Snr NCO's and WO's Relationship with Officers

[SHARP WO]

WO's and SNR NCO's and the Pl Comd Relationship, Ethos, Concept and Problems there of.

I have noticed in my transition from a SNR NCO to a WO that Officers have a different view as to how to work with me. I have found that many young Officers are head strong and truly don't realize the power that a WO has within an Infantry Bn. Do Officers see WO's and SNR NCO's as 2 seperate identities or as one.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

WO's and SNR NCO's and the Pl Comd Relationship, Ethos, Concept and Problems there of.

I have noticed in my transition from a SNR NCO to a WO that Officers have a different view as to how to work with me. I have found that many young Officers are head strong and truly don't realize the power that a WO has within an Infantry Bn. Do Officers see WO's and SNR NCO's as 2 seperate identities or as one.

I thought" Senior NCOs" included all warrant officer ranks and sergeants?

 

[SHARP WO]

Sergeants are SNR NCO's, WO's are not, we are WO's. The Rank of WO has a special function within a unit, have a look at why a sergeant can be charged by a CO and why a WO cannot. (WO's can contradict a CO's command if he thinks it affects safety or the welfare of the soldiers)

 

[dglad]

Wow...this is a topic that could, potentially, produce a very long and very interesting thread!

You have touched on one of the great mysteries of military ethos--the relationship between officers (esp junior officers i.e. to some extent Capts, but ESPECIALLY Lts) and Sr NCOs (esp WOs).  We slam head-long, here, into the wonderful and fascinating balance between knowledge and credibility arising mostly from training (officers) and knowledge and credibility arising from training AND experience.  To keep it interesting, its the less experienced of the two that has the comd authority.

I suspect that many on this list can--and will!--relate their views on this relationship, whether it is a good thing or not, how well it works, and whether and how it should be changed.  But all that aside, it's what we've got, and what we have to live with.  So, yes, you will find officers--esp younger ones--who are "headstrong" and don't realize the "power a WO has" (not just in an inf bn, either).  The challenge for the WO in that situation is to figure out how to develop that young officer, channeling and focusing his/her "headstrong" nature into productive directions, while maintaining a professional relationship that protects the credibility of the officer as the authorized commander.  It's pretty apparent where officers go wrong with this; they "blow off" their WOs and try to run the show by themselves.  However, a combination of letting them make the inevitable mistakes, along with firm but gentle pressure from the WOs themselves (along with CSMs, Coy Comds, the RSM, etc.) can often shape them into decent officers.  Another way to look at it is that it's better to have a young officer that needs to be reined in and steered right, than one that needs to be kicked in the backside to do anything at all.

Unfortunately, the NCO sometimes gets it wrong as well.  I have seen cases (quite few, though, thankfully) of Sr NCOs who, for any number of reasons, "blow off" their officers and take over the show themselves.  This is just as wrong, perhaps even more so.  The WO plays a vital role in developing young officers; abrogating that role out of impatience, disdain, whatever, is counterproductive and wrong.  Cases where the WO cuts the officer out of the decision-making loop or, even worse, openly marginalizes the officer, are massive failures by that NCO.

In the end, the decisions may be largely originating with the NCO; but if they're decisions PUBLICLY made by the officer, following a period of discreet consultation with the WO, that's fine.  And the troops aren't dumb...they know it often works this way.  And the WO and officer know the tps know.  In a way, it's a dance, and everyone knows the steps.  But the result is an officer who is learning, a WO who's passing on his/her knowledge and experience and developing that officer, and tps who have confidence in a productive, joined-up leadership team.

So, WO, you got your work cut out for you!  But the result could be a fine, switched-on young officer, ready for bigger and better things...a good thing, yes?

 

[dglad]

Sergeants are SNR NCO's, WO's are not, we are WO's. The Rank of WO has a special function within a unit, have a look at why a sergeant can be charged by a CO and why a WO cannot. (WO's can contradict a CO's command if he thinks it affects safety or the welfare of the soldiers)

I'd be very careful about being so broad about this.  No one subordinate to the CO can "contradict" his command, unless it is manifestly unlawful.  A command that endangers the safety of soldiers COULD fall into such a category, but not necessarily.  And as for the "welfare" of soldiers, that would have to be explicitly defined.  For instance, if the CO's command is going to cost the soldiers training time or affect their discipline, that could be judged to be affecting their welfare (training and discipline being two key components of tps' welfare), but would by no means necessarily be grounds for lawfully countermanding an order. 

