Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate...

[daftandbarmy]

Do what the USMC does by putting officers and senior NCO's into reserve units as advisors.Or place senior NCO's and officers into what we call ROTC units at civilian colleges.

We tried that during the 10/90 era (10% Reg F, 90% Reservists).

It might have worked well somewhere, but not anywhere that I saw

 

[MilEME09]

I’ve said for a number of years we over supervise. It starts at the soldier level where younger soldiers are not allowed to make mistakes and need to seek permission to wipe their.....noses. “Maximum supervision”  means micromanaging and it’s not needed.

Over supervise is an understatement, Just after I was given my leaf a more senior MCpl came over to me just after I was given a simple task of having some troops more tables and chairs from point A to B one room over, he tried to tell me I needed to stand there and watch the troops move the tables and chairs. Having me stand there was a waste of a body and of time, I promptly but politely told him I had no interest in his management style.

 

[Infanteer]

Well we will have to agree to disagree, though I do concede that some of the Log CWO, could not be justified.  But non command team CWO, actually lead the institution more than RSM's do, RSM's are busy with the day to day business of a tactical unit, Div or higher level CWO in non CT jobs truly lead the institution as they don't "own" the troops/leaders they are mentoring, and have the job of enforcing policy on behalf of a Comd, very much enabling the success of their Divs and the CA.

If we need CWOs to get in the weeds like that, than we are not training and preparing our MWOs properly.

Same goes for officers.  Often we say "we need somebody at "X" rank to be able to do this" when said rank is one or even two ranks too high.  If capability is cited as the rationale for "X" rank, then we need to look at how we are training and preparing officers one to two ranks below. 

 

[FJAG]

We tried that during the 10/90 era (10% Reg F, 90% Reservists).

It might have worked well somewhere, but not anywhere that I saw

I've always sat on the fence as to whether reg f people should occupy command or advisor positions in the reserves.

I had one tour as an Regular Support Staff Officer before I turned to the legal and reserve side of the world. In that job I probably received the best terms of reference from my reg f SO3 Ops (we were in districts in those days) then at any other time in my career.  "If there's any reservist in the unit who knows how to do the job, let him do it. If there's a reservist in the unit who doesn't know how to do the job but is willing to do it then teach him how and let him do it. If there's no reservist in the unit who knows how to do the job nor is willing to learn to do it then you do it."

Long story short, in some cases I was the commander but in most just a teacher/advisor. We got the job done. We did have a dilettante or two but nothing like what you guys on the west coast seem to have to deal with.

:cheers:

 

[Old EO Tech]

If we need CWOs to get in the weeds like that, than we are not training and preparing our MWOs properly.

Same goes for officers.  Often we say "we need somebody at "X" rank to be able to do this" when said rank is one or even two ranks too high.  If capability is cited as the rationale for "X" rank, then we need to look at how we are training and preparing officers one to two ranks below.

I don't "get into the weeds" at all.  I have other staff that do that part, at the Capt/MWO level.  What I do is is direct/advise people, including Senior Officers, that for instance, proper data input into DRMIS is critical as Comd's at all levels make key decisions based on that data.  That is just one example, but as a CWO I'm listened to right away, and my advice is taken seriously.  That can not be said about and MWO or Capt, they do not have the instant respect that a CWO has.

You maybe correct about rank inflation writ large, but no matter how you slice it, there seems to be a much larger appetite for having large numbers of Senior/GOFO officers, and the same yard stick is not applied to CWO's.  If a guy like me is not required to be a CWO, to advise a Col/LCol, who are also staff postions, then maybe they are over ranked as well....

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

That is just one example, but as a CWO I'm listened to right away, and my advice is taken seriously.  That can not be said about and MWO or Capt, they do not have the instant respect that a CWO has.

If an MWO with 25 years of experience is "not taken seriously right away" then we have a problem with the system, not with not having enough CWOs to be taken seriously.  As well, I'm not sure where you're getting the sense that CWOs seem to get instant respect for rank, let alone expertise.  That certainly hasn't been my experience.

