Not everyone wants to be a leader. Why do we force members who are otherwise great at what they do into positions they don't want?

2015-07-06T18:54:00-04:00

It wasn't very long ago in our Navy that it was relatively common to see a 25 year E4 piped over the side for retirement. These folks were masters of their rates (MOS) and undoubtedly the guys you wanted in your division when shyt got real. They just for whatever reason were completely happy on the deck plates and didn't care to advance or take on leadership roles. I believe there is still a place in our Navy for guys like this. They did more to keep ships at sea and aircraft in the air than all the admirals put together. Why do we force members who are otherwise great at what they do into positions they don't want?? And how much institutional knowledge have we forced out??

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-07-06T19:06:14-04:00

I think the current culture wants to force people up or out. For some reason there has grown the belief that if someone cannot promote, they cannot be of any use. Someone can be an absolute master of their craft, but have absolutely zero leadership ability. They may be able to teach, but they cannot lead. Perhaps a 25 year E4 is a bit much, but why force them out upon their next reenlistment. Perhaps there is a 10 year out?

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 6 at 2015 7:11 PM

2015-07-06T19:11:32-04:00

the Army is the same way and that is really sad. When I first joined the Army they had Specialist grades where a technician or a truck driver, who liked being a truck driver could advance and get promoted but was never made a leader. They need to go back to those.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 7:14 PM

2015-07-06T19:14:35-04:00

Can't agree more Chief, look at all the CS3s, BM3s, and HM3s that are running the joint and being great at what they do at the E4 level. Why penalize them or force them a route they don't want to go or would not be good at when they excel right where they are?

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 6 at 2015 7:19 PM

2015-07-06T19:19:31-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith you are absolutely correct that there are those individuals that are very happy with their jobs and positions (I can only speak for the Army), but I guess the question is how do we build a fair and equitable compensation program for those individuals without promoting them into the necessary positions that our units and formations are built on? We would have to come up with some type of cost of living increase based on years of service, since the current system maxes out at the particular grade and number of years of service. Do you or any other RP members have thoughts on that issue? Also, I don't think there are as many of those types of individuals today (I think they are the minority). Most of the young individuals coming in now want to get promoted, want more responsibility, and want to grow professionally. Just my personal opinion and observation!

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jul 6 at 2015 7:41 PM

2015-07-06T19:41:29-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith, although I agree with the premise of your question, let me offer this: Both my father and grandfather told sea-stories of the "career private." Just guys who loved doing their job... didn't want the stripes nor the responsibilities. However, problems got created when time-in-grade/time-in-service justified a pay raise. The pay-officer couldn't account for the "E-1 over 10." The current model encourages professional development with associated pay: Up, or out. Are we losing potential "career privates?" Of course. The flip side of this model: We can all be replaced... even by another career private.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jul 6 at 2015 7:49 PM

2015-07-06T19:49:01-04:00

Complacency kills...too many deaths in the military as it is.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 8:26 PM

2015-07-06T20:26:34-04:00

I am not a fan of this at all. We are all leaders in some regards whether we like it or not. To be a career soldier at the lowest levels is dangerous to an organizations on many levels.

1. You will inhibit the timely promotion of soldiers. Soldiers should spend time in each rank and position if they wish to progress into the leaders. If you have a career E4 then you can't pull from their experience and knowledge when you need a leader. They are hording it. You will be pulling from an newly minted that lacks the knowledge required to be a leader. But you will need to promote. If you had 10 E4 in your section. You promote 3 a year. But out of those 10 soldiers 6 of them don't want to promote. By default you will always be promoting the most junior soldiers.

2. It sets an example of complacency. That guy is going to be happy he is not a leader. When a situation arises where a leader is needed to act he will be continue to gleefully shirk this duty as they always have. Then once again the least experienced will have to step up.

3. You will have Subject Matter Experts in positions that may offer little to no influence in the operations of that unit. They will know more than their leadership but the issue is that leader that was promoted too early makes the calls in how his team will perform. The leader may be wrong and the lower enlisted soldier may disregard the orders of the leader due to their vast knowledge of how it should be done. The lower enlisted may even be right but it destroys the confidence of that leadership.

4. They will age out possibly. In some professions it shouldn't be a issue. But that is not always the case. I couldn't really see a 40 year old mortarman. That is a young mans game. If you don't move up you will still be performing tasks that are typically performed by younger and fitter soldiers. I don't think this is really much of an issue but it something to consider.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-07-06T20:42:49-04:00

First of all, even military members who are not in a leadership position can still exercise leadership skills. There are always opportunities of even E2s and E3s to help their shipmates, suggest ideas to the supervisor and be a team player. Second most enlisted member will become, petty officers or NCOs; even in a technical specialty you will most likely end up supervising or at least mentoring and teaching newbies. You do not have to be an an appointed leadership to be a leader.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 9:36 PM

2015-07-06T21:36:14-04:00

As a national guard engineer i couldnt agree more. Sometimes a person just loves to run a dozer! I have personally seen unwanted rank betowed on long term folks who were otherwise content in their funtion only to watch those individuals very quickly become frustrated and leave service.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 10:00 PM

2015-07-06T22:00:59-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith Great Post! I'm not in the Navy but have brought up a similar argument in my field. Not everyone is capable of being a leader, and I have seen excellent technicians and tacticians forced out of a job they were good at and into a leadership role they were not due to promotions. I am of the mindset that key leadership positions should be interviewed for and only given to the very best -- People should not be promoted into leadership positions. Look at the private sector: engineers, medical professionals, programers etc. are paid very well to do a job and don't necessarily manage anyone. The same jobs in the military would, at some point due to promotions, force those technicians into leadership roles.

Interesting point, and something to be discussed as continual advances in technology create the need for military members of increased technical prowess, who deserve promotions as a reward for their ability, but who may not want or be fit to lead.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 11:35 PM

2015-07-06T23:35:56-04:00

I believe the british military operates like that. While in my other post I said leadership can happen at all levels, some people do better at lower levels. That way many NCOs dont want to be officers. Some people may make a grat company command but not at higher levels. They prefer to lead at the tactical rather than the operational or strategic. (as well as dealing with politics at higher levels
That said there are ways to reward long experienced people. (Retiring at E4 pay is not the solution.) Warrant officers is one way. Also the theory behind the specialist grades especially the old spec 5, 6 and 7. and the old WW2 rank of tech sgt. I do think that forced assignent into higher levels should not be mandatory to reach retirement. (Remember the Peter Principle)

