Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
raymao said:
This has been thoroughly discussed in the recruiting forum:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/22686.0.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I have just recently stumbled upon a CF publication that discusses this exact topic, here is a link: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/leadership/doc/DND_Doctrine_e.pdf
The article is called Leadership in the CF: Doctrine. I don't know if this is exactly what your are looking for but it should give you the "official" view of the CF on what an officer is and should be.
Cheers
Inf Off
The article is called Leadership in the CF: Doctrine. I don't know if this is exactly what your are looking for but it should give you the "official" view of the CF on what an officer is and should be.
Cheers
Inf Off
The incident you're thinking of is probably the story of Midshipman Cox, who was serving on the Chesapeake when it tangled with (and was captured by) the Shannon.
This story is related in Starship Troopers which is why it's so famous.
In reality, Midshipman Cox was court martialed and cashiered, but not hung. Furthermore, he was retried in 1952 and found innocent
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I know that I have probably just opened up a huge can of worms with this thread; however, this is a sincere question so I would ask for legitimate answers!!!!
I was sworn in and received my commission on February 28, 2006. I am 39 years old, highly educated (as in far too many degrees to be proud of) and have always demonstrated strong leadership skills in my civilian life.
I was hoping to canvas experienced CF members (both NCMs and officers) for their opinions as to what constitutes a good officer, particularly with respect to leadership.
Although I suspect I am too long in the tooth to change my personality type drastically, I would like to be the best officer I can be. Given my relative unfamiliarity with uniformed life (my only real experience is as a dependant) I was hoping your comments might provide insight as to what I can do to improve weaknesses or highlight strengths.
Thanks in advance for your comments and opinions.
SF
Many thanks to the mod that moved my post. Most appreciated because I had totally missed the thread in the first place! (Hmmm... quality No. 1 -- attention to detail)
I was sworn in and received my commission on February 28, 2006. I am 39 years old, highly educated (as in far too many degrees to be proud of) and have always demonstrated strong leadership skills in my civilian life.
I was hoping to canvas experienced CF members (both NCMs and officers) for their opinions as to what constitutes a good officer, particularly with respect to leadership.
Although I suspect I am too long in the tooth to change my personality type drastically, I would like to be the best officer I can be. Given my relative unfamiliarity with uniformed life (my only real experience is as a dependant) I was hoping your comments might provide insight as to what I can do to improve weaknesses or highlight strengths.
Thanks in advance for your comments and opinions.
SF
Many thanks to the mod that moved my post. Most appreciated because I had totally missed the thread in the first place! (Hmmm... quality No. 1 -- attention to detail)
GINge!
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 380
scoutfinch:
Be an example to your men, in your duty and in private life. Never spare
yourself, and let the troops see that you don't in your endurance of fatigue
and privation. Always be tactful and well-mannered and teach your
subordinates to do the same. Avoid excessive sharpness or harshness of
voice, which usually indicates the man who has shortcomings of his own to
hide."
- Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
Be an example to your men, in your duty and in private life. Never spare
yourself, and let the troops see that you don't in your endurance of fatigue
and privation. Always be tactful and well-mannered and teach your
subordinates to do the same. Avoid excessive sharpness or harshness of
voice, which usually indicates the man who has shortcomings of his own to
hide."
- Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
GINgel:
Excellent choice of a quote. If an officer can master those things Rommel identified, he will probably go far towards winning the respect of his subordinates. However, I also believe that subordinates demand competence and decisiveness, particularly if they are expected to risk their lives to execute the orders an officer gives. The truly successful officer will strike a balance between the qualities that Rommel identified, and the latter two. An officer can't be a mindless, heartless, orders-spitting machine any more than he can be a cuddly-wuddly Boy scout type. It's always a question of judgement and balance.
Cheers
Excellent choice of a quote. If an officer can master those things Rommel identified, he will probably go far towards winning the respect of his subordinates. However, I also believe that subordinates demand competence and decisiveness, particularly if they are expected to risk their lives to execute the orders an officer gives. The truly successful officer will strike a balance between the qualities that Rommel identified, and the latter two. An officer can't be a mindless, heartless, orders-spitting machine any more than he can be a cuddly-wuddly Boy scout type. It's always a question of judgement and balance.
