impede the enforcement of discipline. 

In this same vein, I think that when an NCM CFR's or goes the UTPNCM route, they should have to rebadge (assuming they stay in same trade of course) or move to another unit/brigade etc. Moreso at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt rank level to 2LT/Lt, because there would be too many pers who were far too familiar with that soldier when they were an NCM, and then when they come back as an officer, they are at a disadvantage, IMO. 

Al


----------



## reccecrewman (22 Feb 2006)

I'll admit that it would be nice for the MCpl's to have a rest area somewhere in the Regimental lines.  The Officers have the Centurion Room, the NCO's the Sgt. Holland Room and the riffraff hang out at the Canteen, but there is no definitive rest area for the MCpl's.  I see you point as to why it would be a good thing to have.  I still believe that they belong in the same Mess as the Troopers & Corporals, but a Regimental rest area would be good.


----------



## Glorified Ape (23 Feb 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> If that's what is going on, somebody somewhere didn't get the memo. That's not how an OCdt should be taught.
> 
> ...



Hey, I agree absolutely. I think the problem isn't so much that the Ocdts are being taught that they're superior in the qualitative sense, it's that some seem to misinterpret doctrine on officers. Having the "lead by example", "you're supposed to be the example/best/etc", constantly drilled into you sometimes gets translated into "I am the example/best/etc." - obviously wrong, but I've found it happens with some. Another mis-step that seems to happen with a few is that they take the old fashioned "officers = educated, troops = ignorant peons" stereotype seriously, falling into the "education = intelligence/worth" fallacy. Then there are the occasional "you guys learn alot faster than recruits" comments by instructors (either directly, or over-heard) which don't help. Filtered through a selective set of ears that comes out meaning "you're better than recruits". Watching 10 minutes of recruit drill, then 10 minutes of Ocdt drill should eliminate that misconception, but apparently not.


----------



## loyalist (24 Feb 2006)

It's not that Ocdts are taught to be haughty...some of us are just pricks, plain and simple. For this I apologize....in my (very short) time in the army, I've seen some very humble yet confident Ocdts who seem to learn fast, and I've also heard Ocdts be cocky bastards who often lecture the rest  of us peons on how things _really_  perate.

So far, the indoctrination I've been recieving has been focused around the Ten Principles of Leadership. Number one being, ACHIEVE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE. Most of the others can bascially be summed up in: "care about everyone but yourself. All you need to do is keep your feet, face and rifle clean so ypu can focus on the mission and the troops at hand". I know I know nothing, I'm reminded all the time. Hell, so I should be. If I want an example to set...look to the senoir NCMs or older officers. Some of those I work with still seem to belive that they rule by divine right..

But the actual concept of having seperate offcier and NCM classes? Personal opinion here. From what I've red and I've seen, the seperation of the army into the two different classes is not simply a matter of hierarchy, it is very functional: the officers handle different aspects of fighting and take on largely operational as opposed to purely tactical decisions, leaving the more experienced NCMs to focus on combat and advise the officer.  Well, this is just my impression from the sensory bombarment I've recieved, tell me if I have it all wrong.



> I'm now posted to Petawawa where NCM's have very little contact with our Officers, except for the occasional salute in the parking lot.  I have been with this unit for 8 months and tonight I couldn't tell you my Commanding officers name.



I've only ever seen the Commandant at five times maximum, perhaps twice off the sqaure, but you can damn well be sure that I know who B/Gen. Lacroix is. That's a matter of professionalism. I may be an Ocdt, but I know this at least.


----------



## warrickdll (24 Feb 2006)

The first OPDP module used to espouse how officers were the only true warriors; NCMs were merely technicians of particular trades/weapons, with NCOs to direct the labour. Only officers could be considered warriors as they studied the theories, strategies and mindset of war. 

A couple of caveats: first, I read that part of the module about 16 years ago; and second, I have no copy of the module or reference to it. 

It was an oddly worded chapter, but it hints at more than just a professional difference between officers and NCOs/NCMs, at least in the minds of some. Anyone know if this is still part of the curriculum? Or how far off my understanding of it was?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2006)

Well, if that's true, that would definitely explain some of the bizarre ethics and attitudes displayed by some of the officers I've had the (dis)pleasure to work for, as opposed to 'with'.


----------



## DG-41 (24 Feb 2006)

I don't remember THAT chapter...