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 3:40 AM

2015-07-07T03:40:15-04:00

I could not agree more Sir. I am a capable leader, but a "great" leader of many, probably not. I LIKE to work. I also like to teach and mentor in small groups. I loved that about being a Sergeant and Staff Sergeant. I think I would have been acceptable as a Platoon Sergeant for a flight platoon (much smaller than average platoon, and more junior NCO's), but far from a cut above I think. I don't think I have ANY 1SG, MSG, SGM flesh in me though. "Not about that life" to put it lightly. Not to downgrade the amount of responsibility/leadership that will be expected out of me as an officer, but as a Warrant Officer, it's almost like I get to go back to "square one" and the new learning and developing "labor". No, I'm not comparing the training I'm going through now to that of my training when I first came in as private, but aside from the level or responsibility and management, it is in a sense a "step back" where I get to just be a worker again. I look forward to when I get to be a mentor and instructor or something similar in the future, but I suspect I'll never have that desire to get up to that "battalion/brigade" level of concern. Granted, they're trying their damndest (spelled right?) to blur the line between Warrants and.....my point exactly right here.... "commissioned" or "branch" no longer distinguishes you from me.... but alas, that's a whole different point. "Real?". We need workers as much as we need leaders with master's degrees. People to put bullets down range, people to handle supplies, people to turn wrenches, people to launch missiles, people to move aircraft, etc. Doesn't take but a handful of good leaders (who want to be leaders) to manage that.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 4:14 AM

2015-07-07T04:14:25-04:00

I think it was just a way to reduce numbers while trying to keep your theoretical best Sailors. If you need to kick people out, do you boot the hard charger, or the guy that seems less motivated? I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, but I don't know how it would be done better. I'd be fine not advancing past O-3 and flying my whole career.

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Jul 7 at 2015 8:22 AM

2015-07-07T08:22:12-04:00

If they want to stay an E4 that's fine but we have RCP for a reason. If you could retire 20 yrs as a SPC (Step 7) or some such you could get an awesome retirement, never had any responsibilities, and could have had a sweet gig that never put you in harms way.

Pension at 20 yrs with zero responsibility is something anyone could do and I don't want just anyone in my unit I want leaders. Junior enlisted or not.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA made Jul 7 at 2015 9:07 AM

2015-07-07T09:07:01-04:00

Seems to me the military (and the private sector for sure) should come up with methodology to identify those who are 1) good at leading and 2) want to be in a leadership position. I've worked for several bosses (military and private sector) who just should not have been in the role (but probably wanted the title and/or increased salary). To put incapable people in a leadership role undermines the organization and the institution, and risks lives in the military. In my view, this is the single most important action an organization can take - picking the leaders. Unfortunately, many don't know what good leadership looks like - so its difficult to pick a good one based on poor criteria. Just my humble opinion.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-07-07T11:21:18-04:00

People seem to not warm up to the Specialist ranks that the Army used to have because they believe that a vast number of people will sit up there with the 'won't do' attitude all the way to retirement.
I believe that like it is today, there will be a number of slots per grade, per MOS. When it reaches capacity there will be fewer promotions up the ladder. When it hits capacity, RCP will do its job.

At least with the SP5/6/7 grades the truth will be worn on everyone's collar/chest rather than hiding behind stripes. We did promote people rather quick over the last 10 years and didn't develop them all. The final analysis though would be to take a look at what changes would actually be made and to what units/installations. In most cases, there wouldn't be many slots for SP5/6/7 when you take a serious look at it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 11:38 AM

2015-07-07T11:38:50-04:00

Used to have specialist ranks for that reason. With the smaller more modular forces though you want to have everyone train as a leader as when as you say the stuff hits the fan and teams are broken apart or a leader is take out of the fight there is someone trained to step up into that role.

Response by GySgt John O'Donnell made Jul 7 at 2015 12:11 PM

2015-07-07T12:11:10-04:00

Though I very much respect the opinions of my other service brethren, in 22 years in the Marine Corps I did not see this as a problem that the current service limitations and re-enlistment standards did already take into account. All Marines are expected to lead, even if it was only leading one's self. Doing the right thing, for the right reason, at the right time is/was the standard expected, and if not met then it was time to go. Gone are the "break glass in case of war" days where individuals could be good in the field/professional arena and lack in other area. The knowledge gained through years needs to be passed on, requiring all to mentor others at on time or another for the good of service (i.e. Leadership). So in my opinion if there are individuals who want to "mark time", then the Marine Corps wil/should continue help them find opportunities elsewhere.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Jul 7 at 2015 1:20 PM

2015-07-07T13:20:19-04:00

There were about 5 reason that I decided to get out after only 4 years. Your point is closely related to my #1 reason. People were in positions that they couldn't handle. I was lucky enough to serve during peacetime. But, In my second year, during a readiness exercise, our shop chief ordered a newbie outside before environmental did their checks. We all told him that came after environmental did their check, but he was stubborn. It made me fear for what could happen in a real scenario. That kid could have died needlessly.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-07-07T14:13:12-04:00

Great question. Forcing people to move up also creates a parallel problem: putting bad leaders in leadership positions. I'm sure other NCOs can attest to this problem. You have a Soldier/Sailor who fits all the "check blocks" to go to a promotion board but they totally lack the interest and motivation to be promoted further than E-4. Then questions are raised by levels of leadership about that SM and why aren't they being promoted. They start to question local CDRs and their NCOs. Everyone feels pressured and the promotion is forced. I've seen three Soldier make E-5 after I thoroughly made it clear that the Soldier lacks motivation, initiative, and desire. Yet, leadership takes the reins and pushes it forward anyway. Why is this such a problem?

Response by SGT Allison Churchill made Jul 7 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-07-07T14:41:50-04:00

Before I begin, let me say that I believe everyone needs to keep up their military skills, regardless of what their day-to-day job happens to be. Otherwise everyone's screwed.

That said, I cracked up more than a few times my first year or so in the Army, because people expected me to have the military experience of a regular E-4, when all I really had was the writing and editing experience of someone with a B.S. in journalism who'd worked at a small daily paper for a year before going to basic training. (And I've been blessed with fairly youthful looks, so I didn't look much older than people who'd climbed the ladder the typical way.)

I do think it's a shame that with some of the jobs that are easily translated to the civilian world, that more service members don't get a chance to continue building those skills--partly so they can better train the junior soldiers in those MOSs/rates, and partly so they have more to offer after retiring/separating.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jul 7 at 2015 3:27 PM

2015-07-07T15:27:17-04:00

I can only speak of the Army's enlisted promotion program, and even that is dated 20 years, but the discussion sounds like the same old situation. It's especially apparent in technical MOSs like aviation, and I assume it's gotten worse as the Army has grown more technical.

Example, my first roomate following Desert Storm Jorge (aviation). Came in as a PFC, nice, intelligent, but didn't speak English, so they put him in the tool room, where he filled his day taking correspondence courses. Then he was transferred to the post pool where he continued correspondence courses and added college courses (never having to worry about missing class because a deployment or having an aircraft down). A year or two later he made E-5 having never worked in his MOS, and was put in charge of a platoon because an E-5 slot was open. Again, nice guy, but totally incompetent in the position he was slotted for.

Example, E-6 in the motor pool, ordered an aircraft electrician to change the tires on the deuce and a half he was assigned while the mechanics he was in charge of sat in the office "smokin' and jokin'" meanwhile the aircraft didn't get fixed. Becoming an E-6 because he was in a high turnover MOS apparently didn't make him any smarter or able to "inspire" his soldiers to work / put the mission first.