You maybe correct about rank inflation writ large, but no matter how you slice it, there seems to be a much larger appetite for having large numbers of Senior/GOFO officers, and the same yard stick is not applied to CWO's.  If a guy like me is not required to be a CWO, to advise a Col/LCol, who are also staff postions, then maybe they are over ranked as well....

They most likely are.  We routinely overrank in the CAF, and it is an indicator of indiscipline in organizational management.  It has a deleterious effect on the system, as it stifles the development of the lower ranking positions and clutters up the information stream with additional points of friction.  Example.  Brigadier-General has two Majors to do task X for him.  The Majors do task X, which is demanding and really works them, and they interface with the Brigadier-General to assist him in executing his/her duties.  They develop their capabilities and they increase their experience by managing task X and through routine interaction with the Brigadier-General they work for.  Now, the system determines the Brigadier-General needs a COS.  So now he/she's got four Majors and a Lieutenant-Colonel in between.  The four Majors do the same work, but with additional tasks because work invariably expands to fill the time available ("fill out this spreadsheet!").  As well, instead of reporting to and working for a Brigadier-General, they prepare material and brief the COS.  The COS doesn't really do the work himself - why would he, as he has Majors that do that work - and the Majors just pass the work on to get briefed by their staff superior.  Learning and experience value degrades, as Majors are doing mundane work and Lieutenant-Colonels are reviewing stuff and having much of their work done for them.

 

[dapaterson]

You left out "Majors and Lieutenant Colonel complain that they are too busy, and, having recently been posted in. don't really know the background to the item, so important short sue items get punted to civilians."

 

[Old EO Tech]

If an MWO with 25 years of experience is "not taken seriously right away" then we have a problem with the system, not with not having enough CWOs to be taken seriously.  As well, I'm not sure where you're getting the sense that CWOs seem to get instant respect for rank, let alone expertise.  That certainly hasn't been my experience.

Well our experience differs considerably then, which is fine we can just agree to disagree on these points.

And as for your example with the Majors, its actually likely worst than that, the COS at a Div HQ is a Col, who has an A/COS LCol, then a few Majors working in the short hallway.  Not to mention all the Branch Heads are LCol, and feeding advice to the A/COS....another LCol...

But FYSA, for what it is worth, I had a recent conversation with DRCEME, who feels not only that the CWO should stay and are critical, but we should not be even working for G4 but for the COS himself, that way it's our 30 years plus experience being directly used to advise a Col.  Not that this is going to happen, but it's an indication that the issue is not dead at least.

Cheers

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not to mention all the Branch Heads are LCol, and feeding advice to the A/COS....another LCol...

The more experienced they are, and the more authority they are delegated, the less 'advice' they need and the smaller the HQs can be.

Hence the reason for the huge staff complements these days, I guess.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't "get into the weeds" at all.  I have other staff that do that part, at the Capt/MWO level.  What I do is is direct/advise people, including Senior Officers, that for instance, proper data input into DRMIS is critical as Comd's at all levels make key decisions based on that data.  That is just one example, but as a CWO I'm listened to right away, and my advice is taken seriously.  That can not be said about and MWO or Capt, they do not have the instant respect that a CWO has.

You maybe correct about rank inflation writ large, but no matter how you slice it, there seems to be a much larger appetite for having large numbers of Senior/GOFO officers, and the same yard stick is not applied to CWO's.  If a guy like me is not required to be a CWO, to advise a Col/LCol, who are also staff postions, then maybe they are over ranked as well....

Cheers

A CWO to advise a senior officer how to use DRMIS is overkill...in fact, a savvy MCpl is likely the best, most competent advisor for how to make MASIS/DRMIS/whatevernamechangeisnext more functional. 

High-level technical expertise in the Canadian system does not have the same command-associated aspect that say CWOs in the US Army do, where a CW3 or CW4 may in fact command a section of aircraft on an operational mission.  Do not mistake ‘advice’ with ‘command’...the system will place the greater accountability on the latter, not the former.  Advice is useful, if worthy, but it’s not the be all and end all.

