Role of Officer vs job of NCM [Merged]

[Hatdag]

Reason for the generalisation is that really, there is no hard set rule here.  I tried to make that clear.  And yes, many other factors come into play (family, location, etc.).  In my own opinion (and that of those others who have mentioned), screening troops to become officers once they've completed some form of leadership training is definitely something we should be considering.

 

[Echo9]

Nice resurrected topic here...

Now, for my 2 cents:

1.  There's certainly something to be gained from spending time in the ranks prior to commissioning.  I didn't myself, but I certainly trained with a bunch of people who did.  They were almost invariably better prepared for training.  Most of them were better prepared to become platoon/ troop commanders.

2.  The guys who came from the ranks often have problems with continuing to fraternize with the troops (no, not that kind) as if they were still one of them.  For that reason, I think that any of these plans would need to include compulsory changes in regiment upon commissioning.

3.  There are some other down sides to commissioning privates- In a lot of cases, guys who spent time in the ranks rely on their own judgement of events too much and don't spend as much time finding out how decisions are playing out on their own soldiers.  Overall, this is minor in comparison to the

4.  Beyond the platoon level, there's less of a difference in performance- the character of the individual comes through to a greater extent, and the kind of experience that you gain as a private starts to matter less.  In fact, it's been my experience that officers with significant time in the ranks tend to top out earlier in their careers.  Clearly, there are some important exceptions to this observation.

5.  Our army is built on the culture of separate officer/ soldier classes.  I'm generally against changes to underlying structures unless they can be supported by substantial performance improvements.  All too frequently, change for the sake of change sacrifices things that were considered peripheral but are nonetheless important.

6.  The crux of whether you think this is a good idea or not depends on your view of the importance of the platoon commander.  I've had a number of bosses who believe that platoon commander is a learning position- you spend time there to learn how to do real officer jobs.  That's going too far, but there's some truth in it.  Too many people who argue in favour of time in the ranks for officers focus too much of the argument on how that officer will be as a platoon commander.  I can't disagree with that on the whole.  I also can appreciate that the platoon commander is the only officer that most people in the army will work closely with, and that they are not training aids for officer development.  In the end, though, the measure of a good officer is more borne out through the whole career, and not in its first year or two.


On a slightly related topic, I would say that there's a big difference between the kind of officer that you get out of RMC and what you get from the ranks or from the DEO stream.  In the former, you frequently get people who are playing out their string in return for the "Free Education" that they were sold on.  In the latter, you get people who have made a conscious career choice to become leaders in the army. 

It's a dirty point to make, but I'm pretty sure that the last CDS who came from RMC was Jean Boyle....




oh, and pbi, didn't McKenzie spend his time in the ranks/ jr offr at the QOR and then went to the Airbourne? I thought that only put up the Patricia's cap badge when he became CO.

 

[xFusilier]

MGen MacKenzie did not serve in the ranks he was commisioned a 2lt in the Queens Own Rifles through the University Officer Training Corps.

 

[Journeyman]

For what it's worth, Gen MacKenzie didn't serve in the Airborne either. At the time of the disbandment, he asked the CO (then-LCol Kenward) for permission to wear the Regimental tie since he was getting a lot of media coverage at the time. This was, I gather, to show his support for the Airborne and/or disdain for the government's decision.

 

[eeyore063]

This is definitely a touchy subject I'm sure, and I will admit that my opinion is jaded and infantry specific, but here is my 2 cents ...

Firstly I am a firm believer in the old saying of walking a mile in another man's shoes before judging him. For officers I think that the limited amount of experience they receive during their Phase trg is not enough experience to give them an adequate base of knowledge for some of the tasks they will face. We have all had that young new guy set un-realistic timings for having those trenches to stage 2.

Secondly you have those coming out of the Direct entry program that feel the need to prove themselves as soon as they show up. These are the guys that feel it unnecessary to listen to their Pl WO and the experience he has backing him up because they feel it necessary to take control and assert dominance to the point of calling black white. Now I am not saying that you wouldn't see this from a UTPNCM but the chances are that if they didn't have the experience they would listen to those that do. As well those with no prior Army experience have to enter into a Pl that has known each other and it is up to them to fit into the mix. The commissioned from the ranks members already know what to expect and have some credibility with the Pl just from having been from the ranks.

Really it all comes down to leaving the GOD complex at home, draw on the experience you have available and gain the trust and faith of the rank and file. Either case can do this although I think the DE officer will have to work longer and harder to achieve this.

