Initial Officer Selection

[JMA]

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....l-leaders.html

Excellent response!

Must post it here is full:

My key thesis is that you can spot natural leaders easier by watching people around them than by watching the potential leader himself.

You will not spot them if you put together a group of potential leaders, but if you put them into a normal sample group they might arise into natural leadership, kind of take over the group and lead it (at least in regard to specific problems).

Why not in a group of potential leaders? I experienced that before. They fight for power or at least reject unfounded claims for power or for having the lead voice.

A normal sample group finding its natural leader is quite close to having a squad well-trained and then seeing their only NCO die in battle. Who of the enlisted men -qualified by training as all of them- will take the lead, and be followed?

The German army began to prepare exactly for this before the First World War, and very often accepted such emergency leaders into NCO rank if they did well enough.

Such natural leaders are not necessarily the best decision-makers, but at least they get loyalty much easier than others (who might need the authority and powers given by the institution to lead men). This should result in superior team morale.

There is a lot to discuss here, but let's select a few items.

Your first comment is good and is what can normally be observed during a recruits course for entry level soldiers. But not all (and in many countries) and indeed a small minority of officers are produced through the ranks (with Israel being a notable exception). And yes how others react to them (the potential leaders) is almost more important than how they themselves act in certain circumstances.

The people who apply to go on an officers course generally believe they are 'leaders' (by some definition which makes them believe so) or they have been told by parents and/or teachers that they are leaders or have leadership potential.

So they arrive en masse for the AOSB or pre-course selection (as applicable in different countries) and the DS (directing staff) have to shift through the assembled multitude. In my experience this normally starts with a paper sort into syndicates/groups of six-eight candidates.

I believe that the leaderless group activities allow the more forceful (not necessarily the best leaders) to assert themselves over the group but once a level of 'stress' is added (normally in tasks which require physical effort) the leadership pattern often changes/alters within the group. In the programme of the longer Brit type AOSB there are also physical group activities where specific candidates are nominated as group leader. And yes here you watch the nominated leader and also the rest of the syndicate very carefully. You learn so much about a person by simply observing them in different circumstances.

I suggest you are looking for leaders who will rise to the occasion and be accepted as leaders when they are given command of a platoon in due course. There has to be a spark (of leadership potential) in there from the outset.

While I agree in principle with theory on leadership succession in small groups squad/section the officer situation is that we need to select for leaders who can be inserted halfway up the rank structure and take command of an infantry platoon in battle (which would typically have a combined total of 100 years plus of military service amongst the men in the platoon). This is significantly different to hierarchical succession in small groups IMHO.

OK so finally, when you have a course full of leaders you can filter for decision making ability. Some of this is attempted on a Brit style AOSB.

Thank you for your input. It is thought stimulating and I respond with what seems logical to me right now. Feel free to debate my assumptions.

[Fuchs]

There is an additional problem; leaders are not necessarily trying to lead all the time (or so I think).

My personal experience is for example that I had rather leadership episodes in my life than a continuous quest for alpha male position. At times I didn't see a need for leadership, other times I preferred to opt-out of group dynamics or oppose existing leadership. And then there were episodes when the system cheated me so badly that I preferred to oppose it by making a fool of it; identifying and exploiting its holes. To lead a pack in a futile effort to oppose the system seemed pointless, and I didn't try it.

You might end up with false negatives even in great natural leader test regimes.

[Ulenspiegel]

The people who could choose their leaders must have an good idea what their future leader has to do, therefore, they need to now the trade themselves. How do you create in an western army this knowledge among the enlisted men who have to choose their NCOs or company officers?

My feeling is, that the current system, which was codified around 1700, is a result of the large discrepancy between life in times of war and times of peace.

[Fuchs]

The people who could choose their leaders must have an good idea what their future leader has to do, therefore, they need to now the trade themselves. How do you create in an western army this knowledge among the enlisted men who have to choose their NCOs or company officers?

It's not about choosing in emergencies, but about following who takes the lead.

Sometime around 1906 (IIRC - memory is tricky) the German army (or Prussian - at that time the institution was divided) decided that their Gefreiter (an experienced enlisted man) had to be proficient enough to take over the job of a NCO.
This did fit well to one of the requirements for Auftragstaktik (or how that was called at that time); you need to be told and able to understand the mission of your superior (and possibly his superior) - and that requires that you are proficient enough for assuming your direct superior's slot.
This served well when leader losses (in part because of leading by example / up front) became quite excessive in WW2.

It's really been done for a century already.

[Ulenspiegel]

It's not about choosing in emergencies, but about following who takes the lead.

