Should positions be based on rank/time in grade, or based on competency?

2015-07-28T21:55:49-04:00

Through out my military career so far, I've noticed a trend and I was curious of the opinion of others on the matter.

There are many jobs / duty positions that require at least an individual being an NCO prior to being able to hold the position, such as the position I've held for the past year and a half.

Now, a dilemma I am noticing is that while we have many NCOs who, by "right" can be put into the position now that I am leaving, not a single one of them is really competent enough to hold it, or simply lacks sufficient experience. However, due to the fact that it is a position solely held by NCOs at similar locations, Junior enlisted were not being considered. Several of the junior enlisted I have in mind are VERY experienced in the field, are innovative and think openly, can come up with creative solutions for complicated problems and have the very best in mind for the Air Force / Military as a whole; while the NCOs who are being "considered" are simply applying for the position to gain career progression and have no prior experience in the matter. These NCOs are not necessarily "bad" NCOs, but they just are not what I see as needed to keep a continually progressing program.

The position almost becomes political, as many will say "I would never trust an E-4 in that position, they're too low ranking; it's wrong." or "It doesn't matter if the NCO isn't experienced, they have the Time in Grade / Time in Service so it's their 'right' to hold that position"

Do you think that in this day in age that it is effective / appropriate for the military to hold title / rank / time in grade/service as determining factors on certain positions? Would it not save the military money and heartache just to put the individual who shows the most promise for the position in place, instead of giving it to the senior ranking so they can "gain experience"?

Same as officers and their T.I.S / T.I.G, should a few more months of being in the military determine competency as to who is the on-scene commander during an emergency or sensitive operation?

What is your opinion?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 28 at 2015 10:05 PM

2015-07-28T22:05:41-04:00

I have never had a problem like this. My E-5s were technically, tactically proficient, and they were leaders. Sometimes it takes a while to separate the studs, average, and duds.

Response by SSgt Scott Schwerman made Jul 28 at 2015 10:09 PM

2015-07-28T22:09:37-04:00

Billets should be based upon knowledge/proficiency not grade or time in grade.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Jul 28 at 2015 10:19 PM

2015-07-28T22:19:24-04:00

Both

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 28 at 2015 10:49 PM

2015-07-28T22:49:17-04:00

Competence alone was never a consideration for filling a slot that I am aware of. There was an airman at Eglin AFB in the late '60s, Lloyd Bible, whose father owned a FBO, and he had every FAA rating up through multi-engine - with the last requirement for each being his birthday. He was a top flight instructor at the Eglin Aero Club, but could not fly for the Air Force because he was not an officer. The Air Force lost a top pilot with its regulations IMHO, but I don't see that ever changing.

OTOH, I served with a rated O-6 at the same time with a DOR of 1944; he achieved that rank in WWII as a very young officer because he kept coming back from missions over Germany and many of his fellow pilots did not. He became Squadron Commander via survivability.

I think in combat it is possible to rise quickly by competence, and the rank comes with the position rather than the reverse. I cannot see that ever happening in a peacetime military.

Response by SPC Carl K. made Jul 28 at 2015 11:28 PM

2015-07-28T23:28:57-04:00

As a civilian business person, I have to say that it should be based on competency. Howevr, in the military, I saw many situations where the rank overshadowed experience, especially in the area of MOS re-classifications. I saw infantry guys re-classed as 15T's and knowing nothing of the MOS. They still had 11 Bang Bang on the brain. However, because the were already E-5/E-6, they were put in charge of units because of their rank, but with absolutely no understanding of the MOS, or the position, as a whole.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 28 at 2015 11:44 PM

2015-07-28T23:44:30-04:00

You must be a leader and competent first. Time in grade is no proof of either.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 29 at 2015 7:03 AM

2015-07-29T07:03:28-04:00

We build the Task Organization (T/O) by "Need" and designate each "slot" of Billet with a Rank/MOS. This in turn means we believe that each position must have X "Competency" and "Authority" to complete the tasks assigned to that position.

At the macro, that means a Battalion CO "must" be an O5, while a BN Senior Enlisted Adviser "must" be an E9. This is not to say a Major & SMSgt (USAF) could not do the work, just that they would not have the invested Authority needed. Especially when you look at all the positions below them.

When you get down to the micro, you run into the same problem. That E4 or E5 may be the best qualified, however his peers may have significant seniority both in rank and/or TIS/TIG which will present challenges for him to accomplish things. This happens not only internally (inside your organization), but externally as they need to work with others.

