"There is no more NCO business or Officer business. Just leader business." TRUE or FALSE?

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:12:18 -0400

My 1SG recently put this out to the leaders in our battery. It resonated with me because I just crossed over from NCO to officer last month. I've heard differing opinions. Is this something that is evolving? Is there truly a difference? And is that difference in relation to the Soldiers and the admin portions of daily duties?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 9:16 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:16:54 -0400

I believe there are some thing better left to the NCO and some things should be handled by an officer.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Oct 2 at 2015 9:32 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:32:38 -0400

There will always be NCO business and Officer business. I think of it in terms of a civilian company. The CEO of the company doesn't always have the time to deal with certain matters that are happening in the company. So he or she asks others in positions of authority to deal with those things. In the military you aren't going to see the GO come down to correct a uniform issue on a Soldier but you will (or at least should) see that SGT make the correction. This doesn't mean officers should sit behind their desks all day though. They need to be out there with their Soldiers, learning about them and showing genuine interest in them because that will pay off when the bullets are flying over head. Soldiers will be more willing to follow the leaders that truly invested time into their Soldiers. Yet, there are somethings left better to the control of the backbone of the armed forces. Working together, each handling their side of the business, Officers and NCOs can make one hell of an team.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 2 at 2015 9:44 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:44:35 -0400

"Scope of responsibility" and the ever famous phrase "You're getting into the weeds."

If an officer is aware of the issue, it's his business. That said, does an executive need to be made aware of everything a worker bee is doing? No. Should he be intentionally excluded? No.

Each person's plate can only get so big, and minutia takes up plate space. If an officer is worrying about supervision, he's not worrying about management.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 2 at 2015 9:45 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:45:20 -0400

Commissioned, Warrant and No Commissioned Officers each deserve tot be treated with proper respect, customs and courtesies.
There are some things that are by definition officer business such as command, criminal prosecution, non-judicial administration. Other areas such as property book and accountable officer can be handled equally well by commissioned, warrant or Non commissioned officer.
Training of units and soldiers is accomplished by both officers and NCOs but I think NCOs justifiably have the weight of experience and skills in most hands-on training and a lot of technical training.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 9:54 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:54:50 -0400

No, there is still NCO and Officer Business.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 2 at 2015 9:59 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:59:08 -0400

BOTH. Taking care of Soldiers IS NCO business, but the proper running of a unit is Officer business. You're responsible overall. O's should only step into the NCO arena when they know that those NCO's aren't doing it right or to standard, and even then you have the 1SG and the CSM ready to pull repetitive PLF's from 80,000ft in their backsides on those NCO's to include removing them and replacing them with those ready for the challenge. O's run it, NCO's maintain it.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 2 at 2015 10:10 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:10:38 -0400

There are things an NCO should deal with and things officers should handle Micro versus macro

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Oct 2 at 2015 10:15 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:15:12 -0400

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member Gonna have call call BS on this one LT. There are just some things that O's don't need to know about. Like where we scrounge up equipment that we are short of on the hand receipts ect. There are other things like when Joes need some special corrective training so they don't get an Art. 15. And there is O business that most enlisted just don't care about. Now when you get up there in the ranks the lines blur a lot but at your level there is NCO and O business. When I was a PSG, my CO needed some parts to fix a HMMWV and the company didn't have the money for it (pre 9/11 days). I had numerous contacts across Ft. Stewart and got the parts (nothing illegal was done). After giving the parts to my CO he asked me if he should ask where they came from. Even though I didn't have to appropriate any of them, I felt he just didn't need to know my procedures in getting them.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Oct 2 at 2015 10:22 AM

SFC Stephen King — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:22:20 -0400

Leaders regardless of Rank must understand that to accomplish a mission communication and they way one speaks about a concern, message or task is paramount in building an effective team.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 10:26 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:26:29 -0400

At my first duty station, I was assigned as the Platoon's RTO and I learned quite a bit about the distinction between officer business and NCO business. Your 1SG is wrong.

NCOs primary responsibility is taking care of the soldiers. They lead in garrison -- driving the unit, conducting training, and handling most day-to-day issues. Good officers generally run interference -- keeping higher ranks from meddling and tasking out their soldiers for every detail. In garrison, officers focus should be on bigger picture planning and strategy issues. They provide vision and direction, but they only really get directly involved when UCMJ authority is needed.

When the unit goes into the field, that dynamic flips. Officers are the ones driving the unit. They're the ones who have been involved in the mission planning process. They give the commands and the NCOs support them in that role. Officers lead from the front (staying behind the first element, of course). And, NCOs are responsible for ensuring that the beans and bullets get to the men. They make sure all of the logistics issues are taken care of. They trail the main body -- picking up stragglers and keeping everything moving.

The saying that certain things are "officer business" and certain things are "NCO business" is meant to keep everyone focused on their respective lanes. An officer has to trust his NCOs to carry out their roles and responsibilities. He cannot micromanage every little detail. In fact (given his experience level), he probably isn't familiar with all of the intricate little details that an NCO takes care of to ensure that things go off smoothly. An officer announces the mission and gets things rolling, but he has no idea of all of the weapons, ammo, supply draws that go into everything, all of the PCCs to ensure the soldiers are ready, all of the soldier issues that need to be addressed -- the nitty gritty details of what it takes to actually make a mission successful. The officer is focused on the larger, higher level strategy issues -- getting an impression of the bigger picture, dancing with all of the staff shops, and integrating that stuff into the process. It is the typical inward facing/outward facing relationship that you see in most organizations with the top executive and his deputy/vice.

