Sounds like the "Kick My Balls" guy in IdiocracyOriginally Posted by Vic Bout
Proud Grad Class 2-77
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...
Now maybe, just maybe I'm coming into this thread a tad late, but....it seems to me that offering Ranger school as a retention incentive is counterintuitive...tell ya what, instead of Ranger School how 'bout you come by my office every morning after PT and I'll kick you in the junk as hard as I can?
(proud graduate Class 6-78)
"THIS is my boomstick!"
Sounds like the "Kick My Balls" guy in Idiocracy
Proud Grad Class 2-77
Dunno 'bout you two gentlemen, but I was damn glad to have a Ranger riding right seat with me in the friggin' middle of Goma
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Right you are
Stan, I love having Rangers riding shotgun with me as well....the problem is they want you to stop all the time so they can check out passing dumpsters for chow...Ranger high cuisine
"THIS is my boomstick!"
Hey Vic !
I don't think we ever saw a dumpster in ZaireTom, however, did fix a mean grilled steak or chicken (gotta take care of your pesky NCOs)
Regards, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
As I was getting out my BN Commander pulled another captain and me in his office along with the XO, and explained why we shouldn't get out and staying in the Army was the best thing. He made some good points. Then he explained that the pay system was going to be revamped very soon (this was 1999) and when the both of us made major we'd be far happier with our pay.
At that point I had to cut him off and explain that the both of us were leaving the Army to take pay cuts. Leaving was never about the money. Neither was joining.
-LC
Wrong on 2 counts
1. Never lead with the money argument. None of us can be bought (however, in my old age I can be rented for reasonable rates).
2. If you're just starting "the talk" after you've already found the contraceptives, it's too late.
The most critical thing to keep our talented mid-grade officers is for the higher grade ones to CONSTANTLY talk to them. Not OER support form-type stuff, but everything imaginable. Where you lead, they will follow.
It never is, I think.
I'd offer that one must take time to mentor and counsel. That's a hard thing to do in wartime, be it garrison or abroad. I don't think it's done well by the Army. When was the last time you got senior rater counseling outside of initial and end-of-period? For that matter, did you even get counseled by your rating scheme? I can count my counseling sessions on one hand in 18 years. I'm not proud of that; even when I was rated on top of the heap, I'd still have liked to compare azimuths instead of being surprised.
You got counseling prior to leaving? I guess I'm surprised; I was almost one of Reimer's "quitters". We should be actively reaching out to guys on the fence. I don't think we do.
When I left back in '91, I received one of those, "Get the hell out, punk" letters from M.I. that basically said because my senior rater tried to build a valid profile on the bones of my "career", I had a snowball's chance in hell of getting promoted to CPT.
When my Bn Co called me in for the mandatory "please don't leave" counselling session, I laughed in his face. He was shocked that I would actually have the temerity of pointing out the internal contradiction in the "system".
Joe Heller was right, btw....
Amen! Leaders play the critical role in retention - we should never sluff this responsibility off on the bureaucracy to address, if we do we fail.The most critical thing to keep our talented mid-grade officers is for the higher grade ones to CONSTANTLY talk to them. Not OER support form-type stuff, but everything imaginable. Where you lead, they will follow.
The bureaucracy must be seen for what it is, a means for leaders to reach through and touch people, if leaders remain inanimate, then the bureaucracy hardens and people get lost in the system, and fall out or leave. It is up to leaders of all grades to leave a positive impression that is deep enough to count when times are tough, and to remain engaged in relationships that touch others directly and indirectly.
The other incentives add some depth and width to those impressions - quality of life means different things to different people, and so those incentives should be retained, but never placed into a context that they are valued over the power of personal relationships with regard to retention of those traits and characteristics we value most as a military. That is the realm of leadership.
Leadership is what recognizes the stress placed on families, and works on a number of levels to reduce that stress. It might be the levels and quality of support available to families while spouses are deployed (from child care, to medical services, to opportunities for personal development or community), it might be shaping the environment so that when spouses are back families enjoy that time for its full worth. While I realize that many of those we wish to retain are single, I think we have to show that leaders recognizes that at some point they might wish to have a family, and as such military service must hold the possibility that the personal goals can be reconciled with continued service - leaders do that, not bureaucracy.
In the end, everyone takes off the uniform eventually. What leaders can do is provide rationale to retain our most important asset, our people where personal goals and professional goals, loyalties to service and to family can be reconciled. At some point goals and loyalties may be divergent to a point where the individual and family must choose one over the other, but that should not be a choice that gets made when leadership could have helped reconcile them.
We should not let the bureaucracy arbitrarily define the limits of what leaders can accomplish in this regard, policies should be revisited and often bent, loosened or abolished if they no longer serve our greater interest - again this is the role of leadership to be engaged in this process. Human resources is not the sole business or responsibility of some command to which we can pin our inadequacies on, its all of our business and all of our responsibility. If you want the very best person as your wingman, you have a role to play.
