Reconstitution

[btrudy]

Re: leaderhip model, you follow all order that aren’t manifestly unlawful. Full stop. I am not required to explain my decisions to a sub - they are required to follow my lawful orders.

Leadership styles are important but not required to issue lawful commands and expect they be followed.

I would humbly submit that this is the exact attitude which got us into this mess in the first place. Here's the thing about toxic leadership: 99% of the time, it's backed by legal authority. We grant people in the CAF an immense amount of power over their subordinates, and far too many people misuse that power.

If someone's boss decides to act like a petty tyrant, their only real recourse is often to just quit. And guess what? They are. The CAF absolutely needs to get better about identifying which people are able to 'get stuff done' by properly motivating their subordinates, versus those who do the same by just being absolute giant micromanaging assholes. And promote / demote accordingly. Annually we evaluate people on their leadership skills, and at no point in that process do we check in with those being led.

 

[btrudy]

^ That will not fly with most Gen Z recruits. You know why? They have ZERO loyalty to anything but themselves. They are confident. They are well versed in what skills they're bringing to the workforce. They know that we need them more than they need us.

I'm gonna disagree with the loyalty comment here.

Gen Z folks are loyal to their friends. They're loyal to their family. They're loyal even to their country (to perhaps less of a degree).

What they're not is loyal to any employer. And rightfully so, as literally every experience they've had has proven to them that no employer will ever care about their best interests.

The CAF is no different in that regard; we're viewed as simply another employer by Gen Z, and we're also absolutely fucking terrible about supporting our personnel. The Cpl posted to Ottawa needing to live in a cardboard box isn't exactly feeling the love. Gen Z is loyal to those that have shown that they deserve it, and the CAF hasn't even been trying to earn that loyalty.

If we want to fix this mess, the CAF needs to wake up, realize that loyalty is a two-way street, and actually start giving a damn. It needs to change itself into an employer of choice, in terms of policy and in terms of monetary support. Because they have a choice, and they're choosing to go.

 

[TacticalTea]

Boy. Talk about taking minor factors which have been the sole focus of recent press attention and completely ignoring (once again) the real fundamental issues which have plagued the military for decades rather than just a reporter's limited attention span.

My immediate reaction as well! Reading my mind, you are.

"What the hell", I thought, "those are not the issues that are crippling us at all".

Regarding changes in leadership, I think there is certainly some of it that is a generational culture change, but that change is not disconnected from the economic and technological changes that occurred.

People who talk up issues like racism or sexism in the CAF are in all likelihood activists that would not have joined anyway had those not been present. Of course we can always do better and should strive towards that, but the CAF is not substantially different from the rest of society in that regard.

The modern CAF reflects Canadian society for better and for worse, as I'm sure it did in generations prior. What hinders people is those issues that affect them directly; 2-year long recruitment process, sitting in PAT platoons, wasting away in BTL for years, untenable housing conditions, and administrative f*ckery.

With the internet and labour shortage, "kids" are more aware than ever of the possibilities offered them. It's up to us, the CAF and the GoC to resolve those aforementioned issues and provide prospects with a sense of purpose, which Gen Zs and millenials are intensely attracted to.

A military that is incapable and a government that is unserious severely degrade that purpose.

Edit: was watching a movie (Battleship, of all things!) while writing so I realize it turned a bit more into a ramble than I desired.

I often discuss with millenial and Gen Z subordinates their expectations from leadership and there is definitely a greater need for reasoning behind the orders we want them to carry out.

At the same time, while that is a reasonable demand, it does seem like CoCs have gotten lazy with disciplinary measures and enforcement of obedience, often allowing insubordination if the officers' orders weren't perfect, or somewhat questionable, even though the standard for disobedience is in actuality much more stringent (unlawful command).

 

[FJAG]

I put the whole thing down to lazy reporting. It's simple to crank out yet another piece on some complainant coming forward with a story from the past than doing some real investigative journalism to look into the state of the CAF and how it got there. Quite frankly there are stories of incredible work being by members of the CAF that should be told, but aren't, and there are stories of terrible mismanagement of defence the defence portfolio, which aren't either.

As citizens, we deserve better from our press.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If we want to fix this mess, the CAF needs to wake up, realize that loyalty is a two-way street, and actually start giving a damn. It needs to change itself into an employer of choice, in terms of policy and in terms of monetary support. Because they have a choice, and they're choosing to go.

 

[mariomike]

What they're not is loyal to any employer.

I guess it's old-fashioned to think this way, maybe even naive, but I think some people are loyal to their employers.

️

 

[btrudy]

People who talk up issues like racism or sexism in the CAF are in all likelihood activists that would not have joined anyway had those not been present. Of course we can always do better and should strive towards that, but the CAF is not substantially different from the rest of society in that regard.

The people I hear talking about racism and sexism in the CAF are those who have experienced it. THe goal isn't to have the same level of racism or sexism as the rest of the society. The goal is to eliminate it. This is absolutely something that needs substantial effort, but such efforts are very much so worth while..

