Posted on Dec 10, 2013
What is the biggest difference you noticied upon becoming a field grade officer?
29.9K
128
42
14
14
0
I can't help but notice how much becoming a field grade officer required from me (and resulted in) a change in the way I think. What changes have you noticed in yourself or in others as they make the transition?
Officers
Promotions
Knowledge
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
17
17
0
I would like to speak on this from two perspectives. One being a veteran of 26 years and working for and with majors; secondly on being a warrant officer of considered equal field grade status even though not officially recognized.
I have had the opportunity to work in company level MP and aviation units where I had both CPT and MAJ commanders. Huge difference in the level of basic Soldier and family understanding. Majors seem to shift gears and a level of responsibility and caring from Captain. They are given a leg up with the battalion commander and staff also. Usually they have a broader outlook on their foxhole and those around them. I am not saying an 03 is not comparable, but as frank as I may, they are still drying out behind the ears. Of course aviators would love to see O4 commanders for many reasons, but the budget and service would never allow it again. I agree that Majors are seen as planners and Captains as those who execute with Soldiers.
On the warrant officer front, I can speak from experience first hand in aviation branch and outside of it. In the aviation branch even CW4 is not the breaking point of change. While respected in the Army and travel regulations as a field grade, they still work at company level a lot and are just pilots with a specialty. Most decide to retire rather than step up to the plate and take on staff time out of the cockpit. However, the travel regulations give field grade status to CW4/5 and now the new Army OER gives recognition to CW3/4/5. The latter is important because out of aviation, the CW3 in all other branches is that staff specialist equal to a MAJ and they usually receive the respect and courtesy common to the hard field grade rank. In aviation the grades are one upped to get the same treatment or commanders ear.
As a CW5 however, a tremendous change has occurred. Not in how myself accomplishes things, but in how things get done just because you mention something. One thing that is annoying is that folks often remark how you don't have to go to PT, go to formation, go to the range, stand in line, etc. etc. just because you are a CW5 and don't currently receive a blocked OER. Totally a perception set by some bad apples in my opinion. We as leaders must maintain the status quo that got us recognized for advancement to this rank. In closing this rambling, I think in could have used some better training in delegation of authority and directing surbordinate units and peers for task accomplishment. Oh yeah and FRAGO reading and writing!
(17)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
1LT(P) Weber,
From a technician standpoint, our developmental positions come right out of DA PAM 600-3 and additional guidance from HRC Branch Managers. It is very important for us to at least hit one of the many key listed jobs within our MOS and rank structure. As a 915A, that is the guide I use to prepare myself to stay competitive. I believe the Warrant Officer Staff Course & Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course (both are MOS immaterial) should be a lot longer and more detailed with emphasis placed at strategic level operations. My next position will be a Support Operations Maintenance Officer--directly comes out of DA PAM 600-3 and is considered a key development position for a 915A/E.
From a technician standpoint, our developmental positions come right out of DA PAM 600-3 and additional guidance from HRC Branch Managers. It is very important for us to at least hit one of the many key listed jobs within our MOS and rank structure. As a 915A, that is the guide I use to prepare myself to stay competitive. I believe the Warrant Officer Staff Course & Warrant Officer Senior Staff Course (both are MOS immaterial) should be a lot longer and more detailed with emphasis placed at strategic level operations. My next position will be a Support Operations Maintenance Officer--directly comes out of DA PAM 600-3 and is considered a key development position for a 915A/E.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
as a sidebar: is there a regulation that relates Warrant Rank with Commissioned Rank? I had heard officers explain it in comparative terms but didn't know if it was formalized. I had been told for comprehension purposes...
CW1 2nd LT, CW2 1LT, CW3 CPT, CW4 MAJ, CW5 LTC
I guess it not a good comparison. My limited understanding was that Chiefs are subject matter experts and Commissioned Rank has more to do with mastery of there fields of expertise than Commanding. Similar to non combat arms support officers...
CW1 2nd LT, CW2 1LT, CW3 CPT, CW4 MAJ, CW5 LTC
I guess it not a good comparison. My limited understanding was that Chiefs are subject matter experts and Commissioned Rank has more to do with mastery of there fields of expertise than Commanding. Similar to non combat arms support officers...
(2)
(0)
CW5 Sam R. Baker
LTC (Join to see), Sir, only reference you can find where it is compared these days is the new 623-3 I think other than the old travel regulations. Besides the actual OER, these topics are referenced. I am not a regulation machine, usually MAJ Carl Ballinger squares me away as I have been wrong upon occasion more than once.
