# Rebuild Basic Officer training: {SPLIT from:] Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF



## Haggis (30 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, that was my use of “system” above, but yes, there is a problem, and they (GOFOs who continue to support those of such ilk as BGen Friday) remain a large part of the problem.


I worked with him when he was a Maj in ADM (IM). Back then I was impressed.  Now, I'm just disappointed....again.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Usually I like Rory Fowlers articles - I don't always agree with him, but that post was utter tripe.
> 
> I read the Ottawa Citizen article - it makes me weep, but I am not shocked at all.
> For those who watch Yellowstone - I think the CF should adopt the "Long Black Train" HR Model to deal with this issue...



Speaking of which...

They did a really bad job of disposing of 'the evidence' with that approach. They could learn something from the Sopranos


----------



## ballz (30 Nov 2021)

If that's how a LCol in a Commandant position is supported, imagine being a Sect Comd or Pl Comd, or in a random staff position, and trying to do the right thing.....


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2021)

_ “We're listening, we hear you". _


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> _ “We're listening, we hear you". _



About that phrase (which I hate  ):



I hear you​or I hear what you’re saying
used for telling someone that you understand their opinion, especially when you disagree with it






						I HEAR YOU (phrase) definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
					

Definition of I HEAR YOU (phrase): used for saying you understand someone’s opinion; used for agreeing with what someone says




					www.macmillandictionary.com


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Nov 2021)

Mark Popov is proof that this is all just spin doctoring.  It is going to take catastrophic failure for the CAF to be fixed.  We aren't anywhere near that point yet.

I mean it's not like we don't have a long history of incompetent Military Leadership in this Country:


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Mark Popov is proof that this is all just spin doctoring.  It is going to take catastrophic failure for the CAF to be fixed.  We aren't anywhere near that point yet.
> 
> I mean it's not like we don't have a long history of incompetent Military Leadership in this Country:



How well were our GO/FOs regarded during WW2 ?


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> How well were our GO/FOs regarded during WW2 ?


If my memory is correct they were not well regarded amongst British generals. Guy Simmons was the youngest Div Comd I believe and somewhat accepted but iirc not many were.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> How well were our GO/FOs regarded during WW2 ?


We have a history of replacing our leadership whenever it's time to start actually fighting.

Andrew McNaughton in WWII was widely considered to be unfit for Command. He looked down and in as opposed to up and out.

We tend to discover who the actual warfighters are and promote them accordingly after the shooting starts.  That's because a peacetime military requires managers and bureaucrats, not fighters.

Bert Hoffmeister began WWII as a Major and retired a Major-General.  Make of that what you will.

Foulkes, Simonds and others have similar backgrounds.  All were Majors at the beginning of the War.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We have a history of replacing our leadership whenever it's time to start actually fighting.


And sweep those people under the rug as fast as one can after the shooting stops...


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2021)

McNaughton was not impressed with the Brits nor were they impressed with him according to the books I’ve read


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We have a history of replacing our leadership whenever it's time to start actually fighting.
> 
> Andrew McNaughton in WWII was widely considered to be unfit for Command. He looked down and in as opposed to up and out.
> 
> ...



My Dad, the WW2 gunner, noted that 'It took us three years to get rid of all the idiots'.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> If my memory is correct they were not well regarded amongst British generals. Guy Simmons was the youngest Div Comd I believe and somewhat accepted but iirc not many were.


Robert Moncel was the youngest General Officer in the Canadian Army and began the War as a Lieutenant.  He became a Brigadier in 1944 at the age of 27 when he took command of the 4th Canadian Armoured Brigade and commanded them during the Normandy Campaign. 

He was decorated for his actions during Operation Blockbuster.  Cream rises to top.

A 27 year old Brigade Commander?  The horror and gasps that would ensue in the 2021 Canadian Armed Forces would be astronomical LOL

I wonder if he did all his DLN mandatory training and got his French profile in order and had his minimum 3 MOI PERs before they promoted him?  🤣


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Robert Moncel was the youngest General Officer in the Canadian Army and began the War as a Lieutenant.  He became a Brigadier in 1944 at the age of 27 when he took command of the 4th Canadian Armoured Brigade and commanded them during the Normandy Campaign.
> 
> He was decorated for his actions during Operation Blockbuster.  Cream rises to top.


Your a much better historian than I. Thank you. 

I did an OPME on the Dieppe Raid. I’ll have to find it one day


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Your a much better historian than I. Thank you.
> 
> I did an OPME on the Dieppe Raid. I’ll have to find it one day



Scapegoat or not, I don't think they were keen on 51 year old Divisional Commanders (with no battle experience) after that one:

Vindicating ‘Ham’ Roberts

Canadian Gen. John Hamilton ‘Ham’ Roberts was the land-force commander in the doomed Dieppe raid, 75 years ago. Under his watch, nearly 1,000 men died in just six hours—and he lived out his days in infamy. But there's more to the story as we learn more about that ultra-secret raid, writes historian and author David O’Keefe—and it suggests that he was made a scapegoat






						Vindicating ‘Ham’ Roberts, 75 years after Dieppe
					

Seventy-five years ago, Gen. 'Ham' Roberts led the doomed Dieppe raid—and lived out his days in infamy. But there's more to the story.




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> How well were our GO/FOs regarded during WW2 ?


My personal opinion:

1. Senior Canadian Army leadership was pedestrian to weak; junior leadership, Moncel and Hoffmeister etc are good examples, was fair to outstanding;
2. RCAF Leadership was, generally, good but didn't have much chance to shine in operations because the biggest RCAF formation in battle was a Group, I think, but men like Leckie who organized and managed the Commonwealth Air Training plan were, clearly, first rate commanders/leaders/managers; and
3. The RCN had downright toxic leadership at the very top ~ Nelles and Jones ~ but, arguably, the BEST Canadian commander, ever, under any circumstances, was RAdm Leonard W Murray who may have done more to win WWII than all the other admirals and generals combined ... he was then hounded out of the Navy and the country because Jones told the politicians that he was to blame for the Halifax riots (that was a lie, Murray hod no command authority ashore in Halifax.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> There is an article out there today, that can't be mentioned here, about one of army.ca's former members being exonerated for his attempt to stop sexual misconduct at RMC.
> 
> Well done Mark......a pox on their houses.



Holy ja-bee-jee's, the story is almost unbelievable.  Here's our new CDS..." “I acknowledge that he was not afforded procedural fairness in all circumstances.”   Jesus christ...seriously?  Nice reply, Spock.

Those shitpumps who got away because Daddy intervened and Friday was an empty uniform are in the system...anyone want to bet if they've 'seen the light'?

Aside from the expected Snr/GOFO running interference stuff....what the hell were the MPs up to exactly??


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Holy ja-bee-jee's, the story is almost unbelievable.  Here's our new CDS..." “I acknowledge that he was not afforded procedural fairness in all circumstances.”   Jesus christ...seriously?
> 
> Those shitpumps who got away because Daddy intervened and Friday was an empty uniform are in the system...anyone want to bet if they've 'seen the light'?
> 
> Aside from the expected Snr/GOFO running interference stuff....what the hell were the MPs up to exactly??


The CDS - no matter who he is and I admit I am biased in this case - can't say much more. Bland announcements that say little do not aid lawyers in their search for justice.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> what the hell were the MPs up to exactly??


PAO's and MP's are there to cover for the Brass.
  The nature of the structure means they are beholden to the ones in power - and do what they are told.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> The CDS - no matter who he is and I admit I am biased in this case - can't say much more. Bland announcements that say little do not aid lawyers in their search for justice.


Yeah I think he's in a tough spot - personally I expected more from Gen. E, but public statements are often cleared by Legal and PA.
   I would hope the CAF makes a direct outreach to Mark with a lot more than what was public.

