• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Reconstitution

Going back and re-reading parts of this thread I'm left wondering if the biggest difference between the CAF and its western peers isn't the lousy terms of service so much as

the clapped out kit
the lack of field opportunities for new entries.

Apparently some Canadian kids want the military life - they just see more of what they want in the UK or French or even the US forces.
Having worked with a bunch of allied nations, I honestly think the issue is that we see all of the CAF's warts but none of the other nations' issues. If you talk to your peers in those forces, they have issues as well and in some regards, we are relatively good in policy, etc.

But as it stands for Cpl Bloggins in Shilo, they don't hear about the UK NCM housing or the Australian "pension" policy.

Similarly, if you speak to the typical US member who knows anything about the CAF, they'll see that we have beards and allow cannabis. That may look pretty good to them.
 
Similarly, if you speak to the typical US member who knows anything about the CAF, they'll see that we have beards and allow cannabis. That may look pretty good to them.


Actually you have a significant point there.

The role of the cyber community is increasing in warfare. We need them, and the IT folks at least as much as we need more rifles. Generally speaking those communities are not the physical specimens associated with the infantry.

Blue hair, nose rings and dad bods are more their things. So perhaps we should be leveraging the Vancouver lifestyle for our international recruiting and contribution to NATO and NORAD.

On the other hand, rather than DND broadening the CAF to include Cyberwarfare and IT in the military it could broaden the civilian CSE to include military Cyber and IT.
 
Actually you have a significant point there.

The role of the cyber community is increasing in warfare. We need them, and the IT folks at least as much as we need more rifles. Generally speaking those communities are not the physical specimens associated with the infantry.

Blue hair, nose rings and dad bods are more their things. So perhaps we should be leveraging the Vancouver lifestyle for our international recruiting and contribution to NATO and NORAD.

On the other hand, rather than DND broadening the CAF to include Cyberwarfare and IT in the military it could broaden the civilian CSE to include military Cyber and IT.
Maybe we're seeing another unintended consequence of unification. We have a set of personnel policies that are CF wide but the modern needs of the Army, Navy, Airforce, Cyber community, etc. are all different and may need to attract different people with different incentives.

The Army can probably accept rapid turnover of a significant portion of its combat arms trades as there are lots of positions that can be filled by fit, young men and women in a Regiment and we don't necessarily need them all (or even want them all) to remain in the Army until CRA.

The RCAF on the other hand invests a lot of time and money into its techs and pilots and wants to keep them as long as possible so may require a whole different set of incentives in order to keep them.

Standardized policies across a non-standardized organization might save some administrative costs, but is likely creating a situation where the "happy medium" set of policies designed to fit all members equally ends up pleasing nobody.

The problem is, how do you put the unification genie back in the bottle?
 
Union jobs and public service would beg to differ.
Those aren't exactly good environments of "why" environments. Those are good examples of "because the contract/book says so" environments.

Besides, this is an easy problem to solve.

"Do X".

"Why?"

"Because I ordered you to."
 
If it was that simple, then people wouldn't fuck it up so much. Follow an order immediately no explanation is suitable for immediate-hazard situations only. And in those cases it should be reasonable because the people placed into said situations will have received proper training in advance such that they'll have a good understanding of the "why" anyways.

Problem is a lot of people have little to no ability to adapt their leadership style to suit the situation at hand.
Those aren't exactly good environments of "why" environments. Those are good examples of "because the contract/book says so" environments.

Besides, this is an easy problem to solve.

"Do X".

"Why?"

"Because I ordered you to."

I manage technicians all day. Tech's need the why most of the time because often they can give you a better way to achieve the goal. When you develop a good relationship they stop asking why, because they are either smart enough to know already (because you briefed them previously the Situation and Mission), or they trust you so realize that if they need to know you'll tell them when they need to know it.

They are also smart enough to recognize when something is time sensitive or personally sensitive (because my communication style changes) and just get it done.

But that's my recent experience.
 