Cheers
There is alot of good advice here for young officers trying to gain the respect, and trust of their troops. Respect is earned, not automatically given. A good soldier will always respect the Rank. This doesn't mean that same soldier will automatically respect the person wearing that Rank. Young Officers must learn their job, as well as anyone else. Good WO's, SGT's etc have a huge amount of experience that everyone, not only officers should take notice. Junior officers who do not respect their Snr Nco's experience, and opinions will have an unforgiving uphill battle. In short, don't wander around with your head up your ass thinking you know all, and your way is the best way. This attitude will only earn you contempt, a quality that will come back to bite you. Never leave someone in your command hanging for your miscues, be friendly, and approachable, but not one of the Boy's. Lead by example.
A good officer shares the hardships of his men, and does not seek special comfort through his position. There was this company commander on a recent arctic ex who scarfed up a bunch of extra sleeping furs for himself...many more stories about the guy. How can someone become an infantry major with that kind of leadership??? In combat they die quickly.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Hello,
I had to jump in on this post.
There have been many excellent points made, but there are some with which I do not agree.
The advice of "listen to your NCOs all the time, they have experience, you don't" is true, but only true to a point.
We have all seen the American Vietnam movies where the competent sergeant saves the platoon time and time again from the "L.T." who is always cast as a completely incompetent buffoon.
Crap. Self-serving crap.
In an infantry platoon, if you have a strong platoon commander (2Lt or Lt usually) and a strong 2ic (WO usually) the rest of your issues will generally fall into line. If one of those two positions is lacking, the platoon has an uphill climb.
A 2Lt is inexperienced yes, and the smart ones acknowledge that. They will seek advice from their NCOs, and from other officers, both peers and superiors (a point rarely made here). They will learn fast.
But here's the bottom line - if you are a raw officer cadet put in charge of a platoon, you are just that - IN CHARGE OF THE PLATOON.
Even if your 2ic has 40 years in the army, if one of your troops dies on the range, guess who is ultimately responsible?
You've heard the phrase "Command is lonely"? Wait till things go wrong.
Suddenly you transform from that "new cherry Two-L-T" to "Mr. Jenkins, the Platoon Commander." Right this way, Mr. Investigator from the AJAG.
That is the essence of being an officer - even the most junior officer - the buck stops with you. There is nobody to blame. Unless you are General Boyle.
I digress.
If you know an order is crap, you fight it, you argue it behind closed doors, but at the end of the day you come out and pass it on without showing your feelings one way or the other. You get it done, or you are a weasel.
Never NEVER say "Gee, guys, I don't like this, but Major Bloggins wants us to ..."
It's weakness.
Listen to advice, honour the experience of your subordinates, but you are in charge. They are not.
And guess what - troops are like girlfriends - do what they ask all the time, and pretty soon they will figure out you have no spine and hate you for it, even as you give them another afternoon off (or mink coat).
Now as to that amusing NCO who made the office+sir joke - very funny.
And guess what? He's a lousy NCO.
If you need to gain popularity/respect with your soldiers by cracking off on other leadership, you are on an ego trip, but you are not helping discipline.
If the troops see the WO cracking on the officer "Well, SIR, maybe you better let me see the map ..." the WOs popularity goes up a point, the officer's goes down 10, but most importantly, the cohesion of the platoon suffers.
It's garbage, and I've seen it from both sides of the fence.
A good NCO will always endeavour to make his officer look competent. If the officer is screwing up, a good NCO will point it out subtly and out of sight of the juniors.
It goes both ways, an officer who tries to embarrass or show disdain for NCOs isn't doing any good either.
That's why the statement 'officers command' 'ncos lead' disturbs me.
Officers had better lead, or they aren't officers.
A platoon commander and 2ic know each other's jobs. If one becomes a casualty, each is expected to fill in for the other. They had better have the physical and mental stamina to perform their duties.
Most can, some can't: there are bad officers and bad NCOs.
In a fighting withdrawal, the last soldier off the position is the officer. That is leading.
In a platoon attack, the officer is with the forward elements, directing the battle from the front. That is leading.
Any officer knows that he cannot show weakness, fear, despair, or lack of confidence or it will destroy morale. That is leading.
If a platoon commander is doing his job correctly he will be working harder than anyone else in the platoon - with a tie going to the 2ic.
Good NCOs and officers are equally vital to the success of any mission.
ALL lead by example, or da*n well should.
