Posted on Aug 4, 2014
Army Office Culture: the "90s officer" vs. "the GWOT officer"
21.7K
8
4
2
2
0
Have any of you read this rather fantastic piece from what I gather is around 2006/2007 from a seriously disgruntled junior officer that has submitted his REFRAD paperwork? An excerpt:
“REFRAD Justification Paper”
Top ten justifications for separation, in order:
1. Incompetence of leadership
2. Condescension of senior officers
3. The “OC mentality”
4. Officer-NCO relationship
5. Lack of Human Resource Management
6. Legalistic Treatment of Soldiers
7. Sententious codification of moral behavior
8. Dismissal of merit in the hierarchy of the officer corps
9. Bullying structure of the officer corps
10. Lack of opportunities that promote personal development
I happened upon this while searching the internet to gain insight into the ongoing release of the results of the 2014 Major OSB results. To read the full document, search for REFRAD_Justification_Paper1_1_
I think the author loses the plot a bit at some points, but the overall message is quite interesting; valid, I think. "90s officers" and "GWOT officers" have much, much different perspectives on "the Army" and how to lead, based largely on the different experiences these officers have had as lieutenants and junior captains. These different perspectives can create tension between the two groups.
I especially appreciate the author's comments on the state of the Officer-NCO relationship.
Thoughts?
“REFRAD Justification Paper”
Top ten justifications for separation, in order:
1. Incompetence of leadership
2. Condescension of senior officers
3. The “OC mentality”
4. Officer-NCO relationship
5. Lack of Human Resource Management
6. Legalistic Treatment of Soldiers
7. Sententious codification of moral behavior
8. Dismissal of merit in the hierarchy of the officer corps
9. Bullying structure of the officer corps
10. Lack of opportunities that promote personal development
I happened upon this while searching the internet to gain insight into the ongoing release of the results of the 2014 Major OSB results. To read the full document, search for REFRAD_Justification_Paper1_1_
I think the author loses the plot a bit at some points, but the overall message is quite interesting; valid, I think. "90s officers" and "GWOT officers" have much, much different perspectives on "the Army" and how to lead, based largely on the different experiences these officers have had as lieutenants and junior captains. These different perspectives can create tension between the two groups.
I especially appreciate the author's comments on the state of the Officer-NCO relationship.
Thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
I didn't see the link to the original document. What people seem to be forgetting is that the 90's officer...has spent the majority of their career as a GWOT officer. The difference is that for about 4-8 years, they saw an army in training...relatively. Those "non-GWOT" 90's officers also deployed to Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, Panama, te first Fulf War, etc. What you have here is a full fledged member of the LDM (the League of Disgruntled Majors)...look it up...it's hillarious. The officers of the 90's were a part of the Army that prepared a beautiful machine of warfare that was prepared and agile and adaptive enough to fight, win, change and continue to win. Seriously...who gave the 1LT's and CPT's and SFC's the space to maneuver within commander's guidance in the last 13 years? Battalion, Brigade and Division Commanders, that's who. Those same 90's officers everyone is bitching about. Time to come off the ledge..whoever penned this needs to sign up with the LDM and buy a hat.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir: I could only find the original document on docstoc. A bit of a pain to read, honestly, but worth it if you want to see the entire argument.
You raise good points; officers in your cohort in/around the early 1990s have now spent more time in the "GWOT" (recognizing we no longer use that term, of course) than in the 1990s, and this has most likely impacted the "90s officer" culture a bit over the last 6-8 years (since the original argument was made).
I looked up LDM. Very entertaining, although in need of updating (although my guess would be that the original LDM are now all LTC or higher, or no longer in the Army, so they might need a name change).
You raise good points; officers in your cohort in/around the early 1990s have now spent more time in the "GWOT" (recognizing we no longer use that term, of course) than in the 1990s, and this has most likely impacted the "90s officer" culture a bit over the last 6-8 years (since the original argument was made).
I looked up LDM. Very entertaining, although in need of updating (although my guess would be that the original LDM are now all LTC or higher, or no longer in the Army, so they might need a name change).
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
The LDM will live forever...especially with the introduction of the select board for CGSC. That, in combination with the reduction in force, will mean there are some "terminal majors" in the force that will bring this organization back to life. I know LDM Accolyte 137 personally.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
LTC Halvorson, I like your assement, and I get the sense that being enlisted in your command would be a great experience to learn and grow, even marking a pinnacle for a career soldier. But when you ask who gave the first line commanders and non-coms room to maneuver, remember that some command climates trended in the other direction towards micromanagement and lack of trust in subordinates abilities.
I am with you in remaining optimistic, and I feel a lot of positive change can occur on the active side, but I fear it will be business as usual in the guard and reserve. M-Day leadership just cannot develope the way active leadership can, there simply isn't enough time spent "soldiering" as a career progresses.
I am with you in remaining optimistic, and I feel a lot of positive change can occur on the active side, but I fear it will be business as usual in the guard and reserve. M-Day leadership just cannot develope the way active leadership can, there simply isn't enough time spent "soldiering" as a career progresses.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google