Maybe we're seeing another unintended consequence of unification. We have a set of personnel policies that are CF wide but the modern needs of the Army, Navy, Airforce, Cyber community, etc. are all different and may need to attract different people with different incentives.

The Army can probably accept rapid turnover of a significant portion of its combat arms trades as there are lots of positions that can be filled by fit, young men and women in a Regiment and we don't necessarily need them all (or even want them all) to remain in the Army until CRA.

The RCAF on the other hand invests a lot of time and money into its techs and pilots and wants to keep them as long as possible so may require a whole different set of incentives in order to keep them.

Standardized policies across a non-standardized organization might save some administrative costs, but is likely creating a situation where the "happy medium" set of policies designed to fit all members equally ends up pleasing nobody.

The problem is, how do you put the unification genie back in the bottle?

The highlighted bit, I think, goes to @FJAG and his peculiar fascination with the reserve. Young, fit, Canadians are consumables with limited shelf lives. They are in limited supply and they have a best before date. We have a limited window of opportunity to harvest them and they are skittish.

Once we have them it costs money to convert them into useable weapons. Some of them, a very few, will find immediate employment in their trained capacity. Some of them, a smaller number, will want to hang around in the service. A still smaller number will be worthy of promotion to higher ranks. The vast majority will end up wasting on the shelf with skills that might come in handy for the government at some point but aren't necessary today. And sitting on the shelf is boring.

The better response, for those trades requiring fitness, is to make them reserve-heavy trades focusing on large numbers of privates and corporals.

That is the traditional army. Measured in boots and bayonets. Call on demand.


But these days the Standing Force is increasingly one of buttons and butts in seats, whether the seat is at a desk in front of a key board, or in a vehicle.

Those jobs don't have strong physical demands. Their practitioners can expect long careers. Their skills are used every day operationally, and operationally includes administratively. And there is a lot of competition for those skills in the civilian work place.

A lot of those skills are beyond the reasonable expectations of a military training system. Some skills are better honed in a civilian environment. The CAF needs access to those skills as well. Some can be supplied by careerists but their needs to be, in my opinion, a strong leavening of late entry, short term and part time civilians in the operational elements.

All of which, when I review my meandering, is to say that there isn't a single magic bullet and that the CAF, as others have been pointing out, needs to see itself like any other company which needs to hire the skills it needs from the available population.


We are still stuck with images of thousands of pre-industrial labourers on parade squares being taught how to work with magic technologies like wireless, the internal combustion engine and machine guns.

The people we have now are comfortable with all of the above - even machine guns if you include the paintball, airsoft and COD communities.
The HR task is less one of training candidates and more one finding and retaining candidates who have the necessary skills and capabilities.
 
Sure, context matters, even in technical work. "As an X, I want to do Y in order to Z."

I suppose we're missing context. If there's a perception that people today want to know more "why", what are they asking "why" about?
 
Those aren't exactly good environments of "why" environments. Those are good examples of "because the contract/book says so" environments.

Besides, this is an easy problem to solve.

"Do X".

"Why?"

"Because I ordered you to."
That's where it ends up sometimes after you explain the why; just because someone doesn't agree/understand with physics, doesn't means physics cares. And if it took 20 years to understand something as an expert, probably not going to explain the full depth of it in a 20 minute powerpoint or a glossy handout.

Similarly, no one needs to have much expertise to operate something working as intended, but you may need to have a hell of a deep understanding as a tech to understand the 'so what' about a workaround. or using it differently.

Simple example, if a weld meets the test standard, easy check in the box. Accepting a weld defect though might require an absolutely massive amount of expertise and analysis, and you still might get it wrong. There are still a lot of unknowns so most standards are conservative with safety factors built in for a good reason.
 
Sure, context matters, even in technical work. "As an X, I want to do Y in order to Z."