I will say MGen Friday (ret) 's new job at sean-friday-joins-sts-pr STS Capital Partners hopefully gets a little rocky now -- and ever single one of his pictures either in uniform or out had always made me want to punch him in the face.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Yeah I think he's in a tough spot - personally I expected more from Gen. E, but public statements are often cleared by Legal and PA.
> I would hope the CAF makes a direct outreach to Mark with a lot more than what was public.
> 
> I will say MGen Friday (ret) 's new job at sean-friday-joins-sts-pr STS Capital Partners hopefully gets a little rocky now -- and ever single one of his pictures either in uniform or out had always made me want to punch him in the face.



If "the CAF" wants to be seen as, or even BE personable, sorrowful etc...the people doing the speaking can't talk like robots.  Legal and PA are advisors, I get it but...sometimes their advice might be counter-productive to the overall goal.

In the CAFs case, at this time in Canadian history, I think "we" need to be seen as sincere and "human".

I'm sure after reading the story, a few people share the punch in the face sentiment, and might not limit it to any one single person in the story.  Those Cadets sure could use a visit to the low ground....


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> My personal opinion:
> 
> 1. Senior Canadian Army leadership was pedestrian to weak; junior leadership, Moncel and Hoffmeister etc are good examples, was fair to outstanding;
> 2. RCAF Leadership was, generally, good but didn't have much chance to shine in operations because the biggest RCAF formation in battle was a Group, I think, but men like Leckie who organized and managed the Commonwealth Air Training plan were, clearly, first rate commanders/leaders/managers; and
> 3. The RCN had downright toxic leadership at the very top ~ Nelles and Jones ~ but, arguably, the BEST Canadian commander, ever, under any circumstances, was RAdm Leonard W Murray who may have done more to win WWII than all the other admirals and generals combined ... he was then hounded out of the Navy and the country because Jones told the politicians that he was to blame for the Halifax riots (that was a lie, Murray hod no command authority ashore in Halifax.



Thanks ERC I appreciate your input!  I knew the RCN was a mess for leadership.  Weren't we told at one point to go back to the barn and sort our selves out ? 

Back on the opic... It's time to close RMC... Change my mind


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If "the CAF" wants to be seen as, or even BE personable, sorrowful etc...the people doing the speaking can't talk like robots.  Legal and PA are advisors, I get it but...sometimes their advice might be counter-productive to the overall goal.
> 
> In the CAFs case, at this time in Canadian history, I think "we" need to be seen as sincere and "human".
> 
> I'm sure after reading the story, a few people share the punch in the face sentiment, and might not limit it to any one single person in the story.  Those Cadets sure could use a visit to the low ground....




"If you look at great human civilizations, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union, you will see that most do not fail simply due to external threats but because of internal weakness, corruption, or a failure to manifest the values and ideals they espouse." 

- Cory Booker


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Thanks ERC I appreciate your input!  I knew the RCN was a mess for leadership.  Weren't we told at one point to go back to the barn and sort our selves out ?
> 
> Back on the opic... It's time to close RMC... Change my mind



In early 1941 the Brits, on Murray's advice, told the Canadians that they were expanding too quickly. There was, simply, no way that Canada could crew the number of corvettes it was building. But, too quickly or not, those corvettes were needed and Ottawa was unwilling to allow mixed Brit-Canadian crewing which was the Brits' preferred course of action. But by late 1941/early '42 it was obvious that Canada's training system was deficient broken. Ships were withdrawn from service so that officers and POs could be given some extra training in the UK and, equally importantly, so that the. Canadian corvettes could be refitted to be closer to Brit standards ~ better armament and electronics  ~ and, starting in mid/late '42 (I think) their foc's'les could be extended to back behind the bridge. That was a major mod which made a vast improvement to both seakeeping and habitability.

I think I agree with you re: RMC. Maybe we need a 100% rethink of the whys and hows of production of officers. More to follow ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Back on the opic... It's time to close RMC... Change my mind



Or just adopt something closer to a 'Sandhurst model', and group everyone into one institution.

'Two Solitudes' should just be a (boring) book I had to read in High School.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's time to close RMC...



Close, or change the role?  Having this discussion with a friend earlier...move to a RMA Sandhurst type model vice close?


----------



## AKa (30 Nov 2021)

The problem with RMC and CMR is that they are really the only place Anglophone officers receive regular language training over a sustained period.  Since language profiles trump leadership and competence, charm school is the primary producer of anglo officers with upward mobility.  In the general Canadian population, bilingualism (English/French) outside of Quebec is largely restricted to the higher socio-economic layers.  It is not a requirement that supports diversity.

As a graduate, I have very mixed emotions about the institution.  Of course, I also consider the OLA to be a contributor to the crisis in leadership in both the military and the PS.

My 2 cents worth...


----------



## dapaterson (30 Nov 2021)

The OLA isn't a crisis.  The environment is known for multiple decades.  It's unwillingness.

Want a better French profile?  Volunteer for a posting to a French language unit.  Talk with your Francophone peers, superiors and subordinates in French (and make mistakes, and be corrected, and improve).

Or wah wah wah I can only learn if I'm given time off work.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

AKa said:


> The problem with RMC and CMR is that they are really the only place Anglophone officers receive regular language training over a sustained period.  Since language profiles trump leadership and competence, charm school is the primary producer of anglo officers with upward mobility.  In the general Canadian population, bilingualism (English/French) outside of Quebec is largely restricted to the higher socio-economic layers.  It is not a requirement that supports diversity.
> 
> As a graduate, I have very mixed emotions about the institution.  Of course, I also consider the OLA to be a contributor to the crisis in leadership in both the military and the PS.
> 
> My 2 cents worth...



Anyone can learn languages online these days. I don't know why we have to make the whole process so complicated and expensive.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Nov 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The OLA isn't a crisis.  The environment is known for multiple decades.  It's unwillingness.
> 
> Want a better French profile?  Volunteer for a posting to a French language unit.  Talk with your Francophone peers, superiors and subordinates in French (and make mistakes, and be corrected, and improve).
> 
> Or wah wah wah I can only learn if I'm given time off work.


You mean like every francophone in the military has to do?


----------



## dapaterson (30 Nov 2021)

Had that discussion with two Cols, an EX3 and myself once.  One Col and the EX3 complained that it's too hard to speak your second language day to day, and therefore their skills faded between testing , so they needed six months off work to learn French again every five years.

Me: Yeah, I can't imagine how hard working in your second language every day would be like.  (Pause, turn to look at the other Col)  Can you imagine what that would be like, Francois?

The room got awkwardly quiet after that...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Back on the opic...* It's time to close RMC*... Change my mind


Perhaps it is time to totally rethink how and why we produce officers for the Canadian Forces.

Let’s start with the why.

One hopes it’s a bit obvious but leaders and commanders are needed and experience says they don’t just spring up, as if by magic, when needed. They need to be (and they can be) trained.

The way we train ship’s captains and Army regimental commanders and the commanders of squadrons is b y giving them progressively more challenging and responsible positions starting as junior leaders (and as line pilots). If all we need is combat efficiency and we didn’t have to train our own leaders then we could be like the French Foreign Legion and warrant officers would command our combat platoons and even companies. But we are not the Foreign Legion, we need to “grow” our own leaders from within.

Let’s start by saying that the system we have used for 145 years has, in recent years, produced toxic ‘leaders’ who have nearly destroyed the institution that are meant to serve and lead.

Let us build a totally new system.

Let us begin by saying that ALL general service officers will be recruited from young men and women of good character and sound mind and body who have not yet reached their 21st  birthdays. (No exceptions, ever, for anyone, Charter rights be damned (and subjected to the Notwithstanding clause).) These young men and women will serve in the ranks for at least two years and may apply for officer training after two years but before they reach the age of 25.

