Did the Army make a big mistake in leadership mentoring and should we take a step back?

2015-12-22T07:43:53-05:00

The following is a letter I'd like to get to SMA Dailey. What do you think?:

The army made a big mistake in doing away with the Specialists ranks above SPC4 - not everyone is a leader. During my career and I a guessing in yours as well, we've both seen soldiers put in leadership positions who didn't belong and because of it the mission might not have failed, but it wasn't completed to the best it could have been. I saw it constantly in my career where soldiers weren't taken care of, counseling wasn't done, NCOs went home early, soldiers left to complete a mission without the proper supervision. Why do these things happen? - because those in charge don't care enough, don't have the natural leadership traits, are thinking about their own self first, and the list goes on. These are not the traits of a good leader.
As a SSG I took over a 12B squad. In my first couple days with the squad I had every soldier in for an interview and did a formal counseling. This one SPC was a little scared to be "given a formal counseling" because his idea of it was something bad. I explained to him this was the army's way of letting the soldiers know what we as leaders expected from the troops. He was shocked - he told me his former SQD LDR had never had any kind of counseling with him and neither had his team leader - NOW I WAS SHOCKED! When I brought in my two team leaders (together), they both told me they'd received one counseling for their NCOER, but were never told to counsel their teams, it was as if counseling was just a hoop to jump. I ask how their team members were to know what was expected of them, I received looks, but no answers. This is a clear leadership problem, a leader who didn't know what he was doing.
Yes, I know you can use the above example as clearly a lack of duties and responsibilities from the top down, yes it is, but this was something I knew! I'd never really had that much leadership training, but I also knew if someone isn't clearly defined in their job, then how can you give them a negative rating?
My entire career has been Reserve, but I had also been in leadership positions in my civilian job. I have been a ranch foreman with the responsibility of approx 75 head of horse & mules. I was responsible for setting of multiple hunting camps, insuring everything was in ready for customers. I had several people working for me and I had to let them know what I expected of them because we worked alone much of the time.
As a kid in Boy Scouts I was made Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol leader, I never asked for it, but I was put in those jobs, maybe because I have an aggressive personality. Through school it was, "Dawson, take over here". Leadership positions have been thrust upon me my entire military career as well. Many times I didn't know what I was doing, but I understood how to lead, and this was the key.
Yes we can try to make leaders. We can send them to school we can tell them how to do things, and we can put them in training leadership positions, but ultimately it falls back on the natural leadership traits which good leader have. In 1995 I was deployed to OJE. While down range I was promoted to SFC. About half way through the deployment the unit Commander came to me and asked me to take over the SNCO position of the unit (held by an E8). I replied there were two more SFCs with so much more TIG/TIS than me, I was brand new, but the Commander came back with, yes, but you are a leader. The only way I took the position was I spoke with the two other SFCs and got their support, thus I took the job.
SMA, you've spent a lot of time on uniforms and such, but I really think the rank structure needs attention. Yes we got a lot of smart soldiers today, they know their jobs, but it takes a real leader to bring these soldiers together to get the job done. I was just on the "Rally Point" forum where a SSG brought up a question, "Should his whole squad get a UCMJ action because they failed to complete the mission?" I replied to the SSG, maybe he needs to relook his leadership skills because if the whole squad failed, then he failed as well.
We've got units today in which NCOs are the majority of enlisted. We tried the "green tab" but it got lost in the shuffle. What soldiers look at is the rank. If everyone is an NCO then where is the respect for the NCO leader? It's almost like giving a trophy to every kid, winner or loser just for showing up. With the cut backs in spending we need to be good stewards of our resources. Leaders are resources! Those who are leaders need to be hard stripes and put in those positions. Followers need to have the Specialists ranks or maybe "T" Sergeants, I believe this would take undue pressure from those non-leaders and let them focus better on their jobs. Just think SMA, what if you had a platoon of nothing but 1LTs?