 

[Cronicbny]

Here's some added CFR info (NAVRES, but possibly related to other Components)

1. You cannot CFR into a different Component. If you are a primary reservist NCIOP, you must become a Reserve INTO, MARS or LOGO (PAFO as well now that we have those). Therefore a PO2 NAVCOMM Reserve cannot CFR as a RegF MARS Officer

2. You have "pay protection" (aka Vested Rights) and will be paid at your current level until promoted (or IPCed) to a higher rate of pay

3. All NAVRES pers granted a CFR are credited with IAP but must do BOTC and a short IAP Bypass (Knifey-Spooney) course. Exceptions are those of PO1 Rank or better or PERHAPS those holding a valid, complete, ILQ

4. PO1 and below are comissioned as SLT. Above, as Lt(N)

5. NCMs previously trained under OSQ/AB or NETP will be credited with NETPO (there is some debate as to whether you need sea time in good numbers here)

6. During IAP and BOTC you will be a NCdt until graduation

7. You MUST ensure your MPRR is up to date with any "Officer Equivalent" courses (CSMWC, CIMWC or MWBC) prior to your BPSO Interview, otherwise it could take a while to be granted equivalency.

This information shouldn't be treated as perfect... just my experience so far.

 

[Cronicbny]

Just some added info:

1) NETPO bypass will not be granted without a PLA being conducted (6 weeks of being paid to enjoy summer at home sounded good to me so whatever)

2) Pay protection simply doesn't exist. The new CBI outlines pay rates for CFR candidates and in some cases it's not pretty (oh well)

3) You wear your substantive rank throughout training and are effectively commissioned when the assessment board sends the message (caveat upcoming)

4) You CANNOT accept your commission and remain employed Class B or C in the same billet. The only available options are to Return to your home unit or revert to your previous rank until your IAP bypass starts. Additionally, if you choose not to return to your home unit, you lose the seniority assigned to you on the message and your effective date of commissioning becomes the day before your IAP bypass or the date you ceased working in your previous billet. This an issue I'm still "working through the system" though to be honest it doesn't make much sense given the NAVRES manning crunch to force core crew pers to RTU

Now then, off to more NETPO....

Can anyone tell me what Starboard is again? /jk

EDIT: For the record, NAVRES only managed to CFR 6 candidates this year... three from one unit (NAN)! Me thinks the message relating to it needs to be better understood by some people (supervisors especially).

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

I just CEOTP'd from NavComm to Arty Officer and the following applies

1. Must be Substantive LS/CPL or above
2. IAP Bypass will be granted for JLC/PLQ/JNCO
3. IAP and BOTC Bypass will be granted for ILQ/SLC/SRNCO
4. Upon completion of BMOQ (IAP and BOTC ) Commisioning in the rank of 2Lt Back dated to the day of appointment to OCdt
5. Army Phase II (CAP) No such thing as CAP(Reserve) or CAP (Regular) its all the same now no more modular courses
6. (ARTY Specific) DP1 Common
7 DP2 Field
8 Promotion to Lt
10 Off to a horse regiment

 

[MPS]

I am interested in joining the infantry as a regular. I am 25 years old, have a bachelors and have always been a hard worker.
I qualify for a commission, but I am wary of going into a trade as a "manager" when I have no experience in it.
I understand there are pay differences and the working conditions are different, but my gut would tell me to go NCM and then
down the road apply for a commission.
I am seeking advice and opinions on this subject.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Career Debate Officer vs. NCM  --  http://army.ca/forums/threads/22686.0.html

UP FROM THE RANKS! (a lengthy and very worthwhile thread discussing officer entry programs, from a starting point of view considering prior service as a Non-Commissioned Member (NCM)) -- http://army.ca/forums/threads/23230.0.html

Recruiting Forum Introduction and FAQ: PLEASE READ FIRST AND BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD! - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

Search page  - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search

Welcome to Army.ca/Milnet.ca/etc.

 

[footsoldier32]

I qualify for a commission, but I am wary of going into a trade as a "manager" when I have no experience in it.

