Progress in the Army

[KevinB]

I am going to be attending BMQ this summer, so I am zero experience and all of what I will be saying is based entirely on my own opinions of what I have read/seen.   So please forgive me if I am way out to lunch.

Reg or reserve - I will jump to the assumption it is reg from you next comments

I am joining with the intention of making a career out of the forces.   Unlike most of the new generation, I have no patience with switching job careers/companies 4 or 5 times in my life.   I have a family and I want to ensure that my job has long-term security.   That was a factor in my joining the forces, job security and also I have a deep sense of pride in being Canadian and want to contribute to my country in a more concrete way than by working in the "Business" world where loyalty to country doesn't play a part at all.   As a result of all this, I am unlike the average new recruit who seems to have the impression of joining because of what the forces can give them, and not what I can do for the forces.

  In a way with the job security - you are joining for what it gives you...  
  I believe most people join the CF (maybe I am naive) with a goal of serving Canada

Anyways, that's my background for why I am joining, now onto my larger concern, promotion and advancement.   I am firmly of the opinion that a promotion should be based on merit.   I do not want to be promoted unless I have proven, time and time again, that I have the skills/training/ambition to do the job properly.   This means that someone will go has far up the ladder as he/she wants to, through demonstrating the skills and ambition for the respective position they want to remain at or pursue.   I believe that if someone does a good job at being a Captain, but doesn't want to move any further (due to politics, job, etc.) then that should be an option, with one condition.   As long as that Captain demonstrates time and time again that he is effective at his job.   I am going to be NCM so in my case I do not want to become a Corporal just because it is a "gimme" rank, I want to learn and develop the necessary skills before that promotion comes up.   I also want to be continually evaluated and encouraged to improve, even if that improvement is simply in becoming better at doing my current ranks job, a better Corporal/Private, etc.  

Ok, if you even understood half what I wrote, good for you!    

Cpl is a gimme rank at 4 years   - BUT just cause it is a gimme does not mean you can't strive to earn it and excel at your job.

Basically, I have a motto of "Continuous Improvement."   Meaning, even if I get to the rank of Corporal and stay there for 10 years, at the end of 10 years I will be an outstanding Corporal because each year I have added to my abilities/knowledge and skills, I hate the idea of not improving myself either professionally or personally on a continual basis.   There always needs to be a goal to strive for, better education, higher rank, personal goals, etc.   Without some kind of ambition, a person will end up being a mediocre person, not living up to his/her potential, ultimately ending up unsatisfied/unhappy.   Now just in case I didn't make this clear enough, the length of time in a position does not indicate ambition/goals, someone in a single position can always strive to become better in that same position always.

Still with me?

FWIW I agree with you I am a CPL (4) [max incentive - I kinda liked the idea of CPL (10) but no one else went along]   I tend to beleive that I am a VERY strong CPL (my PER's bear that out skillwise - we won't go into allegations my conduct...)

Finally, as a new recruit, what can I look forward to as far as evaluation and advancement is concerned.   From what I am reading here, some of the earlier promotions happen almost automatically, and as far as the higher levels, is there any kind of stronger motivation than money?   What kind of encouragement can I expect at the lower end for improvement/advancement?   From what I hear, it doesn't seem like there really is a lot of motivation to get a promotion except money, and no real standard beyond a CO's "feeling" for a member's performance.   I understand a little of this as I am in charge of promoting/hiring/firing people at my company, and when a promotion or hiring is based on feeling or 1 persons opinion, too often it turns out to be a mistake.

Anyways, this isn't a criticism as such, since I have no experience with which to draw upon, but more of a concern in my future career, is there effective evaluations and encouragement throughout a military career to improve oneself, as well as opportunity to prove oneself's abilities and skills?

Thank you for your patience with a lowly recruit.    

Promotion to CPL can be held back if the CO (thru the chain can justify it -- I've seen it done, although the member eventually did get it 1.5yrs later than time woudl dictate)
My advice for a young recruit would be to consentrate on getting through his courses and get posted to a unit.   Once you are in a unit you can truly start learning and mastering your craft.   Senior Cpl's, M/Cpl' and Sgt's have a duty to mentor the junior members (though this seems to be forgotten these days)   Depending upon your trade there may be extracurricular training that you can take to excel at your job.

Secondly I advise EVERYONE to take their JNCO and get promoted with their peers -- NO ONE likes a bitter old Cpl who feels (and is perhaps justified given courses, and training time) that he can runs things better than some of his NCO's and offciers...

As for that promotion beyond the rank of Cpl - you are meritted in with your peers - CO's discretion is not specific (although he could ensure you are not high on the merit listings, but odds are the CO would not be alone and you would not be high on the merit list anyway)  Is the system perfect - definitely not - but I am unsure how to fix it...

Just my $0.02

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"I believe most people join the CF (maybe I am naive) with a goal of serving Canada"
I think you may be a bit.

I have heard from quite a few Jacks who wish they hadn't bothered with the course to get promoted.   To each his own I guess.

 

[GO!!!]

I am unlike the average new recruit who seems to have the impression of joining because of what the forces can give them, and not what I can do for the forces.Anyways, that's my background for why I am joining, now onto my larger concern, promotion and advancement.  

