Quality Of Military Officers Today
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally (and since it was I that started this sideline) I am encouraged by the views that are being expressed. if we are to improve the quality from the training establishments (if it needs improving!), then healthy debate can open up issues on the frontline that don't get back to us the trainers!
What about OLQ's are they as relevant today as they were in the past?
What about OLQ's are they as relevant today as they were in the past?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe:[list=1][*]Our current JOs join with a completely different set of expectations and standards than those of 10-20 years earlier.[*]The current JOs have more of an eye from an earlier age on what they can get out of the system or post service than JOs of 10-20 years ago. Depending on your view, this is a lack of loyalty and commitment or they're simply more aware and not as gullible as those before them. [*]We ask more of our JOs now than 20 years ago - witness the first tourist large formation leads or first tourist ground pers routinely deployed OOA as NFU etc.[*]They are more professionally focussed within work and less 'hooli fun' orientated than the previous generation out of work.[*]Whilst they have different qualities from 20 years ago, they are generally good.[/list=1]
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11
Have to admit that after a hard day at work you have made me chuckle. Don't remember such passion fuelled responses to a post since the days of admin guru!!
I was indeed brave enough to make some very broad sweeping comments. With hindsight, some of the issues that i was trying to highlight may indeed have had less effect because of my slightly tongue in cheek post. Perhaps in the future i should try to use more words such as hug, bond and fluffy!(Hope that last exclamation mark didn't heart your ears. I shall however try my level best to include a copious dose of full stops, exclamation marks and other assorted text shouting)!!!!!!??????>>><<<,,.,.
1./
QUOTE
It is question worth looking at again though.
Iccarus
As you were brave enough to speak from the heart, let's sift through your response:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the chaps and chappesses with whom i work are a fine bunch who achieve excellent results with what can only be described as second rate equipment, second rate support but for the most part, first rate training.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly sweeping statement about equipment (lots of good gear in the armed forces I'm in, or is the grass greener?) and possibly a bit of a Kop out? Do you think a good leader would alienate him/herself from his supporting personnel by calling them second rate? Do you think a good leader would blame his/her equipment at all?
Actually not such a sweeping statement. Look at most of the major kit which we are expecting and the words delay and overspend spring to mind. Still, i suppose that in your air force it is just fine to be technically outclassed by numerous third world air forces who have been able to buy proven soviet kit which packs a mean punch. Perhaps in your air force, the great kit you refer to includes the recent gems ---"Rucksacks" and "History of the RAF" ( My grass is certainly not greener)
When i lead my men to war, I want the best kit and i want it now! So perhaps, as you may now see, a request for good kit is not such a kop out - lives depend on it.
Finally, the lessons of history have repeatedly shown that GREAT leaders very often don't survive to make complaints about their kit - they simply crack on and pay the ultimate price.
2./
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My experiences of officer training left me more than dissapointed. Leadership exercises which in many cases were easier to complete as a teenager in scouts/ATC were exasperating. So too were the some of the muppets who just couldn't crack them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouch! (Note use of exclam, this time a groan rather than a shout.) Do you think a good leader would call his peers or subordinates muppets? Do you think it's possible that as a leader, the phrase would be seen as a little arrogant? Do you think that being arrogant endears you to people or distances you from them? Would you follow an arrogant man/woman because you believed in them or because you wanted to watch them fail?
I wouldn't dare to call my support personnel second rate. In fact my experience shows that helping and cajoling them to try and achieve bigger and better things usually gets great results all round. However, it doesn't change the fact that some of the "less abled"(trying to avoid words such as m@pp$t to avoid offence) should not be there in the first place and we need to ask the question - how have they got there?
3./
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I chat to colleagues in the bar now, many of whom have been instructors at said establishment. Indeed, they themselves felt annoyed by a system which felt unable to burn the dead wood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dead wood. Maybe they're not dead, just slow in growing. Not everyone can grow as fast a you seem to be.
No, trust me. Some of these fellas wouldn't even float, let alone burn!
4./
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result--aircrew needed to achieve a higher standard than their compadres who were destined to spend a life stacking shelves!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there are different standards, we do different jobs. Where aircrew, for example, may need to have a certain positive leadership style, the 'blanket stacker' may have to do considerably better at spelling under pressure than you have done in your original post. Have a look again at the bit about alienating your support elements.
No mate, you've got it all wrong. As far as i was concerned, we are all officers first, and then branch/trade specialization second.
I'm not talking about different styles of leadership which might vary from trade to trade. I'm talking about a basic standard which we all should have to achieve irrespective of branch. And if you suggest that the ability to spell correctly might make up for an inability to lead men, then you really do exist in a different air force to me.