I've still got my copy of the Giant Orange Brick. When I get some time I'll go looking and see if I can find it.

In any case, OPDP has been superceded by OPME, so all the course materials have changed.

DG


----------



## warrickdll (24 Feb 2006)

I hesitated in adding an unreferenced statement (especially like that one), but even though time has passed I do not think I’m too far off what was actually written, and it seemed on topic (at least at that point in the thread).

I only went through 1 module at the time so I am assuming it is the first one (there were about half a dozen or so modules in the OPDP). With the advent of OPME, OPDP may not be accessible, however if you know of a link I would gladly do the legwork on this (my searches don’t result in any course materials). 

While that remains in purgatory… It has been pointed out in this thread (and in Review of CF NCM Rank Structure? http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24425.0.html)that in different places MCpls have had their own separate places away from the troops while in most others they do not.  This -extra messing- would seem to indicate that the CF is unsure on how the MCpl fits into the structural rank/social relationship. 

Given that Officers do not have a split like this while NCOs do, is there a better way? Should there be an NCO mess instead of a Senior NCO mess? If not, then could the same reasons for keeping the section 2ic separate from the Senior NCOs also be applied to the section commander (as in – should there just be a WO mess)? Or is something everyone thinks Hellyer got right?


----------



## Glorified Ape (24 Feb 2006)

loyalist said:
			
		

> It's not that Ocdts are taught to be haughty...some of us are just pricks, plain and simple. For this I apologize....in my (very short) time in the army, I've seen some very humble yet confident Ocdts who seem to learn fast, and I've also heard Ocdts be cocky bastards who often lecture the rest  of us peons on how things _really_  perate.



I dunno - I've seen relatively reserved Ocdts turn into spontaneous a**holes when the issue of recruits comes up (or recruits are nearby). They weren't like that on day 1, but they were on week 6. As I said, it's not explicitly "taught" but the doctrine on officers seems such that many misinterpret it to say things about themselves that it's not saying.


----------



## Sabre1918 (24 Feb 2006)

Its the old saying....and it goes:

"*Familiarity breeds contempt*"...This means that the more you know something or someone, the more you start to find faults and dislike things about it or them.

Lee


----------



## Pikache (24 Feb 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> Its the old saying....and it goes:
> 
> "*Familiarity breeds contempt*"...This means that the more you know something or someone, the more you start to find faults and dislike things about it or them.
> 
> Lee



Bullshit.
There shouldn't be comtempt if there is any respect for professional and personnel character in the relationship.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Feb 2006)

You can choose to treat someone with contempt, or you can choose to treat them with respect and a professional demeanor.  No-one forces you to treat them with contempt, neither does the "system" train you to do so, no matter what you know of them.  The one moving part in the system you control is yourself - and only you are responsible for how you choose to treat others.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Feb 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> Its the old saying....and it goes:
> 
> "*Familiarity breeds contempt*"...This means that the more you know something or someone, the more you start to find faults and dislike things about it or them.
> 
> Lee



What a curious interpretation of that old saying.  Must be hard to make friends that way.
I always though the "contempt" part pertained to if you are too familiar with your troops they will have contempt for your authority.


----------



## Sabre1918 (27 Feb 2006)

It's fancinating how people can twist a simple concept.  :

Did I say......*I* was choosing to treat anyone with contempt?
I mearly said that "Familiarity breeds contempt".
In my observation 20 years in the CF I can honestly say that....yes it happens.
It  has improved a lot over the past few years, but the problem still persists in
all ranks.

Lee


----------



## CombatMP265 (27 Feb 2006)

The best way to summ my view of the Officer NCM relationship can only be done anecdotally. 
As I've only been in the forces going on 2 years (all that time as an Officer) and recently going through this dilemma I'd like to make my own points. 

Being a Reserve Officer I find we're more apt to be confronted with this sort of 'How do I treat _____ in a public place?' and my approach to it has and will always be treat said person as a member of the forces. Now I'm not saying I don't act personable, I try quite often now to know more about my troops lives outside of the Army. But that goes without saying my commission does not disintegrate when I take off my uniform and I still am a representative of the Queen. 

