Command
NCOs
Congratulations 1SG!!! I selfishly wish I could have stayed a 1SG forever. I think that 24-36 months in one position in one command, is optimal. While we aim to hold onto our leadership positions as long as can (or at least we should), there are reasons why our Army moves us out. Replacing leaders after their "time is up" allows for continued unit growth. Fresh eyes, ideas and blood allow leaders to take the guidon and the reigns of the unit and to continue to move it forward. If leaders stay "too long" in one position/unit, stagnation may occur and in some instances, comfort and complacency. No good comes from that.
Continuity in the unit is important when changing leaders out, but as long as we have developed, trained and prepared our junior leaders, a transition at the top should be a seamless transition. With that being said though, I am a fan of staggered changes at the 1SG and Company Command level as well as at the BN CSM and BN CDR level.
I've seen leaders who spent their leadership time all in the same battalion; that's a bad thing. There's a narrowing of horizons in the entire unit when your senior leadership has known each other since they were junior NCOs (HRC seems to force officers to PCS) and they all have dirt on each other.
The worst I've seen is five straight years of the same brigade CSM. Considering that the average assignment is four years or less for most people, this CSM ran the entire operation like a personal fiefdom. The brigade commander never disagreed with his senior enlisted advisor, mainly because he'd already survived three brigade commanders and knew everyone in the entire unit.
There's solid reasons for limiting command time and I strongly believe that anything over two years moves a unit away from the Army standard and toward that leader's individual standard.
I found this paper that does a nice job of explaining the history of the "First Sergeant" or "First Shirt" position...very interesting info.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/ball.pdf
1SG, you pose an interesting question in that some movement is required for individual growth, but movement that is too frequent actually degrades performance because it prevents establishing operational continuity; reduces the opportunity to develop needed relationships or master unit specific skills and nuances.
I read an article from a non partisan think tank several years ago which had researched average military tour lengths, and how rotation impacted individual and unit performance. The study showed that on average the Air Force moved its people slower than the other services while the Marines moved people more often. The ultimate conclusion was that very frequent rotation between assignments actually hindered unit and individual development, performance, and mission effectiveness. The study didn't offer specifics as to what an optimal tour length should be, but the indications were that something on the order of 36 months was probably better than shorter tours.
Shore based assignments may be as long as 48 months and underway (ship based) assignments may be up to 36 months. The Detailer is supposed to balance each members' career path between shore and ship assignments depending on the needs of their individual specialty. It's suppose to provide for stability personally and professionally. The caveat is that it's not
unusual for senior members to short tour and PCS early to higher profile assignments (NCOIC, command enlisted advisors for local commands or flag officers; school houses, or critical fill billets) as career development tools.....not to mention those are the cool jobs for the E8/9 workforce.
We probably follow the USAF 1SG model a little more closely than we do the Army's, but we do have something that mirrors the 1SG/CSM world; command chiefs. These positions are special assignments which take the member out of their specialty and assign them as command enlisted advisors. You become the HR, military education, mentoring, health/welfare, people problem expert.
We call them "Badges" because instead of the diamond in their chevrons, the incumbent wears a silver command advisor's badge. In rare cases, it's an E7 and possibly a collateral duty. More often, depending on the size of the command it's an E8 who has it as their primary duty. For large commands, it may be an E9, and for flag staffs, it's always an E9 (gold badge).
I was selected by the board last year, and assigned as a "Silver Badge". It's been one of the coolest jobs I had so far! In addition to our Senior Enlisted Leaders' Course, the command has also sent me to the USAF 1SG Course so it's been good stuff!
Hope that helps.
The longest I had a Command was 8 months because every other Infantry Captain had to have his shot. And that was at Ft. Benning with an Infantry Officers Vietnam Refresher Course Company. They knew I would be going back to VN so they made me the Bn. S-4 for 4 months.
I, had a terrible attitude as a staff officer. I did the job but hated every moment. I wanted to be left with the troops and left alone. I could have been a career Captain. I had several Senior NCO's that were great. The units just ran like a fine swiss watch. We anticipated each other's thoughts/actions and took a real team approach to leadership. One of them ended up as the CSMA I believe.
In my opinion the minimum should be 24 months this will allow the 1SG or CSM to establish themselves and get their initiatives accomplish. In my last unit we had five 1SGs in 3 years and all of them had different leadership styles. Which became disruptive and hurt morale because once you start adapting to their leadership style they were leaving already.
They were in Ft Benning to long and branch wanted to move them, retirements, one of the 1SG was toxic and an extremely reactive leader which force CSM to move him. Those were the main reasons.
Overall it was a learning experience, I learned how much a 1SG can affect an unit's operations and morale.
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google