Role of Officer vs job of NCM [Merged]

[ags281]

The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."    This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).

It always bugs me that people want to view the military as a business. "Managers, leaders, technicians, operators" : Give me a break. Officer or NCM, everyone's a soldier, and senior NCM's are as much leaders as any officer. It just has to do with the level of the operation that the majority of their attention is focused on; officers are concerned with the overall objective, NCO's take care of the details of working towards the objective (big picture/small picture), and the rest of the NCM's do the work.

As an idealistic overly-simplified example, imagine a group of people currently at point A but heading to point B. They have an officer and an NCO with them. The officer's job is to get the group from point A to point B, while the job of the NCO is to make sure everyone carries their weight and stays with the group. The Jr NCM's move from point A to point B as directed, sometimes ending up at point C if the officer can't work a compass  (in which case the NCO's job becomes tapping the officer on the shoulder and saying "north is THAT way stupi... I mean sir")   .

All of the levels are equally important, as without any one of them the whole system grinds to a halt. It basically comes down to what level of a situation you like working at.

Edit:

Whoa...where did you dig this one out from?

Good question.

 

[greydak]

Some guys and gals come out of their officer training unfit, sure they might be able to run during PT but come time in the field they suck and believe it or not their history degree is of no use to them.

 

[Big Happy]

Cpl = 4 pay incentives, Capt = 10 pay incentives

You do the math!

 

[pbi]

I recommend that you go ahead and try service in the Reserve. That's how I got started. I spent eight years in the Res as an Inf soldier, then transferred to the Regular Army as an Inf Offr once I decided what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I have now entered my 30th year of service and I don't regret any of it. Although I entered the officer corps via a program designed to bring in officers without degrees, I later (much later...) went on to complete my degree thanks to the Army education program.

As Mike O'Leary wisely stated, be careful about "assuming" that you will get an education out of the Army just because you want one. Post secondary education for NCOs in the Army is normally provided as a means of developing officer candidates. As an NCO,you must be selected as an officer candidate FIRST, before you would be considered for funded post-secondary education. The emphasis is on producng the leaders, not on giving out "freebie" educations. You can ask all you want, but you will have to demonstrate potential as a leader (as well as performance as a soldier) before selection.

However, while serving in the Reserve you can apply for the Reserve Tuition Reimbursement Program, which will provide reimbursement to serving Res soldiers who complete post-secondary education (Contrary to misinformation, this program has NOT been cancelled-the Commander of the Army wants to save it as an excellent system, which it is.)

When I was an NCO I didn't much like officers and I never really thought of becoming one (they didn't like me much, either...) but a Regular Army Sgt Maj convinced me to try it, so I did. It worked for me, but as another poster pointed out, just being an NCO is not in any way a guarantee that you will be a good officer. I have seen some real disasters who never should have "crossed over". But, on the other hand, consider the fact that both MGen Lew Mackenzie and our last Commander of the Army, LGen Jefferys, started out in the ranks. So, it can work out very well too. It all depends 100% on the person.

The Army needs good NCOs and WOs. It also needs good officers. Shoot for what you do best. Good luck. Cheers.

 

[pbi]

Here's a thought: all Army officers should complete recruit training and serve a short stint in the ranks first. What do you think: pro/con? Cheers.

 

[devil39]

Absolutely.   I believe one gains a valuable perspective from the other side of the fence.   This perspective is difficult to impart as lessons to prospective officers.

 

[alexk]

I cant remember who im quoting but it was somthing like this

walk a mile in my parade boots before you step into those oxfords

 

[CF104Starfighter]

Officers work hard too...

 

[rdschultz]

As a soon-to-be officer cadet, I found this idea a little disheartening when I first heard it mentioned.  Is it not possible for me to be a good officer because I've never spent any time in the ranks? Or will I always be treated with contempt because I wasn't ever an NCM?  I wish I would have joined the Reserves when I was in University, but of course, I can't go back in time. 

Now, with that said, I've obviously had no prior experience, so take the rest of my post with a grain of salt.  I won't lie, I have a tendency to stick my nose into discussions in which I probably don't belong, but I find its overall helpful way to learn about things. 

I can understand the benefit of this proposal, but would the benefits be worthwhile?  You'd have to train every officer candidate twice, (depending of course on what is meant by a short stint).  Or is the MOC training similar enough for NCM's that the additional training for an officer would simply build on it?  If you didn't MOC qualify a candidate before commissioning him, then would the time served in the ranks be all that beneficial?  In other words, would spending a year or so in a general duties/training type of atmosphere as a Private really enable the officer candidate to get a realistic perspective of the "other side"? 

