Updated Army Service Dress project

[rmc_wannabe]

Neither does the Army. It's called Logistics. And it's ignored.

Yep. Pretty much anything 1,4,6, and 8 is an afterthought.... until it becomes a limiting factor

 

[Halifax Tar]

Situational is a thing. I think the worst hangover we have from Unification is the disbelief that different sub-cultures, structures, and behaviours exist; ergo culture changes and solutions have to be uniform across the CAF/L1/Trade/Unit etc.

The RCAF crew-based, egalitarian model works for them, I don't think the RCN would buy into it. Nor do I understand the RCN's strict compartmentalized Department structure, as Army Operations require at least a general understanding of what flanking formations are doing, not to mention having to factor in CS/CSS groups in the plan.

While is a definate difference in living standards aboard an HMC Ship, that is rank dependant, I think you'd be surprised how much cross pollination there is. And IMHO the separated messing is also needed. Sometimes I need to shut the door and vent to peers or ask for mentoring on dealing with officers or JR.

One of the biggest issues I had as duty Cox'n was kicking young officers out of the JRs. And it makes sense that they would want to party with people their age.

 

[FSTO]

kicking young officers out of the JRs

A few XO's needed to be kicked out as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

On the other hand, I have no idea how an army battalion gets out of the garrison gate!

'Follow me' is an important part of it

 

[Navy_Pete]

While is a definate difference in living standards aboard an HMC Ship, that is rank dependant, I think you'd be surprised how much cross pollination there is. And IMHO the separated messing is also needed. Sometimes I need to shut the door and vent to peers or ask for mentoring on dealing with officers or JR.

One of the biggest issues I had as duty Cox'n was kicking young officers out of the JRs. And it makes sense that they would want to party with people their age.

I was in St. Jean year ago when they combined the jr ranks and OCdts into a single mess. For weeks before hand there were all kinds of warnings about fighting, the Monday after it actually happened and for weeks afterwards there were dozens on charge parade for fraternization.

Was a few pokey chest incidents but generally got sorted out on site by peers pulling their idiot friends away before it devolved into something chargeable, and at least one ended in a shared drink.

I found the departmental smokers good for that; although the AAMR is a death trap and the 280 heavy workshop was a much better setup. It was a good chance to have a beer with the people you are cheek to jowl with every day and put rank (semi) aside for a few hours.

Cautiously optimistic there will be a combined mess in the NCR at Carling campus with an all ranks area and maybe some smaller break out rooms, especially with several of the officer messes being condemned..

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Cautiously optimistic there will be a combined mess in the NCR at Carling campus with an all ranks area and maybe some smaller break out rooms, especially with several of the officer messes being condemned..

You'll pry the AOM out of our cold dead hands!

 

[WLSC]

Jesus

And after that, some will complaint that the CPO/CWO Corps is weak... You should have seem the reaction of the CA CWOs I was with they when they learn about this, even more when some CPO's were defending it...

 

[btrudy]

I guess their CPO were massaging to much the lower deck concerns. They had to bring a Master Sailor to talk to the boss

Honestly,

It should have sent shockwaves through the C&POs but it's gone pretty well unnoticed. By most. When I bring it up I get shoulder shrugs...

I mean good on JRs for getting a voice, I can respect that. The problem is that voice already existed we just weren't using it.

Honestly, I think we really need to be frank here; in many cases the Chiefs are the leadership problems causing those "lower deck concerns".

Relying upon layers and layers of of people in a strict hierarchical organization to properly pass along information that makes them, either individually or collectively, look bad isn't exactly the most fool-proof method of collecting information. If you want to keep a pulse on how your people are doing, what their issues are, keeping as direct of a pipeline as possible is ideal.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Honestly, I think we really need to be frank here; in many cases the Chiefs are the leadership problems causing those "lower deck concerns".

Relying upon layers and layers of of people in a strict hierarchical organization to properly pass along information that makes them, either individually or collectively, look bad isn't exactly the most fool-proof method of collecting information. If you want to keep a pulse on how your people are doing, what their issues are, keeping as direct of a pipeline as possible is ideal.

I dont disagree with you. There has been a move in the CAF in the last two decades to turn the Chiefs (and POs) in to true "petite" officers.

I just finished my ALP. And the whole course was a research project on how to write a university level paper.

We need to get back to our roots, which is trade technical experts, backbone and big heart leadership; and most importantly the voice of those below us.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Honestly,


Honestly, I think we really need to be frank here; in many cases the Chiefs are the leadership problems causing those "lower deck concerns".

