Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[dapaterson]

My question is more about why we seem to fit people into roles they, on the surface, don't seem to be the right fit for.

We seem to think that our GO/FOs and CPO1/CWOs are interchangeable and their career built technical and tactical expertise can translate.

There's a bunch of acolytes of Jack Welch infesting HR, who believe in generalists.

They forget that Jack moved his subordinates around principally as a way to prevent them from building networks and a power base to be considered as viable successors, as a way to protect himself.

 

[ytz]

My question is more about why we seem to fit people into roles they, on the surface, don't seem to be the right fit for.

We seem to think that our GO/FOs and CPO1/CWOs are interchangeable and their career built technical and tactical expertise can translate.

We love to maintain the fiction that "general service" means complete interchangeability. And honestly maybe it was true in the days when Napoleon created the General Staff. But in this day and age pretending the guy responsible for sustainment doesn't need to understand supply chains, is a choice.

It's an infantile understanding of war. But heck, everybody from society to vets fall for it. How often does this place discuss anything but the number of ships or tanks or how many brigades we should have in Europe, vs if our third line logistics works or if our comms networks are robust enough globally?

 

[Eaglelord17]

My question is more about why we seem to fit people into roles they, on the surface, don't seem to be the right fit for.

We seem to think that our GO/FOs and CPO1/CWOs are interchangeable and their career built technical and tactical expertise can translate.

They don’t need to be 100% knowledgeable on things. They need good decision making skills and competent subordinates to listen to.

Just like a politician, the best acknowledge they don’t know everything and instead rely on subject matter experts to assist.

 

[ytz]

They don’t need to be 100% knowledgeable on things. They need good decision making skills and competent subordinates to listen to.

Just like a politician, the best acknowledge they don’t know everything and instead rely on subject matter experts to assist.

Debatable. Logistics, information systems, personnel management should arguably not be fully generalist function in this day and age.

Also, this mentality only goes one way. We're never going to have a supporter in charge of CJOC, even though "they just need good decision making skills". But somehow people think it's just fine to put an operator into what would be civvy world equivalent of the CIO or CFO.

 

[dapaterson]

Debatable. Logistics, information systems, personnel management should arguably not be fully generalist function in this day and age.

Also, this mentality only goes one way. We're never going to have a supporter in charge of CJOC, even though "they just need good decision making skills". But somehow people think it's just fine to put an operator into what would be civvy world equivalent of the CIO or CFO.

I'll accept an Infantry GOFO in the Digital Services Group if you'll accept a Signals officer commanding a battalion of The RCR.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'll accept an Infantry GOFO in the Digital Services Group if you'll accept a Signals officer commanding a battalion of The RCR.

Actually, you aren’t super far off the mark. I can think of one person that nearly fits that bill.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's an infantile understanding of war. But heck, everybody from society to vets fall for it. How often does this place discuss anything but the number of ships or tanks or how many brigades we should have in Europe, vs if our third line logistics works or if our comms networks are robust enough globally?

You are preaching my sermon brother.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Actually, you aren’t super far off the mark. I can think of one person that nearly fits that bill.

Go on...

 

[Eaglelord17]

Debatable. Logistics, information systems, personnel management should arguably not be fully generalist function in this day and age.

Also, this mentality only goes one way. We're never going to have a supporter in charge of CJOC, even though "they just need good decision making skills". But somehow people think it's just fine to put an operator into what would be civvy world equivalent of the CIO or CFO.

But does the person at the top need to be a expert or do they need to have competent people they can rely on?

Best boss I ever had was a terrible tradesman, however he was excellent at managing. Why? Because he would listen to the people below him and make his decisions based off their input.

Alternatively sometimes having a SME as the top position is a negative as they can be very stuck in their ways and refuse to listen to the people below them. My shop had two managers who insisted on doing things they way they had always been done for the last 50 years because it was what they knew. The younger crowd pushed hard for using more CNC and when those supervisors left productivity per person went up a fair bit.

 

[Fabius]

My question is more about why we seem to fit people into roles they, on the surface, don't seem to be the right fit for.

We seem to think that our GO/FOs and CPO1/CWOs are interchangeable and their career built technical and tactical expertise can translate.

Couple thoughts on this;

First, we are a product to a degree of our British heritage; ie aristocratic officer corps focused on leadership not technical training.

Second, we prioritize combat units and formations. Those are the Comd billets that get you promoted and they overwhelming go to cbt arms rightly so, however there are very very few CS or CSS units and formations for non cbt arms types to get the needed Comd time to be seen as GOFO or CWO potential.

Third, Comd is tied to promotion and promotion is tied to Comd. It’s highly highly improbable that our personnel would get promoted to a higher rank or position from a staff stream. Ie a general staff model where you might go from Maj to Col as a sustainment planner progressing through tactical to strategic planning developing a highly proficient technical knowledge. This circles back to point 1 where we value “leadership” over technical expertise.