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I would humbly submit that this is the exact attitude which got us into this mess in the first place. Here's the thing about toxic leadership: 99% of the time, it's backed by legal authority. We grant people in the CAF an immense amount of power over their subordinates, and far too many people misuse that power.

If someone's boss decides to act like a petty tyrant, their only real recourse is often to just quit. And guess what? They are. The CAF absolutely needs to get better about identifying which people are able to 'get stuff done' by properly motivating their subordinates, versus those who do the same by just being absolute giant micromanaging assholes. And promote / demote accordingly. Annually we evaluate people on their leadership skills, and at no point in that process do we check in with those being led.

I’m not talking about people who abuse their authority.

The lowest common denominator in the military is you follow order. Not only if you like your superior officer. Not only if you like their leadership style.

The exact attitude you’re referring to is based on the QR and O. THIS is the foundation of a military. You do what your told.

 

[btrudy]

I’m not talking about people who abuse their authority.

The lowest common denominator in the military is you follow order. Not only if you like your superior officer. Not only if you like their leadership style.

The exact attitude you’re referring to is based on the QR and O. THIS is the foundation of a military. You do what your told.

You're making a "can" argument. I'm making a "should" argument. Just because someone can rely upon the fact that orders are orders and that they need to be followed doesn't make simply issuing orders without any explanation for why a reasonable way to lead people.

I mean, seriously. The lowest common denominator is exactly what we should be striving to avoid. I expect leaders in the CAF to actually have some leadership skills. To have the capability to explain the rationale for what they're telling their people to do. To properly motivate them to want to do it, instead of just relying upon the fact that they have to regardless.

And the folks who we're going to be relying upon to fill our ranks for the foreseeable future expect that too. And if we don't provide it, if we promote folks who have the people skills of a potato, they'll leave. Because they deserve better leadership in their bosses (and so does the CAF). Just because even shitty leaders can expect to have their orders followed doesn't mean that that is in any way shape or form an acceptable state of affairs.

"Do what you're told because you have no choice" is ignoring the fact that they do have the choice to VR, and they fucking are.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Do what you're told because you have no choice" is ignoring the fact that they do have the choice to VR, and they fucking are. the way things usually get done in the Infantry.

There, FTFY

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Organizational discipline is a leadership failing not a failing of the individual.

I say it can be both. And there’s a growing concern on my Wing amongst that the individual piece is getting worse. The amount of SH and CMs happening might support that opinion as well.

But frankly I disagree. We're seeing different discipline issues. Less fistfights, less drunken disorderlies, less AWOL. More insubordination, training failures (behavioural related not skill related) and conduct contrary type issues. At least on my end.

But those are still conduct/discipline issues. I consider your mention of more insubordination issues to directly support what I said above.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You're making a "can" argument. I'm making a "should" argument. Just because someone can rely upon the fact that orders are orders and that they need to be followed doesn't make simply issuing orders without any explanation for why a reasonable way to lead people.

I mean, seriously. The lowest common denominator is exactly what we should be striving to avoid. I expect leaders in the CAF to actually have some leadership skills. To have the capability to explain the rationale for what they're telling their people to do. To properly motivate them to want to do it, instead of just relying upon the fact that they have to regardless.

And the folks who we're going to be relying upon to fill our ranks for the foreseeable future expect that too. And if we don't provide it, if we promote folks who have the people skills of a potato, they'll leave. Because they deserve better leadership in their bosses (and so does the CAF). Just because even shitty leaders can expect to have their orders followed doesn't mean that that is in any way shape or form an acceptable state of affairs.

"Do what you're told because you have no choice" is ignoring the fact that they do have the choice to VR, and they fucking are.

There are times in the military the “follow an order immediately no explanation” is properly leading people.

There are times where “give your subs all the info involve them in the process etc” is the proper way.

It’s pretty simple.

 

[btrudy]

There are times in the military the “follow an order immediately no explanation” is properly leading people.

There are times where “give your subs all the info involve them in the process etc” is the proper way.

It’s pretty simple.

If it was that simple, then people wouldn't fuck it up so much. Follow an order immediately no explanation is suitable for immediate-hazard situations only. And in those cases it should be reasonable because the people placed into said situations will have received proper training in advance such that they'll have a good understanding of the "why" anyways.

Problem is a lot of people have little to no ability to adapt their leadership style to suit the situation at hand.

 

[dimsum]

Follow an order immediately no explanation is suitable for immediate-hazard situations only.

Even then, if at all possible, explain to them why that was done afterwards, so you can mentor them a bit.

 

[Navy_Pete]

If it was that simple, then people wouldn't fuck it up so much. Follow an order immediately no explanation is suitable for immediate-hazard situations only. And in those cases it should be reasonable because the people placed into said situations will have received proper training in advance such that they'll have a good understanding of the "why" anyways.

Problem is a lot of people have little to no ability to adapt their leadership style to suit the situation at hand.

You are ignoring the human element here.