The general difference is that the NCO came up from the ranks, and by proximity has more day to day dealings with the younger ranks. Some officers do this as well, some not so much.
We all have known 'leaders' that led from a sleeping bag; some wore bars, some wore hooks.
Likewise, we all have our favourite leaders that you would follow anywhere.
Some were officers, some NCOs.
You want to know the secret of leadership?
Figure out what the right thing to do is, do it the best you can, no matter how personally difficult. Always.
The rest is details.
I had to jump in on this post.
There have been many excellent points made, but there are some with which I do not agree.
The advice of "listen to your NCOs all the time, they have experience, you don't" is true, but only true to a point.
We have all seen the American Vietnam movies where the competent sergeant saves the platoon time and time again from the "L.T." who is always cast as a completely incompetent buffoon.
Crap. Self-serving crap.
In an infantry platoon, if you have a strong platoon commander (2Lt or Lt usually) and a strong 2ic (WO usually) the rest of your issues will generally fall into line. If one of those two positions is lacking, the platoon has an uphill climb.
A 2Lt is inexperienced yes, and the smart ones acknowledge that. They will seek advice from their NCOs, and from other officers, both peers and superiors (a point rarely made here). They will learn fast.
But here's the bottom line - if you are a raw officer cadet put in charge of a platoon, you are just that - IN CHARGE OF THE PLATOON.
Even if your 2ic has 40 years in the army, if one of your troops dies on the range, guess who is ultimately responsible?
You've heard the phrase "Command is lonely"? Wait till things go wrong.
Suddenly you transform from that "new cherry Two-L-T" to "Mr. Jenkins, the Platoon Commander." Right this way, Mr. Investigator from the AJAG.
That is the essence of being an officer - even the most junior officer - the buck stops with you. There is nobody to blame. Unless you are General Boyle.
I digress.
If you know an order is crap, you fight it, you argue it behind closed doors, but at the end of the day you come out and pass it on without showing your feelings one way or the other. You get it done, or you are a weasel.
Never NEVER say "Gee, guys, I don't like this, but Major Bloggins wants us to ..."
It's weakness.
Listen to advice, honour the experience of your subordinates, but you are in charge. They are not.
And guess what - troops are like girlfriends - do what they ask all the time, and pretty soon they will figure out you have no spine and hate you for it, even as you give them another afternoon off (or mink coat).
Now as to that amusing NCO who made the office+sir joke - very funny.
And guess what? He's a lousy NCO.
If you need to gain popularity/respect with your soldiers by cracking off on other leadership, you are on an ego trip, but you are not helping discipline.
If the troops see the WO cracking on the officer "Well, SIR, maybe you better let me see the map ..." the WOs popularity goes up a point, the officer's goes down 10, but most importantly, the cohesion of the platoon suffers.
It's garbage, and I've seen it from both sides of the fence.
A good NCO will always endeavour to make his officer look competent. If the officer is screwing up, a good NCO will point it out subtly and out of sight of the juniors.
It goes both ways, an officer who tries to embarrass or show disdain for NCOs isn't doing any good either.
That's why the statement 'officers command' 'ncos lead' disturbs me.
Officers had better lead, or they aren't officers.
A platoon commander and 2ic know each other's jobs. If one becomes a casualty, each is expected to fill in for the other. They had better have the physical and mental stamina to perform their duties.
Most can, some can't: there are bad officers and bad NCOs.
In a fighting withdrawal, the last soldier off the position is the officer. That is leading.
In a platoon attack, the officer is with the forward elements, directing the battle from the front. That is leading.
Any officer knows that he cannot show weakness, fear, despair, or lack of confidence or it will destroy morale. That is leading.
If a platoon commander is doing his job correctly he will be working harder than anyone else in the platoon - with a tie going to the 2ic.
Good NCOs and officers are equally vital to the success of any mission.
ALL lead by example, or da*n well should.
The general difference is that the NCO came up from the ranks, and by proximity has more day to day dealings with the younger ranks. Some officers do this as well, some not so much.
We all have known 'leaders' that led from a sleeping bag; some wore bars, some wore hooks.
Likewise, we all have our favourite leaders that you would follow anywhere.
Some were officers, some NCOs.
You want to know the secret of leadership?
Figure out what the right thing to do is, do it the best you can, no matter how personally difficult. Always.