From the moment I was sworn in it was made absolutely clear to me my role as an Officer from another Senior Officer who I can without a doubt say was a soldier who had won the respect of his troops. Not everyone liked him, but they for damn sure respected him. The difficulty with the Reserve form of training is that your not constantly being reinforced with a professional attitude. Your put on the uniform 4 times a month and 1-2 weekends and that's it. So for some its not really explained without a good jacking by your Senior NCO's what the service means. It's my opinion that it comes to a question of personal discipline. If a soldier conducts them selves in a professional manner they'll view their job in one too. The Army has always been known for the comradery it builds and while that is one of its strengths it can also be a weakness (although limitedly). 
I have to conduct myself in a manner that lets them realize this isn't a game. What their training for is real, were not putting on a uniform to go 'play' soldier but to serve Canada. As my time in the service continues I'm noticing more and more the difference between seasoned troops and new recruits (Who unlike the Regs are allowed into the unit prior to Basic Courses). The unrealistic expectations and the outright absurd (true ex. "I play a lot of Tom Clancy, so I think I'll be good...."). Working with inexperienced persons who make up even a small percentage of the overall group still means you have to teach to the lowest one. I can trust my NCO's to conduct themselves but when the appropriate "slack" is shown to them but seen by the new recruits this magnifies bad habits in their developing service conduct. 


Ok, different sub-topic. I have never once in my training come across the motif of "Officers are superior to NCM's". eing a product of the infamous "Mixed BMQ" I was quite often 'reminded' that OCdt's are lower than Pte(R). And doing the Reg force CAP(Phase 2) taught me quite personally the difference between the roles of NCM and Officer (including a new found respect for the infantry). While I won't say its never happend AND I have personally seen some persons with this view. I can only vouch for myself and those I've worked with. But this isn't something thats taught It's a toxic growth from in a system that was once founded on priviledge and birth. 

"Sir did you get to use the C6 this summer?"
"No, they don't teach us that."
"Why don't they teach you that weapon?"
"Cause in the field you guys are my weapons."


----------



## 043 (27 Feb 2006)

Does anybody want to tell him?


----------



## mover1 (1 Mar 2006)

I would like to but I don't know where to begin......


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Mar 2006)

CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> The best way to summ my view of the Officer NCM relationship can only be done anecdotally.
> As I've only been in the forces going on 2 years (all that time as an Officer) and recently going through this dilemma I'd like to make my own points........



Roger so far...



			
				CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> Ok, different sub-topic. I have never once in my training come across the motif of "Officers are superior to NCM's". eing a product of the infamous "Mixed BMQ" I was quite often 'reminded' that OCdt's are lower than Pte(R). And doing the Reg force CAP(Phase 2) taught me quite personally the difference between the roles of NCM and Officer (including a new found respect for the infantry). While I won't say its never happend AND I have personally seen some persons with this view. I can only vouch for myself and those I've worked with. But this isn't something thats taught It's a toxic growth from in a system that was once founded on priviledge and birth.
> 
> "Sir did you get to use the C6 this summer?"
> "No, they don't teach us that."
> ...



 ???   not tracking this at all...


----------



## mover1 (1 Mar 2006)

Sounds like something right out of Monty Python. 

And now for soemthing completely different......... :-\


----------



## dredwulf (1 Mar 2006)

Sabre1918 said:
			
		

> Its the old saying....and it goes:
> 
> "*Familiarity breeds contempt*"...This means that the more you know something or someone, the more you start to find faults and dislike things about it or them.
> 
> Lee



I agree.

'Contempt' is a strong word, too close to 'hate' on the scale of attitudes toward someone or something, but the gist is there.

You can see this in action, when you meet a superior officer or NCO, and they have a strong character.  You can't help but respect of even idolize them.

But if you are in a position to be around them, in close quarters, for extended periods, you learn all of their faults.

While you don't actively dislike them for being humans, they lose the lustre of being the paragon you thought they were.


----------



## Maybee (2 Mar 2006)

> Any good unit will develop handles (No joke)  Handles were completely acceptable and encouraged in our platoon overseas (Of course, some handles happened to be Sergeant, Warrant, and Sir(EllTee))


Infanteer posted that one. I agree handles strike a nice balance between a little familiarity (part of the team, good troop etc) and the important distance between the soldiers and the leadership cadre. 
On a completely unrelated note that quote for your signature isn't from the novel "Gates of Fire" is it?