The only other circumstance that I could see contravening an order would be justified is in cases in which the tactical situation demands it e.g. you've been ordered to occupy Hill A, but after viewing Hill A and Hill B beside it, you judge that Hill B offers far more tactical advantage.  By taking Hill B instead of A, you're technically disobeying an order, but as someone's sig points out, "His Majesty made you an officer so you would know when to disobey orders".  But again, ths is quite different than "contradicting an order because it affects safety or welfare of the troops".

 

[Lance Wiebe]

There is certainly a distinction between Snr NCO's and WO's, and I hate to say this, but it is particularly true in the Infantry.  Or at least it should be.

In my experience, officers do treat WO's differently, but some WOs do not see their role as being any different from that of a Sgt.

The rank of Sergeant, in my opinion, should be the lowest rank capable of independant command, with that of MCpl being one of second in command.  Oh, I guess I should also state that I am talking specifically Infantry and Armour here.  The Sgt is the section commander, or the tank commander/patrol commander.  The Sgt is the direct link with the bosses and the "men".

The role of a WO is much harder to define.  The WO is, obviously, the one that guides those placed in command positions underneath him.  The one that assists the Sgt when the Sgt is in over his head.  He is, quite often, also the "father figure" to the men, the man that others will strive to some day emulate.  But, he is much more than that.  He is also the buffer between the Officer Corps and the men.  He ensures that he does his utmost to ensure the men do not get screwed around.  He is also the guide to the officer, teaching him how to practically lead men, in real life.  (As opposed to the theoretical knowledge he receives).  He also buffers the officer from the men, ensuring that the officer is not bogged down by the little details that can be taken care of by the Sgts, or himself.  He ensures that the men do not screw around the officer.  The WO, is, in effect, the one man that links the officer to the men, and vice versa.

The WO, also, of course, due to his knowledge and experience, can always take a group of men in a platoon or troop, and when he leaves, he leaves them better trained, smarter, and quite often, better equipped.  A young officer, well trained by a good WO, will normally carry on to have a good career.  By that, I do not mean making CDS, but by being well respected by all those who serve under him.

The rank of WO is a great rank.  I proudly wore the Queens crown as a rank for eleven years.  Eleven great years.

Oh, I guess I should apologise.  I kinda got carried away here.

 

[SHARP WO]

I'd be very careful about being so broad about this.  No one subordinate to the CO can "contradict" his command, unless it is manifestly unlawful

Ah, forgive me, I meant "orders". It is the ability to step outside of what is going on and make a proper judgement. I have had to do it once, what a nightmare that was.

 

[pbi]

I second dglad on that. IMHO, the officer/NCO/WO relationship is the single most important relationship from platoon to battalion. If the Pl Comd/OC/CO has a solid, healthy relationship with his most senior NCM (WO or Snr NCO...) then most everything else should fall into place. If that relationship is bad, or nonexistent, most everything in the organization will be affected. Officers command the show, but WOs/NCOs run it. Some officers (and some WOs/NCOs) have difficulty remembering that simple rule.

As dglad has aptly pointed out,  it is a kind of a "dance", with variations based on the personalities involved. If all the "dancers" understand their roles, it works. You can usually tell by watching an outfit just how well the "dance" is going.

When I was a WO/NCO, I did not really like most officers. In fact, I often went out of my way to make life difficult for them. This was wrong, but there you are. What PO'd me and my peers were: officers who didn't care about the troops; officers who didn't take their duties seriously, who wouldn't listen to their NCOs; who wanted to spend more time in the Mess than with the troops; and officers who failed to pay attention to their personal turnout and deportment. What some junior officers may think of as "funny" or "cool" many NCOs find merely stupid or disgusting. If we encountered officers as described, we were bad subordinates to say the least. I probably intimidated a few junior officers.

What changed me was when I finally encountered an officer I could respect. One day at the unit, this young gentleman gave me some direction which I immediately blew off and did my own thing. A little while later, he discovered what was going on. He took me aside privately, and in a dignified, mature but unmistakeably clear manner laid down the law to me. At first I was silently furious. No officer had ever done that to me before. Later I calmed down and realized (to my surprise...) that he was right. I went back and apologized, and we were a tight team after that. He listened to me, and often made the decision I suggested. But he always thought about it: I was not just putting words in his mouth. I supported him as loyally as I knew how. I believe I carried that experience with me when I became an officer.

