Those who automatically assume a "we-them" attitude between NCMs and officers within the Canadian Army of today are completely out to lunch. Both parts of the equation have their respective roles, and at the end of the day leaders at every level are required to absorb good ideas, make a sound decision, and issue direction. To assume that there is some sort of insurmountable gulf between the commissioned and non-commissioned ranks within the "pointy end" of the Canadian Army is to be sadly mistaken.
Officers and NCOs have their respective roles, and within a well-functioning unit each will know their place with capability-based respect and opportunity for input. It is very much a two-way street.
Officers and NCMs are NOT adversarial "classes" withiin the Canadian Army. They are complimentary functions which are battle-tested and historically validated. Formal education has zero to do with one's suitability for a commission. And the converse is true regarding NCMs. There is no civilian academic institution that I am aware of which teaches the theoretical and practical aspects of LEADERSHIP. And let's not fool ourselves - leadership is THE fundamental characteristic that all officers and NCOs worth their pay possess. Leadership by example, care of your subordinates, and decision-making (despite all temptations/distractions to the contrary) are the critical requirements. Nobody ever acquired those practical attributes through book-learning.
I would suggest that innate intelligence and formal academic achievement have little direct bearing on one's ability to be an effective leader as either an officer or an NCM. I know more than a few highly intelligent and educated people who could launch the next space shuttle, but couldn't hope to solve a simple tactical problem - let alone inspire subordinates to follow them into the jaws of death. Effective military leadership requires a modicum of smarts, but it does not require a rocket-scientist whose intellect is best suited to the abstract. Moreso than anything else, military leadership requires an experience-based understanding of human nature. Knowing what makes people tick on an individual and collective basis, under varying circumstances, is the fundamental requirement.
Yes, technical/tactical competence is also essential for leadership credibility and the attainment of desired effects. But at the end of the day, any monkey can learn and apply the basics. It is far better that the leader possess "cunning smarts", subsequently shaped by practical military experience. I can teach you the "book solution" to any problem. But I can't teach you how to think and adapt those solutions to variations on the theme. The tactically proficient leader must be able to anticipate, understand, adapt, and pre-emptively respond.
All of the above notwithstanding, if you lack the innate ability to "read" people and motivate them based on personal and collective interests then you cannot lead. This basic tenet applies to leadership at all levels - both officer and NCO. There is no distinction where the fundamentals are concerned, and there is no academic piece of paper which will ensure or deny your competence. The only difference between effective officers and NCOs is the level at which the fundamental leadership skills are exercised.
Officer? NCO? Both have their complimentary and essential roles to play within the military heirarchy. To presume that one is "more equal" than the other is utter bull-s*it. I've had the priviledge of serving in both capacities, and it is only the rank amateur who presumes to think that one is more important than the other. To coin a cliche, "there is no "I" in "TEAM".
Thus endeth my anti-"we/them" rant.
Mark C