Should command teams be replaced as a whole or have overlapping time?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:57:11 -0500

I have seen were the unit's first sergeant or command sergeant major and the commander were replaced at the same time and the new team came in (scheduled not relieved) and I have seen where one of them stayed and the other rotated out so that there was some continuity. What do you think is a better design?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Feb 6 at 2015 9:03 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:03:41 -0500

In most cases Id prefer to see some overlap at the company level, and team swap at the BN and higher.
In some cases, circumstance leaves no choice, people come and go for a myriad of reasons, many of them not well timed and not planned.

I've seen it both ways as well as many ways in between.

There are advantages in the all at once, and advantages for the staggered.

It really is best left to the senior commander either outgoing or newly assigned (who then observed for a period of time as available)That commander should have the benefit of observing the unit, it's current leaders and the leaders he intends on placing in those position to decide what dynamic will work best.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 6 at 2015 9:05 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:05:37 -0500

I have seen it both ways it, in my opinion they both have pros and cons associated.

Response by MSgt Michael Durkee made Feb 6 at 2015 9:10 AM

MSgt Michael Durkee — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:10:24 -0500

I could see a benefit in both approaches, but an overlap has always been more effective in my experience.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Feb 6 at 2015 9:16 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:16:31 -0500

I think that they should over lap a little. Gives the in coming commander time to the swing of the ropes and the happenings of the unit. The way things run and time to see what needs changed and implement the change in an orderly fashion. Not just all of a sudden. I'm the new sheriff in town this is law and this is the way it WILL be done.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 6 at 2015 9:32 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:32:17 -0500

Keeping in mind that I'm a Staff PoG, this is what I saw at my first unit (Grunt BN). I went through 2 (almost 3) cycles of this.

Company Commander, XO, 1stSgt, Company Gunny. 4 Major billets on a 2 year rotation.

Upon return from deployment, transition would begin. Company Commander would generally be the first to transition, as well as Company Gunny (on or about same time). This was on or near Post Deployment blanket leave. Once new CC & Gunny were in place, 1stSgt transitioned.

Our BN staff "staggered" out & in, but there was usually some overlap from the alphas/section chiefs to the incoming heads. Our junior enlisted (like myself) were on longer tours (3-4 years vice 2) so there was usually good continuity regardless.

Bear in mind this is anecdotal, and 20~ years ago, so my memory may be flawed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 9:50 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:50:56 -0500

I think it is better not only for the unit as a whole, but the leaders as well to work with others that have differing philosophies and leadership styles. It should make organizations and leaders better.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Feb 6 at 2015 9:59 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:59:51 -0500

As SGM Erik Marquez states, there are advantages to either way. However, what you see most often is the staggered approach. And I think that is the way it should be.

The first reason is continuity. The Outgoing CSM briefs the incoming CDR and gets him up to speed over several months. The CDR (no longer the NEW CDR) briefs the incoming CSM and gets her up to speed over several months. This local & unit knowledge is key to making effective decisions from the start. It also avoids the unit thinking "great, they're doing the new sheriff routine."

The second reason is focus. This is more so on the AC than RC side, but going to a new unit involves 1,001 things to take care of on a personal/family level - especially if you PCSed. Overlap allows for all of those things that theoretically happen on permissive TDY - but don't because you want to get to your command.... Also, there are all the evals at the old unit to close out, etc.

When it would make sense to replace both simultaneously is when the higher command WANTS a new sheriff in town. There could be a few valid reasons for this including ineffective command team, toxic (that's different!!) command team, a severe personality mismatch between the command team and its next higher level. There are others, but those would be the big ones. None of these would be a "on schedule" transition. (They might not be severe enough to formally result in a relief, they might just play with dates for various reasons.)

