Acting Chief of Military Personnel on Diversity, Inclusion, and Culture Change Short-Term Initiatives

[KevinB]

That is kind of my question, too.

You are a Colonel/Capt(N) who is found not suitable by psychometric testing to be a GOFO…what then? Release?

Not that I have great deal of sympathy for our bloated senior officer corps, but if you want the good people to rise to the top and not be afraid to try for the brass ring, how do you encourage that?

I apologize for being several pages late - but clearly a cage match.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I apologize for being several pages late - but clearly a cage match.

What about a duel ? Pistols at dawn ?

 

[Remius]

What about a duel ? Pistols at dawn ?

 

[dapaterson]

What about a duel ? Pistols at dawn ?

We need to complete the pistol procurement first

 

[KevinB]

Don't get me wrong, there is a time when it's time for someone to retire. That's why I am a big fan of drawing an immediate annuity earlier.

Personally, I think NCMs should be able to draw a pension at 15 years and Officers at 20 years.

There are some jobs in particular:

SOF, Divers, SAR Tech, Combat Arms, Aircrew, etc where it's a young persons game. The career window for those individuals is shorter and they should be able to retire earlier on a reduced pension.

I'd argue at lot of those trades provide a pool for occupational transfers.

Assaulter Bloggins may not be able to kick door, turn left as well as they did 10 years ago - but the experience they have can (and should) be retained - have them work GeoSpacial with UAV ISR teams to give "a guy on the ground perspective". There are also some good SOF roles that are not as physically demanding.

If you let folks go at 15 years - there is a lot of institutional knowledge than would be lost.

I also believe in age limits for certain occupations as well. But that's for another discussion entirely.

In 2016 at 46 yrs of age, I was the second oldest competitor ever in the USASOC Sniper Comp (Angry Bob S - the former Unit CSM is the only older competitor). My partner and I beat several teams of younger folks - and unlike 2 SEAL Teams, and one other team, we competed the Rifle Stress Course with the exterior ladder climb (ladder starts 12' off the ground).
The CAG Team of Angry Bob and Sean W won the comp that year - and where the oldest team of the field.

I'd argue it isn't age - but physical and mental fitness that should be a limit.

As far as talent management goes though, the CAF literally doesn't do it. There are also too many trades, particularly in the Officer world.

Many Officer jobs that are tied to a trade, particularly a lot of support jobs, could be filled by any GSO. Ditto a lot of jobs in the NCM world.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You know I am sympathetic with your situation. We've discussed this.

We need to find a balance. We have a job to do. And you know as well as I that if we continue down this same path in the not so distant future were going to have a hard time scrapping together a crew for an Orca let alone a CPF.

We have massive culture obstacles to overcome in the RCN. No fight from me on that front. But also have a job to do until the big heads call an OP pause have us go secure our spaces for a while we have to continue to shovel coal into the boilers.

I agree with you on the job piece and I think I misunderstood your initial point. For my own clarity, what you're saying is that we need people to sail when called upon?

I agree with that sentiment, as a counter-point to that though, I would say there has to be a purpose to the sailing and that purpose has to be grounded in some sort operational reason.

Likewise, I would say that the Navy has failed, as an institution, at the task of leadership.

By leadership what I mean is "the art of convincing someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to".

If the Navy actually understood leadership, it wouldn't have such an issue crewing Ships or finding people that want to do the job.

We know the Navy doesn't have good leadership though and if we pay attention to the media, basically everyone and their dog knows it has terrible leadership as well.

That same idea goes for the CAF writ large today but particular attention needs to be given to the Navy as it's got its own special cancer that need to be irradiated.

Agree ‘mostly’. Some fleets are easier on the body than others and mbrs can, on average, handle operational flying longer. LRP AES Ops compared to MH AES Ops is a quick example; MH is fairly significantly more physically demanding than Aurora life.

Age; is a better metric “fitness and health”?



Maybe the CAF should consider a career stream called “ATR”; as an AES Op I could request it at “insert YOS and/or Rank gate” and would commit myself to never flying again. Incoukd end up as NCO IC pencils at CJOC, or recruiting, or… any position deemed suitable for ATR folks.