5./
QUOTE
Do you think you may be reinforcing the belief of the 99.8% of the RAF who don't fly have in pilot steroetypes?
No, its you who creates the us and them divide by advocating a system whereby aircrew mates must do better.
Oh, and while i'm on the subject how about spelling---people in glass houses comes to mind. It clearly wasn't the spelling which got you through the course.
6./
QUOTE
Based on what you've written, I think I'd choose the blanket stacker over you. You concentrate on flying an aeroplane, probably a single seat one, and hope that you haven't irritated the admin guy so much you don't get paid and the armourer doesn't leave the pylon pin in.
Fair one mate, you choose the blanket stacker - thats the finest example of natural selection that I've seen in a while.
In the mean time i'll stick to my single seat and keep laughing to myself whenever my travel claim is screwed up again(because in the course of my average 12hr days i forgot to cross out the unused boxes), and i'll make sure i keep doing my walk round cxs correctly and delivering the parcels exactly where their meant to go!
Look forward to the inevitable explosive response, and a polite request - can we leave the DW etiquette and spelling out of it?
Icc
Have to admit that after a hard day at work you have made me chuckle. Don't remember such passion fuelled responses to a post since the days of admin guru!!
I was indeed brave enough to make some very broad sweeping comments. With hindsight, some of the issues that i was trying to highlight may indeed have had less effect because of my slightly tongue in cheek post. Perhaps in the future i should try to use more words such as hug, bond and fluffy!(Hope that last exclamation mark didn't heart your ears. I shall however try my level best to include a copious dose of full stops, exclamation marks and other assorted text shouting)!!!!!!??????>>><<<,,.,.
1./
QUOTE
It is question worth looking at again though.
Iccarus
As you were brave enough to speak from the heart, let's sift through your response:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the chaps and chappesses with whom i work are a fine bunch who achieve excellent results with what can only be described as second rate equipment, second rate support but for the most part, first rate training.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly sweeping statement about equipment (lots of good gear in the armed forces I'm in, or is the grass greener?) and possibly a bit of a Kop out? Do you think a good leader would alienate him/herself from his supporting personnel by calling them second rate? Do you think a good leader would blame his/her equipment at all?
Actually not such a sweeping statement. Look at most of the major kit which we are expecting and the words delay and overspend spring to mind. Still, i suppose that in your air force it is just fine to be technically outclassed by numerous third world air forces who have been able to buy proven soviet kit which packs a mean punch. Perhaps in your air force, the great kit you refer to includes the recent gems ---"Rucksacks" and "History of the RAF" ( My grass is certainly not greener)
When i lead my men to war, I want the best kit and i want it now! So perhaps, as you may now see, a request for good kit is not such a kop out - lives depend on it.
Finally, the lessons of history have repeatedly shown that GREAT leaders very often don't survive to make complaints about their kit - they simply crack on and pay the ultimate price.
2./
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My experiences of officer training left me more than dissapointed. Leadership exercises which in many cases were easier to complete as a teenager in scouts/ATC were exasperating. So too were the some of the muppets who just couldn't crack them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouch! (Note use of exclam, this time a groan rather than a shout.) Do you think a good leader would call his peers or subordinates muppets? Do you think it's possible that as a leader, the phrase would be seen as a little arrogant? Do you think that being arrogant endears you to people or distances you from them? Would you follow an arrogant man/woman because you believed in them or because you wanted to watch them fail?
I wouldn't dare to call my support personnel second rate. In fact my experience shows that helping and cajoling them to try and achieve bigger and better things usually gets great results all round. However, it doesn't change the fact that some of the "less abled"(trying to avoid words such as m@pp$t to avoid offence) should not be there in the first place and we need to ask the question - how have they got there?
3./
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I chat to colleagues in the bar now, many of whom have been instructors at said establishment. Indeed, they themselves felt annoyed by a system which felt unable to burn the dead wood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dead wood. Maybe they're not dead, just slow in growing. Not everyone can grow as fast a you seem to be.
No, trust me. Some of these fellas wouldn't even float, let alone burn!
4./
QUOTE
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result--aircrew needed to achieve a higher standard than their compadres who were destined to spend a life stacking shelves!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there are different standards, we do different jobs. Where aircrew, for example, may need to have a certain positive leadership style, the 'blanket stacker' may have to do considerably better at spelling under pressure than you have done in your original post. Have a look again at the bit about alienating your support elements.
No mate, you've got it all wrong. As far as i was concerned, we are all officers first, and then branch/trade specialization second.
I'm not talking about different styles of leadership which might vary from trade to trade. I'm talking about a basic standard which we all should have to achieve irrespective of branch. And if you suggest that the ability to spell correctly might make up for an inability to lead men, then you really do exist in a different air force to me.
