The Enlisted and Officer divide, does it need to exist?

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:43:01 -0400

Here are two articles on the subject from two totally different perspectives.

Abolish: http://taskandpurpose.com/its-time-to-abolish-the-enlisted-officer-divide/

Leave it: http://cimsec.org/an-enlisted-defense-of-the-officer-corps/16916

It’s Time To Abolish The Enlisted-Officer Divide

We need to get rid of the system of dividing officers and enlisted in order to better reflect our modern military’s capabilities and responsibilities.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 6:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:59:05 -0400

I think the system we have is fine. We have made a series changes from the British model. As you can see they really don't even have warrant officers. We have a better system and ours is less focused on officers. Our system is the best in the world. It is like say we are the best company in the world but we are running it wrong. If we were running it wrong how did we get so good?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 5 at 2015 8:17 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:17:11 -0400

There are advantages & disadvantages to the system we have.

The current system (Officer/Enlisted) parallels the Executive/Worker system. In theory, it is based on education & job experience. It's a good system, and it promotes meritocracy (to an extent). It's failing is that additional education at lower levels is not rewarded to the same levels.

In essence, once you are inside the bureaucracy, you are locked inside the processes. Were it easier to "jump" ranks (both up & down), there would be no debate at all.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 5 at 2015 8:25 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:25:38 -0400

The Marine who wants to abolish offers no counter point, and therefore is a weak argument. I don't like this change it, without offering up a change sounds at best like the kid in the sandbox who didn't get his way. The Jr. Officer who brought up great counterpoints showed the difference between the two arguments, and I support her argument.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jun 5 at 2015 8:31 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:31:35 -0400

You want choices? Well, you got choices! If you don't like the difference (divide) between Officer & Enlisted ranks, get some gumption about yourself and get yourself qualified to advance as a Warrant or Commissioned Officer. So, I am your huckleberry - now, show me with your deeds, not words, or move out smartly with the status quo. It aint easy to challenge yourself to be all you can be!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 11:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 23:00:21 -0400

I don't believe that it does need to exist. It made sense in the past, perhaps, like WWII for example. Service members who were educated and had a college degree were most often appointed as officers, even if they have had no prior leadership experience or training. It was assumed if you were educated, you could be a leader. Jump forward to today's times, and you see just as many educated enlisted as you do officers. I myself am a thesis away from my Master's Degree. So what makes an O-3 (CPT) better than me? Are they smarter? Have they had more education? I have NCOES to match my rank, so what's the real difference? Oh yeah, I remember now, I actually work for a living! ha ha ha!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 12:19 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:19:29 -0400