All units are not created equal either, a lone Engine guy in a Chinook unit is putting in 12 hour days and busting his ass, a lone Engine guy in a Blackhawk unit is bored, but the Blackhawk guy was more likely to get promoted because he had more time for self development... when they PCS the incompetent one is in charge.

My Dad says the Navy used to promote based on job proficiency (this was 1958). My experience in the Army in 1990 was that the opposite was often (not always) true.

Response by CWO3 Bryan Luciani made Jul 7 at 2015 4:27 PM

2015-07-07T16:27:13-04:00

For me it's rather simple, Chief. You never know when you may be asked to lead. It's better to have everyone trained to lead (and have the rank/authority to use it) and not need it, than the reverse. When a Chief myself, my CO discharged a PO1 who claimed to be happy where he was (too comfortable in my opinion) and refusing to prepare himself (courses, quals, etc...) for becoming a CPO. I agreed with that decision. Today, I believe more than ever in cross-training and seeking responsibility at every turn. Combatants (and crews) are smaller now, and we're asking the crews to do more with less. My units were only as strong as the weakest link. What we do with the talent and knowledge once we force them out remains a huge problem. Many defense contractors, shipyards, etc.. do gobble some up though.

Response by MAJ Bill Maynard made Jul 7 at 2015 5:42 PM

2015-07-07T17:42:35-04:00

I think it's simply an institutional mentality that has developed over time. The change is most significant within the enlisted ranks. With the emphasis on more education and training comes the expectation that SMs must advance....

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 5:48 PM

2015-07-07T17:48:41-04:00

There has been much written about this and one popular book, on this subject, is The Peter Principle. Basically the book says that, as a society, we promote people to their highest level of incompetence. This means that we move people upward based on their performance and/or years, whether they want to or not. That's the issue. Organizationally and personally when you move personnel into a position they are uncomfortable with you are taking some risk. They may grow to the position and become more than they ever thought they could have, or they could fail miserably and lament the fact they were ever promote (a drain on the organization BTW), or they could move back to where they were promoted from and be extremely important to the team (yet they are often viewed as failures). This is a tough issue and I'm not sure you can build a current military system that would buy into the idea of a 20 year E-4 or a 20 year 03. Some exceptions, of course are the Warrant Officer Program, the Limited Duty Officer program where you can actually promote and stay in your specialty and we regard them as welcome additions to any unit. Tough one.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 7 at 2015 6:27 PM

2015-07-07T18:27:51-04:00

I believe in the Air Force, we have the option of not taking the WAPs examination. One still has to show up, but not have to take it.

Response by LTC John Summers made Jul 7 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-07-07T18:29:45-04:00

CPO Smith. I agree with your comments. In WWII my father was Tech 5. You should be able to get promoted for good years of service without taking on leadership responsibility that you may not desire nor are comfortable with. It would be good to bring back the Tech ranks to solve these issues. If the offer ranks have Technicians "Warrant Officers", why not the Enlisted ranks.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 6:50 PM

2015-07-07T18:50:00-04:00

Maybe this is the wrong answer- but so far in my career I have yet to have enough time to give a f$&@ about who is married to who (unless a spouse is going full on crazy with the frg).
I've seen two excellent officers get pushed out for being married to senior enlisted. Not the same command at all. Always strikes me as a waste of good soldiers.

Response by CW4 Abdulaziz Bulling made Jul 7 at 2015 7:00 PM

2015-07-07T19:00:56-04:00

I can remember a young man that was a wrecker operator. He was a SP4 with about 12 years of service. He loved that wrecker and there wasn't anything he didn't know about vehicle recovery. Command forced him to go for the Sergants board, he would pass, make E5, and would be moved to a supervising position. He would go downtown get drunk and in fights until he would get busted down again an back to the wrecker. When the army went to the up-or-out policy; he left the army and used the GI bill to by a wrecker. We lost a good man.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Jul 7 at 2015 7:02 PM

2015-07-07T19:02:58-04:00

We have too many "leaders"-- many of whom are completely consumed by collateral duties because that is what we tell them they have to do in order to advance -- and not enough techs.

We need to do something about it, I thought things were ok when we had hyt for e-5 at 20 years.

Response by CDR Terry Boles made Jul 7 at 2015 7:06 PM

2015-07-07T19:06:18-04:00

Chief Smith I remember a old salt retiring shortly after I enlisted. He was an E-3, with gold E-3 hash marks. I was stunned, no understanding as to why this sailor did not advance to PO3. However as you say I am sure they contributed greatly at the grass roots level with their body of knowledge and experience.

As others have posted, today's young enlistees are wanting more responsibility and the rank that goes with that so I doubt we would see this again. I am also sure there are measures in place to prevent a return to the old days, such as high-year-tenure. But to your point, they do bring a lot to their division, however they could bring even more as POs and CPOs.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Jul 7 at 2015 7:11 PM

2015-07-07T19:11:23-04:00

I recently ran across this quote and think it fits this discussion very well CPO Gregory Smith, "Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there. Eighty are just targets. Nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." —HERACLITUS, 500 B.C.

And of course I had to add: Navy Chiefs, NAVY Strong!

One of the smartest people I knew on my first ship was a Gold Hashmark Seaman (over 12 years and an E-3). Now this Old Man ran the First Division, not the First Class, and everybody knew it. But he did not want the responsibility of "leadership." He was basically lazy. He had the knowledge and the expertise, so everyone looked to him for his advice, but he never wanted to do more. I believe he was one of the Eighty, not the Nine and surely Never the One! We need more of the ONE, never the ten and we weed out the Eighty. A few of those do make it to the end, but mostly we do try to keep the Nine and ONE.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 7:27 PM

2015-07-07T19:27:33-04:00

Because if you want to be stagnant and non challenged ......get out and be a civilian.

Response by PO1 Donald Hammond made Jul 7 at 2015 7:49 PM

2015-07-07T19:49:26-04:00

I never saw an E-4 retire because they refused to be promoted. I've seen them retire because somehow they got busted enough times to never get any higher but not bad enough to be discharged or refused reenlistment. Seemed rather stranger to me.
However, the problem with having a non-leadership track is the person who has more time in and is better at the job will be looking down on the person with less time in and less knowledge but a higher or equal rank.
Everyone in the military needs to be able to step in and take over when necessary. If you don't want to get promoted to leadership positions, don't reenlist.

Response by SSG Henry Chan made Jul 7 at 2015 8:10 PM

2015-07-07T20:10:44-04:00

I completely agree with you. In the Army, they never should have gotten rid of the specialist ranks. It allowed people to remain in their skill set without dealing with the admin and management aspect of the NCO chain. Unfortunately there is a stigma that promotion is the way to take care of people and that those who are not promoted are dirt bags.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 8:18 PM

2015-07-07T20:18:36-04:00

The Army had Tech 3,4, and 5 during WWII and Korea. That was replaced with the Specialist rank, at one time from E-4 thru E-9. They received the same pay/benefits as their same grade counterparts. Why did it slowly go away? There are many non-combat specialties that don't require 'hard stripes'. In my opinion, it worked and we should return to it.