----------



## Wookilar (5 Mar 2006)

Yes, I'm new here. Yes, I have read all the posts in this thread.
Having switched to the dark side (UTPNCM) and gone through IAP in St. Jean (that particular establishment deserves a whole discussion of its own, I actually liked Cornwallis compared to that place) and now nearing the end of my first year at RMC, I understand a great deal more of why (some) officers behave in the way they do. One of the things I've seen commented in this thread a few times is the sometimes witnessed superior attitudes shown by mostly junior officers. Some, unfortunately, never seem to grow out of it.
And that's the thing. These OCdt's are 98% 17-20 years old with virtually no work experience and being told they are leaders without having anything under their belt but CAP (if that). Another thing to remember, all of the contact between OCdt's and NCM's (of any rank) are either in an instructional or disciplinary environment. The largest exposure most OCdt's get of NCM's at RMC are the poor, stressed out members of the UTPNCM (Otter Sqn) and that's not always a good thing. They have no idea what a Cpl is capable of let alone a WO. It's not really their fault, they are not getting any exposure to the whole wide world. Right now, the academic side has the high ground on development and available training time is at a premium, so anything such as a job experience program is hard to come by. Even standard military training takes a back seat to academic/language class time.
Something that might help narrow this gap in perceptions is what used to be SOP in 1 SVC BN in Calgary. All the BLt's (baby Lt's) would do time on the shop floor, working as a swamper for an experienced MRT, and go through the different Pl's to actually learn what the NCM's were doing. Some also took it a level higher and spent time with the NCO's and shadowed them for a bit. Would this work in all trades? Don't think it would hurt.
IMHO, a gap does have to remain between Officer's/NCO's/NCM's (particularly for the Army and Navy. The Air Force says they are the only ones that do it right by sending out their Officers to die. They're a bit funny anyway ). The best officers I've ever worked for/with knew my face and name (especially in the pointy end units) and talked to me in an appropriate manner. We also enjoyed (a few) wobbly pops at smokers/unit parties. Two of the worst officers I have ever seen tried way to hard to be "one of the guys" and just ended up essentially destroying Pl/Coy morale and effectiveness. Try going on tour in that kind of environment!
The training has not caught up with the real world requirements, but it is changing. Last year, the decision was made at CFRS St. Jean that the recruits and OCdt's would share the same mess. Somebody that makes a whole lot more money than I decided that this would be a good idea for a number of reasons. One of which, as we were told, was for more interaction between NCM's and Officers. Only time will tell if it works.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Mar 2006)

Wookilar, sounds like an excellent idea 1 Svc Bn had (has?).  

As a young pup on squadron and preparing to take my maintenance test pilot (MTP) course, I checked with the AMO Sgt if things were OK then popped my head into engine bay and asked, "Hey, gents...can anyone give me some pointers on how to tear down a T-55 or PT-6 hot-end (the Chinook and Twin Huey's engines)?"  The fitters rightly looked at me like I had a toaster for a head, then told me to grab a set of coveralls and come take a look.  Over time, I would drop into all the various sections around the squadron and not only gained a much better appreciation of what the guys and gals did on a daily basis and who they were, but learned a whackload more about the machine than could ever be found in the flight manual.  Whenever I was the sqn duty officer, I would go out of my way to come in after hours and test fly the machine that the techs had in many cases spent hours working on.  IMO, nothing would be worse than bending wrenches on a machine then having the aircraft sit until Monday morning to have one of the MTPs saunter in to test fly it.   

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Wookilar (5 Mar 2006)

Duey, 
I honestly do not know if the Svc Bn still does business that way or not. I left the mother ship about 9 years ago now, soon after we moved to Edmonton. From what I experienced, the vast majority of the young officers actually liked to get their hands dirty a bit. For most, it was the first time they had played with anything outside of a school setting.
I'm not sure if there would be a way for this to work in the Cmbt Arms trades. It would take some doing for a young 2Lt to be accepted enough to be part of a Section as a Rifleman. CAP may not be Battle School, but it should be enough for the basic skills. I have little knowledge of the training involved on the Armd/Arty side, so I don't know if such a thing would be possible. With the tech trades, where the techs work alone or in teams of two, it is much easier for a swamper to slip in for a bit here and there. Anyone can follow directions of "take that off, but try not to break it."