As a prior service officer, you are in a unique position to understand more of what's going on. But, you have to be careful to fulfill your role. Prior service officers can be either, amazing or horrible -- depending on how they approach things. Some get lost in the weeds and undermine their NCOs -- never developing the higher level "big picture" skills they should be developing as an officer because they think it's just a continuation of their career, never allowing their NCOs to grow and develop into their roles. However, some prior service officers go into things with a fuller appreciation and understanding of how things work. They realize when they're being BS'ed. But, they also know when they should be "blocking" higher levels from meddling and they back-up and support their soldiers.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 2 at 2015 10:27 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:27:13 -0400

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member - There have been several discussions on this topic on RallyPoint and I believe the majority of comments share my belief that there is a difference in the specific responsibilities of commissioned officer and noncommissioned officers. The key discriminator, in my mind, is "individual" versus "collective". NCOs deal primarily with individual issues, training, etc., whereas officers should concentrate on collective/unit issues, training. etc.

You will see that these things typically work themselves out and that your NCOs will clearly demonstrate what is in their lanes and what is in yours, despite what your 1SG stated. Have a conversation with your platoon sergeant and your company commander about this and see what their opinions are. I think you will probably see that they won't necessarily subscribe to the 1SG's comments.

One thing I do think is true about what the 1SG said is that, whether it is "officer business" or "NCO business", it is all still "leader business" and all leaders need to be engaged in the overall business of leadership. As such, an officer should not be reluctant to step into NCO business, if necessary, and vice versa. All need to work together to ensure success.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Oct 2 at 2015 10:30 AM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:30:41 -0400

As long as NCOs and Officers have two different responsibilities, there will always have to be two different ways each goes to business every day. There must be NCO business, and there must be Officer business.

The NCO creed clearly interprets the existence of NCO business, and how officers are not to have to take up our responsibilities... Which also clearly infers that they have business of their own.

"leader business" I guess would be the business of all leadership combined, which would be quite vague and pertain to overall mission accomplishment, or basic warrior tasks, but there is, and always should be a separation, anything otherwise is to suggest that there is no need for an officer and NCO position at all... In which case, I want O-5 pay!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 10:40 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:40:07 -0400

I think there are still things that fall into one realm or the other, but I fully support the collaboration between NCOs and Officers on "leader business." Sometimes we keep each other in the dark out of habit, and that's wrong. We need to evaluate each situation and see what is best.

There's great wisdom in two statements that conflict each other:
Solve all problems at the lowest level.
Never be the senior man with a secret.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 2 at 2015 11:17 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:17:04 -0400

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" The rank structure is still the rule in management, regardless of whether civilian or military. Lots of gamesmanship with the intellectuals that usually rely on others to do their bidding, but when the rubber meets the road, the stratification of positions will always be there. AND the other old saying "the cream always rises" is appropo, unless you homogenize the process.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Oct 2 at 2015 11:39 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:39:24 -0400

I misread the poll and meant to click on "False"

Response by CSM David Heidke made Oct 2 at 2015 12:10 PM

CSM David Heidke — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 12:10:07 -0400

there are clear lines of demarcation. Have your First Sergeant reread the NCO Creed.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 2:02 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:02:21 -0400

I do not like the phrase "It's NCO business" - however, there are some things that are best handled at the NCO level. That being said, it doesn't mean that the SNCO shouldn't keep the OIC updated with what's going on (in most cases, "NCO business" is usually dealing with "Soldier issues"). If the SNCO has an issue with keeping you updated - then you as the OIC need to take appropriate action(s).

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 2 at 2015 2:19 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:19:33 -0400

There is still a need to know basis.

Response by SFC Craig Dalen made Oct 2 at 2015 2:29 PM

SFC Craig Dalen — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:29:38 -0400

In order for a unit to truly be effective there must be a combination and colaboration between the NCO and Officer leadership.

Response by PFC Janelle Fletcher made Oct 2 at 2015 2:33 PM

PFC Janelle Fletcher — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:33:01 -0400

I think there will always be lines of demarcation as there should be. But within those lines there is still respect between the issues that should involve both or one. A problem brought to a CSM that needs to be referred to a LTC but both remain involved for the well being of the soldier who required their assistance. The instances where years in service become valuable in a situation and a newly commissioned officer though out ranking an E-8, still respects and enlists their help on the matter. That is "leader business". Now there will still always be the business of Officers and NCO's separately because of what the job entails and what they were trained to do. Those positions requiring a commission will remain officer business like prosecution as someone had listed. A company commander will always be in charge of the company and while taking into account his NCO's strategies he is still the one in command. It will forever be "need to know" as it should be. The military is based on structure and that structure is there for a reason.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 2:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:42:17 -0400

If that is the case, then a true "leader" will know to watch his or her own lane. Direct, individual troop management and training is the NCO lane. Overall unit management and goal-setting is the officer lane. Neither the 'twain shall meet.

This division of labor exists for a reason, and a professional NCO corps is what sets Western armies apart from less-successful third world armies where the NCOs are just "senior soldiers" and officers come from the local "ruling class" and have to run things like petite-noble princes. Officers and NCO do not want to have to shoulder each others' burdens.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 2 at 2015 3:08 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:08:47 -0400

NCO and Officer converge and diverge.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Oct 2 at 2015 3:48 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:48:07 -0400

There are things that NCO's have no business in and there are things that Officers have no business in.

