George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
It usually takes four years to reach Cpl. If you reach CWO in fifteen years, it would be a miracle. I am sure, however, that you can achieve RSM in three.
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
No, I am not kidding you; for many, alot of hard work goes into earning that second chevron. Just focus on basic training and earning the right to wear the uniform.
Until then, do as another Moderator asked of you and read more/post less.
Until then, do as another Moderator asked of you and read more/post less.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
mmk, slow down on the posting, start using the search function and start reading. The FAQs are also a good place to start as are the main directories for the various forums. With practice your search techniques will improve as you learn the vocabulary.
Now, for service offences, you need to learn about the Queen's Regulations and Orders, known colloquially as the "QR&Os".
QR&Os - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/intro_e.asp
Volume II - Disciplinary - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/intro_e.asp
Chapter 104 - Punishments and Sentences - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/tofc104_e.asp
Now, for your next simple question, try researching it yourself, as you can see, simple questions showing no attempt to find the answers lead to flippant replies. And when those flippant replies turn into flame wars it makes extra work for the staff. Members who concentrate on making extra work for the staff don't stay long.
Now, for service offences, you need to learn about the Queen's Regulations and Orders, known colloquially as the "QR&Os".
QR&Os - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/intro_e.asp
Volume II - Disciplinary - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/intro_e.asp
Chapter 104 - Punishments and Sentences - http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/tofc104_e.asp
Now, for your next simple question, try researching it yourself, as you can see, simple questions showing no attempt to find the answers lead to flippant replies. And when those flippant replies turn into flame wars it makes extra work for the staff. Members who concentrate on making extra work for the staff don't stay long.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
And really, what's so slow about that? I'll be lucky to get my first skinny in 3 years, and my second bar in 4-5... You don't to add hooks/bars until you can at least do the job for which you were hired. And really, in a 25 year career, what's 3 years? 
T
T
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It takes 2 and a half years to get your first hook. That just means that you are trained(to use the term loosely) in your MOC. Some guys make corporal after three years but not that many and they don't just give it away either.mmk said:
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Spring_bok said:
Seen a few "special" cases go for about 7 years as a private...on the basis they couldn't complete the simplest of tasks without intense supervision.
Mind you those are pretty far and few between...thankfully.
They seem to be the type that like to ask alot of questions but don't bother to listen to the answers
Regards
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
What if someone has a situation on hand? He/she signs up with CF as a NCM(Reg) and it's a 5 year contract. He/she finished his/her undergraduate degree and still has few years left before the NCM contract is over.
Is there a transfer program or you just have to finish your NCM contract and reapply as a DEO. Also, this NCM has nothing to do with the Officer trade this person is interested in. For ex: 5 year contract as a Navy NCI(op) and finishing up the degree in 3 years and want to become a Air Navigator or Pilot but still has 2 yrs of contract left as a NCI(op).
Is there a transfer program or you just have to finish your NCM contract and reapply as a DEO. Also, this NCM has nothing to do with the Officer trade this person is interested in. For ex: 5 year contract as a Navy NCI(op) and finishing up the degree in 3 years and want to become a Air Navigator or Pilot but still has 2 yrs of contract left as a NCI(op).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Back to the basics of this topic, question being, "Is it better to walk in off civvy street to become an officer, or is it better to wear the commission with some pre-requisite time in the ranks?"
As a recently minted 2Lt in the RegF with over 6 years experience as a CPL with an operational tour from in the Reserves, there are valid arguments for both sides.
During my military experience, I've been fortunate enough to work for some very intelligent, capable, and motivated officers who would always show signs that they were genuinely concerned for the welfare of their troops. I've also had the unfortunate experience of working for some of the most incapable officers who didn't give a dung about the troops under their command, and were more concerned with putting the very minimum into the position they held until they could sleaze their way into the next higher position.
I've seen both these brands of officer come from both direct entry, as well as coming from the ranks. So it's safe to say that not one entry program is better than the other at producing quality officers in the end, but I will discuss what I think an officer brings to the table from either perspective-- experience or not.
COMMISSION FROM THE RANKS:
Pros:
We can all agree that a new officer shows up at the unit with a bunch of theory crammed into their heads, but very little practical experience to back it up. Well, if an officer came from the ranks, especially the same trade he/she used to work in, the "ol' noodle" is going to be able to put 1 and 2 together, and understand what it truly takes to put a project/mission together; not just what it looks like on paper.