Now, the idea in general is to get Officers with a more well developed understanding of the NCM side of things.  At least I think.  Are there not better ways to approach the overall problem?  Any alternative solutions?  In the current system, do Officers misunderstand NCM's so much that a system like this is necessary? 

I guess my overall understanding of this topic can greatly be enhanced with the answer to a fairly basic question.  What specific shortcomings (with examples, if possible) of the Officer corps would a system like this address? 

And, on a much less serious, logically challenged note, what about the flip side?  Make every Pte. do a short stint as an 2Lt. before he/she gets his/her hook? 

 

[Yard Ape]

Here's a thought: all Army officers should complete recruit training and serve a short stint in the ranks first. What do you think: pro/con?

I don't think it would work at the recruiting centres.  However, I think we should definatly raise the percentage of new officers that come from UTPNCM.

 

[Infanteer]

PBI:

I tend in theory to agree with the concept.

I've often seen the argument that the Forces is full of good leaders who never spent any time in the Ranks.  This is completely true, and I wouldn't think of arguing against it; I've seen plenty in my short time.  As well, I've also seen the argument that good NCO's do not always make good Officer's.  I won't argue with that either, I am sure we all understand that an NCO and an Officer are two different things, and some cannot make the transition.  However, for the point of this discussion, I am not dealing with CFR's of NCO's but rather selection of Private soldiers who have displayed the requisite abilities to join the professional body of the military officer, so the second argument is irrelevant.

Much of the what I will put forward is formulated from Maj Donald Vandergriff's The Path to Victory, an interesting book on how armies should be organized to fight.  Although written in the context of the US Army, the core of the ideas are clearly applicable to the our Army as well.  Now, for the advantages of taking one's officers from the ranks.  As stated above, service in the ranks is not a prerequisite for good leadership.  However, can anyone think of any feasible argument that shows it to be detrimental to the abilities of a potential officer?  I would contend that service in the ranks would only benefit a potential officer for numerous reasons, such as:

1)  A greater bond and trust between an officer and his troops due to the fact that they have "walked in the Private's boots".  There would be a common bond from the lowest private to the highest General.

2)  As well, it will eliminate the tradition of the Army of placing green lieutenants, usually the most inexperienced members of their command, in charge of what is probably one of the most vital positions within a fighting force, command of a small unit.  Although novice commanders, prior experience as a troop has allowed an officer first hand evidence of how to fight and lead; he watched his platoon commander when he was a Private.

3)  Due to going through recruit training and becoming indoctrinated into the institution of the Army through time in as a Private, a potential officer entering into leadership training has real experience to build from.  Gone will be the days of marching Officer Cadets around and trying to teach a section attack to someone who cannot master the service rifle;  from the start, Officer Training can immediately focus on rigorous training and exercises to prepare for the leadership of troops on combat.

4)  Service in Rank can act as a "weeding-out" process for those who are unable to perform competently as a Private, let alone a leader (Don't deny the fact that you know there are officers that have squeaked through the system).  A rigorous selection exam combined with evaluations of actual military service will provide a much better criteria for selecting officers then high school marks, volunteer hours, and a good job as Squadron Leader at the RMC.

A possible career pattern for one to become an officer would be something like this.

- A recruit joins up and is sent to recruit training.  He does a three year Basic Engagement (approx. 1 year training, 2 years as a Private Soldier).

- Based on recommendations by C-of-C, evaluations, and course reports, potential officers go before a selection board and are selected following interviews, etc.

- Once selected, a potential officer is given the rank of Officer Cadet and sent to the RMC.  There they undertake a three year degree program that gives them a fundamental military education and prepares them to enter the professional Officer Corps.  At the end they receive a B.A. in Military Studies as well as having the ability to minor in a liberal art or science discipline of their choice.  A fundamental military educated surrounded by ancillary educations in various fields (economics, sociology, physics) can ensure the educated vitality of the professional Officer Corps.

- The Military Education should teach Officer's on how to think and approach the chaotic problems posed to a commander operating within the spectrum of conflict.  Leadership cannot be a system of checklists and PAM's; this only invites inflexibility and operational stagnation.  From the start, bold use of initiative and creative approaches to military problems must be inculcated in our future leaders.