Like MAJ Carl Ballinger says, " a solution in search of a problem." For the double whammy I'll even quote Robert Heinlein, "Our system is in place because it works." (Starship troopers)
Now I'll pay Devil's advocate.
Historically (let's say from the 1600- 1700's), a strictly delineated officer and NCO corps made sense. Educating and maintaining a professional officer corps was a national defense priority given the huge investment in general education, advanced (for the time) mathematics and engineering. That usually meant that these officers came from the wealthy (read "noble") class. The British empire, probably due to Cromwell and his revolution, became more egalitarian and allowed merchants (usually also educated) with enough income to purchase commissions and later attend private schools on a commissioning track like Harrow, Eton, Winchester, and Radley.
The thing to remember here is that Army sizes varied greatly. Even as late as world war 2, 1939 army strength was 187,000, only fifty thousand more than we maintained throughout most of the thirties. ( source: Secretary of War annual reports) That later peaked in May 1945 at over eight million. That original tiny force was responsible for training and leading that much larger army.
On the enlisted side things were different. With the exception of mercenary companies, the average soldier was a conscript. If you were lucky, maybe a militia member who could lead his own flintlock. Remember, I'm not going further back than the 1600's. The huge armies of Louis XIV, Napoleon, Frederick, were just that. A corps of highly trained officers backed by career NCOs with some battles under their belt running huge armies of conscripts. One of the most decorated soldiers of our revolutionary war, Peter (Pedro) Francisco, was offered a commission by Washington (turned down)in spite of being barely literate. (Instead he accepted a custom broad sword). Our civil war armies were somewhat better off, America always placed a premium on education, the average private could read and write. But plan and execute the movement of large numbers of troops? Ha.
Today is different. For the first time in history the education of the enlisted corps is comparable to the officer corps. What is the difference between a 23 year old Specialist with a bachelor's degree and Lieutenant? Four elective classes, summer camp, and a different AIT? OCS and a different AIT? Yes, it's facetious to state it that way, but that's what it looked like to me as a 20 year old PFC fifteen years ago.
Fraternization was also a major problem. Since the average enlisted was not a professional soldier boundaries were created and enforced. The typical person, even today, most likely wouldn't understand why his friend would send him to possibly die. Conversely, could the average person send his friend to die? The enforced separation of ranks minimizes this. Formality and tradition maintains it.
So now, in our modern, professional, all volunteer Army do we need this separation?
Education is probably the easiest. The quality of education has consistently gone up and the quantity of college educated people has only gone up. ROTC has proven that a civilian oriented education is no barrier to a successful and productive military career as opposed to a military focused education at the service academies or the military experience based OCS. The average private has an education lords four hundred years ago dreamed about and career NCOs wished they had before world war two.
Barring world war 3, the days of a conscript army is dead. We all volunteered, hopefully cognizant of risks associated with our chosen branch. For better or worse the process of professionalizing the army(I.e. The enlisted branch) has made the NCO corps more akin to the officer corps than its historical roots in the "common man". That professionalism is what has blurred the lines between the two and affected the fraternization topic so much.
Merriam-Webster defines professionalism as "The skill, good judgement, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well." If we have a professional army aren't we enough of professionals to know when to work and when to play?
So why not let the lines evaporate completely? Let's make it so NCOs can transition easier to the officer corps. Eliminate the age cap on commissioning programs like ROTC and OCS. Maybe create a Limited Duty Officer program like the Navy has/had for NCOs lacking a bachelor's limiting promotion potential to captain. Remove the restrictions on fraternization between the officer and NCO corps. Why shouldn't the captain and First sergeant, or S-3 OIC and NCOIC be able to grab a beer and play cards? They are professionals, right?
I don't know if this made any sense. I started typing around six and kept coming back. I really like arguing the unpopular side, even if I don't agree. I hope some people on both sides enjoy the long read. Thanks.

Response by MSgt Jim Wolverton made Jun 6 at 2015 1:00 AM

MSgt Jim Wolverton — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 01:00:41 -0400

I think it depends where you work. For example, I don't believe there should be 2LTs in Air Force maintenance units making decisions on maintenance. Most of them were not prior service maintenance troops and quite frankly, those positions seemed manufactured as a place to put young officers. How can you really understand maintenance, let alone direct it if you have never done it? It boggles my mind, it's like creating a job for someone when there's already somebody there doing the job! This is why I am really not in favor, as a SNCO, of training my boss to be my boss, that makes zero sense. Yes, I know it's setup that way for a reason and it makes sense for educating on the profession of arms, but not in your specialty. I didn't need a LT or Captain to explain why I or my troops couldn't do something, I was the SME in that job and could speak for myself. I also feel that way about the First Sergeant position in the Air Force, it undermines my authority as a SNCO with my troops and as far as I'm concerned, is a wasted position.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 6 at 2015 5:33 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 05:33:51 -0400

I couldn't even get through the article.

But I think our current system is just fine. It's been my experience that Officer/Enlisted relationships have much improved since the "old" days where it was pretty much Authoritarian-based to what we have now.

Also, the picture has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject. The man saluting is a Chief Petty Officer, pay grade E-7. This the Marine who wrote this article truly incapable of doing research before making an ass of himself?

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 6 at 2015 6:04 AM

PO3 David Fries — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:04:32 -0400

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2015 9:02 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:02:08 -0400

I agree that the divide should be lessened but not abolished especially with the college degree difference becoming less and less common. Officers and Enlisted will always have their different focuses but the days of disparaging differences between the two have narrowed greatly especially as you have a senior enlisted population earning or already holding advanced degrees on top of experience.

