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

Arbour Report - Recommendation #29: Future of Military Colleges

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,963
Points
1,310
wow I just an read an article about LCol Popov... disgusting to say the least. As a 22 year old NCM applicant, I am worried what officers I am going to be serving under. That shit sure as hell doesn't fly civvie side... definitely shouldn't fly mil side.
90/10 rule:

-90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
-10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.

The 10 percent of those folks are the reason we are all getting tarred with the same brush. Those 10 percent are also the source for 90 percent of the headlines you've seen over the past 18 months. Its those 10 percent that we as an organization need to reform or remove to see things move forward.

Keep that context and it won't seem as much of a doom and gloom situation.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,401
Points
1,260
... The 10 percent of those folks are the reason we are all getting tarred with the same brush. Those 10 percent are also the source for 90 percent of the headlines you've seen over the past 18 months. Its those 10 percent that we as an organization need to reform or remove to see things move forward ...
Not justifying any misconduct by any of the ones who've been out of line, but even 10% may be high. You're bang on, though, on "the many keeners suffer because of the few weiners" in this and other scenarios (not to mention in most cases where new "improved" rules are created) :(
 

ResMonkey

Guest
Reaction score
4
Points
130
90/10 rule:

-90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
-10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.

The 10 percent of those folks are the reason we are all getting tarred with the same brush. Those 10 percent are also the source for 90 percent of the headlines you've seen over the past 18 months. Its those 10 percent that we as an organization need to reform or remove to see things move forward.

Keep that context and it won't seem as much of a doom and gloom situation.
It's always the few, who ruin it for the majority. What I don't get is how anybody stands for it, especially high command who you think would want the best for the CAF. Recently where I'm from, some big name realtors got exposed, and even some people my age who I went to school with. The realtors literally left the city and moved to nowhere BC just they could restart there lives some what... and the people my age have a tarnished reputation and I presume, struggle to get with women these days... The real estate agencies didn't try to sweep it under the rug or try to cover for their 'best' real estate agents. No they told them to frick off and made an apology to the public so they keep the respect of their clients. I don't understand why the CAF isn't like this. Corruption from the top down is the only way this occurs and that's what worries me. Craziness. I just want an exciting rewarding job and haven't been super into the politics of the CAF, but I would never stand for anyone stepping out of line like that, currently or when/If I get into the CAF.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,963
Points
1,310
@ResMonkey "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

For a lot of these people, their leaders and superiors felt that personal failings were able to be walked past because "They're a great soldier with solid tactical acumen and combat experience." Doesn't matter if the person is the next Eisenhower strategically or operationally, if that person is a douche to work for/with, they need to be corrected/not advance because of their failure to be corrected.

We ask near perfection of our soldiers, sailors, and air personnel when it comes to doing the business. We need to ensure we expect the same of those who lead them.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,444
Points
1,160
90/10 rule:

-90 percent of the people you will work with/for are decent human beings and will be looking out for your best interests.
-10 percent of the people you will work with/for are not and will not.

The 10 percent of those folks are the reason we are all getting tarred with the same brush. Those 10 percent are also the source for 90 percent of the headlines you've seen over the past 18 months. Its those 10 percent that we as an organization need to reform or remove to see things move forward.

Keep that context and it won't seem as much of a doom and gloom situation.

Well, there's the 10% we might know about and the unknown number of ones we don't ...

 

btrudy

Member
Reaction score
198
Points
610
wow I just an read an article about LCol Popov... disgusting to say the least. As a 22 year old NCM applicant, I am worried what officers I am going to be serving under. That shit sure as hell doesn't fly civvie side... definitely shouldn't fly mil side.

I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side". There's a lot of terrible shit that goes on in companies across the country that likewise gets swept under the rug.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,476
Points
1,110
I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side". There's a lot of terrible shit that goes on in companies across the country that likewise gets swept under the rug.
I fully agree. It’s the elephant in the room and the nepotism etc that goes on is just as bad civvy side
 

ResMonkey

Guest
Reaction score
4
Points
130
@ResMonkey "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

For a lot of these people, their leaders and superiors felt that personal failings were able to be walked past because "They're a great soldier with solid tactical acumen and combat experience." Doesn't matter if the person is the next Eisenhower strategically or operationally, if that person is a douche to work for/with, they need to be corrected/not advance because of their failure to be corrected.

We ask near perfection of our soldiers, sailors, and air personnel when it comes to doing the business. We need to ensure we expect the same of those who lead them.
I agree completely. Being a solid human being comes before performance in any line of work. Just because you wear a higher rank then me or went to RMC doesn't give you the right to be dick, or make you impervious to your teeth getting knocked in some cases lol. It's all been said before me. And to note, I am expecting to meet amazing people in the CAF and understand not everyone is perfect, but there is a line that cannot be crossed in modern civilization, military or not, and I plan to uphold that line.
 

ResMonkey

Guest
Reaction score
4
Points
130
I wouldn't be so sure about that "doesn't fly civvie side". There's a lot of terrible shit that goes on in companies across the country that likewise gets swept under the rug.
This is changing so fast in my eyes with a huge generation of educated people coming into the workforce, who would rather step up then be stepped on. Companies are realizing this as well and are not as tolerant in my experience. Especially with sexual harassment. But yes, there is always some dick who's dad owns Microsoft that can get away with whatever. And to those people, keep your head up on the ice buddy...
 