The officer with experience as an NCM/NCO is more apt to take better 'care' of his/her troops, because they've had the opportunity to see and experience the welfare consequences of an officer that didn't take good care of the troops. When I was on the receiving end of mistreatment, I always promised myself that one day if I was in the officer's shoes, I wouldn't do things like 'this or that' that needlessly jerked around the troops. I'm not going to go in detail here, because every trade experiences different things, but those of you that are in or come from the ranks, you know what I'm talking about.
Cons:
As far as trade knowledge and the combined experience goes, I have only this to say regarding officers that come from the ranks (mainly for those that stick to the same trade that they were when they were from the enlisted side of the house). An officer is supposed to be able to give orders, and trust that the NCO's will do the job to the officer's satisfaction. If there is a minor, unforeseen problem along the way, the NCO should be able to adapt and overcome using their own judgement and experience, as long as it stays within the intent and guidelines of the officer issuing orders. Because of our experience in the subject matter, we're more likely to be overcontrolling or micromanaging of taskings/missions because we think that we're also suited to solve these problems too, when really we should be stepping back and letting the NCO do their job. The officer that is 'always getting in the way' appears not to trust the NCO's that work under the officer's command, even though he/she is only trying to 'help'.
Next point being that an Officer who comes from the ranks may be prone to putting the men first all to often, when the mission must take precedence. If the officer always thinks of a task at hand from a troop's perspective, then plans are often formulated based on what's best or most convenient for the troops, and not necessarily the mission. Coddling your troops does good for no one in the long run, especially the task at hand.
I would like to remind the readership that I think a good/aware officer coming from the ranks will be able to excel these Pro's, and minimize the CON effects.
DIRECT ENTRY
Pros:
A newly minted officer who has little experience is more apt to work closely with his NCO's. At the end of the day, the officer still calls the shots, but if he/she is good, they'll take into consideration what their NCO's tell them, as opposed to attacking the problem in their own way without any consideration from others.
A direct entry officer can easily separate him/herself from the people who work under them, because of the lack of connection coming from that side of the house. Military life can be hard at times, and sometimes there's no easy way to get a task done. As an officer, our loyalty must go up first before it can come back down. I don't want to say that DEO officers show more loyalty to their superiors than ex-NCO officers, but I will say that it has to be more prevalent in the DEO's mind because that is encompasses the majority of what they've been taught.
Cons:
Due to a lack of connection or perhaps experience, there's more likelyhood that direct entry officers are more apt to please their superiors at the expense of their troops. I could talk for hours on this subject, but I have a feeling that most of you know what I'm talking about, regardless of your trade.
______________________________________________
All in all, I think that an officer who spent time in the ranks makes a far better officer, especially in the first few years after commissioning. Some of the best coffee break jokes are often at the expense of junior officers, so a little bit of experience and knowledge will go a long way at earning the confidence and respect of your troops. Of course, not every rule applies to everyone; there's always some very valid exceptions. My approach has been mainly from the Army end of things, so I would expect some variance between different elements. Perhaps someone with a different perspective can shed light.
As a recently minted 2Lt in the RegF with over 6 years experience as a CPL with an operational tour from in the Reserves, there are valid arguments for both sides.
During my military experience, I've been fortunate enough to work for some very intelligent, capable, and motivated officers who would always show signs that they were genuinely concerned for the welfare of their troops. I've also had the unfortunate experience of working for some of the most incapable officers who didn't give a dung about the troops under their command, and were more concerned with putting the very minimum into the position they held until they could sleaze their way into the next higher position.
I've seen both these brands of officer come from both direct entry, as well as coming from the ranks. So it's safe to say that not one entry program is better than the other at producing quality officers in the end, but I will discuss what I think an officer brings to the table from either perspective-- experience or not.
COMMISSION FROM THE RANKS:
Pros:
We can all agree that a new officer shows up at the unit with a bunch of theory crammed into their heads, but very little practical experience to back it up. Well, if an officer came from the ranks, especially the same trade he/she used to work in, the "ol' noodle" is going to be able to put 1 and 2 together, and understand what it truly takes to put a project/mission together; not just what it looks like on paper.
The officer with experience as an NCM/NCO is more apt to take better 'care' of his/her troops, because they've had the opportunity to see and experience the welfare consequences of an officer that didn't take good care of the troops. When I was on the receiving end of mistreatment, I always promised myself that one day if I was in the officer's shoes, I wouldn't do things like 'this or that' that needlessly jerked around the troops. I'm not going to go in detail here, because every trade experiences different things, but those of you that are in or come from the ranks, you know what I'm talking about.