The metric of age is really for initial entry. Personally, if you're 50 years old and you come in to a recruiting centre and tell me you want to be in the Infantry, I would:

a. Seriously question your judgement and life choices up until this point;

b. Take a hard look at your file and what you had to offer; and

c. Unless you have a Jason Bourne aka @KevinB CV, you're getting shown the door.

As for your proposal, I think one of the issues I have is that the Military doesn't actually look at skills people have and objectively assess them against performance.

I can't think of a time in my career where performance at my actual core combat functions actually mattered. The PER system certainly isn't reflective of anything we do.

The scores people get certainly aren't reflective of anything we actually do on the job. Heck deploying actually hurts you in some cases come PER time.

People have many soft and hard skills that the Military loses because it has a career model that's stuck in the 1950s.

I'd argue at lot of those trades provide a pool for occupational transfers.

Assaulter Bloggins may not be able to kick door, turn left as well as they did 10 years ago - but the experience they have can (and should) be retained - have them work GeoSpacial with UAV ISR teams to give "a guy on the ground perspective". There are also some good SOF roles that are not as physically demanding.

If you let folks go at 15 years - there is a lot of institutional knowledge than would be lost.

The issue @KevinB is that the Military doesn't actually care about institutional knowledge.

When you OT in the CAF, you're no longer able to do anything in your old occupation, all your prior qualifications are set to inactive and it may as well be as if you never did it in the first place. The institution, including your co-workers also don't care about your past service, especially with the CAF being such a tribal organization.

You and I have a very similar Worldview and I see things like you alluded to above. I look at skills people have and how I can leverage them to achieve an effect. The CAF doesn't see it that way though and it doesn't care about leveraging past experiences.

The funny thing is I could pick up a rifle and a radio right now and go to Latvia or step on to a Ship and head to the Mediterranean and do a fairly decent job at either task that was assigned to me. That's because I've acquired the skills to do so and am medically and physically fit.

The CAF doesn't care about those things though, we are as @daftandbarmy says, pieces of ammunition for them, they don't even bother to see if some us are tracer rounds LOL.

In 2016 at 46 yrs of age, I was the second oldest competitor ever in the USASOC Sniper Comp (Angry Bob S - the former Unit CSM is the only older competitor). My partner and I beat several teams of younger folks - and unlike 2 SEAL Teams, and one other team, we competed the Rifle Stress Course with the exterior ladder climb (ladder starts 12' off the ground).
The CAG Team of Angry Bob and Sean W won the comp that year - and where the oldest team of the field.

I'd argue it isn't age - but physical and mental fitness that should be a limit.

I'd argue your prior experience and years of mastering your craft at an elite level gave you that ability.

If I am a recruiter and I get 46 year old @KevinB Showing up at my door with your CV or I get 46 year old with no prior Military experience, what do I do?

I know it takes "10,000 hours" to master a skill. Obviously 46 year old KevinB has already mastered said skill and is a proven commodity so I definitely give him a shot.

The other 46 year old though? Sorry Pal, you shoulda joined 20 years ago and I'm not willing to take a risk on you.

If we started applying some actual business logic to our decision-making, things would work a lot better

 

[Lumber]

I agree with that sentiment, as a counter-point to that though, I would say there has to be a purpose to the sailing and that purpose has to be grounded in some sort operational reason.

I keep hearing this a lot, but I'm not sure what everyone is referring to. I would objectively say that all of our sailing has had a purpose with an operational focus. Trials, readiness training, and deployment.

You might be referring to other sailing events such as support to SOF exercises, support to other IT courses, family day sails, day sails for JCSP, participation in exercises for ships that aren't deploying, sailing for maritime evaluations or equipment sea acceptance trials (e.g. New CMS versions). None of these have a direct "Named Operation" nexus, but they all either support FG, or STRAT objectives.

The problem isn't that we're sailing for unnecessary sails, the problem is:
1. We are overcommited;
2. We are adding new sailings last minute; and
3. Not communicating purpose well.

 

[KevinB]

The scores people get certainly aren't reflective of anything we actually do on the job. Heck deploying actually hurts you in some cases come PER time.

People have many soft and hard skills that the Military loses because it has a career model that's stuck in the 1950s.

But did you play for the hockey team -- we all know that is massively important to be a master of ones trade in the CAF (or was)...

You and I have a very similar Worldview and I see things like you alluded to above. I look at skills people have and how I can leverage them to achieve an effect. The CAF doesn't see it that way though and it doesn't care about leveraging past experiences.