- After completion of the Degree, the Officer Cadet should be thouroughly prepared to face the requirement for entrance into the Officer Corps, a intensive comprehensive exam.  The exam should consist of essays on tactics and theory, tactical decision making scenarios, and technical questions regarding military equipment and weapons, etc.  These exams will place emphasis on creativity and thinking outside of the box rather then schemata and processes.

- Following completion of the comprehensive exam, the Officer Cadets are sent on a 6 month Leadership Course that prepares them for leadership in their respective trades.  Upon completion of the course, he is commissioned as a Lieutenant and given his first command.
---

This system would result in only the best rising to positions of leadership.  It would ensure that all officers receive a thourough military education and that they are given the right tools to lead their units with.  Two potential counterpoints I see are that this will result in an older officer Corps.  I would state that this is not the case, as an Officer who was recruited at 18 would be a Platoon Commander at 25; but the qualitative difference allowed by time in the Ranks as well as a comprehensive military education ensure that the 25 year old is in a much better position to exercise his command.
The more prominant criticism would point to the fact that our current requirements for Officer's could not be supported by this single "funnel" of Officers.  would challenge this argument on two counts:

1) A good leader would make it through any system.  If anything, the Officer Corps benefits from a more stringent winnowing of the "wheat from the chafe"  The case where someone gets accepted to RMC only to wash out of their selected trade only to burden the Forces as a PAFFO (This is a case I can personally recount, I am using it as an example) will not happen, only the best will advance.

2) The percentage of our Army that belong to the Officer Corps is 21%.  I've argued before that this seems excessively high in that we have one leader for every four troops (We could make an entire CMBG out of Commissioned Members).  Perhaps, with the appropriate organizational changes (another discussion....) and a readjustment of this figure, the required annual "uptake" of officers could be supported by the system proposed above.

Well, there's the beans from me.  This structure of the Officer selection seeks to maximize professionalism and excellence within the Officer Corps to the highest possible degree.  As an ideal, we can demand no less; and within this demand is contained the requirement to serve a Basic Engagement within the Ranks of the Army.

Thoughts to chew on,
Infanteer

 

[Yard Ape]

If all the best leaders went to become officers @ Cpl & MCpl, what would that do to the quality of our Sr NCOs?

 

[Infanteer]

If all the best leaders went to become officers @ Cpl & MCpl, what would that do to the quality of our Sr NCOs?

Very valid, we would not want to leave the backbone of the Army, the NCO Corps, deficient of good soldiers.  However, I believe two factors would play in this:

1)  Of course, not all troops would express interest in seeking a commission.  They would be groomed for NCO positions.

2)  As well, there are differing factors in the character and abilities of a soldier that would indicate he would be a better NCO or a better Officer.  We freely admit that "Not all NCO's make good Officers because they can't make the transition...."; this would imply that their is a different skill set and approach to being an Officer as opposed to being an NCO.  These skill sets must be taken into consideration today in the way we groom our future NCO's; otherwise we would simply be CFR'ing everyone of modest ability because "they looked like good leaders." The role of the officer and the NCO are two separate beasts; with this in mind the C-of-C should be responsible for watching its soldiers and grooming both potential officers and junior NCO's and guiding them down the requisite path.  The obvious question is what are the characteristics of a potential NCO (x) and how do they differ from the characteristics of an aspiring Officer ?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Infanteer has made some interesting points, and has offered a valid argument, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

I would add the following:

-No officer would be promoted past the rank of OCdt until all trades training requirements for his trade have been successfully completed, wherupon the candidate would be promoted to 2Lt.

-Promotion to Lt would follow after the officer has completed a minimum of one year employed in his primary trade at a Unit, and a PER of at least "met standard" has been written on him.

-Promotion to the rank of Capt would be strictly merit based, and in no case would more than 80% of eligible Lt be promoted in any one year.  (I would add this last to the rank of Cpl as well).  This may well mean the possibility of career Pte/Lt, which has happened in every army I know of, less ours.

 

[ags281]

I had entertained the idea of officers having to serve some time in the ranks a little while ago, but reached the conclusion that it causes more problems than it's worth.

1) Two tiered isn't just a healthcare term. A Pte and a Pte (officer candidate) will not be treated the same. Having a two tiered system among the ranks is bound to lead to problems by dividing what should be a cohesive group.

2) DEO what? Is anyone in their right mind actually going to say "well, I have this engineering degree now, I think my best option is to get paid as a Pte for three years just for a chance that I'll be selected as an officer eventually rather than ending up back where I started but three years older"? Everyone will go for civie jobs, because then at least they know what job they're signing up for.