Once I commissioned, I tried to treat WOs/NCOs as I would have wanted an officer to treat me. Mostly, that worked. Sometimes(rarely) it didn;t, but most WOs/NCOs who don't respond to being treated reasonably IMHO likely have other issues and may not be suited to their rank. In the end it is definitely a two-way street, but I know that we teach young officers to listen to their WOs/NCOs and not to be afraid to accept their advice, even if it means changing their mind. The WO/NCO has usually "Been There, Done That" and the officer IMHO does well to listen.

Some officers are unable to develop a good relationship with their WOs/NCOs, usually because of an egotistical, narrow-minded approach to leadership that sees no room for other opinions or other players. It would be nice to say these people meet ruin and failure but alas it is not always so. Officers of this type present an extreme challenge to their Sgt Maj at subunit and unit levels.

Some WOs are unable to develop this relationship either: some are confirmed "officer haters" and will attempt to turn the NCOs and perhaps even the troops. These individuals sometimes perceive themselves as "gang leaders" in competition with the officers. IMHO they need to be identified, confronted and then either sorted out or removed.

The good thing is that in our Army we are blessed with very fine WOs and NCOs, as well as young officers who are taught the right things, but just need to put them into effect. Cheers.

 

[excoelis]

My opinion as a graduate of 'The School of Warrantology' ;D

The W.O. has the experience to both understand the team's dynamic, and make it work.   He knows the troops and has usually had a big hand in developing them.   He has worked with enough personalities to know how best to make everyone work as a team with a common goal.   You begin to develop an inherent ability to 'sense' when things just aren't right and need adjusting.    

I've come to terms with the fact that after Sgt I will not command again.   Not an easy adjustment by any stretch.   I do however take pride in the role that I have been entrusted with.   I understand the importance of the role, and take pride in the accomplishments of those commanders that work with me.   I've always enjoyed being the 'grey man' - so it's sorta the right job isn't it.

So........Warrant Officers are kinda like the Wizard of Oz.........The man behind the curtain with the big booming voice........... ;D

On another note - WTF is with all our SNCOs switching sides - are we at risk of removing 'The Backbone' of the Army???

I admit I almost fell into the same honey pot.   After serious reflection, I couldn't do it to.  For some it's perhaps the right course of action - but I see trends of a mass exodus.

Maybe this has been addressed already?   Perhaps another topic for discussion?

 

[Infanteer]

On another note - WTF is with all our SNCOs switching sides - are we at risk of removing 'The Backbone' of the Army???

I think you're on to something excoelis.  As I've said before, I'm a firm believer in taking leadership from the ranks (or making leaders spend time in the ranks, however you want to put it), but I can't understand why we are often so eager to take SNCO's, which take years to develop, commission them, and promote them to ranks which subalterns out of RMC can competently fill.

Now, this is probably not a problem in the CF (but excoelis has brought up the fact that the condition exists), but I think that the strength of the NCO Corps has to take precedence over numbers in the junior ranks of the Officer Corps.  So we're missing a few staff positions and platoon commanders; instead of commissioning guys (and weakening the NCO Corps), just give those hats to the NCOs - they've proven themselves more then capable of command (at the section level) and as PBI has stated, our NCO Corps could be utilized to a much greater degree.

An Army can live on a weak glut of Junior Officers, but once the NCO Corps is emaciated, then real problems begin to develop - case in point, look at the problems the US Army experienced in the 1970's after the NCO Corps was decimated in Vietnam.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I have found that many young Officers are head strong and truly don't realize the power that a WO has within an Infantry Bn.

I have to admit - this line has my spidey sense tingling.  Perhaps a better way to characterise this is the enourmous responsibility that a WO has in an Infantry Battalion...

Power is an extremely emotive word.  Talk of authority, responsibility, accountability - but not power.

Dave

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I've come to terms with the fact that after Sgt I will not command again.   Not an easy adjustment by any stretch.   I do however take pride in the role that I have been entrusted with.   I understand the importance of the role, and take pride in the accomplishments of those commanders that work with me.   I've always enjoyed being the 'grey man' - so it's sorta the right job isn't it.

As much as I relied on my Pl WOs in 3 years of Pl Comd (Rifle, Pnr and Tpt Pls), I relied even more on my CSMs in close to 5 years of Coy Comd (Cbt Sp (UK Army), Rifle, and Adm).  You have much to look forward to.

