Rank inflation/appointments/ranking above one's weight (split from CDS promos)

[Pusser]

Its an unfortunate reality that for many of the positions the rank of General is expected, if not required, in order for CAF officers to function among our Allies.  Can a Col effectively fill the position in Israel?  Most likely but he/she won't be viewed the same or receive the same level of cooperation, support and respect from others as he/she would as at least a BGen.  I remember having a Col as a Defence Attache at an Embassy for a while and he was virtually ineffective in his job.  Once he was promoted to BGen the doors opened for him and he was able to effectively do his job because he was seen as being more credible by the Host Country's military and the other Defence Attaches who expected the position to be filled by a General.

This is very true, but is not limited to generals.  The CF has a tendency to expect more of its officers at lower ranks (e.g. We employ captains to do what other armies would use a major for).  This has led to problems on international missions where very bright, experience and capable Canadian captains are virtually ignored because they're "only" captains.  Mind you in most of allies' armies, promotion to major is automatic.

 

[OldSolduer]

"We're going to spend the day... Maaaahching up an' down the SQUARE! That is of course any of you lot have anything you'd... raaaaahther be doing, than maaaahching up and down the square?"

Well the be honest I'd rather be home with the wife and kids!

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is very true, but is not limited to generals.  The CF has a tendency to expect more of its officers at lower ranks (e.g. We employ captains to do what other armies would use a major for).  This has led to problems on international missions where very bright, experience and capable Canadian captains are virtually ignored because they're "only" captains.  Mind you in most of allies' armies, promotion to major is automatic.

I take the opposite view.

I have done some, but not a huge amount of multi-national soldiering and there is, indeed, now and again, a tendency to value people by their apparent rank but we, Canadians, were assigned to specific positions and I never had any difficulty in reminding colleagues, foreign and (once or twice) Canadian, that I was __appintment__ because I was qualified for that job, and my rank, and the ranks of others 'at the table' was not an issue ~ I had a point of view, I was making (recommendations or) decisions and I expected them to be (considered or) executed. I suppose that now and again some __insert country here__ officers said, in private, "Well, he's a pushy SOB, isn't he?" I didn't care, so long at they did things the way I (recommended or) ordered. I was, once, in the normal, to me, position, of being a principle staff officer who was outranked by almost everyone else. I was the principle staff officer; I acted like it; I routinely ordered more senior officers, sometimes quite peremptorily, to do tasks x, y or z when I wanted them done and how I wanted them done. The (foreign) commander saw nothing odd in a [rank] bossing about a [rank+1 and even, once [rank+2]; nor did I. One officer suggested, once, that his rank (and age) made him better qualified than I to hold the principle staff position. I invited him to return to his national delegation for reassignment. He got on with his job: doing what I said when I said it.

We have a problem, in Canada, in my opinion, with over ranking of staff officers. Following the bad examples of some allies is not the right way to get out of a bad patch.

 

[George Wallace]

I take the opposite view.

I have done some, but not a huge amount of multi-national soldiering and there is, indeed, now and again, a tendency to value people by their apparent rank but we, Canadians, were assigned to specific positions and I never had any difficulty in reminding colleagues, foreign and (once or twice) Canadian, that I was __appintment__ because I was qualified for that job, and my rank, and the ranks of others 'at the table' was not an issue ~ I had a point of view, I was making (recommendations or) decisions and I expected them to be (considered or) executed. I suppose that now and again some __insert country here__ officers said, in private, "Well, he's a pushy SOB, isn't he?" I didn't care, so long at they did things the way I (recommended or) ordered. I was, once, in the normal, to me, position, of being a principle staff officer who was outranked by almost everyone else. I was the principle staff officer; I acted like it; I routinely ordered more senior officers, sometimes quite peremptorily, to do tasks x, y or z when I wanted them done and how I wanted them done. The (foreign) commander saw nothing odd in a [rank] bossing about a [rank+1 and even, once [rank+2]; nor did I. One officer suggested, once, that his rank (and age) made him better qualified than I to hold the principle staff position. I invited him to return to his national delegation for reassignment. He got on with his job: doing what I said when I said it.

