Why would an NCO select the Warrant career path over the Officer career path?

This seems like an easy question.  The same reason why an NCO would choose to become a Warrant Officer instead of staying in the senior enlisted ranks.  If you enjoy the technical, operational side of your profession, which I do, then why not become a Warrant Officer?  If you become an O-Grade Commissioned Officer you are back to the first problem with remaining an NCO, you are no longer technical in your profession and your duties are more administrative where all you do is climb the chain of command.  O-Grade Officers have to hold staff positions and command positions which are common-core career paths that are branch immaterial.  As a Warrant Officer you are specialized in your career field and paid to do your job.  If an NCO is selected for OCS and wants to be a Signal or Engineer Officer he/she might end up with a commission as a Chemical Officer.  It seems like a gamble for something you will do the rest of your career.  If you want to be a jack of all trades and a master of none, then stay where you are at or become a Commissioned Officer.  If you want to remain hands-on, relevant, and a subject matter expert in the field of your choosing, then apply for Warrant Officer.

The reason I became a Warrant Officer was for two reasons. The first was to remain technically competent, kind of hard to do in the Signal field as a Sr. NCO. The second was, if I do 20 years in the military, what not get a better retirement out of it? I can stay technically skilled, and prepped for life after the military and receive a better pay check when the time comes.

Many other Warrants have already expressed my reason for switching.  I loved being an NCO, training Soldiers and mentoring NCOs got me out of bed each morning.  The BS of the Army has turned being an NCO into a babysitting job though.  I fully comprehend and support a leader being responsible for the actions of those appointed beneath them, but there is a point when individual responsibility absolves that leader of not preventing it.  I saw that I had promoted myself out of the day-to-day leading of Soldiers and was now an administrator with babysitting privelages.  I chose to go Warrant Officer because I love my job, and this allows me to continue my job for years, but still to teach and mentor Soldiers and NCOs.  I'm mostly absolved of babysitting duty (I only have NCOs under me), which allows my NCOs to grow and make mistakes as they learn and develop.

I appreciate the officer input in this thread. I would like to see more NCOs actually ask an officer what it is that made then become an officer? Be that from the enlisted ranks or as a high school student transition to the Academy or ROTC. When I chose to make the switch I did so because I was tired of "advising" officers on how to best support the mission. As a senior NCO I came to the realization that officers were the decision makers. You can't deny the impact that good (and sometimes bad officers) make on a unit. I really enjoy asking questions, looking at a process or organization, developing courses of action (COA) and then making the decision that may change that organization. Also, if you want the burden (or mantle as I like to call it) of command, there is nothing more satisfying. The big the "Man/Woman" that everyone looks too for his/her intent and direction. To be the one standing in front of that formation as the Commander. I would pose this question to the NCOs; "Why would an NCO want to be a 1SG or CSM?" Those who want that distinction, that honor could and can understand why people wish to serve as officers. While I appreciate the Warrant Officer Corps and I do believe that they are an invaluable asset to the Army, I would be afraid to get "board" doing the same job everyday at different levels. I remember looking over one of my Warrants ORBs and saying to myself "What's the difference in these duty titles?" It seems they had the same job at every duty station. "Maintenance Tech". Where as officer bounce around every 1-2 years. Platoon LeaderExecutive OfficerPrimary Staff Officer at BN (S1/2/3/4/6Company CommanderGraduate Student/Train with Industry/OBC Instructor/APMS/Aide-de-CampI felt like I was doing the same job every year as an NCO, only a promotion would change the daily drudgery I was dealing with. As an Officer I get to learn a new job every two years! The learning and Broadening experience is fantastic. Just my thoughts...... 

Between the choices of OCS and Warrant, Warrant would win out due to the prestige of the specialty designation.  As a Technical Warrant you are selected for your knowledge in your specialty skill.  This gives you the ability to continue on your knowledge path and become even more specialized in your field.  OCS once graduated and committed it seems the officers get assigned to Branches from a Dart board and might not even be affiliated with a Branch they are familiar with.  These are just MHO and what I personally perceived from soldiers going through both paths.  

I think it is personality (individual) dependent. Is the NCO within a technical field that will allow for him to use his/her learned trade to become a better technician and technical expert? Maybe the individual is very technically proficient and competent, but lacks some leadership abilities that may make his/her transition to being a commissioned officer difficult. We have expectations that our commissioned officers are leaders at the platoon and above level, yet we rarely ask our warrant officers to perform the same duties - instead relying on them to be the technical experts (rarely organizational leaders above team level). The guidance/counsel you provide to each individual should be tailored to that person/NCO. Some NCOs will make great Officers (standard sense) whereas others are more suited to be the technical expert and warrant officer. There is no 'easy button' for this question as it is all personality dependent. Just like there are some NCOs who would be better off never being allowed to re-enlist, there are some who should be swayed from going a particular path with the careers - whether that be Warrant Officer or Commissioned Officer (2LT and up). YOU have to be able to counsel those individuals based on your understanding of their ability to best serve the US Army and our Nation.

I asked one of my former Warrant Officers something similar before. The answer that he gave me was that as a Warrant Officer he has the ability to be the SME/Technical Expert in a certain field. Where as a Commisioned Officer has to be generally smart on all things and know who the SMEs are within their formations on all things.
I was once told that as a Commissioned Officer we are not paid to know all of the answers, we are paid to know who has the answers and how to put all the answers together.

It really depends on what end result you want. In the normal commissioned officer route, while technical proficiency is part of it, what you are really there for is the leadership aspect. You will be expected to lead and eventually command if you want to get promoted. Warrants remain technical experts, and while they are also expected to lead, do not have the burden or "distraction" of command.

Selecting the warrant path allows you become the master your craft like the head coach of a college football team. You understand everything about your players and must have experience. Plus, nobody messes with a warrant and prior service credibility is maintained. 

What is your response? Warrants provide more technical knowledge to their subordiantes. They also don't deal with Soldier issues as much as we do as commission officers.