I suppose we're missing context. If there's a perception that people today want to know more "why", what are they asking "why" about?
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't think recruits today are asking "Why?" more, it's just a perception that leaders have when they are the ones giving direction. I had to remind my young Millennial Cpls and MCpl to answer when the Ptes/Avrs asked "Why?". It wasn't because of a magical generational gap, it was simply because they were now the ones giving direction rather than just receiving it, and it was a new experience for them.

When I was a Pte, I asked "Why?" a lot because I didn't know much. When I was a Sgt I stopped asking "Why?" as much, because I had far more knowledge of not just the CAF, but the world and people in general.
 
Last edited:
If it was that simple, then people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

You must be new to the human race and the CAF. 🙂

Follow an order immediately no explanation is suitable for immediate-hazard situations only. And in those cases it should be reasonable because the people placed into said situations will have received proper training in advance such that they'll have a good understanding of the "why" anyways.

Basic training is proper training to follow all lawful commands from any/all superior officers.

but I know what you mean and partially agree.

Problem is a lot of people have little to no ability to adapt their leadership style to suit the situation at hand.

True. I’ve served under countless Officers that demonstrated this.
 
The highlighted bit, I think, goes to @FJAG and his peculiar fascination with the reserve. Young, fit, Canadians are consumables with limited shelf lives. They are in limited supply and they have a best before date. We have a limited window of opportunity to harvest them and they are skittish.
Not a "peculiar fascination" but a view that this makes them affordable and the army desperately needs affordable if it wants quantity.

"Consumables with limited shelf life" is a bit harsh. Again we get to the "affordable" issue coupled with giving young folks a paycheck and a working experience (even better if a technical rather than merely soldierly skill) to allow them to merge into civilian life.

If we can keep enough good ones to feed the NCO and officer core needed then we've accomplished our goals. What's important is to have an efficient and productive recruiting and basic training chain going.

🍻
 
Not a "peculiar fascination" but a view that this makes them affordable and the army desperately needs affordable if it wants quantity.

"Consumables with limited shelf life" is a bit harsh. Again we get to the "affordable" issue coupled with giving young folks a paycheck and a working experience (even better if a technical rather than merely soldierly skill) to allow them to merge into civilian life.

If we can keep enough good ones to feed the NCO and officer core needed then we've accomplished our goals. What's important is to have an efficient and productive recruiting and basic training chain going.

🍻

Harsh? Moi?
Never have I been known to goad.... ;)

Actually I was thinking about youngsters being consumed by society at large, not on the battlefield. Youngsters aren't young forever and they aren't available forever. They are choice properties.

Despite the language I understand your "peculiar fascination" well enough to agree with you entirely. Combat Arms needs a lot of fit youngsters when the call goes out. But it doesn't need a lot of them on the payroll all the time.
 
True. I’ve served under countless Officers that demonstrated this.

This is because the CAF continues to think education equates to leadership. Not just for Officers, look at our use of PLQ, ILP ect ect.

You cannot train someone to be a leader. Its in innate character trait, that can be sharpened, but not created from nothing.
 
I will agree with you on principle, however, the two statements you make are contradictory in the majority of CAF garrison life.

I agree wholeheartedly that in matters of battle and operations this is a non starter. That is what will keep everyone alive and ready to fight another day.

"Because I said so" in garrison is a far more finicky topic. "I know you just got here, but you're posted to Shilo this year.... BISS." "I don't care if it's your daughter thar your wife is giving birth to, you're going to Wainwright...BISS." "I don't care if it's the career course you need for promotion, I can't spare you for PLQ. BISS."

^ That will not fly with most Gen Z recruits. You know why? They have ZERO loyalty to anything but themselves. They are confident. They are well versed in what skills they're bringing to the workforce. They know that we need them more than they need us.

Does that flip 160 years of Canadian Army culture and philosophy on its head? You're damn right. I have had to explain the "why" to a lot of younger folks in the past 5 years than I ever have asked myself in 16. You know what I find fascinating? Once they have a solid reason for doing something a certain way, they fucking do it. And over again. And explain it to their friends. And it becomes normalized.