We have a problem, in Canada, in my opinion, with over ranking of staff officers. Following the bad examples of some allies is not the right way to get out of a bad patch.

In a similar vein, we can also see this in the NCO ranks.  I am sure even Pusser will admit to having seen or experienced this while working with allied and other foreign militaries.

 

[Haggis]

Well the be honest I'd rather be home with the wife and kids!

Heretic!

 

[Haggis]

In a similar vein, we can also see this in the NCO ranks.  I am sure even Pusser will admit to having seen or experienced this while working with allied and other foreign militaries.

As can I. I have personally been subject to comparative analysis based on cultural perceptions of what a Sgt Maj does and how much experience and influence a Sgt Maj has.

Canadian NCOs as a whole usually punch far above their weight when held against our allies of similar rank.

 

[Old Sweat]

As can I. I have personally been subject to comparative analysis based on cultural perceptions of what a Sgt Maj does and how much experience and influence a Sgt Maj has.

Canadian NCOs as a whole usually punch far above their weight when held against our allies of similar rank.

I remember many years ago receiving a tasking to send a sergeant clerk on a NATO exercise to work in a headquarters - AMF(L) springs to mind, but I'm not sure. After much negotiating we were allowed to send a master corporal, which we still considered excessive. On his return he reported that he had been employed as a typist, and that his fellow augments were all conscripts in their last months of service, and hence had been trained to type and had become sergeants automatically.

 

[Haggis]

I was RSM of a multinational battalion on a NATO Training exercise last decade.  After helping to arrange the CO's O Gp with our DCO, an Adriatic nation LCol, the DCO said "Sergeant Major, go get coffee for everyone".  After seeing my incredulous facial expression, the DCO was taken aside and counselled on the role of an RSM by his US Army mentor.

I dutifully returned with coffee, but only for the CO and I.

 

[Pusser]

I take the opposite view.

I have done some, but not a huge amount of multi-national soldiering and there is, indeed, now and again, a tendency to value people by their apparent rank but we, Canadians, were assigned to specific positions and I never had any difficulty in reminding colleagues, foreign and (once or twice) Canadian, that I was __appintment__ because I was qualified for that job, and my rank, and the ranks of others 'at the table' was not an issue ~ I had a point of view, I was making (recommendations or) decisions and I expected them to be (considered or) executed. I suppose that now and again some __insert country here__ officers said, in private, "Well, he's a pushy SOB, isn't he?" I didn't care, so long at they did things the way I (recommended or) ordered. I was, once, in the normal, to me, position, of being a principle staff officer who was outranked by almost everyone else. I was the principle staff officer; I acted like it; I routinely ordered more senior officers, sometimes quite peremptorily, to do tasks x, y or z when I wanted them done and how I wanted them done. The (foreign) commander saw nothing odd in a [rank] bossing about a [rank+1 and even, once [rank+2]; nor did I. One officer suggested, once, that his rank (and age) made him better qualified than I to hold the principle staff position. I invited him to return to his national delegation for reassignment. He got on with his job: doing what I said when I said it.

We have a problem, in Canada, in my opinion, with over ranking of staff officers. Following the bad examples of some allies is not the right way to get out of a bad patch.

I don't think we're actually in disagreement on this issue.  My point was that Canadians often (at least initially) have difficulty in multi-national environments because we send captains where everyone else sends majors.  It's not a huge problem in that we can usually prove our abilities in quick time, but there is sometimes an initial awkwardness. 

I was lucky on one mission in that I was a SME on a particularly sensitive subject at the time.  Even though I was only a Lt(N) at the time, foreign colonels and generals were eager to hear my recommendations and they acted on them.  In fact, one division commander ordered that nothing was to be done in certain areas without first consulting me.  Other two ringers, however, were essentially ignored and were simply expected to do as they were told.  They were given no opportunity to express an opinion, let alone devise or execute a plan.

