Snr NCO's and WO's Relationship with Officers

[rounder]

I just wanted to give my two cents. I have read most posts in this thread and have agreed and disagreed with many of them. I recently acted as a Pl 2i/c for an SQ at LFCATC. I am not 6B or SLC qualified at all. I had a very green officer with about two years and no real courses. My biggest challenge was keeping my two permanant staff members (Sect Comds) from undermining the Pl Comd. I often let him make his own decisions and often before I could take corrective action these two Sect Comd's were all over this guy. Maintaining a working relationship between the Sect Comds and Pl Comd was no doubt my biggest challenge, especially as a Sgt. To add insult to injury every time I went to the CSM for help he outright denied it and told me to go talk to the other Pl 2 i/c's in the coy. I was and am VERY disappointed in his PD of me.

 

[pbi]

I just wanted to give my two cents. I have read most posts in this thread and have agreed and disagreed with many of them. I recently acted as a Pl 2i/c for an SQ at LFCATC. I am not 6B or SLC qualified at all. I had a very green officer with about two years and no real courses. My biggest challenge was keeping my two permanant staff members (Sect Comds) from undermining the Pl Comd. I often let him make his own decisions and often before I could take corrective action these two Sect Comd's were all over this guy. Maintaining a working relationship between the Sect Comds and Pl Comd was no doubt my biggest challenge, especially as a Sgt. To add insult to injury every time I went to the CSM for help he outright denied it and told me to go talk to the other Pl 2 i/c's in the coy. I was and am VERY disappointed in his PD of me.

As a former Pl WO, I would say that there comes a point when you must lay the law down to your Sect Comds, whether they like it or not, and after that it's headbanging time. This is not easy to do (ever), but it is that much harder if you are a Res soldier trying to control Reg NCOs.

To be fair to them, did you ever explain to them what your plan was for dealing with the officer? Did you tell them how you wanted to deal with his mistakes? If not, they may have misunderstood you and assumed that you were not going to do anything: therefore, they had to.

As for the CSM: was he   actually "denying" your requests (in which case I question if he proprely grasps his mentoring/support role for his NCOs), or was he trying to teach you, as an admittedly inexperienced and unqualified Pl WO, how to turn to your more experienced peers for help? Did he ever have a "father and son" chat with you? ("Ok-look, Son, here's a few tips on dealing with your NCOs. If they don't help you, come back and see me: maybe they need a little time in front of me...")

Cheers

 

[rounder]

To be fair to them, did you ever explain to them what your plan was for dealing with the officer? Did you tell them how you wanted to deal with his mistakes? If not, they may have misunderstood you and assumed that you were not going to do anything: therefore, they had to.

    You are right... I did not make my intentions clear, and in retrospect I will in the future. As for the CSM that is my most bitter point, he ignored my thirst for Pl 2i/c knowledge.

Thanks fot the points.

 

[pbi]

As for the CSM that is my most bitter point, he ignored my thirst for Pl 2i/c knowledge.

If that is correct, then IMHO he was not really doing his job as CSM, an important part of which is to develop his WOs/NCOs. A point for you to hoist in for when you become CSM. Cheers.

 

[Steel Badger]

Re Mike's question: Are WO,s and Sergeants all Senior NCOs.

The short answer is no. This is an ongoing battle. Unfortunately there are many in the WO's and Sgt's messes as well as the among the Landed Gentry who consider it to be such.

Having sought confirmation from the CF CWO years ago, my RSM  informed several nay-sayers of all ranks of the facts. Senior NCO's are exactly that...Senior Non-Commissoned Officers. We used to have two flavours, SGT and STaff SGt, Since integration we have only SGts.

A warrant officer is an Officer by Warrant, not an NCO. This is reflected in the way WO's of all three flavours are treated by the NDA etc.

So we have 3 types of Officers in the CF

Officers holding Commisisons from the Sovriegn,
Officers by Warrant
And Non-Commissoned officers.

