How to destroy young military officers

[Pusser]

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but officers DO lead both NCMs and NCOs, because they're part of the same group.  All NCOs are NCMs (although the converse is not true).

Now, to add my voice to those of others, the training and education of officers in leadership does not stop at BOTC.  It is an ongoing and neverending process for which the entire organization bears responsibility.  I learned more from my petty officers (both good and bad examples) than I ever did from any course.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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").

You lead your whole Troop.  Most of the time your orders will indeed flow through your chain of command, but you must think of the whole Troop.

I don't see my NCOs as foremen, as I am not a factory manager.  You won't always be the lead vehicle (and you generally shouldn't be), but as a Troop Leader you are out with the Troop doing the task.  Your radio orders are heard by pretty much everyone (less the drivers usually).  Your presence and leadership can inspire the whole Troop or make them hate coming to work.  The MCpls, Sgts and WO in your Troop can certainly make a huge difference here, but my point is that you lead your whole Troop and not just your NCOs.

All that being said, you aren't the one going around giving direction/supervision to each and every soldier.  The NCOs in your Troop will handle 99% of that.  When you do see something wrong you take corrective measures through your NCOs (unless it is a safety thing where you need to act right then and there).

 

[bdave]

  You won't always be the lead vehicle (and you generally shouldn't be), but as a Troop Leader you are out with the Troop doing the task. 

Why is this?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Why is this?

Are you asking why are you not the lead vehicle or why you should be out doing the task?

Assuming that you are asking why you would not be the lead vehicle, as the Troop Leader you are in command of the whole Troop and need to be thinking widely.  If you are the lead vehicle in column or on a route recce, you will be focused in the details of navigation.  As a tank troop leader, your usual place in column is second in the order of march, with the Bravo callsign leading.  You still navigate and are up front (but in front), but the Sgt can focus on nav while you look after radio traffic from higher and keep your mind on the whole troop battle space.  It also reduces the chance that the troop leader is the first casualty.  Having said that, in tank tactics the troop leader's fire team can and often does take the lead bound.  There might even be times when you are the first vehicle through a danger area (perhaps the troop has to take a risk to satisfy the mission).  With Troop WO in the other fire team if you are in the lead fire team and become a casualty he can take over.

As an OC I am not the lead vehicle, but I am usually tucked in just behind the lead troop while the BC has the rear bound (with tanks - in recce he is in the CP). 

My point in that as a combat arms officer in a regiment you need to lead from the front while avoiding micro-managing your troops.  You don't sit back in a CP, but neither are you individually telling each Trooper what to do.  You need to show that you are not afraid of work on the hangar floor while avoiding getting in the MCpl's way.  Don't stress too much, though, as your WO will help you with all this if you let him.

 

[bdave]

Yes, it was concerning lead vehicle. I should have been more clear.

Thanks.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes, it was concerning lead vehicle. I should have been more clear.

Thanks.

One thing you may learn is the ABCs of military correspondence:

A - Accuracy;
B - Brevity - be breif; and
C - Clarity - be clear

Sadly, some have  missed this lesson entirely, while some slept through other parts.

 

[bdave]

One thing you may learn is the ABCs of military correspondence:

A - Accuracy;
B - Brevity - be breif; and
C - Clarity - be clear

Sadly, some have  missed this lesson entirely, while some slept through other parts.

Noted.

 

[Redeye]

This has been a fascinating thread, and has given me several good ways of articulating what little I can claim to know to others I might now find myself in a position of trying to give a little bit of mentoring to.  I was fortunate being in the reserve that even an as officer cadet I was thrown almost directly into the breech without any formal training, with a number of excellent senior NCOs to guide me.

One thing that sticks with me actually was something Journeyman told me when he was my OC years ago - well - more something he told all the officers - "you must be seen to be seen to be leading".  That said, I was generally pulled back by NCOs if I ever got too stuck in to a task where I was not needed, and that was important to start learning the role I was supposed to be playing.  I found this worked well, because when I leveraged the NCO's skills instead of trying to direct everything I generally got far better results, and that seems to be the experience of other posters, and generally of any sort of leadership, including what I see in my civilian work experience.

I've now come to a new unit as a platoon commander, and not knowing anyone am now realizing why it's so important to leverage NCO's knowledge of the troops and the unit - to make sure that we're using the skills of everyone as much as possible.  I've always taken that Napoleonic view as well about the field marshal's baton in every rucksack and I believe it's important to harness the skills in all of them, especially the leadership potential.  I'm trying to spot who future section commanders, and future officers are where I can just by trying to watch interactions, and developing the same sort of "prospecting" in them is important too.

Definitely have to remember the "drain the swamp" analogy, that's good....

 

[Arctic Acorn]

Definitely have to remember the "drain the swamp" analogy, that's good....

Take it...I stole it, so why not you.  :nod:

 

[OldSolduer]

One thing we tend to do in the CF is "drain the lake". What I mean is that when a member (or a few members) stray outside their "arcs of fire" is we set blanket rules for the majority who do not stray.
Instead of disciplining members who stray, we set restrictive measures that hamper the rest of us.

