Posted on Sep 28, 2023
How do we get away from this "Screw over your peers" mentality we have developed in the Army?
5.57K
17
13
4
4
0
In recent years I have noticed that support for peers as all but disappeared. It is more about kicking them in the face to progress yourself. I understand being competitive, but it has gotten downright dirty. How can we turn this around?
Leadership
Leadership Development
Progression
Peers
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
CW2 (Join to see), I think any instances of "Screw over your peers" and lack of information sharing as SFC (Join to see) has pointed out is related to the now more competitive nature of promotions in general. That an information availability, everyone now knows what the base line of their cohort is for promoting so they have to find a way to set themselves apart. I don't think the majority of cases is malicious, just a Soldier knowing what they need to succeed in their career.
For example, every SSG knows almost everyone of their peers has a degree (in some MOS) and certain awards, schools, or badges can set them apart. But if everyone else knows, it makes the cutoff score go higher. To me, this is a terrible mindset considering we will eventually bottleneck if we don't get our recruiting up, but here we are.
Honestly, I am of the school of thought that I have accrued a ton of advice and information over my career that will not benefit me, but may change the career trajectory of a junior enlisted or officer so it behooves me, for the health of the force, to give it out whenever I am out and about. It is also one of the reasons why I participate in this forum.
At the end of the day, it is up to us senior leaders to set unit culture to encourage discussions around es spirit de corps, unit cohesion, and team development so that is one succeeds, we all succeed and benefit.
For example, every SSG knows almost everyone of their peers has a degree (in some MOS) and certain awards, schools, or badges can set them apart. But if everyone else knows, it makes the cutoff score go higher. To me, this is a terrible mindset considering we will eventually bottleneck if we don't get our recruiting up, but here we are.
Honestly, I am of the school of thought that I have accrued a ton of advice and information over my career that will not benefit me, but may change the career trajectory of a junior enlisted or officer so it behooves me, for the health of the force, to give it out whenever I am out and about. It is also one of the reasons why I participate in this forum.
At the end of the day, it is up to us senior leaders to set unit culture to encourage discussions around es spirit de corps, unit cohesion, and team development so that is one succeeds, we all succeed and benefit.
(4)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
How about the DA Centralized promotion boards actually release to the NCOs the board assessment of each of their individual records so that a first look staff sergeant can see exactly what he or she needs to work on? I know, I know, the board sends out a memo and trends and young NCOs are always told read the letter the board sends out. This should be a notice to each young NCO, "OK you were not selected because......." Just like that NCO is required to do with each of his Soldiers each time they are not selected. So, the DA Boards need to be held to the same standards that those Sergeants Major hold their subordinates to. That would be an awesome way to share information that can actually be used.
(0)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
SSG Roger Ayscue - Agree 100%, and if I am ever in G1 or HRC or at some level to effect that change, that would be one of my priorities.
As it stands we make sure that the semi-centralized boards send the board member feedback to the candidates, even if they are recommended.
As it stands we make sure that the semi-centralized boards send the board member feedback to the candidates, even if they are recommended.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
First I would end the "Up or Out" mentality that the Army has had forever. If a Soldier is really good at what he or she is doing and doesn't want to or is not suited to get promoted, but is happy and fully competent in the position they are in, then let them stay in that position. May or the backstabbers are individuals that can not look good without making someone else look bad.
(3)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
SSG Roger Ayscue, the problem with allowing Soldiers to "dwell" in position is that it prevents others from advancing, especially at senior grades.
If there was conversation about allowing extended tours at grade, there would have to be aggressive changes to PCS like higher expectations for performance and variety of assignments to retain a grade.
If there was conversation about allowing extended tours at grade, there would have to be aggressive changes to PCS like higher expectations for performance and variety of assignments to retain a grade.
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
CSM William Everroad - No argument with this Sergeant Major. Most of the position dwellers i am referring to are in the lower ranks. For example, a truck driver that is a great truck driver but has no desire to be a NCO. What would be the harm in just letting that Solder drive the truck?
(0)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
SSG Roger Ayscue - On the surface, it is a great proposition, live and let live type of mentality. The Soldier is a good truck driver, using your example, why not just let them be a good truck driver for 20 years.
First, after 20 years, that E4 truck driver would be making the same they made at the 6 year mark (~$36K) since that would have been the last pay raise they received. This does form a bit of the argument to bring back the technical ranks, but how much better or more "expert" can a truck driver get that has a return on the investment when the Army can just bring in an E1 at half the price? E1-E4 specialties are built with diminishing returns, by which I mean expertise at a given job levels off and the "Soldier" investment is just not efficient.
Second, there is still the idea of "position blocking". A unit only has so many trucks to drive. For every 'permanent' truck driver, that is 1 less person who could be blocked from getting experience and moving through the ranks.
Third, the military has always had a development mentality, or more simply, "up or out". That is why the Army brought back "Be all You Can Be". Every branch needs leaders and the only way to find out if Soldiers have the potential is to push them toward opportunities. But young leaders often find the path of least resistance, giving opportunities to those that are "easier" to motivate. This leaves a lot of potential on the table making it difficult to determine who is staying as an E4 truck driver because they want to versus who just needs a little push.
At the end of the day, it is our job to get the best performance out of Soldiers and find those with untapped potential and grow the force. While I may not be opposed to giving consideration to that E4 Soldier who just simply wants to drive trucks, it would only happen after repeated conversations with them to ensure they understand the opportunities and drawbacks to being stagnate in their career.
The recruiting issues the military is facing and will probably be facing in the future may change how we all look at this particular topic, but even then we could not match what the civilian sector pays truck drivers (even adjusted for benefits), so we would still steadily lose Soldiers to industry as they convert.
First, after 20 years, that E4 truck driver would be making the same they made at the 6 year mark (~$36K) since that would have been the last pay raise they received. This does form a bit of the argument to bring back the technical ranks, but how much better or more "expert" can a truck driver get that has a return on the investment when the Army can just bring in an E1 at half the price? E1-E4 specialties are built with diminishing returns, by which I mean expertise at a given job levels off and the "Soldier" investment is just not efficient.
Second, there is still the idea of "position blocking". A unit only has so many trucks to drive. For every 'permanent' truck driver, that is 1 less person who could be blocked from getting experience and moving through the ranks.
Third, the military has always had a development mentality, or more simply, "up or out". That is why the Army brought back "Be all You Can Be". Every branch needs leaders and the only way to find out if Soldiers have the potential is to push them toward opportunities. But young leaders often find the path of least resistance, giving opportunities to those that are "easier" to motivate. This leaves a lot of potential on the table making it difficult to determine who is staying as an E4 truck driver because they want to versus who just needs a little push.
At the end of the day, it is our job to get the best performance out of Soldiers and find those with untapped potential and grow the force. While I may not be opposed to giving consideration to that E4 Soldier who just simply wants to drive trucks, it would only happen after repeated conversations with them to ensure they understand the opportunities and drawbacks to being stagnate in their career.
The recruiting issues the military is facing and will probably be facing in the future may change how we all look at this particular topic, but even then we could not match what the civilian sector pays truck drivers (even adjusted for benefits), so we would still steadily lose Soldiers to industry as they convert.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I have to agree with you, I met so many above-rank peers who never wanted to share experiences of their NCOES, certifications, etc. That selfishness is so normal nowdays that it is shameful if you go by the NCO Creed...
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google