Many would disagree and mumble something about tomato / tomatoe etc but that is indicitive of a viewpoint that demeans the Warrant Officers of the CF. There IS a distinction between Sgts and WO's. In my humble opinion a WO must BE the example his or her Senior NCO's strive to emulate. This also means that WO's MUST live up to the high standards expected of their Warrant.

As a regular force friend of mine says frequently: "When you Warrant something, you GARAUNTEE it will work!"

 

[pbi]

Good distinction, and one that IMHO is further blurred by the use of the pernicious term "NCMs" which many people confuse to mean "NCO". A Pte is an NCM: that does not mean he is an NCO. Arguably, the Commonwealth manner of employing the WO  as a "higher" form of NCO as opposed to a hybrid between officers and NCOs (the US or Russian manner), may lead some people to further confusing the distinctions. Cheers.

 

[Steel Badger]

Apart from my awfull spelling lately, I also wonder about the whole NCM thing.

What was wrong with OR's? Other Ranks...simple and decriptive...

NCM sounds suspiciously like the FIRE CONTROL SELECTOR LEVER!!

Vague, misleading and way to verbose.


Bet ya someone got a gng over that name change.

 

[Infanteer]

So, a Warrant Officer is not an NCO - but performs the duties of an NCO?   Doesn't that make them an NCO then?

Isn't an NCO defined by his duties and position rather then his rank?

 

[Steel Badger]

One could ask the same question about commissioned officers and or's who by necessity run platoons.

The Sgt or WO who is the PL COMD is functionally the same the PL COMD.........but does not have the "powers and provisions of law/custom" etc that are the preserve of the Commisiioned Officer  : (Status w/ respect to the NDA, abil to act as Notary Public etc etc etc)

Admittedly in the field,  both (OFFR and OR) exercise functionally identical roles but the aim of the thread (or at least my commentary) was meant to cover the roles out of actual combat.

Perhaps the same argument could be made for Officers and General Officers.
Once an Officer becomes a General Officer they become subject to a new set of responsibilities and and a new way of doing business which is predicated upon the positional reuirements the General Officer. Thses translate into responsibilities, rights and other issues which differ from those of Junior or Senior Officers.

(I am not trying to argue that a WO is the equal of a General...yet....I am simply trying to indicate what I believe to be a paradigm shift in how a soldier in either position is viewed and operates on a Military-Cultural level as opposed to their battlefield role.)


Nor am I attempting to state that we need only OFFR OR WO's. I am kinda fond of the system when have now....it having developed over 2000 years of battlefield experience......

Tho I'm Sure that like myself, Centurion Marcus Aquila shuddered when the Powers That Be in ROme provided him a brand new tribune fresh from the Campus Martius who knew more than Julius Ceaser ;D

 

[Infanteer]

Makes Sense...I guess I'm just used to American literature where senior enlisted positions are the realm of the NCO's.  In Canada, senior "enlisted" positions are the realm of the Warrant Officer.

 

[pbi]

Makes Sense...I guess I'm just used to American literature where senior enlisted positions are the realm of the NCO's. In Canada, senior "enlisted" positions are the realm of the Warrant Officer.

You are right. This makes me wonder when the Army started to use "Warrant Officer" ranks as opposed to Sgt Maj/Regtl Sergeant Major? My guess is around or just after WWI?? Cheers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

You are right. This makes me wonder when the Army started to use "Warrant Officer" ranks as opposed to Sgt Maj/Regtl Sergeant Major? My guess is around or just after WWI?? Cheers.

There was a major change in ranks and rank insignia in May 1915, probably once the CEF got exposed to British Army training courses in England.  Before 1915, there was only one grade of WO.

Full listing of ranks and appointments here at my site:

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/nco.htm

 

[Meridian]

Ok a few things (and I humbly admit I am seriously outranked by the quality of experience of other posters in this topic, but maybe I have something to add anyway, maybe)...

1) On the NCO Thing..