Sometime around 1906 (IIRC - memory is tricky) the German army (or Prussian - at that time the institution was divided) decided that their Gefreiter (an experienced enlisted man) had to be proficient enough to take over the job of a NCO.
This did fit well to one of the requirements for Auftragstaktik (or how that was called at that time); you need to be told and able to understand the mission of your superior (and possibly his superior) - and that requires that you are proficient enough for assuming your direct superior's slot.
This served well when leader losses (in part because of leading by example / up front) became quite excessive in WW2.

It's really been done for a century already.

Our initial question was, how in an western army a bottom-up approach for leader selection could work.

The German army used for both, officer selection and for NCO selection, a top-down approach. The quality of the selection process was, when we use discharge due to incompetence in war time as metric, very good.

[Fuchs]

Send the leader in place into vacation, let his small unit stand in formation and give it a mission, with promise of a small reward for accomplishment (or another source of motivation). Then have senior enlisted men from another unit observe them.

The problem is of course that this procedure would be known and exploited if it's in widespread use.

[Pete]

Rank structure in Western armies comes from the old class system in Europe. Centuries ago aristocrats were the officers, lower class guys with a head on their shoulders became sergeants (a word which once had the connation of "servant"), and the rest were enlisted. The word infantry has the same origin as infant, because the "better" classes way back then were mounted.

In spite of what the Marxists might want to say, I don't believe that during the last 300 years these class lines were as rigid within societies or military organizations as they'd have us believe. Incompetent officers fall by the wayside, talented NCOs move into the officer corps, good enlisted guys become NCOs, and so forth.

Other factors are at play too -- in a way Robert E. Lee was an aristocrat on a downward slide until he married because his family fortune was gone; though his social and financial status had declined I doubt anyone would criticize his abilities as an officer. Occasionally the fallen nobility make the best officers because they are determined to redeem lost honor.

To get back to the topic of this thread, today the minimum for being an officer is having a college degree, to an extent having the "good family" thing and having strong letters of recommendation with your application. The system isn't rigid though, and guys of modest origins can and do get in and rise to high places.

[JMA]

There is an additional problem; leaders are not necessarily trying to lead all the time (or so I think).

My personal experience is for example that I had rather leadership episodes in my life than a continuous quest for alpha male position. At times I didn't see a need for leadership, other times I preferred to opt-out of group dynamics or oppose existing leadership. And then there were episodes when the system cheated me so badly that I preferred to oppose it by making a fool of it; identifying and exploiting its holes. To lead a pack in a futile effort to oppose the system seemed pointless, and I didn't try it.

You might end up with false negatives even in great natural leader test regimes.

Yes strutting and posturing alpha males all over the show can be tedious for sure.

But here (and we should maybe not restrict ourselves to this) I am looking at the initial pre-course selection of officers which in some cases is made through a 'paper' examination and a single one on one interview to the Brits who seem to have the most time consuming total of six days (in two parts). So yes the people are on show for that period, an hour interview or six days in carefully staged and choreographed circumstances.

On top of a minimum education level (supported by an acceptable IQ level - or what they test for these days) and a physical condition (able to sustain and maintain the required fitness level and endurance ability) which can be established in a short few hours... IMHO the selection should focus upon selecting for leadership characteristics (at a level required by an officer) while filtering out those with character flaws (as far as possible).

We know that kids are pretty good at preparing for exams, interviews and the like these days (why there is even a book available to help you pass the AOSB). So during the selection one needs to introduce a little physical stress. (While I hasten to add that I am not current on what transpires during the modern AOSB) for example on completion of a run or at the end of an obstacle course the candidates are immediately subjected to a time limited mental test to ascertain whether they function under pressure and stress. Not too many can put on a show that can't be 'seen through' by attentive Board staff over a period of days.

The selection quality is largely based upon the Board composition and the ratio of Board members/DS to candidates. The Brits work as follows (and it would be interesting how other nations work):

The Selection Process

THE BOARD. Up to 40 candidates may be attending the Main Board at any one time. You will be divided into groups of eight, with men and women working together. It is important to remember that you are not competing against the other candidates. You are all being assessed against a common standard and your success is based entirely on your own performance. Equally, there is no single test by which you pass or fail – this is a series of assessments designed to give us an understanding of your officer potential. The officers assessing you will be interested in your approach to problems and challenges, and your attitude towards other members of the group – both as a team player and as a team leader.

Board Composition

The Board consists of the following members:

PRESIDENT. A Brigadier.
VICE PRESIDENT. A Colonel.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT. A Lieutenant Colonel.
GROUP LEADER. A Captain or Major.
EDUCATION ADVISER. A commissioned or retired Army Education Officer.