Posted on Nov 2, 2014
Should Command be "required" for promotion to MAJ / COL / BG??
13.2K
21
20
4
4
0
Should the Army continue to require command for promotion to MAJ / COL / BG? As it stands, in most basic branches, command is required for promotion. Successful Battery / Company / Troop command as a CPT is needed for promotion to MAJ. Successful BN command for COL. Successful BDE command for BG (although this is historically much more difficult).
What about the officer who excels at being a staff officer, but not necessarily command capable. There are numerous positions on the Army and Joint staff for senior leaders, however why not continue to promote exceptional officers simply becuase they are not suited to be commanders?
And really, looking at the general officer levels, how many are actually commanders versious staff officers? By nature of their of their ranks, they are "general" officers capapble of filling any capacity, so what makes command the key component of being a good officer?
What about the officer who excels at being a staff officer, but not necessarily command capable. There are numerous positions on the Army and Joint staff for senior leaders, however why not continue to promote exceptional officers simply becuase they are not suited to be commanders?
And really, looking at the general officer levels, how many are actually commanders versious staff officers? By nature of their of their ranks, they are "general" officers capapble of filling any capacity, so what makes command the key component of being a good officer?
Posted in these groups: 
Command
Promotions
Command Promotions
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
3
3
0
Depends on the AOC. For medical, O-3 is generally your first rank and you probably won't see a true command position until O-5 or even O-6. O-5's in my area are generally the deputies to commanding O-6's, O-3's are grunt/bench workers.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I think this one is branch dependent. Form maneuver guys this is a no brainer. But for the supporting / enabling troops and staff guys this is virtually impossible since there are not many low density MOS whole units out there.
That said, I would say those branches should top off at COL. just because G level is for command period. COL can still be interpreted as a highly experienced expert.
That said, I would say those branches should top off at COL. just because G level is for command period. COL can still be interpreted as a highly experienced expert.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Disagree that supporting/enabling branches should top off at COL. While I can't find a list of GO/FO billets, it appear that few are actually commanders. What always confuses me is why there are maneuver officers who are in broadening GO positions (e.g., G8) when there are FA officers who already have this expertise. I assume it is a "wait and groom" location until a command billet opens up. However, this makes huge assumptions about individuals' abilities to expand their skill sets (Peter Principle) and also assumes that maneuver leadership is the same as technical management.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I didn't know Generals had broadening assignments, it probably is partly a situation of squat and hold until command positions open. Or it may be a way to keep GO's grounded and in tune with the technical side of the Army.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Yep, they definitely have broadening assignments. Sometimes they make a lot of sense ... for instance, an EN officer going to work with civilians at a US Corps of Engineers Field Office, or being the G-3/5/7 for the Army Reserve Command -- a one star billet for an AC officer. Gets them familiar with the capabilities and operational set of the primary enabling force in the Total Army. Others, Public Affairs Officer for a command -- why? Certainly there's expertise in operational activities, but not necessarily public speaking or public communications strategy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Great question.
Clearly different for each Service, and clearly different for each branch and functional area in the Army.
For the Navy and Air Force, as best I understand (noting that I only have a couple years of joint experience), successful staff or flying jobs lead to promotion, and command isn't something one even competes for until generally the O-5 level. As I understand, in the Air Force, for example, most officers won't command until their first or second O-5 job; so the gateways for promotion are different. Likewise, in the Navy, as I understand, officers generally don't command until the O-5 level. Would be interesting if my impressions of these two Services are correct. Any feedback?
For the Army, command at the various levels should, I believe, be a requirement for promotion, at least in certain branches. It would be hard to envision an infantry division commander that didn't command a regiment/brigade, battalion, and company prior to division command. That model, though, doesn't work for all branches and functional areas, so making command an across the board requirement for promotion in the Army wouldn't be logical. For example, in FAO land, to the best of my knowledge, there are no true command positions at any rank. The Army has, though, defined key developmental positions to account for this, and I think that the KD concept works well for FAOs.
