How to destroy young military officers

[bdave]

I'll give this a shot bdave:

NCOs are concerned with the 5 Ds - Dress, Deportment, Drill, Duties and Discipline. The only time an officer should be involved with discipline is when it comes to charging a soldier under the National Defence Act.
While officers commanding troops are responsible for those troops, the NCOs under his command are responsible for the troops assigned to them.
Officers, IMO should stay away from the 5 Ds . My two cents.

So then how does an officer lead exactly, other than making decisions/giving orders in the field?

That was a good post, gun runner, and is actually what I thought an officer was supposed to do: lead by example. As in, doing it yourself and making sure everyone does it as well.

 

[Arctic Acorn]

I've always found that the best officers lead largely by working through their NCOs and more junior officers. It's like the saying, 'when you're up to your ass in alligators its hard to remember your mission is to drain the swamp...'

By allowing the NCOs to wrestle those alligators for you, it allows you to plan ahead and keep an eye out for unexpected changes to the situation, and ensure the task is being done within your bosses intent. It requires a lot of coordination, communications, and most importanty, trust between you and your NCOs.

In other arenas, you'll have your own reptiles to contend with...everybody gets to wrassle!

 

[OldSolduer]

It sort of goes like this. There are 17 steps of battle procedure (or is it 15 now??)
Anyways, officer receives orders from his superior. Officer translates orders, plans, issues his own orders to his subordinates. Subordinates are given tasks to perform. As an example, an Infantry Pl Comd may be tasked with conducting a fighting patrol. One of the tasks is route planning, which he may delegate to an NCO. Another task may be to ensure that the platoon is rehearsed on certain actions prior to orders, and that is the job of the Platoon Warrant Officer - Second in Command.
No matter what is delegated, the officer tasked is still responsible for the conduct of the mission, whether it succeeds or fails. One of the strengths of the Canadian Army is the officer-NCO relationship. Good officers listen to their NCOs, whether it be command of a Brigade Group or a Platoon Commander and all in between. Good officers may not always take the advice offered, but they listen and consider the NCO point of view.

 

[OldSolduer]

I've always found that the best officers lead largely by working through their NCOs and more junior officers. It's like the saying, 'when you're up to your *** in alligators its hard to remember your mission is to drain the swamp...'

By allowing the NCOs to wrestle those alligators for you, it allows you to plan ahead and keep an eye out for unexpected changes to the situation, and ensure the task is being done within your bosses intent. It requires a lot of coordination, communications, and most importanty, trust between you and your NCOs.

In other arenas, you'll have your own reptiles to contend with...everybody gets to wrassle!

You hit this nail hard! Well said!

 

[Arctic Acorn]

High praise, Jim. Thanks.

I've fortunately seen this issue from both sides. As a Senior NCO who spent a couple of years as a Pl WO on the Class A side of things, I was always of the opinion that if my Pl Comd had to stray into the 5Ds that was on me. I have to own those, and ensure the Sect Comds felt the same way. If he wanted to micromanage against my advice there wasn't much I could do about it, but if he found anything wrong there certainly was...  >

Since I was tempted to the dark side last year, it's been a bit of a process turning off that muscle memory (my Pl WO is very understanding, and fortunately a friend). Its much better now though...you can hardly see the lobotomy scars!

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Can you outline them?

Lots of good posts since you asked, but I will add my own observations!

In general, NCOs practice a more "hands-on" method of leadership than officers.  That doesn't mean that officers are remote from the men, but simply that the officer in a given element should be allowing his NCOs to be the main interface with soldiers.  The officer needs to know his men and will certainly speak with them, but his orders and direction should flow through his NCOs.

An officer shouldn't be yelling at troops (except to be heard over noise in a battle etc) or sorting them out for errors.  That is the domain of the NCO.  I'm not saying that NCOs go around yelling at people, but I haven't raised my voice at a soldier in twenty years (except to heard in the turret etc).  I may well speak directly to a problem soldier as part of admin or disciplinary action, but rest assured that the encounter was put in motion by the SSM and this is not the first chat that the soldier has had.

Don't take from this that an officer sits back.  Combat arms officers must lead from the front and by example.  Lieutenants, Majors and Lieutenant-Colonels must be present at the face of battle, if only to share the risks and therefore encourage their men (and some Captains, although I rely on them to run the CP and keep the show in order).  There is a time and a place for officers to place themselves at the decisive point.  It is a judgement call between getting caught in the weeds and staying in touch with the battle.  Officers aren't simply planners or managers of violence.  They must lead their soldiers to do and suffer things that they would otherwise not be inclined to do.  Canadian officers get to do so with the benefit of a professional NCO corps. 

 

[Blackadder1916]

In a short thread from 2004 that was titled "Officer/NCM differences", there was, surprisingly, only one post that was of any worth.  The last paragraph of that post is particularly applicable to the current discussion.

It‘s one of those issues that‘s difficult to explain to someone that hasn‘t experienced it. And, unfortunately, the Hollywood stereotypres don‘t help one bit.