Like you I don't agree with the article, I think there are some things that could stand to be narrowed a little and I personally see the profound rank segregation of the Navy a bit draconian but you still need to differentiate Os and Es. The main thing I see is the Os handle up and out while the Es handle down and in.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 6 at 2015 10:23 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 10:23:14 -0400

The Red Army tried that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ranks_of_the_Soviet_Union#Army_and_Air_Force_Ranks

Military ranks of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The military ranks of the Soviet Union were those introduced after the October Revolution of 1917. At that time the Imperial Russian Table of Ranks was abolished, as were the privileges of the pre-Soviet Russian nobility.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jun 6 at 2015 12:06 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:06:17 -0400

COL Charles Williams, similar to you, I started as an E-1 and retired as an O-5, so I've seen how the Army world operates from both perspectives. I've read many articles, both pro and con, but my ultimate conclusion is that there will always be officers and enlisted. As you observed, there is hierarchy everywhere, not just in the military world. There will always be those charged with command responsibility and those that are there to assist in the completion of the mission.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Jun 7 at 2015 8:50 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:50:29 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member,Roger, One team, one fight, it will take a nation to defeat the enemies of the USA. With the Army's 20/20 Vision it will take all ranks.

http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr11/pdf/mar_apr11.pdf

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 10:43 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 22:43:45 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member So, what is your recommendation? I wasn't aware there was a divide, merely certain roles that each of us play in the service. Not one roll being more important that the other, just different.

Would you suggest that large companies abolish the divide from the entry level works and the CEO?

I would be interested to hear you thoughts on how we could get past this "divide"??

Response by LTC Hillary Luton made Jun 8 at 2015 8:48 AM

LTC Hillary Luton — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:48:39 -0400

This is an interesting subject. Throughout my career I've seen both good and bad leaders in all ranks. Although an education can help make a leader, I think there are inherent tendencies that leaders portray.

For years, I did not see myself as a born leader, because my superiors didn't like the way I lead and were not shy about letting me know that fact. It wasn't so much that I was a bad leader, more that I didn't believe in kissing the butts of my superiors. I thought it was more important to accept responsibility for the enlisted soldiers I was supposed to be leading. My focus was on leading and helping the soldiers I was put in charge of, not on getting promoted. I know, really crazy concept.

The point is, my superiors thought I was a terrible leader. In reality, they were terrible mentors. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I am a great leader, but maybe better than I was given credit for. The thing is, my leadership style has absolutely nothing to do with my education. I could have ended my career with a GED and I would still be the same type of leader - I would just have fewer diplomas.

To be honest, I was one of those who was sorted out after I got in. It was my NCOs who talked me into going through ROTC. So maybe getting the soldiers enlisted first and then helping the ones who show leadership skills get further training for a commission is more the business way. Its not such a bad idea. Is there still going to be a divide between enlisted and officer? Very possibly. But it is really not that much different than the divide between mail room clerk, department manager and CEO.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 11:27 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:27:28 -0400

Its seems less divided today. The Navy has always had the most divide (officers, chiefs, and enlisted) ..also only service where they eat separately (except large Coast Guard cutters). Navy is only service with separate uniform, NWU and coveralls are only uniforms thst same for all. When enlisted used to wear dungarees no uniforms were the same except specialized units like SeaBees and Seals.

Now most bases have consolidated their clubs and temporary quarters (now run as hotels) I think is about right the wsy it is now for most situations. The impotant thing is the lesdership by these officers. You want to take care of your soldiers/sailors etc. and promote teamwork and unit cohesion but not be buddy-buddy or fraternize nor create favoritism (perceived or real)

Response by MAJ George Hamilton made Jun 12 at 2015 9:55 PM

MAJ George Hamilton — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 21:55:05 -0400

I am trying very hard to understand the need to completely overhaul our current system. The arguments that I have seen to this point seem to rely mostly on references to a feudal system legacy, or something about how corporate America does it better, or address the closing of the educational gap between enlisted and officer.

Our system is not feudal in nature, nor are we corporate America - the military relies on a draconian style rank system to maintain order and discipline - something that is very, very difficult to establish or maintain in an organizational structure that relies on a more democratic approach to business (i.e. a network structure or something similar) - which is all the rage in corporate America currently.

And for crying out loud - our system has nothing to do with education or the lack thereof anymore. It has to do with very distinct roles to play in everything from training Soldiers in BCT, to developing strategy for the entire Army, to how you are trained to think and address the problems with which you are told to solve each day.

Should we look pretty hard at the pay gaps between some ranks when experience plays a role (i.e. SFC and CPT)? Of course we should - and we should fix that problem in the IMMEDIATE future.