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Dec 22 at 2015 8:15 AM

2015-12-22T08:15:32-05:00

SGM Mikel Dawson I totally agree with this. I have met numerous staff NCOs that had no business wearing hard stripes. They should have been SPC5-7 like they had back in the day.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 22 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-12-22T09:29:40-05:00

I'd like to offer a counterpoint. The USMC doesn't have a Specialist track at all.

It's frankly a "foreign" concept to us. The first MCI we do is Fundamentals of Marine Corps Leadership, and EVERY PME set thereafter has a huge focus on Leadership Development, from Cpl's Course, Sgt's Course, SNCO Academy+.

We push "ownership" as far down as we can. Now, I realize a lot of this is scale based. The Army is so much larger than the USMC, it's not even funny. But, do you really need a Specialist? Couldn't everyone be Corporals, and then start focusing Leadership downward like we do?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 10:03 AM

2015-12-22T10:03:35-05:00

I would actually advocate that we go the other way and bring back the seldom-used Corporal rank. When I was a young troop, I was given a machine gun crew as a Specialist, then a second one as a Corporal. Drilling and training those crews taught me a lot about what it took to be an NCO at the most basic level, and was the foundation for so much I did later in my career.
I would make an argument for more responsibility being pushed down, not less.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 10:16 AM

2015-12-22T10:16:10-05:00

I like it. But what I really like is the idea of bringing back the "T" Sergeants.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 22 at 2015 11:18 AM

2015-12-22T11:18:42-05:00

For what it's worth, there was a link in an Army Times article where I could send it to, so I did. What the heck. Will let you know if I get an answer: http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/11/29/what-problems-should-sma-dailey-tackle-next/76381208/

What problems should SMA Dailey tackle next?

The Army is never going to be a democracy, but Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey has spent a good chunk of his first 10 months on the job listening to your suggestions —and acting on them.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 11:22 AM

2015-12-22T11:22:13-05:00

I can see how this can be beneficial in some cases but does it address the actual issue which seems to be more about not holding people accountable? No question there are individuals who are not the best at leading people but the first thing mentioned, the failure to counsel, is a compliance with regulation issue not inability to lead. Additionally, no question that making it to the level of SMA means that people along the way recognized your ability to get things done, hence the selection for the added responsibility, but does that automatically make the others useless? Additionally, let's talk about why we have people who are not able to fulfill the duties in those ranks. Promotions has become more about what's on paper as opposed to being about who's capable of truly leading people which has led to significant changes. Similar to the drastic steps the AF has implemented to attempt to correct the issue of evaluation, I truly understand the need to do something but is the answer celebrating mediocrity? Or is it pushing all towards excellence and beginning with simple compliance merged with leadership development? Don't get me wrong, I get giving others some incentive if they cannot make the cut to a certain extent but allowing for separate classification to allow for promotion does seem like "everyone gets a trophy" to me.
All that being said, I would like to see what the construct and legalese of that change would be. Any plan with proper planning and execution can work but the question is whether we're attacking the root cause or just symptoms.

Response by SP5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 12:34 PM

2015-12-22T12:34:25-05:00

I agree with the notion of returning to a "specialist" ladder, with an option for a specialist to transition to NCO rank as long as effective leadership component can be demonstrated via school or on the job. Additionally, the Specialist rank level should be capped at E7 - based on my observation that if a SP8 or SP9 wasn't interested in doing something, there wasn't enough horsepower in the neighborhood to get interest generated. The up or out mentality should also go away since there are individuals who function well at one level and become failures at the next level (Peter Principal). The net result will be that a whole new (reinvented) bureaucracy will be required to manage the structure. Cost/benefit analysis will be needed.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 12:46 PM

2015-12-22T12:46:22-05:00

I honestly believe this will make things worse before they make them better. I understand i am cynical but i believe if you take 10 young soldiers and say do you want to keep doing the job your doing or be a leader responsible for others, the pay raise will be the same either way, most will choose to continue doing the job. If you don't want to be a leader, but you want to stay in the army, I think you should have to provide justification every few years as to why the army should retain you and why you deserve to be paid at a higher pay grade despite having no additional responsibility. that is they key thing everyone seems to forget. NCO's get paid more because they are expected to be responsible for more. if you cant handle it, then don't expect a pay rise.