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Mar 2006)

There have been occasions in the past where Aromur officers in between Phase training would do OJT in a unit, usually in Gagetown (either within the Armour School or at C Sqn RCD (pre-93) or A Sqn VIII CH (93-98), but occasionally they would go to the Regiments. They would sometimes be employed as tank loaders, getting experience in the turret while on exercise or on courses, working with the troops on the hangar floor (doing maintenance), or getting experience in an office with paperwork. 

In my opinion, this usually made them into better officers, as they usually gained a perspective of the work that gets done, day to day, giving them an insight into what it is like to be a soldier. Of course, a lot of them hated it, as it is boring and I suppose that is the point (why they were given OJT): they get an insight into what it is for a soldier to do this for their whole career.

I think if more officers were given this type of experience, we would all be the better for it, and IMO, if more officers were to come from the ranks, there would likely be less of the "us vs them" mentality. 

Al


----------



## Fraser.g (5 Mar 2006)

Sorry to add my two cents but,

I have a small group of people within my unit and because of this we are a close nit society.
Yes I am cloister than my regular force counterparts but I do not believe that this undermines my ability to lead or command. 
Those within my comand staff are mature enough and professionally enough to know the difference between play time and work time. yew this is a reserve structure and would not work in other circumstances, but it does ours.


----------



## medicineman (6 Mar 2006)

I remember when I went on my medevac course, one of the hardest adjustments I had to make was calling someone who had been an instructor of mine on my 3's and a platoon warrant of mine and was now an MWO, by their first name.  In fact, everyone was on a first name basis - Cpl to Capt.  It's something I saw in the air force when I was in Cold Lake on my 4's and again, had a bit of a problem with, seeing as I was from an Army unit at the time and just a private at the time.  Even worse when it's officers telling you to call them by their first names and in public no less.

Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to call me by my first name, that's fine, but it shouldn't be in a public place.  But, last I heard, this a priviledge that runs DOWN hill, not up - officers are still Sir/Mam or Doctor such and such.  If someone else wants to call me by my first name, I'll let that person know whether they can or not and when/where it's acceptable to do so - there are many military people that I work with on the civilian side in the volunteer community, so sometimes we forget where we are(myself included).

My extra $0.02.

MM


----------



## loyalist (6 Mar 2006)

I was talking to a Major in my psych about doing OJT as a rifleman in one of the infantry battalions for an OJT. Personally, I really hope that I get my B/B/B rating, because I think that would teach me far more than going through old accounts and manuals. Knowing the way some of us are here, going through a summer (or maybe even a year) as a private is neccesary to grind the edge of some of the more arrogant types here, and for the rest of us, it would be a load of experience and fun which would be invaluable.


If only they could find time for everyone to do it in their four years....


----------



## Timex (7 Mar 2006)

There's lots of good posts here and I'd like to add my 2 cents to the pot. To begin with it absolutely drove me nuts when I was a Sgt and one of my guys would refer to the one of the officers by his 1st name, not directly but in reference to him. I had one Cpl who I think did it on purpose just to get me to blow. I'm not a stress case but it's just one of those things. I hold the view like some others here that familiarity can breed contempt. Although not in everyone, most troops know how to act professionally and as long as the line's not crossed everyone is happy (even the Sgt). But, like it or not there's always a few clowns both commissioned and noncommissioned who can't see the harm in calling each other "Bill"just because it's OK on the hockey team. Fine, leave it on the ice, there's no place for it in the unit lines. It erodes discipline in a unit. It doesn't just pop out it's ugly head the day Capt Bob has to order MCpl Dave to die taking a trench, it's far more likely be there lurking during the normal course of action of a peace time army. Snr NCO's see it every day.  It would be fine if the Pl was a static entity that stayed together for 20 year sand you become this happy family but that's not the reality. New people come and go all the time so it's better if the status quo is Sir, or Capt. This way it's the same for the new guys, regardless of rank, as it is for the poor bastards who can't seem to buy a posting. I know I'm running gut feel here rather than presenting a well positioned argument using documented case studies in control groups (I'm sure the more learned members of the group could probably dig one up) but that's all I've got. And let me take the opportunity here to say in contrast to the tone of my post I actually liked most of my officers (OK 51%) I just don't want them calling the troops "Cindy"or what ever the hell their names are!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Mar 2006)

Quote,
_one of my guys would refer to the one of the officers by his 1st name, not directly but in reference to him. I had one Cpl who I think did it on purpose just to get me to blow._

...and thats why he did it, well that and not having any "professional courtesy" in him.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Mar 2006)

GOCs parade, 4 CER, 1989.  Bde Comd arrives to inspect our troop, TC falls in at the rear of the entourage.  Turns to me in his best buddy-buddy tone and says "How are you today, Kat?"  
  "Great thanks, Jim" sez I...
Bde RSM had to excuse himself and walk behind an AVLB for a good 30 sec belly laugh...


