We could expand upon ROJ's observation by considering the approach taken by the German Reichsheer in the years 1920-1933 in order to get around the effect of the Versailles restrictions on the size of the Army's officer cadre. The Germans knew that the hardest thing to do when rapidly expanding an Army for war is the production of quality leaders who have been properly selected and trained. Since Versailles imposed a strict limit on the number of commissioned officers (but nt on NCOs) they applied the methodology of training every soldier to be a leader. In fact, the retention of a soldier in the Reichsheer past his first engagement was based to a great extent on the leadership potential that he displayed.
Although we face somewhat different conditions in our Army today (perhaps too many officers rather than not enough...) I think that for an Army such as ours, which has an expeditionary and "surge" history, the idea of deveoping and enforcing a high level of leadership potential in the force IMHO has some merit.
On the other hand, ather thread, I think it is long past time that we decoupled rank from technical skill for soldiers in support MOCs. A revival of old Cdn Army Group Badge system would let us reward those support soldiers who are excellent technicians (and soldiers...) but do not want to advance in rank. In the early 90's I sat on a board back at the old FMC HQ at St Hubert, at which we considered bringing back this concept in the Army. It was called "TASK"-Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge and would have essentially reinstated the Group system. Beyond bringing in the Army cuff badges, it was never really implemented: I was told that due to the purple nature of some trades, with the MA for those trades being non-Army, the Army could not impose this system unilaterally. Another reason why, IMHO, the Army should own its support soldiers lock stock and barrel. Cheers.