Just because you feel slighted by the system doesn't mean it's ineffective or bad. It has hung around because it works - and it works well.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2016 11:42 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Aug 2016 23:42:57 -0400

One thing I don't care for, and which I believe is where the real problem lies, is that you often see an e-6 with a decade plus of experience executing the vision of a day one o-1. What makes that o-1's inexperienced judgement so superior to that e-6's decade+? After that o-1 has some experience as an officer I think the divide is justified because, unlike the e-6, they've then got experience at the executive (officer) level that the e-6 lacks.

Response by 1SG Clifford Barnes made Apr 30 at 2018 8:58 PM

1SG Clifford Barnes — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:58:55 -0400

Yes too a point for leadership and training but overall we are just one big family hooah

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made May 4 at 2018 10:07 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Fri, 04 May 2018 22:07:58 -0400

If we sit down and sing Kumbaya- then who will decide who goes out to die in Place? An NCO is responsible for a lot( lower enlisted have even less responsibility), but I never signed for a battalion of tanks, or an aircraft carrier- would an NCO? The divide is there for a reason- originally the officer not only outfitted himself but also the unit, and was responsible for that as a whole. They were better educated (normally) and had a high place in society compared to the enlisted. While this is no longer true- still Officers are required to have degrees, enlisted (until senior NCO's) are not. As an NCO or enlisted, I never signed for every piece of equipment in the unit- just what I was using. Until Sr NCO rank, I never had to worry about going to Special Commander functions in Mess Dress, unlike my O1-O6 officers. I have ordered teams, squads, even platoons into battle- never Companies, battalions, brigades, etc.

Response by SSgt Jimmy Jackson made May 5 at 2018 8:47 AM

SSgt Jimmy Jackson — Sat, 05 May 2018 08:47:43 -0400

Yes, it needs to exist...Carry on

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Dec 6 at 2018 11:23 AM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Thu, 06 Dec 2018 11:23:00 -0500

I entirely understand the sentiment and question, however, honestly, I think trying to change it gonna be, in all truth, like shoveling against the tide, it's just never gonna happen, at least to my way of thinking, not to seem a total cynic about it, that's just my basic thought, at any rate, you know?

Response by SSG K Johnson made Dec 6 at 2018 2:46 PM

SSG K Johnson — Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:46:14 -0500

I was fortunate enough to have really good officers for most of my time in the army and never felt a divide, even as a pvt. I got lucky I guess because I learned at an early rank how to talk to them and be around them while still upholding customs and courtesies.

Response by MAJ William Smith made Jan 23 at 2019 9:40 AM

MAJ William Smith — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:40:04 -0500

Without this divide the ground combat forces would be nothing more than a heavily armed mob. It isn't about college degrees. I had a masters when I enlisted and was much better educated than my platoon leaders. There must be a distinct social class responsible for imposing order in the chaos of war.

Response by SGT Philip Klein made May 2 at 2019 3:28 PM

SGT Philip Klein — Thu, 02 May 2019 15:28:54 -0400

You’re in the Air Force, I thought this was how it already was

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2021 12:58 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:58:36 -0500

Yes because otherwise I would have stayed a civilian instead of re-upping for that better quality of life on the officer side lol

Response by CAPT Michael Toleno made Oct 17 at 2023 5:18 PM

CAPT Michael Toleno — Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:18:50 -0400

I was linked to this discussion in the "Read this next" section after I posted this related question: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-any-military-force-in-any-nation-not-have-separate-officer-and-enlisted-corps?cid=374614&email_token=VTNWdGFYRmhPVlJGUmt0VFJGQnBSM05yTWxJMGNrMTNaMU4xZUVwMFNVaDVPV3RuTmtoU2JVZE5UVDB0TFN0WGEwSmpWWEZTUWpod2NrVTNORTlMVFV4dmRFRTlQUT09LS0yNmNlMzljZDAxMTRjMjlkZmNmYzljYWVlNDhlYTM0MDVmZmMzMTUw&px=b7c8fcfe-17ee-4bea-bcc7-67377df3a7af&utm_campaign=activity&utm_content=notifications&utm_medium=unpaid&utm_source=email

Does any military force in any nation NOT have separate officer and enlisted corps? | RallyPoint

Wikipedia says, "Officers in nearly every country of the world are segregated from the enlisted," but there's no citation to pursue this further. I'm not counting paramilitary organizations, noncombatant organizations, non-governmental agencies, or non-state entities. I'm referring to navies, armies, air and space forces, marine corps, coast guards, and equivalent armed forces. Thanks!