Should senior leaders be required to conduct OJT in their respective CMFs to stay proficient?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:42:09 -0400

I know it's a stretch, but hear me out. I have recently completed my respective MES for my level. The Senior leadership were WAY out of touch with the reality of today's green suitor. I refused to ask them any technical questions as they had no idea of what I was asking. So, I stuck with administrative questions. Is it feasible to ask those charged with creating a POI to go research it themselves?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2017 12:45 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:45:30 -0400

That is a problem that many leaders forget how to do many skill level 1 task and basic things in there MOS. I think that they should replace the board with a MOS test to help with this problem and do some kind of test as part of higher level promotions.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2017 4:49 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:49:40 -0400

My only issue with this is that a lot of Senior NCO's and even lower level NCO's have to conduct a multitude of jobs. There are MOS's that are consumed by the civilian population and the NCO's and Soldiers who fall under those low density MOS's fail to learn their job at the fault of the Army and its current structure. I don't feel that they should be denied promotion, however I think they should be given continued training in their MOS. For instant I am a 91X and every time I deploy I work ECP's, conduct Convoys and patrols, and other combat operations that can not be backfilled by civilians. So while a lot of us are out the wire the civilians are doing the low density jobs. The mission has to be done and only service members can be put in harms way.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2017 9:06 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:06:02 -0400

It's feasible but it is not practical. I'm interested in what you specifically asked a senior leader. I am in agreement with you but know this, the Senior Officers and SGMs all know this. They are generalist. So if you asked about replacing a head assembly on a 64 and the use of titanium one time bolts I am certain they just smiled at you.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Apr 22 at 2017 10:09 AM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:09:38 -0400

I would ask for a more definitive definition of "Senior Leader". If we are talking a senior SNCO responsible for supervising the shop or division and advising the CO, I would expect extensive and wide knowledge. If we are talking a CO, I would expect a good grasp of general topics and detailed knowledge of specific problems, i.e. a particular part that has a high failure rate, or a particular procedure or rating that requires extensive time to accomplish or is in short supply. Get to the O-6 or general officer level and my expectations would probably be more oriented toward knowing who to ask the questions that would make the equipment or rating contribute successfully to the accomplishment of the unit mission. As has been discussed in many strings on RP, the success of a senior leader often depends more on his leadership ability and scope and his administrative prowess.

Response by CSM William DeWolf made Apr 22 at 2017 11:38 AM

CSM William DeWolf — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:38:52 -0400

Yes, why not, it is important for leaders to understand reality!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2017 3:39 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:39:10 -0400

Chief Sweesy, between your question and a number of your comments in response to other postings, I'm getting a sense that there's quite a bit more to this than simply what you asked in your question. The basic answer is: YES, the staff and faculty who prepare and teach courses in the various stages of (is MES the current term - PME, whatever) should be current on the most state of the art technologies in the field. That doesn't mean the Army will have fielded those technologies yet, though, so the staff & faculty should be most familiar with the military's current state of technology and future plans for where it will be going. What they should be teaching you is predominantly that - what you have in the field, how best to employ it, and what you can expect to come down the pike in the next 3-5 years and how it will integrate into your current structures and operations.

Faculty should be able to answer most questions about the technology that's currently employed in the field and how it is used, but I'm not sure you can expect them all to be technical experts on all the equipment in the field. Depending on where their past assignments have been, they might have been in a staff position far removed from the equipment, or at a NATO assignment where the equipment was completely different. So this assignment at the schoolhouse might have them catching up on their knowledge gaps. There are myriad reasons why someone might be capable of developing course material or teaching sessions for your class, but are still trying to learn many of the finer points most of the students in the class already know.

If I may be frank, Sir, you strike me with the wording of your question, that you might be a bit of what we call a "sharpshooter." I did some military platform instruction in an AIT 10-level course, a lot of field training courses in various topics, and 13 years of college instruction. A 'Sharpshooter' is someone who asks questions with the intent of trying to baffle us in front of the class. Questions that may or may not be terribly relevant to the material being learned, but mostly just to either (1) embarrass the instructor, or (2) show his or her classmates how smart he or she is. Now I'm not calling you out as a sharpshooter, I'm just saying the tenor of your question and follow-ups seems to give me that feeling that you might be. You might want to just look at the questions you're asking and make sure that's not why you're asking them or what you're asking them for.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2017 1:21 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 01:21:23 -0400

The problem with some of the technical systems like the GCSS-A fielding is that the POI cannot reflect what's in the field as the GCSS-A fielding has resulted in many changes in process, and will continue to do so in the future. How would you write a POI on something that is in a state of change and will change further as we adapt the system and likely the regulatory guidance to match?