"Makes sense. OK." Is the response I get that affirms to me they understand both the intent and reason behind the order.

Understanding an order and it's intent is leadership manifest. I'm certain there are thousands of mobniks in Donetsk that are given lawful orders, but have no other understanding or motivation around what those orders mean.

Given a choice between blind obedience or taking a minute to give context and "win" influence over thinking soldiers; I'd take the latter.
interesting observation. I have been asked by policing peers long distanced from patrol operations about the new generation. i have actually found a similar experience. coupled with far better/focused training, they are just fine to work with. once they understand why for. as opposed to "just fuckin' do it lad"...
 
This is because the CAF continues to think education equates to leadership. Not just for Officers, look at our use of PLQ, ILP ect ect.

You cannot train someone to be a leader. Its in innate character trait, that can be sharpened, but not created from nothing.
Have you considered a degree from Algonquin Collage? It gets brought up so often when talking about career advancement I'm sure it must be the key to leadership...
 
Have you considered a degree from Algonquin Collage? It gets brought up so often when talking about career advancement I'm sure it must be the key to leadership...

IMHO this all stems the creation of the CWO Corps.

Have you done your ALP ? I'm on my mine now. Its a research project. What the hell does that have to do with me being a CHOD, CSM or to help prepare me for a Cox'n/RSM role ?

The line between commissioned and non is becoming way to blurred and it needs to be reestablished.
 
Last edited:
IMHO this all stems the creation of the CWO Corps.

Have you done your ALP ? I'm on my mine now. Its a research project. What the hell does that have to do with me being a CHOD, CSM or to help prepare me for a Cox'n/RCM role ?

The line between commissioned and non is becoming way to blurred and it needs to be reestablished.
I haven't done ALP yet, but I've never heard anyone describe it as useful or enjoyable. Even PLQ and ILP have people who find them useful, but ALP seems like a course designed so the CAF can assign a credential for the sake of a credential.

At the CPO 2 level networking, and interacting with other CPO 2/MWOs from other branches is a far better leadership development tool than writing papers. Writing is important, but only so far as it helps you communicate your direction to subordinates. If I wanted to write essays I would have gone to university and joined as an officer.
 
IMHO this all stems the creation of the CWO Corps.

Have you done your ALP ? I'm on my mine now. Its a research project. What the hell does that have to do with me being a CHOD, CSM or to help prepare me for a Cox'n/RCM role ?

The line between commissioned and non is becoming way to blurred and it needs to be reestablished.
When I did mine it also had a portion dedicated to military Justice as well as the requisite essays.

The goal as explained at that time was to professionalize the CWO corps so that they could contribute at a strategic level and go beyond just dress deportment and discipline. Part of that I suppose is being able to research, analyze and write and learn about leading organisations and institutions rather than just the leading of people, which you would have already had. ALP being a step in that direction. In my opinion it has nothing to do directly with being a CSM but more to do with preparing you for the next step which is transitioning to organizational leadership.

I have to agree that it needs be in house to provide that networking. It really loses value as an online course.
 
When I did mine it also had a portion dedicated to military Justice as well as the requisite essays.

The goal as explained at that time was to professionalize the CWO corps so that they could contribute at a strategic level and go beyond just dress deportment and discipline. Part of that I suppose is being able to research, analyze and write and learn about leading organisations and institutions rather than just the leading of people, which you would have already had. ALP being a step in that direction. In my opinion it has nothing to do directly with being a CSM but more to do with preparing you for the next step which is transitioning to organizational leadership.

I have to agree that it needs be in house to provide that networking. It really loses value as an online course.

Perhaps the fact that people below the rank of CPO1/CWO are walking away in droves is a direct, albeit probably unconscious, reaction to the disconnection of our most senior rank to its core. The RCN has established a Command MS position in RCN HQ. If that doesn't speak volumes I don't know what will. The hollow middle is also festering and rotten.

I think the people who did this wanted something akin to WO Corps like we see in the US Military.
 
Back
Top