Lots of situations where it's a 'you shall' situation, explained with all kinds of training, plentiful information available etc and people still drop the ball. People still don't wear seatbelts.

They can understand the why, and that it's not supposed to be optional, but still ignore it because they don't think it will apply to them. Something is a 1 in a million until it happens to you (and then you are sitting at 100% probability of the risk, like a car crash).

That's why every safety system has an audit function, and something to deal with non-compliance.

Even the best leaders don't stand a chance in the face of abject stupidity and defiance.

 

[Quirky]

"Do what you're told because you have no choice" is ignoring the fact that they do have the choice to VR, and they fucking are.

If people can't do what they're told in the military, they'll have a hard time in the real world. They'll just get fired. I have a hard time believing people VR because of stupid orders. There is a way around having to deal with stupid decisions, join a trade that's policy and regulation driven (tech trades) and/or become a leader yourself who thinks they know better and gives "better" orders and makes "better" decisions.

I don't lose sleep over people leaving the military because of X reasons, with the state of the CF the way it is now. If you aren't in it for the pension at this point, you should leave before it gets any worse. Trying to fix a government organization that doesn't care about you and a population that doesn't know you exist is a lost cause.

 

[dimsum]

If people can't do what they're told in the military, they'll have a hard time in the real world. They'll just get fired.

Union jobs and public service would beg to differ.

I have a hard time believing people VR because of stupid orders.

"Stupid orders" like bad policies, which end up in the tactical level as "[insert senior officer] says so" is totally driving people to VR.

 

[Kirkhill]

Does the All Volunteer Force Have An Expiration Date?

When Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor met with the commission, he kept referring to the proposed volunteers as “mercenaries.” Eventually frustrated member Milton Friedman responded with “Let’s make an agreement. If you promise to stop calling my volunteers ‘mercenaries,’ I will promise to stop calling your draftees ‘slaves.’”

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/01/28/does_the_all-volunteer_force_have_an_expiration_date_878344.html

Some of the more salient quotes -

“Barbarians are urged by the love of war; the citizens of a free republic may be prompted by a principle of duty; the subjects, or at least the nobles, of a monarchy, are animated by a sentiment of honor; but the timid and luxurious inhabitants of a declining empire must be allured into the service by the hopes of profit, or compelled by the dread of punishment."

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this year that asked the question of Americans whether they would be willing to defend the homeland if it was attacked by Russia. 38% of total respondents said they would flee instead.

By far the two most important reasons not to serve were the fears of suffering physical injury or PTSD.

To further complicate the situation, those sections of the United States with the strongest anti-vaccination sentiments and resulting mistrust of government are in areas and among groups that have historically been most acceptant of military service.

I once visited a friend who commanded the transportation brigade at Fort Eustice when that branch school was there. He related to me that many of his school staff and instructors were wounded veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq, transferred from combat arms to remain on active duty. Some had lost limbs, others were recovering from other visible traumatic injuries. He told me that he believed their presence was good for retention, showing that the Army took care of its own. But the impact on recruiting was catastrophic, as he watched parents drag their sons and daughters away from venues involving his wounded comrades.

For recruiting approaches, the Marines emphasize their Warrior Ethos, the Navy presents images of adventure and service to the world, and the Air Force and Space Force exploit their technology. Of all the armed forces, the Army’s advertising has gone the furthest towards presenting service as “just another job,” emphasizing learning new skills and self-actualization. Why should American youth pick a job that can get them killed or injured if it is nothing really special?

It is a universal malaise for countries not under threat. Ukraine is noteworthy because it is extra-ordinary. Russia's recruiting woes are closer to the norm.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"Stupid orders" like bad policies, which end up in the tactical level as "[insert senior officer] says so" is totally driving people to VR.

People don't quit bad jobs, they quit bad leaders... and for some other reasons too:

Why People Really Quit Their Jobs​

People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. But that’s not what Facebook found in a recent engagement survey. When the company wanted to keep people and they left anyway, it was because they didn’t like the work, their strengths were underused, or they weren’t growing in their careers. So people at Facebook do quit a job. But who’s responsible for what that job is like? Managers. If you want to keep your people — especially your stars — customize their experiences in three ways. First, craft roles that they’ll enjoy. This can involve hiring impressive candidates and then writing their job descriptions, for instance, or rotating current employees out of roles where they’re excelling but not feeling motivated. Second, allow them to draw on a wider range of their skills and passions. And third, minimize work-life trade-offs by carving a path for career development that accommodates their personal priorities.

Why People Really Quit Their Jobs

People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. But that’s not what Facebook found in a recent engagement survey. When the company wanted to keep people and they left anyway, it was because they didn’t like the work, their strengths were underused, or they weren’t growing in their...

hbr.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Going back and re-reading parts of this thread I'm left wondering if the biggest difference between the CAF and its western peers isn't the lousy terms of service so much as

the clapped out kit
the lack of field opportunities for new entries.

Apparently some Canadian kids want the military life - they just see more of what they want in the UK or French or even the US forces.