Response by PO2 Shannon Walden made Jul 7 at 2015 8:21 PM

2015-07-07T20:21:17-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith is right, I joined in 95 and went to my first ship in 96. Lived on the boat, used the duty van mostly to get places out in town. Did the same on my second ship in 2000 to 2002. It wasn't until my first shore duty station that I lived in an apartment, and that was because 2nd Classes weren't supposed to be living in the barracks, unless they were geo-bachelors. I made 2nd in 2001, and was one until I was discharged in 2009. I loved my rate (STG) and loved the job I did as an E-5. I was senior enough to be in charge of work, and junior enough I didn't get looked at strange or talked to by senior ranks for jumping in and helping get the work done (my second ship, one of the 1st classes got yelled at by our Chief for helping me and another tech work on our equipment, he was told as a 1st class, that wasn't his job). Did I want to make 1st class? Not if it meant that I wouldn't have been able to do the job I loved doing, working on and operating my gear.

Response by CPL Terry Whalen made Jul 7 at 2015 8:30 PM

2015-07-07T20:30:53-04:00

It's called the Peter Principle, and has been around a very long time. As far as institutions go, it is how most are run and it is required that a person constantly learn and grow (which is a good thing) until they reach their level of incompetence (not a good thing). At that point, the person hates there position and everybody else who has to deal with them doesn't care for how they are handling their job. In stead of "promoting" them back to where they were great and extremely effective they are usually left where they are and the whole organization suffers because of it. Unless you have an extremely intelligent manager who recognizes this problem and will correct it. We need to change the way promotion and compensation is structured and seek to fit people to what they are good at and help those who want to go to the next level. We should not make it part of the structure to automatically expect people to advance into management roles and if they don't want to, or can't make it, kick them out.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 8:35 PM

2015-07-07T20:35:38-04:00

Simply put.... Leaders don't listen.

Response by CPO Kenneth Wilkinson made Jul 7 at 2015 8:41 PM

2015-07-07T20:41:13-04:00

When there were tenders in the Navy we had repair people that cross decked to fighting ships. Many of those people were E4's and E5s' and were happy. They would volunteer for overseas duty and wanted to stay overseas. They just wanted to be left alone and work in there rate. When I was early in my carrier I say many E5's retire. some had the highest awards given from Vietnam. They wanted to be left alone and to there job.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jul 7 at 2015 8:49 PM

2015-07-07T20:49:49-04:00

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Response by PO2 Dave Colquitt Sr. made Jul 7 at 2015 9:08 PM

2015-07-07T21:08:53-04:00

I couldn't agree with you more, Chief. In my rating, (ET), some of the best, most dependable techs were not great leaders, and the best leaders I had left a lot to be desired as techs. The combination of both was definitely the exception rather than the rule.

Response by MCPO George Rebman made Jul 7 at 2015 10:11 PM

2015-07-07T22:11:27-04:00

Gregory, I suspect ton, along with some shit birds. I personally know of many and conversely I have seen many promoted to positions of leadership who were not suited for the task for a host of reasons.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jul 7 at 2015 10:18 PM

2015-07-07T22:18:46-04:00

Sometimes you must force others out of their comfort zones to evaluate their full potential. Not everyone is going to volunteer to be slightly uncomfortable in a new environment. Along with this a leader must motivate, give direction and purpose.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 7 at 2015 11:46 PM

2015-07-07T23:46:37-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith I can't speak for the Navy, but I suspect all are the same...

The Army since like I a young Soldier... Has been an up and/or out organization. When I came in 1980 we had specialist ranks to Spec 5 and 6, but by 1985 they were gone...

I think they have/had merit, as I think some jobs, skills, MOSs do not lend themselves to have Sergeants... And, because I know there are Soldiers who love their job, who don't want to be a leader necessarily, and would like to get promoted and stay in as specialist, technical expert etc. I think there is still a place for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialist_(rank)

Specialist (rank) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specialist (abbreviated "SPC") is one of the four junior enlisted ranks in the U.S. Army, above private first class and equivalent in pay grade to corporal. Unlike corporals, specialists are not considered junior non-commissioned officers (NCOs).

Response by SSG Ronald Rollins made Jul 7 at 2015 11:53 PM

2015-07-07T23:53:14-04:00

I was in the USMC and the Army. I retired from the Army. I seen a lot of really smart and great soldiers get put out just because they were not able to get promoted or just did not want to be promoted. I think it would be better if the Army brought back the spec 5 to spec 9 ranks. The soldiers would not be in leadership positions but would be able to stay in and the military would benefit from their expertise. But it is all about up or out and cutting cost. There is a better way to cut cost. I have been in several units that was at 85% at its highest. We did not have enough to fill positions so many NCO's and senior specialist even had to have 3 or more additional duties. It never made sense to me to lose those who wanted to stay in but could not due to not getting promoted.

Response by MAJ Rick Freeman made Jul 8 at 2015 12:22 AM

2015-07-08T00:22:52-04:00

You can thank McNamarra for the up or out program. He was inept at best and destroyed the military by eliminating professional skill level soldiers and requiring them to move up or get out. He is the main reason for the ineptness in the military today.
It needs to go back to the way it was. Not everyone wants to be the NCOIC...

Response by SGT Josh Suchoski made Jul 8 at 2015 1:25 AM

2015-07-08T01:25:11-04:00

A soldier who is not willing to take responsibility is a worthless soldier. Not in the sense that they no nothing, but in the sense that they are failing the soldiers around them. If you have the ability and knowledge to advance your units soldiers, and you don't share that through accepting leadership, you are shortchange get your unit and your battle buddies. Not wanting to step into leadership is the same as selfishness, and in my mind, neither of those have any place in the Army.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Jul 8 at 2015 1:41 AM

2015-07-08T01:41:36-04:00

I was in the Army in germany, there were British troops nearby, they early in their career opted for leadership positions, or worker positions. The leaders had the same requirements as the U.S.Army, they had to progress or get out. The professional privates had to keep current in their job knowledge, and pass their PT tests to stay in. The U.S. Army had Specialist ranks E-4 thru E-9, before that we had Tech Sergeants with a T centered under the chevrons. I firmly believe we lost a great deal when we first dropped the E-8-9 specialists ranks. Then when the E5-7's were dropped Isay that leavingt the SPC rank was the worst decision ever. If you are going to eliminate the specialist ranks eliminate all of them1 If we are becoming a more technical force, we need ALL OF OUR SPECIALISTS BACK NOW!