Those selected will for officer training will have good records as sailors, soldiers and aviators, pretty clean conduct sheets and will have a letter of acceptance from a recognized Canadian university on one of several approved programmes (sorry, children, we don’t need anyone with a degree in journalism, education or gender studies, you’ll all have to pass math at the 200 level.)

The officer selection course will be about 8 months long. It will be visible to other member of the Canadian Forces and it will demonstrate that aspiring officers are tough and motivated ~ no one else will be willing to attempt, much less to pass, such a course.

After competing the long, gruelling “basic leadership/selection” course the candidates will be commissioned as Acting Sub-Lieutenant or 2nd Lieutenants and will go off to university for four years. While in university that will serve in local reserve Navy or Army (or RCAF when one is available) units in “apprentice” officer roles ~ maybe we will need to reinvent UNTD and COTC. During the three summer periods they will undergo special to service/branch courses at CF schools, including flying training. 

On completion of both university and service/branch training the junior officers will serve 2 to 5 years in first line units as 2Lts (one year) and Lts (and RCN equivalents). Promotion to captain and major (and equivalent) will be ONLY by a combination of performance and examination.

Junior officers (2Lts to Captains (and equivalents)) will be aged 23 (in a few exceptional cases)  to about 35. Majors will be 30 to 45. Commanders, Colonels and GOFOs will be 40+. It will be normal to be promoted to Commander/Lieutenant Colonel and take command of a major warship, a regiment or a RCAF squadron at age 35 to 40 after more than 12 years of commissioned service.

There will be a separate stream for CFR officers, some of whom will be, largely, indistinguishable from GSOs, but, in effect, ALL General Service Officers will be UTPNCM but attending a civvy university because there will *not* be a Royal Military College or a College Militaire Royale.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> Perhaps it is time to totally rethink how and why we produce officers for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Let’s start with the why.
> 
> ...


I could get onboard with that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> Perhaps it is time to totally rethink how and why we produce officers for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Let’s start with the why.
> 
> ...



What you've described isn't too far away from the British Army's 'O Type' engagement, which requires service in the ranks for a short time before going through the various selection processes for Sandhurst.

I did RESO (Phase 2, 3 Inf) in Canada before heading off to the UK and entering an O Type engagement for a few months, then Westbury for RCB, RMAS and the regiment after that.

How was it compared to Canada?

Really. Fucking. Hard.


----------



## dimsum (30 Nov 2021)

AKa said:


> The problem with RMC and CMR is that they are really the only place Anglophone officers receive regular language training over a sustained period.  Since language profiles trump leadership and competence, charm school is the primary producer of anglo officers with upward mobility.  In the general Canadian population, bilingualism (English/French) outside of Quebec is largely restricted to the higher socio-economic layers.  It is not a requirement that supports diversity.
> 
> As a graduate, I have very mixed emotions about the institution.  Of course, I also consider the OLA to be a contributor to the crisis in leadership in both the military and the PS.
> 
> My 2 cents worth...


Or go back to every officer getting 7 months (or less, if they can pass exams earlier) of Second Language Training.  That was the case until about 2008.

It was done after BMOQ in St-Jean.  The folks that came straight from BMOQ hated it because they didn't think sitting around learning grammar was worth it.  The folks that OT'd over thought it was amazing that you got paid to learn a language within spitting distance of Montreal.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Close, or change the role?  Having this discussion with a friend earlier...move to a RMA Sandhurst type model vice close?



Honest question, what is the Sandhurst model ?


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> Perhaps it is time to totally rethink how and why we produce officers for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Let’s start with the why.
> 
> ...



I like it!


----------



## dimsum (30 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Honest question, what is the Sandhurst model ?











						Royal Military Academy Sandhurst - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Basically, everyone who wants to be an officer in the British Army goes through there.  It isn't a university per se but does grant credits towards one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2021)

Or we don't have them at all, seriously, this isn't the freakin' 1800's.   Burn it down, start anew, one stream, wanna stay a Tier 2 your whole career, no problem, wanna move to higher Tier positions??  .... study, learn your craft and earn it.


----------



## dimsum (30 Nov 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Or we don't have them at all, seriously, this isn't the freakin' 1800's.


Are you talking about RMC or officers?


----------



## FJAG (30 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> ... After competing the long, gruelling “basic leadership/selection” course the candidates will be commissioned as Acting Sub-Lieutenant or 2nd Lieutenants and will go off to university for four years. ...


I was on board with you up to that point. My problem comes with the four-year university requirement.

I understand how the Somalia crisis got us to that point and I do understand the benefits of a broad general education. I just don't buy the fact that sending someone to a civilian university (or a four-year RMC program) will provide a sufficient enough benefit to the Forces to justify making someone spend four prime years of their service life in a diversion.

There is nothing that four years of university will teach you that a concentrated one-year Sandhurst-like program won't if you tailor the program right. It also gives you the ability to create an initial assessment of which of your candidates are destined for leadership, which are destined for higher "management" and which ones should be shown the door.

The engineers and other specialists that we need can be brought in through DEO programs.

If we have officers that do wish to avail themselves of a higher education then there are numerous extension programs available to them. RMC could offer the Sandhurst program and CDA the extension programs tailored to benefit senior defence and public service leadership.

🍻


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2021)

dimsum said:


> Are you talking about RMC or officers?


Sorry,...Officers and NCM's.   One stream only.......I called ranks Tiers in my post but names are just that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> I was on board with you up to that point. My problem comes with the four-year university requirement.
> 
> I understand how the Somalia crisis got us to that point and I do understand the benefits of a broad general education. I just don't buy the fact that sending someone to a civilian university (or a four-year RMC program) will provide a sufficient enough benefit to the Forces to justify making someone spend four prime years of their service life in a diversion.
> 
> ...


I understand your point, but I don't think that an honours BA (or BSc, or BComm or so on) is too much to demand from someone who aspires to be a leader/manager in our Armed Forces.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> If we have officers that do wish to avail themselves of a higher education then there are numerous extension programs available to them. RMC could offer both the Sandhurst program and CDA the extension programs tailored to benefit senior defence and public service leadership.
> 
> 🍻


I was granted a commission with Gr 11 Quebec.  I eventually acquired a Bacc and a Masters, but not until well into my not altogether unsuccessful career, and I'd like to think that the troops I served with did not suffer unduly from my lack of formal education..  

Education is over-rated, and learning is under-valued.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Nov 2021)

And the two are often mistakenly conflated.

In the late 90s, attempts at modest reform of RMC foundered on the "always done it this way" reef.  Concepts like realignment of the academic year, fully integrating military training into the progression so a RMC grad could walk off grad parade and into a serial in a unit as a trained 2Lt never came to fruition.


----------



## FJAG (30 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> I understand your point, but I don't think that an honours BA (or BSc, or BComm or so on) is too much to demand from someone who aspires to be a leader/manager in our Armed Forces.


True enough as far as the individual's commitment is concerned and maybe that's how we judge those who show the right commitment - by getting it in their own time.

My concern is simply from the life cycle of an officer. If you front-end load a lengthy education/training program then you end up the latter part of the career in just short-tour ticket punching of leadership experience roles or as more senior directors and department managers. A man's life is short. There's a delicate balance in how that is spent so that the CAF gets the maximum benefit from it.



PPCLI Guy said:


> I was granted a commission with Gr 11 Quebec.  I eventually acquired a Bacc and a Masters, but not until well into my not altogether unsuccessful career, and I'd like to think that the troops I served with did not suffer unduly from my lack of formal education..
> 
> Education is over-rated, and learning is under-valued.


Like you I'm a product of the OCTP system. I did my real learning after I got my commission including two years pre-law while serving in the Reg F and then three years LLB while in the Res F. As a subaltern I felt that I could run circles around my RMC peers. In the end some of them turned out better than me but a lot of them didn't. That still colours my view of mandatory university for officers.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (30 Nov 2021)

We should not conflate the degreed officer corps with ROTP.