Best, Rob
Did I mention
that its Leadership - on the battlefield and off the battlefield, in command and in staff, on duty and off duty, in uniform and out of uniform - if you touch this, you can affect it.
Rob
Wanted to bump this back to the top after I received some info right before Xmas:
The Army is now offering direct commissions for E7-E9 and W3-W4's. Senior NCO's and WO's are also being offered slots at the Command and General Staff College.
Wanted to see what people think about these policies...obviously it shows the lack of depth within the mid-grade officer ranks.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
ocs
My last unit had a noticable increase in the number of LTs we were receiving that were prior service, usually E6 and above, and had attended OCS. Most did a great job, though a few could not stop being a NCO, or did not like what officers actually do.
By offering direct comissions, do you mean OCS, or just pinning on the rank? The Army is 1000s of CPTs and MAJs short (though some argue this is not a big deal), and is promoting NCOs faster too. Looking at the long term, a senior NCO that switches to officer will be much closer to retirement, and may end their career as a CPT or MAJ. The Army is short on senior NCOs, and needs experienced leaders with Soldiers. I don't know if taking them away from Soldiers for a couple years as a PL and staff is worth it. Also, some of those officers need degree completion, which takes them out of the loop another 1 or 2 years.
That said, the Army only admitted there was a problem (CSRB) after many had already left, and has not figured out a good way to fill the gap. I was told the next CSRB will not include the $ option, which was by and large the most popular. The Army serves America, but if America is not willing to serve, what can you do?
My understanding of CGSC is that they are looking to move senior NCO and senior warrant training to Leavenworth, not necessarily sending them to ILE. I could easily be wrong on that though. I am currently in CCC, and it is a good thing to be just with my peers while I learn a new trade. Also, ILE is already backlogged a couple years, and MAJs would be cometing with WO and SGMs for slots to a mandatory school. Most MAJs may end up S3/XO before ILE. Is that a good thing?
"What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
- Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.
In every war, the Army has done that.
Direct commissions to good SFC through CSM; generally to 1LT or CPT and for CWOs to 1LT through MAJ, age and experience dependent. Most will not be promoted above the appointment grade (except 1LT to CPT), will serve three years and then revert to their former enlisted or warrant rank, maybe 5-10% will serve longer. After Viet Nam, some of those directly commissioned were not allowed to go back to their former rank but were given severance pay and tossed.
My pet was those Aviator Warrants who were given direct Commissions as CPT, served three years and then were not allowed to go back to WO but were discharged COG...
Took the best and brightest, commissioned 'em, let 'em serve three years and then threw 'em out. Brilliant.
Some NCOS and CWOs will turn it down because they don't want to be Officers for many reasons, others because they realize it's three years and out for most unless they're smiled upon by the fates.
I'd imagine most E-8s and E-9s would see 2LT as a step down. And I haven't met many prior service E-7s.
Regarding the policy issue, has anyone considered that we could soften our Officer "shortage" by eliminating some staff positions? That would kill two birds with the same rock, because it would also help retention.
From what I understand, WO4's and E9's are eligble for direct commissioning (without OCS) to MAJ/04. W3 amd E8 to CPT and E7 to 1LT.
Pat
We have 4 Warrants in the current CGSC class. There will be more in the future, LTG Caldwell wants CGSC to expand and have more interagency students as well.
I also don't believe CGSC is backlogged - they have been sending more slots to the ARNG and USAR than ever. I think there are 40 ARNG officers in my class (including myself). Unless something radical has occured lately...not buying it. I am of the opinion that having your KD position before or after CGSC is irrelevant, comes down to the individual...CGSC isn't going to make you a superstar S3 or BN XO...but that's one man's opinion...
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
interesting
Ken,
Sir, thanks for the info. Is this currently in effect? I have not yet met anyone that has gone this route. All the older guys in my class are NG, Reserve, or coming back to Active Duty. Aside from the obligatory old-man jokes during class, they are great guys and great resource for youngin' like me.
Schmedlap,
I agree that eliminating staff would help officer morale, but where would anyone be willing to start? Every commander wants as much manpower as he/she can get, and a lot of battalions are running pretty thin as it is now. There were tons of officers, warrants, and NCOs at BDE that I never saw until a BDE MRX, and some of those guys could probably go elsewhere, but where would you cut the fat? We're already too busy, and less people could push it over the edge. Thankfully, my only experiences at DIV level were a promotion party and clearing post, so someone wiser than me can hopefully figure out efficiency there.
Ski,
Sir, thanks for the info also. Are these officers going to BOLC (aka OBC) and CCC as well? I am still years away from worrying about ILE (though the timeline keeps shortening, scary), but everything I've seen says expect to attend 2-3 years after promotion due to course demand. Also, my last XO has been waiting for 2 years now, and my old commander only got a slot a few years early thanks to luck.