Response by SCPO Art Michel made Jul 8 at 2015 1:46 AM

2015-07-08T01:46:59-04:00

BZ to many of the posts below. I see and appreciate those who believe that it is "ok" to sit where one is comfortable but I fervently disagree. I retired with 25 years of naval enlisted service, graduated from USASMA, and went to work for the USA WTB. Maybe, in the Army one can argue such a case but it just can't work in the US Navy. Army numbers are what makes the difference alone. So many soldiers that accountability can, has, and does get screwed up. So a private can "get lost in the system" for a length of time. Possibly even up to his/her retirement but not so easy in the Navy. We depend on everyone to pull the load, study and advance to make the system work (advancement and promotion). Incidentally, I've witnessed those "salty" seamen (meaning those who have stayed in rank (E3), longer than necessary without advancing), to be looked up to and followed by the new sailors and only to falter early in their enlistments because of bad habits. I fired several E6s who couldn't and/or wouldn't lead the shop and filled the position by the go getter E5. On two occasions, the E6 through a Captain's Mast ended up with E5 rank and pay. I just think that those lazy kinda of guys/gals are a better fit at civilian blue collar jobs and not a professional fit in the military service.

Response by CPL William Southern made Jul 8 at 2015 3:42 AM

2015-07-08T03:42:52-04:00

After joining rallypoint, I haven't given any input to any questions or statements. Now is a good time. I agree with the issue, many deserved people working at their MOS pay grade are some of the best at what they do!!! Nothing can replace time and experience. The military has taken a big hit, and for the worse. I believe it has cost American lives when the shit has hit the fan ( I really don't care about political correctness ) or offending someone with such a small swear word. Anyway, as I am about to point out, I too am a product of this down sizing. In 1993 I was forced to take the SSB and go home. Sure, there was perks and money. There were others around me that had to go too. Good military personnel who did things above their jobs, that meant minimal to promotion. Maybe, the military has done better for some who had to file the waiver's ( blah, blah, blah ) a person's career is documented ( most of the time not well) why? Because their more concerned about making the next pay grade than doing the job. Let's just put it the old school way " Too many chiefs, not enough indians " or " seasoned warriors ". To me, it's a hot topic, no doubt !! 8 yrs shot , where I could have had time in a civilian career being competitive with my peers. Now at 50, I finally get a chance at a leadership possision because of a temporary weekend shift?

Response by SGT Ted Bingham made Jul 8 at 2015 5:34 AM

2015-07-08T05:34:35-04:00

I guess I'm in the minority here, but yes, I think people should move up, or consider other career options. The US Military isn't as big as it used to be, and from the looks of it, they want to cut it even more. There really isn't room for people who aren't willing to take on leadership responsibilities. We call them MOSs and Ratings because there's a difference between what you are officially trained to do and your job. Doing your job (no matter how well) isn't enough in an ever shrinking military. Everyone has to be willing to take on more than that, or make room for people who will. I'm sure if they are that good at their MOS or Rating in the military, they will be an asset to where ever they go after they ETS.

No good leader should act as if anyone working for them is indispensable. "I can spare you" is often used as an excuse not to allow the person to grow beyond that position or take advantage of opportunities outside of their daily duties. Seriously though, every one of us could end up in a ditch somewhere between home and work, and the mission still has to get done. Allowing any one person to become that important to success of he entire unit is bad leadership, and holds the best and brightest down.

Response by SFC Michael Hair made Jul 8 at 2015 8:54 AM

2015-07-08T08:54:36-04:00

Up or out isn't about pushing or promoting an individual's leadership. It is about forcing people out so they don't reach retirement age and have to be paid for life. You see when there was a draft Army only a small percentage actually made the military a career. All volunteer changed that. Now people actually want to be in and have a career. However it is extremely costly. Could you imagine a larger retirement force receiving pension that what is on active duty. Get the picture. Make it difficult for people to reach benefit retirement change requirements to stay in. It is a scam to not pay for the life time of service

Response by LTC Monte Anderson made Jul 8 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-07-08T08:55:00-04:00

MY first wife was like that. She was a damn good secretary. When asked to become an office manager, she said no. She did not want the responsibility for others.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jul 8 at 2015 9:42 AM

2015-07-08T09:42:52-04:00

I have not yet finished reading all of the responses on this thread, but I have noticed that most do not really understand the up or out policy very well, even though there are a number of contributors that have stated good and excellent points for both sides of the discussion. What I think that individuals on both sides of this debate are failing to take into consideration is the historical background (at least for the Army) starting around 1914 in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the lead up to WWI. Then we should then look at what has developed in the US Military in terms of Management and Leadership with the advent of Robert McNamara becoming the Secretary of Defense. Since the McNamara era, we have begun a different type of cycle of forgetting the lessons learned and redeveloping the lessons all over again.

Some things to think about or study:
1. Some of our greatest and most revered professional military leaders were career Captains and Majors.
2. Concepts of the Reserve Fleet (better known as the Mothball Fleet) and the Aircraft Storage Group (now known as the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group or better known as "The Boneyard"). And how they have changed over time.
3. The development of the Specialist Ranks, specifically in the Army since 1920. (NOTE: Prior to 1920, the Army had a similar structure as the Navy in terms of MOS's being a specified part of the rank structure.) Suggested periods to study are 1920 to 1942, 1942 to 1948, and 1955 to 1985.
4. Proficiency Pay (in all branches of service) all time periods with an emphasis on the period of 1972 to 1976 and Combat Arms Proficiency Pay. With this I would also study the US Army Skill Qualification Test (SQT) program which started in 1976 at the end of the Combat Arms Proficiency Pay period.

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Jul 8 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-07-08T09:46:15-04:00

I honestly don't see the need of breeding mediocrity. I don't have a need for a 40 yr old E4 who has little to no ambition in life. The focus needs to be in readiness and constant improvement upon the unit and ones self. You can't do that when someone refuses to further themselves and is content doing the same job they did when they were 22. The is the same mentality that allows people to have the balls to request $15 an hour for fast food workers. They also are content doing a simple job that someone in their teens can do. Overall this is a very "Navy" question. Only working with the Navy have I witnessed career Military members refuse leadership roles. The military machine needs to be fit with a strong body and mind. If you have 20 years in you probably have experience that could help make improvements or even save lives. You can't enact that level of change sweeping the floor because you can't handle an adult job.

Response by SFC Michael Hair made Jul 8 at 2015 9:55 AM

2015-07-08T09:55:17-04:00

I would also say look around at who makes policy. Congress dean counters decide force levels and tell military leaders to cut the force. Don't you think it weird that an O4 can retire but not an E4. Why are there so many officers in the force compared to enlisted. Retirement is pay is a budget sucker. Rules change to keep that carrot out of your grasp.

