Military organisational politics - and the progression to senior ranks
I always wondered why Flt Lt to Sqn Ldr was the first "promotion on merit" hurdle of the Officer cadre, and how many people I have encountered over the years would not have progressed beyond Plt Off or Fg Off. I can certainly think of a few.
The military system of hr manning by one entry point and promotion by selection on reports mot interviews is not one any large company or other public sector authority use any more.
I cant help but feel that if fresh blood could be brought in higher up the food chain, the results would be refreshing.
I cant help but feel that if fresh blood could be brought in higher up the food chain, the results would be refreshing.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not solely the preserve of VSO's, if you want a real laugh, just observe the transitioning SNCO to LE. some of the accents are fecking brilliant, as well as the Chas becoming Charles!!! Funnily enough we don't see them down Lidl any more either...shame.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I reached my "ceiling of competence" 
, a number of people asked me if I'd still be a Dick .
, a number of people asked me if I'd still be a Dick .
Edit: I am lightly aquainted with an ex VVSO and his Lady. I had a similar conversation as Al R, with a reponse along the lines of 'Yes, it was a bit cut and thrust at times but at least on retirement you can start being normal again.' Cue immediate response from Lady VVSO 'Oh good, I do look forward to normal, when does it start dear?'
Last edited by thing; 24th Apr 2015 at 19:27.
My first holding post out of IOT was as ADC to a VSO. He had me "proof-reading" all the ACRs for the One Stars and Group Captains.
Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting!!
Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting!!
AVM Sid Hughes became Air Marshal Sir Rochford Hughes but then two VVSOs went the other way in the formality stakes.
I worked with a chap called Winterson-Bloomer who on promotion to Wg Cdr became Winterson. Another colleague, an ATC officer, double barrelled his name to satisfy the terms of his inheritance, whilst somebody else changed their name because the kids were getting bullied but took on a 'handle' which sounded even worse!
Ah well!
O-D
I worked with a chap called Winterson-Bloomer who on promotion to Wg Cdr became Winterson. Another colleague, an ATC officer, double barrelled his name to satisfy the terms of his inheritance, whilst somebody else changed their name because the kids were getting bullied but took on a 'handle' which sounded even worse!
Ah well!
O-D
Jimlad,
My goodness, if we interviewed for posts then it would make it harder for VSOs to advance "their people" - we'd actually have SQEPs in jobs instead of cronies. That would never do!!
Talent management is all about filling out the pyramid at the top, and very little about managing and retaining skilled people.
My goodness, if we interviewed for posts then it would make it harder for VSOs to advance "their people" - we'd actually have SQEPs in jobs instead of cronies. That would never do!!
Talent management is all about filling out the pyramid at the top, and very little about managing and retaining skilled people.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jimlad, perhaps 15 years ago PMA, HR if you like, asked for ideas.
Based on the difficulty manning some posts I proposed advertising posts and inviting suitably qualified applicants to apply. Rank was not necessarily a criterion. For instance a col could apply for a sgt post and appointed on merit. They could award acting paid if necessary.
The difference from the present system was you got a volunteer rather than "your promotio is conditional on your accepting a sh1t posting.
It was shot out of hand.
NIH and smacked of work.
Based on the difficulty manning some posts I proposed advertising posts and inviting suitably qualified applicants to apply. Rank was not necessarily a criterion. For instance a col could apply for a sgt post and appointed on merit. They could award acting paid if necessary.
The difference from the present system was you got a volunteer rather than "your promotio is conditional on your accepting a sh1t posting.
It was shot out of hand.
NIH and smacked of work.
Jimlad,
I broadly agree with your thinking, but remember we do already have multiple entry points but only at the start of your career - airman, SNCO and officer. I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to come in at various other points on the scale, I presume in a similar fashion the the CS with competency based recruiting. But you would have the thorny problem of bringing in people from the outside who hadn't slogged their way through the Commissioning course and therefore in the eyes of many, wouldn't have much in the way of credibility; remember the Commission confers certain rights and responsibilities, including in extremis the power of life and death when you are ordering people to launch on ops. That is very different from being an exec in commerce or industry.
The Police's Superintendent entry programme would probably be worth watching to see how that plays out as the nearest thing to what you are suggesting. But the notion of a meritocratic and fully open career management system would be nice, rather than individuals being 'mentored' - read into that deliberate wording what you will.
But as a former CAS said when addressing our ICSC, sqn ldr is the rank you have to survive. You have one foot in the Execs' corridor and one in the crew room and you somehow have to deal with that schizophrenic existence, proving to your seniors you have potential whilst proving to your colleagues and subordinates that you haven't become a complete muppet. If you can get through that rank, allegedly you stand a fighting chance.
I broadly agree with your thinking, but remember we do already have multiple entry points but only at the start of your career - airman, SNCO and officer. I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to come in at various other points on the scale, I presume in a similar fashion the the CS with competency based recruiting. But you would have the thorny problem of bringing in people from the outside who hadn't slogged their way through the Commissioning course and therefore in the eyes of many, wouldn't have much in the way of credibility; remember the Commission confers certain rights and responsibilities, including in extremis the power of life and death when you are ordering people to launch on ops. That is very different from being an exec in commerce or industry.