----------



## Collin.t (17 Mar 2006)

It's all good to share personal experience and to say that this is good or this is bad, what has to be studied here is the relationship in itself.

for anyone concerned in the relation between unequals (as in different ranks) I recommend reading this little book by Aristotle : Nicomachaen Ethic book #8

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

It goes in debt on the nature of friendship/relationship, between equal and non equal people.

After reading that books many times over the past few years, I have absolutly no problems grasping the nature of a relation that I have with someone which can be multifaced, at work, at a bar, in public, in private etc etc.

If you don't care about reading the whole thing cause it doesn't strictly concern today's topic you should start about half way.

Collin


----------



## Sgt_McWatt (29 Apr 2007)

I know this is an old thread but I thought it would be better then starting a new one.

I took the time to read through all of these opinions and interpretations, however I was unable to find a link to or even an explanation as to what the Canadian Forces policy is.
It's something I’ve been trying to look up.

Thanks,


----------



## navymich (29 Apr 2007)

Ranger Rick said:
			
		

> I took the time to read through all of these opinions and interpretations, however I was unable to find a link to or even an explanation as to what the Canadian Forces policy is.
> It's something I’ve been trying to look up.



 DAOD 5019-1, Personal Relationships and Fraternization


----------



## Sgt_McWatt (29 Apr 2007)

Much appreciated, that answered all the questions I had.


----------



## radop215 (30 Apr 2007)

i always felt that professionalism only went so far, that is why the seperation existed.  for those who couldnt be professional and revert back to the 'sir' or warrant the day after the booze fest.

Us jimmies in calgary used to throw our ocdts to the troops as well, it lasted for a couple of years not sure if they still do it.  i thought it was a great way for our soon to be leadership to understand the hardships that we go through.  

now that ive been static for 3 years (thankfully returning to a field unit this summer) i have found that first names will happen on a day to day basis.  some cpl/ptes address officers on a first name basis and the officers dont correct them.  i have corrected them reminding them that they are still in the army, whether they are fixing the G1s computer or not.  im a firm believer in what everyone else have said:  familiarity breeds contempt.  there is a time and place for everything, but the young guns still need to learn that the seperation exists.

my 2 cents.


----------



## FredDaHead (30 Apr 2007)

radop215 said:
			
		

> now that ive been static for 3 years (thankfully returning to a field unit this summer) i have found that first names will happen on a day to day basis.  some cpl/ptes address officers on a first name basis and the officers dont correct them.  i have corrected them reminding them that they are still in the army, whether they are fixing the G1s computer or not.  im a firm believer in what everyone else have said:  familiarity breeds contempt.  there is a time and place for everything, but the young guns still need to learn that the seperation exists.
> 
> my 2 cents.



I think it's equal parts "I don't want to sound like a jerk" and "this guy is my age, we should be buddies." I can't really think of a way someone with one bar (or one and a half) can talk to a Cpl with more time in than said officer, and tell him "that's Lieutenant for you, Corporal" or such without looking like he's full of himself.

I think that the younger NCMs (and young officers) haven't been taught where the line is and where they should draw it, and that causes confusion. There is some measure of word-of-mouth, this-is-how-it's-done advice given, but no formal information given as to how one is expected to act.

I'd assume the problem is even worse for us RMC types, as the only NCMs we encounter on a regular basis are instructors and are treated as superiors. The other problem being that most NCOs on campus are that much older that we wouldn't hang out with them in the first place, whereas when we get to our unit, we'll have guys and girls our age under our command and we'll most likely feel more at ease with them than with the other officers, who will often be older and more experienced.

I don't think I can throw in my two cents, so consider that my free opinion... and you get what you pay for.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Apr 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I think it's equal parts "I don't want to sound like a jerk" and "this guy is my age, we should be buddies." I can't really think of a way someone with one bar (or one and a half) can talk to a Cpl with more time in than said officer, and tell him "that's Lieutenant for you, Corporal" or such without looking like he's full of himself.



