I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 27,278
- Points
- 1,090
Post-Somalia culture change for the CAF was the introduction of the Degreed Officer Corps (recommendation #10 of the report to the PM on the Management and Leadership of the CAF from Feb 1997); there was no explicit direction that it should be delivered via ROTP-MilCol.
That said, Ramsey Withers and others saw that recommendation coming, and did their best to situate RMC as a preferred delivery method for the degreed officer corps.
That said, Ramsey Withers and others saw that recommendation coming, and did their best to situate RMC as a preferred delivery method for the degreed officer corps.
- Reaction score
- 9,834
- Points
- 1,360
And the Withers Report, like all others, has magically disappeared
- Reaction score
- 27,278
- Points
- 1,090
And the Withers Report, like all others, has magically disappeared
Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group
Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium 4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil)) 24 September 1998 Distribution List Officer Education and Training - Planning for the Future - Lieutenant-General Dallaire References: A. Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management...
- Reaction score
- 9,834
- Points
- 1,360
I take it back, it used to be available on the main page.Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group
Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium 4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil)) 24 September 1998 Distribution List Officer Education and Training - Planning for the Future - Lieutenant-General Dallaire References: A. Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management...www.rmc-cmr.ca
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
They have less than 20% of the force, but claim 1/3 of the top billets. Talent dilution is a real thing here. Plus.....RCN is way better at command than at leadership......
- Reaction score
- 9,834
- Points
- 1,360
It's because leadership, as it's taught in the Army and what is expected of an Officer in, let's say a Regiment, isn't really a thing in the RCN.
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want. No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,250
- Points
- 1,260
I've served in both worlds. Neither holds preeminence on leadership or the creation of leaders. And both could learn from each other.
WLSC
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 489
- Points
- 840
I agree with you, there's no colour in leadership. The basic skill set are the same, the environment differ. No, the navy wont have to take certain call as the army leader do however, no arny unit would have to fight a fire onboard a ship while still having to fight.
Different leadership challenge, same basic skill.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,846
- Points
- 1,210
An army officer has to convince their team to take that hill, the naval officer (if they are the ship's Captain) says to their sailors "you're coming with me no matter what", while the air force support team waves good-bye to the officer as the plane takes off. Different environments, different leadership styles.
- Reaction score
- 18,478
- Points
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 21,785
- Points
- 1,260
The exception to the rule, and an example perhaps of why the rule kind of sucks
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
Except the context of the original discussion was institutional leadership - vis CDS et al. I think that not all "styles" best prepare someone for the strategic roles that we ask people to assume....or that some chase to their detriment...and the institution's.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,846
- Points
- 1,210
Yea, I knew I’d be called out. Figures.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,250
- Points
- 1,260
Big Rick had his faults too. His obsession with the COMs and HQ bloat was bemoaned on here ad nauseam.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,250
- Points
- 1,260
Like Vance or Russell Williams ?
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
It seems to me that the CF's recent experiences suggest that none of our command "styles" produce a consistent stream of competent, ethical leaders.
Maybe the fault is, at least in some (large?) part, in the nature of the "charm school" (RMC/CMR); I doubt that university degrees, themselves, make people morally weak. But one might wonder if people with science/applied science degrees "fail," ethically, at the same rate as their brethren with degrees in e.g. strategic studies (Vance) and political science (Williams); do all those well publicized crude, but rarely criminal, undergraduate shenanigans for which the "gears" are justifiably infamous make them better adults? Does too much Machiavelli and Clausewitz (and not enough Terman) make one ethically suspect?
One of the recommendations of the Withers Report was to put more stress on the M in RMC. Maybe we have, since the 1970s, when the pressure to have a degreed officer corps began in earnest, put too much emphasis on formal education and not enough on the military ethos.
I served under a few admirals, at least two of whom were qualitatively better "leaders" than the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force officers who surrouned them. I lived through the Boyle/Labbé era when selected officers were "anointed" by a shadowy civil-military elite, while others were pushed aside, regardless of their superior talent and skill. That was, in my opinion, the command "style" that allowed e.g. Vance, Edmunson et al to thrive.
Maybe the fault is, at least in some (large?) part, in the nature of the "charm school" (RMC/CMR); I doubt that university degrees, themselves, make people morally weak. But one might wonder if people with science/applied science degrees "fail," ethically, at the same rate as their brethren with degrees in e.g. strategic studies (Vance) and political science (Williams); do all those well publicized crude, but rarely criminal, undergraduate shenanigans for which the "gears" are justifiably infamous make them better adults? Does too much Machiavelli and Clausewitz (and not enough Terman) make one ethically suspect?
One of the recommendations of the Withers Report was to put more stress on the M in RMC. Maybe we have, since the 1970s, when the pressure to have a degreed officer corps began in earnest, put too much emphasis on formal education and not enough on the military ethos.
I served under a few admirals, at least two of whom were qualitatively better "leaders" than the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force officers who surrouned them. I lived through the Boyle/Labbé era when selected officers were "anointed" by a shadowy civil-military elite, while others were pushed aside, regardless of their superior talent and skill. That was, in my opinion, the command "style" that allowed e.g. Vance, Edmunson et al to thrive.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 7,043
- Points
- 1,310
I think the problem stems from trying to use education and credentials as a substitute for character and ethical behaviour. You can require students read as much Nietzsche or Hippocrates as one needs to get a check in the box; has no bearing on if that person is a prick to work for or not. Education is not a panacea for the disease of ignorance; it helps, but its not the be all end all solution.
I was a high-school student in the early 2000s. RMC was always sold separately, and to separate groups of people, by the CFRC Staff as an Educational opportunity more than a military career. The unwashed masses of us who weren't stellar at the field of academia received the "cool Army" version of the brief, geared towards NCM professions, as we were expected not to be interested in educational opportunities.
I find it is reflective of a lot of what is wrong within our organization. Academia is very much a personal endeavor and success is weighted heavily on individual factors, choices, and abelites. We use this as the metric for people we want most to be leading team efforts; where the team's success requires everyone doing their very best and helping bring other's up when needed. It a very weird dichotomy to have in an organization that basically builds teams of varying sizes to play the world's toughest contact sport.
Once again, we create an environment where credentialism, and in some cases nepotism, trumps character and ability. It doesn't surprise me one bit.
I was in recruiting around that time. RMC a was really pushing the university experience and less the military experience. We did a joint presentation at a student fair with an RMC rep. I then requested never to have to do that ever again. They blantantly stated that the military stuff wasn’t a pillar they put a lot of priority on since they could get all of that after. And don’t get me started on varsity sports…
WLSC
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 489
- Points
- 840
There’s a lot of « senior leaders » in the forces that never really tried to understand Duty with honour or just don’t care. They do not see the positive impact on the daily operations. I often heard something like « L0/L1 pay lip service to it because it please the GC but it is not really for application » and other variations of that in the last 10 years. Those comment where mostly done from people from the Colleges of influence by them. When you come to believe that you are bigger than the institution you serve/command, it’s only trouble in the making.
Talib, Viêt-cong and all the like believes in their cause and they are successful. If we do not take the time to make sure our troupe believe and live in a professional institution, we are doom to see that « culture change » again and again.
Talib, Viêt-cong and all the like believes in their cause and they are successful. If we do not take the time to make sure our troupe believe and live in a professional institution, we are doom to see that « culture change » again and again.
Similar threads
- Article