Response by MAJ David Wallace made Oct 2 at 2015 6:14 PM

MAJ David Wallace — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:14:48 -0400

All leaders have responsibilities, some are shared between the officer and the NCO corps. Officers have to be concerned with the big picture and meeting the commander's intent. By analyzing the mission, leaders develop their mission statement, sub-unit and individual tasks. The NCOs put the commander's plan into action and "make it happen" by addressing the critical details needed for the unit's success. It's a team effort, requiring mutual respect and clearly defined expectations. Working together, Officers and NCOs accomplish the mission and keep the Army moving forward.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 6:32 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:32:29 -0400

True. Not that it should be though! I find it to be one of the most difficult to digest out of the many changes I've experienced, in my time...

If it needed to be this way... Why would you become an Officer? Why would we need NCOs!? Ever hear the phrase "too many Chiefs!?"

You (God I hope others) should recognize the following...

"... Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish their duties; they will not have to accomplish mine. I will earn their respect and confidence as well as that of my Soldiers. I will be loyal to those with whom I serve; seniors, peers and subordinates alike. I will exercise initiative by taking appropriate action in the absence of orders. I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral courage. I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to forget that we are professionals, Noncommissioned Officers, LEADERS!"
See more at: http://www.ncocreed.com/#sthash.9vHMsn0p.dpuf

Response by SFC David Davenport made Oct 3 at 2015 8:57 AM

SFC David Davenport — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:57:59 -0400

The Officer should always be aware of what is going on. The NCO Corp is responsible for handling the vast majority of troop management so the Officers can focus on policy decisions etc. So it comes down to semantics and division of labor in some ways.

Response by CSM Mark Gerecht made Oct 3 at 2015 11:15 AM

CSM Mark Gerecht — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:15:18 -0400

I absolutely concur. I wrote an article about this in 2011. Here is the link: http://asktop.net/articles/nco-business-officer-business-or-leader-business/
As Leaders we have far more SHARED Tasks than individual tasks. The key is you cannot build a TEAM when the team members are dividing themselves. Each group (Officers/NCOs) do have some unique areas but if you lay out all the responsibilities and duties I am sure you will see there is far more overlap in these areas then there are separate and distinct requirements. The NCO Creed States: Officers of my unit will have maximum time to accomplish their duties; they will not have to accomplish mine. The meaning of these words are clear. Ensure as an NCO you are doing your specific tasks that apply to your specific duties. It does not "in my humble opinion" imply "Officer and NCO Business". We are all leaders! As such we have two requirements. Taking care of our TEAM and Ensuring Mission Accomplishment. Those two things don't happen when the TEAM is divided or hung up on stereotypes. When these stereotypes are feed by Key Leaders you Get NCOs vs Officers and that is not a TEAM. The organization becomes dysfunction. The 1SG is SPOT ON! Build the Team, Grow Relationships, Get the Team Involved, and Teach Your Subordinates HOW TO THINK not What to Think!

NCO Business and Officer Business v. Leader Business

Have you ever heard an NCO or officer make the statement “That’s NCO business”? What exactly does that mean? NCOs and officers have their own respective areas of authority. This article is about th...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2015 12:36 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:36:41 -0400

Leader Buisness is the current term used by senior Army leaders; it ensures "leaders" at all levels don't turn a blind eye to an issue due to "that isn't my lane" or that's "NCO/O Buisness."

In my opinion there is a difference and both overlap. We as leaders just need to do our part to ensure we are keeping each other honest and out of trouble. All while looking out for the welfare of our Soldiers.

Last I commend said 1SG for getting behind (buy in) the words of his upper command and enforcing them as his own. Not a lot of leaders are willing to do that. Also the story described in this tread is out of contex and I am sure the 1SG had good reasons for pushing his commands policy/philosophy.

RLTW!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2015 1:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:34:26 -0400

It's a team effort so there is still NCO Business. Some of the best teams I have witnessed or been a part of is when NCO's and Officer's are taking care of their respective lanes.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 3 at 2015 6:05 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:05:06 -0400

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member The statement is false.
The higher up you go on both ends, the more they blend together, but NCO and Company Grade O's have very separate and distinct roles. They should be on same page, but there is plenty on both sides that needs to stay separate. The best O's are going to let the NCOs do their thing. If...the NCOs are failing, then that should be addressed. And if the O's are too far into the weeds, that too should be addressed. It all works really well, if you get it and let it.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2015 12:01 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:01:29 -0400

True. There are things that NCOs take the lead on and things Officers take the lead on - if in either case one fails to do their mission the other must do it. I often tell my NCOs I do not want to be in their lane and will never go there - but if im doing something in the NCO lane its because it failed to get done. I think this harmony gives us a sense of ownership in problem sets and it made my guys less defensive when i wanted to know what was going on. I always let my NCOs know where my leader energy is directed and we no longer get territorial about the true issue : solving problems.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 12:20 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:20:17 -0400

I agree with the separation of "business", though both commissioned and non-commissioned officers are leaders. And although I'm not Army, I suspect both are subject to the Army's policy, doctrine and execution manuals on leadership. From my academic expertise in this area I give both thumbs up to the Army regarding leadership.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Oct 6 at 2015 12:43 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:43:54 -0400

As a 1SG my Job was to train and equip my soldiers for work and combat and to train my officers in as to what it took for me and my soldiers to do our job. My officers Job was to long range plan and resource me and my soldiers. If officers were into NCO business it was because the NCO was not already actively doing it. The biggest problems I saw in my 20 years was always rooted in E-6, E-7, and E-8 not doing their Job as well as it needed to be done.