The rest is details.
I tend to lean towards the LICK princapal when it comes to leadership,
Loyality: Both up and down
Integrity
Courage
Knowledge.
Fight only two kinds of battles, the ones you can win and the ones you look good losing!!!!
At the end, remember, as a Commander there are usually a great number of soldiers behind you with loaded weapons, if that makes you feel uncomfortable, you are probably doing something wrong.
The only bad officer is one that thinks he is too good to listen to his troops!
Loyality: Both up and down
Integrity
Courage
Knowledge.
Fight only two kinds of battles, the ones you can win and the ones you look good losing!!!!
At the end, remember, as a Commander there are usually a great number of soldiers behind you with loaded weapons, if that makes you feel uncomfortable, you are probably doing something wrong.
The only bad officer is one that thinks he is too good to listen to his troops!
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
"Now as to that amusing NCO who made the office+sir joke - very funny.
And guess what? He's a lousy NCO.
If you need to gain popularity/respect with your soldiers by cracking off on other leadership, you are on an ego trip, but you are not helping discipline."
That NCO who cracked off became the best RSM that regiment ever saw, bar none. It was said in 1980, when the officers of our unit were seen less often than unicorn sh*t. They could not be bothered to get involved in the day to day mundania of soldiering, undoubtedly too busy out foxing, then back for brandy and cigars in the drawring room. Our officers couldn't lower themselves to do PT with the troops at that time. Most promotions to the lofty heights of one-hook-sapper were handled by the Tp WO, or the SSM on rare occasions. His comment reflected the way things were, not slagging, and I resent the implication that one of the finest men I ever served with was a lousy NCO....Rant over, the vein in my forhead is making it hard to concentrate..... :rage:
And guess what? He's a lousy NCO.
If you need to gain popularity/respect with your soldiers by cracking off on other leadership, you are on an ego trip, but you are not helping discipline."
That NCO who cracked off became the best RSM that regiment ever saw, bar none. It was said in 1980, when the officers of our unit were seen less often than unicorn sh*t. They could not be bothered to get involved in the day to day mundania of soldiering, undoubtedly too busy out foxing, then back for brandy and cigars in the drawring room. Our officers couldn't lower themselves to do PT with the troops at that time. Most promotions to the lofty heights of one-hook-sapper were handled by the Tp WO, or the SSM on rare occasions. His comment reflected the way things were, not slagging, and I resent the implication that one of the finest men I ever served with was a lousy NCO....Rant over, the vein in my forhead is making it hard to concentrate..... :rage:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
"You want to know the secret of leadership?
Figure out what the right thing to do is, do it the best you can, no matter how personally difficult. Always."
I think this answers all of my questions. Thank you for your sound advice.
Figure out what the right thing to do is, do it the best you can, no matter how personally difficult. Always."
I think this answers all of my questions. Thank you for your sound advice.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
A few points of opinion
1. Time spent in the ranks before commissioning is at best neutral. Yes, it gives an impression of what the world is like for those in the ranks, but I've often found that those officers are more likely to max out their talent at the platoon level. An officer is a platoon commander for 2-3 years at most. Of course, if you're in the ranks, you probably don't see much of officers above the platoon level...
2. Listening to NCO's is great- to a point. I've seen many YO's get into trouble by listening to their NCO's. NCO's are there because they know the SOP. Officers are there for their judgement- in other words, knowing when SOP is appropriate, and when something else is in order. I view lapses in judgement in NCO's as being regrettable. In officers they are terminal.
3. Any NCO that is denigrating the performance of officers in front of subordinates is undermining unit cohesion, and deserves to be fired. Where does it stop- is it just the Platoon Commander that's not worthy of being followed? Is it the Company Commander? Is it the Battalion Commander? Pretty soon, you have a unit that has gone rogue, and a unit that does not support the chain of command is little better than a street gang.
1. Time spent in the ranks before commissioning is at best neutral. Yes, it gives an impression of what the world is like for those in the ranks, but I've often found that those officers are more likely to max out their talent at the platoon level. An officer is a platoon commander for 2-3 years at most. Of course, if you're in the ranks, you probably don't see much of officers above the platoon level...