Relying upon layers and layers of of people in a strict hierarchical organization to properly pass along information that makes them, either individually or collectively, look bad isn't exactly the most fool-proof method of collecting information. If you want to keep a pulse on how your people are doing, what their issues are, keeping as direct of a pipeline as possible is ideal.

That is the advantage of "management by wandering about" which many COs (in my (limited) experience) practiced.

But when one "wanders about" and shortens the pipeline to one-on-one it is necessary to ensure that the rest of the chain of command and control is aware that there CO has heard a complaint (or suggestion) and intends to follow it up.

When I chatted with Bloggins as he was working on his detachment vehicle I often said, "I'll check on that ..." and I did, by calling the appropriate Squadron OC and my own Regimental staff people in to ask why we did a certain thing in a certain way.

Sometimes Bloggins was right, there was a better, simpler way ... but very often there were good reasons for doing things a certain way, even if, as often as not, it seemed over complicated to Bloggins.

When I "wandered about" I also needed to follow up by going back and telling soldiers what I had concluded and, as far as possible, why I had concluded that.

 

[dimsum]

That is the advantage of "management by wandering about" which many COs (in my (limited) experience) practiced.

But when one "wanders about" and shortens the pipeline to one-on-one it is necessary to ensure that the rest of the chain of command and control is aware that there CO has heard a complaint (or suggestion) and intends to follow it up.

When I chatted with Bloggins as he was working on his detachment vehicle I often said, "I'll check on that ..." and I did, by calling the appropriate Squadron OC and my own Regimental staff people in to ask why we did a certain thing in a certain way.

Sometimes Bloggins was right, there was a better, simpler way ... but very often there were good reasons for doing things a certain way, even if, as often as not, it seemed over complicated to Bloggins.

When I "wandered about" I also needed to follow up by going back and telling soldiers what I had concluded and, as far as possible, why I had concluded that.

Bingo.

The direct one-on-one is what's missing in a lot of these cases people are talking about, whether by culture or inertia. Having the Cpl go straight to the CO is a no-no (unless, of course, you're in an airplane and said Cpl is the AES Op to the CO who's a TACCO) but having the CO go direct to the Cpl when "walking around" is good management/leadership.

In my limited experience, if a subordinate has a question/suggestion/etc to bring up to higher, having me play broken telephone and probably messing up their idea while trying to explain it doesn't sound right. I would rather say "hey CO, Cpl Bloggins has this idea - can he go direct?" and let them say it themselves.

 

[OldSolduer]

Bingo.

The direct one-on-one is what's missing in a lot of these cases people are talking about, whether by culture or inertia. Having the Cpl go straight to the CO is a no-no (unless, of course, you're in an airplane and said Cpl is the AES Op to the CO who's a TACCO) but having the CO go direct to the Cpl when "walking around" is good management/leadership.

In my limited experience, if a subordinate has a question/suggestion/etc to bring up to higher, having me play broken telephone and probably messing up their idea while trying to explain it doesn't sound right. I would rather say "hey CO, Cpl Bloggins has this idea - can he go direct?" and let them say it themselves.

Sometimes the source of the idea can brief it best. Again, situational

 

[Navy_Pete]

You'll pry the AOM out of our cold dead hands!

It's a neat mess, and hopefully kept up better than Bytown or the AF mess, but in any case the NCR is an awful place to figure out where to put a mess. At least for the Navy mess we finally dropped down the dues as $36/month was excessive, particularly when most people never have time to go there pre-COVID with the location, and even worse now with the WFH and building consolidations.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I dont disagree with you. There has been a move in the CAF in the last two decades to turn the Chiefs (and POs) in to true "petite" officers.

I just finished my ALP. And the whole course was a research project on how to write a university level paper.

We need to get back to our roots, which is trade technical experts, backbone and big heart leadership; and most importantly the voice of those below us.

 

[Good2Golf]

And I have seen that go badly wrong for many in the Infantry and 'Semi-Specials'.

I watched a CSM, recently returned from a long stint in SOF to work in a rifle company, lose the respect of just about all of his NCOs largely due to his casual and 'chummy' approach.

He'd list a string of first names related to some task or other (e.g., Bob, Jim, Shane and Bill... take Jim and Doug and go do such and such....) and no one knew what he was talking about

…and let me guess, his scrim wasn’t nearly as ‘Sideshow Bob-y’ as the other Mo dudes. If only the rest of the Army was a switched on and high performing as your unit, D&B!

 

[WLSC]

Honestly,


Honestly, I think we really need to be frank here; in many cases the Chiefs are the leadership problems causing those "lower deck concerns".