The Police's Superintendent entry programme would probably be worth watching to see how that plays out as the nearest thing to what you are suggesting. But the notion of a meritocratic and fully open career management system would be nice, rather than individuals being 'mentored' - read into that deliberate wording what you will.
But as a former CAS said when addressing our ICSC, sqn ldr is the rank you have to survive. You have one foot in the Execs' corridor and one in the crew room and you somehow have to deal with that schizophrenic existence, proving to your seniors you have potential whilst proving to your colleagues and subordinates that you haven't become a complete muppet. If you can get through that rank, allegedly you stand a fighting chance.
Last edited by Melchett01; 25th Apr 2015 at 12:38. Reason: Sentence structure
Back in 1980 as a re-entrant in my mid 30s, I was on my Secretarial course the Towers when the whole course was shunted to the Taj Mahal (Stn Educ Centre) for an as yet undeclared purpose. Seems someone had suggested ascertaining the psychological make-up of those who had been selected previously, and making that the selection "model". The guarantee was that there would be no looking at ACRs to see how performance later match selection prediction. It was explained we would take a profiling "test" and then that would be used to construct the model. Having been involved, outside the Service in some similar work, I questioned the use of just one test (16PF as I recall), and suggested that a battery of tests, probably 3 or 4, would be required to construct a usable model, and that for it to work at all there needed to e a comparison or performance against prediction. My comments were dismissed as "ridiculous" and the test went ahead. I wrote a memo to the Head of the Sec Training School, was interviewed on my comments, and the whole idea subsequently disappeared in a puff of smoke. Pity, because done properly it had promise.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Dar Nunder
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a junior officer you start to make your mark by proving ability - not only in primary duties but also all those other aspects of Service life. Once promoted to Sqn Ldr (or equivalent) then your career will be " managed" and postings will be "arranged" both as a confirmatory test and as a means of broadening expertise needed for VSO rank. It definitely starts to get political at sqn ldr and gets more so as one ascends the greasy pole.
I managed to get off the pole by PVRing to emigrate having been put on the selection board for the next one up! Spoilt their career roadmap totally!
PS As one of the last ones to take the 'C' exam I always thought it was a mistake to get rid of it - served as a useful filter.
I managed to get off the pole by PVRing to emigrate having been put on the selection board for the next one up! Spoilt their career roadmap totally!
PS As one of the last ones to take the 'C' exam I always thought it was a mistake to get rid of it - served as a useful filter.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political leaders need nasty bastards running their military.
As a naval grunt I had much more time for the people who really led from the front or had walked the walk (sounds a terrible cliché that I know, but on experience that's the kind of person I preferred to work under). But they needed a modicum of decency, somehow.
"Thrusters" and especially "young thrusters" I think we tried to avoid as I recall.
I would have much preferred to work for a with a man who was comfortable at his level of ability, and wasn't constantly shafting his own people and using them as stepping stones to get ahead. Because generally this was more pleasant and also safer even. That's no good to the people who want results of course. They need bastards in charge.
In the present corporate industrial challenging world I now inhabit, we have all been recruited and placed at the level we are trained, experienced and competent at - there is no promotion unless I suppose you resign and seek a more challenging role/job/more money elsewhere. Its a hieratical pyramid no doubt here and a good one mostly.
Performing in ones job well, not screwing up getting someone hurt or injured, or damaging equipment and costing the company money in replacement or repair or a penalty clause cost is everything here. Promotion seekers have to leave and seek employment elsewhere, the career structure just isn't there.
Outside agencies, client customers, HQ office types come in and rip us to pieces, or try to - if we flag or slacken, its as bad as that.
So generally loyalty amongst us is absolutely everything in this current pyramid I find myself within -I'm finding it as tougher and challenging as the military in a sort of day to day role in some ways. A ruthless sort of attention/promotion seeker wouldn't be really welcome among us and would affect the team I fear.
Thing is of course, the military needs these ruthless types doesn't it? Need them to win the battles. If you are a politician and you want a military leader (and a victory), do you want a Zhukov or do you want a Gort?
"Thrusters" and especially "young thrusters" I think we tried to avoid as I recall.
I would have much preferred to work for a with a man who was comfortable at his level of ability, and wasn't constantly shafting his own people and using them as stepping stones to get ahead. Because generally this was more pleasant and also safer even. That's no good to the people who want results of course. They need bastards in charge.
In the present corporate industrial challenging world I now inhabit, we have all been recruited and placed at the level we are trained, experienced and competent at - there is no promotion unless I suppose you resign and seek a more challenging role/job/more money elsewhere. Its a hieratical pyramid no doubt here and a good one mostly.
Performing in ones job well, not screwing up getting someone hurt or injured, or damaging equipment and costing the company money in replacement or repair or a penalty clause cost is everything here. Promotion seekers have to leave and seek employment elsewhere, the career structure just isn't there.
Outside agencies, client customers, HQ office types come in and rip us to pieces, or try to - if we flag or slacken, its as bad as that.
So generally loyalty amongst us is absolutely everything in this current pyramid I find myself within -I'm finding it as tougher and challenging as the military in a sort of day to day role in some ways. A ruthless sort of attention/promotion seeker wouldn't be really welcome among us and would affect the team I fear.
Thing is of course, the military needs these ruthless types doesn't it? Need them to win the battles. If you are a politician and you want a military leader (and a victory), do you want a Zhukov or do you want a Gort?