And Jack English repudiated the current construct, correctly noting that there's a need for multiple commissioning sources.

Nothing wrong with company grade officers without degrees pursuing them on their own time; maybe give them a year paid to complete them.


----------



## lenaitch (30 Nov 2021)

In my law enforcement career,  the two best, most effective and most successful (operationally and organizationally) leaders I worked for; one had high school and the other had a BA he got on his own time.   Managers may need degrees; leaders not so much.


----------



## Weinie (30 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> *PAO's *and MP's* are there to cover for the Brass.*
> The nature of the structure means they are beholden to the ones in power - *and do what they are told.*


I never covered for the brass, through Somalia, through the Macleans articles, and all the other shyte that occurred. As a staff officer and advisor to commanders, I made recommendations, whether the CoC accepted them was on their shoulders. Some of them wore the consequences of their decisions. 
I never was put in a dilemma such that I felt that a Commander was acting illegally; though I had on several occasions to advise how his/her direction would be perceived.
PAO's/JAG/Engr's/MedO's at the staff level are advisors......period. I have a very clear conscience after almost 39 years in this outfit, 25 plus as a PAO.


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Nov 2021)

When considering the Sandhurst model, it should be noted that approximately 80% of UK Officer Cadets now enter RMAS with a degree, so they rely heavily on the equivalent of DEO. In effect, what the British Army has is what we used to have in Chilliwack with CFOCS, only with a significantly longer commissioning course at 44 weeks.

The key difference is that the British Army attracts university graduates instead of maintaining its own universities. Maintaining a military university seems very difficult to defend. Even putting aside the embarrassing and harmful discipline issues, if it is important to educate officers, isn’t it important that they be exposed to the outside world as part of that education? Civi U is cheaper, and is where Canadian society gets their degrees. Seems a no brainer.


----------



## dimsum (30 Nov 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> if it is important to educate officers, isn’t it important that they be exposed to the outside world as part of that education? Civi U is cheaper, and is where Canadian society gets their degrees. Seems a no brainer.


Bingo.

And if location is so important (it shouldn't be, because the whole point is to be exposed to the outside world), Queens is pretty much next door.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Dec 2021)

PPCLI Guy said:


> Education is over-rated, and learning is under-valued.


An educated idiot is still an idiot, who now has a degree and may pass his/her idiocy along.


----------



## FJAG (1 Dec 2021)

Weinie said:


> I never covered for the brass, through Somalia, through the Macleans articles, and all the other shyte that occurred. As a staff officer and advisor to commanders, I made recommendations, whether the CoC accepted them was on their shoulders. Some of them wore the consequences of their decisions.
> I never was put in a dilemma such that I felt that a Commander was acting illegally; though I had on several occasions to advise how his/her direction would be perceived.
> PAO's/JAG/Engr's/MedO's at the staff level are advisors......period. I have a very clear conscience after almost 39 years in this outfit, 25 plus as a PAO.


During the Winnipeg flood, our AJAG cell shared an office with the PAOs directly across from the Div Comd and COS. The four of us met several times a day on various issues where advice on both law and public perception played a part. I always chuckled at our combined shoulder flashes of "Veritas" and "Justitia" - "Truth" and "Justice". 

😁


----------



## captloadie (1 Dec 2021)

Whether the officer core needs to be degreed or not is an argument I'll not wade into, but let's address the issue at hand. We are blaming the institution of RMC for the actions of the students attending the institution, and the leaders running the institution. Like it or not, the academic side of RMC provides a stellar education for those who attend. It also serves, or at least it should, to provide both physical fitness training and second language training, so that when 2Lts show up at their units, they should be able to keep up to, and converse with, their subordinates.

But where the institution is failing is holding those Ocdts accountable for their actions, something that is deplorable. LCol Popov should have been allowed to keep the 200ish individuals confined to base, but also initiated the process for the whole lot to be released. Individuals would have then come forward and pointed out the offenders. The leadership failure falls directly on the shoulders of the Commandant, who appeared to be more concerned about personal advancement than developing leaders of tomorrow.

This issue highlights one of the biggest problems we have within the CAF - an outdated conception of what Loyalty means, and where it belongs in the hierarchy of the fundamentals of leadership. If you have to lie, or withhold information to be loyal, you aren't getting it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2021)

lenaitch said:


> In my law enforcement career,  the two best, most effective and most successful (operationally and organizationally) leaders I worked for; one had high school and the other had a BA he got on his own time.   Managers may need degrees; leaders not so much.


I have a lot of sympathy for this position. It also reflects some of my own experience. One of the best generals with whom I ever had the privilege of serving (and the godfather to one of my sons) enlisted at 16 as an Apprentice Soldier (you may have to Google that) and managed to finish high school. He never attended any university. What he brought to the Army was honesty, enthusiasm, commitment and common sense. He and I both served with an officer who had three, count 'em, three degrees and was totally devoid of effective leadership or good sense.

Like some others here I served in the ranks, first, and was then commissioned and then got a (second class) degree some years later. My model is based, somewhat, on my son's career: he enlisted as a sailor, began officer training when he entered university and has had a wholly acceptable career in terms of what he offered the Navy and what it offered in return. It worked for him and the Navy.


----------



## Remius (1 Dec 2021)

captloadie said:


> Whether the officer core needs to be degreed or not is an argument I'll not wade into, but let's address the issue at hand. We are blaming the institution of RMC for the actions of the students attending the institution, and the leaders running the institution. Like it or not, the academic side of RMC provides a stellar education for those who attend. It also serves, or at least it should, to provide both physical fitness training and second language training, so that when 2Lts show up at their units, they should be able to keep up to, and converse with, their subordinates.
> 
> But where the institution is failing is holding those Ocdts accountable for their actions, something that is deplorable. LCol Popov should have been allowed to keep the 200ish individuals confined to base, but also initiated the process for the whole lot to be released. Individuals would have then come forward and pointed out the offenders. The leadership failure falls directly on the shoulders of the Commandant, who appeared to be more concerned about personal advancement than developing leaders of tomorrow.
> 
> This issue highlights one of the biggest problems we have within the CAF - an outdated conception of what Loyalty means, and where it belongs in the hierarchy of the fundamentals of leadership. If you have to lie, or withhold information to be loyal, you aren't getting it.


The degree of nepotism and concern for recruiting varsity sports players emanating from that institution when I was a recruiter some years ago would make you sick.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> I have a lot of sympathy for this position. It also reflects some of my own experience. One of the best generals with whom I ever had the privilege of serving (and the godfather to one of my sons) enlisted at 16 as an Apprentice Soldier (you may have to Google that) and managed to finish high school. He never attended any university. What he brought to the Army was honesty, enthusiasm, commitment and common sense. He and I both served with an officer who had three, count 'em, three degrees and was totally devoid of effective leadership or good sense.
> 
> Like some others here I served in the ranks, first, and was then commissioned and then got a (second class) degree some years later. My model is based, somewhat, on my son's career: he enlisted as a sailor, began officer training when he entered university and has had a wholly acceptable career in terms of what he offered the Navy and what it offered in return. It worked for him and the Navy.



Before launching into an endless round of 'this is how I went through Officer training so that's what we should do' (not that I'm guilty of that at all ) ....

....there might be a need for some analysis to define a desirable vision/ end state, identify the key issues and opportunities, and develop a plan to 'get there from here'.

Of course, I realize this is likely impossible given the strength of the various interests involved. However I do note that, after the Falklands War, the British revised their Officer training - not just at Sandhurst but along the whole 'supply chain' - as a result of deficiencies noted during the war. 

If they can be self-critical leading to an improved end state, so can we. 