Response by SSG Carlos AcostaCastro made Dec 22 at 2015 2:20 PM

2015-12-22T14:20:57-05:00

When I came to Fort Stewart on April 28 2012 as a brand new Squad leader, my Platoon Sergeant never mentored me nor counseled me and they don't care about Soldiers they, wait to when is almost time for COB to start tasking on thing that could be done hours ago. Like I'm going thru right now my Battalion CSM going thru NCO's records and try to QMP them instead of approached them and discuss a way to solve the issue. I have a SSG that he was supposed to go to Drill Sergeant School and PCS to Fort Jackson SC and he denied him to go to the School just because he had just one 3/4 NCOER for a Soldier that was Chaptered out of the military for patterns of misconduct that got arrested the day before his final out. In addition that SSG never got arrested neither a history of Domestic Violence nor Sexual Harrasment/Assault and now he is pending QMP just because the CSM decide to give him the boot disregarding the 16+ years the NCO has invested and deployed to 5 combat tours I just think it is unfair that this NCO has to go thru and been exposed to a hostile working environment.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 9:05 PM

2015-12-22T21:05:18-05:00

I think the senior Specialist ranks can hurt low density MOS's. I will use myself as an example.
I was promoted into a BN staff position as CBRN NCO and am about to get slotted as a BDE Staff CBRN NCO. These positions generally do not have much if any soldiers other then the NCO. The argument can be made that this is the perfect type of position for a SP6 or SP7 or T-Sgt ranks.

Now..will having a career in the "senior Specialist" pathway potentially harm my ability to get selected for a leadership hard-stripe position in a Chem Unit? Regardless of what NCOER's might say, will just the fact of being a SP6 or SP7 cause selection boards and personnel involved in slotting decisions to automatically think "not a leader" at first glance?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-12-23T11:28:57-05:00

i agree 110% as the 1sg of a reserve med unit i found that the plt sgts and even the squad sgts had no idea about thier soldiers, there was no counselling for good or bad performance, ncoers were done "well you write up what you think and i'll sign it" this is not right, reserve ncos need to learned that this is not one weekend a moth two weeks a year its every day, one of the many reasons i retired early, "i want this but dont want to do that, it affects my civi time", when i retired i was actually asked to do my own retirement award, well i didnt, it not my place its commands place they didnt want todo the work. leadership is going above and beyound sacrificing personnel time to get the job done.

Response by SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra made Dec 24 at 2015 4:14 PM

2015-12-24T16:14:34-05:00

There were many times that I saw folks get promoted to Sergeant, only to continue to act like privates or specialists in that role. I also saw people getting promoted that should NEVER have been recommended for promotion, simply because they memorized BS for the board blew through their SSD1 by exploiting system bugs, and went to WLC. At no point did these people get promoted on the basis of how much they contribute to their jobs. These people didn't know anything about the aircraft, they were lazy and useless for maintenance, and they treated people like crap.

The promotion system is the problem. The MOS aptitude and leadership ability of a soldier is never tested.

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 24 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-12-24T16:32:15-05:00

Very well put. I've been out a long time, but even back then there were very few senior specialists. They had already eliminated SP6. (though I had one as a ward leader at the hospital at Fort Ord). In those specialist fields, you need specialist leadership skills.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-12-24T16:39:05-05:00

Has anyone ever considered maybe removing the specialist rank and using corporals for grooming into the NCO Corps without an evaluation process, kind of like what we do to officers and warrant officers who haven't attended their initial PME?

I think the time frame would allow for sufficient growth and preparedness into NCO responsibilities and to give a general understanding of what is to be expected. This will also allow Soldiers to see if they are personally ready and mature enough to move forward.

That's one thing that has always boggled me is why do we allow our officers and warrants to make mistakes with evaluations and rated time that doesn't count; but we don't allow it for NCOs as grooming time. Just some food for thought.