If an officer initiates the use of first names or permits a NCM to be overly familiar, that officer has only himself to blame if he is then unable to establish a professional relationship with a subordinate.  If it is a Cpl who initiates the use of first names when talking with an officer (or Snr NCO), then he is at fault along with the the superior who does not correct him.  However that Cpl may have potential, so make note of him.  It remains to be seen whether the potential is to rise to higher rank (including commissioning and someday outranking you) or to be a continuing pain in the arse.  Can you be friendly (or even friends) with someone of junior or senior rank?  Of course you can, but do you really base your "buddies" only on similarity of ages. 

As for "sounding like a jerk", a lot of things that you say during that phase of your career will make you sound like a jerk (or less than intelligent), it won't stand out as being unusual.  If you are hesitant to say anything directly to the Cpl, try speaking to his direct supervisor (MCpl/Sgt) and bring his attention to the problem.  While the Cpl may be corrected, you'll still sound like a jerk (plus an ineffectual leader) to the NCO.  You said it yourself "guys and girls our age under our command";  the important part of that is 'under command'.

This must be the first time that I have ever heard an RMC type say that NCOs make him feel inferior.  It's probably true but you should not let them know that.  They will only make more jokes about you behind your back.  I once assumed that the problem would be greater for officers who had been in the ranks prior to commissioning, especially when many of your subordinates were formally friends, acquaintances and colleagues.  However I found that despite a change in the circumstances of the professional relationship, friends remained friends, those who had disliked me before still disliked me and most everyone performed their duty as was expected.


----------



## FredDaHead (30 Apr 2007)

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> This must be the first time that I have ever heard an RMC type say that NCOs make him feel inferior.  It's probably true but you should not let them know that.  They will only make more jokes about you behind your back.



They don't make me feel inferior, that is NOT what I said. I said they are treated as superiors, as in higher in the hierarchy, not as betters. Just like those staff on IAP and BOTC were superiors; some we looked down upon, some we looked up to, but they all had authority on us.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (1 May 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I think it's equal parts "I don't want to sound like a jerk" and "this guy is my age, we should be buddies." I can't really think of a way someone with one bar (or one and a half) can talk to a Cpl with more time in than said officer, and tell him "that's Lieutenant for you, Corporal" or such without looking like he's full of himself.
> 
> I think that the younger NCMs (and young officers) haven't been taught where the line is and where they should draw it, and that causes confusion. There is some measure of word-of-mouth, this-is-how-it's-done advice given, but no formal information given as to how one is expected to act.
> 
> ...



I had a LS I worked with prior to my appointment tried that lower than whale_s#$% crap, I then pointed out the definition of Officer ind the  NDA and QR&O's as well as proper forms of address ine both the unit standing orders and the honours, and heritage structure for the CF, the of course the CWO took him down the hall for a chat. My uncle was a reg force CDR when I got in and I never called him by his christian name at work. It would have put both of us in an awkward position. Officers and Sr NCO's must nip this type of familiarity in the bud early or it causes problems later on.


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> nip this type of familiarity in the bud early or it causes problems later on.



Back when i was army, i would have agreed 100%.......now i would say that it very much depends on the environment. On a 10-man Aurora crew, first names are SOP and i dont see any breakdown in discipline.  Granted the crowd _tends_ to be more mature, everyone knows their job and knows who the boss is.  When everyone lives in the same hotels, drinks and parties together, ranks disapear pretty quick.  That being said, there is still a line, which i personaly draw at Major and the CO.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (1 May 2007)

I'll give you that


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I'll give you that



Besides....why else would our first names be on our name tags


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (1 May 2007)

so you remember how to spell them, it's easier than grabbing your wallet out of your flight suit.


----------



## mover1 (1 May 2007)

the head wallet or the money wallet.........


----------



## jimmy742 (1 May 2007)

As stated by others earlier, everything depends on the environment. A small unit is normally more familiar, especially if the people are older. The COs I had insisted we call them by their first name. It was "sir" outside the unit for the sake of visibility. We rarely called our Lieutenant "sir" unless on parade. This was at his own request. Perhaps being on an air force base made the difference. The one exception to all of this was my last SSM. I think even his wife and kids call him "sir".


----------



## Sig_Des (1 May 2007)

I'm working in a very close-knit team right now, but I won't call my OC anything but Sir, and while working, the WO is always warrant.