 

[Good2Golf]

One thing we tend to do in the CF is "drain the lake". What I mean is that when a member (or a few members) stray outside their "arcs of fire" is we set blanket rules for the majority who do not stray.
Instead of disciplining members who stray, we set restrictive measures that hamper the rest of us.

Jim, sadly very true, particularly in the 90's (a.k.a. Decade of Darkness) -- punish the masses for the faults of a few.  It also reminds me of the desire by many officers to "Lead by managing" vice "Manage through leadership."

bdave, the "Command Team" relationship (between officer and NCO) is, at its best, a deep and respectful, mutual understanding between the Commander (officer at whichever level of command we are discussing, Unit, Company, Platoon, Section, etc...) and the Senior NCO (for that same tactical level) as to what the mission from higher entails, and the approach that will be undertaken by the formation towards the mission's accomplishment.  The officer should concentrate on the context of the mission and how it fits within the higher echelon's scheme of manoeuvre while the NCO will concentrate on the details of guidance and supervision that the soldiers require to ensure the actual execution of the mission can be successfully achieved.  The officer and NCO should also understand aspects of each others' responsibilities, but experience will guide them in not interfering with each other's primary responsibilities.  In the end, failure rests on the shoulders of the officer, but that does not excuse them from seeking the advice and counsel of their NCO.

Regards
G2G   

 

[Redeye]

In the end, failure rests on the shoulders of the officer, but that does not excuse them from seeking the advice and counsel of their NCO.

A key lesson is to seek that advice and counsel, because it is probably the best insurance against failure the young officer can obtain, that was a key thing I've learned.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

A key lesson is to seek that advice and counsel, because it is probably the best insurance against failure the young officer can obtain, that was a key thing I've learned.

An excellent point, and it brings me to a point that perhaps relates back to the thread title.  Junior officers should not be afraid of failure.  There are limits, of course, but more senior officers should accept that junior officers will make mistakes or do things differently than they would have.  If we want to encourage mission command and the use of initiative, we need to let go sometimes and let the junior officers do their thing.  It might not be the way that we would have done it (regarding a task/mission), but I would rather have four subalterns who have initiative and drive but make the odd mistake than four subalterns who are afraid of making decisions and seek perfection.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

T2B endorses an excellent point, and adds one that truly ought to be the rule.

Even as Captain, with an XO and Heads of Department in every field, I must confess that I rarely made a final decision without sneaking behind these officers' back a "reality check" with the Coxn, CERA, Buffer or other senior CPO as appropriate. It has saved us all (me especially) from some pretty stupid calls on more than a few occasions.

 

[Redeye]

Agreed, I would get paralyzed by trying to perfect something and wind up screwing up worse than just making a decision and getting on with the show.  At the Infantry School when I was an OCdt I failed a patrol because I spent too much time trying to make the perfect plan, then too much time trying to sneak through the woods.  The DS told me "next time be bold, and be bold early" - wise words.  An adequate decision made in time is better than the perfect decision too late.

I think we learn by making some mistakes, or at least talking through what could be done better, and the AAR process is very good at making the most of these sorts of situations WRT to training, as are tactical decision games my current CO is a fan of - in a limited time, come up with a plan for a tactical problem, and discuss - they can teach a lot quickly.

An excellent point, and it brings me to a point that perhaps relates back to the thread title.  Junior officers should not be afraid of failure.  There are limits, of course, but more senior officers should accept that junior officers will make mistakes or do things differently than they would have.  If we want to encourage mission command and the use of initiative, we need to let go sometimes and let the junior officers do their thing.  It might not be the way that we would have done it (regarding a task/mission), but I would rather have four subalterns who have initiative and drive but make the odd mistake than four subalterns who are afraid of making decisions and seek perfection.

 

[bdave]

This stuff is gold  ;D

 

[Arctic Acorn]

An adequate decision made in time is better than the perfect decision too late.

Many versions of  that one. Who was it that said, "An acceptable plan executed with speed and agression right now is better than a perfect plan executed too late."?

On mistakes, a former boss I used to work for used to say, "Make mistakes. There's lots of new and interesting mistakes to be made out there, and every one is a learning opportunity...just don't let me catch you making the same one twice!"

He was a pretty eccentric cat, and because of this he had a lot of detractors, but I really looked up to the guy.

 

[Pusser]

One of the more famous PER quotes:

"This man never makes the same mistake twice, but all of them once."

My usual comment to the folks that dither is, "a poor plan well-executed is better than the best plan, poorly executed."

 

[ArmyRick]

It drives me mental when people go into the endless loop of looking for a "perfect" answer or solution.

As another good officer I worked with recently said "Lets go for the 80% solution".

There rarely is a perfect plan or answer to any problem and the sooner military leaders embrace that, the sooner they will succeed. Look at some of the battles fought in the falklands war, there were commanders making bold and what we might call reckless decisions. Yes they caused casualties but in the end, they got the missions done and in an aggressive manner.

 

[aesop081]

As another good officer I worked with recently said "Lets go for the 80% solution".

As a TACNAV once said to me : Perfect is the enemy of good enough.