Response by PO1 Clyde Plunkett made Jul 8 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-07-08T10:14:36-04:00

I am one who hatted having to make rank and go up the chain to admin level. I much preferred to do Hands On. Part of reason I hatted admin was I am an Alpha character Dyslexic {if you held this to a mirror the image you see is what I see so I was slow reader/writer as had to in head invert everything then I also hatted to do inspections & discipline others} but I enjoyed the H.... out of actually doing the work and although did not have a PHD{MD} made many diagnosis that the PHD {actual Medical officer} missed totally etc... and had many of my sailors or when assigned to USMC units my marines who specifically would come to me for treatment instead of the Med. Officer. Even after I retired as E-6 with 21years I had encountered a few ex patients who thanked me for finding the correct diagnosis and/or treatment that the regular Med Officer had not. I retired in 1993 became a civilian Private Duty Practical Nurse {equivalent to the Enlisted Hospitalman/medic} to continue hands on patient care and had even then RN's {Nurse with College degree = Officer Nurse Corps} come to me to get instructions on how to do their job which was officially beyond my level of training. I even had RN's turn over specific RN level of care/treatment to me as I was able to do it better than them & they just signed off for it on the paper work with their name. In 2009 {16 years after retirement} had individual refuse to see a regular doctor and sought me out for some surgery. Finally with age vision deterioration and back problems & the steel bolts in my feet I let my LPN license lapse in 2014 as I could no longer give 100+% quality care and felt it was not right to give care that was not at minimum 100% best possible. In General I believe the Services made an extreme mistake in making forced advancements {after I was no longer allowed to do hands on medical >mostly E-3 down & the Officer Nurses & Medical Officer< forced into admin type roles while seeing patients no get the best possible care made me quite unhappy} or out. They definitely lost a lot of dedicated talent. There were persons in other rates {MOS/NEC} that were of like minded wanting to do a job that they liked as was of use to the absolute highest standards possible and did not want to advance as that would remove them from the beloved work. I also saw increasing numbers who just wanted to do what was needed to get advancement and power/money/prestige of rank more than they they cared about the actual job. If I am still alive when the big SHTF happens and a force is required I would much rather a Navy/USMC or Army or USAF made up entirely of member dedicated to doing their job in their specialty to the utmost highest standards than a force made up the current majority that is focused on rank climbing & positional prestige. Now although I was a Corpsman {Medic} I can shoulder fire 50 cal & M60 machine gun as a rifle with 1 or 2 round burst, throw grenades, weld, carpentry for damage control, basic 110 or 220 volt wiring, setting booby traps {punji stakes types or explosive etc...} Basic line splicing and ship line handling, Fire fighting, fork truck & crane operations, celestial navigation by North star or southern cross. I would be willing to bet that there is a higher percentage of those that got out due to Current policy of advance and prestige of rank over performance of a job in highest standard possible who can do & know much more than the specifics of their hands on preference of their MOS/NEC which is why these would make a better force in my opinion. As far as compensation most would be perfectly happy with no cap on earning just continue the pay increases for time served on out and then an annual cost of living increase that is equal to the national average cost of living {never less}

Response by PO1 Shahida Marmol made Jul 8 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-07-08T10:24:41-04:00

If everyone is comfortable where they are they can never grow.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 10:37 AM

2015-07-08T10:37:40-04:00

The military is an organization where where the round pegs either grow up and learn to fit in the square holes or they get the mallet.

As the military continues to scale down, people are forced into more than one role, to be technically proficient as well as leaders capable of training the next generation. Leadership is a discriminator for promotions and it's one of those tough jobs that people avoid.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 11:24 AM

2015-07-08T11:24:16-04:00

Leadership is more than saying "I'm in charge." Some people acknowledge this and want no parts of it, which is fine. But in the military, we are taught even in the beginning, to be a leader. This is one of the reasons why in training, there is student leadership (i.e. student 1SG, platoon guide). This is the culture of the military as a whole, but going forward, this may need to be looked at from a different angle because the kids growing up now will be less and less concerned with being a leader.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-07-08T11:29:12-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith Because it makes the leader who wants the member to be a leader look good...for some leaders, it's all about what he or she looks like on paper and not actual leadership. When these members are pushed into leadership before they are ready or against their desires, it creates a culture of uninterested or incompetent leaders.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 12:36 PM

2015-07-08T12:36:03-04:00

Nowhere is this question more relevant than the highly skilled technical jobs in todays force. For example, the cyber communities. A great deal of young, brilliant people enter the military and join these fields and love the work. They see the senior leadership and it becomes apparent that there is a problem. Most of these young people leave the service to work in the civilian sector and do great things. They left because they did not want to end up sitting behind a desk, doing pointless paperwork and playing politics. They wanted to continue to grow in the field, but the military wanted them to grow into different things. They left because they are worth several times more than they are paid. They left because their leaders are outdated in terms of technology, and can not offer any real leadership in the job. They left because they are advanced beyond what the military can offer and the "challenge" that we believe is so star spangled awesome seems trite and overplayed when compared to the challenges of joining a company that is changing the way the world works. If the military does not catch up to the modern generations, we will have to try and draft new talent. There will always be volunteers for grunts, but we are failing at retaining and motivating the technical minds that will decide future conflicts. The age of the dinosaurs is over. We have to solve this problem if we are to remain an effective force, or just hire civilians like we do now. Realisticly, why should a young 25 year old stay in uniform when he can leave, go the contractor route, perform the same job at twice the pay, half the bullshit, and still get to deploy at thrice the pay he gets now?

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Jul 8 at 2015 1:03 PM

2015-07-08T13:03:09-04:00

Honestly I agree with the move up or move out philosophy but I think they should include what the army used to call the "specialist" ranks. Not everyone will make a good leader nor will they want to be. Forcing people to do jobs they neither want or are good at is a bad idea. But good people should be promoted. I'm all for the return of the specialist ranks, but i would caveat it with move up or move out as well. Stagnant people make for bad apples and can spoil the bunch, if they aren't fit for promotion then they have no more business in the military. Just don't force them to be leaders if they aren't fit for it or wanting it.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 8 at 2015 1:14 PM

2015-07-08T13:14:37-04:00

Chief - this is a great question. Up and out is necessary when downsizing, which is a problem in and of itself. When we were building up to a 600 ship fleet during the Reagan era, up and out wasn't such a big deal. Lot's of people stayed where they were, because we had need for lots of people, and enlisting was down during the post Vietnam era.

The problem is that our fearless leaders keep downsizing the force every time a conflict ends. Then we end up ramping up again when it hit the fan.

A strong force with a consistent end strength really is vital to National Security AND peace. If we had such, more people could stay in at mid-grade levels as experts...

This is true of both enlisted and officer ranks. I had to retire because I didn't promote to CDR. I was very happy as an LCDR, and might have stayed longer, if not for my desire to go to Seminary, coupled with mandatory retirement...

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 8 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-07-08T13:49:24-04:00

The Army used to have Specialist 5 - 9 ranks just for this reason, and Tech positions before that.
Now the closest position is the Warrant Officer, being an expert in their field.
Maybe we should bring back the other Specialist ranks.

Response by SPC Alejandro Martinez made Jul 8 at 2015 2:52 PM

2015-07-08T14:52:10-04:00

... because we think that leadership means improvement by osmosis.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 6:05 AM

2015-07-09T06:05:32-04:00

This is considered "promotions into positions of incompetence." There is a great satirical explanation of this called "The Peter Principle"

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jul 9 at 2015 6:41 AM

2015-07-09T06:41:39-04:00

I always liked being the SME over being a leader. I don't mind leading, but I prefer learning and just doing.

Response by SSG Ralph Innes made Jul 9 at 2015 3:48 PM

2015-07-09T15:48:06-04:00

This might be a little wordy, but here goes. As an NCO in the 82nd Airborne Division, we were told we had to go to Jumpmaster School. I was opposed to being forced into a school like this merely because I was an NCO. I honestly wanted to go to it, but I just did want to be told I had to. My reasoning was this....there are plenty of great leaders that overcome certain fears, i.e. jumping out of planes, and lead their solders effectively. However, not every person can overcome a fear of heights and expect them to hang outside of a moving aircraft as required by a jumpmaster.

Well they ended up forcing me to go to the school. Before you were admitted, you had to take a normiclature test on every part of the the jump gear. If you missed 10, you failed. Being how I am, I studied and knew every normiclature during the test. However, low and behold, I missed the last 10 questions. The Black Hat looked at me and stated, "You did this to make a point didn't you?" I replied "Airborne" and walked out.

My command questioned me when I got back and I just told them I failed. They got the point.

So.....I do not believe every leader needs to take over and be part of every leadership position.

Response by SFC Christopher Gould made Jul 9 at 2015 4:46 PM

2015-07-09T16:46:24-04:00

Hello all,
1. BLUF the "Screw up, Move Up" happened to more than should have and the emphasis on "move up" started in 2004. That said, I agree that the technical fields would benefit, including medical from a "specialist/tech" position. Not everyone was meant to lead and that should be addressed starting in BNCOC as it is MOS driven.
2. How to fix the issue - We cannot replace all techs with contractors so we have to train and evaluate and retrain and re-evaluate to select the service member that needs to attend leadership programs. If a SM wants to lead they will apply themselves...if not they will not. Leadership positions are not a right, they are a privilege.
3. When in ;leadership positions quite pulling "specialist MOSs away from their duties in their MOS to perform admin or fill in in other "taskings". If these positions are so vital to a unit's operation fix the MTOE and file for the replacements. Do not say it cannot be done...I did it, Active duty, you can too, "No" from the S-1/G-1 is someone that does not know their job.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2015 10:23 PM

2015-07-09T22:23:01-04:00

I spend a lot of ti me reading so most of my answer is based on it. The primary reason to have a military is war, defense of the country. Preparing an individual for the unhappy circumstance when they have to assume a leadership role in a combat situation. In peacetime it's something different. The Army use to recognize enlisted people by offering them an alternative path, as did the Marine Corps with the different types of strips. It was a way to retain good people with comparable earnings at the same time allow those who were part of a chain of command did their jobs. Army had Tech corporals, sgt, sssgt. During VN, they had the SPEC 4-5 and 6. Look at the Marine Corp. Pre WWII. Even the Navy had them. Sorry for getting off topic a bit.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Jul 10 at 2015 2:11 AM

2015-07-10T02:11:37-04:00

CPO Gregory Smith Chief, my dad (a retired CMDCM) and I were having a conversation about a related topic a few weeks ago. We were specifically talking about recent announcements about making PNA points less heavily weighted in a Sailors final multiple score for promotion. The rationale is that a sailor who is constantly racking up PNA points and therefore making rate (eventually) weren't the guys whom you wanted rising higher up the chain of command. I mean, these guys stayed at a lower rate for longer than others did for a reason, and it usually wasn't just because they didn't want to shoulder more responsibility. (Sidebar: is that really the kind of Sailor you want in your division?)

I think that it's in a similar vein that someone who isn't advancing (by choice or otherwise) is, in the bluntest terms possible, a waste of space in the Navy, and I don't mean that as a judgement of personal character. I mean that, as I stated before, the reason a Sailor isn't advancing in the Navy is not for a positive or even benign reason. Additionally, it also takes up a billet that another junior Sailor--who *is* interested in leadership-- is unable to fill it, which may be a necessary step on their own advancement ladder.

The last facet is that the size of the Navy has shrunk from about 579,000 personnel in 1990 to 326,404 today. Some people have to go, and employees with longevity are the ones who are the costliest to any employer and the Navy is not immune to that reality.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 10 at 2015 5:43 AM

2015-07-10T05:43:43-04:00

I agree 100%. I loved being an IT, systems administrator, and Information Assurance Manager. What I didn't like was being an LPO and had no desire to be a Chief (no disrespect to the Chiefs out there). A lot of people couldn't understand that I was content where I was at.

In fact, shortly before my last deployment we got a new IT1 who was quite junior to me. I made it known to our Senior Chief that I would prefer he be given the LPO position as I saw potential in him to move up in the ranks and he also stated a desire to be in a leadership position.

Things didn't quite work out and he got busted to IT2 so I ended up as LPO after all. I did make a decent LPO but it also made my stress levels rise.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 10 at 2015 5:45 AM

2015-07-10T05:45:56-04:00

On the flip side of this, I've often seen people advance very quickly and thrust into leadership positions because of their rank. I've seen 22 year old First Classes and 24 year old Chiefs. Sure they were smart as all get out but they simply didn't have the experience expected of the rank. Luckily they had strong leadership (First Class and Chief Messes) supporting them!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 7:31 AM

2015-07-10T07:31:56-04:00

I think it is somewhat in the nature to recognize this as a characteristic of the job we have. I am a technician myself, and I would argue a damn good one. I am also a leader, and a barely adequate one. I thought for a long time that I could just study and work hard at my trade and that would be enough, but (speaking for the Army Reserves here) Service is not about personal development as much as it is about creating a system that benefits everyone at every level. I have been sent for numerous civilian professional certifications on the Army's dime, and I now recognize that the tradeoff of this is that I owe it to the Army to ensure that others find the direction, drive, and motivation to go do the same. If one wants to simply be great at something and stand alone in it, I think military service is not for them. There is a myriad of opportunities in the private sector for such a professional path.
I spent 10 years as an E-4 across Active Duty and the Reserves, but for me not to take up a leadership role and ensure others learn from my experience and training is selfish and not in the spirit of our profession and discipline. Sometimes the things our service asks of us, it asks quietly. Others are very direct. I think the "pay it forward" thing is one of the quiet asks, and if one refuses, it might be time to find another line of work.

Response by LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 8:12 AM

2015-07-10T08:12:51-04:00

If everyone was a leader...there would be no followers. I would fully support the return of the SP5-SP7 ranking system.

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Jul 10 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-07-10T11:08:24-04:00

I have found some of the best leaders are the ones that really didn't want that role in the first place, and some of the worst leaders were the ones that would step on everyone and everything just to get their head a little higher just to get promoted.

Response by SPC Harry Masse made Jul 10 at 2015 12:42 PM

2015-07-10T12:42:28-04:00

I so agree. I have met may people that are excellent at their current assignment and do not want to chose the leadership role. I also know many that are great at their assignment but don't have the leadership skills. That does not mean that they are useless. This big machine of life needs the worker bees to survive.

Response by SP5 Joel O'Brien made Jul 10 at 2015 4:11 PM

2015-07-10T16:11:11-04:00

For my opinion on this, google "The Peter Principal" and see what you think.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Jul 10 at 2015 4:11 PM

2015-07-10T16:11:57-04:00

Difficult question to say the least as some excel at leadership and others are book smart but have difficulty doing the job and couldn't lead a 5 year old to the restroom if they had written directions. With the growth of up or out the services do lose some amazing talent but then again lose those who are too lazy to study to advance. I was AF but was around the Army enough to see that their hard rank and specialist concept worked well until it was killed off like the AF when it did away with warrant officers.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jul 10 at 2015 8:39 PM

2015-07-10T20:39:51-04:00

I acknowledge that many are going to find my position on this to be kind of hard line, but I'm good with that. The Military is a breeding ground for leadership, and my position is that someone who isn't willing to take on leadership can be replaced by someone who is. The current structure isn't that different from the outside. By way of example, I hire fence builders basically as fast as I can find them. When I hire someone, and they have skills, but they can't lead 1-3 other people, that's fine. They can be led by someone who can or will for as long as they keep working hard, but they will never surpass the leaders in pay or standing. It just wouldn't be fair to the people who ARE willing to step up & take on the extra responsibility. On the Army side of things, you may be the best radar repairer, machine gunner, or truck driver in the history of the Army....but why do you think that should qualify you for the same pay as someone who showed similar proficiency AND took on the responsibility of leading you & a few more like you AND being responsible for YOUR actions on and off duty??

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 11 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-09-11T13:28:21-04:00

I think the paradigm should shift too accommodate the skills of the NCOs. I was an Armor Officer and the NCOs had to be technically and tactically proficient. The NCOs were hard chargers.

I became a Finance Officer and it was highly technical and light on tactical. I wrote a couple less than stellar NOERs because a couple E-6s were tactically deficient, however, they were highly technically skilled.

Response by CWO3 Bryan Luciani made Oct 15 at 2015 12:59 PM

2015-10-15T12:59:14-04:00

Great subject Chief. When I was a young Chief, I had a PO1 with 8 more years in service than I did and during a quarterly interview with the CO (destroyer/sea duty), he was asked what he was doing to get ready for "Chief". He responded that he was very satisfied in his present position as LPO/WCS and that he had no interest in becoming a Chief. The CO asked me what I thought about that. I told him that it would be hard to motivate junior sailors to drive hard for advancement and seek more responsibility if their LPO wasn't modeling that same behavior. He agreed and had the former LPO escorted to the base gate and discharged that same day. First and only time I've ever seen that happen. While I hurt for us losing so much talent (as we do when we discharge overweight, but very smart sailors), the system is designed to develop good leaders and motivate our people to succeed. How effective at that, could an 18 year PO3 or PO2 be?

Response by SSG Ronald Rollins made Oct 22 at 2015 5:26 PM

2015-10-22T17:26:04-04:00

I can agree with getting rid of problem people that do nothing but bring others down. I had some great Specialist while in the army. And I had some really crappy NCO's. There was one unit where they were getting rid of a great Specialist who wanted to stay in. No black marks on his record. Always on time, did a great job, took care of the other E4 and below. Cutting score was just to high. He really did not want to get promoted because he liked what he did. Then we had a SGT and SSG who were buddies. These two clowns...Late at least 2 days a week, SGT with a DUI, SSG you could smell alcohol on most mornings. But they got along great with the 1SG. Just told them to cool down a bit. They should have been discharged and reduced. These were the leaders they were keeping!! Not the hard working good soldier. Glad I retired!!

Response by CSM Gerald Utterback made Oct 22 at 2015 7:18 PM

2015-10-22T19:18:57-04:00

At one time we had career privates, then someone came along with a great idea called "Up or Out"....the rest is history..

Response by MSG John Wirts made Oct 23 at 2015 1:36 AM

2015-10-23T01:36:14-04:00

Have any of you read the Peter Principle! The main point of this book is that in civilian society,like the military people are "encouraged to improve themselves". While it is not lock step promotion to promotion to stay in, many civilian organizations tend to force a qualified person to accept a promotion, "for the good of the unit or company". This goes on til the person reaches his/her level of incompetence. There they stay unless they quit, or retire! What a horrible fate! The remedy to the Peter Principle, was to cultivate an appearance of an area of incompetence! The lead who as a worker was totally organized and neat. Promoted to lead, suddenly his desk appears cluttered, he can find anything he needs, but if he's not there no one else can. He will stray at the level of his apparent incompetence. Other services provide for the Professional Privates and above. In our current highly technical forces, we need the Specialists, and Warrant Officer "SME's" back. Restructure the technical units to incorporate Specialists, when I first enlisted Specialist ranks were E-4 thru E-9, most were e-4 thru E-7, I only saw one SP8 and one SP9 in my career. I also saw the last two Air force CWO 4's At McClellan AFB CA. I for one don't want to see highly technical jobs manned by E-2 and E-3 apprentices because we refuse to recognize the need for trained technicians to hold down non-leadership positions.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Oct 23 at 2015 3:13 PM

2015-10-23T15:13:19-04:00

Hard to say but I was pleased when the AF separated E-4's at 10 years as it was not that hard to make E-5 and I always thought that E-5's needed a high year up or out also. It scared the heck out of me when I first went in and was working for 16-18 year E-5's and wondered what I had gotten myself into. On the other hand though I did end up working for an E-7 once who could quote you any regulation or manual there was but was worthless doing the job if he needed to step in. Book knowledge is great but brother you sometimes need to step up and get your hands dirty at times if called for.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 23 at 2015 3:22 PM

2015-10-23T15:22:50-04:00

Great topic for discussion. There is a good movie that HBO released in 1999? called When Trumpets Fade. It is available for free all over the internet since it is so old. It is very good subject matter material for this very discussion. It's based on a true story of the Greatest Generation that had to slug it out in the Huertgen Forest at the same time of the Battle of the Bulge. It was a slaughter. It was underreported and faded into history since it was preferred to capitalize on the great victory at the Bulge. One Private makes it out of the meat grinder from his entire company and is reluctantly promoted to SGT. 3 days later this same reluctant man is given a battlefield commission when all the NCO's and Officers are wiped out in the next attack. Personally, I think it is the best thing HBO ever created. Let me know if you can't find the link to the full movie.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%20when%20trumpets%20fade%20promotion&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=youtube%20when%20trumpets%20fade%20promotion&sc=0-27&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=78822D40A3C48B9E2C7178822D40A3C48B9E2C71

youtube%20when%20trumpets%20fade%20promotion - Bing video