Great video. I was disappointed when the Army got rid of SP5 through SP7. Not everyone is that leader but can add value as a strong technician who wants to support from behind the scenes.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

Thanks, Scott...well before my time, but I think the principle lives on in the way folks work together.

I served with an NCO who said he was a prime example of why the Army should bring back the senior specialist ranks.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

I've worked with a lot of NCOs who say that, but I've always liked that I can still count on them to do "Sergeant Type Stuff" when the need arrises.

I was always a tactically leaning NCO (11B later 25U) and a lot of times it would piss off some of my senior NCOs who were only technical NCOs. Many of those NCOs were more career focused than troop focused, it was even worse having commanders with that mindset.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

Oh...that is interesting. The tactical leaning NCOs do tend to "think about the Soldier" more. While the technical guys don't necessarily. Hmmm. Well, thank goodness someone was looking out for the Soldier.

I was a SP5 back in the day. I also drew Pro-Pay. None of the hard stripers in the unit drew Pro-Pay because they couldn't score high enough on the yearly MOS Tests. So, what does that tell you?

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

That even in the military there is a constant fight over how much is "the right amount" of pay.

@alfredpaquin3563

Ай бұрын

I made E7 at the same day as men who scored half the poi ts I had, but the were excellent soldiers and cared for their men.​@the_bureaucrat

I can remember GEN Shinseki coming out and saying, "the Army needs multi-tools and not overly specialized Soldiers." As much as I respect GEN Shinseki I have to disagree with his sentiment. If you make one thing that does everything, while useful, it does everything half ass and nothing very well. Everyone who has used a Gerber for anything knows they aren't pliers, a knife, etc., etc., but will serve in a pinch. According to a GO I worked for at a unified combatant command, the problem with the SPC4 - SPC7 was the the pay grade vs rank argument. He said he would hear SGT's trying to discipline SPC7's, who by regulation outrank them, and the SPC7 telling the SGT where to stick it. He said essentially they turned into enlisted warrant officers. The GO called SPC 5, 6, and 7 "full bird privates."

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

I agree that leaders need a tool kit full of the right tools not a single multi-tool. One of my favorite things is how there are so many different kinds of hammers. The guy who knows how to use them, understands them. The guy who doesn't know what they are for complains about there being too many. But at the same time, people have to become leaders. An E7 has to be comfortable leading a platoon even if his key strength is maintaining an Apache. Same thing happens with officers, even though you are a technical guy, you have to be ready to take charge when the time comes.

The political politics are its own situations and that creates a certain environment sometimes healthy and sometimes dysfunctional. The incompetent often dislike the competent especially when the statistics are exposed. The competent fear no competition. Whereas the incompetent prefer other incompetent people. Mediocre people with excellent leadership can perform adequately to wonderfully depending upon support. Excellent people with mediocre leadership can perform adequately to wonderfully depending upon support. It’s typically only when both are mediocre or support is failing that the glaring flaws become visible. No one can turn bad intelligence into a beautiful outcome straightaway and no amount of tactical brilliance can reverse a strategic mistake or total lack of strategy. The tactical and technical capabilities are often a hand in glove situation that creates mailed armored gauntlet when each functions correctly. Personally I think they should have brought back the specialist ranks and expanded them for retention purposes. A good soldier who is not cut out for being a platoon leader or a first Sargent but makes a good soldier could benefit the Army by sidestepping into a specialized rank position... ... keeping the experience and the soldiers. With the platoon and First Sargent getting quality soldiers and the Army maintaining high leadership standards. They would be a valuable member of the platoon but not in leadership position for whatever reason. I suspect that at one time they were using the years of service and time in rank to cut down the number of retirees... plus the equal ranks eliminated friction and created more a egalitarian system. The formal leadership structures and the informal leadership structures are routinely politically motivated and socially engineered and not always to the true benefit of the Army.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

This is a compelling insight. I have to think about it some, but it's a strangely refreshing perspective about organizational success.

I think in some ways the army is under the delusion that one soldier can be another. I think in part that's always going to happen in an organization that can't be individualistic but one type of soldier isn't plug and play with another as much as they would like it to be. Also the way the army evaluates performance at nearly any level in my opinion is frankly jacked up. Some things aren't that tangible and easily defined and if you try to force it to be that way then you end up where the ones who climb the ranks are the ones who are best at telling the brass what they want to hear. Beauraceacy may be necessary on some level but it can be a serious pain.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

That's a good insight. In the Pentagon, we always say "It's about relationships" and we talk about how it is the interaction of unique individuals that drives the show. And the same is true of NCOs. How many times have you seen an NCO excel just by putting them in the right place doing the right job?

@graysonwilcox8015

Ай бұрын

@@the_bureaucrat I might not be seasoned enough to properly answer how many NCOs I saw succeed. I left the army as a buck sergeant with a little over a year in grade. I barely had the basics of the game figured out but it seemed to me that NCOers and the official evaluation process was lacking. There seemed to be no consideration for technical competency and it almost seemed like they thought an understanding of doctrine was the same thing as tactical competency. I was frustrated at NCOPD as a whole because of how contradictory and out of touch it seemed. I had a very technical MOS in a special operations support unit and we were expected to wear a lot of hats and I've seen the technical tactical lines blurred but they really are distinct. We were sometimes expected to flex between the two without consideration to the situation as it was happening. As far as how the army views soldiers in general. I saw seasoned volunteers who put in a packet to be in the unit replaced by DA selected privates straight out of IET. The two are not the same and the command seemed to deliberately avoid talking about it. I was very passionate about being a soldier but the operator analyst friction as you've described it was difficult for me. The scales seemed dangerously tipped toward the analyst who didn't seem to understand the conditions of the operator at all. That was a big part of why I separated from the service.

If you're not focused on the troops, you have no business being an NCO or even being a soldier.

@the_bureaucrat

Ай бұрын

That is a good point. A tactical NCO who throws away the lives of their Soldiers or a technical NCO who treats people like numbers are both "bad". But treating Soldiers as people no matter how you engage with them is key.