5./
QUOTE
Do you think you may be reinforcing the belief of the 99.8% of the RAF who don't fly have in pilot steroetypes?
No, its you who creates the us and them divide by advocating a system whereby aircrew mates must do better.
Oh, and while i'm on the subject how about spelling---people in glass houses comes to mind. It clearly wasn't the spelling which got you through the course.
6./
QUOTE
Based on what you've written, I think I'd choose the blanket stacker over you. You concentrate on flying an aeroplane, probably a single seat one, and hope that you haven't irritated the admin guy so much you don't get paid and the armourer doesn't leave the pylon pin in.
Fair one mate, you choose the blanket stacker - thats the finest example of natural selection that I've seen in a while.
In the mean time i'll stick to my single seat and keep laughing to myself whenever my travel claim is screwed up again(because in the course of my average 12hr days i forgot to cross out the unused boxes), and i'll make sure i keep doing my walk round cxs correctly and delivering the parcels exactly where their meant to go!
Look forward to the inevitable explosive response, and a polite request - can we leave the DW etiquette and spelling out of it?
Icc
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foldingwings. You were right, unfortunately.
Iccarus. I don't know of admin guru but thanks for the compliment, laughter (chuckling) is good for you. Nothing in your response worth getting explosive about.
The debate is dead, long live the debate.
Iccarus. I don't know of admin guru but thanks for the compliment, laughter (chuckling) is good for you. Nothing in your response worth getting explosive about.
The debate is dead, long live the debate.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobalt, I have to ask.
From what position of godly officer qualities are you asking this question?
Have you demonstrated your OLQ's operationally yourself? There is more to it than good networking skills, your obvious skills in the art of TLAs and funny coloured trousers.
Are you in fact followed only through curiosity?
Please don't tell me that Dartmouth improves young officers abilities to lead. As far as I could tell it is merely a kind of wussy public school. A pleasent way to spend the summer on the water, nothing more.
Incidentally, Dartmouth staff come usually from two groups
1. The movers
2. The weak characters being given a final chance to impress.
Are you sure you are a 1?
From what position of godly officer qualities are you asking this question?
Have you demonstrated your OLQ's operationally yourself? There is more to it than good networking skills, your obvious skills in the art of TLAs and funny coloured trousers.
Are you in fact followed only through curiosity?
Please don't tell me that Dartmouth improves young officers abilities to lead. As far as I could tell it is merely a kind of wussy public school. A pleasent way to spend the summer on the water, nothing more.
Incidentally, Dartmouth staff come usually from two groups
1. The movers
2. The weak characters being given a final chance to impress.
Are you sure you are a 1?
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sending YO's straight from flying training to an operational environment is not easy when you need to get them trained up in a Squadron role, anything we can do to prepare them for that gets my vote.
My own experience is that despite the chunterings of the likes of me and Beags, those Good Old Days were never really as good as they are made out to be. Todays officers are no doubt just as good as those who were at Waterloo, Trafalgar, or in the skies over Kent. As the times - they have been changing, the young men and women who serve have changed superficially to go with them. The mettle is still there and it shows.
Keep it up,
and Thank You.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it is clear then that now, like our predessors, there are good officers, competent officers and poor officers. Just to change the tack of the debate, where do people think we should place our finite supply of good officers.
Front line units where the action is;
Training (including OCUs) so that their talent can be tapped to improve the standard of the Service;
PJHQ/JFHQ/JFACHQ/JFMCHQ/Div HQs so that our operations (and, therefore, the people that direct the people at item 1) are run by the best possible;
MOD/DPA so that they can utilise their higher abilities to make sure we get the best equipment/budget etc;
Or, dare I say, even PMA/NMA/APC so we don't have underachievers managing our careers/lives;
Anywhere else
Answers on a post.
Front line units where the action is;
Training (including OCUs) so that their talent can be tapped to improve the standard of the Service;
PJHQ/JFHQ/JFACHQ/JFMCHQ/Div HQs so that our operations (and, therefore, the people that direct the people at item 1) are run by the best possible;
MOD/DPA so that they can utilise their higher abilities to make sure we get the best equipment/budget etc;
Or, dare I say, even PMA/NMA/APC so we don't have underachievers managing our careers/lives;
Anywhere else
Answers on a post.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
In the parallel universe of billable work, performance and meeting the customer's expectations, I often encounter managers who want me to remove staff for failure to perform. When I ask "have you coached/briefed/explained or trained them" ...to do the task the are failing to perform, I invariably receive a negative response.
My point? (there sometimes is one) Despite overstretch and undermanning, well trained experienced officers don't just fall off the shelf. They are a function of the environment in which they exist and the education they receive. Again, there are definitley lost causes out there, but to stand by and watch junior (or not so junior) officers fail at basic leadership and command functions due to lack of experience or guidance is compounding the failure of the ofiicer training system in the first instance.
