Posted on Jun 12, 2017
In today's modern military, would there be any benefit to an enlisted structure similar to that of the past?
108K
914
366
194
194
0
I believe that most, if not all of us, are familiar with the old army enlisted rank structure where one could go their entire career without ever becoming an NCO, but still make it up through the paygrades. We all have known people who were great at their jobs but not fit to lead. Is there any benefit to bringing back such an enlisted rank structure?
Rank
Leadership
Enlisted
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 246
1
1
0
I think there is a need and pace for all the Specialist ranks. Have to admit when I became SSG and SFC it was a new ball game for me had to hit the ground running when I was assigned to tanker BN. Although I had completed Advance NCO professional Development, it really wasn't enough training for being assigned to Combat Arms units.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think in cyber where every branch is trying to get qualified people to stay and to offer pay a little more competitive to the civilian world it might make sense. Other than that I think becoming an NCO is important to all services and will revert to what Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS said.
(1)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
Cpl (Join to see)
Interesting. Nice job thinking outside of the box. I think this would be more important if we did not have so many highly qualified DOD civilians?
Interesting. Nice job thinking outside of the box. I think this would be more important if we did not have so many highly qualified DOD civilians?
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
In that case, why not use the existing WO paygrades? I'm sorry but difference in base pay between a E6 (specialist or otherwise) and a O1 is $7k a year, assuming same time in service.
(1)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Why do we not create a central cyber unit comprised of civilians that have cyber education and experience, and quit pretending like bringing in more service members in a support role is a good thing. Most of the "technical" jobs that I keep seeing on this post could be civilianized, especially when I keep hearing that certain people are not ready for leadership responsibilities or would just be happier doing their one specialty and no additional soldierly duties.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
GySgt (Join to see) - Advantages and disadvantages to using military/civilians. First off, the 4 year contract. Military can't quit. Although you can make it "expensive" for a civilian to do so, they can leave at their pleasure and take their expertise with them.
That said, the general context of the discussion was people "wanting their cake and eating it too" (wanting to be in the military, but not wanting the leadership responsibility that comes with it). Currently the force structure allows people to get out at E3 or E4 (spec/SrA) and without becoming NCOs and then rejoin as Civilians.
My stance is "we already have a structure that works" and no compelling evidence to change it as yet.
That said, the general context of the discussion was people "wanting their cake and eating it too" (wanting to be in the military, but not wanting the leadership responsibility that comes with it). Currently the force structure allows people to get out at E3 or E4 (spec/SrA) and without becoming NCOs and then rejoin as Civilians.
My stance is "we already have a structure that works" and no compelling evidence to change it as yet.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I have never seen the SPEC. 7-9 ranks before. And yes, some folks are not meant to lead. I always thought that E-4 Corporal should have been given out more than Spec. 4. Especially in the MP's. Most NCO ranks above E-7 are mostly administrative positions anyway. So I guess it would do no harm to avoid Spec. 8 & 9 because you cant deo too much damage behind a desk. Real good High ranking NCO's are hands on anyway, and the troops know it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I dont find it at all ironic most of the people that want this are the Specialists and below. If you dont want to lead, get out after your first tour.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My problem with having those ranks is the idea that not everyone should be put in a leadership position. While that is a true statement, we need to remember that leadership is not something we do in the organization, it is the very fabric of who we are as an organization. If you are content with being a mechanic, truck driver, or cook for your entire career, that’s great! There are hundreds of companies outside that’ll gladly hire a high speed worker. You can do the minimum and still be better than your civilian counterparts. If you are looking for a career as a soldier, you should learn leadership. You should teach leadership. You should embrace leadership. We are all, by the very fact that we have donned the uniform, leaders and we need to accept that. If not, do your 4 and bounce. Just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Woulda been nice. Spc 4 for 6 years. Any time leadership was foisted on me i either sabotaged it consciously or subconsciously for everyones good.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe it's a good thing to provide opportunities for pay movement and advancent! But thechnical experts! Isn't that why Warrant officers exist?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SP5 and above were eliminated for a good reason most of these people wanted the money and perks but not the responsibility
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SGT Joseph Gunderson
So the best technician in the army, say for computers, should just be left to sit at E4 simply because he or she cannot or doesn't desire to lead? In which case, the army will undoubtedly lose its best technician when that person leaves the service in search of a better job that recognizes their skills with better pay.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google