MPS, as an officer in the Infantry, I will give you my opinion on why officer is the best way to go.  The Combat Arms are the only ones where Officers are leaders who really get to get into the mud and fight with the soldiers (NCM).  This way I get the best of both worlds.  The key to your question is not about better benefits or pay or even the fact that you have authority of some really great soldiers but if you want to lead.  Please get it straight right from the first, we officers in the Combat Arms are not managers.  You will start off with a Pl size organisation where you "LEAD" not manage soldiers.  The downfall of going Officer is that at times you will have to be admin focused or the soldiers that you lead will not get the courses, good goes, or leadership that they desire and undoubtedly deserve.  If you go NCM, you get to do some pretty great stuff without the larger responsibilities (to start off).  You Pte and Cpl Soldiers out there, don't get me wrong, but early on in their careers, they have few responsibilities other than mastering their specific trade, showing up on time and ready for work and giving their superiors the 110% that we are getting.  Once they go beyond that, they start taking on a lot more responsibilities and depending on their Officers and Snr NCO's, they can be given a lot of leeway and trusted on to do some pretty tough things.

When we are in garrison, the administration falls on our shoulders and we make sure that the soldiers careers are progressing well and they get the necessary course to advance in their respective trades.  When we hit the field, the admin falls to the WO's and we as officer have to make the tactical decisions and lead from the front.  It is the best job in the world.  Know that at times you won't get to do all of the cool things, like sniper, LAV Dvr, Gnr, C6 Gnr, etc, but just knowing that you command soldiers that can do these things and they are there to get the job done for you is payment beyond means.

So, there are benefits to both worlds, but I strongly believe that if you are going to choose, then you need to decide for yourself if you want to be a leader of soldiers or if you just want to be a soldier.  Two very different things.  Good luck and fire any more questions my way if you want to.

 

[MPS]

Thanks for the reply footsoldier32... i understand my misuse of the term "managers" in this context, but I was having trouble getting a straight answer from the recruiters...
basically what I was interested in was this... as an officer what is the nature of my field work? I understand a third of the time (according to CFRC) I would be in the field, but I was basically wondering if I would actually be working alongside my men... maybe not digging a trench or getting any of the specialised training an NCM would get, but at least to be out there with them and sharing the same experiences...
The recruiter was mentioning in his 22 year career spending about 8 years in battalion and the rest in other roles.... I'm not entirely sure what that means at the end of the day...

 

[Greymatters]

The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."   This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).

Officers are the senior leaders of the forces.  In the Army they start as troop/platoon commanders and can raise to the hights of general.  Officers will also fill the bulk of staff jobs through various headquaters.

NCMs at the junior level are the workers of the Army.  However, as they progress they also become increasingly involved in leadership & managment.  At the platoon/troop level, the WO (an NCM) overseas much of the managment issues. 

A little late, but since somebody had opened the barn door...  +1 to that!

 

[Greymatters]

MPS, as an officer in the Infantry, I will give you my opinion on why officer is the best way to go.  The Combat Arms are the only ones where Officers are leaders who really get to get into the mud and fight with the soldiers (NCM).  This way I get the best of both worlds.  The key to your question is not about better benefits or pay or even the fact that you have authority of some really great soldiers but if you want to lead.  Please get it straight right from the first, we officers in the Combat Arms are not managers.  You will start off with a Pl size organisation where you "LEAD" not manage soldiers.  The downfall of going Officer is that at times you will have to be admin focused or the soldiers that you lead will not get the courses, good goes, or leadership that they desire and undoubtedly deserve.  If you go NCM, you get to do some pretty great stuff without the larger responsibilities (to start off).  You Pte and Cpl Soldiers out there, don't get me wrong, but early on in their careers, they have few responsibilities other than mastering their specific trade, showing up on time and ready for work and giving their superiors the 110% that we are getting.  Once they go beyond that, they start taking on a lot more responsibilities and depending on their Officers and Snr NCO's, they can be given a lot of leeway and trusted on to do some pretty tough things.

When we are in garrison, the administration falls on our shoulders and we make sure that the soldiers careers are progressing well and they get the necessary course to advance in their respective trades.  When we hit the field, the admin falls to the WO's and we as officer have to make the tactical decisions and lead from the front.  It is the best job in the world.  Know that at times you won't get to do all of the cool things, like sniper, LAV Dvr, Gnr, C6 Gnr, etc, but just knowing that you command soldiers that can do these things and they are there to get the job done for you is payment beyond means.

So, there are benefits to both worlds, but I strongly believe that if you are going to choose, then you need to decide for yourself if you want to be a leader of soldiers or if you just want to be a soldier.  Two very different things.  Good luck and fire any more questions my way if you want to.