In the CF, there can be a huge difference between a senior captain and a junior captain, but they both dress alike.  Often, the only discernible  difference is the jobs they’re given.  In other countries though,  a captain is still considered a very junior officer, perhaps even still under training.  This, combined with cultures where rank is far more important than competence or position, often means that Canadian officers may not garner the respect they deserve in some cases.  I remember being informed by one South American officer that he was obviously more competent than me because he had more rings than I did.  This, despite the fact that each of his promotions was based on seniority.  He knew from the day he graduated from his naval academy on what date all of his promotions would fall all the way up to four rings.  Combining staff officers from countries that run their armed forces this way along with those from countries with merit based systems leads to some interesting situations - like a south Asian brigadier being put in his place by a Canadian major....

 

[Infanteer]

In the CF, there can be a huge difference between a senior captain and a junior captain, but they both dress alike.  Often, the only discernible  difference is the jobs they’re given.

Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....

 

[dapaterson]

So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.

If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?

 

[Tibbson]

So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.

If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?

Personally I don't see it that way.  If the rest of the world wants to do it that way then let them.  In the end it works out to our advantage doesn't it?  If a Canadian Colonel can do the job that the rest of the world sends BGens for....then we send a BGen who is, by extension, able to do the work of a MBen in the rest of the world.  By doing that our BGen performs even better then expected and as a result positions us even better in the eyes of our allies.  Its a win/win.

 

[Pusser]

Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this.

 

[Pusser]

So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.

If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?

I certainly never said that.  Personally, I think this situation is more indicative of what is wrong with other countries' armed forces than what is wrong with ours.

 

[Ralph]

American coy OCs are usually captains. I'm not sure which side of the argument that supports.

 

[OldSolduer]

So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.

If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?

From what I have seen in 30 + years is three different camps :

Camp 1 - we must be distinctly Canadian no matter how ridiculous it is;

Camp 2 - the (insert country or army here) do it like this - we should too no matter how stupid it is;

Camp 3 - we need to find the best solutions to our problems no matter what everyone else is doing. If we copy what (insert country or army here) is doing and it works for us so be it. If it doesn't it needs to be tossed out.

 

[McG]

Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....

And merit based promotions to the rank of Capt.

 

[Old Sweat]

From what I have seen in 30 + years is three different camps :

Camp 1 - we must be distinctly Canadian no matter how ridiculous it is;

Camp 2 - the (insert country or army here) do it like this - we should too no matter how stupid it is;

Camp 3 - we need to find the best solutions to our problems no matter what everyone else is doing. If we copy what (insert country or army here) is doing and it works for us so be it. If it doesn't it needs to be tossed out.

In the bad old days Camp 2 always won if (insert country or army here) was the Brits, no matter if the policy or procedure was designed for a much different country, society and army.

 

[Haggis]

From what I have seen in 30 + years is three different camps :

Camp 1 - we must be distinctly Canadian no matter how ridiculous it is;

Camp 2 - the (insert country or army here) do it like this - we should too no matter how stupid it is;

Camp 3 - we need to find the best solutions to our problems no matter what everyone else is doing. If we copy what (insert country or army here) is doing and it works for us so be it. If it doesn't it needs to be tossed out.

I like to believe that I live in Camp 3.  However, I have been forcibly dragged to Camps 1 and 2 on occasion and didn't enjoy my time there.

 

[OldSolduer]

I like to believe that I live in Camp 3.  However, I have been forcibly dragged to Camps 1 and 2 on occasion and didn't enjoy my time there.

Same here. Camp 3 uses common sense.......rather than inferiority complexes and penis envy to solve problems.

In the bad old days Camp 2 always won if (insert country or army here) was the Brits, no matter if the policy or procedure was designed for a much different country, society and army.

While there is much to admire about the Brit and the Americans, I don't think we need to slavishly copy them.