3) It's all about the bling. University grads make more money in the civilian world than those without a degree. Why would they sign up for Pte pay and no guarantee of moving up to officer pay when they can get far more money civie side? While you could pay a Pte with a degree more than one without to offset this, the problem of division/resentment among the ranks mentioned in point 1 would only get worse.

4) We're recruiting who? If the RMC route was such that they did their time in the ranks right after highschool and were then offered officer training and university education after this (but only if they do well) some would apply. Problem is, how likely is it that the hard workers will join up when they've already been accepted to Waterloo, UBC, U of T, etc with no strings attached and possibly with scholarships? The CF would be blading itself by recruiting primarily from the mediocre down - those that didn't make the cut for university on their own.

I could go on with problems in implementing this plan through all trades/elements forces wide, but I think you get the idea.

There are definitely some changes that could be made in the training of officer candidates. A common initial training phase (basic and indoctrination into your respective element) might be an option, using it as an extended IAP. After the common phase, where everyone would be ranked "recruit", those that aren't showing much promise of officer potential could be given the option of continuing as NCM or CT. Those that do show promise would then continue on to officer training now firmly grounded in basic soldiering/sailing/air forcing (hey, they don't all fly  ).

I also like Lance's suggestion about the rank progression. We could do with a bit of rank deflation at all levels (pay issues would have to be sorted out of course, but that's certainly achievable). We'd just have to be careful about lengthy delays in training as I can't see an extra year at OCdt due to course backlog leading to happy personnel.

 

[Infanteer]

Lance:

-No officer would be promoted past the rank of OCdt until all trades training requirements for his trade have been successfully completed, whereupon the candidate would be promoted to 2Lt.

- Promotion to Lt would follow after the officer has completed a minimum of one year employed in his primary trade at a Unit, and a PER of at least "met standard" has been written on him.

I would do away with the rank of 2nd Lt. altogether.   The Officer's Time in Ranks combined with 4 years as a Cadet should be a decent enough period to ensure he ain't green as grass.   Having a Lieutenant as the entry level Officer Rank still means he has 7 years in the military.

Promotion to the rank of Capt would be strictly merit based, and in no case would more than 80% of eligible Lt be promoted in any one year.   (I would add this last to the rank of Cpl as well).   This may well mean the possibility of career Pte/Lt, which has happened in every army I know of, less ours.

Promotion from Lieutenant to Captain would be dependant on various promotion criteria, one of which should be a "Captain's Exam".   Success in all the criteria should be necessary for promotion to Senior Platoon commands, staff positions, and consideration for staff school.

ags281:

1) Two tiered isn't just a healthcare term. A Pte and a Pte (officer candidate) will not be treated the same. Having a two tiered system among the ranks is bound to lead to problems by dividing what should be a cohesive group.

People would not be recruited as Private (officer candidate).   All soldiers sign a basic engagement for three years.   Near the end of a soldiers BE (no sooner, possibly after) at the recommendation of the C-of-C, the Private can elect to enter into the Officer Selection Process.

2) DEO what? Is anyone in their right mind actually going to say "well, I have this engineering degree now, I think my best option is to get paid as a Pte for three years just for a chance that I'll be selected as an officer eventually rather than ending up back where I started but three years older"? Everyone will go for civvie jobs, because then at least they know what job they're signing up for.

3) It's all about the bling. University grads make more money in the civilian world than those without a degree. Why would they sign up for Pte pay and no guarantee of moving up to officer pay when they can get far more money civie side? While you could pay a Pte with a degree more than one without to offset this, the problem of division/resentment among the ranks mentioned in point 1 would only get worse.

Well, what can I say.   We should be demanding the desire to be part of a professional fighting force as the primary incentive to join, rather then looking to financial gain the only reason to serve.   I never really cared what I was making when I joined the Army; if they keep you busy enough it usually isn't a factor.   The military will always lose if it attempts to attract people through financial incentive; it will get people who jam out when they realize they aren't getting payed enough to risk their life and the civilian sector will always be able to offer more money.   Bottom line: nobody joins the Army to become a millionaire. usually its a whack of other things that tend to keep us around.   Of course people should be able to live comfortably, but financial aggrandizement is usually low on the list of priorities for career soldiers.  

If someone is interested in a career in the Army, then they should be interested in serving; if they prove they have the requisite abilities, then a commission should be offered.   Just because a person has a degree should not make entry into the Officer Corps suddenly available.   As well, if someone refuses to join the Army because they don't want to serve in the Ranks then we are probably better off without them.