Can't we?



captloadie said:


> Whether the officer core needs to be degreed or not is an argument I'll not wade into, but let's address the issue at hand. We are blaming the institution of RMC for the actions of the students attending the institution, and the leaders running the institution. Like it or not, the academic side of RMC provides a stellar education for those who attend. It also serves, or at least it should, to provide both physical fitness training and second language training, so that when 2Lts show up at their units, they should be able to keep up to, and converse with, their subordinates.
> 
> But where the institution is failing is holding those Ocdts accountable for their actions, something that is deplorable. LCol Popov should have been allowed to keep the 200ish individuals confined to base, but also initiated the process for the whole lot to be released. Individuals would have then come forward and pointed out the offenders. The leadership failure falls directly on the shoulders of the Commandant, who appeared to be more concerned about personal advancement than developing leaders of tomorrow.
> 
> This issue highlights one of the biggest problems we have within the CAF - an outdated conception of what Loyalty means, and where it belongs in the hierarchy of the fundamentals of leadership. If you have to lie, or withhold information to be loyal, you aren't getting it.


I don't have a ton of exposure to RMC other than knowing a couple of graduates, but I understand that it is well regarded in acedemia for a number of its programs.  I get the sense that it has shifted from being a military installation that offers post-secondary education to a post secondary facility that has some military trappings (and guaranteed employment).  If recent student events at other institution, particularly Queens, is any indication, if they are using them as an exemplar they might be on par.


----------



## FJAG (1 Dec 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> ... If they can be self-critical leading to an improved end state, so can we.
> 
> Can't we?


We do not have a good track record of self-examination. Most of the changes in the CAF culture come as a result of outside examination which generally finds us lacking.

I know I overuse the frog and boiling water analogy but in many more ways than one I tend to think of the CAF as a one large pot of uncomfortably warm water filled with frogs that don't yet realize that the burner is still on.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Dec 2021)

I think that we have made a two-headed monster by assuming personal merit = good leadership potential. We feed the egomaniacal and the sociopath by rewarding personal accomplishment, vice personal impact on subordinates and thus the organization as a whole.

Do you need a degree to serve as a leader? No. Here's why: we instill leadership from the day people walk through the green door at CFLRS. I was 3 minutes in the Army and was given the responsibility of Course Senior. I had to ensure my people were where they needed to be, in the right dress, at the right time. If I failed that task, I was personally responsible. This is Mickey Mouse compared to being a Platoon or Company Commander, but the principles remain the same: either you step up and lead, or you flounder and screw the people beneath you.

Having a B Sc. or and MBA doesn't change that. It may help with the managerial duties of a Pl Comd or OC of a Coy, but it does not equal to personal characteristics (humility, dedication, a "stewardship" mentality, etc.) that we need of our leaders. We do very well at writing a checklist to say "this is we are looking for" to assess personal achievements that might make you successful at the next level. What needs to happen, in light of that blowing up in our face, is having your personal character assessed as well. Even on enrollment, we need to ask the questions and get the background to see if this person is in it to better the organization, or if they're in it to be in command/make a higher pay day.

Ambition is not something to be derided, however, if its the sole motivating factor of an individual, you're going to see the ill affects felt throughout the organization before that person in a position of power even thinks "oh... hey... maybe I'm part of the problem?"

I would love to see more CFRs, have OCTP return, and have a mechanism to recruit from those already out in the job market; but promote laterally vice from the ground floor. There is no reason an IT Manager for a Fortune 500 company should need to "learn" the ropes as a 2LT after BMOQ. Promote straight to Captain and employ these folks straight away. You might see that the "rock stars" aren't the ones with a ring to knock.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2021)

Academics, language, opportunities to be/become fit: these are all commonly available at almost all such institutions.  The CAF doesn't need to be in that business.  Other parts of the CAF can teach all the required military fundamentals.

The excuse for a military institution rests on inculcating a culture.  If the institution isn't primarily in that business, it shouldn't exist.

The point of an educated officer corps is to provide a pool of people from which to draw well-prepared staff officers (work habits, critical reasoning).


----------



## OldTanker (1 Dec 2021)

I joined under OCTP. I picked up a BA later in my career under UTPO. In my view there was no requirement for a combat arms junior officer to have a degree. For those chosen for higher command and staff positions where critical thinking was required, absolutely. But not for cannon fodder (which OCTP was in brutal terms). From my OCTP perspective, RMC was more of a boys' club than anything else. We should have used the excellent educational resources of RMC to educate officers who were moving beyond regimental duty.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Academics, language, opportunities to be/become fit: these are all commonly available at almost all such institutions.  The CAF doesn't need to be in that business.  Other parts of the CAF can teach all the required military fundamentals.
> 
> The excuse for a military institution rests on inculcating a culture.  If the institution isn't primarily in that business, it shouldn't exist.
> 
> The point of an educated officer corps is to provide a pool of people from which to draw well-prepared staff officers (work habits, critical reasoning).



The example of 'languages' is a good one. This should not be such a huge barrier for any Officer - with a degree or not. In many other countries only being able to speak one language is seen as a disability. It wouldn't be hard to change that.

Prior to overseas exercises etc, I had to learn Malay and Arabic. It was not a huge deal. I was assured 'these are easy languages to pick up and, if you speak them even a little bit, you will gain huge street cred with the locals'.

They chucked me a few cassette tapes (remember those?) with some standard phrases, and a handout, and then I had to participate in a couple of classes then sit an exam in a room with a speaker of that language who put me through my paces. For some reason this 'native speaker' was usually a middle aged woman with a frown, which helped me focus 

Pass: Military Language Aptitude Tests. And there I was, a month later in one case, in a village at 5000ft elevation in the Jebel Akhdar, having a chin wag, coffee and dates supplied, with all the head guys in various villages.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

Education does not equal Intelligence, and neither equal Wisdom.

I am a firm believer that the current method of NCO and Officer is decades obsolete, as such I would burn the entire system (including the Military Colleges) down.

Everyone would go on a common recruit/basic course.   During that aptitude testing, psychological testing would be conducted in detail.
  Then upon completion members would be offered contracts for their appropriate fields.

Every Basic Pet would then go to trade training for their selected occupation.
   They would then serve a min of 18months in that role - depending on progress, testing, and desires they could then chose from a NCO or Officer stream.

*I don't think one needs to be an officer to fly a plane or helicopter and especially a Drone, I'd have flying WO's like the US Army.
** I would also have Technical Specialists - who are specialists in their fields - but aren't necessarily Command Rank personnel.

The days of peasant armies are over - and the CAF needs major reform at this point.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Dec 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> The point of an educated officer corps is to provide a pool of people from which to draw well-prepared staff officers (work habits, critical reasoning).



Forgive me my ignorance on the matter, but I was educated on "work habits and critical reasoning" throughout my 14 years of formal education up to secondary school. I received a fancy piece of paper stating so in the form of a high-school diploma.

Does one need a fancier piece of paper to be a leader of men, or are we trying to move the goal posts?" Training and experience are also valuable metrics for how well an officer can perform staff duties, and I would argue seeing how well a recruit manages time on kit and quarters is a better metric of their multitasking skills than if they can sit a mid-term between bouts of alcohol poisoning. 

We need to do a better job of finding the right people with the right qualities to lead, than finding the "right" people with the most qualifications. The very public downfall of "qualified" men like Vance, MacDonald, Edmunson, Fortin, et all show that you can have a Masters Degree and still be a terrible leader.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2021)

Some people finish high school with good work habits, but "critical reasoning" ... not really, at least not in the public high schools of Canada, even the advanced courses.  Maybe some exceptional courses in exceptional schools.  And people who found school easy - high grades without effort - will not reach full potential until they are thrown into an environment where they can't coast any more.

Leadership has nothing to do with learning to think rigorously.  And what I mean by being effective staff is not mere staff duties.  Those can be learned even by officers fit only for "regimental duty".