Response by SGT David Plaster made Dec 24 at 2015 7:03 PM

2015-12-24T19:03:40-05:00

With every new stripe there is more added responsibility to mentor our subordinates. If they fail, then we fail as leaders. Promotions aren't about meant selfishness but about selflessness. Give your soldiers what they need to complete the mission and your evaluations will write themselves. Often what is needed is discipline, but discipline starts with you. Be the change you want to see.

Response by SFC Jason Hodge made Dec 24 at 2015 10:15 PM

2015-12-24T22:15:09-05:00

That's why NCOERs are important as well as monthly and quarterly counseling, It's up to the senior NCO to mentor and consistently train his subordinates by having a hands on leadership role with his jr NCO's. Let them fail from time to time as a learning experience but always be available to provide the guidance to be a successful leader. I retired in 2012 and I had seen a lot of cases of plt sgts not spending the time necessary to provide purpose, direction and motivation, they assume their NCO's knew their job and allowed for inefficient leadership without effectively monitoring their professional development in the realm of leadership. Ultimately, senior leaders fail junior leaders by not training them to do the job and being actively engaged in their development, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the lack of leadership ability in our Jr ranks. Passing the buck isn't a option, fix it or move out of the way for someone who wants to develop leaders in their formation.

Response by SSG John Caples made Dec 24 at 2015 10:27 PM

2015-12-24T22:27:31-05:00

I have been in situations like that "Top" and have seen leaders do that to soldier's, they will not give the intial counseling for the soldier and the Nco's do not get informed of it neither , that is handed down form the top all the way down to the bottom of the totem pole. "Shit roles down hill" , piss poor leadership

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 11:24 PM

2015-12-24T23:24:23-05:00

I have had the same opinion on rank structure for years. Leaders are not instantly made just because they achieved the rank of NCO. There are many who should never make NCO. But they perform jobs well. Give them the specialist ranks with pay increases.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 12:47 AM

2015-12-25T00:47:34-05:00

From my time in the Army I have seen this go two different ways. There are technical fields that require E-5 and above to be SMEs and yet be leaders in soldier skills as well,this does not always work out well. I think that the Specialist rank, or equivalent should be employed for certain technical specialties with those in this area promoted based on skill aptitude rather than leadership abilities. As a specialist at an equivalent NCO rank, appropriate progression and teaching skills should be required and evaluated for progression. Naturally there are going to be those who are more apt to lead who may not be as proficient at the job skill but are more suited for the NCO ranks. All must still demonstrate basic soldier skills equivalent to the E grade but the requirement for promotion would vary by rank type. Probably complicates things unnecessarily but in this increasingly technical world, we have SNCOs who have little skill at the jobs which they are to oversee and be responsible for.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 12:51 AM

2015-12-25T00:51:23-05:00

The promotion system is broken. There is a lot of good ol boy promotions out there. There needs to be a system in place that takes job skills into account. I am a 25U, I worked with a 25U SFC that created more problems down range because he didn't know his MOS. If your the Division Radio NCO and have soldiers underneath your leadership then you better know what your doing. When your told by the leader to get with the FSR as your solution for everything then the machine breaks down. Soldiers these days are using time in service and time in grade minimums as the point of promotion. As soon as those numbers align its time to advance. Doesn't matter if they are ready or not. We need to fix this to start fixing the problem.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 27 at 2015 3:31 PM

2015-12-27T15:31:04-05:00

My thoughts are they all have their place be it leaders, followers and technicians.
I wore the SP6 rank not SP5; remember the SP7s and career CPL & CPTs
At the time there were only a handful of MOSs authorized the SP6 technician rank
We were like a select group with less than 10 throughout the Brigade.
Our Infantry BDE CSM hated that he could do nothing. So I always loved that fact.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 12:46 AM

2015-12-28T00:46:34-05:00

I'm a private but shouldn't WLC and ALC courses like that weed bad leaders out? Maybe we should have higher standards.