Cons:
As far as trade knowledge and the combined experience goes, I have only this to say regarding officers that come from the ranks (mainly for those that stick to the same trade that they were when they were from the enlisted side of the house). An officer is supposed to be able to give orders, and trust that the NCO's will do the job to the officer's satisfaction. If there is a minor, unforeseen problem along the way, the NCO should be able to adapt and overcome using their own judgement and experience, as long as it stays within the intent and guidelines of the officer issuing orders. Because of our experience in the subject matter, we're more likely to be overcontrolling or micromanaging of taskings/missions because we think that we're also suited to solve these problems too, when really we should be stepping back and letting the NCO do their job. The officer that is 'always getting in the way' appears not to trust the NCO's that work under the officer's command, even though he/she is only trying to 'help'.
Next point being that an Officer who comes from the ranks may be prone to putting the men first all to often, when the mission must take precedence. If the officer always thinks of a task at hand from a troop's perspective, then plans are often formulated based on what's best or most convenient for the troops, and not necessarily the mission. Coddling your troops does good for no one in the long run, especially the task at hand.
I would like to remind the readership that I think a good/aware officer coming from the ranks will be able to excel these Pro's, and minimize the CON effects.
DIRECT ENTRY
Pros:
A newly minted officer who has little experience is more apt to work closely with his NCO's. At the end of the day, the officer still calls the shots, but if he/she is good, they'll take into consideration what their NCO's tell them, as opposed to attacking the problem in their own way without any consideration from others.
A direct entry officer can easily separate him/herself from the people who work under them, because of the lack of connection coming from that side of the house. Military life can be hard at times, and sometimes there's no easy way to get a task done. As an officer, our loyalty must go up first before it can come back down. I don't want to say that DEO officers show more loyalty to their superiors than ex-NCO officers, but I will say that it has to be more prevalent in the DEO's mind because that is encompasses the majority of what they've been taught.
Cons:
Due to a lack of connection or perhaps experience, there's more likelyhood that direct entry officers are more apt to please their superiors at the expense of their troops. I could talk for hours on this subject, but I have a feeling that most of you know what I'm talking about, regardless of your trade.
______________________________________________
All in all, I think that an officer who spent time in the ranks makes a far better officer, especially in the first few years after commissioning. Some of the best coffee break jokes are often at the expense of junior officers, so a little bit of experience and knowledge will go a long way at earning the confidence and respect of your troops. Of course, not every rule applies to everyone; there's always some very valid exceptions. My approach has been mainly from the Army end of things, so I would expect some variance between different elements. Perhaps someone with a different perspective can shed light.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
I would be interested what your opinions will be in a few years time, after you have progressed past the rank of 2Lt.
We can generalize all we want. It is going to boil down a lot to all the factors, military and family, that have come into play in the development of any 'Leader'.
I have seen Cpl's become Officers, because they would never have been able to pass a CLC and become a Junior Leader. Now they have managed to become officers. I have seen Officers recruited right off the street who have problems because they are always micro managing their troops. Generalizations don't give a clear picture of what we have or get.
I do believe that we should be recruiting our officers from the graduates of the Junior and Senior Leadership Schools. Give these proven 'entities' the option of rising through the 'Ranks' or becoming officers. In the beginning it will be a drain on our Junior Leaders and a shortage of experienced officers, but time should sort that out.
We can generalize all we want. It is going to boil down a lot to all the factors, military and family, that have come into play in the development of any 'Leader'.
I have seen Cpl's become Officers, because they would never have been able to pass a CLC and become a Junior Leader. Now they have managed to become officers. I have seen Officers recruited right off the street who have problems because they are always micro managing their troops. Generalizations don't give a clear picture of what we have or get.
I do believe that we should be recruiting our officers from the graduates of the Junior and Senior Leadership Schools. Give these proven 'entities' the option of rising through the 'Ranks' or becoming officers. In the beginning it will be a drain on our Junior Leaders and a shortage of experienced officers, but time should sort that out.
PBI Overall, my impression is that there is little or no real "leadership" in either the Police Service or the Fire Service, in a manner that we in the Army would recognize. The model seems to be a "management/worker" one, but is that really what these organizations need? Wouldn't they benefit from applying a bit more leadership by personal example/personal presence, and a bit less "management by memo", or are police and firefighters such different people that Army principles of leadership would not apply? (And, yes...I know their organizational structures are different from the Army-I get that part).