The original posts related to the value that multinational command-experienced general officers add to US forces globally, not senior technical advisory staff.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Old EO Tech]

A CWO to advise a senior officer how to use DRMIS is overkill...in fact, a savvy MCpl is likely the best, most competent advisor for how to make MASIS/DRMIS/whatevernamechangeisnext more functional. 

High-level technical expertise in the Canadian system does not have the same command-associated aspect that say CWOs in the US Army do, where a CW3 or CW4 may in fact command a section of aircraft on an operational mission.  Do not mistake ‘advice’ with ‘command’...the system will place the greater accountability on the latter, not the former.  Advice is useful, if worthy, but it’s not the be all and end all.

The original posts related to the value that multinational command-experienced general officers add to US forces globally, not senior technical advisory staff.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I could write an essay here about what I actually do day to day, telling anyone how to push buttons in DRMIS is not one of them.  I have a LEMS DRMIS Help Desk at the Div for that :-/  It happens to be a Sgt not a MCpl...  You are misunderstanding my statement on DRMIS that I used as an example, I manage *strategic* LEMS/DRMIS Policy for the Div.

I fully understand the difference between Command and Advise roles.  I was never saying they were the same, I was replying to other comments that were critical of what CWO in Advisory roles do.  My original point was that CWO in Command Team roles do not have the same relative opportunities to go on international postings as do officers and that is a problem.  And of course that it seems to be OK to have vast amounts of Senior Officers in staff roles but that is not OK for CWO...  But we have beat this topic to death I believe. 

Cheers

 

[Old EO Tech]

A CWO to advise a senior officer how to use DRMIS is overkill...in fact, a savvy MCpl is likely the best, most competent advisor for how to make MASIS/DRMIS/whatevernamechangeisnext more functional. 

High-level technical expertise in the Canadian system does not have the same command-associated aspect that say CWOs in the US Army do, where a CW3 or CW4 may in fact command a section of aircraft on an operational mission.  Do not mistake ‘advice’ with ‘command’...the system will place the greater accountability on the latter, not the former.  Advice is useful, if worthy, but it’s not the be all and end all.

The original posts related to the value that multinational command-experienced general officers add to US forces globally, not senior technical advisory staff.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

And I do agree that while we are miles ahead of the Brits in our Command Team philosophy, we are miles behind the US and what the authorities they give Senior CWO/SM.  They would never think that the NCO Leadership Academies would not be commanded by a Senior Appointment SM...  Let alone the authorities granted to Formation and higher SM's, who can actually sign off on promotions etc
 

 

[Good2Golf]

And of course that it seems to be OK to have vast amounts of Senior Officers in staff roles but that is not OK for CWO...  But we have beat this topic to death I believe. 

Actually it hasn’t been beaten to death...it has actually rarely been discussed in the context of staffing and the demographics of rank within staff, be they officers or NCMs.  Senior officers are just the middle 1/3 band of officers, between junior officers and general/flag officers, so if we took the middle band of NCMs, we’d have Sgts/PO2s and WO/PO1s, and it’s not unreasonable to think of having such a groups primarily looking after duties intermediate between Pte/OS-Cpl/AB and MWO/CPO2-CWO/CPO1.

Regards
G2G

 

[Old EO Tech]

Actually it hasn’t been beaten to death...it has actually rarely been discussed in the context of staffing and the demographics of rank within staff, be they officers or NCMs.  Senior officers are just the middle 1/3 band of officers, between junior officers and general/flag officers, so if we took the middle band of NCMs, we’d have Sgts/PO2s and WO/PO1s, and it’s not unreasonable to think of having such a groups primarily looking after duties intermediate between Pte/OS-Cpl/AB and MWO/CPO2-CWO/CPO1.

