Pusser said:
You'll have to excuse me if I take that a little personally. You don't know me. You have never met me. You have no idea how much time I have devoted over the years to streamlining processes and cutting out unnecessary BS. I have locked horns with many on these issues. Many times I've been successful, other times not so much. The problem is intransigence at all levels that want immediate change in other folks' processes, but are unwilling to change their own approach or devote the resources necessary to make positive change. Couple that with a fundamental lack of understanding of what is actually required to make the changes desired and we all get frustrated.the CDS himself chairs the CF Decorations Advisory Committee, I would think that the commanders along the way would want to ensure that everything going there is well presented. Sure, things seemed to go quicker 60 years ago, but people also seemed to write better then.
Pusser,
I am not at all surprised that you took this personally - I would have taken all of this the same way myself. Moreover, I made it personal, and somewhat deliberately, and evidentally to some effect. Having said that, you (specifically) are not the windmill at which I tilt. Rather, it is the entire idea of staff officers who know better than commanders that is driving me here. I, like you (albeit almost definitely in entirely different domains and likely in differing degrees / scale) have commanded at a few levels. As such, I jealously guard the prerogatives of command, which are codified in the NDA and used to be absolute. Sadly, they no longer are. We have allowed commanders at every level to be neutered by risk adverse and process centered functionaries, to the overall detriment of the soldier / sailor etc. That is what I can no longer abide.
If I as a hypothetical commander, nominate someone for an award, you, as a putative staff officer are obliged to find the way to make that happen, rather than explain the reasons why it should not. The onus does not lie with the commander who was chosen by the leadership of the service in a highly stringent process to make hard decisions to actually explain himself. Rather the onus lies with you who was posted to a staff position for multiple and competing reasons (the least of which is likely to be career potential development) to manifest my intent.
I do not mean all of that in an arrogant sense at all. It is simply about roles. Commanders decide. Staff enable. Being closer to the Clock Tower does not confer any special powers or intellectual capacity upon a staff officer. He or she is still the same stellar performer / average plug / admin nightmare that he/she was in Edmonton or Esquimalt.
So, processes (streamlined or otherwise) are not the answer. As always, it is the output that matters, measured in its utility to a) achieving the mission, and b) serving the member. Those who fail to see the difference are less than useful. Sadly, many of them end up manning the process ramparts for the remnants of their careers, carefully scanning the horizons for any threats to their "processes".
How about we give commanders at all levels back their nuts and fire the those who screw it up (followed by beheading of those who chose the commander in the first place). This will allow us to pull down the Guild Houses and lift the shroud of "process" that has driven us to multiple levels of overborne HQs.
When you start hacking and slashing away at the support elements, don't be surprised if the level of support drops a little.
Do not confuse support and headquarters. They are not necessarily the same thing.