I like your writeup. I only wish I had as many officers who thought like you did 20 years ago.  It probably differs from unit to unit and base to base, but the bunch I dealt with usually just 'managed' and left the so-called career progression to the WO's.  Mind you this was pre-1990 before many of them rediscovered all over again, IMO, that they had to lead not manage.

I would also add that NCM's often get heavy 'leading' roles put upon them, depending on what trade you are in and what unit you are with. A corporal in one unit can be the coffee boy slash toilet cleaner, while in another has unheard of senior responsibilities.

 

[medaid]

I agree with you GreyMatter.

I will speak from my side of the house... that I had left.

In the medical world, the HCAs are the officers who command, lead and plan. Unfortunately there is such a great disconnect between the MedTech (NCM) that we lead, and unless you came from the ranks and decided to keep current medically on your own, it was tough for most HCAs to know exactly HOW to promote their soldiers career progression when it came to medical courses and such.

It didn't help that HCAs were prohibited from touching patients, other then to render the basic battlefield first aid that we've all been taught (you remember those? the StJA ones?)

Officers and NCMs both play important roles. However, officers need to realize one important point. Treat your troops with the respect that they deserve. Gone are the days of Colonial military, and one must always remember that the troops may survive without an Officer, but an officer is nothing without his/her troops.

Best of luck in your decision!

 

[Greymatters]

Officers and NCMs both play important roles. However, officers need to realize one important point. Treat your troops with the respect that they deserve. Gone are the days of Colonial military, and one must always remember that the troops may survive without an Officer, but an officer is nothing without his/her troops.

Preaching to the choir, brother!  Lets all hear a halelujah!    :blotto:

 

[vangemeren]

I was wondering why I can't put both officer trades and NCM trades, in my trade choices on the application? I ask this because the recruiter that was looking over the application stopped and pointed out that it had to be one or the other, not both.

 

[Greymatters]

I would think it is kind of obvious... think about what would happen if you didnt get your primary choice...

 

[armyvern]

I was wondering why I can't put both officer trades and NCM trades, in my trade choices on the application? I ask this because the recruiter that was looking over the application stopped and pointed out that it had to be one or the other, not both.

Different enrollment requirements and criteria to be met to qualify for enrollment, different enrollment contract, different pension plan, whole different manner of processing the paperwork through the system ...

just to name a few major differences.

You need to decide: Commissioned or Non-Commissioned. Two totally different beasts, process' and requirements.

 

[footsoldier32]

Roger that to all the latest inserts.  I guess that I didn't make it clear enough when I said it earlier...You need to make a decision.  If you are having a difficult time being decisive, then maybe that is telling you something.  Being an Officer in the Combat Arms means that you must be decisive and not afraid to make the tough decisions.  As to your question about field time...the recruiter is right in theory, a lot of an Officer's career is not spent in the field,  but that is so dependent on so many factors that I will not name them all here.  I have a friend who is going on his 5th year in the Battalion as a Pl Comd, another just posted out was a MCpl in the PPCLI and then Commissioned from the ranks and became a Royal, he had 5 years as a Pl Comd (both are and were Recce Pl Comds) and then there are others who spend 1-3 years in their regimental posting in Battalion and then off to other jobs.  It depends on how competent you are, but at the end of the day everyone progresses and you have to do the staff jobs to be able to the best job in the world.  Just know that if your soldiers are in the field you had damn well be there beside them or in front of them leading them and digging your own trench.

Afghanistan - My Pl played a huge role in building the Strong Points.  We all dug bunkers, filled sandbags, knocked down walls and generally blew shit up.  And to prove another point earlier...I actually sent Pte's out on dismounted security Patrols for Engr's clearing fields of fire.  And you know what, he came back to me after and brought up some valid and well thought out AAR points.  It depends on the soldier...some are good for the menial task, and others are going places and will end up like great Snr NCO's like CWO Bobby Girouard, WO Frank Mellish and WO Rick Nolan (RIP).  Now, I am a staff weenie for a year...not fun, but I still work with soldiers and I am playing an integral role in prepping the next BG for deployment...so my job still centers around the bayonet and the fighting edge (Soldiers).

From an earlier post, thanks for the complement.  I had some pretty great Snr NCO's who have guided me well and I wouldn't be where I am today as a man and an Officer if I hadn't learned from some great men.  For those new guys, just be careful...not everyone is great...it's usually the quiet professional that you can look to for advice and they won't lead you wrong.

To all, have a Royal Day.
It's a great day to be in the Army and Pro Patria!