Relying upon layers and layers of of people in a strict hierarchical organization to properly pass along information that makes them, either individually or collectively, look bad isn't exactly the most fool-proof method of collecting information. If you want to keep a pulse on how your people are doing, what their issues are, keeping as direct of a pipeline as possible is ideal.

Honestly, if the CO needs a Mcpl to have the tru pulse of the troops, you have an unit that is not in shape to fight and the grooming of the WO and Sgt is not only deficient but completely junk. It means that there absolutely no trust, no insight no work ethics, and no one listen to nobody. Worst then a Klingon ship.

If, as an RSM, I would learn stuff about the troops by the CO, I would not do my job. Maybe it’s a navy thing, I don’t know but it’s a groing perceptual leadership crisis.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Honestly, if the CO needs a Mcpl to have the tru pulse of the troops, you have an unit that is not in shape to fight and the grooming of the WO and Sgt is not only deficient but completely junk. It means that there absolutely no trust, no insight no work ethics, and no one listen to nobody. Worst then a Klingon ship.

If, as an RSM, I would learn stuff about the troops by the CO, I would not do my job. Maybe it’s a navy thing, I don’t know but it’s a groing perceptual leadership crisis.

Agreed.

Back when I was a Troop WO, I had an open door policy and meant it. I also did a lot of "Management by Walking Around."

I made note of every issue that was brought up to me by a troop. I did whatever I could to assist them, and they always left my office knowing I had their interest at heart.

Once they left though... I made note of which Section they were coming from and had a very direct conversation with their Section Comd to try and find out why they were cut out of the loop. A lot of times, it's wasn't the first time the troop had brought it up. It just died on the cutting room floor after they left the Sect Comd's office. I wrote quite a few 5Bs and recommended ICs for this kind of apathy towards our Jr troop members.

Leadership is almost entirely based in servitude. If you're not working for your people on the issues that matter to them, don't be surprised when they stop working for you on the things that matter to you.

 

[WLSC]

I dont disagree with you. There has been a move in the CAF in the last two decades to turn the Chiefs (and POs) in to true "petite" officers.

I just finished my ALP. And the whole course was a research project on how to write a university level paper.

We need to get back to our roots, which is trade technical experts, backbone and big heart leadership; and most importantly the voice of those below us.

You know why they make you writes on ALP? To be able to make credible written recommandations. Not everyone know how to write. It has nothing to do with being more officer like. It has nothing to do about forgetting the basics.

Each of us decides how to act with the knowledge we possess. Some (a lot) thinks that more you go up in rank, more you have to be like the officers. This is what made the CPO/CWO with a formal education go by all the other when the SEM became the Chief Corps.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You know why they make you writes on ALP? To be able to make credible written recommandations. Not everyone know how to write. It has nothing to do with being more officer like. It has nothing to do about forgetting the basics.

Each of us decides how to act with the knowledge we possess. Some (a lot) thinks that more you go up in rank, more you have to be like the officers. This is what made the CPO/CWO with a formal education go by all the other when the SEM became the Chief Corps.

Thanks tips.

1) If we need a staff NCO course to teach military writing and/or staff work, then create one. But don't call it a leadership ship course and hinge substantive ranks on it.

2) If you're an MWO, a technical expert in your field, and your leaders won't listen to your input because you didn't go to McGill and get a PHD in English Writing, that's not a you problem. That's a them problem.

3) SEM and the creation of CPO1/CWO corps is, in my opinion, an abject failure. We're being pulled away from our very roots and those we are meant to lead. If you want to be an officer go be one, but that is not the roll of the Snr NCM. And SEM and all of its miserable off shoots has errored our core values and the trust we had with our JRs.

 

[dimsum]

1) If we need a staff NCO course to teach military writing and/or staff work, then create one. But don't call it a leadership ship course and hinge substantive ranks on it.

From what I've heard from the older folks, there was a staff course but that was for officers.

Probably not a bad idea to reinstate it, and for SNCOs too.

2) If you're an MWO, a technical expert in your field, and your leaders won't listen to your input because you didn't go to McGill and get a PHD in English Writing, that's not a you problem. That's a them problem.

Yes, but the MWO should also have some technical writing skills if they're going to be a tech expert. They don't need to write theses, but definitely technical reports.

3) SEM and the creation of CPO1/CWO corps is, in my opinion, an abject failure. We're being pulled away from our very roots and those we are meant to lead. If you want to be an officer go be one, but that is not the roll of the Snr NCM. And SEM and all of its miserable off shoots has errored our core values and the trust we had with our JRs.

I don't know if the trust erosion happened because SNCOs started writing papers.