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Education does not equal Intelligence, and neither equal Wisdom.
> 
> I am a firm believer that the current method of NCO and Officer is decades obsolete, as such I would burn the entire system (including the Military Colleges) down.
> 
> ...


I like what you're saying, Kevin, but I believe that the "offer" isn't appropriate and should not be made until the member has about two years of service. 

Think back, old chum: you (and I) were hugely different after two years of service than you (and I) were after four to eight months of initial training ... we started to grow up. A kid who looks great at 18 may be a dud at 21; conversely the kid ~ I'm thinking of myself, I suppose ~ who looked unremarkable at 18 may be just what we want after he's grown a bit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Dec 2021)

The Lt.-Col. Mark Popov vs. Brig.-Gen. Sean Friday fiasco sums up our institution perfectly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Forgive me my ignorance on the matter, but I was educated on "work habits and critical reasoning" throughout my 14 years of formal education up to secondary school. I received a fancy piece of paper stating so in the form of a high-school diploma.
> 
> Does one need a fancier piece of paper to be a *leader of men*, or are we trying to move the goal posts?" Training and experience are also valuable metrics for how well an officer can perform staff duties, and I would argue seeing how well a recruit manages time on kit and quarters is a better metric of their multitasking skills than if they can sit a mid-term between bouts of alcohol poisoning.
> 
> We need to do a better job of finding the right people with the right qualities to lead, than finding the "right" people with the most qualifications. The very public downfall of "qualified" men like Vance, MacDonald, Edmunson, Fortin, et all show that you can have a Masters Degree and still be a terrible leader.



... women, BIPOC, LGBTQ2S etc etc


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Education does not equal Intelligence, and neither equal Wisdom.
> 
> The days of peasant armies are over - and the CAF needs major reform at this point.


Bang on on point 1. 

The issue is with point 2 is that the culture of an institution cannot change over night. Its a long process.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> I like what you're saying, Kevin, but I believe that the "offer" isn't appropriate and should not be made until the member has about two years of service.
> 
> Think back, old chum: you (and I) were hugely different after two years of service than you (and I) were after four to eight months of initial training ... we started to grow up. A kid who looks great at 18 may be a dud at 21; conversely the kid ~ I'm thinking of myself, I suppose ~ who looked unremarkable at 18 may be just what we want after he's grown a bit.


Honestly I would accept even three years.

Personally I have not seen Universities or Colleges offer anything special -- certain courses and professors yes, but I'm significantly less impressed by Degrees (inc Advanced Degrees and even some Doctorates) than I was years ago.

I believe that intelligence, experience and education are necessary to make someone wise, but I don't necessarily think a 4 year degree is required by anyone in the Military to actually do their job.   Unless you are looking at certain specialties - but I'd argue that even the Engineer trade - an officer could take equivalent courses more designed to the needs of the CAF outside of an Engineering Degree.

Note I am not knocking Degrees - I think everyone should get one, or more, but I see a lot of Ivy League duds when it comes to understanding the world.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> The issue is with point 2 is that the culture of an institution cannot change over night. Its a long process.


I am pretty sure between you and I and some cans of Diesel we could get it done over night


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2021)

Reflecting back on the 1997 report, the intent of the degreed officer corps was not credentialism, but rather seeking out individuals with the ability to reason and work in uncertainty.  The old concept of a broad based liberal education.

It rapidly deteriorated into mere credentialism, though, and a bludgeon for RMC to exert increased influence through its colocated and thoroughly subservient HQ, CDA.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Honestly I would accept even three years.
> 
> Personally I have not seen Universities or Colleges offer anything special -- certain courses and professors yes, but I'm significantly less impressed by Degrees (inc Advanced Degrees and even some Doctorates) than I was years ago.
> 
> ...


For many, many years in the Signal Corps (in Canada and in the UK) engineering degrees were relatively rare. In addition to rather a lot of OCP (Serving Soldier) types, like me and the friend I mentioned earlier, we had a fair number of Gen Sci degrees (RMC types who found engineering a bit too hard) and one of my classmates (and a damned good regimental officer) had a degree in music (he left the Army after a few years and went to Foreign Affairs where he ended up as an Ambassador to a second rate country). 

We did, indeed, have courses to teach us what we needed to know and, for those who needed to know a bit more there were courses in the UK: Long Tels was 22 months long ~ three seven month terms with a two week break separating them ~ which was considered to make one an "engineering manager" which meant the equivalent to a MSCEE and able to supervise ALL engineering officers and warrant officers. (Our Formmen of Signals (WOs who had done their own two year course in the UK) didn't take kindly to being supervised by officers unless they had advanced degrees ... and then not very much.)

It was a very good system ... but expensive. Electrical Engineers and Computer Science grads from RMC are, on the other hand, quite cheap but they need years of "seasoning" in the field before they are useful in a project office ~ see TCCCS for what happens when inexperienced, but very well educated engineers are allowed to mess with user requirements.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> For many, many years in the Signal Corps (in Canada and in the UK) engineering degrees were relatively rare. In addition to rather a lot of OCP (Serving Soldier) types, like me and the friend I mentioned earlier, we had a fair number of Gen Sci degrees (RMC types who found engineering a bit too hard) and one of my classmates (and a damned good regimental officer) had a degree in music (he left the Army after a few years and went to Foreign Affairs where he ended up as an Ambassador to a second rate country).
> 
> We did, indeed, have courses to teach us what we needed to know and, for those who needed to know a bit more there were courses in the UK: Long Tels was 22 months long ~ three seven month terms with a two week break separating them ~ which was considered to make one an "engineering manager" which meant the equivalent to a MSCEE and able to supervise ALL engineering officers and warrant officers. (Our Formmen of Signals (WOs who had done their own two year course in the UK) didn't take kindly to being supervised by officers unless they had advanced degrees ... and then not very much.)
> 
> It was a very good system ... but expensive. Electrical Engineers and Computer Science grads from RMC are, on the other hand, quite cheap but they need years of "seasoning" in the field before they are useful in a project office ~ see TCCCS for what happens when inexperienced, but very well educated engineers are allowed to mess with user requirements.


I would hazard a guess that change from the "expensive" system has actually been more expensive in the long run...

 The CAF isn't huge, and it doesn't have an Up or Out system like the US MIL does - so it can afford to train people amply and retain them for life (you know what I mean).

Seeing everything going into stuff on the CIO and G6 side here, I think that a lot of the Tech Degreed Birds and above are wasting their degrees for the most part trying to manage or "orient things" my own opinion is they have been promoted too high for their leadership abilities - because at the lower levels they where using their tech knowledge - and not really commanding anything.

 Which makes me feel that there is a better position for these people than Rank - that allows their expertise to be used (and rewarded) yet doesn't saddle the system when they get promoted (due to competency) beyond their competency.

Hence why I feel some trades shouldn't be necessarily officers at a certain point - but Advanced Technical Officer L 1-whatever.


----------



## Weinie (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Honestly I would accept even three years.
> 
> Personally I have not seen Universities or Colleges offer anything special -- certain courses and professors yes, but I'm significantly less impressed by Degrees (inc Advanced Degrees and even some Doctorates) than I was years ago.
> 
> ...


I came out of the ranks, through the OCTP program; no degree, not bilingual, and sucked when it came to SCRITS points.  Yet held my own with Masters and PhD's in any fora where I was expected to perform. It ain't what's on the wall, it is what exists between the ears that makes a good Officer and good leader.

My 0.02


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Reflecting back on the 1997 report, the intent of the degreed officer corps was not credentialism, but rather seeking out individuals with the ability to reason and work in uncertainty.  The old concept of a broad based liberal education.
> 
> It rapidly deteriorated into mere credentialism, though, and a bludgeon for RMC to exert increased influence through its colocated and thoroughly subservient HQ, CDA.