Leadership is as much about helping others reach the pinnacle as helping yourself.
My point? (there sometimes is one) Despite overstretch and undermanning, well trained experienced officers don't just fall off the shelf. They are a function of the environment in which they exist and the education they receive. Again, there are definitley lost causes out there, but to stand by and watch junior (or not so junior) officers fail at basic leadership and command functions due to lack of experience or guidance is compounding the failure of the ofiicer training system in the first instance.
Leadership is as much about helping others reach the pinnacle as helping yourself.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sleaford
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys Guys Guys, as an articifer who is at least starting to realise how old he is, having gone through the "they're not what they used to be" phase, I have to say that the "new breed" (when did that start?) are not at all bad. We have to face facts... the RAF is not what it used to be. How could it be? We are not a static organisation facing a red army across the NGP. We are now a pure expedition force, spending an increasing amount of time away, sometimes in highly volitile environments. The club atmosphere of the old Mess environment is all but dead really, although it is hanging in there on ocassions. The recent recruits are joining a highly professional, world-class police force, asked to do the bidding of a slightly contentious governing body, no longer for "Queen and country" but for debatable political purpose. Under the stresses that they are dealing with, my hat goes off to them (and us still serving). Believe me, it aint easy, especially as we have to deal with an EP delivered by DPA..................... sh1t, I'm losing control, time to end reply. Over and out!! Keep going girls and boys, I... for one am proud of you!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate on leadership and quality of the modern military volunteer. As the recent raft of VC, MCs, DFCs etc might suggest, we do seem to be getting it right. And the majority of those getting the valour awards appear to be the young officers and other ranks. At the end of the day, the job comes in and it gets done. If our training and leadership were really so poor, then we would fail. Rose tinted specs for the days of yore are misplaced.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am so pleased to see that so many of the above posts (tablet eraser et al) assume that the criticism of officer quality applies to those officers in the RAF.
As they say... "If the cap fits"
As they say... "If the cap fits"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality Of Military Officers Today
Speaking from lower down the food chain and with over 40 years of dealing with RAF junior officers, I find that on the whole they are just as good as their predecessors. Of course they are different to the officers of my early years, but that certainly does not make them worse, just that - different. Their asperations are not the same as my generation but then the aspirations of the officers in Trenchards day were different again. In many ways todays junior officers have a tougher time than previously, and they cope with it very well. Of course there will always be those that slip through the net but many of those can be brought back on track with the right coaching. Life goes on.
My only complaint would be all the fluffyness that has crept into the service over the last few years such as first names at work, the blameless society etc.
My only complaint would be all the fluffyness that has crept into the service over the last few years such as first names at work, the blameless society etc.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From someone who hung his hat up 25 years ago, after 30 years, I can only only say god bless you all and believe in yourselves. From what I've seen you're all doing a great job. Keep it up chaps.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
PhilRigger, when did you first notice first names creeping in? In my case 1980 when I went on to the Shacklebomber possibly but even in the '60s our crew chief was either 'chief' or 'taff'.
On the Nimrod, with mixed ranks crews and 5 or 6 sirs, 2 or 3 masters and many knockers the problem was often solved with use of crew positions even on the sqn. 'Good Morning Mr Cross' was always replied as 'Good Morning Sir' but also 'Good morning Eng' was not unheard of.
On the Shacklebomber the sqn commander laid down an edict that we were to use ranks and surnames. Naturally that accelerated the trend to first names.
On the Nimrod, with mixed ranks crews and 5 or 6 sirs, 2 or 3 masters and many knockers the problem was often solved with use of crew positions even on the sqn. 'Good Morning Mr Cross' was always replied as 'Good Morning Sir' but also 'Good morning Eng' was not unheard of.
On the Shacklebomber the sqn commander laid down an edict that we were to use ranks and surnames. Naturally that accelerated the trend to first names.
I don't know if the Inspectorate of recruiting laid down the crew compositions for aircraft participating at Fairford, or whether the decision was taken to hire blokes from some kind of agency, but I was struck by the extremely impressive individuals (air and groundcrew alike) who I encountered at Fairford on Friday.
I was especially impressed by the 8 Squadron E-3D blokes, and by the Jag mates and their groundcrew. They certainly dispelled any worries about 'slipping standards' at least in terms of ethos and calibre, though I'm not qualified to judge their professional competence, of course.
I was especially impressed by the 8 Squadron E-3D blokes, and by the Jag mates and their groundcrew. They certainly dispelled any worries about 'slipping standards' at least in terms of ethos and calibre, though I'm not qualified to judge their professional competence, of course.