Sir bang on! As a former reservist infantry sgt, I run into this on a daily basis. Thats all i'll say on the matter as I have been chastised in the past by the powers that be for commenting on this forum.
Noneck
Sir bang on! As a former reservist infantry sgt, I run into this on a daily basis. Thats all i'll say on the matter as I have been chastised in the past by the powers that be for commenting on this forum.
Noneck
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
"Next point being that an Officer who comes from the ranks may be prone to putting the men first all to often, when the mission must take precedence. If the officer always thinks of a task at hand from a troop's perspective, then plans are often formulated based on what's best or most convenient for the troops, and not necessarily the mission. Coddling your troops does good for no one in the long run, especially the task at hand."
Ummm.... good NCOs already know the "mission, men, self" mantra, wouldn't you think?
Ummm.... good NCOs already know the "mission, men, self" mantra, wouldn't you think?
F
fraserdw
Guest
Gentlemen
I am from the ranks 10 Years PPCLI to Artillery Officer (10 years now). I am not sure you would like officers from the ranks. We, for the most part, do not put up with the same BS that RMC kids do. We expect a salute not because we are superior but because it is the rules. We are much more anal about the rules than the RMC kids. But would propose we make a compromise in that we do not allow anyone to go to RMC until they have completed the officer training first. Here at Gagetown the base is filled with Ocdts and 2Lts who purposely fail training in an effort to get re-classed to an easy occupation as a prelude to getting out with as much free education as possible.
I am from the ranks 10 Years PPCLI to Artillery Officer (10 years now). I am not sure you would like officers from the ranks. We, for the most part, do not put up with the same BS that RMC kids do. We expect a salute not because we are superior but because it is the rules. We are much more anal about the rules than the RMC kids. But would propose we make a compromise in that we do not allow anyone to go to RMC until they have completed the officer training first. Here at Gagetown the base is filled with Ocdts and 2Lts who purposely fail training in an effort to get re-classed to an easy occupation as a prelude to getting out with as much free education as possible.
- Reaction score
- 6,469
- Points
- 1,360
fraserdw said:
...and I would offer THAT is exactly what the average young soldier wants.[even if at the time of lynching, it sucks
]There was NOTHING more frustrating than having a good hard rule carved in solid Jello.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Been there, done that, both as NCM and Officer.
George makes a good point about generalizations, and there are good officers and bad ones, period.
Admittedly, the Jr DEO/RMC types have a greater potential to be coffee break fodder, but we werent all that sharp as QL3 Ptes either. How many youngsters get sent to the Q for a box of frequencies, or a can of muzzel velocity? (or a bucket of steam for the navy types). All of us come into our own with experience, for good or for bad. The NCM/Officer simply has a bit of a jump in this case, but it levels out soon, and then, the only thing that makes a good officer is that person's character - not his school, not his previous trade, and not even his desire to be a leader (wanting to be good isnt enough). We have all had terrible leaders, both commissioned and otherwise. In my opinion, if you are destined to be a good leader, then you will be one, regardless of rank.
Should our officers all come from Leadership courses? Probably not. BUT, I do think they should all spend time in the trenches (or bilges) If nothing, it gives them the perspective needed to lead, not on how to best treat the men, but from the aspect of what works, and what wont.
George makes a good point about generalizations, and there are good officers and bad ones, period.
Admittedly, the Jr DEO/RMC types have a greater potential to be coffee break fodder, but we werent all that sharp as QL3 Ptes either. How many youngsters get sent to the Q for a box of frequencies, or a can of muzzel velocity? (or a bucket of steam for the navy types). All of us come into our own with experience, for good or for bad. The NCM/Officer simply has a bit of a jump in this case, but it levels out soon, and then, the only thing that makes a good officer is that person's character - not his school, not his previous trade, and not even his desire to be a leader (wanting to be good isnt enough). We have all had terrible leaders, both commissioned and otherwise. In my opinion, if you are destined to be a good leader, then you will be one, regardless of rank.
Should our officers all come from Leadership courses? Probably not. BUT, I do think they should all spend time in the trenches (or bilges) If nothing, it gives them the perspective needed to lead, not on how to best treat the men, but from the aspect of what works, and what wont.