There's a reason each of the staff billets have the rank they do. It prevents "pissing contests." It sets priorities, and you don't run into the "my billet is greater than your rank issues," which happen much more frequently at the lower ranks where we have larger and more frequent vacancies.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Jul 29 at 2015 8:20 AM

2015-07-29T08:20:00-04:00

We absolutely must maintain the rank structure and use it to qualify certain positions. The reason is that you are not SUPPOSED to get to a particular rank without having the proper qualifications FOR that rank! Does it happen? Yes - but only because of poor leadership and lack of accountability. I charge you as you go thru your career to not let that happen and make SURE your Airmen are ready for the next position. If we were ALL doing that, your question wouldn't have come up.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Jul 29 at 2015 8:51 AM

2015-07-29T08:51:23-04:00

We can maintain the same system, as long as leaders adequately annotate that the individual who fills the position is competent or not. If we wrote accurate evals, instead of just giving everyone favorable ones we would prevent individuals who are incompetent from getting promoted and taking on these positions.

Response by PFC Terry Kuehner made Jul 29 at 2015 9:58 AM

2015-07-29T09:58:15-04:00

I am of like mind with you, would it do any good for the NCO to go to his OIC and explain their thoughts and see if it may warrant a meritorious promotion for the junior enlisted personel that is better suited for the position

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 1:05 PM

2015-07-29T13:05:18-04:00

In my opinion, promotion potential should be based off of competency and for the most part, I believe that is the case or I should say, if you ratings are written that way, then it is the case. In order to build competency, you have to look at TIG and hopefully that TIG requirement is met and the potential for promotion has been met. Military leaders have the ultimate task of reviewing past performance and predicting the future for potential promotes. It’s like giving the MLB pitcher a 10 year $ 250 million dollar contract based off seasons past with no guarantees for seasons in the future. Overall in the end, I hope that everyone receives promotion consideration based off job performance and with the Military drawdown in full effect, promotions will be scrutinized more than in the last 20 years.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-07-29T13:34:56-04:00

The reality is it's TIG/TIS, this is to maintain order.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Jul 30 at 2015 2:30 AM

2015-07-30T02:30:11-04:00

In my personal opinion it is very dependent on the career field.

For example, at my last base our weather operations floor was divided up. You had 3 primary regions, each region had four to five forecasters with one sub-region supervisor. The three sub-sups were under the eye of the senior duty NCO or officer. Now when I first got to Scott the senior duty individual who we will call the SDO could be anyone from Staff Sergeant up and any officer rank. The sub-sups could be Senior Airmen and up. Forecasters were always the most junior members to the career field, whether you be an Lt, SSgt or an E2 Airman. Everyone would start at the forecaster desk and for those who were E4 and up you could be bumped up to sub-sup or for E5 and up you could train up into the SDO position. When we did it like this we never had any issues with any E5s as SDO nor did we have issues with E4s leading a sub region even if a more senior rank was under their supervision. It just worked.

Recently, shortly before I PCSed here to Whiteman, the Weather leadership changed the rules. SDOs were to generally be degree holding meteorologists and also be E7 and up rather than E5. Sub-supervisors were also changed and now are supposed to be at least E5, E4s with line numbers could do it as well if they were certified. Unfortunately this has since messed up how the scheduling had worked as it now forces the NCOs and officers to be far more frequently scheduled on SD and sub-sup positions to meet the rank requirements. This puts a hurt on individuals, particularly SNCOs and Officers who were for a short time working 12 hour shifts rather than the normal 8 and they were forced to work more days since we didn't have enough to keep things normal. I want to say they had worked it out to make things a little better again after I left but it is still going to be putting unnecessary strain on the more senior ranks.

The point is, regardless of TIG/TIS or rank in general if someone is capable of performing a job and can complete the certification training required they should be allowed to do the job. Where I am at now I was recently certified as an A1C to basically run the shop on my own if I am the only one scheduled on a shift which I was over the weekend immediately following. All it takes is having the proper know how and training to learn how to do the job. Beyond that point, sure you will need supervision to QA things at some point but rank should make no difference if you can perform. I had no issues doing what needed to be done without someone watching over my shoulder.

Response by SrA Mike Filby made Jul 30 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-07-30T10:05:22-04:00

I fully agree, it should be determined by competency which is very similar to the civilian sector. Just because you've been in the company for 10 years doesn't mean you can do the job and just because you went to college doesn't mean you're better suited then the person that's been working on that area for 10 years. If it Jr NCO is knowledgeable and competent than they should be considered.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2017 11:02 AM

2017-01-10T11:02:30-05:00

I don't think TIS/TIG should matter. We're not a unionized entity so seniority doesn't/shouldn't exist. I do believe there should be rank requirements for some positions. There are positions where a lower enlisted might get walked on or strong armed just because of the types of people they deal with where as a NCO would more likely not because they have some authority to assert if the situation calls for it. There are also positions that should have a rank requirement because of the responsibility that comes with it.

I do agree that there are lower enlisted out there that show a lot more competency and responsibility than some people who have managed to make it into the NCO ranks. Some people like to have lips on their behind though and that's how a lot of those less competent and responsible people make it.

Response by CW5 Mark Smith made Jul 18 at 2020 11:52 AM

2020-07-18T11:52:21-04:00

Does longevity equate to competence? My favorite answer - it depends.