Response by SFC Abel Aguirre Jr. made Dec 29 at 2015 12:14 AM

2015-12-29T00:14:04-05:00

I agree with you 100%.It takes time to develop leadership skill.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 8:25 AM

2015-12-29T08:25:49-05:00

Maybe if we quit promoting people at the cyclic rate and actually promote soldiers who deserve it, we wouldn't have this problem. The mentors don't know how to mentor, because some of them too we just given the rank and not brought up properly..

Response by SGT Harold Watson made Dec 30 at 2015 2:16 PM

2015-12-30T14:16:07-05:00

Yes, I believe that the Specialist structure especially at E5 and above in today's Army should be used more in non combat roles. I served two years in Germany and Vietnam in the 60's. I seen alot of Sp5s, Sp6's, and so on then and not alot of Sgt's above the E5 grade. A Sgt grade should be in a leadership NCO category. Just my opinion..

Response by MSG Dennis Lane made Dec 30 at 2015 6:49 PM

2015-12-30T18:49:13-05:00

SGM Dawson, Your argument is valid, except that it isn't the rank structure that needs work, it is leadership training. You are a natural leader, as your comments prove. That doesn't mean you are smarter or better than the average guy, it just means that when it comes to leading people, you "get it." Leadership can be taught. I have done it, as a vetted and qualified leadership trainer, in the military and in the civilian sector. Your example of what it means to "counsel" a subordinate is exactly on point, and the difference between a good leader and a leader that is less effective.
I joined the Army in 1966, and knew some SP5 and SP6. I believe the decision to do away with those ranks was about the same time the Army implemented the "up or out" policy. No more were there to be careerists who never rose above E-4. I remember some guys physically crying -- yes, real liquid tears -- because they would have to take E-5 or leave the service. "I'm a truck driver. I'm a good truck driver. That's all I ever want to do." But the Army was saying, "If we are going to promote people to these pay grades (E-5 and above), we have the RIGHT to DEMAND that they be leaders." If that is true, then it is the Army's responsibility to develop these people to be leaders. If a team leader or a squad leader isn't counselling the team members (positive, negative, or simply setting mutual expectations) -- and DOCUMENTING it -- then that is a failure of leadership. And that failure goes to the top. If there is a team leader who isn't counselling, there is a CSM who isn't doing his or her job.

Response by SSG George DeRouen made Dec 30 at 2015 9:43 PM

2015-12-30T21:43:36-05:00

The Army made its Big Mistake (capitals because it deserves a title) when it started WARRANTING promotions to NCO ranks. Get recommended, which was pretty darned easy, and answer questions in front of a board along with meeting BASIC requirements and bam, you are a NCO. Now you have bunch of whippersnappers who think that they can grow in to the job... WRONG.

Wrong because the continued molding of a soldier into a NCO is different than the Marine Corps and others who expect long termers to be leaders. What happens (at least in my experience) is that the culture is one where senior NCOs are resentful (right or wrong) and they throw the new NCOs under the bus. Mentorship does not happen in a constructive manner. Thanks to the pass 'em through the mill attitude of the Army, quite a few of the newer NCOs ended up being punks anyway and deserved a browbeating but the overwhelming amount of them changed the culture to one of a den of thieves and do nothings... so it goes down hill from there.

To answer the question about switching the rank structure to specialist ranks again, under the current mindset, YES, it was a mistake. If you want to encourage good soldiers to be good leaders then you have to give them something to be proud of.

Support and encourage MERIT in leadership! Demand morality and character. Let the Army values be the dominant culture.. not "Im'a get MINE".

God bless all those of good intent. You are up against a lot.

