Posted on Apr 6, 2014
Would you prefer to work with somebody more physically fit, or with more job proficiency?
28.8K
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
I believe a good soldier would know that he needs to be able to do both. It is difficult to get a lazy soldier moving, but we see all the time soldiers that haven't learned all they need. It is much easier to catch them up on that IMO.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
it's way easier to teach tactical knowledge and improve PT score then it is technical side of the house. I guess it would change though depending on the MOS
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Perfect example: basic training. Tactical knowledge and pt. It lasts 9 weeks. Many highly technical mos are several months. It stands to reason that technical proficiency is much harder to achieve. Good post
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC (Join to see)
I picked only those because that seems to be a hot button issue these days. Â "Rather have a pt stud over anyone" or "I'd take a pt dud that knows their job over a pt stud any day". Â Â
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
being physically fit does not always correlate into a squared away soldier - something I think leaders fail to recognize quite frequently. I am not saying someone who is marginally passing the APFT, but someone who regularly has a score of 260 or higher. I will take a troop that is proficient in their skills, is knowledgable in their field, and runs an 8 minute mile over someone who scores 320, but cannot figure out which way a bullet is loaded.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SFC (Join to see)
I think the answer would depend upon where one fell on the spectrum? If a person has a 290 on their PT test and rocks their job but the person can max their PT test but is not able to perform their job...no questions but if we are talking about someone who cannot even pass the PT test or someone who cannot meet the minimum qualifications of job...well both of them have to go.
I think the answer would depend upon where one fell on the spectrum? If a person has a 290 on their PT test and rocks their job but the person can max their PT test but is not able to perform their job...no questions but if we are talking about someone who cannot even pass the PT test or someone who cannot meet the minimum qualifications of job...well both of them have to go.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Certainly depends on the job, but knowing how to do your job is far more important that your ability to run.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I picked MOS/Job Proficiency because that is much harder to teach and grasp depending on the MOS. PT is PT, if you suck, do more of it...
But PT studs don't always make the best leaders or teachers or subordinates.
But PT studs don't always make the best leaders or teachers or subordinates.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't subscribe to the tyranny of "or". A soldier, sailor, airman or Marine should be both phsically fit AND proficient at their MOS. Anyting less is accepting standards that could cost people their lives.
If some MOS's have become so "non military" such as medical/surgical that there is a move to not make the accountable for thier fitness then it might be time to turn those into GS roles and move on. I don't think that is the right solution nor do I think accepting substandard performance is the right solution.
If some MOS's have become so "non military" such as medical/surgical that there is a move to not make the accountable for thier fitness then it might be time to turn those into GS roles and move on. I don't think that is the right solution nor do I think accepting substandard performance is the right solution.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google