Posted on Aug 8, 2015
SPC James Burkett II
54.9K
220
107
21
21
0
C36ac53a
A strong worker or someone who has held the rank longer? Say you have a team leader slot open and you have a SPC who has showed no real leadership or even in depth job knowledge vs a PFC who has stepped up to not only lead their peers but seek knowledge from the supporting jobs surrounding their job to further themselves in their mission and ability to troubleshoot problems that arise to at least complete the current mission. Do you as a leader stay with rank and give the team leader to the almost unless unwilling to learn SPC or the overly high speed PFC who has proven themselves time and time again?
Posted in these groups: Ad11ad86 SPC6a00d8341bfadb53ef0167675a236a970b 500wi Team Leader9202ff71 PFCRank Rank
Avatar feed
Responses: 75
SGT Ben Keen
3
3
0
I think is important to maintain a combination of both at all levels. To be effective, you must be willing to use your experience to benefit the group as well as maintain a good worth ethic to get the job complete. These starts from "Day 1" of your enlistment and continues all the way throughout your military and civilian career.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Critical Care Registered Nurse (Rn)
3
3
0
Great question, and this applies still as you move up in ranks too.

I'd say, give the SPC a sporting chance, after all, they are wearing that rank. They were promoted to it based off their prior performance and potential, and at least ideally they had the commanders confidence that they could handle greater responsibility at the next grade. If they show that they can't, then 4856 it and give them the opportunity to pull their head out their ass. If not, fire them and give the PFC the opportunity and document in the same way. If the SPC continues to fuck up and doesn't rise to the challenger, demote or get rid of them. I've had to deal with E-5's in the same way, and they learned quick that they can't hide in their rank, that either they always perform at or above expectation or it went on the NCOER.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG John Jensen
2
2
0
it was a thing I thought of as a SP4 medic, we had some prior infantry in the platoon, and in that question is the mix of soldier(infantry) vs technician, and with the common usage of over 100%, the question is what mix do you want 100% Tech/ 0% soldier , 50/50 mix, maybe an ideal of 60%/60%, and as I was always in support, I've looked at almost everybody in those terms of fantastic technician whose a terrible soldier vs a fantastic soldier whose a terrible technicain, and my ideal is the mix, but it seems that the leadership always wants to promote the wonderful soldier over the wonderful technician which can be the worst thing for the unit -
What mix do YOU want??
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MCPO Roger Collins
2
2
0
Easily, work ethic. That becomes critical when in a leadership position. As you progress, the experience takes care of itself.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Jonathan Sellers
2
2
0
Promote the PFC then give them the TL position.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Alex Robinson
2
2
0
Strong worker. They are leading bybexample
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Anthony Davis
1
1
0
It's always based on the rank, now if you could promote the PFC then you have your leader. It may not be fate in some people's eyes but rank is always and will always be the determining factor.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Roy Stamps
1
1
0
There are a few ways you can go about this one I think. I have seen the Platoon daddy take those two aside and have a real true conversation with them. One that makes the SPC understand that he is a weak link and needs some motivational training from the PFC no less. This does two things. It bolsters the PFC so that if the SPC does not take head, that when the PFC is promoted into the leadership position the SPC can not complain because he has been given a chance to change and learn, but decide to be useless and was summarily stepped over. And two it gives the PFC inherent knowledge that his chain of command has recognized his abilities and wants to see him excel and do great things as a leader in the unit. There is no room for pride in the ranks of fighting men. If you are not up to the job, you should not be given the job until you are ready. I was a Spec 4 for almost 7 years. I was good at my job in the MPs. But favoritism and in some cases other prejudices caused me to be stepped over. I understood and I fought. But sometimes you just have to bow your head and continue to march, hoping that someone will see that you are worth the time. And that's what happened to me.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Tactical Aircraft Maintenance
1
1
0
In the situation as outlined above work experience is more important than experience. The experienced individual can still be very useful to the person with the will to work though.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO2 Aviation Maintenance Administrationman (Az)
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
I'd say both are key, but don't go confusing rank with experience in this case, what I mean is I'll take the guy that has done the job inside and out for quite some time and knows what he's doing and is ready to do what he has to do to get the job done. I'm not asking for someone to be the over the top motivator and show up to work every day 2 hours early. I expect the person to be ready to do what it takes to get the job done, and be where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there. Nothing pisses people off more than to receive ass chewings because of the guy that skated off somewhere for 2 hours who didn't get the job done, and now everyone has to stay behind till 1700 or later to ensure stuff gets done. But BOTH are key in all honesty. I was motivated, and I took the time to learn my job inside and out to the best of my ability.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close