Another point to consider, though, is that officers spend the majority of their careers in positions other than command positions. For example, an infantry officer will usually spend about 18 months in company command; 2-3 years in battalion command; 2-3 years in regiment/brigade command; 2-3 years in division command; and, depending on the assignment, maybe a couple more 2-3 year tours in command as 3 and 4 star generals. After the typical 35-40 year 4-star career, even if we give the maximum time for each position, an officer would spend only about a third of their career in command, and two-thirds of their career in non-command positions. The point: we need our officers to be good staff officers and good commanders, not just one or the other.
There are a number of comments in this thread about the "general staff" concept used in some foreign countries. Its not apparent that the concept means what a great number of commentators think it means. I'm not an expert on how the general staff concept is applied in all foreign countries; for the ones I'm familiar with, being qualified as a general staff officer doesn't mean that the officer is going to spend the rest of his/her career on staff. In Turkey (and Greece, Cyprus, Germany, Austria, etc, etc), for example, qualification as a general staff officer separates the top performers from the rest of the population; Turkish general staff officers are the best officers in the Turkish military, and most if not all key command and staff billets are coded for Turkish general staff officers. We don't have a similar concept in the U.S. Army; if we tried a bit of mirroring to understand the concept, in our Army, it'd be something akin to a combination of West Point graduate / SAMS graduate / the most successful officers from a given peer group / those consistently promoted below-the-zone. (Note I'm not trying to say West Point and SAMS grads are the best officers, just using these as examples of things that are quite selective and represent only a small portion of the overall officer population.) Because the systems are so different, though, a direct comparison isn't possible.
Clearly different for each Service, and clearly different for each branch and functional area in the Army.
For the Navy and Air Force, as best I understand (noting that I only have a couple years of joint experience), successful staff or flying jobs lead to promotion, and command isn't something one even competes for until generally the O-5 level. As I understand, in the Air Force, for example, most officers won't command until their first or second O-5 job; so the gateways for promotion are different. Likewise, in the Navy, as I understand, officers generally don't command until the O-5 level. Would be interesting if my impressions of these two Services are correct. Any feedback?
For the Army, command at the various levels should, I believe, be a requirement for promotion, at least in certain branches. It would be hard to envision an infantry division commander that didn't command a regiment/brigade, battalion, and company prior to division command. That model, though, doesn't work for all branches and functional areas, so making command an across the board requirement for promotion in the Army wouldn't be logical. For example, in FAO land, to the best of my knowledge, there are no true command positions at any rank. The Army has, though, defined key developmental positions to account for this, and I think that the KD concept works well for FAOs.
Another point to consider, though, is that officers spend the majority of their careers in positions other than command positions. For example, an infantry officer will usually spend about 18 months in company command; 2-3 years in battalion command; 2-3 years in regiment/brigade command; 2-3 years in division command; and, depending on the assignment, maybe a couple more 2-3 year tours in command as 3 and 4 star generals. After the typical 35-40 year 4-star career, even if we give the maximum time for each position, an officer would spend only about a third of their career in command, and two-thirds of their career in non-command positions. The point: we need our officers to be good staff officers and good commanders, not just one or the other.
There are a number of comments in this thread about the "general staff" concept used in some foreign countries. Its not apparent that the concept means what a great number of commentators think it means. I'm not an expert on how the general staff concept is applied in all foreign countries; for the ones I'm familiar with, being qualified as a general staff officer doesn't mean that the officer is going to spend the rest of his/her career on staff. In Turkey (and Greece, Cyprus, Germany, Austria, etc, etc), for example, qualification as a general staff officer separates the top performers from the rest of the population; Turkish general staff officers are the best officers in the Turkish military, and most if not all key command and staff billets are coded for Turkish general staff officers. We don't have a similar concept in the U.S. Army; if we tried a bit of mirroring to understand the concept, in our Army, it'd be something akin to a combination of West Point graduate / SAMS graduate / the most successful officers from a given peer group / those consistently promoted below-the-zone. (Note I'm not trying to say West Point and SAMS grads are the best officers, just using these as examples of things that are quite selective and represent only a small portion of the overall officer population.) Because the systems are so different, though, a direct comparison isn't possible.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google