Bingo!

We care less about the content and character of the people we have leading our organization and more about their merits. 

The mark of a great leader is not how they excel in personal endeavors, but in how they get others to overcome adversity and accomplish a goal; without losing the faith and trust of their people.

Our recent crises in the GOFO realm show how true the old adage about bridgebuilding really is...


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Hence why I feel some trades shouldn't be necessarily officers at a certain point - but Advanced Technical Officer L 1-whatever.


We kind of already have that in the form of the ‘traditional’* double-dippers, annuitants that are out of uniform and working as civil servants or contractors to allow DND/CAF to take advantage of their decades of experience while the retired member gets cash and an opportunity to grow their hair long. It’s been part of the landscape for a long time, and seems to be baked into some parts of Ottawa.

Of course, that does raise the interesting question of how to change the organizational culture if you are heavily reliant on such retirees to hold the organization’s corporate knowledge. 

*as oppposed to the less-traditional “retired but back in uniform on Class B“ double-dipper


----------



## Weinie (1 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Reflecting back on the 1997 report, the intent of the degreed officer corps was not credentialism, but rather seeking out individuals with the ability to reason and work in uncertainty.  The old concept of a broad based liberal education.
> 
> It rapidly deteriorated into mere credentialism, though, and a bludgeon for RMC to exert increased influence through its colocated and thoroughly subservient HQ, CDA.


The Fraser report relied heavily on a U.S. model, which was flawed. I attended a 3 month course in Ft. Meade  in 1996, where I was one of two of the non-U.S. candidates on a course load of 36. On the first day, we were asked to stand up and identify ourselves and give a brief description of our lives to date. I was stunned by how many of the 2Lt's and Lt's had Masters degrees. I had no degree. About halfway through the course, I found out that most U.S. universities granted a shit pile of credits towards a Masters to military folks; most had to take one or two courses to be granted a Masters (basically pay for the sheepskin). I finished second on the course. 

I confronted Mr. Fraser on a call-in show on CBC TV with the above info. He didn't take it well.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> We kind of already have that in the form of the ‘traditional’* double-dippers, annuitants that are out of uniform and working as civil servants or contractors to allow DND/CAF to take advantage of their decades of experience while the retired member gets cash and an opportunity to grow their hair long. It’s been part of the landscape for a long time, and seems to be baked into some parts of Ottawa.
> 
> Of course, that does raise the interesting question of how to change the organizational culture if you are heavily reliant on such retirees to hold the organization’s corporate knowledge.
> 
> *as oppposed to the less-traditional “retired but back in uniform on Class B“ double-dipper


I'm talking about at Captain level they would split -- I am not talking about retired COL's etc.
    Same way I see zero reason for ranks for Doctors or Nurses - they should hold a technical rate of something - but you want a good doctor or nurse doing their thing - not necessarily becoming and administrator.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2021)

There were multiple academics providing input into the 1997 report.

I have heard that Jack English later recanted and sent a letter to MND objecting that his report was used to justify the degreed officer corps.  There's apparently a faxed copy of it that some staff officer scrawled on "Frame this!"


----------



## Weinie (1 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There were multiple academics providing input into the 1997 report.
> 
> I have heard that Jack English later recanted and sent a letter to MND objecting that his report was used to justify the degreed officer corps.  There's apparently a faxed copy of it that some staff officer scrawled on "Frame this!"


I think I know that staff officer.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2021)

I felt very old when I discovered a Maj I worked across the hall from when I first came to Ottawa now has a child who's a Colonel


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There were multiple academics providing input into the 1997 report.
> 
> I have heard that Jack English later recanted and sent a letter to MND objecting that his report was used to justify the degreed officer corps.  There's apparently a faxed copy of it that some staff officer scrawled on "Frame this!"


He did, but David Burcason, also of 1997 Degreed Officer Corps Report fame, is still a proponent of the “degree is the gold standard” and also still on the RMC Board of Governors.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Dec 2021)

RMC - where the M is silent.


----------



## dimsum (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> *I don't think one needs to be an officer to fly a plane or helicopter and especially a Drone, I'd have flying WO's like the US Army.


I'll respectfully disagree on that part in yellow, specifically the part on "especially an X".

Where we're at right now for RPAS is like in WWI.  The derision that some traditional pilots have for RPAS is like the feeling from horse-bound cavalry officers to the idea of the tank.

The way things are going, RPAS/UAS will replace traditional aircraft.  Maybe not in the next 10 years, but I'm willing to bet that in 25 years, the idea of a "pilot" will be as different to now as what the Navy moniker of "pilot" (the nickname for the Navigating Officer, or the term for a harbour guide) is to the air variety.


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> I'll respectfully disagree on that part in yellow, specifically the part on "especially an X".
> 
> Where we're at right now for RPAS is like in WWI.  The derision that some traditional pilots have for RPAS is like the feeling from horse-bound cavalry officers to the idea of the tank.
> 
> The way things are going, RPAS/UAS will replace traditional aircraft.  Maybe not in the next 10 years, but I'm willing to bet that in 25 years, the idea of a "pilot" will be as different to now as what the Navy moniker of "pilot" (the nickname for the Navigating Officer, or the term for a harbour guide) is to the air variety.


The especially part is because its not fully invested yet in the CAF -- thus should be easier transition to a non O- flying rank

I'm not sure who in the days of old equated a plane to a horse bearing a knight - but it really Is crazy that the AirForces across the world have managed to continue the charade that it requires a commission to fly a plane.
  I'd have equated it to a horse in the Calvary - and said - you can have a Troop Commander that is an Lt and a Squadron Commander as a Capt.


----------



## dimsum (2 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> The especially part is because its not fully invested yet in the CAF -- thus should be easier transition to a non O- flying rank
> 
> I'm not sure who in the days of old equated a plane to a horse bearing a knight - but it really Is crazy that the AirForces across the world have managed to continue the charade that it requires a commission to fly a plane.
> I'd have equated it to a horse in the Calvary - and said - you can have a Troop Commander that is an Lt and a Squadron Commander as a Capt.


No disagreement there.  

The US Army currently has E-6s flying MQ-1C Gray Eagles, which aren't really that different than MQ-9s.  They deploy their crews rather than keep them in CONUS, but that's more of a doctrine, not tech, decision.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Dec 2021)

A good reminder of the right kind of leadership behaviour...


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Dec 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> A good reminder of the right kind of leadership behaviour...
> 
> View attachment 67488



Exactly. Having an "open door policy" does nothing, especially  if you create an environment where people walk past said door on their way to bitch in the smoke pit instead.


----------



## dimsum (2 Dec 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> to bitch in the smoke pit CAF Reddit instead.


Re:  listening.  It's good to listen, but if that doesn't translate to getting stuff done then that's still not really helpful.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Dec 2021)

A relevant report from RAND for interest.

It's from the US, and 2013 vintage, but somewhat interesting nonetheless. I liked the focus on making changes based on data as opposed to, you know, what we tend to do sometimes:

Adapting the Army’s Training and Leader Development Programs for Future Challenges

The Army’s operational requirements have expanded since the start of the 21st century. Its forces must be prepared to react to a wide range of potential missions, from peacekeeping to high-intensity conflict. At the same time, the Army must keep additional forces prepared while a significant proportion of its structure is deployed and operationally engaged. This new environment has created a need for major change in the Army’s programs for training units and developing leaders. In 2010 RAND completed research designed to support Army efforts in these areas by identifying directions that the Army can follow to achieve the needed changes, and make those changes at a time when reduced budgets are likely. This report presents results of that research; it should interest those involved in designing Army training and leader development strategies and those involved in the process of providing resources for these strategies.



			https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1236.pdf


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> A relevant report from RAND for interest.
> 
> It's from the US, and 2013 vintage, but somewhat interesting nonetheless. I liked the focus on making changes based on data as opposed to, you know, what we tend to do sometimes:
> 
> ...