Response by SFC Andrew Kretz made Oct 6 at 2015 1:03 PM

SFC Andrew Kretz — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:03:24 -0400

2LT Michael Everett I believe the response can be both true and false, dependent on how the question is viewed. There have been a multitude of studies conducted in reference to leadership versus management. Is the officer the leader or is the NCO? Is the officer the manager or is the NCO? Or can both be a leader and manager? My interpretation of research, places the officer in the leadership position versus the NCO in the managerial position. However, there can be an addition to this statement. For example when I was a PSG and had no PL, I performed those duties; therefore, at the time as an NCO, I was performing the role of leader and manager.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 1:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:06:06 -0400

The difference between Officer business and NCO business is the same difference between paperwork and Soldier work!

Response by CMSgt Robert (Bob) Kelchner made Oct 6 at 2015 1:19 PM

CMSgt Robert (Bob) Kelchner — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:19:29 -0400

Yes there is a major difference. Officer leadership comes from a different position. Officers are commissioned, they can be commanders and have a direct link to the units commander. NCOs obviously have come thru the ranks and their solders feel a direct connection to their NCOs. Their style may be similar but the perception of the troops will always be different.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Oct 6 at 2015 1:42 PM

SSG Michael Scott — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:42:09 -0400

In the old Army, it was NCO business.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:03 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:03:23 -0400

Yeah, that's a wrong answer, LT. There are very real, and very important distinctions between the two. As Officers, our focus tends to be more "big picture" and future operations. Your NCOs, especially your section leaders, need to be more focused on their Soldiers. They focus on individual training and readiness, we focus more on the collective. Also, you'll find as you move up in your career, that Officers become more generalists than specialists. This is not to say that you let your technical and tactical proficiency lapse, but that it becomes less important. As a mustang, you are at a critical juncture right now. The most common challenge for Officers who go that route is breaking out of the NCO mindset and not letting their NCOs do their jobs. Try to avoid that trap.

Response by CW3 Guy Snodgrass made Oct 6 at 2015 2:28 PM

CW3 Guy Snodgrass — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:28:13 -0400

I still believe there is "NCO business" and "Officer business". NCOs (E5-E6) provide the daily supervision of the soldiers (PT, health, training, mission execution, etc). Officers provide the top cover that enables the NCO to effectively do their job. In my opinion when these two intersect or one gets into the others lane, confusion and chaos begin to take hold. Lines become blurred. This causes missions and discipline to falter. If an officer is "down in the weeds", so to speak, with the troops they can lose sight of the bigger picture. This in turn can begin the cycle of reacting, rather than pro-acting.

Response by SSG Mannix Brooks made Oct 6 at 2015 2:28 PM

SSG Mannix Brooks — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:28:33 -0400

NCOs have a specific outlined job to do and so do Officer's so I would say no on that statement unless you are the middle of a firefight but even then NCOs and Officers still have specific roles to play.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:32 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:32:17 -0400

As a Commander here's my take on it: I don't necessarily need to be involved, but I need to be informed. If one of my troops is having pay or spouse issues, I need to be aware of it even if its an NCO that solves the problem. The better informed I am the better the decisions I make will be. I'll only become involved if asked or if I feel the situation isn't being handled properly.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:33:22 -0400

I don't even know what to say here. I am truly flabbergasted that your 1SG would put this out. There will always be a difference between NCO and Officer Business. Point Blank and the damn PERIOD.

Response by BG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 2:46 PM

BG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:46:05 -0400

The answer is actually both. There are actions that NCOs are directly responsible for and expected to be able to do without supervision. However, that does not relieve the officer of accountability of these actions. A good motto is that "officers check results". So is it appropriate that the 2LT ask his PSG if PVT Snuffy's pay problem got resolved? Absolutely. Why? Because an individual issue that the NCO does not resolve correctly comes back as a Congressional, IG complaint, etc. that involves the entire CoC and they better not be surprised by it. Every officer needs to let NCOs do their job, but NCOs have a responsibility to inform them that "NCO Business" was accomplished correctly. Otherwise we end up with an Abu Garaib scenario...

Response by SSG Tim Hamilton made Oct 6 at 2015 3:03 PM

SSG Tim Hamilton — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:03:02 -0400

As a former Army NCO and current high school principal I think i am on both sides of this as well. I see my teachers as NCOs and they need autonomy in the classroom to ensure our mission is accomplished. If they can handle it at the lower level then by all means.I am there for support and possibly intervention if needed. So is there NCO business, yes. Is there officer business, yes. Good NCOs support and look out for their officers.

Response by SGM Alfonza Williams made Oct 6 at 2015 3:16 PM

SGM Alfonza Williams — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:16:02 -0400

As a NCO, you are a Leader; therefore, your 1SG spoke the truth that has always been as such. NCO Business is only noteworthy is when you are not allowing Officers in your lane of Fire. This is all Leaders Business as you being a NCO, you are a leader.

Response by SMSgt Bryan Raines made Oct 6 at 2015 3:44 PM

SMSgt Bryan Raines — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:44:04 -0400

Just as officers have a level of responsibility and duties that enlisted do not have; NCO's have responsibilities and duties that do not belong to officers. Education and training of enlisted is one area. Discipline of their troops of a non-UCMJ nature is another area; counseling lower ranking troops is not an officer responsibly, doesn’t mean that they cannot do it just that they shouldn’t have to. NCO’s are there to free up the commissioned officers to perform duties in line with their rank and position.

Response by SSG Dylan Tyahla made Oct 6 at 2015 4:05 PM

SSG Dylan Tyahla — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:05:15 -0400

I think NCOs should be paid like officers. I was only enlisted but I have new officers that were worthless. I as an NCO had to pick up most of thier work and take care of soldiers. Maybe go back to promoting from within former enlisted.