2. Listening to NCO's is great- to a point. I've seen many YO's get into trouble by listening to their NCO's. NCO's are there because they know the SOP. Officers are there for their judgement- in other words, knowing when SOP is appropriate, and when something else is in order. I view lapses in judgement in NCO's as being regrettable. In officers they are terminal.
3. Any NCO that is denigrating the performance of officers in front of subordinates is undermining unit cohesion, and deserves to be fired. Where does it stop- is it just the Platoon Commander that's not worthy of being followed? Is it the Company Commander? Is it the Battalion Commander? Pretty soon, you have a unit that has gone rogue, and a unit that does not support the chain of command is little better than a street gang.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Reference to Echo 9…
1. Out of about 15 officers I worked with and for over my last five years, over half were from the ranks. They were far superior in leadership qualities than the ones who came in through RMC or, even worse, retrades who failed their first attempt at a career. (I tell you, why the hell would I want an Intelligence officer who FAILED his trade, when Int officers need to have more brains than the average joe). And sorry, as an Int analyst I worked with and for officers ALL the time.
2. Listening to NCO's is great – period. Then the officer can make his own decision. And for your info, officers and senior NCOs are equally good at making bad decisions. The difference is in who takes most of the blame. Once the officer makes his decision, the NCO is supposed to shut up and help make it work, because if it doesn’t work, it’s the officer who suffers (unless youve got an officer with lack of ethos problems).
3. “Any NCO that is denigrating the performance of officers in front of subordinates is undermining unit cohesion, and deserves to be fired.” This works both ways you know…
Reference that CF Doctrine, I agree with the infantry officer that it represents ‘policy’. Some of this doc is rather lame. E.G., “complete the mission?” is the most important? That’s not part of leadership, that’s what happens when you properly apply leadership and successful planning. The mission isnt going to succeed just by being a good leader(i.e. Dieppe) , its got to have a good plan (i.e. Vimy Ridge). The problem with this statement is that too many officers translate ‘mission success’ into ‘my future good PER’, at the sacrifice of their troops. (“Its okay boys, your brave sacrifice will be noted in my upcoming evaluation report!”) Leadership is about how you represent yourself and the soldiers who work for you, not whether a mission gets accomplished. Are you looking out for their best interests or just yours? Plus, there is a time and place for sacrificing your troops, and teaching officers that its okay to do so all the time is how many soldiers get put into hospital or killed, just because some striper (both young and old) got it into their head that it was more important to ‘complete the mission’.
Why say that? Because in the real world, the mission often gets thrown out the window when something more important happens. The only time the mission is predominant is during war operations; every soldier knows that their life can be sacrificed for the greater good. I just don’t having my life sacrificed for a good report on a training exercise.
1. Out of about 15 officers I worked with and for over my last five years, over half were from the ranks. They were far superior in leadership qualities than the ones who came in through RMC or, even worse, retrades who failed their first attempt at a career. (I tell you, why the hell would I want an Intelligence officer who FAILED his trade, when Int officers need to have more brains than the average joe). And sorry, as an Int analyst I worked with and for officers ALL the time.
2. Listening to NCO's is great – period. Then the officer can make his own decision. And for your info, officers and senior NCOs are equally good at making bad decisions. The difference is in who takes most of the blame. Once the officer makes his decision, the NCO is supposed to shut up and help make it work, because if it doesn’t work, it’s the officer who suffers (unless youve got an officer with lack of ethos problems).
3. “Any NCO that is denigrating the performance of officers in front of subordinates is undermining unit cohesion, and deserves to be fired.” This works both ways you know…
Reference that CF Doctrine, I agree with the infantry officer that it represents ‘policy’. Some of this doc is rather lame. E.G., “complete the mission?” is the most important? That’s not part of leadership, that’s what happens when you properly apply leadership and successful planning. The mission isnt going to succeed just by being a good leader(i.e. Dieppe) , its got to have a good plan (i.e. Vimy Ridge). The problem with this statement is that too many officers translate ‘mission success’ into ‘my future good PER’, at the sacrifice of their troops. (“Its okay boys, your brave sacrifice will be noted in my upcoming evaluation report!”) Leadership is about how you represent yourself and the soldiers who work for you, not whether a mission gets accomplished. Are you looking out for their best interests or just yours? Plus, there is a time and place for sacrificing your troops, and teaching officers that its okay to do so all the time is how many soldiers get put into hospital or killed, just because some striper (both young and old) got it into their head that it was more important to ‘complete the mission’.