Fourth, the size of the overall military, its various trades etc. leads to a belief I think that we can’t afford to be specialized as it will limit employment and flexibility in the force. The size of the military I think has also led to most GOFOs and CWOs focusing only on their institutional leadership function as the military is not large enough for them to get much time or experience as actual force employment commanders conducting war fighting. That institutional vs war fighting dynamic likely has significant impacts on the direct operational war fighting mindset of our senior leadership.

For the army it will be interesting to see where the new CS and CSS brigades go in terms of personnel and how that affects the army. Ie the Army routinely believes that the lead planner should be cbt arms in a formation. That’s true of a manoeuvre Bde but does it hold true for the sustainment Bde or protection Bde? Likely not.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There's a bunch of acolytes of Jack Welch infesting HR, who believe in generalists.

They forget that Jack moved his subordinates around principally as a way to prevent them from building networks and a power base to be considered as viable successors, as a way to protect himself.

He was also known as 'Neutron Jack' for getting rid of the people but leaving the buildings standing...


"Neutron Jack," as he became known, had a practice of ranking employees and automatically firing the bottom 10 percent every year; in Welch's first few years of leadership he fired more than 100,000 people in a series of mass layoffs and factory closures.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1101505691/short-term-profits-and-long-term-consequences-did-jack-welch-break-capitalism

 

[Halifax Tar]

But does the person at the top need to be a expert or do they need to have competent people they can rely on?

Best boss I ever had was a terrible tradesman, however he was excellent at managing. Why? Because he would listen to the people below him and make his decisions based off their input.

Alternatively sometimes having a SME as the top position is a negative as they can be very stuck in their ways and refuse to listen to the people below them. My shop had two managers who insisted on doing things they way they had always been done for the last 50 years because it was what they knew. The younger crowd pushed hard for using more CNC and when those supervisors left productivity per person went up a fair bit.

Just using my field as an example.

I don't think the CO or Cox'n of Supply/Logistics organization needs to be the preeminent mind on Logistics, but they need to have the technical and working knowledge to be able understand the complexities that the unit deals with.

Couple thoughts on this;

First, we are a product to a degree of our British heritage; ie aristocratic officer corps focused on leadership not technical training.

Second, we prioritize combat units and formations. Those are the Comd billets that get you promoted and they overwhelming go to cbt arms rightly so, however there are very very few CS or CSS units and formations for non cbt arms types to get the needed Comd time to be seen as GOFO or CWO potential.

Third, Comd is tied to promotion and promotion is tied to Comd. It’s highly highly improbable that our personnel would get promoted to a higher rank or position from a staff stream. Ie a general staff model where you might go from Maj to Col as a sustainment planner progressing through tactical to strategic planning developing a highly proficient technical knowledge. This circles back to point 1 where we value “leadership” over technical expertise.

Fourth, the size of the overall military, its various trades etc. leads to a belief I think that we can’t afford to be specialized as it will limit employment and flexibility in the force. The size of the military I think has also led to most GOFOs and CWOs focusing only on their institutional leadership function as the military is not large enough for them to get much time or experience as actual force employment commanders conducting war fighting. That institutional vs war fighting dynamic likely has significant impacts on the direct operational war fighting mindset of our senior leadership.

For the army it will be interesting to see where the new CS and CSS brigades go in terms of personnel and how that affects the army. Ie the Army routinely believes that the lead planner should be cbt arms in a formation. That’s true of a manoeuvre Bde but does it hold true for the sustainment Bde or protection Bde? Likely not.

I take your points. But I think our big failing is we have an institutional bias towards certain trades/occupations as producing better leaders and I think that is patently false. And I think leads to an over representation of certain trades and branches and the suppression of others.

 

[MacNav63]

But does the person at the top need to be a expert or do they need to have competent people they can rely on?

Best boss I ever had was a terrible tradesman, however he was excellent at managing. Why? Because he would listen to the people below him and make his decisions based off their input.

Alternatively sometimes having a SME as the top position is a negative as they can be very stuck in their ways and refuse to listen to the people below them. My shop had two managers who insisted on doing things they way they had always been done for the last 50 years because it was what they knew. The younger crowd pushed hard for using more CNC and when those supervisors left productivity per person went up a fair bit.

I was promoted in my career initially because I was good at my trade. But they higher up I went the less I actually practiced my trade. In fact, had I insisted on continuing to focus on the practice of my trade, I would have been failing as a manager. My job was to make sure the team was succeeding by delegating work appropriately so as to develop the talent reporting to me and deliver the best output. Because I was good at my trade I still could tell what that output should look like, without having to be the person generating it.

Conversely, I had a boss who was also very good at our trade, better than me. But all he really wanted to do was practice the trade. That led to a lot of unnecessary re-work and discouraged team members. Meanwhile, anything that smacked of "management" was generally ignored if possible or delegated off to subordinates like me to figure out.

My biggest challenge was when I took on teams that were outside my area of expertise. At that point I had to not learn their trades so much as learn what success for them looked like and then manage them to deliver it. I could never have done their work, I had neither the skill set, knowledge base or, frankly, personality. I very much had to focus on managing and became a better leader as a result.