Response by MSG Carl Clark made Oct 6 at 2015 4:13 PM

MSG Carl Clark — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:13:34 -0400

Let's put it this way. In real estate you have the seller's agent and the buyer's agent. In the Armed Forces Officers are the buyer's agent (getting all he can for "Uncle Sugar" at the best price.) then there is the Sellers agent representing Enlisted Personnel (enlisted who give all at Rock bottom prices). Leadership is not equal between Officers and NCOs. NCO's have a different focus,
They represent the backbone of the Armed Forces, enlisted personnel. Historically officer leadership has been picked off and battles have been won, but never has the enlisted force been lost and officer leadership risen to take it's place and win the battle. NCO leadership acts as a necessary buffer between national interests and "Human Resources". A good NCO will lobby for his troops, an officer likely to have such an act end his career. ...Passed over for an officer not so closely aligned with his enlisted troops "reality" whatever it may be. Let officers keep representing the buyer and NCO's will keep representing those whose "reality" of those who will sell(er) their flesh and blood for the ambition of individuals or national interests.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 4:37 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:37:02 -0400

Speaking for sea-going services, there is definitely a separation between the Chief's Mess business and the Officer's Mess. I agree with what was stated earlier, we are more focused on the individual (readiness, advancement, discipline), where our officers should be focused on the bigger picture...the collective.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 4:48 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:48:40 -0400

While I agree NCOs these days are, generally speaking, considerably more educated there are different roles. NCOs should be handling the more down in the dirt, day to day issues with the troops and units. The officers should be dealing more with the high level issues, keeping the overall military machine running and serving as the primary buffer to keep those perhaps out of touch higher up from interfering with getting the mission done below, as applicable. Senior NCOs and Junior Officers should essentially be the liaisons between these two environments.
It's great both levels are getting more advanced if you will, and more educated. I've known mid-tier NCOs with Masters degrees, and even Doctorates in one or two cases. But they were still NCOs and did their jobs as such. If we all tried to do everyone's job then we'd have a bunch of Jacks/Jills of All Trades who are only mediocre at best at their jobs, instead of those who excel at the positions they're in and allowing others to do the job they need to do.

Response by MGySgt Gerry Harvey made Oct 6 at 2015 5:03 PM

MGySgt Gerry Harvey — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:03:43 -0400

Officers can't train enlist people because of the lack of experience

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 5:10 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:10:29 -0400

If that's the case, show me the do-re-mi! Otherwise, officers can keep their responsibility. Really, the person who wrote this article should know better! Statutorily speaking there are many issues officers get paid the big bucks for, which NCOs will never have to deal with.

Response by SGT Scott Henderson made Oct 6 at 2015 5:16 PM

SGT Scott Henderson — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:16:18 -0400

Some officers try to micromanage platoons. Running the platoon and accomplishing the mission is the job of the PSG with the assistance of the PL when needed. Running day to day ops and organizing logistical support is the job of the officers (XO, CDR). I also believe that there is NO job in the military that requires a college education. The experience of the enlisted leaders is generally better and more useful than the book knowledge of the officers.

What are the four most fear inducing words you can ever hear? A 2LT saying "I've got an idea."

Response by 1SG VonErick Trim made Oct 6 at 2015 5:21 PM

1SG VonErick Trim — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:21:22 -0400

officers have their job and NCOs have theirs. micromanageing is not leadership

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 5:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:57:19 -0400

I say False, because there will always be things that NCO's are responsible for and there are things that Officer's are responsible for doing. The old adage was: The 1SG runs everything in Garrison and the Officers run everything in the field except resupplies and mess ( C-Rats, Water Buffalo Runs,etc ).
The soldier should not be going to an Officer for request for schools, 3 day pass, DX / Inventory of clothing & TA-50. To my knowledge , the soldier still has a first line supervisor ( team leader or squad leader ). If a soldier needed extra training, the 1SG would issue him 3 days extra training to correct some shortcoming ( better than any Article 15 ).
Now, both ( Officer & NCO ) should work hand in hand to insure business is taken care of. Neither will be able to do their job, if they have to stop and do the other's job.

Response by SSgt Thomas Crosser Jr. made Oct 6 at 2015 5:59 PM

SSgt Thomas Crosser Jr. — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:59:49 -0400

Each NCO, from the lowest E-4 to the most senior E-9 has a specific set of skills, knowledge base, duties and responsibilities. The Officer Corps has little time nor the resources to deal with these issues except to ensure the that his/her NCO's are getting their job done. I hate to take this back to ancient old school, but it is the job, and perhaps one of the most important functions of a Fire Team leader to look after the health and comfort of their troops. To ensure clean living quarters, clean linens, clean uniforms, adherence to grooming standards and proper hygiene. Scheduled and met medical and dental appointments and to gauge the overall mental health of the individual and the team as a whole. A fighting force who's rations and bedding are swarming with insects, rats and fecal matter is a mass of disease and not much of a threat to the enemy, just as a group of overworked or heavily depressed folks is more of a danger to themselves than the foe they face. The Sgt. ensures that his/her team leaders are on top of their troops by close, in depth inspection, enhanced by Platoon Sgt. Inspections and finally by cursory inspections by the Platoon Commander to see that all is ship-shape. This may be oversimplifying it, but the health of a unit begins with quality junior NCO's

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 6:07 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:07:03 -0400

The problem as I see it is there is a perception that the only 'officer' that matters is the one with the "G" Series Orders. Now, in a very real sense depending on THAT man/woman, that is true. This, however, leads the subordinate officers to be complacent and think that 'we are all just Indians'! We are not 'equal Indians' and subordinate officers and NCOs alike must jealously guard their distinct duties and responsibilities within the organizational structure. This issue begins and ends with THAT man/woman at the top.