So you are joining because you are unlike everyone else, and only for what you can do for the nation/forces etc. Except your primary concern is promotion and advancement....

With logic like that - you are going places! 

 

[Spctr]

So you are joining because you are unlike everyone else, and only for what you can do for the nation/forces etc. Except your primary concern is promotion and advancement....

With logic like that - you are going places!  

Hmm, put that way it does sound a bit off...

I guess I should rephrase what I meant.  Most of the potential army recruits that I have talked to, as well as a few of those who have been in and come out (admittedly my sphere of influence/aquantances is small) I have observed a trend.  It may not be reflective of the majority, but simply only in those that I have seen.  When I say what they can get from the army, I mean they want the free medical, free education, the cheap rations/housing while being trained, and then get out after the first contract to go into the civilian world.  This seems to be consensus as to what the military is for, learning a trade then leaving to exercise that trade in the civilian world, no loyalty for the country/people who trained you.  I can't believe how many people are surprised when I tell them that I am going for a career in the forces, most everyone I told to (family, friends, fellow workers, etc.) all assumed that I would join, learn my trade then leave.  That, in my opinion, is entering the army without thinking about actually serving, I believe it is a self-centered concept. 

In contrast, I believe that someone who is willing and able to put in the full career, or even 10 years, is thinking less about what he/she can get out of the military, but more on what he/she can contribute to the forces.  I say this because if I stayed in the civilian world, I would make more money, have better benefits, easier job, etc.  I have all that stuff right now and am willing to give it up in order to serve my country.  Do I look forward to advancement and promotion, yes, would I still join if there was no advancement/promotions, yes.  I consider advancement/benefits, etc to be perks, not necessarily job requirements.

Hope that explains my view a little clearer.  I just don't like the idea of the forces simply being a trades training ground for people who ultimately don't care about the country or serving it.  Hopefully, this is only common in my small area of knowledge, and not actually indicative of recruitment in general.

Thanks for listening.

 

[KevinB]

I think you are over thinking it.

For me I find the military gets in your blood - you need it like air  it is you (corny I know maybe I just lost my identity after my divorce and adopted the Army)

I think some people join with a 3 year intent and some join with life long dreams - however neither survive 100% in contact with military reality.  Some will ove it and re-sign - some will hate it and get the F out as soon as they can.  Everyone is impacted differently and it totally can also depend upon what unit you go to - and what they are doing for that three years, and how you are employed.

A year ago I would have said I would have done another 10years - today - I'd be out tomorrow if I could.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

And who knows in a year.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... some people join with a 3 year intent ...   Everyone is impacted differently and it totally can also depend upon what unit you go to - and what they are doing for that three years, and how you are employed...

Kevin is dead on target, Spctr, you are over thinking it.

I joined, as a private soldier in The Royal Canadian Regiment, for a bit of a lark, maybe a bit of adventure, and as a bit of late adolescent rebellion - to avoid making a serious long term life/career decision.   My firm plan on enrolment was to leave after three years.   I discovered, to my surprise, that I really liked the army and, more amazing, it liked me.   To make a long story short, when I retired, as a fairly senior officer, after nearly 37 years of service it was with very, very few regrets about what the army had done for (and, now and again, to) me and a few more regrets that I had not done more for the army.

There were some would-be career soldiers in my recruit platoon - I don't recall that many served 20 or more years.

Welcome to our family Spctr.   Do your best.   Work hard. Have fun. If you like being a soldier and if you're a good soldier then, by all means, stay in and make it a career; if you don't like it or if it doesn't like you then leave with no ill will and no bad feelings.   Don't worry the thing to death before you start.

 

[GO!!!]

Spctr,

Sorry if I misread you. I have a suggestion though. Print off a copy of this thread until this point and put it somewhere safe, and in 2.5 years, when you are up for re-engagement, read it over and see if the forces was everything you hoped it would be.

I'm a bit of a cynic, but I expect your patriotic fervor will have cooled a bit by then.

No - one here can tell you the "right"reasons for joining, but you are in for a letdown if you go in with stars in your eyes. I don't know a single man in my whole company (100 men) who is sure he is sticking around for at least 20 yrs. They know what it is like, and given the choice, many would have organised their careers differently if they could do it again.

The attitude that you see, that of people wanting a trade which can be used in the civilian world is a good one. The army needs people like that, because it provides turnover and incentives for better pay and further training to keep the army on the cutting edge. The "lifers' are'nt always the most motivated people in a unit, having job security and a pension in the future. The guys who want to keep civilian qualifications are the ones who are committed to changing things for the better.

Anyhoo, you'll see for yourself, good luck!

 

[Gunner]

GO!!!

That was probably the best posting I have ever read from you - it was concise, intelligent and had a point.  Try to keep your other posts in the same vein and you will "GO" far.