 

[Maxman1]

That begs the question then of what the fuck have we done with the last four years.

 

[ytz]

I'll accept an Infantry GOFO in the Digital Services Group if you'll accept a Signals officer commanding a battalion of The RCR.

Actually, you aren’t super far off the mark. I can think of one person that nearly fits that bill.

You are preaching my sermon brother.

At least the air force has started putting AEREs and AOOs in CO positions of flying squadrons. And on some wings there's a DCO swap where the DCO of the maintenance squadron is an operator and the DCO of the flying squadron is an AERE.

But of course, since the CA and RCN would never think of something like this, that kind of culture can't go higher than LCOL really.

 

[Fabius]

I take your points. But I think our big failing is we have an institutional bias towards certain trades/occupations as producing better leaders and I think that is patently false. And I think leads to an over representation of certain trades and branches and the suppression of others.

It’s an interesting observation that has some truth I think.

My biggest challenge was when I took on teams that were outside my area of expertise. At that point I had to not learn their trades so much as learn what success for them looked like and then manage them to deliver it. I could never have done their work, I had neither the skill set, knowledge base or, frankly, personality. I very much had to focus on managing and became a better leader as a result.

This is one of the key challenges as leaders progress from unit level to formation for the cbt arms types but too be honest all trades. No longer are you operating in your trade and you’re not the SME anymore, nor have you done all the jobs below you. The good Comds and staff at a formation understand that but it can be a difficult transition.

 

[ytz]

But does the person at the top need to be a expert or do they need to have competent people they can rely on?

Best boss I ever had was a terrible tradesman, however he was excellent at managing. Why? Because he would listen to the people below him and make his decisions based off their input.

Alternatively sometimes having a SME as the top position is a negative as they can be very stuck in their ways and refuse to listen to the people below them. My shop had two managers who insisted on doing things they way they had always been done for the last 50 years because it was what they knew. The younger crowd pushed hard for using more CNC and when those supervisors left productivity per person went up a fair bit.

Again. Like I said, this argument only every goes one way. If we believed this, it would apply equally to operators. In reality, this is cope to justify our current practices.

And again, you only ever see this in the CAF. You won't even see this in a lot of our Five Eyes peers. And you definitely won't see it in industry. Imagine a company with 60 000 employees making an accountant with no IT background the Chief Information Officer. How would you view that company? What do you think would happen to the stock?

 

[dapaterson]

Couple thoughts on this;

First, we are a product to a degree of our British heritage; ie aristocratic officer corps focused on leadership not technical training.

Second, we prioritize combat units and formations. Those are the Comd billets that get you promoted and they overwhelming go to cbt arms rightly so, however there are very very few CS or CSS units and formations for non cbt arms types to get the needed Comd time to be seen as GOFO or CWO potential.

Third, Comd is tied to promotion and promotion is tied to Comd. It’s highly highly improbable that our personnel would get promoted to a higher rank or position from a staff stream. Ie a general staff model where you might go from Maj to Col as a sustainment planner progressing through tactical to strategic planning developing a highly proficient technical knowledge. This circles back to point 1 where we value “leadership” over technical expertise.

Fourth, the size of the overall military, its various trades etc. leads to a belief I think that we can’t afford to be specialized as it will limit employment and flexibility in the force. The size of the military I think has also led to most GOFOs and CWOs focusing only on their institutional leadership function as the military is not large enough for them to get much time or experience as actual force employment commanders conducting war fighting. That institutional vs war fighting dynamic likely has significant impacts on the direct operational war fighting mindset of our senior leadership.

For the army it will be interesting to see where the new CS and CSS brigades go in terms of personnel and how that affects the army. Ie the Army routinely believes that the lead planner should be cbt arms in a formation. That’s true of a manoeuvre Bde but does it hold true for the sustainment Bde or protection Bde? Likely not.

Except it's not a level playing field. We start selecting at DP3 - JCSP. Those seats are not assigned based on "the best majors in the CAF", they are not assigned proportionately to the sizes of occupations.

They are heavily weighted to "operational" occupations. So at the rank of major we are deselecting non-operational individuals from institutional leadership.

We insist on domain knowledge for the commanders of the ECSes. A NWO will never command the Army. Yet in senior support and sustainment roles we'll drop in an ATR operational occupational background GOFO.

If the three majors best able to provide future institutional leadership to the CAF were all nurses, the next year in Toronto there would be one nurse, plus a NWO and an Infantry officer who are both good hockey players.

 

[Halifax Tar]

At least the air force has started putting AEREs and AOOs in CO positions of flying squadrons. And on some wings there's a DCO swap where the DCO of the maintenance squadron is an operator and the DCO of the flying squadron is an AERE.

But of course, since the CA and RCN would never think of something like this, that kind of culture can't go higher than LCOL really.

Again staying in my lane, with the current construct and development path of their trade I don't think LogOs should be able to command ships.

 

[ytz]

Again staying in my lane, with the current construct and development path of their trade I don't think LogOs should be able to command ships.

Maybe not perfectly analogous between the services. But there's probably shore assignments they could fill.