Response by SFC Aliye Espinosa made Dec 30 at 2015 9:44 PM

2015-12-30T21:44:49-05:00

These NCO's that are referred to as not leaders should be dealt with withing the established protocols, such as relief for cause, reduction boards, etc. My opinion is that we as leaders have witnessed the poor leadership you are referencing to but yet they fall through the cracks or write their own performance evaluations, to fix this accountability must begin at the highest level, ensuring raters rate, not the individual themselves, we perform under a broken system, example an E-6 can't make the E-7 list but yet is qualified to be selected as a Warrant Officer who will now lead leaders. I do not believe the Corporal or tech sergeant is the answer, the answer is in ensuring everyone executes accordingly and if not remove from those roles with the system that is already in place but rately used

Response by SP5 Gene Nevill made Dec 30 at 2015 9:49 PM

2015-12-30T21:49:43-05:00

The loss of the Specialist ranks has caused the technical side to be decimated. I left the service over that issue. Up for E-6, planned on staying a specialist. Was told that no I was to be promoted as Staff Sargent. My response was no I did not want to move into command and got out. My question now is, Will the Army begin to move back to the technical rank. I hope so, but my input would not be appreciated

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 8:04 AM

2015-12-31T08:04:54-05:00

Having been in Aviation for 10 years, my NCOs have become near and dear to my heart. I have seen no less than a dozen top performers leave the Army because they can't get leadership time. These are guys that maintain the fleet, never miss a mission, and save lives through perfection every day in the air. I absolutely agree we need to bring back T ranks in technical specialties. I have seen some great platoon Sergeants that can't crew an aircraft. A lot of people can't do both, and when we lose a soldier who is instrumental to the mission because they were too good at crewing to lose him/her to a leadership spot, then the Army has failed.

Response by CSM Elmer Feick Jr. made Dec 31 at 2015 12:04 PM

2015-12-31T12:04:40-05:00

Your personal experiences are a testimonial to this issue and do I see merit for suggesting that the Specialist ranks return back to our formations....as I read through the many responses to your question, it is clear to see that the common denominator is the lack or quality of leadership within our Army. Not to open a new can of worms, but it was SGT Bergdahl who stated that the main reason he left his post was due to poor leadership.
I have a daughter in the military and she just went over three years and is a Specialist. She has served overseas in Korea and just returned from Qatar on a nine month deployment...as she tells it, her experiences have not been very positive in dealing with Sergeants. As an example, during her first assignment, her Platoon Sergeant made several advances towards her in which she had to get intervention from the 1SG and Commander. By the way, he was married.
My observation on the issue is this: because of the GWOT, and the immediate need to produce leaders at all levels during a time of war, we have sacrificed or compromised certain standards which in the past have served us well in the proper selection, training and promoting of the best qualified Soldiers. The current mindset of young Soldiers is that the rank of Sergeant is just a pay grade with no meaning or commitment to the title.
Now that we are considered a Garrison army once again, it is clear to see that during this past decade plus of war, we have not been very successful in producing the quality and caliber of leaders that lead our formations today. The Army recently re-blued a system on how we produce quality leaders and maybe in the future will reconsider the Specialist ranks as a viable option to those who wish to be "Specialist" and not leaders.

Response by Cpl Franz Buhlmann made Mar 3 at 2016 7:16 PM

2016-03-03T19:16:44-05:00

Regardless of the area, they all need some form of leadership or management. Just because certain jobs require more advanced skills does not mean that the field is void of leadership.

The real problem is that there is a division within pay grades, soft and hard ranks. The Army needs to address the problem of not treating their enlisted personnel on an equally even level as its officers. An officer over a technical field is still an officer, which has received proper leadership training. The Army needs to do the same with its enlisted personnel.

I guess the real problem with this leadership issue is a lack of good leadership at the top for way too long!

(By the way, after I left the Marines a Cpl, I joined the Army Reserves in one of those technical fields and was reduced to a specialist and then was made to follow orders from junior personnel with the hard rank. Of course, I generally do not talk about being in the Army.)

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 10 at 2016 8:49 PM

2016-03-10T20:49:55-05:00

Much as it pains me to admit it, the best thing I ever read about small unit leadership was not written by a Marine. I highly recommend "Small Unit Leadership: A Commonsense Approach..." By Col.Dandridge M. Malone USA, to anyone who thinks he may be in charge of more than his or her self at some time while they are in the service.