Why say that? Because in the real world, the mission often gets thrown out the window when something more important happens. The only time the mission is predominant is during war operations; every soldier knows that their life can be sacrificed for the greater good. I just don’t having my life sacrificed for a good report on a training exercise.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Centurian
Seen. Emotion aside, your responses aren't that far different from what I said. The reason that I said "to a point" is exactly for the reason that you highlighted. Listening is great, just not to the point where your Sgt is writing your PER.
I'm not going to argue the point that there are officers who make really bad decisions, and officers who undermine unit cohesion. In fact, in both cases when it's an officer doing it, it's many times worse. That's the reason for my comment on the importance of a sense of judgement- note that terminal means fired, or worse.
I'd also agree with your remark about RMC- notice that most (and the best) CDS' have not come from that small provincial college in Kingston- I think that Boyle was the last who did. There are some great officers that come from there, but it does seem to instill that careerist instinct in many.
Something also to remember is that Int is a weird trade. The average Int Cpl is probably smarter than 90% of the army, all ranks, and is involved in situations that most JNCO's are not. Int O's are also a weird group, and I'd agree that you don't want retreads, but recognize that they need a much different skill set than most officers.
Seen. Emotion aside, your responses aren't that far different from what I said. The reason that I said "to a point" is exactly for the reason that you highlighted. Listening is great, just not to the point where your Sgt is writing your PER.
I'm not going to argue the point that there are officers who make really bad decisions, and officers who undermine unit cohesion. In fact, in both cases when it's an officer doing it, it's many times worse. That's the reason for my comment on the importance of a sense of judgement- note that terminal means fired, or worse.
I'd also agree with your remark about RMC- notice that most (and the best) CDS' have not come from that small provincial college in Kingston- I think that Boyle was the last who did. There are some great officers that come from there, but it does seem to instill that careerist instinct in many.
Something also to remember is that Int is a weird trade. The average Int Cpl is probably smarter than 90% of the army, all ranks, and is involved in situations that most JNCO's are not. Int O's are also a weird group, and I'd agree that you don't want retreads, but recognize that they need a much different skill set than most officers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thanks Echo 9.
Now that ive had my blast at soldiers inside the org, lets look outside.
When I retired I thought that the quality of managers, surpervisors and other leader was going to improve. After all, its about money, right? To make money you want the best people in the right job, right? Boy was I surprised!
They are on average worse! I had to re-evaluate and found that our average military 'worst managers and leaders" were actually not bad as bosses compared to the average worst in the business world.
Guess what? As an HR consultant I currently design and develop training programs to help business managers and otehr workforce leaders to become better managers and leaders! I also coach many business owners on how to improve their company image during recruitment drives! What irony!
Now that ive had my blast at soldiers inside the org, lets look outside.
When I retired I thought that the quality of managers, surpervisors and other leader was going to improve. After all, its about money, right? To make money you want the best people in the right job, right? Boy was I surprised!
They are on average worse! I had to re-evaluate and found that our average military 'worst managers and leaders" were actually not bad as bosses compared to the average worst in the business world.
Guess what? As an HR consultant I currently design and develop training programs to help business managers and otehr workforce leaders to become better managers and leaders! I also coach many business owners on how to improve their company image during recruitment drives! What irony!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Centurian:
Interesting comment, particularly in view of how the military periodically stumbles all over itself (and wastes amounts of public $$$ into the bargain...) by bringing in civilian "experts" in management, performance measurement, etc to tell us how to do things "better". On the occasions that I have dealt with these organizations (as recently as last month) I find that in fact they usually have little of any subtance to offer the military (especially the Army...) and in fact are often peddling recycled versions of techniques and theories that we know and practice under other names. Worse, sometimes their complete unfamiliarity with military organization, culture and imperatives renders them even less useful.
My (limited) observations of the civilian organizational world (both business and govt) suggest to me that the great majority of people in what we would call "leadership" positions have precious little appreciation of what leadership really is. Perhaps this is why so many civilians hate their jobs, why abssenteeism is so high, or why unions are so strong. Conversely, by exception maybe it explains why some (few) civilian organizations are made up of happy, motivated people who willingly work hard, and would never think twice about organizing into a union. (Stelco and Dofasco, two major steel producers near where I live in Ontario, remind me of the two poles of this argument). Stelco is unionized. Dofasco, next door, is not. I would be willing to bet that good leadership is what makes most of the difference. After all, if we had a military unit that had as many internal problems as some unionized workplaces do, who would we look at firrst? The leadership, right?
