Should the Army implement testing for promotion in your job like the Air Force does?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:44:41 -0500

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2014 11:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:51:23 -0500

Yes.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2014 4:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 04:35:49 -0400

I totally agree with testing. When I was prior service I tested for every promotion. Some pay grades had multiple tests.

Response by SSG Peter Ludlum made Dec 2 at 2014 12:30 PM

SSG Peter Ludlum — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:30:50 -0500

No No NO did I say no! Testing is not a good way to determine leadership capabilities. Filling in a bubble to see if your technically proficient combined with a live board maybe. Since we got rid of the boards as a whole and went to the paper board our quality of leadership has taken a major hit. Our leaders today are more technically proficient in their jobs but lack tactical proficiency. How can a test determine your ability to lead troops? That can only be done by leaders on the ground and live boards. I realize this will lead to some bashing about old school but I am sorry if it wasn't broken why did we find the need to fix it? So lets combine old with new and make it 2 phase. Just my 1.75 cents worth

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2014 1:44 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:44:42 -0500

No. The Air Force seems to thrive on a culture that values technical proficiency (ie, pilots, and written tests for promotion) over leadership. The Army needs leaders who also are technically and tactically proficient.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Dec 26 at 2014 8:58 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:58:40 -0500

Absolutely. At the very minimum, the SQT needs to come back and be a gate before a name is validated to go before a board. (and there needs to be an O version as well)

There are several posts along the lines of "you can't test leadership." To which I respond, yes, you can. At the very least, you can test for comprehension of the Army's Leadership Framework. And even if you couldn't, you could still ensure that the individual going before the board is minimally tactically and technically proficient in their MOS/AOC.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2014 12:27 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:27:22 -0500

If it is in addition to the current process I say yes. Local boards for junior NCO's especially. The way a leader carries him/herself is just as important as all other factors.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2014 8:58 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:58:31 -0500

WO1 Mckinley,

Every board I sit in I ask Soldiers MOS questions as well those the CSM has instructed me to ask.
I need to know if these soldiers are ready to answer questions there subordinates will ask them or questions the will be challenged to answer on their own.

V/r

1SG Haro

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2014 9:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:00:19 -0500

I agree to a certain extent. A future leader should be technically proficient in their field. But as some have pointed out, it is not a viable means to measure leadership capability. I think it should be a requirement, but a Soldier's promotion to a leadership position or rank should also be evaluated on their performance in other areas as well. Just because a Soldier is good in their Specialty does not necessarily qualify them in leadership.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2014 10:27 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:27:29 -0500

I'm inclined to say "NO!" as a knee jerk reaction from the testing I had to endure in the Navy (took the test 8 times and couldn't BUY a promotion because my rate was so top heavy, lol), but I CAN see merit in the idea. Perhaps a combination of testing to cover the technical aspects of one's MOS and a board to gauge the leadership aspects for the next higher rank?

Response by MSgt Bj Jones made Dec 26 at 2014 10:42 PM

MSgt Bj Jones — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:42:53 -0500

Promotions in the Air Force aren't determined by testing alone. The Air Force system is called WAPS, which stands for Weighed Airman Promotion System. When enlistees test, they are usually given two tests: Professional Development Guide (PDG) (formerly PFE), which covers Air Force history, rules, policies, ceremonies, protocol, commands, structures, and all things Air Force. The second test deals with the Airman's Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). In some rare cases, depending on certain factors, an Airman may test PDG only (which happened to me once). Two other things that are weighted in to the promotion system are our Enlisted Performance Reports and our Decorations (Medals). Having 3 EPRs of 5 each vs 3 EPRs of 4 each betters the chances for promotion. I knew a woman who made E-5, SSgt, first time despite having two 3 EPRs and having been twice denied the Air Force Good Conduct Medal. The Air Force gives points to certain medals, and they do add up. MSM=5 Points. Air Force Commendation=3 Points. Air Force Achievement=1 Point. Unit Awards, Good Conduct, National Defense are worth nothing for points. Yes, I left some examples out. Some career fields rack up the points in medals more quickly than others, but their tests are much harder. SSgt is the first promotion Air Force tests for. Before an Airman can put on E-5, he or she must complete Airman Leadership School. After making E-6, Technical Sergeant, the NCO must attend NCO Academy (sometime before testing for E-7, Master Sergeant). Once in the running for E-8, SMSgt (or after making Senior), then SNCO Academy must be completed. The Air Force Service Academies are how the Air Force trains leaders. The Air Force system has its pros and cons.

Response by BG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2014 2:04 PM

BG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:04:00 -0500

As someone who was around when the SQT was still performed, I can tell you exactly why is was discontinued. It is very common in the Army to be assigned to an area or job that has nothing to do with your MOS, think Recruiter or Operational/ Strategic HQ Staff NCO, but you are still tested for promotion based upon technical skills. This led to those jobs being undesirable, but important for a properly functioning Army. NCOERs are given regardless of MOS and more properly reflect the management skills that we need for senior NCOs.

Frankly, I think that was the right decision. I have met plenty of officers who are technical experts in say, engineering, but couldn't lead themselves out of a paper bag. If a Major or SFC doesn't remember how to place a Claymore, I am fine with that. Leave that job to the E-4.

Response by SFC Billy Huether made Jan 27 at 2016 4:48 AM

SFC Billy Huether — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 04:48:25 -0500

Chief - Way back in 1994, was the last time I recall having to take an SQT (Skills Qualification Test). It was very similar to the standardized testing public schools have used for years. I am fully against testing being that there have been those that became Orderly Room clerks, for what ever reason, that could pass their skill level test without effort. However, take them to the field for say an ARTEP( I know I dated myself with that example) and said Soldier/NCO would be lost like last year's Easter Eggs with the practical application of aforementioned skill set. This wasn't always the case, yet, I would venture a guess at better than 7 out of 10. For me, the bigger issue was that theseems type of individuals would be promoted over those that had "boots on ground" knowledge. This scenario caused irreparable damage to those leading troops as the troops usually had a good idea as to who was "in the know".