Posted on Jul 28, 2015
Should positions be based on rank/time in grade, or based on competency?
14.5K
39
27
6
6
0
Through out my military career so far, I've noticed a trend and I was curious of the opinion of others on the matter.
There are many jobs / duty positions that require at least an individual being an NCO prior to being able to hold the position, such as the position I've held for the past year and a half.
Now, a dilemma I am noticing is that while we have many NCOs who, by "right" can be put into the position now that I am leaving, not a single one of them is really competent enough to hold it, or simply lacks sufficient experience. However, due to the fact that it is a position solely held by NCOs at similar locations, Junior enlisted were not being considered. Several of the junior enlisted I have in mind are VERY experienced in the field, are innovative and think openly, can come up with creative solutions for complicated problems and have the very best in mind for the Air Force / Military as a whole; while the NCOs who are being "considered" are simply applying for the position to gain career progression and have no prior experience in the matter. These NCOs are not necessarily "bad" NCOs, but they just are not what I see as needed to keep a continually progressing program.
The position almost becomes political, as many will say "I would never trust an E-4 in that position, they're too low ranking; it's wrong." or "It doesn't matter if the NCO isn't experienced, they have the Time in Grade / Time in Service so it's their 'right' to hold that position"
Do you think that in this day in age that it is effective / appropriate for the military to hold title / rank / time in grade/service as determining factors on certain positions? Would it not save the military money and heartache just to put the individual who shows the most promise for the position in place, instead of giving it to the senior ranking so they can "gain experience"?
Same as officers and their T.I.S / T.I.G, should a few more months of being in the military determine competency as to who is the on-scene commander during an emergency or sensitive operation?
What is your opinion?
There are many jobs / duty positions that require at least an individual being an NCO prior to being able to hold the position, such as the position I've held for the past year and a half.
Now, a dilemma I am noticing is that while we have many NCOs who, by "right" can be put into the position now that I am leaving, not a single one of them is really competent enough to hold it, or simply lacks sufficient experience. However, due to the fact that it is a position solely held by NCOs at similar locations, Junior enlisted were not being considered. Several of the junior enlisted I have in mind are VERY experienced in the field, are innovative and think openly, can come up with creative solutions for complicated problems and have the very best in mind for the Air Force / Military as a whole; while the NCOs who are being "considered" are simply applying for the position to gain career progression and have no prior experience in the matter. These NCOs are not necessarily "bad" NCOs, but they just are not what I see as needed to keep a continually progressing program.
The position almost becomes political, as many will say "I would never trust an E-4 in that position, they're too low ranking; it's wrong." or "It doesn't matter if the NCO isn't experienced, they have the Time in Grade / Time in Service so it's their 'right' to hold that position"
Do you think that in this day in age that it is effective / appropriate for the military to hold title / rank / time in grade/service as determining factors on certain positions? Would it not save the military money and heartache just to put the individual who shows the most promise for the position in place, instead of giving it to the senior ranking so they can "gain experience"?
Same as officers and their T.I.S / T.I.G, should a few more months of being in the military determine competency as to who is the on-scene commander during an emergency or sensitive operation?
What is your opinion?
Leadership
Military Career
Rank
Experience
Common sense
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
2
2
0
We can maintain the same system, as long as leaders adequately annotate that the individual who fills the position is competent or not. If we wrote accurate evals, instead of just giving everyone favorable ones we would prevent individuals who are incompetent from getting promoted and taking on these positions.
(2)
(0)
We absolutely must maintain the rank structure and use it to qualify certain positions. The reason is that you are not SUPPOSED to get to a particular rank without having the proper qualifications FOR that rank! Does it happen? Yes - but only because of poor leadership and lack of accountability. I charge you as you go thru your career to not let that happen and make SURE your Airmen are ready for the next position. If we were ALL doing that, your question wouldn't have come up.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
CMSgt Mark Schubert Well said Chief. It is our job as NCOs to train our replacements. It always my hope that the people I train are better prepared than I was, and that they will have more success by learning from the mis-steps that I have made, and not repeating them. They should be willing to accept the responsibility of leadership as they progress.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We build the Task Organization (T/O) by "Need" and designate each "slot" of Billet with a Rank/MOS. This in turn means we believe that each position must have X "Competency" and "Authority" to complete the tasks assigned to that position.
At the macro, that means a Battalion CO "must" be an O5, while a BN Senior Enlisted Adviser "must" be an E9. This is not to say a Major & SMSgt (USAF) could not do the work, just that they would not have the invested Authority needed. Especially when you look at all the positions below them.
When you get down to the micro, you run into the same problem. That E4 or E5 may be the best qualified, however his peers may have significant seniority both in rank and/or TIS/TIG which will present challenges for him to accomplish things. This happens not only internally (inside your organization), but externally as they need to work with others.
There's a reason each of the staff billets have the rank they do. It prevents "pissing contests." It sets priorities, and you don't run into the "my billet is greater than your rank issues," which happen much more frequently at the lower ranks where we have larger and more frequent vacancies.
At the macro, that means a Battalion CO "must" be an O5, while a BN Senior Enlisted Adviser "must" be an E9. This is not to say a Major & SMSgt (USAF) could not do the work, just that they would not have the invested Authority needed. Especially when you look at all the positions below them.
When you get down to the micro, you run into the same problem. That E4 or E5 may be the best qualified, however his peers may have significant seniority both in rank and/or TIS/TIG which will present challenges for him to accomplish things. This happens not only internally (inside your organization), but externally as they need to work with others.
There's a reason each of the staff billets have the rank they do. It prevents "pissing contests." It sets priorities, and you don't run into the "my billet is greater than your rank issues," which happen much more frequently at the lower ranks where we have larger and more frequent vacancies.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google