Response by 1SG Stephen Burgess made Oct 6 at 2015 6:31 PM

1SG Stephen Burgess — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:31:01 -0400

Don't fall for some new age horse hockey. There will ALWAYS be a degree of separation. Otherwise, how will you justify the pay difference

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 7:15 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:15:31 -0400

Officers and NCOs have a separation of duties because their focus is different. Both are responsible for the oath they took but NCOs train and execute while officers plan and lead (generally speaking). As a 'Mustang' I have had the opportunity to learn this firsthand. NCOs are given missions by officers with the elements of when, where and what. The NCOs determine who they need and how to execute. Most go officers will ask for a briefing, ensure any required support is coordinated, brief the leadership and monitor. Too many officers micromanage, interfere, take credit and place blame.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 7:19 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:19:40 -0400

2LT Michael Everett,
1. This is evolving, sir, but most of the evolution is occurring at the Senior ranks.
2. There is truly a difference, sir, certain things involving minutia such as discipline, counseling, and low level management within the NCO support channel should not concern you, sir. As long as you are confident in your platoon sergeants/ squad leaders integrity (and it's not immoral, unethical or illegal of course)
3. Yes, sir, mainly Soldier and administrative daily duties.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 8:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 20:51:47 -0400

There is "our business".

Response by SFC Franky Hicks made Oct 6 at 2015 9:33 PM

SFC Franky Hicks — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 21:33:00 -0400

Your senior nco leadership must train their surborinate junior leader to be great leader one day in their tenure. The same applied to junior officers. While in the unit, the senior. Leader is required to train, counseling, all of his soldiers by training his surborinate leaders while in the unit. And this base upon his/her experience in service. When the platoon or unit goes to the field the senior leader has greater task in assisting the junior officer in accomplishing his/her task for field exercise. It is a teamwork efforts period.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 6 at 2015 9:50 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 21:50:57 -0400

I'd say your top is getting near retirement and those business management college courses he is taking are messing up his mind.

Response by SSgt M. Har made Oct 7 at 2015 12:42 AM

SSgt M. Har — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:42:40 -0400

BS...Officer and Enlisted both have their own business. Its the military not corporate America

Response by SGT Felicia King made Oct 7 at 2015 2:03 AM

SGT Felicia King — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:03:23 -0400

Mission is always the leaders business. But the soldiers generally fall under the NCOs business, and accountability falls under the officers business.

Response by MSgt Ken Hanks made Oct 7 at 2015 9:40 AM

MSgt Ken Hanks — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:40:40 -0400

In theory, you can say it's just leadership. In the real world for effective command and control, there must be a separation of Officer and NCO leadership. Sure we are attempting to obtain the same goal. In application, there still needs a chain of command or in the civilian sector, Incident Command Structure. We need a structure to allow leadership to give the strategic plan and NCO'S to carry out the tactical plan.

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 7 at 2015 11:16 AM

SSG John Erny — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:16:31 -0400

It depends on the issue. Example 1 The O's probably don't care or want to know about Joe getting smoked for telling an off color joke, that could offend someone, but did not. Example 2 Joe get's a DUI, that is NCO business, officer business and a bad day for all.

How big the ripple in the pond decides how far it goes up the chain the issue goes, keeping things at the appropriate level is the golden rule. as always, if the 1SG / CSM is not happy, ain't nobody happy.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 12:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 12:32:28 -0400

Quite simple. The officers provide the intent and leadership guidance around that intent and the NCOs use their leadership to make sure that the troops carry out the mission to meet that intent.

Response by SGT Kevin Karvinen made Oct 7 at 2015 1:22 PM

SGT Kevin Karvinen — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:22:59 -0400

Hands down False! There are issues that should only be handled by NCO's. That doesn't mean Officers are left out of the loop. A good NCO handles his troops but keeps the Officer informed (most of the time).

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 1:43 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:43:08 -0400

I disagree with statement, but appreciate what he was trying to say. As many have already stated, there are still clear differences in responsibilities and roles. However, when these differences are over-emphasized it can lead to an unhelpful power distance (perhaps even a rivalry) between the two. Officers and NCOs work together to lead an organization. They share the massive task of leading. If they don't do this as a team, the whole organization suffers. (I know many of you could tell endless stories of being in suffering units because of this type of conflict)

Response by Sgt Franklin B. made Oct 7 at 2015 4:52 PM

Sgt Franklin B. — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:52:40 -0400

There is an important difference. Men need direction including NCO's.

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Oct 7 at 2015 5:43 PM

PO1 Ron Clark — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:43:05 -0400

Actually there is no more NCO or leader business, it's military business!

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Oct 7 at 2015 8:54 PM

SGT Greg Gold — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:54:20 -0400

There are duties and responsibilities that O's have, and there duties and responsibilities that E's have. Some are the same, but enough of them are different that there is still NCO business that needs to be attended to. The same goes for officers. That's just the way it is.

Response by CPT Nik Webb made Oct 7 at 2015 10:32 PM

CPT Nik Webb — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:18 -0400

There is certainly a difference between NCO duties/responsibilities and those of an officer, but there is no such thing as officer "business" versus NCO "business." That's old school thinking that is ineffective in today's military.

This is not to say that every officer/NCO needs to be tracking all the same little details, but if it's important enough for one of the parties to be involved with, the other should at least be aware of it. Otherwise, you're potentially setting someone else up to be blindsided later.