Maybe different in an informal setting, but not at work. But that's just me.


----------



## rz350 (6 May 2007)

I think it may be a bit different for Reserves and Reg F as well, at the current time and situation, if a Res Pte is Buddy's with his PL comd, I do not see the big deal, as chances are if, if that Pte volunteers for a tour, he is going to be alone (I.e. not deploying as a formed unit with his Res unit, but as an individual augmentee) and put into a PL, Coy and BN he has never been to before. So the fact he was buddys with his normal PL comd, does not affect the whole problem of giving orders to your buddy, since his PL comd on tour is going to be a Reg F officer he never met.

How about in between officers, in situations that are not combat related at all (Say the Orderly room at a res unit or clothing stores or a group of CIC officers?) Does it really matter there if a  1 stripe calls a 1.5 stripe Tom instead of S/Lt Bloggins?

I think it all comes down to when and where.


----------



## Spring_bok (6 May 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> I think it may be a bit different for Reserves and Reg F as well, at the current time and situation, if a Res Pte is Buddy's with his PL comd, I do not see the big deal, as chances are if, if that Pte volunteers for a tour, he is going to be alone (I.e. not deploying as a formed unit with his Res unit, but as an individual augmentee) and put into a PL, Coy and BN he has never been to before. So the fact he was buddys with his normal PL comd, does not affect the whole problem of giving orders to your buddy, since his PL comd on tour is going to be a Reg F officer he never met.
> 
> How about in between officers, in situations that are not combat related at all (Say the Orderly room at a res unit or clothing stores or a group of CIC officers?) Does it really matter there if a  1 stripe calls a 1.5 stripe Tom instead of S/Lt Bloggins?
> 
> I think it all comes down to when and where.


That is a pretty weak argument.  If you will never deploy with this person its not an issue?


----------



## rz350 (7 May 2007)

Not quite, my bigger point is that it may not be 100% cut and dry. (I know the book says it is, and I do not encourage anyone to break to rules) but more what I was trying to say, in a round about way, is use common sense and good judgement.


----------



## medaid (7 May 2007)

Did YOU ever call your PlComd by their first names? I know I didn't, and if one of my troops did they would have a talking to by the RSM or PlWO. It doesn't matter if I came from the ranks and most of the troops knew me in my previous life ( a good one I might add), it is just not correct for a Pte/Cpl to address me or any other officers by their first names. 

Yes, it is not cut and dry. However, a level of military discipline still must exist. One of these things is the proper address of your superiors and your subordinates. Currently more and more reserve units are sending large number of soldiers overseas. You cannot say for sure that your PlComd wont be the same one you worked for at your parent unit. I agree with Spring_bok that your argument is quite weak. 

I think we have already blasted the topic of forms of address between NCMs and Officers and Officers and Officers in the thread of Proper Behaviour for OCdts. 

Also, agreed with everyone else's point that different organizations work differently. An integral team such as a Trauma Team for us in the medical field, the NO or Doc may ask you to address them by their first names or nicknames. That is because it's a close knit team like the one jimmy742 had described. However, I believe once again, that proper discipline should be observed, and when the time calls for it, informality is okay too. 

Just my two rupees.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (7 May 2007)

I've got to go with medtech on this one, and trust me the two of us blasted this apart in another thread - with oposing opinions no less. It doesn't matter if that PLComd actually commands the Pte in the field or not, the reserves is not cadets, it is a manning pool for the reg force (my words) but truthfully the primary function of the reserve is to provide 20% backfill for the reg force so you have a 1 in 5 chance of serving with another mbr from your reserve unit. Also the CLS new policy on component transfers for those reservists serving in afghanistan (direct CT in the rank the mbr held in theatre) means more and more reservists will go overseas reserve and come home regular. The rules are there for a reason, as for informality and informal forms of address we have a pub that deals with that too, Heritage and Honours Structure for the Canadian Forces (not sure of the CFP# it's on my home drive and I aint at work)


----------



## medaid (7 May 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I've got to go with medtech on this one...



it's *M*ed*T*ech capitals my friend don't forget the capitals  . Yah, we've blasted it to kingdom come and then some


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (7 May 2007)

appologies for the lack of capitalization


----------



## rz350 (7 May 2007)

I never though about that 1 in 5 chance really, Good point, I concede.


----------