Regards
G2G

Well at 3 Div HQ, I'm going to say maybe, we are 30% NCM's, many of the duties in the G1, G3, G8, JOC are done by Sgt/WO.  While the G4 is mostly MWO heavy due to the experience needed in Supply/Transport/Maint.  Could we replace more Capt/Maj jobs with Sgt/WO?  That certainly require some analysis.  But I can say for certain that some Capts are doing work that could easily be done by a Sgt/WO.  And then of course were do you position a CWO Advisor in all this?, assuming that at some point they make a return.  Myself and other remaining CWO in G4 work directly for the LCol, and work with the Majors, including a lot with the G34.  Of course I blame ourselves a lot in part as we as CSS Corps have never done any work to institutionalize these roles, so it's understandable that the CA doesn't understand either.

Cheers

 

[McG]

... I manage *strategic* LEMS/DRMIS Policy for the Div.

What does this mean? It kinda sounds to me like NDHQ work if by “manage” you mean you create & maintain “strategic policy” (we can debate what you think this means too).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well we will have to agree to disagree, though I do concede that some of the Log CWO, could not be justified.... 

Such as ? 

Well at 3 Div HQ, I'm going to say maybe, we are 30% NCM's, many of the duties in the G1, G3, G8, JOC are done by Sgt/WO.  While the G4 is mostly MWO heavy due to the experience needed in Supply/Transport/Maint.  Could we replace more Capt/Maj jobs with Sgt/WO?  That certainly require some analysis.  But I can say for certain that some Capts are doing work that could easily be done by a Sgt/WO.  And then of course were do you position a CWO Advisor in all this?, assuming that at some point they make a return.  Myself and other remaining CWO in G4 work directly for the LCol, and work with the Majors, including a lot with the G34.  Of course I blame ourselves a lot in part as we as CSS Corps have never done any work to institutionalize these roles, so it's understandable that the CA doesn't understand either.

Cheers

100% in agreement.  We are our own worst enemies at times in the CSS trades. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Well at 3 Div HQ, I'm going to say maybe, we are 30% NCM's, many of the duties in the G1, G3, G8, JOC are done by Sgt/WO.  While the G4 is mostly MWO heavy due to the experience needed in Supply/Transport/Maint.  Could we replace more Capt/Maj jobs with Sgt/WO?  That certainly require some analysis.  But I can say for certain that some Capts are doing work that could easily be done by a Sgt/WO.  And then of course were do you position a CWO Advisor in all this?, assuming that at some point they make a return.  Myself and other remaining CWO in G4 work directly for the LCol, and work with the Majors, including a lot with the G34.  Of course I blame ourselves a lot in part as we as CSS Corps have never done any work to institutionalize these roles, so it's understandable that the CA doesn't understand either.

Cheers

So what, for example, would a technical CWO advisor in a functional sub-set of the Div HQ be providing as advice to the G4 that would be more appropriately passed to the Div Comd directly, and that the Div SM is not providing?  I'm intrigued and would like to better understand the tear-line between technical specificity/expertise and generalized/institutional (even at the tactical/operational level) appreciation of issues.

For the record, I do believe the CAF should be pursuing significantly more exchange amongst allied forces at the NCM level, but a challenge will always be less standardization of known product amongst allied forces at the non-commissioned level.  An interesting point of discussion would be how technical expertise is/can be a double-edged sword in NCM exchange consideration, as I have heard anecdotally that forces are less willing to accept exchange NCMs for the very reason that the particular national armed service is highly dependent on its own specific way of doing things, and where there is not as great a degree of commonality of task-specific expertise between even like-minded militaries.

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

  You are misunderstanding my statement on DRMIS that I used as an example, I manage *strategic* LEMS/DRMIS Policy for the Div.

Divs don't do strategy, nor strategic policy.  Divs may manage local (tactical at best) policy interpretations / direction to their subordinate formations and units.

Strategic level LEMS is managed out of ADM(Mat); DRMIS is merely a supporting tool.

 

[Infanteer]

The CAF does not teach strategy very well, nor does it use the word properly.  Its akin to calling anything with a turret and some armour a tank.  Hew Strachan's article should be mandatory reading.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396330500248102

 

[Cloud Cover]

I've noticed that too. If one goes back to look at SSE and other similar documents, there is a lot of "strategic" but a misuse or lack of the word strategy (because there probably is none). They have different meanings....