Posted on Dec 22, 2015
Did the Army make a big mistake in leadership mentoring and should we take a step back?
59.8K
182
87
36
36
0
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?
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Leadership
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 33
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
I like it. But what I really like is the idea of bringing back the "T" Sergeants.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
MSG (Join to see) And that's the reason I brought up the Tec SGT. It puts a strip there, but it also defines the leadership.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SGM Mikel Dawson - The reason why I like the T Sergeant is, as you said, defines leadership, and it also denotes history and tradition the US Army had. Since, after all, the T Sergeant was the grandfather to the SPC ranks. But then, the questions need to be asked...If the T was brought back, where would it be utilized? Just for those that declare they do not want the hard stripes? Certain MOS's (since there were some Infantry folk in WW2 that wore the T)? How and where would they be utilized? These are questions, that if the letter is sent to SMA Daily, that he may very well ask. Perhaps, revamp your letter to suggest where these soft stripes could be used.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
MSG (Join to see) Pretty simple I think, but then I'm simple minded (K.I.S.S.). Using an infantry squad as an example. Squad leader, SSG, team leaders - SGT, Team members are E4 level, so the ones being groomed for leadership, CPL, the others, T-CPL
Lets get into a CSS/CS unit. The section NCOIC, hard stripe, I guessing MSG. Depending on the size of the section the NCOIC will have a couple SFCs in direct over seeing of work. Those under would be T-SGT, T-CPL depending on the level of skill, TIS. Those being groomed for leadership will go to Leadership course, while the others will proceed through knowledge courses on their MOS, but will also include some leadership skills as they need to be trained to think and move up in case the leader is "taken out". In this case a T-SGT will shed the T rank and put on a hard stripe. To simple?
Lets get into a CSS/CS unit. The section NCOIC, hard stripe, I guessing MSG. Depending on the size of the section the NCOIC will have a couple SFCs in direct over seeing of work. Those under would be T-SGT, T-CPL depending on the level of skill, TIS. Those being groomed for leadership will go to Leadership course, while the others will proceed through knowledge courses on their MOS, but will also include some leadership skills as they need to be trained to think and move up in case the leader is "taken out". In this case a T-SGT will shed the T rank and put on a hard stripe. To simple?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google