4) We're recruiting who? If the RMC route was such that they did their time in the ranks right after highschool and were then offered officer training and university education after this (but only if they do well) some would apply. Problem is, how likely is it that the hard workers will join up when they've already been accepted to Waterloo, UBC, U of T, etc with no strings attached and possibly with scholarships? The CF would be blading itself by recruiting primarily from the mediocre down - those that didn't make the cut for university on their own.

The answer to this goes back to the previous questions you asked.   The Military Education shouldn't be offered as a bone to high school kids who think they can do a stint in the military for a free University education.   It is meant as an essential part in training an officer to lead his soldiers and his units into combat.   Like any other course in the military (Staff College, Recce Course, Basic Training), the Military education is an essential building block to the Military Profession.   Treating it like a "bonus" or a box to check off degrades from the profession.   If a person is interested in going to university first, then let them join late; they can be accelerated through the RMC phase if they are selected through the Officer Selection Boards after time in the Ranks.   However, they still have to meet the fundamental requirements of the Military Education.


---

As well (I know this sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but I have to be realistic), but I think a system like this needs an incentive to get people through the door into the Private positions like the US GI Bill.   If we had some sort of education plan that reimbursed people who served a 3 yr Basic Engagment as a Rank, then you could increase the pool to work from in the Army; as well, it could act as a consolation prize for those who wanted but failed selection for RMC.   Those tagged by the C-of-C as potential Officers could be extended the offer for an attempt at a commission and a high quality military education.   Those who joined with the object of becoming an officer and weren't selected could get out on the completion of their BE and get their 4 years trade school or university payed for (perhaps with the condition of reserve service?).   Those who didn't care for either and wish to continue their career as a Rank will compete for JNCO positions if they are eligible.   Of course, there will be those who do their three years only for the education reimbursment, and that is fine; as long as they give three years of honorable service, then they are free to leave if they so choose.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Of course, the other side to AGS281's argument is this one.

Why would a guy who has a degree in Engineering join the army?  I would say that about 80% of the time, it's because he failed to find a job as a civilian, and in desperation, joined up to pay off his student loans.

I forgot to mention why I would stop the automatic Capt thing.  We had a Capt going through Armd Phase courses.  He had failed out of his original trade, and had completed RMC.  He was promoted Capt, with absolutely zero qualifications, on course with 2Lt and Lt's.  That does nothing to promote cohesiveness, or anything else, especially once you factor in the pay discrepency.  "Yeah, I failed my training, and yeah, I get paid much more than you.  And I have done nothing to deserve this promotion.  So what?"

To my way of thinking, a Capt in our army is roughly the equal of a Lt in just about any other army, and our Lt is the equal of 2Lt's.

 

[ags281]

Of course, the other side to AGS281's argument is this one.

Why would a guy who has a degree in Engineering join the army?   I would say that about 80% of the time, it's because he failed to find a job as a civilian, and in desperation, joined up to pay off his student loans.

80% huh? 99% of statistics are also made up on the spot . I don't think it's anywhere near 80%, as I know a number of engineering students who will be or are in the process of joining for reasons other than what you say. When I have my degree(s), I too will be going reg force for reasons other than those (job situation isn't that bad in my field, and I don't have any loans).

People would not be recruited as Private (officer candidate).   All soldiers sign a basic engagement for three years.   Near the end of a soldiers BE (no sooner, possibly after) at the recommendation of the C-of-C, the Private can elect to enter into the Officer Selection Process.

...

Well, what can I say.   We should be demanding the desire to be part of a professional fighting force as the primary incentive to join, rather then looking to financial gain the only reason to serve.   I never really cared what I was making when I joined the Army; if they keep you busy enough it usually isn't a factor.   The military will always lose if it attempts to attract people through financial incentive; it will get people who jam out when they realize they aren't getting payed enough to risk their life and the civilian sector will always be able to offer more money.   Bottom line: nobody joins the Army to become a millionaire. usually its a whack of other things that tend to keep us around.   Of course people should be able to live comfortably, but financial aggrandizement is usually low on the list of priorities for career soldiers.  

This process would guarantee that nobody with a degree, except Lance's desperate, would ever consider joining. We should absolutely expect that applicants join because they want to, not to get rich. While you might not care about money when you are busy, I guarantee your family (or ability to build one) would be greatly affected by it. I am not suggesting that we use salary as our recruiting incentive, but pointing out that people who want to join for the right reasons should not have to make large sacrifices in financial and family stability to do so. Is accepting unlimited liability not good enough these days?

