Posted on Apr 6, 2014
Would you prefer to work with somebody more physically fit, or with more job proficiency?
28.7K
481
150
15
15
0
If you were allowed to select individuals that work for you, which quality would lend more weight to your decision. <div><br></div><div>Would you rather have a Service member that knows all the ins and outs of their specialty but is mediocre at physical fitness or a Service Member that excels in physical fitness but is mediocre at their job.</div>
Fitness
Proficiency
Competence
Edited 12 y ago
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 108
1
1
0
If I had to select between job proficiency or physically fit, I would choose job proficiency every day and twice on Sundays. Job proficiency is critical to mission success on many levels. While being physically fit does play a role in mission success and overall Soldier readiness, I rank job proficiency higher on a list of critical skills.
Besides, it is easier from a time and personnel management perspective to PT an individual to increase their level of fitness than it is to teach job proficiency (in my opinion).
Besides, it is easier from a time and personnel management perspective to PT an individual to increase their level of fitness than it is to teach job proficiency (in my opinion).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Although I chose MOS/Job proficiency I think a lot can be said about a person in regards to how a person takes care of their body and the importance that they place on the standards.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Like others have already stated, it's easier to improve on PT. I'll take the Soldier that is an expert in AG functions. I can work on their PT during lunch hours and/or after work. It's harder to keep your focus to learn material when your hungry for lunch or longing to leave at the end of the day to attend your kid's school function. Don't get me wrong, I missed many meals and sports activities for the sake of the mission and for my Soldiers.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think that being physically fit in your role lends to being a more competent leader. Apart from leading by example it shows superiority and adaptability. When I was in service me and an NUC used to spend a few days in the french alps running twice a year. We would run and train ourselves to the ground and come back to recuperate at our chalet (worth a mention http://cruchaletschamonix.com because they would put out ice baths for us and protein shake's which was awesome). In '11 we were both promoted despite only spending 3 years in active service. If it wasn't for the training I think I would of gotten lazy and dispondent, so for me PT over (overall) competency definitely.
Luxury Ski Chalets In Chamonix | Cru Chalets Chamonix
Our luxurious self-catered Chamonix chalets sleep up to 12 people with prices starting from 1,375 per week. Cru Chalets Chamonix are rated 5 stars on TripAdvisor.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Being physically fit is great, and to certain degrees all soldiers are physically fit. But as for me I would rather work with someone who is proficient in their duties. I was fortunate to work with soldiers and NCO's who were more proficient and willing to share their knowledge with me which in my opinion made me a better soldier despite the fact that I could not score over 225 on my pt tests. Being both is great, but in my opinion isn't really necessary.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'll take MOS proficiency any day of the week. As long as they can meet the Army standard on the APFT(preferably exceed the Army standard) I am happy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Why not both? Why do some feel that it's one or the other? Can a Soldier not exceed in both areas? If I had three Soldiers to pick from, one was great at PT, one was great at their MOS and one was good at both; like Little Red Riding Hood I would take the one that is just right.
(1)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
I think you meant Goldilocks lol, but IF you can't have someone who is both, I would much rather have one that knows their particular MOS.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
Being an MI officer, I would prefer someone who has better job proficiency. I don't really care how fast a Soldier can run so long as they can do their analysis and aid in Force Protection and Kill/Capture missions downrange. Job performance is definitely more important.
That being said, we are all in the military and we all have a responsibility to maintain our physical fitness. That's a big part of your job so I can't discount it. In the end, if a Soldier is kicked out due to weight or something like that, I would be more than happy to have them come back as a contractor or DAC.
That being said, we are all in the military and we all have a responsibility to maintain our physical fitness. That's a big part of your job so I can't discount it. In the end, if a Soldier is kicked out due to weight or something like that, I would be more than happy to have them come back as a contractor or DAC.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I would put more weight on proficiency. As a 94F, we deal with electronic components throughout our career, which deals with a lot of math and a lot of dexterity (have you tried fixing a JBPDS/BIDS?). The DoD puts way too much emphasis on PT and not enough on proficiency. How many contract workers could we reduce if our Service Members were more proficient in their duties AND the DoD would allow them to do so? A person can be physically fit; however, what jobs other than a personal can you get with that? Being physically fit does not make you a better Service Member than any of the others. Being good at your job doesn't make you a better Service Member, it just means that I can trust you to do your job. I think about both in and out of the service when it comes to this.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I would prefer a solider that puts 100% into everything that they do, whether it's work or physically fit, but to answer your question job proficiency
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google