• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Rebuild Basic Officer training: {SPLIT from:] Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,154
Points
1,110
There were multiple academics providing input into the 1997 report.

I have heard that Jack English later recanted and sent a letter to MND objecting that his report was used to justify the degreed officer corps. There's apparently a faxed copy of it that some staff officer scrawled on "Frame this!"
I think I know that staff officer. :giggle:
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
6,906
Points
1,360
There were multiple academics providing input into the 1997 report.

I have heard that Jack English later recanted and sent a letter to MND objecting that his report was used to justify the degreed officer corps. There's apparently a faxed copy of it that some staff officer scrawled on "Frame this!"
He did, but David Burcason, also of 1997 Degreed Officer Corps Report fame, is still a proponent of the “degree is the gold standard” and also still on the RMC Board of Governors.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,333
Points
1,260
*I don't think one needs to be an officer to fly a plane or helicopter and especially a Drone, I'd have flying WO's like the US Army.
I'll respectfully disagree on that part in yellow, specifically the part on "especially an X".

Where we're at right now for RPAS is like in WWI. The derision that some traditional pilots have for RPAS is like the feeling from horse-bound cavalry officers to the idea of the tank.

The way things are going, RPAS/UAS will replace traditional aircraft. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but I'm willing to bet that in 25 years, the idea of a "pilot" will be as different to now as what the Navy moniker of "pilot" (the nickname for the Navigating Officer, or the term for a harbour guide) is to the air variety.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,619
Points
1,110
I'll respectfully disagree on that part in yellow, specifically the part on "especially an X".

Where we're at right now for RPAS is like in WWI. The derision that some traditional pilots have for RPAS is like the feeling from horse-bound cavalry officers to the idea of the tank.

The way things are going, RPAS/UAS will replace traditional aircraft. Maybe not in the next 10 years, but I'm willing to bet that in 25 years, the idea of a "pilot" will be as different to now as what the Navy moniker of "pilot" (the nickname for the Navigating Officer, or the term for a harbour guide) is to the air variety.
The especially part is because its not fully invested yet in the CAF -- thus should be easier transition to a non O- flying rank

I'm not sure who in the days of old equated a plane to a horse bearing a knight - but it really Is crazy that the AirForces across the world have managed to continue the charade that it requires a commission to fly a plane.
I'd have equated it to a horse in the Calvary - and said - you can have a Troop Commander that is an Lt and a Squadron Commander as a Capt.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,333
Points
1,260
The especially part is because its not fully invested yet in the CAF -- thus should be easier transition to a non O- flying rank

I'm not sure who in the days of old equated a plane to a horse bearing a knight - but it really Is crazy that the AirForces across the world have managed to continue the charade that it requires a commission to fly a plane.
I'd have equated it to a horse in the Calvary - and said - you can have a Troop Commander that is an Lt and a Squadron Commander as a Capt.
No disagreement there.

The US Army currently has E-6s flying MQ-1C Gray Eagles, which aren't really that different than MQ-9s. They deploy their crews rather than keep them in CONUS, but that's more of a doctrine, not tech, decision.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,189
Points
1,160
A relevant report from RAND for interest.

It's from the US, and 2013 vintage, but somewhat interesting nonetheless. I liked the focus on making changes based on data as opposed to, you know, what we tend to do sometimes:

Adapting the Army’s Training and Leader Development Programs for Future Challenges

The Army’s operational requirements have expanded since the start of the 21st century. Its forces must be prepared to react to a wide range of potential missions, from peacekeeping to high-intensity conflict. At the same time, the Army must keep additional forces prepared while a significant proportion of its structure is deployed and operationally engaged. This new environment has created a need for major change in the Army’s programs for training units and developing leaders. In 2010 RAND completed research designed to support Army efforts in these areas by identifying directions that the Army can follow to achieve the needed changes, and make those changes at a time when reduced budgets are likely. This report presents results of that research; it should interest those involved in designing Army training and leader development strategies and those involved in the process of providing resources for these strategies.

 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,619
Points
1,110
A relevant report from RAND for interest.

It's from the US, and 2013 vintage, but somewhat interesting nonetheless. I liked the focus on making changes based on data as opposed to, you know, what we tend to do sometimes:

Adapting the Army’s Training and Leader Development Programs for Future Challenges

The Army’s operational requirements have expanded since the start of the 21st century. Its forces must be prepared to react to a wide range of potential missions, from peacekeeping to high-intensity conflict. At the same time, the Army must keep additional forces prepared while a significant proportion of its structure is deployed and operationally engaged. This new environment has created a need for major change in the Army’s programs for training units and developing leaders. In 2010 RAND completed research designed to support Army efforts in these areas by identifying directions that the Army can follow to achieve the needed changes, and make those changes at a time when reduced budgets are likely. This report presents results of that research; it should interest those involved in designing Army training and leader development strategies and those involved in the process of providing resources for these strategies.