The funny thing is I could pick up a rifle and a radio right now and go to Latvia or step on to a Ship and head to the Mediterranean and do a fairly decent job at either task that was assigned to me. That's because I've acquired the skills to do so and am medically and physically fit.

The CAF doesn't care about those things though, we are as @daftandbarmy says, pieces of ammunition for them, they don't even bother to see if some us are tracer rounds LOL.

That I will never get -- maybe you and I should have been career manglers -

If we started applying some actual business logic to our decision-making, things would work a lot better

The CAF (and admittedly many Militaries) assign business logic where impractical, and don't do it where practical - it's a sad state.

 

[Navy_Pete]

On the Navy side, part of the issue is they only poach people from the coasts for sailing before they even look to other areas. Once you are on the ship really doesn't matter where your home address is. If we actually used the ops tempo monitoring correctly, it would spread the load better around the trade/rank, and when you start poaching PO1s etc from Ottawa to go to sea it really brings it home that we are way over committed for the available crews.

 

[Halifax Tar]

On the Navy side, part of the issue is they only poach people from the coasts for sailing before they even look to other areas. Once you are on the ship really doesn't matter where your home address is. If we actually used the ops tempo monitoring correctly, it would spread the load better around the trade/rank, and when you start poaching PO1s etc from Ottawa to go to sea it really brings it home that we are way over committed for the available crews.

I raised this point years ago. During the height of Afghanistan a percentage of positions per rotation were supposed to be reserves and augmentees.

Why are we not doing the same in the RCN ? Need a MS cook ? Grab one from Edmonton, bring them in 6 months early for training and deploy them.

You have a good point. Start CFTPOing in those holding down HMC desks across the country.

 

[dimsum]

I raised this point years ago. During the height of Afghanistan a percentage of positions per rotation were supposed to be reserves
and augmentees.

Why are we not doing the same in the RCN ?

Rabid disdain for SHADs?

On a more serious note, how many Class A reservists with (presumably) day jobs can just leave for 9+ months?

 

[MJP]

I raised this point years ago. During the height of Afghanistan a percentage of positions per rotation were supposed to be reserves
and augmentees.

Why are we not doing the same in the RCN ? Need a MS cook ? Grab one from Edmonton, bring them in 6 months early for training and deploy them.

You have a good point. Start CFTPOing in those holding down HMC desks across the country.

That only works for purely purple bases which there are not many of like (Borden and?).

An Edmonton cook is already part of the FG considerations for the CA and a Winnipeg cook for the RCAF as an example, so the pool for any environment to pull from is limited generally to teh bases they control. Pulling from other environments happens but that is deliberate and done through L1 coordinators/staffs. The other aspect I will point out is for the CA many of the cooks are seconded to the base but usually belong to a field unit. There are base kitchen staff but it is it usually the bare min needed to run the kitchen.

I don't point this stuff out pick apart the idea as there is merit and have seen it dome many times in the CA. Nor do I want to fixate on cooks, it was more a continuation of your example. Rather my point is there is may be other considerations why some pers are not filling posns and if it was to happen there are already established ways of making it happen.

I raised this point years ago. During the height of Afghanistan a percentage of positions per rotation were supposed to be reserves and augmentees.

Why are we not doing the same in the RCN ?

Caught it after I wrote most of my above post so if you are referring to grabbing Naval Res pers then absolutely it should be part of FG for the RCN but not knowing the RCN or their Res model well not sure how viable it is. Seems like a win

 

[Halifax Tar]

That only works for purely purple bases which there are not many of like (Borden and?).

An Edmonton cook is already part of the FG considerations for the CA and a Winnipeg cook for the RCAF as an example, so the pool for any environment to pull from is limited generally to teh bases they control. Pulling from other environments happens but that is deliberate and done through L1 coordinators/staffs. The other aspect I will point out is for the CA many of the cooks are seconded to the base but usually belong to a field unit. There are base kitchen staff but it is it usually the bare min needed to run the kitchen.

I don't point this stuff out pick apart the idea as there is merit and have seen it dome many times in the CA. Nor do I want to fixate on cooks, it was more a continuation of your example. Rather my point is there is may be other considerations why some pers are not filling posns and if it was to happen there are already established ways of making it happen.