 
US Army is not any better - but they do spend money on reports, and then don't follow them 

The US Army abolished the AWG (Asymetrical Warfare Group) - why because a lot of Commanders where terrible at dealing with Asymmetrical threats - and it was easier to shutter the entity - than actual change the way the Army thinks -- because apparently the Army wants to believe any future Peer on Peer, or Near Peer Engagement will consist of WWI type warfare and have no asymmetrical threats - while setting the Army up for Multi Domain Operations (sounds pretty Asymetrical to me...)


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Exactly. Having an "open door policy" does nothing, especially  if you create an environment where people walk past said door on their way to bitch in the smoke pit instead.


Open Door Policies rarely work -- they require people to approach the Senior Leader(s) with issues, as opposed to the Senior Leaders actually interacting and learning issues before they become larger issues.

The three best CO's I had would actively 'sneak' around (which caused Super Dave to get bag tagged one day but that is another story) and find small groups of soldiers to talk to for 5-10min (and some times longer).
   One of those meetings resulted in a MWO getting "fired" - and the RSM lost a little of his ass later.

Know your men and promote their welfare is not really that hard - but it does require leaders of all ranks to actually make an attempt to know the men* in their commands.

*I generally use masculine pronouns for everything, woMEN are men too, and as one young soldier told me, she was almost twice a man - as she had two more letters (I also note she was pretty tough and feisty)


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Open Door Policies rarely work -- they require people to approach the Senior Leader(s) with issues, as opposed to the Senior Leaders actually interacting and learning issues before they become larger issues.
> 
> The three best CO's I had would actively 'sneak' around (which caused Super Dave to get bag tagged one day but that is another story) and find small groups of soldiers to talk to for 5-10min (and some times longer).
> One of those meetings resulted in a MWO getting "fired" - and the RSM lost a little of his ass later.
> ...


I was taught that wandering about and talking with soldiers, asking them questions about what they were doing and why, was the best way to figure out what was happening in my unit. I was a CO three times: once as a major, once as a LCol commanding a Canadian unit and once, as a LCol again, commanding a multi-national unit ~ the system worked, for me, each time. Canadian soldiers, in my experience, are happy to talk openly and honestly with the CO ... IF he appears to actually give a crap.

MBWA (Management By Wandering About) almost always works for the CO, I think; it can also work for the whole unit IF the CO doesn't use his newfound knowledge to undermine his sub-unit commanders. When the CO detects a problem he needs to solve it by engaging his OCs and SSMs, not by bypassing or undercutting them.

I always found "open doors" to be too difficult for a junior person. The path to the CO's door took one past the RSM and the Adjutant and other assorted powerful people who wanted to know why one wanted to knock on the CO's door.


----------



## dimsum (3 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> I always found "open doors" to be too difficult for a junior person. The path to the CO's door took one past the RSM and the Adjutant and other assorted powerful people who wanted to know why one wanted to knock on the CO's door.


This is where I think things like RCafe and RCAF Ideas shines.

RCafe is designed for people from Aviators on up chat with others regarding ideas to improve the service.  People's full names are on there, with ranks for Cols and up, so there's no question of who you're talking to (unless people are using others' accounts, I guess).  Ideas allows people to pitch ideas directly to the Comd RCAF, like Dragon's Den.  Some concrete initiatives have come about through those means.

Those two pages are part of an RCAF initiative, but I don't see why the CA and RCN can't do the same.


----------



## FJAG (3 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> MBWA (Management By Wandering About)


Yup -  we called it "Leadership/management by walking around" - firm believer in it.

🍻


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Dec 2021)

If someone has to tell you they have an open door policy, it means they usually don't 😉

Leadership by Walking Around is the best way to get to know what's going on.  It's also a great way to learn what everyone else actually does. 

I practice what I call "shooting the ****" frequently.  A few times a day I simply stop what I am doing and go for a walk and make stops in different parts of the Ship/Building I am working at.  Ask people what they did on the weekend, how their family is, etc so I learn a bit about them and then I usually throw in some work tidbits as well and look for "drop outs" of key information. 

If you ask people open vice closed questions as well   ("Who, what, when, where, why, how" vs Yes or No) they will generally give you a lot more information that is useful.  I actually think we should give Officers and Senior NCOs a lot more training on communication techniques.  Leaders often don't know how to phrase questions correctly to get the information they actually need.

Information is an under-appreciated currency.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> If you ask people open vice closed questions as well   ("Who, what, when, where, why, how" vs Yes or No) they will generally give you a lot more information that is useful.  I actually think *we should give Officers and Senior NCOs a lot more training on communication techniques. * Leaders often don't know how to phrase questions correctly to get the information they actually need.
> 
> Information is an under-appreciated currency.



Part of my business is exactly this. 

Alot of senior leaders mistakenly believe they are already really good at this. Which is a leadership issue all of its own, of course.


----------



## Furniture (3 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> I always found "open doors" to be too difficult for a junior person. The path to the CO's door took one past the RSM and the Adjutant and other assorted powerful people who wanted to know why one wanted to knock on the CO's door.


I was going to post something similar, as I have seen the barriers in action.

The most insidious way this works isn't the mid-level supervisors blocking a member, it's harassing the member after their chat with the CO. I think many of us have seen the the MCpl/Sgt, or Capt/Maj chatting with the Jr member after their meeting with the boss. That sends a very effective message down that chain that the CO's door may be open, but you'll pay if you walk through it without prior blessing. That way the CO never catches wind of what is happening, and the troops catch the message immediately.


----------



## FJAG (3 Dec 2021)

Some of the best "staff" meetings I've had have been sitting on the tailgate of a deuce and a half or the ramp of a track with a beer or coffee in my hand.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Dec 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> MBWA (Management By Wandering About) almost always works for the CO, I think; it can also work for the whole unit IF the CO doesn't use his newfound knowledge to undermine his sub-unit commanders. When the CO detects a problem he needs to solve it by engaging his OCs and SSMs, not by bypassing or undercutting them.


THIS x 1000!!!

Also allows for a bit of comedic/stress relief to the troops (especially the ones you’re chatting with) when the RSM slowly clicks on the PA and says, “Siiiiii-iiiir…where aaaaaaaaare yooooou?  Come back to the oooof-fiiiiice….”


----------



## childs56 (5 Dec 2021)

I had two CO's who had  open door policy. One was so active in engaging his Soldiers that it made the Snr NCOs and Officers very reluctant to trust him. Ultimately he understood the art of influencing human behaviour to accomplish a task. He did it extremely well. I was sad when he was posted out to his ultimate role overseas. If he heard of a issue he addressed it with his Snr Staff and let them fix the concerns. If they failed then he fixed it himself, he would always be engaging with his Soldiers. 

The Second CO I had was in the Air Force. When he calls you into his office by your first name it made me worried, especially when the Sqn CWO is standing  beside you. Normally this meant your getting a butt chewing.   He asked me what was going on and how could he help. He heard through the rumor mill I needed to attend a Service funeral and time off was denied by My Flight Officer.  He asked me the particulars, and in the end said take all the time I needed , will work it out after. He was sorry that his chain of command failed and did not understand the importance of attending funerals especially for Fallen members and that he would address his concerns with his staff. He also said we use to be able to make a special trips with a jet to get you there sooner, but more than a few people did not understand it was a one off and not a regular right. Again he apologized and said if there was anything he could assist with to let him know.  
As I was walking out the Sqn CWO followed me and said the CO meant his words, to let them know if they could help in any way. Then reiterated what the CO said about addressing the issues with the COC over the importance of looking after your members. 
He then told me to get back to work, grab my gear and pack it in for the day.  

I will never forget those Two COs for their ability to understand and lead.


----------

