Do you think Rank equals ability to get the job done?

"Rank gives you authority...not ability." - Robert Burns

Your question can be answered by the "Peter Principle" which is alive and well in the Military as well as the corporate world.

In a nutshell, the Peter Principle suggests that people will tend to be promoted until they reach their "position of incompetence".

So the answer is no. Their current rank indicates they were able to get their previous job done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Short answer is no, rank does not equal ability to get the job done. Rank is an indicator of experience and past performance. Soldiers are promoted based upon anticipated potential to perform at the next higher rank. Some Soldiers realize this potential after performance while others do not.
There are several examples of the former that each of us can recognize in our personal service while there are examples of the latter of which a recent high profile example is BG Sinclair of the 82nd ABN DIV.
In addition, some Soldiers are able to perform above their pay grade but do not have either the time in service or time in grade to be eligible for promotion. An example of this is Dwight Eisenhower who was a LTC in 1939 and became a five star general by 1945 (six years later).

I believe that there are levels of expectation with each rank. Unit members expect a certain level of a great many things when the "new guy/gal" shows up; especially if that person is in a leadership position. Does that equate to the ability to get the job done? Unfortunately it does not. The expectation is there, but sometimes reality trumps what one expects. On the flip side in this context, rank may better equate to the ability to get promoted. Unfortunately, at the "boots on the ground level," the ability to get the job done at times does not equate to getting promoted.

Rank does not equate to ability. It is only a reflection of authority and responsibility, but neither guarenties efficacy.

Furthermore, "The Peter Principle" suggest that most people are eventually promoted to a point of incompetence. So it would be more likely that RANK EVENTUALLY EQUALS AN INABILITY TO GET THE JOB DONE.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Of course not. If that were the case we would never experience incompetence.
There are reasons why incompetent people get promoted when they are not ready. Automatic promotion system, critical MOS, "board babies" are some that come to mind. Of course this is mostly in reference to enlisted.

I have met a few officers that were in positions well above their ability level as well.

But we all operate as a team. As NCOs, we support the commanders. If they are lacking, we bring them up to speed. If they fail, it is because we failed them in our supporting roles. If someone appears incompetent, it's likely that their support staff had a hand in that, and they are allowing the individual to remain uninformed and untrained.

I've seen many who outranked me that couldn't poor water from a boot with instructions on the heel and I've seen many subordinates who could do my job like it was second nature. As some of my esteemed colleagues have noted, with rank comes an expected level of ability and responsibility. Either you live up to the expectations (and this goes on the civilian side of the house as well) or you create a FUMU situation - f__k up, move up. RARELY have I seen it go the opposite, yet correct, way - FUMD.

The Rank you earn is given become you display the potentail ablilty to complete the job assigned to that Rank. However as we all know not everyone raises to the challenge to meet the rank requirements. That is why we have the QMP system.

Absolutely not.

A title indicates nothing more than a person's position and in the military it's a rough indicator as to how much money they're making.

When it comes to being able to actually "do" the job, I've been in for 12 years and in all of the boards I've been to, I don't recall the focus of the promotion board/system having anything to do with "ability." Now, the leaders who sent personnel to the boards were "supposed" to ensure they were able to do their jobs, but we all know what happened to the promotion system during the war years.

So, no.

Just because someone is wearing a certain rank doesn't mean anything to me other than they were promoted "x" number of times more or less than me.

I look to see what they're actually capable of before making assumptions.

Simply, no. The higher the rank the greater the distance from sweat and mud. That's just the nature of the business. It's the experience and knowledge of the job gained at the lower ranks prepares you to manage and advise in the higher ranks. Often, personnel in the top three enlisted ranks have not been "doing the job" themselves for years and would be very rusty doing what some of us do everyday. They should never forget where they started and we should never forget where they started. As far as I'm concerned, personnel in both positions can take care of each other.