Would a Warrant Officer not be an NCO too, given the fact that even if he is an officer-by-warrant, he is NOT commissioned (ie "non-com")... This really seems to be a semantics game in the end, but really.... If a Sgt is a Senior NCO, who is a Junior NCO?  at which point do you just become an NCM, or is that not just a catch-all for all those who hold rank that does not contain a commission of Her Majesty....

How I was explained (by both NCM's and Officers, so everyone   ) in one of my classes, as far as I recall:

Pte - Mpcl : Junior Ranks/ Junior NCM's.
Sgt : Senior NCM 
Wo, MWO, CWO : NCO's Senior NCM"s

Thus, purely technically speaking:
NCM = Anyone who does not hold a commission, but excluding Officer-Cadets, as these are "subordinate officers"
NCO = Anyone who holds the title of "officer" but not by commission. (by virtue of holding an officership that is not commissioned, but warranted by experience or some other factor identified in the NDA),
Officer = Anyone holding an officership by either warrant or commission.
Commissioned Officer = Well just that.

And basically a Sgt would therefore be a senior NCM along with the WO's, but not a Senior NCO.  A Senior NCO would be a CWO, I guess?

Now speaking pure semantically here, is that not what makes the MOST sense? Of course, I recognize It doesn't have to make sense... I'm probably entirely wrong.

 

[Meridian]

Oh, and as to the original post....

As a general officer-wannabe, I'd like to first-off say thank you to both NCMs, Officers and NCMs-turned-officers alike for the thoughtful comments here... It is actually a wonderful learning experience for me.

If it makes anyone feel any better, when I was at RMC St-Jean (whatever you want to call it, the old CMR, CFSJ, etc), we had a significantly tight knit group. Interestingly enough, the majority of the OCdts seemed that much closer to their/our Sgt's and WO. This is in part primarily due to our reporting relationship to them, but we could just have easily placed our officers on the high horse and looked up to them.


Initially, in fact, we did. But part-way through the year, we were assigned a certain Naval LT who by virtue of his extensive knowledge with the workings of the Cadet Org as a Liason officer felt that micro-managing and enforceing every foreseeable rule, regulation and extension thereof no matter how contrary to common logic was an excellent idea.  Subsequently many of us soon-to-be officers had an immediate and clear example of what we DID NOT want to become.

To be fair, our Senior NCM's perhaps did not always display the best professionalism with respect to this officer specifically. While they never explicitly identified him as an idiot or as someone who they felt unfit to be in his position, their was often sideways glances, under-breath comments, etc  that further reinforced our negative image of him, rightly or wrongly.

Now I say all of this to underline the point that as the most extremely unexperienced "leadership candidates" in the forces, we immediately learned to identify what kind of officers we wanted to be, both on the advice/reactions of our cadre NCM staff and by reviewing our own reactions and views of the officers that were commanding us.

If it helps anyone feel any better, A significantly high proportion of those I was with affirmed quite frequently that the first thing they planned to do on getting assigned to a unit was "meet my WO and get a good relationship going, fast".  This was actually further re-inforced as "best-advice we can give to you..." by both my staff at RMC and on IAP/BOTP.

Anyway, I will cutshort my ramblings now, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that many very young officers do recognize the value of the NCM contribution to their world and somewhat more importantly to the world of their eventual troops.  It is often disheartening for young officers to be to read constant stories of how Junior Officers constantly screw up in a negative sense.

 

[Steel Badger]

For a long time the CF put out attractive posters that broke rank structure of the Officer Corps  down by their various groupings, but simply lumped all NCM's / OR/s together.

Officers of course, are divided into Subordinant, Junior, Senior and General officers.
Although Generals are in fact more senior than Colonels, it would be incorrect to refer to them as Senior Officers.

There was a message promulgated the then CF CWO some years ago which explained , in detail, the breakdown of the NCMs.
In said message, which I cannot seem to locate for the life of me, the then CF CWO stated that NCMs were, as you have said, those who were not Officers.