But it really just depends on the organization you're in and how the commander wants to build his/her team. I personally have weekly sync meetings with all my leaders (Os and NCOs) and we put everything on the table. Our efficiency and team cohesion has significantly improved from this. For me, it's all in the details...I want to be aware of every situation, but only tell me what I need to know. I trust my NCOs to handle the rest.

Response by SSgt Dean Bolyard made Oct 8 at 2015 12:14 AM

SSgt Dean Bolyard — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:14:09 -0400

Officers are the leaders, your NCO'S are there to reinforce and maybe help guide you. Good luck to you Lt.!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 8 at 2015 7:03 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:03:41 -0400

True!
I had a LTjg I worked for when I was stationed in Hawaii. This man was not only prior enlisted, but a former Marine to boot. You would think that he would let us Petty Officers and Chiefs handle everyday business while he took care of O business but you would be wrong.
He was constantly doing things that one would think should be kept at the NCO level: minor things like correcting uniform discrepancies or asking a Sailor why he was late for work. It's not like he would be the first one to notice these things either. A PO or CPO would notice them and take action but he felt the need to inject himself into the mix as well and get his own 2 cents in. It got to the point where us PO's would complain to the CPO's that he wasn't letting us do our jobs as leaders/NCO's and that he seemed to forget that he was no longer a PO and still trying to act like one.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 8 at 2015 8:29 AM

SGT William Howell — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:29:24 -0400

NCO business is NCO business. An officer can not do his his job if he is always in our job. Sometimes they needed to be respectfully reminded of that. It can have effects down the road that lead to people being killed because a NCO does not have the power to make snap decisions.

I worked with the Ukrainians in Iraq and their NCOs had zero power over those ranking below them. They were totally ineffective as a combat unit because of this.

As a NCO you have a duty to take care of your troops so that officers are able to accomplish the missions at hand. It is right in the NCO Creed.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Oct 8 at 2015 8:54 AM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:54:23 -0400

I've commented on something like this before. I believe it's leader business, because it needs to be a consolidated effort. The NCOs need to perform the action, but the officer's need to provide proper oversight. There have been too many times when an NCO claims "NCO Business" as a means to do whatever they want behind the officer's back. Officers need to hold NCOs accountable. Similar to respect, you can trust the rank, but individual trust is earned.

Response by Sgt James Colligan made Oct 8 at 2015 9:57 AM

Sgt James Colligan — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:57:46 -0400

Some things need to be kept at a small unit level, and it's none of the officers' business; let the squad leader handle it.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Oct 8 at 2015 4:12 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:12:21 -0400

NCO'S are the backbone of the military! That should remain sacred! It will always be NCO BUSINESS!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2015 10:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 22:39:19 -0400

I was recently giving a counseling concerning this issue, I find this rally point discussion very interesting, giving that I was told there was no such thing as "NCO Business" and should be only directed at "NCO FOCUSES" not business.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Oct 9 at 2015 10:45 AM

SSG Richard Reilly — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:45:04 -0400

False/True? There is one business and that is the Army's business. However I do believe NCOs are responsible for training and welfare of Soldiers and Officers that are commissioned are responsible for planning and ensuring NCOs are lead, i.e., leading the leaders.

Analogy time. NCOs are the babysitters, officers are the nanny cam.

Response by SGT Bob Mccarten made Oct 9 at 2015 2:41 PM

SGT Bob Mccarten — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:41:29 -0400

I had an Officer tell me once that NCO business is something we hide from them because it's illegal. I told him if we let officers know all our business then we would waste everyday briefing them and never get anything accomplished.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 5:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:43:23 -0400

I believe there IS a difference. as stated below by several officers AND NCO's these things are best kept separate. NCO business is NOT officer business and vice versa. Now, does that mean they should not keep each other informed, no, but NCO's don't ALWAYS need to know what is goin on up there (IN HQ) and O's don't ALWAYS need to know what's going on with the NCO's...but keeping each other informed and having the SGM's and the O's conferring will keep each of them 'in their lanes' as someone said earlier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 6:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:57:08 -0400

There are numerous examples of duty situations that do not require officer intervention but are expected tasks of NCO's. #1 is communication between the ranks. When I came into the Army, a junior did not speak to an officer unless the officer spoke to them or was escorted by an NCO. Inversely the officer would typically not address soldiers without a NCO present. NCOs are supposed to be the voice of soldiers with issues and the will of the officer corps. The CO deseminates information to the NCO who in turn inform the soldier. Vice versa, ncos bring up soldiers problems that cant be immediatly handled at their level to the officer. Without this, the chain of command breaks down. It's meant to protect the officer and the soldier, as well as provide a well reinforced structure to ensure mission success. Primary training at the squad and platoon level is a NCOS job. The officer doesn't need to get involved, he/she has duties that are broader than the NCOs arena trusts the NCO to ensure good training, allowing the officer to focus on bigger things. NCOs should be maintaining soldiers, officers maintaining NCOS. When you start to blur these lines by involving the officer in tasks that can and should be handled at the NCO level, several things happen. The NCO becomes redundant, the officer doesn't have efficient time usage for his/her duties, soldiers get confused who to go to for certain issues, and soldiers lose that buffer from higher ranking personnel.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 9 at 2015 9:06 PM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:06:36 -0400

I would actually like to turn the question back on you, CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member, in a two-part question since you have a perspective that not too many people truly experience, having been both.
A) What is your answer to this question?
B) Is that the same answer that you would have given as an NCO?
I have more, but I'll wait for you to answer so as to properly phrase my added points. Also, what was your MOS. It probably doesn't matter too much, but it may add some value to the dialog.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Oct 10 at 2015 1:53 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 01:53:39 -0400

I agree. Lieutenants should be put in charge of all police call areas immediately. No meetings until they find at least 10 cigarette butts each morning.

