Why do we tend to refer to our Grades instead of our Rank?

1SG (Join to see) "First three graders", all with rockers, was commonly used to separate NCOs from the others during the E-1 to E-7 era.

Our ranks are historically and traditionally bound. Our pay grade is not who we are! For example, two E-4's are not the same: one is a Corporal, and the other is a Specialist.
What you are, who are you and what you do (your rank) is not your pay grade.

From what i noticed in the past 12 years is that there has been a change... we've all seen it. A LOT of Soldiers driving factor for promotion is/was the pay, I'm sure you've heard "I can't wait to get my E5!" A majority see it as a Pay raise and don't see it as an increase in responsibility. Nor do they see and consider the responsibilities they will be taking on. You can tell the difference between an E5 and a SGT. Just my two cents.

Alright, your question caught my attention. So here's my opinion on this. First, over 10 years of war in which the officer corps got into the weeds of NCO business, diluted the ability of Sergeants of all ranks to actually to do their job, which is to lead, mentor, and train soldiers. Officers provide the mission, task, requirements, etc. It is the job of the NCO to make sure it happens IAW Army standards or better. Let us get back to this mentality across the Army. Sergeants sometimes do the job of the officers. We expect that. Officers do not do the jobs of the Sergeants. Stay out of our business. We're not Non-Commissioned privates. I'm not just an E-8, I'm a Master Sergeant, and that means something. Second, over 10 years of war has resulted in too many junior, inexperienced Soldiers, in being promoted to Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, and Sergeant First Class sooner than they should have. Many are not ready to be a Sergeant at two to three years. This has resulted in too many weak NCO's in the corps, who are no longer able to challenge, mentor, and guide officers the correct way, so that they stay out of NCO business. My personal observation is that the average Soldier requires four years of soldiering before they are ready to be a leader of both peers and subordinates. There are exceptions, but not many. We need to get back into the business of leading, mentoring, and training junior enlisted to be Soldiers who are disciplined, respectful, professional, and technically and tactically proficient. Then we need to develop our junior Non-Commissioned Officers in being leaders.

My question to all. Do you want to be adrressed by your expertise or how much money you make? Being addressed by your pay grade can be a slap sometimes, meaning one may not see you as worthy of holding the rank. I know a few SGTs and SSGs and I wonder "How in the hell"? Then it comes to me, that's what happens when you chase grades and not the prestige of being the best NCO for your SMs. Sadly to say, it's systemic because it emulated. Currently I'm asked "Are you up for the E8 Board" No, I'm up for the MSG Selection Board or Senior Enlisted Board. Pay is nice, but it's not why I do what I do. Just my two cents.

A better answer is that as professionals we learn each other's ranks. No service does a good job of this which causes us to default to pay grade to compare when in joint environments. I will self admit that I am only familiar with O and SNCO ranks for all services, but I do not have a good grasp of NCO and below outside of USAF.

I understand the sentiment. In most cases I see pay grades used for expediency purposes. For example this duty position requires someone "E6 and above" or "we have an E6 vacancy in 2nd Platoon." When I refer to a specific person its typically by their rank, within the parameters of our customs and courtesies. I don't feel it's appropriate to address an NCO by their last name only in most circumstances. They earned their rank just like I did.

With that said, I'm curious how many NCOs find it acceptable to refer to Lieutenants as "LT," "butterbar," or "Looey." Is that really any less offensive than referring to an NCO as an E6?

Absolute rules are rarely useful as often as we'd like. If clarity requires using the paygrade (SSG to SSgt), then use it. If military courtesy requires using the address, use that. If formality requires using the title, then use that.

Why is this a thing?

In 22 years I don't remember calling or using the E status, with the exception of talking with a civilian. Even today If i am talking to a PFC they are addressed as PFC. a 1Sg is still a 1Sg. A Corporal is still a Corporal. And I am Still a SFC, retired maybe but I use my retired rank as my formal means of address, I figure i earned it.

I agree with some others for the outside of the specific service as it translates better between such asa the Navy E-6 and an Army E-6. It translates if you don't know what level their rank is without looking it up. Know still not an official way to call them by that. For referencing I agree!. Now within your own service Army soldiers and Officers should never call each other by their grades unless referencing pay systems