ResMonkey

Guest
Reaction score
4
Points
130
I fully agree. It’s the elephant in the room and the nepotism etc that goes on is just as bad civvy side
I don't have any experience in the CAF yet so I am extremely biased I suppose, and obviously things are changing for the better, because they have too. I don't mean to paint a bad picture as I really to be in the CAF myself and be the change I want to see
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,963
Points
1,310
But civvies can't throw you in jail for being late to work unless, you know, you happen to work in a jail ;)
Yes, but a civvy company can fire you with cause for any number of reasons that we in the CAF give 2nd, 3rd, and 17th chances to fix.
a lot of the crap I have seen in my military career would see a meeting with HR at 10 followed by a security escort at 1430 at my previous civilian employer.
 

btrudy

Member
Reaction score
198
Points
610
Yes, but a civvy company can fire you with cause for any number of reasons that we in the CAF give 2nd, 3rd, and 17th chances to fix.
a lot of the crap I have seen in my military career would see a meeting with HR at 10 followed by a security escort at 1430 at my previous civilian employer.

We are indeed a lot less likely to fire people for minor infractions. Of course, given that we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars training everyone up before they're used for anything, I think that makes sense.

The problem being is that also extends to us being less likely to fire people for major infractions too.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,963
Points
1,310
We are indeed a lot less likely to fire people for minor infractions. Of course, given that we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars training everyone up before they're used for anything, I think that makes sense.

The problem being is that also extends to us being less likely to fire people for major infractions too.
Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,685
Points
1,090
Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.
Agreed. An expensive shitty leader can cost us a dozen expensive awesome followers.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,476
Points
1,110
Agreed. An expensive shitty leader can cost us a dozen expensive awesome followers.
And possibly future awesome leaders from that dozen.

And yes I have seen employees here escorted from the property never to return. Basically most are for inappropriate relationships with our "guests".
Never for being an incompetent boob though.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,444
Points
1,160
Agreed. An expensive shitty leader can cost us a dozen expensive awesome followers.

And there are various organizations who have done the math on that, e.g.,


Fact Check: The Cost of Poor Leadership​


Poor leadership can cost companies thousands to millions of dollars per year, depending on the size of the organization. Collectively in the United States alone, businesses are losing trillions of dollars per year as a result of voluntary turnover and inability to hire qualified talent due to poor brand reputation.

Wade Burgess, entrepreneur, Chief Revenue Officer at Rev.com, and former VP of Talent Solutions at LinkedIn, wrote a 2016 blog that broke down just how expensive this can be. He found that:

  • The cost of a bad reputation for a company with 10,000 employees could be as much as $7.6 million in additional wages. This is based on the average U.S. salary being $47,230 (according to BLS), assumed annual turnover of 16.4%, and a minimum 10% pay raise.
  • Employers who fail to invest in their reputation could be paying up to an additional $4,723 per employee hired.
  • Nearly half of U.S. professionals would entirely rule out taking a job with a company that exhibited the top three negative employer brand factors (1. Concerns about job security; 2. Dysfunctional teams; and 3. Poor leadership), no matter what pay raise they were offered.
  • Even a pay raise of 10% would only tempt 28% of employees to sign on the dotted line.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,968
Points
1,360
Running a research program is basically the only way to run a decent undergraduate program, as otherwise you're not going to attract anyone decent in their field.

Might as well be running a community college at that point.
RMC's issue is that it, like our entire Military writ large, lacks focus. Actual analysis would tell us that RMC could cut down the number of programs it has but also make those programs it does deliver, offer more value to the CAF.

Example:

The fact it produces a substantial portion of our Country's Naval Officers, yet offers no relevant degrees or programs that cover Naval Issues, is telling.

Meanwhile, I can go to the CCG College in Cape Breton and receive a four year degree in either Marine Navigation or Marine Engineering that is University Accredited and also meets Transport Canada and IMO/STCW certification requirements expected of a professional mariner.

My issue with this is that of the four pillars of RMC's ROTP program, the military training aspect of it is by far the weakest. Getting rid of everything but that program seems to me to be not at all in the CAF's best interests.

Frankly, if we expect that there's a requirement for an extended period of military specific training for officers.... just make BMOQ longer and more comprehensive.

I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible thing to move the delivery of that program to the RMC campus mind you, but at that point it should be a detachment of CFLRS.
Bingo! With a few changes, RMC could radically enhance the Military Pillar. RMC is like the rest of the CAF, the org chart briefs real well on a powerpoint slide.
 

btrudy

Member
Reaction score
198
Points
610
Doesn't matter if we have invested 40 Mil into developing a Senior Officer/NCM: the effects of their toxic leadership, especially if they're causing harm to their subordinates, costs us more in losing large numbers of middle and lower end employees due to a lack of confidence in their leaders.
I would rather see us eat the cost of a shitty leader early on than to bleed the middle dude to systemic issues caused by not ripping the band-aid off in the pre-OFP to DP1 arena.

Just to be clear, when I was talking about minor infractions, I meant stuff like "being late", not anything that actually contributes to a toxic workplace.

The problem as it stands is that we basically never fire anyone for creating a toxic workplace, unless they're also committing a crime while doing so.
 
Top