This deficiency was brought home to me during an Officer professional development session we ran in 1PP back in the 90's. We did a session on "Leadership", in which we invited senior officers of the Calgary Police and Fire Services to take part. Each organization was to talk about how they approached tactical leadership (ie: Leading People in today's CF leadership terminology). Despite providing considerable reading-in material in the weeks preceding, the event was a bit of a disappointment. Neither civil agency seemed to have much in the way of a clearly defined idea of leadership (as opposed to technical procedures such as the "size-up" that fire officers do in place of a combat estimate). It seemed to me that neither one had devoted much effort to developing an art or science of leadership to anything like the extent that we have in the CF, especially in the Army. Since that time, through my connections with civil protective services both through military duty and my involvement in various firefighting museum groups around Canada, I have come to believe even more strongly that the civil forces that are supposedly the most "like us" have in fact only a very weak instutional grasp of leadership, often subsituting technical knowledge or management techniques in its place.
My impression is that this situation is even worse in the business world, especially retail and "quick profit" oriented operations. I have two friends who run a small company that provides leadershp training, including ethics, and they have commented with horror on the utter lack of anything approaching ethical leadership in many of the executives they deal with, especialy younger ones. Ethics tends to be regarded as either "checklist" window-dressing, or an annoying obstacle to success.
None of this is to say that we in the CF are perfect. Anybody who has been paying attention over the last couple of decades will quickly remember that we have had some pretty hideous people in our uniform, some of them quite senior. Much damage was done. But, I suggest, this was because these people chose to ignore our system and its values, pervert our leadership theories, and just tear the *** out of everything. Our system was always good, at heart, and in many ways (IMHO) is even better and more professional than it was when I joined in 1974. IMHO it is certainly far superior to most of what is "out there".
Cheers
Interesting comment, particularly in view of how the military periodically stumbles all over itself (and wastes amounts of public $$$ into the bargain...) by bringing in civilian "experts" in management, performance measurement, etc to tell us how to do things "better". On the occasions that I have dealt with these organizations (as recently as last month) I find that in fact they usually have little of any subtance to offer the military (especially the Army...) and in fact are often peddling recycled versions of techniques and theories that we know and practice under other names. Worse, sometimes their complete unfamiliarity with military organization, culture and imperatives renders them even less useful.
My (limited) observations of the civilian organizational world (both business and govt) suggest to me that the great majority of people in what we would call "leadership" positions have precious little appreciation of what leadership really is. Perhaps this is why so many civilians hate their jobs, why abssenteeism is so high, or why unions are so strong. Conversely, by exception maybe it explains why some (few) civilian organizations are made up of happy, motivated people who willingly work hard, and would never think twice about organizing into a union. (Stelco and Dofasco, two major steel producers near where I live in Ontario, remind me of the two poles of this argument). Stelco is unionized. Dofasco, next door, is not. I would be willing to bet that good leadership is what makes most of the difference. After all, if we had a military unit that had as many internal problems as some unionized workplaces do, who would we look at firrst? The leadership, right?
This deficiency was brought home to me during an Officer professional development session we ran in 1PP back in the 90's. We did a session on "Leadership", in which we invited senior officers of the Calgary Police and Fire Services to take part. Each organization was to talk about how they approached tactical leadership (ie: Leading People in today's CF leadership terminology). Despite providing considerable reading-in material in the weeks preceding, the event was a bit of a disappointment. Neither civil agency seemed to have much in the way of a clearly defined idea of leadership (as opposed to technical procedures such as the "size-up" that fire officers do in place of a combat estimate). It seemed to me that neither one had devoted much effort to developing an art or science of leadership to anything like the extent that we have in the CF, especially in the Army. Since that time, through my connections with civil protective services both through military duty and my involvement in various firefighting museum groups around Canada, I have come to believe even more strongly that the civil forces that are supposedly the most "like us" have in fact only a very weak instutional grasp of leadership, often subsituting technical knowledge or management techniques in its place.