NCM  Pte(r) to CWO

PTEs

Junior NCO's
CPL
MCPL

Senior NCO's
SGTs

Warrant Officers
WO
MWO
CWO

In addition, he pointed out that it is improper to term a Senior NCO a Senior NCM. People confuse the NCM with the NCO.
NCM is the "new age" word replacement for Other Ranks. (A good example of what I call pernicious FIRE CONTROL SELECTOR SWITCH disease.)

The then CF CWO also reiterated that WO's of any type were WO's and not senior NCOs.

Perhaps if you consider how many people incorrectly state that drill movements are broken down into squads for the purpose of instruction you could see a parrallel.

Drill movements are, of course, broken down into PARTS for the purpose of instruction. A squad is the body of soldiers being instructed. A case of misunderstood and mis-applied terminology I believe.

And never feel that you have nothing to add to any conversation. relative age or length of service does not garauntee  Wisdom nor total knowledge.
Especially if you have spent all those years drinking out of aluminium pots!

 

[Meridian]

Alright, thanks for the clarification... I'm still a bit confused as to how a Senior NCO would not also be a Senior NCM... in the grand scheme of things... but thats just me applying Civvy thinking

Now to continue on into theoretical arguments and the basis for everything....  what does the usage of the term "officer" (both in NCO and in "Officer") mean...

There must be some historical significance as to why the CF would refer to non-coms still as "officers" as opposed to not an officer...

Can anyone suggest anywhere I can read up on this, (esp. with reference to Canadian rank structure, if poss).

Thnx!

 

[Steel Badger]

Officer is actually a desscription of a position...ie. a positional title.

Literally, an Officer is one who holds an office (or a post of importance if you like)One who holds a public, church or military office.
For example, The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was once an office under the British Crown....just as a Bailiff is an "officer" of the Court and Police Constable is a Peace Officer.

The term entered into our military lexicon from the early middle ages on..although i have to be honest that i don't know when exactly.
Under the Feudal system, The office of Marshall of England gave the holder the authority over Royal forces in the name of the Sovriegn...and the Marshall would lead them as required inthe absence of the Monarch.

For example: Captains commanded companies of Foot and Squadrons of Horse during the High Middle Ages. A General Officer was one whose office was not tied to a specific unit but held an Office of Higher Authority whose responsibilities were General in nature...ie A Captain General or Sergeant-Major-General exercised authority over those Soldiers whose office meant command of a unit, the Captains of Foot or of Horse.

Interestingly it is the office of Sergeant-Major General which evolved into the Major-general of today!

The French used (and I think still do) Sous-Officers as a title for their NCOS, much like the German Unter-Officeren and Feld-Webeln.

Originally European armies recognized the offices of Captain and Sergeant. By Elizabeathan times  Corporals were also in existance. (An interesting work on the development of  European Armies is "War and Society in renaissance Europe 1450-1620 by JR HALE, John Hopkins Press 1985)

Our present terminolgy for our leader stems from the method by which they draw their authority.

Commissioned officers have recieved a personal commission from the Monarch (Or her representative in Canada) to command.
Warrant Officers exercise their authority by warrant
And NCOs are those holding offices of authority but who are not commisioned.

Semantics are FUN , arent they??? ;D!!!

 

[Meridian]

Gotcha.....

so effectively to make this really simplistic, an officer in the military (commisssioned, warranted or otherwise) is someone who holds an office of authority, and thus A PTE holds no authoirty and thus no office, and thus is not any type of officer.

Makes sense.

Then more generally we refer to officers as those being above the rank of 2lt. And of course those with warrants by using the term warrant somewhere.

Muchos gracias for the info.

 

[Steel Badger]

Just to make things interesting..Authority can be vested even in Private Soldiers.
For example, a senior Inf Pte being appointed as a section 2ic has the authority vested in that position

 

[Meridian]

Gotcha.. but here we are talking about ranks which are always considered generalities..

I mean, position always "outranks" rank, no?  It's up to the chain of command which is position based (and usually filled on a rank-seniority basis, but not always) to determine who is higher than who in the authority spectrum.


Boy do we love heirarchies.