- Includes a new rater’s managed assessment for DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade
Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report) and DA Form 67-10-2 (Field
Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report), reinvigorating the
importance of the rater to the overall assessment process and reinforcing
accountability (para 3-7).
- Includes operational and broadening assignment recommendations on DA Form 67-
10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report) to assist
in talent management (para 3-7).
- Includes a new rater’s managed assessment for DA Form 67-10-1 (Company Grade
Plate (O1-O3; WO1-CW2) Officer Evaluation Report) and DA Form 67-10-2 (Field
Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report), reinvigorating the
importance of the rater to the overall assessment process and reinforcing
accountability (para 3-7).
- Includes operational and broadening assignment recommendations on DA Form 67-
10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4-O5; CW3-CW5) Officer Evaluation Report) to assist
in talent management (para 3-7).
(0)
(0)
CW4 Keith Dolliver
LTC (Join to see) Sir, the new AR 600-20, dated Oct 2014 formalizes it a bit more than it has been in the past. Table 1-1 specifies Company Grade Warrant Officers as WO1 and CW2, Field Grade Warrant Officers as CW3 and CW4, and Senior Field Grade Warrant Officers as CW5.
(1)
(0)
13
13
0
Sir,
What I have percieved in others who were promoted to Major: They change their focus from taking care of their company's Soldiers to taking care of their Battalions-or-higher echelons. They transition from Direct Leadership to Operational Leadership and possibly to Strategic Leadership.
Story time: One of the best Majors I have known was our Battalion XO and then our S-3. He broke it down for us on the topic of recycling a Soldier back into class (instead of removing him or her from the schoolhouse) without proper protocol. In the small view of the instructor or PSG, the Soldier is a good bubba and tried hard and deserves another chance. In the large view of the Army, that Soldier and the hours spent instructing him are not paid for by DA, and "giving him an extra chance"--without the prerequisite beurocratic headache--is a slippery slope that ultimately results in lost, unrecoverable funding allocations.
Bottom line: Field-grade and General-Grade Officers (along with Sergeants Major and Command Sergeants Major) are responsible for doing what's best for the Army, not necessarily what's best for a Servicemember. And that's the way it SHOULD be.
Am I warm?
What I have percieved in others who were promoted to Major: They change their focus from taking care of their company's Soldiers to taking care of their Battalions-or-higher echelons. They transition from Direct Leadership to Operational Leadership and possibly to Strategic Leadership.
Story time: One of the best Majors I have known was our Battalion XO and then our S-3. He broke it down for us on the topic of recycling a Soldier back into class (instead of removing him or her from the schoolhouse) without proper protocol. In the small view of the instructor or PSG, the Soldier is a good bubba and tried hard and deserves another chance. In the large view of the Army, that Soldier and the hours spent instructing him are not paid for by DA, and "giving him an extra chance"--without the prerequisite beurocratic headache--is a slippery slope that ultimately results in lost, unrecoverable funding allocations.
Bottom line: Field-grade and General-Grade Officers (along with Sergeants Major and Command Sergeants Major) are responsible for doing what's best for the Army, not necessarily what's best for a Servicemember. And that's the way it SHOULD be.
Am I warm?
(13)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think, from my own observations and perceptions, that you hit the nail on the head SFC Watkins.
(4)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
SFC Watkins,
I would say you are dead on. Almost exactly what I came here to post.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
One more field grade in agreement, short and accurate. BUT, remember, doing what's best for the soldier, is often what's best for the unit. I always, always, was watching out for the soldiers.
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
It's hard to leave being a Captain; you are involved with troops, you are typically at the leading edge of ops. As a Field Grade Officer, there is more planning, coordinating, assessing, recommending, presenting, advocating, associating, affiliating, and less implementing, directing, counseling, inspiring, and direct leading. It is a different mindset.
(12)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I can understand that sentiment Sir. It is a similar feel for us NCOs. I look at the military as two sets of people working for a common goal. We have the facilitators and planners, and we have those who execute. At some point in all of our careers, officer and enlisted alike, we make the transition from one who executes to one who plans. It should be this way. The knowledge you gain as one who executes enhances the plans that you develop as one who plans. Helps us develop operational planning and facilitate the fight for the lower echelons and helps us ensure that we are making the right decisions when the plan flies out the window as it always does.
(5)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
As a field grade, they actually expect you to know what you are doing, and do it right the first time.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
Along with, "planning, coordinating, assessing, recommending, presenting, advocating, associating, affiliating", don't forget, baffling (with BS).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google