Response by SSG David Dickson made Oct 10 at 2015 3:21 AM

SSG David Dickson — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:21:44 -0400

There are things NCO's are charged with taking care "Officers will have maximum time to accomplish their duties, they will not have to accomplish mine"...

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 7:57 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:57:37 -0400

As an NCO I had officers poke their head in on matters that were clearly NCO matters such as getting an Amn in shape prior to a PT Test. No need for a Capt or Maj to micromanage that process.

I once worked for a Capt who was great at letting NCOs handle NCO matters. If there was no division everyone would stress over the same stuff all day....it'd turn into anarchy!

Response by SSgt Milkstopher Tripp made Oct 11 at 2015 7:49 AM

SSgt Milkstopher Tripp — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 07:49:44 -0400

There are different levels of leadership for a reason. Not all issues are created equal, and spending time on issues beyond/below your realm of control is wasted time. Not saying that leaders shouldn't be ready to step into a variety of roles, but if everybody starts breaking the chain, then they wind up stepping on each other's toes. For organizations to run smoothly, each player needs to play his/her part, while remaining ready to do more.

Response by CPT(P) David Thorp made Oct 13 at 2015 12:23 AM

CPT(P) David Thorp — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:23:47 -0400

Things should be handled at the lowest level possible at all times, when appropriate.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 8:16 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:16:49 -0400

The easiest way to answer this one is would you want the lowest ranking Solider leading your staff while you become a Trash Can Commando by taking out the trash and lead by example everyday? In other words, do you want to be doing the job of the S/NCO or Joe (if I got that right) as a new commissioned officer or vice versa? I would certainly hope not. I believe I know the Leadership Business concept your 1SG in referring too; however, it's situational. With the Leadership Business concept, it is everyone's business to lead/police their own to ensure no one gets into on/off duty trouble and call out any wrongs (I.e. disobeying the rules, lack of military bearing or work ethic, etc.), privately with the individual or by bringing it up the chain. However, the military is set up with a general-ranking system which enforces the chain of command leadership and many DoD and USA policies in place that enforces that concept which threatens punishment authorized by the UCMJ, if needed. Sure, if you smell alcohol on the breath of a junior Solider while on duty and suspect that Solider maybe still impaired and/or possibly drove to work drunk - you most def have a right to act in your position and handle the situation WITH your S/NCOs and peers collectively come up with a plan to remedy the Solider and situation and inform the officers above you. In this day and age, everyone should expect you do to that in your position. However, you should also trust those S/NCOs who, as an example, manages your budget, supervises whomever acquires and distribute out the supplies, drafts and routes the admin stuff, cleans your office, etc., without using such tactics like micro-managing which nobody enjoys unless you feel you absolutely need too (hopefully, your S/NCOs will ensure that will never happen).
Spending over 20 years in the Navy, coming up in the ranks, getting my Bachelor's Degree and now close to my MBA, every single greatest lesson I've learned about leadership in my civilian studies and military life can revolve around these five simple concepts below. Of course, these are situational, but overall their principles speaks for themselves:
"Great Leaders empower those whom they lead and then get out of the way to let them lead themselves. If they fail, great leaders have enough grace for them to get back up and try again w/o holding it against them. If they fail repeatedly, take action".
"What do I know, Who needs to know it and Have I told them"- which goes along with the mentality behind the popular saying- "Never be the one/senior man with the secret.
"Always remember where you can from and never forget as there are others that are now doing what you previously did (or simply put "Always remember, Never forget")- which should resonate with you more both professionally and personally as a previous enlisted than those who never served in the enlisted ranks. It also goes along with other leadership concepts such as If you were still the one on the receiving end of a bad set of orders- would you want to do it (having too and wanting too are two different things) and do you really want to be like an officer or leader you that didn't get along with/respect to your peers and subordinates? Other concepts which mirror the aforementioned are wearing the other person's shoes, not trying to justify your or others' wrongdoings to your staff that can see right through it, being proud of the work you done to get to where you are and what you accomplished at the end of the day along with helping out others along the way.
"Trust, but verify" which becomes easier, in a non-overbearing way, once your staff knows you and you know them. In summary, and to echo those comments whom I'm echoing, you must do your best to operate in a manor which your seniors, peers, S/NCO and Joes (if I got that right) respect which will make your subordinates want to positively engage/follow you- because they want too not because they have too. In turn, those S/NCO and Joes will want to operate in a manor not want to let you or fellow Soliders down either and the Leader Business concepts works accordingly within the Chain of Command.

Response by SMSgt Billy Cesarano made Sep 14 at 2020 4:06 PM

SMSgt Billy Cesarano — Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:06:53 -0400

PROBABLY taking it too literal. Officers and NCO's conduct their "leader business" differently and it is by purposeful design. From the military sense, if everyone is a "business" leader then who is doing the following? For NCO's the subordinate ranks are E-4 and below. These are students in the profession of arms not yet officially leaders. Is it a case of to many Chiefs and not enough Indians? That would bring more weight to the statement. Fact of the matter, today there are numerous positions and duties that have both and neither. At any given time an individual is following orders dictated by superiors, duty or regulation. At any given time an individual my be tasked to take the lead over personnel or objectives. The first shirt probably was inferring something of a specific nature and not a blanket statement that is so fundamentally flawed.