Caught it after I wrote most of my above post so if you are referring to grabbing Naval Res pers then absolutely it should be part of FG for the RCN but not knowing the RCN or their Res model well not sure how viable it is. Seems like a win

Neagtron home boy. For years we sent out must fill CFTPOs for Afg rotos pan CAF. I'm sure there was L1 blessings. Some hard purple trade positions, some ATR type, some specific skill sets. Twice I was brought in over a year before deploying to "work up".

Why we (The RCN) aren't doing the same is beyond me.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Neagtron home boy. For years we sent out must fill CFTPOs for Afg rotos pan CAF. I'm sure there was L1 blessings. Some hard purple trade positions, some ATR type, some specific skill sets. Twice I was brought in over a year before deploying to "work up".

Why we (The RCN) aren't doing the same is beyond me.

I remember trying to push CFTPOs while we were deployed in the Med to the West coast or NCR and it never left Halifax. Was really frustrating as we needed a few Cert 3s and there were people willing to come out for a 6-8 week stint to spell people off for their trips back home (can't remember the name of the mid deployment leave) but they weren't able to even officially put their hat in the ring.

Meanwhile people were getting pulled off instructor positions in Halifax and other direct support positions, which theoretically were higher priority ones on the VCDS side to be filled. Makes no sense to me, but I guess I just don't understand the 'broader strategic requirements' that means someone working on a 10-20 year project can't be spared for a short period.

A lot of the cubicle work is pretty important long term, but very few people are genuinely critical cogs in the bureaucratic machine that justifies sailing in an operational theatre under remar, directly impacting what the ships can do.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm guessing this would break the (archaic) system, but unless you're in specific staff spots that require that specialized knowledge (like DAR/DLR/DNR for a specific project) I'd argue that most, if not all, staff jobs should be ATR with a rank band of 2 ranks (e.g. Capt/Major).

I'm not sure why you need to be a specific trade to be an MCC at a certain CFRC. I guess it's to balance it out so it's not all filled by ACSOs or something (it's not) but CFRG would be a good test case for the "ATR, rank only" requirement.

Do we not operate that way now to an extent unofficially/ad hoc? Formalize it with policy, do a trial period (5 years?) and assess benefits and drawbacks?

 

[MJP]

Neagtron home boy. For years we sent out must fill CFTPOs for Afg rotos pan CAF. I'm sure there was L1 blessings. Some hard purple trade positions, some ATR type, some specific skill sets. Twice I was brought in over a year before deploying to "work up".

Why we (The RCN) aren't doing the same is beyond me

I am referring to the hear and now not the yesteryear but fully acknowledge and know how things worked in the Afghan Era. TBH there is little difference to then vs now except now op requirements don't have the same weight like Afghan days


I was just pointing out that there are obstacles to your line of thought but also that there is established precedence when it is a hard op requirement.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I am referring to the hear and now not the yesteryear but fully acknowledge and know how things worked in the Afghan Era. TBH there is little difference to then vs now except now op requirements don't have the same weight like Afghan days


I was just pointing out that there are obstacles to your line of thought but also that there is established precedence when it is a hard op requirement.

I think Mr. Putin might have changed the rules regarding what might be considered an 'operational environment' for NATO countries

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think Mr. Putin might have changed the rules regarding what might be considered an 'operational environment' for NATO countries

I just took it as a typical Army centric attitude.

Which is pretty much the CAF really. You know JArmy = Joint and all that.

 

[MJP]

I think Mr. Putin might have changed the rules regarding what might be considered an 'operational environment' for NATO countries

Sure and if that is the case then FG units in support of that should get the people they need regardless of where they come from just like how the Afghan msn was pri 1

I just took it as a typical Army centric attitude.

Which is pretty much the CAF really. You know JArmy = Joint and all that.

It wasn't but you can take it however you want. I was merely pointing out why someone sitting in a CA or RCAF base may not be part of the consideration of your CFTPO idea. That and pointing out doing things that way already exists if the RCN wanted to get folks.

 

[KevinB]

I just took it as a typical Army centric attitude.

Which is pretty much the CAF really. You know JArmy = Joint and all that.

Typical Canadian Element attitude

Joint spelled by C Army: JARMY
Joint spelled by RCN: NAVY
Joint spelled by RCAF: FIGHTER PLANE