Consider this brief comparison (it doesn‘t cover every possibility):

You can be an 18 year old private soldier responsible for yourself and your own weapon, expected to be where you‘ve been told to be at the directed tinmings. Most activities will be surpervised by your Section Commander or 2IC and you will seldom be given tasks on your own until you have had an opportunity to prove you can be given such tasks. Your future will be many years of service in the battalion as you increase in rank and experience, but you will always be commanded by the officers of the battalion.

Or you might be a 22 year old (after 4 year university) platoon commander. You will be responsible for the training, welfare and activities of 30 (+/-) soldiers. Some of these soldiers will have infantry training and leadership experience that outweigh your own significantly, but they and you understand that the decisions in the platoon are yours and that you will be held responsible for them. Your future will be alternating tours of duty in and out of the battalion; tours away from the Regiment may be instructional, staff or other types of employment. Tours returning to the battalion will see you in increasing apppintments of responsibility and command over larger numbers of troops.

Another view from my notes:

The young officer brings to the table vigour, freshness, newness, an understanding of the latest interpretation of tactics and leadership as imposed by his/her training, and, ultimately, the vested authority and responsibility which places him/her in charge reinforced by an aggressive need to assert authority because that is what their training experience has expected of them. The Senior NCO brings years of training, experience, knowledge (especially of the unit, resources and soldiers) and, hopefully, maturity and unlimited patience with each new junior officer. The challenge for both is understanding how to balance these contributions for greater effect, the sum is much greater than the whole when both work together, and much less when they don't.

Mike

 

[OldSolduer]

That describes the officer/NCO relationship very well.

 

[Haggis]

The officer gives the direction and allots the time and resources for a job.  This may include either actual resources or the authority to gather those resources from elsewhere

The NCO gets the job done.

 

[bdave]

Awesome, thanks.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Bdave, you asked what the similarities in our young officer's training and NCO's training are.

Here is my take on it.

The most unfortunate similarity is that the basic leadership curriculum for officer cadets is only a slightly more demanding version of the junior leadership course given to Corporals to turn them in Master-Corporal/Sergeants. They are given tasks to plan and carry out with a group of their peers where they act like a section/platoon leader.

This is fine and they learn exactly what they should expect their own platoon leaders to do. But the training sort of stops there and in my mind, should not. They should then be taken to the next step and told: now that you know this - you should forget about it because you have leaders to do all this for you in the field, called NCO's, and they will know how to do this a hundred times better than you. We will now teach you "How to Be a Leader of NCO's", because as an officer, they are the ones you need to impress and lead properly - then stand out of the way and let them do their magic while caring for the welfare of everyone under your charge.

And that is it: The job of an officer is to lead his NCO's and you do not lead them the way you lead the NCM's. A young officer's job is to lead and impress his NCO by example and learn all he/she can from him/her. The officer that impresses his NCO by always being turned out properly, setting high standards for himself, making the NCO's job as easy as possible, is always willing to take good advice of his NCO, standing back from the tasks being performed so as to be able to think alternate plans, taking things in stride, is present and always visible at the most demanding moments of any task or action, such officer will gain the confidence of his charges and they will look out for him and protect him from the consequences of the mistakes he will certainly make as a JO from time to time. 

 

[Wookilar]

The most unfortunate similarity is that the basic leadership curriculum for officer cadets is only a slightly more demanding version of the junior leadership course given to Corporals to turn them in Master-Corporal/Sergeants. 

I have to disagree with this part (however I certainly agree with the rest).
Calling any part of what is now called BMOQ "slightly more demanding" than a JLC, particular Mod 6, is a bit of an overstatement. The training has improved over the last 5 years (or so I am lead to believe), it no way compares to JLC, no matter how close the lesson plans are for the individual classes.

Common Army Phase, now, there is a different story...or should I say, it should be a different story. I did CAP two years ago and actually approached my course staff about individuals on my course. My concern was so great that I spoke with the OC about it (whether it is/was appropriate for a candidate to do this while on a course is another debate). The fact that every one  I spoke with listened to my concerns was a bit disconcerting in itself. I was expecting to be treated, well.... like a candidate  . In the 2 CAP courses that went through at the same time, there were no failures due to PO checks (a couple medicals). None.

Now, I may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but there were certainly people on my course that were either not ready for that level of mental/physical training, or it was not the right job for them. I know for a fact that more than a few of the individuals I was concerned about have since had repeated difficulty in further Phase training. I know 4 have been released. Their weaknesses were blatantly obvious for all to see, but they passed, and struggled, for 2 more years, in the end accomplishing nothing.

I do not know where the pressure is from. As someone on the ground floor I certainly do not have all the information.

But as far as officer training being more challenging.....yes, it should be....but I do not think that it really is at the very important early stages.

Wook

 

[bdave]

This is fine and they learn exactly what they should expect their own platoon leaders to do. But the training sort of stops there and in my mind, should not. They should then be taken to the next step and told: now that you know this - you should forget about it because you have leaders to do all this for you in the field, called NCO's, and they will know how to do this a hundred times better than you. We will now teach you "How to Be a Leader of NCO's", because as an officer, they are the ones you need to impress and lead properly - then stand out of the way and let them do their magic while caring for the welfare of everyone under your charge.