My impression is that this situation is even worse in the business world, especially retail and "quick profit" oriented operations. I have two friends who run a small company that provides leadershp training, including ethics, and they have commented with horror on the utter lack of anything approaching ethical leadership in many of the executives they deal with, especialy younger ones. Ethics tends to be regarded as either "checklist" window-dressing, or an annoying obstacle to success.
None of this is to say that we in the CF are perfect. Anybody who has been paying attention over the last couple of decades will quickly remember that we have had some pretty hideous people in our uniform, some of them quite senior. Much damage was done. But, I suggest, this was because these people chose to ignore our system and its values, pervert our leadership theories, and just tear the *** out of everything. Our system was always good, at heart, and in many ways (IMHO) is even better and more professional than it was when I joined in 1974. IMHO it is certainly far superior to most of what is "out there".
Cheers
I moved to Windsor to work for Chrysler, in Detroit. I worked at Chrysler World Headquaters for a while, was there when the merger with Daimler happened. Thanks to the position I was in, I had a front-row seat for a lot of this stuff. Since then, I left DCX to work for a smaller supplier (who had a race team) I was the race team engineer for a while (until the team folded) and then I was punted sideways into IT.
I've also had to work with industry standard bodies, other suppliers, etc. I've seen a lot of how the business world operates.
I say, without hesitation, that the majority of people in management and leadership positions in the business world don't have the slightest clue as to what they are doing. There are many, many bright and good people out there - the problem is not that there is an excess of idiots. The problem is that almost all of the people doing the leading and managing have absolutly no training whatsoever on HOW to lead or manage.
Some figure it out intuitively, or from trial and error, but most are floating rudderless in the dark.
And MBAs are the WORST, because they get some exposure to the theory, but no practice - so they consider themselves experts, but are usually clueless.
A typical civvie business, in military terms, is populated by BMQ graduates, the senior guys are junior corporals, and the execuatives are 3rd-year RMC cadets. If it wasn't so pathetic, it'd be funny.
When I see civvie-manager-speak bleeding into the CF, I react with outright horror, because I have seen these guys in their native habitat and they are CLULESS.
That's not to say that *everything* in the civvie world is completely out to lunch; a lot of pure management theory is actually pretty good - especially modern quality control and process management theory and practice (although things like QS9000 are really more lip service than actual practice out in the wild) When they have to deal with managing *things*, civvie companies can do very well, especially when they focus on science (back up everything with measurable metrics).
I've just finished most of the AOC "training" module (the ASAT process, the deployment cycle, etc) and this has "civvie process management" stamped all over it, and I think for the better. That's an example of learning fom business in a place where they do well. But on the man management and leadership side of the house, a green MCpl has more leadership training and a a better leadership ethos than 90% of the managers/leaders in major corportations.
DG
I've also had to work with industry standard bodies, other suppliers, etc. I've seen a lot of how the business world operates.
I say, without hesitation, that the majority of people in management and leadership positions in the business world don't have the slightest clue as to what they are doing. There are many, many bright and good people out there - the problem is not that there is an excess of idiots. The problem is that almost all of the people doing the leading and managing have absolutly no training whatsoever on HOW to lead or manage.
Some figure it out intuitively, or from trial and error, but most are floating rudderless in the dark.
And MBAs are the WORST, because they get some exposure to the theory, but no practice - so they consider themselves experts, but are usually clueless.
A typical civvie business, in military terms, is populated by BMQ graduates, the senior guys are junior corporals, and the execuatives are 3rd-year RMC cadets. If it wasn't so pathetic, it'd be funny.
When I see civvie-manager-speak bleeding into the CF, I react with outright horror, because I have seen these guys in their native habitat and they are CLULESS.
That's not to say that *everything* in the civvie world is completely out to lunch; a lot of pure management theory is actually pretty good - especially modern quality control and process management theory and practice (although things like QS9000 are really more lip service than actual practice out in the wild) When they have to deal with managing *things*, civvie companies can do very well, especially when they focus on science (back up everything with measurable metrics).
I've just finished most of the AOC "training" module (the ASAT process, the deployment cycle, etc) and this has "civvie process management" stamped all over it, and I think for the better. That's an example of learning fom business in a place where they do well. But on the man management and leadership side of the house, a green MCpl has more leadership training and a a better leadership ethos than 90% of the managers/leaders in major corportations.
DG
Similar threads