Cheers 

 

[Spctr]

Thank you all for some good advice, I have often been told that I "over-think" too much.    :-\

I may just take your advice GO!!! and print out this thread, overall it has been very good.  Perhaps as you say,
in a few years my patriotism and idealism will have dulled, but then again, I have been out of school and in the
civilian workforce for over 10 years now and I am still as idealistic as when I started, perhaps owing to my sheer
stubborness, things can always improve, even if it takes 10 to 20 years...    ;D

I could try to explain my position on the general lack of commitment that our society as a whole seems to lean towards
nowadays, but I think that this threads topic is starting to stray too much, so to bring it back on topic I want to pose
a question to those who have been in the forces for a good number of years and can answer from experience:

Which would be better, a lot of incompetent officers who were pushed ,before they were ready, into a rank, or a few
excellent officers who proved themselves to be ready, willing, and able to fill the ranks? 

Also, most of this thread has concerned itself about the officer side of the forces, is there a similar problem on the NCM side?

Thanks again for all the good comments,

 

[mdh]

A year ago I would have said I would have done another 10years - today - I'd be out tomorrow if I could.

KevinB,

If you don't mind me asking - why the disenchantment?? I would have thought with the proposed expansion of the CF - especially army - that there would be inducements to stay?  ???

cheers, mdh

 

[Infanteer]

KevinB,

If you don't mind me asking - why the disenchantment?? I would have thought with the proposed expansion of the CF - especially army - that there would be inducements to stay?   ???

cheers, mdh

Oh, if you only knew what Kevin has to say.... ^-^

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Also, most of this thread has concerned itself about the officer side of the forces, is there a similar problem on the NCM side?

At the risk of stirring the pot  ;D I believe there is a similar problem on the NCM side.  For every 15-year Captain dragged kicking and screaming back to a unit, there are three unpromotable Cpls who have "turned down" leadership training, is difficult to post, is "broken", is "reluctant" to deploy overseas, or (because they can't be trusted to do anything else) is best employed sweeping the hanger floor.  Don't believe me?  Have a look at the sick, lame and lazy populating some of the less "operational" postings.

My point is:  floppers (that's the army nickname for people of dubious use) exist at all levels.  I've seen flopper infantry soldiers, clerks, senior NCOs, junior officers, senior officers and, yes, general officers (Mo Baril, one step forward!  ) - regulars and reservists.  They exist for a variety of reasons, in part because the CF is so short-handed that we're reluctant to let people go for fear of not getting a replacement.  We're also reluctant (IMHO) to evaluate people properly - partially out of fear of the complaint system(s).  All too often, personnel are given inflated assessments which do no one any good.  The result?  They stick around forever, are given positions of deceasing responsibility and eventually end up in some comfortable niche somewhere, filling a slot.  Is it wrong?  Yes, but as I said, we're so short in some areas that sometimes having a weak guy available to operate the gate to the range is better than taking a good soldier right out of a battalion.  Ideally, the two are interchangable, but in our tiny army they're often not.

 

[KevinB]

At the risk of stirring the pot   ;D I believe there is a similar problem on the NCM side.   For every 15-year Captain dragged kicking and screaming back to a unit, there are three unpromotable Cpls who have "turned down" leadership training, is difficult to post, is "broken", is "reluctant" to deploy overseas, or (because they can't be trusted to do anything else) is best employed sweeping the hanger floor.   Don't believe me?   Have a look at the sick, lame and lazy populating some of the less "operational" postings.

Me to a T 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

To be fair Teddy and I suppose I'm biased but there are 15 year Cpl's who run the BN are highly motivated and trusted with many important issues.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Which is very true, but I think what he was trying to show is that there are life-long Captains who do great jobs also but someone with no military knowledge reading most of this thread would think they were the disease of the army.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Seen.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Exactly.  Thanks Bruce!

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I guess were all on the same page now.

 

[a_majoor]

I enjoy free-play exercises (JANUS, JCATS, SIMNET, MILES), but if we fired officers for bad results in them I would have been summed up a long time ago.  I've had Tps and Sqns get blown up spectacularily, and I've also had some pretty cool victories.  Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.  As long as we learn and apply lessons then the simulations are achieving their objectives.  A zero-defect mentality from these will lead to a risk-averse officer corps.

You can also learn some weird lessons from free-play scenarios.  In JANUS, indirect fire ruled and dug-in tanks were invulnerable to direct fire.  I "learned" as a Tp Ldr that if I fired indirect 105mm HESH from my tanks I could knock out dug-in T72s.  Did it work?  heck yes.  Was it realistic?  I don't think so.  In SIMNET we "learned" to fight our tanks from woodlines, since we could fire from the edges and move around inside the woods at speed (the computer made woods like a big circus tent).

While nothing is perfect, the various simulation exercises can be done over a period of time with a "sliding scale" to take the learning curve into account (I did J-CATS once acting as a LAV platoon commander, and it was fairly baffling at first), and also with multiple evaluation factors, from tactical skill, achieving the aim, casualty ratios, logistics considerations to try to balance out both "gaming" the particular simulation, and to keep players creative rather than conservative. Using multiple systems also keeps the player's minds flexible, as you point out, what works in one game does not work in another, but once you average these factors out, you should see either an understanding of the art of war, or not.

Over a period of time, the evaluators should be looking for a steady progression, going down in flames is part of learning, but if it happens on a regular basis, then perhaps it is a symptom of a bigger problem...