I agree that a good individual will succeed regardless of course attendance, but if the point of a course is to best prepare Majors for those KD jobs, and many are filling the slots without the training, why make ILE a requirement? The same debate is used with Captains and CCC. A lot of my buddies are commanding before the course, and I would have, had I stayed FA. If people really don't need these courses, then make them voluntary or eliminate them. If they are important, then send officers immediately. Having just finished IPB block at MI school, I definately needed this training before going to a maneuver unit.
"What do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?"
- Harry Callahan, The Enforcer.
Some answers and some guesses...
Ski knows more than I do, I was just saying there's a lot historical precedent for it. If they're taking SGM/CSMWO4 straight to MAJ now, that's an improvement over earlier practice where CPT was essentially as high as the initial commissioning went. It worked well during Korea and Viet Nam. In the VN era, I know two former NCOs who went all the way to LTC, two to MAJ and got to 10 or more years commissioned service but most left as CPT after three or four years.True for the first part -- but they'll take what they're given and make it work...Every commander wants as much manpower as he/she can get, and a lot of battalions are running pretty thin as it is now.
As for thin now, if Inf Bns have a Cmd section and a Staff section that numbers over 22 aggregate / Nine Officers, they've probably got more than they need. Don't know what a Bde has now but back in the Viet Nam period, a Bde three shop had six officers including the ChemicalO and the SigO plus eight EM -- that was enough to cover everything and if you decided to go to three TOC shifts instead of two, you drafted a LT and a couple of NCOs from somewhere else. Though I suppose nowadays a 2LT running a Bde TOC shift would cause apoplexy...I'll guarantee you they're fat....Thankfully, my only experiences at DIV level were a promotion party and clearing post, so someone wiser than me can hopefully figure out efficiency there.The previous solution was no to the first and yes when scheduled on the second. There was a brief (4 weeks IIRC) charm school at Benning and at Sill, possibly also at Eustis for the newly annointed.Are these officers going to BOLC (aka OBC) and CCC as well?Can't speak for now but back in my Armor School days, over half the CCC had commanded Co/Trp before coming to the course, almost 75% had served on Bn or Bde staffs, a number on Div staffs (as an aside, over 75% of the ANCOC students had already been Platoon Sergeants). When Shy Meyer was Chief of Staff, he wanted to convert the CCC to a two to eight week pre-job course; you'd got to school (2-6 wks) before you went to a staff job or (6-8 wks) cmd slot. TRADOC hated that because it cut into instructor contact hours and would've decreased the size, particularly the number of Officer instructors, of all the service schools. Obviously, none of the Branches liked that idea either. So they rebelled and just waited him out. Business as usual....The same debate is used with Captains and CCC. A lot of my buddies are commanding before the course, and I would have, had I stayed FA. If people really don't need these courses, then make them voluntary or eliminate them. If they are important, then send officers immediately. Having just finished IPB block at MI school, I definately needed this training before going to a maneuver unit.
PME is sort of dysfunctional...
Pat,
It's my opinion that CGSC isn't really going to prepare you to be a BN S3 or XO. There actually is an elective class specifically tailored for officers going to these KD jobs.
We have an active duty CPT (FA branch) in my small group. Also was selected for SAMS. So I don't know why your branch manager is feeding that to you...the vast majority of officers in CGSC are new Majors. There are a few of us who are promotable or are getting their first look this year...
CGSC - to this point - and I'm only half way through so I can't fully comment, is not designed for BN-level staff. It's BCT up to CFLCC staff work. You get thrown into positions that are not in your expertise/comfort zone. I was a Civil Affairs planner for one exercise, now I am the Intel Planner...it's designed around the processes of staff work. How to create, plan and execute an operation. How to work within a Joint Planning Group. The branch specific details/courses are either not going to be in the course or they are in the electives, which is the last trimester of the school.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
In the post Korea era, the Army has tried to use direct commissions (as opposed to OCS) as little as possible.The normal COA during the VN era was to send candidates to OCS, then to basic branch courses. One of the big differences between the situation today and that in VN and prior is that in Ken's day, we had constant, virtually limitless inflow to the bottom of the pyramid through the draft. The population in the Army (and USMC) is much less elastic today, so the trickle-down effect of robbing one population group (NCOs) to pay another (commissioned officer corps) is greater than during the big one.
During the post-VN reduction in force era, many previously enlisted officers were RIFfed back to their previous grades or shown the door. Of those that remained, all were told to finish school and do other penance to bring them in line with the rest of the officer corps as a whole. Those who refused or failed were shown the door.
One of the quirkier results of that system was that as a junior officer, I had a passel (sp?) of former officers working for me. As I recall, I had 3 or 4 squad leaders, a platoon sergeant and a 1SG who had all been captains. The PSG had actually commanded a rifle company. Some retained their reserve commissions and would have to disappear two weeks a year to serve in their reserve post. It was wierd having NCOs with two sets of greens -- one w/stripes and one w/o.
Re CGSC. I showed up @ Leavenworth having already been a bn 3 (and a HQDA staff officer). There was nothing I learned here that would have impacted that greatly on my ability to do either job. Not sure what the system is like now. -- Please -- no snide remarks about my ability to do any job.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks