Posted on Apr 9, 2017
MAJ Telecommunications Systems Engineer
108K
1.39K
385
139
139
0
Bb73918b
Some officers are meant to command and lead, and others probably should never be allowed the opportunity. I'm a witness to the case of an ousted ex-commander now working as a staff-O "leading" a highly technical department - his lack of technical competence and inability to mentor and lead others is obvious. Should such an officer be "encouraged" to separate or retire early to make room?
Posted in these groups: 200210106b CommandGeneral of the army rank insignia OfficerDod color DoD
Avatar feed
Responses: 267
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
SSG Dave Johnston
2
2
0
It's too bad that couldn't have been applied to Congress when they accepted the last BRAC assessment and closed the original "Walter Reed AMC" while were still receiving patients from theater... What was it, Two Generals had their careers ruined over Congresses incompetence?
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Dave Johnston
2
2
0
Edited 7 y ago
When I was in uniform, I had the dubious honor of "educating" senior NCO's that had "Homesteaded" Medac/Medcom assignments till they made E-7, now they want some CBT arms experience to qualify for 1SGT course. NOT FUN. On the "Reserve" side of the house, is having ones [Det. NCOIC, PLT.SGT, 1 SGT, SMG] with 0 to 6 years of Active Duty(0 years = BCT/AIT + any Leadership courses that required MOB orders) now attempting to instruct you (16+years AD with CBT ARMs/Garrison Assignments), on how to perform your MOS and the leadership aspects of the rank and position held in the unit[Aaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggg].

DA/DOD has a lot to fix, and a lot of it came to a head early on due to the current conflict. Reserve components (USAR/NG) training standards/physical fitness standards/equipment/personnel readiness, and those that are not qualified to lead should be removed to civilian status because if they can't lead when promoted to the position by orders, what are they going to do when they're promoted under fire?
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SMSgt Allan Pochop
2
2
0
Peter Principle, Most organizational hierarchies promote personnel to the level of their incompetence....failure at this level, removed to level where they can functional operate. Unfortunately, our political/senior leadership in DC, do not abide to this principle.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Lance Bedson
2
2
0
People volunteer to serve our country. If they should fail we should thank them for their time and send them home.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Thomas Currie
2
2
0
Two observations:
1. In response to the basic question, I'd say "Sure, why not?" -- of course the OER that comes with the Relief For Cause would certainly be a career-ender today; but I have seen officers relieved under circumstances that were dubious at best. I'd venture that the majority of officers relieved of command are not relieved for something the officer did or failed to do, but for something that someone under their command did or failed to do. Sometimes that is the fault of a poor "Command Climate" other times it can be a single mistake. An officer who is relieved for cause should be given the opportunity to resign; but if the officer chooses to continue to serve I feel it is the responsibility of the chain of command to both support and evaluate the individual, with and honest and open-minded intent to determine whether rehabilitation or separation is the more appropriate course. Unfortunately I don't think this is realistically possible because in today's military the attitude is absolutely one-strike-you're-out if that first strike makes it into your official record. We won WWII and could have won Korea with a military where many senior officers and NCOs had previous court martial convictions in their records.
2. I am not convinced that Up-Or-Out is good for the military. I understand that the idea is to prevent stagnation in the middle grades, with the intent of making more promotion opportunities available. In my old career field, if everyone who was good at their job but not qualified for the next job could stay put, all the E4 and E6 positions would be filled by people who would never be promoted, which could make it more difficult for that next Future-SMA to get through the logjam. On the other hand, none of the services are able to meet their recruiting and retention goals today. Does it really make sense to force people into jobs that they don't want and aren't really qualified to perform properly? Back when I was a young SP5 (remember those?) I recall a retirement ceremony where the retirees included a couple of E7's, a bunch of E6's, and one SP4 who was only promoted to SP4 the day before his retirement (and, no, he had never been busted - he just spent 20 years happily working at the level where he belonged).
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC David Stark
2
2
0
I recently read "The Generals", by Thomas E. Ricks. You might find it enlightening, as it discusses the differences in leadership in the military from World War 2 to the present. In WW2, there were a number of flag grade officers relieved of a combat command, who later went on to a different combat command and performed quite successfully under other conditions/circumstances.

I agree that not every officer is going to be a great battlefield commander, but leadership is not exclusively a combat situation. I personally like the German system I saw when I was there in the late 70s, where there were some commanders who are identified early as rising stars, while others peaked at company command. The German Army had (has?) what amounted to a dual track leadership program -- Company-level commanders who were very good at that level, but might not do well at higher levels, were allowed to remain as "professional" company commanders for their careers, and excelled in that role.
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Telecommunications Systems Engineer
MAJ (Join to see)
7 y
LTC Stark,
Thank you for the recommendation! Another respondent to this thread also recommended "The Generals" as a great read to add depth to this discussion. It's on my Kindle list as a future purchase. At the moment, I'm in the midst of a rather busy school session which has entailed quite a bit of reading scholarly journals and dissertations thus far. However, during the summer break while my family and I PCS to our next assignment, I'll certainly give Mr. Ricks' book my attention.
If the current management of officers and NCO's had true flexibility baked into the human resources system at the big Army level, I could see an analog of what the German Army does taking hold in the US. However, with the confluence of DOPMA constraints and a culture across the military branches which promulgates the "up-or-out" approach to managing humans (despite this approach's very close resemblance to what Enron called "rank and yank"), I don't hold out much hope for a more common sense approach taking hold any time soon.
Thanks for your comments!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
2
2
0
Command is leadership as an art form. You have to first understand what leadership is and then apply any number of styles and methods to it, to make command your own. Command involves influencing a great number of people on a hierarchical level - you influence your subordinate leaders who influence theirs and so on down. You have to understand yourself as much as you have to understand those you command in order to be successful - that can be a tough thing and it's not for everybody.

I was an OK company commander but was a much better staff officer & section leader. Being a 25A technoid, I felt most comfortable around my merry band NCO and soldier techies. Principles of command still apply but on a much smaller scale. This was my comfort zone and I knew it. Had I stayed to make LTC, even knowing it would be a career staller, battalion command wouldn't be for me.

Relief from command is a pretty big deal but the circumstances surrounding the relief should determine that individual's next career move. Nothing ever fits the cookie cutter. If the individual was relieved for anything involving mistreatment of subordinates or dereliction leading to or causing harm to subordinates, that might be a pack it in type of offence in my opinion.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Robert Perrotto
2
2
0
depends on what he was relieved for - drunk driving, sexual misconduct, drug dependency, gross misconduct, got troops injured or killed due to negligence - then absolutely not - heres the door, and btw - no retirement for you. - if lower enlisted and NCO's get booted for those things, and usually with a less then honorable discharge (which means they lose most - if not all - of their benefits) then officers should be hit harder for it.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Nanette Porter
2
2
0
I have had some great leadership and I had some that should never have been there ever. I had a first Sargent that was band from ever being a first Sargent again and with good reson I will not go into why because to my knowledge he is still serving and I hope that he is doing good. I also had a CO that wasn't any better and was removed not only from his command but the military as well. Now my Commander yes he needed to step down and let someone else take his place. Now my first Sargent I hope the army made the right decision. The first Sargent that replaced him was a good leader he knew what he was doing. So no not everyone is made to be a leader but in the military that's what is expected of you to do is climb the ranks. So it is what it is for now. And I am very grateful for the amazing leadership that I did have.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Maj David Kraklow
2
2
0
Heck no! Moving failures around just to cover them up it what the military does best. I find this practice horrible! If you’re a failure, you’re gone and that’s it!
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Bruce Probert
2
2
0
It is the responsibility of every leader to mentor and prepare their subordinates for leadership. It is also their responsibility to evaluate each subordinate as to their weakness's and strengths. This is not an easy task and for most is the hardest thing they do. We as leaders need to make sure we don't promote some one beyond their ability. As a leader we hold another's future in our hands some can't handle this part of leadership, we must remind our selves that the good of our Corps is our first obligation every thing else is secondary. It is and always has been about promotion based on merit than any other consideration. The mediocre and the timid cost lives and must be thanked for their service and separated rather than promoted into critical billets where they will fail. We as leaders bear that responsibility, we owe that to those we lead, I would much rather tell a man that he won't be promoted than write the letters as a result of a failure I could have prevented. Every appointment of a fire team leader, squad leader or Platoon Sgt has a direct effect on performance and the lives involved. We have to make solid evaluations and act on them.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Peter Hawley
2
2
0
There can be a lot of contributing factors to being relieved of duty. It's evident just reading the comments on this article. I agree the army made a mistake getting rid of the higher specialist ranks. I think I might have been interested in promotion as far as making SP5 rather than sergeant. Another thing to consider is retention. I may or may not have been a good leader. The up or out policy may be detrimental in another way. The military loses competent, trained personnel. There is the high cost of training people today.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Col Jonathan Brazee
2
2
0
A fellow lieutenant went arty where he failed big time. He was not leadership material, and he had no business leading Marines. Because he had a degree in computer science (this was while the Corps was all papers and files) they stuck him on some make-do project at New River where he could watch over the installation of a new computer system. He took issue with the civilian contractor and basically took over, revamping the system. I don't think he was ever in a leadership position during his entire career, but he retired as a lieutenant colonel, and I had a general tell me once that this guy probably did more for readiness than any other single officer he knew.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Lemuel Genovese
2
2
0
This is where the 1970s book "The Peter Principal" comes into effect. Leaders should only rise to their highest level of competence. There are limits to certain skill sets of management, problem solving, delegating and assigning critical missions and tasks to the appropriate personnel. Once those limitations are reached, finding a proper fit for those people should be part of the program, not an aberration. The concept of promoting less than qualified O-5+ and E7+ to higher ranks is doing them and the personnel they lead a disservice.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Robert Brock
2
2
0
Many armies allow 20 plus year Captains and 30 year sergeants. Not everyone needs to get to general/ sergeant major. We lose skilled soldiers every day due to up-or-out policies.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PVT Jack Williams
2
2
0
I think they should be allowed to continue serving just not i a command positions. I also agree that not all are fit to lead, that said the Army should bring back the specialist ranks i.e. sp4, sp5, sp6 and so on and something for the O ranks.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Maj Michael Spehar
2
2
0
It is very often the other way around. Everyone has uneven talent. Very often, an officer may possess unique skills, developed through work and circumstance, yet be denied the chance of command because he or she hasn't filled one of the required squares for command - often because of the same circumstances in which they excelled In such cases they are usually forced out of the Service, regardless of their skills or dedication.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Human Resources Specialist
2
2
0
I'm with SGM Dawson on this...one of the problems in the force that I have seen is the inability to think out of the box and come up with other options...leaders are just as ineffective when acting hasty or pondering of other options to b used as they are to ineffectively lead in any other way...it is lazy to just entirely give up on our ppl without considering other options
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Schools Manager
2
2
0
I've seen Officers who were prior enlisted have to revert back to being enlisted because they didn't make Major. Why can't regular Officers be reverted to enlisted if they are found to be incompetent as an officer. On the other side of the coin why can't enlisted that have demonstrated time and time again they are worthy of being an officer be commissioned and placed in leader positions. Audie Murphy did it. It's all about people management. If they are poor performers then you pay them what they are worth, not more.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Col Jonathan Brazee
Col Jonathan Brazee
7 y
If an officer is found to be incompetent to serve as an officer, then why would he or she be suddenly competent to serve as an enlisted serviceman? I knew a Marine captain who failed promotion to major and served his last two years for retirment as a gunny, and I understand why that might be fair and just to the individual, but I cringe at the concept that a someone who isn't good enough to serve as an officer is somehow good enough to serve as enlisted.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Arlo Gleghorn Jr.
2
2
0
I agree... not every soldier can lead or push troops.. be it officer or enlisted.....but they can be valuable assets within the military in some other profession....
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

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