Posted on Apr 6, 2014
Would you prefer to work with somebody more physically fit, or with more job proficiency?
28.9K
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 think the obvious answer is job proficiency.
As long as the individual meets the physical fitness requirements of the service, it should be sufficient. Of course, the expectation should always be to achieve more than simply "meeting the standard", regardless of the job/task, and that includes physical fitness.
When the rubber meets the road, I would rather have a less physically fit person who can do the job than a super physically fit person who can't do the job. As I have often stated, "this is the US Army, not a beauty contest or a weight lifting contest".
As long as the individual meets the physical fitness requirements of the service, it should be sufficient. Of course, the expectation should always be to achieve more than simply "meeting the standard", regardless of the job/task, and that includes physical fitness.
When the rubber meets the road, I would rather have a less physically fit person who can do the job than a super physically fit person who can't do the job. As I have often stated, "this is the US Army, not a beauty contest or a weight lifting contest".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I can teach someone how to do their job very easily, however I can't force an individual to stay in shape. Well I can, but if they want to eat all the ho ho's and ding dongs I'll just be wasting my time running them to death, because they'll stay fat. At the end of the day I still reserve the right to kick them out if they can't get it toghether.
(1)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
"At the end of the day I still reserve the right to kick them out if they can't get it toghether."
Well said... either way you have to have both.
Well said... either way you have to have both.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I am biased. I am very good at my job. I am not a PT stud. However, I understand my weaknesses and I spend my lunch everyday in the gym. I think that MOS proficiency is more important than physical fitness but to be a good soldier/leader, you need to spend time working on that deficiency.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Job proficiency without a shadow of a doubt. Someone who KNOWS what to do is a better asset than someone who is all "muscle".
Think of it this way. It is much easier to conduct physical fitness training for a job proficient individual but it is more difficult, as well as time consuming, to train a PT "stud" with the knowledge on how to do a job. Much more details go into the job than into physical fitness. Yes, I know physical fitness does have extensive details in it but you can only do so much physical fitness in a day while a person can do their job for many hours throughout the day.
Think of it this way. It is much easier to conduct physical fitness training for a job proficient individual but it is more difficult, as well as time consuming, to train a PT "stud" with the knowledge on how to do a job. Much more details go into the job than into physical fitness. Yes, I know physical fitness does have extensive details in it but you can only do so much physical fitness in a day while a person can do their job for many hours throughout the day.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
So as of the time of my response, 90% of respondents privilege job expertise over physical fitness in the context of the question, so what intrigues me is, why then are our leaders still privileging physical fitness over job expertise when it comes to recommending soldiers for promotion or schools?
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Because a PT score is an easily quantifiable measure. How does one compare the work of an infantry soldier to the work of a civil engineer? How does one compare an Apache pilot to a comm officer? Much less quantifiable, especially to someone unfamiliar with the jobs involved.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't generally worry about how fast my dentist can run, or how many pushups my S-1 clerk can do...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is where the entire promotion system is flawed, especially when it comes to SPCs/CPLs going for their SGT. I'm seeing far too many dirt bag soldiers who happen to be really strong at PT get promoted. I'm sorry, but scoring a 300 on the APFT doesn't qualify one to be a good NCO, or show any type of leadership potential. The Air Force promotion system makes much more sense and the Army needs to incorporate some type of MOS proficiency exam into the promotion system. Simple enough, if you don't know the ins and outs of your job, you shouldn't be in a leadership position.
(1)
(0)
SGT William B.
Agreed, but on the other hand, I've seen a lot of guys that were great at the MOS, great at PT, but were just outright arrogant jerks. I think the key here is to really allow leadership structures to vet and say "yes, this one is ready" or "no, this guy needs to ripen on the vine a bit more". We've gotten some of that with the new GO and NO-GO blocks for the commander's recommendation on the PPW.
The part I can't explain is how commanders and senior NCOs can sign off on soldiers that clearly aren't ready when they have the tools to say "no, not yet" and then explain to the soldier why not through counseling. At least, that's where I'm confused.
The part I can't explain is how commanders and senior NCOs can sign off on soldiers that clearly aren't ready when they have the tools to say "no, not yet" and then explain to the soldier why not through counseling. At least, that's where I'm confused.
(0)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
Reason is simple, NCOs are either being separated or ETSing, units need NCOs like fish need water.
Some units will do whatever it takes to make mission and numbers, to include sending anyone who can breath to a promotion board.
Some units will do whatever it takes to make mission and numbers, to include sending anyone who can breath to a promotion board.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Not to discount physical fitness, but if it came down to it [drum roll please] send in the Marines ;-)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
A meathead is no good unless they know what they're doing. If they're just a packmule... they can get packing.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well, we also have to look at the history involved. I believe both are vastly important (especially in our specific MOS) however, like in my case, I was injured pretty badly in Iraq. I don't know if you remember all the BS I had to deal with for the Army to finally admit there was something physically wrong with me, which turned out to be severe nerve damage in my lower extremities. Two foot surgeries, two spinal surgeries and 12 years later... I'm still here. Honestly? Should have been medically retired LOOONG ago. But no one wanted to let me go. Sill didn't want me to leave for recruiting. Recruiting didn't want me to leave for JBLM. And now JBLM is trying to retain me instead of retire me. I'm personable, and I lead Soldiers well. Can I run? No. Push ups? No. Sit ups? No. But I can, and do lead. I'm proud of my service, and no one can take that from me.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Sanders, no one wants to let you go because you have a fine history of doing all the work your FSO's prove incapable of (insert smiley face here).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Job proficiency without a doubt. Although PT is important, I feel knowing your job is way more important. If you can run a blazing 2 mile, but can't do your job, then what good are you? Getting in good physical shape is something that can be easier achieved than being proficient at a job. I value intelligence over fitness, but being physically fit is a must to wear this uniform and make the uniform and our country look good.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google