What do you view as the roles of NCOs and Officers, and can these roles be shared?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:44:45 -0400

Officers, and Noncommissioned Officers are both leaders, but what are their roles, and can these roles be shared?

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 7:57 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:57:47 -0400

In a nutshell, NCO's, Warrant Officers and O-Grade Officers are professionals and Leaders but when you break it down you can distinguished them by saying a NCO is a Trainer and a Leader, the Warrant Officer is a Techincal Expert and a Leader and the O-Grade Officer is a Manager/Planner and a Leader. More often than not, these roles can be intertwined and we as a Military can't be successful without all of the groups working together.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 24 at 2015 8:06 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:06:57 -0400

Leader
Mentor
Counselor
to name a few

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 24 at 2015 8:18 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:18:59 -0400

I've always viewed it like this.

Officers are "generalists" and Managers.

Enlisted are "specialists" and when we reach the NCO ranks we become Supervisors and then Management.

The roles are absolutely shared to an extent, because Knowledge is not instant. The overlap is just huge.

Using my own OccField and first shop as an example. We had myself (starting) a LCpl, a Cpl, a GySgt, and a Capt. My GySgt Had the most Specialized knowledge and Supervisory experience in the shop. The Capt had the most Generalized knowledge and Management experience. Speaking only of Intel duties they would be at 85%~ of each other and would be completely interchangeable.

But my Capt had much more Specialized knowledge on the "officer side" and my Gunny had much more specialized knowledge on the "SNCO side," and if we expected them to perform takes within those areas they would be a fish out of water. That isn't to say they couldn't do it, just that they wouldn't have the background.

I imagine most OccFields are very similar, and the overarching hierarchy to be like this.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 8:22 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:22:08 -0400

As said leadership.

And, i believe any good leader involves all of the resources available.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 8:39 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:39:13 -0400

The age-old tug-of-war between officer and enlisted business.
My take:
NCOs enforce standards and discipline Soldiers for infractions; officers make decisions on setting policies and sign off on formal punitive action.
NCOs conduct training; officers set goals for training and make an assessment on how effective that training is at attaining their goals. Officers also prioritize allocation of resources to initiatives they feel most critical to attaining their core goals.
Officers plan and direct operations; NCOs execute and accomplish the mission.
Officers maintain a degree of seperation from the personnel in their command in order to make judgments on what is best for their unit; NCOs know their Soldiers and their needs, and serve as an advocate for what is best for the individual Soldier.

For me personnally, I have always felt my most important role was to continuously build my team. I do this through focused training, building esprit de corps, instilling a desire to attain excellence, and developing my junior leaders through active development plans and by example.

The Army is constantly in motion, even in garrison. There is no time to rest for a leader. The next mission can come at any time. You had best be prepared for it.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 24 at 2015 8:39 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:39:45 -0400

I deal with this all the time in explaining what becoming an Officer means through an ROTC program vs. enlisting. We need leaders at all levels. Ultimately, leadership is influencing others to accomplish an assigned task/mission. At the lowest level, it is the NCOs that make this happen in their frontline leadership roles directly over the junior enlisted. Officers make this happen at a higher level and are the ones responsible for planning and executing unit level operations/training. I haven't had the privilege to work with a lot of WOs but they are the technical experts in their field and provide that expertise to the unit. All three need to work together to make the Army work and I have had the privilege to work with some of the finest Americans in all three levels. I am excited to go back to my first unit reunion this summer because those Soldiers were the ones that set me up for a successful career.

Response by CPL Richard Flagg made Jun 24 at 2015 10:20 AM

CPL Richard Flagg — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:20:52 -0400

IMO as a former NCO I recognize the need for both Officers and NCO's; cause without NCO's cohesion and unit effectiveness would be affected.

You need NCO's to disseminate the information and orders from higher; without it you would be faced with Micomanagement by the Officers This would have an adverse effect on unit effectiveness and cohesion like I stated earlier. You can disagree with me and that is fine by me; just convince me why I should see things differently.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jul 1 at 2015 5:32 PM

LTC Ed Ross — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:32:16 -0400

Officers lead at the macro level. NCOs lead at the micro level.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 10:07 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 22:07:54 -0400

I don't disagree with any of the previous posts, pretty good discussion going on. I would submit, however, that a couple things have not yet been brought up.

Firstly, I would say the roles can't be shared, or swapped, primarily because of the difference between responsibility and accountability. NCOs can be held responsible for the younger enlisted personnel working underneath them, but the officers are held accountable and that is no small difference. As a Division Officer and then as a Department Head I signed a variety of documents acknowledging that I would be held accountable for x piece of equipment, x items of inventory, x number of personnel and then trusted that the enlisted personnel would do right and take proper care of the things (equipment and personnel) that I had been entrusted with. As an Executive Officer, I would read the NCO the riot act if something went missing or got screwed up but I would hold the officer accountable via a consequence appropriate to the situation. Another example, if the Commander loses confidence in an officer's ability, that officer can be detached for cause, which has significant professional consequences while if that same Commander loses confidence in an NCO, that NCO is generally reassisgned or given lesser duties and responsibilities but does not carry the same professional consequences.

And I further submit this can be evidenced in the Oath of Office. For officers, our oath is different because we have the added verbiage that we will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I am about to enter. This is where we are agreeing/accepting accountability and it is not in the oath of enlistment.

Secondly, my personal upbringing and mentorship has taught me that as an officer, responsible for the troops underneath me, I am the provider and the NCO is the executor. I provide the general direction and the NCO, based upon technical training and years of experience (generally speaking) fills in the details. I can't know it all because I am a generalist (especially as a Navy Surface Warfare Officer). I provide the resources, or work to get the things, that my NCO recommends that we need to meet the mission tasking. The NCO takes what I come up with and puts them to the best use. I provide the top-cover, either by buying time (or space), accepting accountability, putting my name/reputation on the line, or taking on the "drudgery" of admin or planning so that the NCO is able to focus on achieving the mission.

The lines have become blurred as training has improved, the quality of our all-volunteer force has improved, communications have improved, and units have become smaller and smaller units have been tasked to operate more independently. However, there still remains a line and I submit it is proper and appropriate.