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Feb 6 at 2015 10:34 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:34:42 -0500

o Rotating command teams as a whole or overlapping time is not a right or wrong thing. There are advantages and disadvantages of either COA. The best system from a strategic perspective is to replace the command team as a whole but allow for overlap of transition in cases where the turbulence in other key positions can not be mitigated (ie S3/XO; higher command teams, subordinate command teams).
o Rotate as a whole:
+ Allows for new command team to both come in fresh and to have a clean break from prior command team.
- Hard to synchronize at strategic level across the board for every formation.
- Institutional memory placed at risk unless able to be mitigated by key staff leaders (XO/S3) or by continuity in higher or subordinate command team stability.
o Overlap command team transition:
+ Allows for institutional memory in that one or the other of the command team know not only what was done previously but why and how the process developed or matured.
+ Allows for easier strategic synchronization where CDR/NCO transition are not a linked event.
- One or the other of the command team may have a vested interest in maintaining a prior decision through the leadership transition. IE SMA and beret decision.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 12:01 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:01:24 -0500

The 1SG/CSM staying longer than two years helps stabilize the unit and build continuity. Commanders usually serve two years in command and then move on. A 1SG or CSM is not limited like an officer when in a command team billet. There is a reason for that. It has been my experience the Commander's value the experience and advice of their counterpart - that's why we're there. I had seven Commander's as a CSM and I lost count as a 1SG after 10.

Response by MCPO Katrina Hutcherson made Feb 6 at 2015 12:32 PM

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:32:25 -0500

It's always been my experience that you should never let all your coorporate knowledge walk out the door together. It's difficult enough to settle in to a new command without having to spin your wheels because you are waisting time figuring out details because everyone who knew them is gone.

Besides, I have never been a fan of Senior Officers having to take all those that have hitched themselves to their stars with them. It's like inbreeding and way too cliquish. Everyone should be able to lead with whomever they find on their team. If it's too difficult for them because they need their "go to guys" to get the job done then they should never have been promoted.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 1:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:02:03 -0500

I think if you pull the entire command team at the same time is only good then they are not good.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 2:18 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:18:55 -0500

can't say enough for some continuity during the transition of a commander or the senior enlisted.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 4:40 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 16:40:21 -0500

Both ways have positives and negatives, so in my opinion, I prefer the team change out together. While there is something to be said for continuity, it's more difficult for a new leader to insititute changes if remnants of the old regime are still there.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 6 at 2015 9:50 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:50:31 -0500

I think the rotation of the Commander and the CSM should be overlapped such that another NCOER isnt due so the CSM can lay it all bare for the new Commander. I had an under lap. Luckily my CSM was worth the wait.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 10:05 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:05:35 -0500

I think the continuity is very valuable, it's the closest a member of the team gets to a left seat-right seat exchange before switching.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 10:34 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:34:46 -0500

I have been in units, where they needed to shit-can the entire staff, but generally speaking if a unit is ran correctly, I think overlapping for continuity is in the best interest of the troops.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 3:39 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 03:39:02 -0500

CSMs are selected in line with BN CDR CSL. You are supposed to meet at the pre-command course and work on your philosophy and vision together before even taking command. There are a lot of combined change of command/change of responsibilities going on now. CSMs only stay in the same unit for about two years now before they move to their next job, which may not be a CSM position if they are not selected. It's a crazy system now.

I stayed as the CSM of my battalion about three months after my commander changed out. It worked out well because I gave the incoming commander a good feel of what was going on in the battalion, my replacement came in and the new team was able to implement their vision. First sergeants can stay for several years which is good in some ways and a complete burn out in others.

I think a little overlap either way is good, but it shouldn't be anymore than about six months. The new team needs to bond and implement their leadership in the unit.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 5:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 17:42:53 -0500

This could be argued either way LTC Private RallyPoint Member.

I think there should be some overlap for two reasons. The first reason is so each one gets their due respect and COC or COR Ceremony respectively.

The other reason is to have a bit of stabilization so there is not a bunch of change all at once for the Soldiers within the Command.