The answer to this goes back to the previous questions you asked.   The Military Education shouldn't be offered as a bone to high school kids who think they can do a stint in the military for a free University education.   It is meant as an essential part in training an officer to lead his soldiers and his units into combat.   Like any other course in the military (Staff College, Recce Course, Basic Training), the Military education is an essential building block to the Military Profession.   Treating it like a "bonus" or a box to check off degrades from the profession.  

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not consider a university education to be equivalent to a military one, nor vice versa, and I am in no way suggesting that any education should be a box to check off. I am pointing out that an intrinsic result of the structure proposed would be that people who did not get into university on their highschool grades but want a degree will naturally be drawn to the possibility of getting one through the military, as other means to that end are no longer an option. I see this as a flaw, not a benefit.

If a person is interested in going to university first, then let them join late; they can be accelerated through the RMC phase if they are selected through the Officer Selection Boards after time in the Ranks.   However, they still have to meet the fundamental requirements of the Military Education.

This is all well and good to say, but if you were looking for a long term career, would you sign a contract for a job described as "we'll let you know what you're doing three years from now" and salary of "we might offer you a competitive salary later, but don't bet on it"? Even without the unlimited liability clause I doubt you'd sign on. Most people with a degree already in hand, regardless of how much they might want to join for the right reasons, would likely go with their second career choice.

I see university and military education as separate entities, both necessary for today's officer. A university degree is necessary because, while unrelated to leading under fire, an understanding of the world outside of your little bubble is necessary to operate in a complex geopolitical environment. While no guarantee, the university degree is currently the closest thing to an indicator of such knowledge that we have. We already have numerous ways for people with degrees to join, or those already in to get one. Why mess with that?

Rather than turning everything on it's head, why not focus on how our military education is delivered?

As well (I know this sounds contradictory to what I was saying earlier, but I have to be realistic), but I think a system like this needs an incentive to get people through the door into the Private positions like the US GI Bill.   If we had some sort of education plan that reimbursed people who served a 3 yr Basic Engagment as a Rank, then you could increase the pool to work from in the Army; as well, it could act as a consolation prize for those who wanted but failed selection for RMC.   Those tagged by the C-of-C as potential Officers could be extended the offer for an attempt at a commission and a high quality military education.   Those who joined with the object of becoming an officer and weren't selected could get out on the completion of their BE and get their 4 years trade school or university payed for (perhaps with the condition of reserve service?).   Those who didn't care for either and wish to continue their career as a Rank will compete for JNCO positions if they are eligible.   Of course, there will be those who do their three years only for the education reimbursment, and that is fine; as long as they give three years of honorable service, then they are free to leave if they so choose.

I'd be all for something like this.

 

[pbi]

Folks: So far, some excellent answers. Both sides of the coin are being well argued, although the "con" side seems to be edging slightly ahead in terms of the practicality of their arguments (not to say cynicism... >) It is great to see the very high levels of belief, emotion and thought going on here. Obviously some of us do care about this Army of ours. In my own opinion, I tend to favour a brief stint in the ranks as a preparation for Army officers, since I see it as a training economy, but I have to agree that it could pose some drawbacks in terms of recruiting the candidate who already has the degree.

Shifting gears slightly, what do people think makes a good officer? Lets say the top three qualities, as well as the top three behaviours on the Sh*t list for officers. I'm particularly interested to hear what NCOs/WOs have to say, since I was one. I know what I think about it: what do you folks say? Cheers.

 

[LCISTech227]

Good Morning,
      My top three good qualities in an officer are:
                                  1) Honesty;
                                  2) Loyalty; and
                                  3) Integrity.

    These are in my opinion the most important things an officer(goes for a lot of Sr NCM's too) should possess.  I think they are pretty much self explanatory, but I will go into detail:  Honesty, I would prefer to be told the truth as to why I have to do something rather then some b.s. reason.  Loyalty, I believe that an officer should have his troops listed first in the grand scheme of things,  I've seen too many that don't care about anything but their own career progression.  Integrity,  having the stones to say that they screwed up, or give credit where credit is due.  I think that these qualities should be in everyone in the CF, but more so in Officers.

    As a sidebar, I'm currently in the process of applying for UTPNCM, and believe that most of the best officers I've ever known have spent time in with the troops.  That being said, I know some damn good ones that were DEO's.  I think that pointing at a small percentage of officers who maybe don't cut it in the CF is an improper method, because let's be realistic how many privates don't cut it?

Cheers,