Dave

 

[pbi]

I have to admit - this line has my spidey sense tingling. Perhaps a better way to characterise this is the enourmous responsibility that a WO has in an Infantry Battalion...

Power is an extremely emotive word. Talk of authority, responsibility, accountability - but not power.

Dave

IMHO WOs do have power-unofficial, but power to be reckoned with nonetheless. It comes from the close relationship, mutual understanding and shared experiences between the WO, the NCOs and the troops. It may not be statutory, but it is there and you ignore it at your peril. If WOs use it for good, the team is successful. If, for whatever reason (see my tale above...) they misuse it, the team will at least be hampered and may fail. Cheers.

 

[excoelis]

Power is an extremely emotive word.   Talk of authority, responsibility, accountability - but not power.

Dave

"Firs'ju get da rank - den ju get da power - DEN ju get the Woman."

Tony Montana - if he was in the military instead of being a drug lord.  ;D

 

[excoelis]

Power is an extremely emotive word.   Talk of authority, responsibility, accountability - but not power.

Dave

Sir,

At the risk of sounding like a smart ass and with all due respect, I would argue that if you apply the following definition, you will see that 'Power' sure looks like an applicable word.   Try and read the definition thinking of it as terms of reference for a WO.   Does it apply???  

pow ·er [pówr] noun (plural pow ·ers)
1. ability or capacity to do something: the ability, skill, or capacity to do something
2. strength: physical force or strength
3. control and influence: control and influence over other people and their actions
4. political control: the political control of a country, exercised by its government or leader
5. authority to act: the authority to act or do something according to a law or rule
6. somebody with power: somebody who has political or financial power
//snip//
Encarta® World English Dictionary ©

I think 1. and 3. are very applicable because they use words like ability, skill, capacity, control, and influence.   These words can all apply to leadership without implying the impedance of command.

p.s.

Can I have my country now?    ;D

Anyway, enough semantics.

The underlying truth is that no matter what word we use to describe the WO's power/influence/responsibility/authority it is all useless without CREDIBILITY - and you can't get that by looking it up in a dictionary.   ;D

 

[Jungle]

Power is an essential part of Leadership. In order to exercise Leadership, you must have influence. there is no influence without power. When talking about people, there are 2 kinds of power:
- Position power: this power is automatic when in a Leadership rank. It is given to us, along with legitimate authority, when promoted.
- Person power: This kind of power comes from the Leader's personal qualities. It is mostly acquired through experience and takes time. Some never achieve it.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ok - its just me then.

From my personal perspective, I have never had any "power", except "Powers of Punishment", and Powers of Write -Off".  Rather I have had authority that is commensurate with the responsibility bestowed upon me.

Dave

 

[Infanteer]

- Person power: This kind of power comes from the Leader's personal qualities. It is mostly acquired through experience and takes time. Some never achieve it.

Of the two, I'd say that this is the more important one.  I think Person power is a direct result of the character and abilities of a person.  Some, from the far left of the bell curve, are naturally endowed and could pick up the slack anywhere on the Chain.  Most of us can develop a suitable level of this through the challenge of command.

However, we must be damn sure that the people we give de jure positional power have the requisite de facto person power to command at their level - failure to do so can adversely affect the fighting power of a unit.  People who come from the right side of the bell curve should get their walking papers; there is no room for notions of "equal opportunity" and "career demands" in the field.

 

[pbi]

Ok - its just me then.

From my personal perspective, I have never had any "power", except "Powers of Punishment", and Powers of Write -Off". Rather I have had authority that is commensurate with the responsibility bestowed upon me.

Dave

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe "influence" might be a better word than "power", but the end effect is the same. Cheers.

 

[Jungle]

Of the two, I'd say that this is the more important one.   I think Person power is a direct result of the character and abilities of a person.

You are correct. But in most cases, it takes time to develop the required personal qualities, so most people start with position power at junior Leadership ranks.
PPCLI guy: punishment falls under position power.

So this is another aspect of the WO/ junior Officer relationship: the WO should be able to help develop the Lt into an effective Leader. ie: when to be supportive or directive. He should also encourage him to LEAD BY EXAMPLE, an essential part of the transformational style of Leadership

BTW, I'm not inventing any of this... it's part of the Leadership package taught to future Leaders in the CF.