And that is it: The job of an officer is to lead his NCO's and you do not lead them the way you lead the NCM's. A young officer's job is to lead and impress his NCO by example and learn all he/she can from him/her. The officer that impresses his NCO by always being turned out properly, setting high standards for himself, making the NCO's job as easy as possible, is always willing to take good advice of his NCO, standing back from the tasks being performed so as to be able to think alternate plans, taking things in stride, is present and always visible at the most demanding moments of any task or action, such officer will gain the confidence of his charges and they will look out for him and protect him from the consequences of the mistakes he will certainly make as a JO from time to time.

It is beginning to make more sense now. I always figured you had to lead NCOs AND NCMs.
Awesome stuff, guys.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Wookilar, please don't get me wrong: I am not talking about the complete BMOQ, only the actual leadership lessons and practical exercise phase. The overall BMOQ is quite demanding on the young officer cadets, and rightly so (especially after the great dip in standards of the "decade of darkness"  -My own opinion here).

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

It is beginning to make more sense now. I always figured you had to lead NCOs AND NCMs.
Awesome stuff, guys.

Careful.  You lead both.

 

[bdave]

Careful.  You lead both.

Now I'm just confused. Am I not supposed to use chain of command? Give orders to NCOs who pass them on to the NCMs?
Unless giving a direct order to an NCM ("I need you to do this/go there").

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Don't be. But also do not mix apples and oranges: Chain of command and the leadership by junior officers, while intertwined are not the same concept.

The posts above are correct: Officers lead both NCO's and NCM's. This leadership of the NCM's, however, is generally (and unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise) carried out through the NCO's. They are your "foremen" that get the job done according to your directives and leadership so that you are free to concentrate on thinking the situation through and helping the achievement of the objective, while taking care of your people's welfare (earlier I called them your charge).

If you re-read the last paragraph of my post above, you will see that it is ALL of your people that I am talking about: They all see you and your interaction with your NCO's and they respect your leadership over them IF they see you leading the NCO's properly and caring for the welfare of ALL of them.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .

The most unfortunate similarity is that the basic leadership curriculum for officer cadets is only a slightly more demanding version of the junior leadership course given to Corporals to turn them in Master-Corporal/Sergeants. They are given tasks to plan and carry out with a group of their peers where they act like a section/platoon leader.

This is fine and they learn exactly what they should expect their own platoon leaders to do. But the training sort of stops there and in my mind, should not. They should then be taken to the next step and told: now that you know this - you should forget about it because you have leaders to do all this for you in the field, called NCO's, and they will know how to do this a hundred times better than you. We will now teach you "How to Be a Leader of NCO's", because as an officer, they are the ones you need to impress and lead properly - then stand out of the way and let them do their magic while caring for the welfare of everyone under your charge.

. . .

I would also disagree with you on this point.  My experience with "leadership" training goes back a few more decades than Wookilar's and included being a student on both JLC and BOTC as well as being staff on JLC.  Yes, there were great similarities in the content of the leadership POs (including the small party tasks), but why shouldn't it be so - leadership is leadership regardless of the level at which it is practised.  In most cases, (whether on an NCO's first leadership course or an officer's basic course) it is the first time that an individual is exposed to a theoretical or practical study of the principles of leadership.  And in my dimming memory, there was much more discussion (both directed and spontaneous) on BOTC of the theory and application, especially as regards to dealing with Snr NCOs.  Even the interaction with the non-commissioned DS on BOTC becomes the first practical exposure to the junior officer/Snr NCO dynamic.

However, "learning to be a leader" doesn't stop with the formal training.  I can't speak for the experience of naval officers; I've never served in that element and thus have no experience with the traditional relationships of newly joined officers and petty officers.  In the army, however, it is that first posting as a subaltern in which he probably learns (and is expected to learn) his greatest lessons in leadership.  There are no formal "POs" for this schooling, its instructors are the other officers in the unit (whether they realize it or not) and the Snr NCOs and WOs that the young officer encounters.  That is where he attends the class called "How to Be a Leader of NCO's".

 

[Arctic Acorn]

You are responsible for and lead both NCOs and NCMs. The nuance is that you have to work through your NCOs as best you can, and you have to trust them to do the right thing. They translate your intent and end-state into tasks which are then completed. They lead their sections, you lead everyone through the NCOs. It's still on your shoulders. Pragmatically, it's a lot easier to work with a few folks with the experience and their knowledge of their sections, then to do it all yourself. Otherwise, there's no one to provide overall supervision, look ahead, plan, and all that other good stuff.

Anyone else miss the old green uniforms? At the very least, concepts like this could be summed up pretty neatly with the whole, 'Officers wear their rank on their shoulders because they bear the responsibility for the actions of their solders; NCMs wear their rank on thier sleeves bacause they're the muscle that accomplish tasks...' thing. 

 

[Arctic Acorn]

Blackadder: Extremely well said, and highlights why mentorship is so important.

I think sometimes people forget that military courses are designed to prepare you "for the first day on the job", be it as a vechicle tech, Int Op, infantry platoon commander, what have you. There are still whole universes of skills and lessons to develop in those positions after your name goes up on the door.