US Army is not any better - but they do spend money on reports, and then don't follow them ;)

The US Army abolished the AWG (Asymetrical Warfare Group) - why because a lot of Commanders where terrible at dealing with Asymmetrical threats - and it was easier to shutter the entity - than actual change the way the Army thinks -- because apparently the Army wants to believe any future Peer on Peer, or Near Peer Engagement will consist of WWI type warfare and have no asymmetrical threats - while setting the Army up for Multi Domain Operations (sounds pretty Asymetrical to me...)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,619
Points
1,110
Exactly. Having an "open door policy" does nothing, especially if you create an environment where people walk past said door on their way to bitch in the smoke pit instead.
Open Door Policies rarely work -- they require people to approach the Senior Leader(s) with issues, as opposed to the Senior Leaders actually interacting and learning issues before they become larger issues.

The three best CO's I had would actively 'sneak' around (which caused Super Dave to get bag tagged one day but that is another story) and find small groups of soldiers to talk to for 5-10min (and some times longer).
One of those meetings resulted in a MWO getting "fired" - and the RSM lost a little of his ass later.

Know your men and promote their welfare is not really that hard - but it does require leaders of all ranks to actually make an attempt to know the men* in their commands.

*I generally use masculine pronouns for everything, woMEN are men too, and as one young soldier told me, she was almost twice a man - as she had two more letters (I also note she was pretty tough and feisty)
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
893
Points
1,040
Open Door Policies rarely work -- they require people to approach the Senior Leader(s) with issues, as opposed to the Senior Leaders actually interacting and learning issues before they become larger issues.

The three best CO's I had would actively 'sneak' around (which caused Super Dave to get bag tagged one day but that is another story) and find small groups of soldiers to talk to for 5-10min (and some times longer).
One of those meetings resulted in a MWO getting "fired" - and the RSM lost a little of his ass later.

Know your men and promote their welfare is not really that hard - but it does require leaders of all ranks to actually make an attempt to know the men* in their commands.

*I generally use masculine pronouns for everything, woMEN are men too, and as one young soldier told me, she was almost twice a man - as she had two more letters (I also note she was pretty tough and feisty)
I was taught that wandering about and talking with soldiers, asking them questions about what they were doing and why, was the best way to figure out what was happening in my unit. I was a CO three times: once as a major, once as a LCol commanding a Canadian unit and once, as a LCol again, commanding a multi-national unit ~ the system worked, for me, each time. Canadian soldiers, in my experience, are happy to talk openly and honestly with the CO ... IF he appears to actually give a crap.

MBWA (Management By Wandering About) almost always works for the CO, I think; it can also work for the whole unit IF the CO doesn't use his newfound knowledge to undermine his sub-unit commanders. When the CO detects a problem he needs to solve it by engaging his OCs and SSMs, not by bypassing or undercutting them.

I always found "open doors" to be too difficult for a junior person. The path to the CO's door took one past the RSM and the Adjutant and other assorted powerful people who wanted to know why one wanted to knock on the CO's door.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,333
Points
1,260
I always found "open doors" to be too difficult for a junior person. The path to the CO's door took one past the RSM and the Adjutant and other assorted powerful people who wanted to know why one wanted to knock on the CO's door.
This is where I think things like RCafe and RCAF Ideas shines.

RCafe is designed for people from Aviators on up chat with others regarding ideas to improve the service. People's full names are on there, with ranks for Cols and up, so there's no question of who you're talking to (unless people are using others' accounts, I guess). Ideas allows people to pitch ideas directly to the Comd RCAF, like Dragon's Den. Some concrete initiatives have come about through those means.

Those two pages are part of an RCAF initiative, but I don't see why the CA and RCN can't do the same.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,968
Points
1,360
If someone has to tell you they have an open door policy, it means they usually don't 😉

Leadership by Walking Around is the best way to get to know what's going on. It's also a great way to learn what everyone else actually does.

I practice what I call "shooting the ****" frequently. A few times a day I simply stop what I am doing and go for a walk and make stops in different parts of the Ship/Building I am working at. Ask people what they did on the weekend, how their family is, etc so I learn a bit about them and then I usually throw in some work tidbits as well and look for "drop outs" of key information.

If you ask people open vice closed questions as well ("Who, what, when, where, why, how" vs Yes or No) they will generally give you a lot more information that is useful. I actually think we should give Officers and Senior NCOs a lot more training on communication techniques. Leaders often don't know how to phrase questions correctly to get the information they actually need.

Information is an under-appreciated currency.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,189
Points
1,160
If you ask people open vice closed questions as well ("Who, what, when, where, why, how" vs Yes or No) they will generally give you a lot more information that is useful. I actually think we should give Officers and Senior NCOs a lot more training on communication techniques. Leaders often don't know how to phrase questions correctly to get the information they actually need.

Information is an under-appreciated currency.

Part of my business is exactly this.

Alot of senior leaders mistakenly believe they are already really good at this. Which is a leadership issue all of its own, of course.
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
943
Points
910
I always found "open doors" to be too difficult for a junior person. The path to the CO's door took one past the RSM and the Adjutant and other assorted powerful people who wanted to know why one wanted to knock on the CO's door.
I was going to post something similar, as I have seen the barriers in action.

The most insidious way this works isn't the mid-level supervisors blocking a member, it's harassing the member after their chat with the CO. I think many of us have seen the the MCpl/Sgt, or Capt/Maj chatting with the Jr member after their meeting with the boss. That sends a very effective message down that chain that the CO's door may be open, but you'll pay if you walk through it without prior blessing. That way the CO never catches wind of what is happening, and the troops catch the message immediately.
 
Top