Posted on Aug 27, 2018
What was the purpose of the higher Specialist ranks? | RallyPoint
4.54K
55
45
7
7
0
Is this a Valid Argument for the Return of Specialist Ranks?
Face it - there are Leaders and Followers.
Now that the US Army has decided to simply promote to E5 (and soon E6?) by time in-service without return to training or selecting for actual leadership ability in the intangibles of leading, things must change to keep quality Leaders.
There can be no clearer indication that a return to the old SP5, SP6, and SP7 ranks is the way to retain soldiers, while are not 'leaders', are clearly are trained "Specialists".
In doing so those same non-leader specialists ranks could advance in grade with the incremental increases in pay and focus on their craft. Their schools could be structured not for 'leadership, but increasing their levels of skillsets.
On the NCO side of the house those individuals that demonstrate the intangibles of leadership could have their focus at service schools concentrate on develop of those leader skillsets that would assist them in their roles. This would improve leadership in the NCO Corps, which I feel would be for the betterment of the US Army.
There is a counter-argument of "the Officer Corps doesn't 'do it that way" but I feel that is irrelevant since Officer's must manage and lead the enlisted assigned to them regardless of their branch.
Some leaders appear early in age, others take more time to reach that (Leadership in my definition) type of maturity. Some soldiers will never develop as leaders and that's okay. Their type of maturity develops in a different manner; having them "Lead Others" is like asking Einstein to be an Infantry Squad Leader - a waste of resource, intellect and ability.
As I said at the beginning - there are Leaders and Followers.
.
.
.
Here is another Rallypoint discussion for reference:
Face it - there are Leaders and Followers.
Now that the US Army has decided to simply promote to E5 (and soon E6?) by time in-service without return to training or selecting for actual leadership ability in the intangibles of leading, things must change to keep quality Leaders.
There can be no clearer indication that a return to the old SP5, SP6, and SP7 ranks is the way to retain soldiers, while are not 'leaders', are clearly are trained "Specialists".
In doing so those same non-leader specialists ranks could advance in grade with the incremental increases in pay and focus on their craft. Their schools could be structured not for 'leadership, but increasing their levels of skillsets.
On the NCO side of the house those individuals that demonstrate the intangibles of leadership could have their focus at service schools concentrate on develop of those leader skillsets that would assist them in their roles. This would improve leadership in the NCO Corps, which I feel would be for the betterment of the US Army.
There is a counter-argument of "the Officer Corps doesn't 'do it that way" but I feel that is irrelevant since Officer's must manage and lead the enlisted assigned to them regardless of their branch.
Some leaders appear early in age, others take more time to reach that (Leadership in my definition) type of maturity. Some soldiers will never develop as leaders and that's okay. Their type of maturity develops in a different manner; having them "Lead Others" is like asking Einstein to be an Infantry Squad Leader - a waste of resource, intellect and ability.
As I said at the beginning - there are Leaders and Followers.
.
.
.
Here is another Rallypoint discussion for reference:
What was the purpose of the higher Specialist ranks? | RallyPoint
Posted from rallypoint.comPosted in these groups: 
Specialist
Specialist
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
6
6
0
If we didn't have to deal with a fixed forced structure (limited size) it might be a valid argument. However, every "non-leader" takes up a slot that can be filled by a "leader" in the pyramid shaped organization.
An unfortunate reality is that we must deal with "attrition" not only from people getting out, but also succession planning. We are constantly grooming the next BN, BDE, Div CSM & CO from within our own ranks. We don't have the luxury of promoting from outside the organization(s).
So... we can bring back "specialists" which is going to exacerbate a bad situation, not make it better. Or... we can use Civilians (Government & Contractors) to accomplish those goals. There is no inherent Right to serve. If someone wants to continue serving, they must be useful to the force, which in the modern era means being BOTH Tactically (Leader) and Technically (Specialized) proficient.
An unfortunate reality is that we must deal with "attrition" not only from people getting out, but also succession planning. We are constantly grooming the next BN, BDE, Div CSM & CO from within our own ranks. We don't have the luxury of promoting from outside the organization(s).
So... we can bring back "specialists" which is going to exacerbate a bad situation, not make it better. Or... we can use Civilians (Government & Contractors) to accomplish those goals. There is no inherent Right to serve. If someone wants to continue serving, they must be useful to the force, which in the modern era means being BOTH Tactically (Leader) and Technically (Specialized) proficient.
(6)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
I see the point you are making. Is that primarily a view for the USMC only? I can understand why the Marines would have those complications.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Way back when, I had a great combat engineer in my platoon who, in addition, maintained the best 5 ton dump in the battalion. That’s all he wanted to do. After years as a Spec 4, we convinced him to take the promotion to SGT. After six months, he told us he couldn’t hack it and wanted back to Spec 4 (any way he could). The complete chain, including myself, worked with him during that six month period, but it wasn’t in him to tell others what to do (although he advised everyone on the ins and out of that Five dump). Naturally, he eventually fell under QMP as was forced out.
I’m in the school that believes that sometimes (as a qualified exception), it’s worth keeping a subject matter expert at their level of competence, even if it doesn’t meet the “up or out” policy of the Army.
Late addition (edit). In this day of “tightening” pool of available talent, it may benefit the Army to allocate a few slots for career spec 4-6’s.
I’m in the school that believes that sometimes (as a qualified exception), it’s worth keeping a subject matter expert at their level of competence, even if it doesn’t meet the “up or out” policy of the Army.
Late addition (edit). In this day of “tightening” pool of available talent, it may benefit the Army to allocate a few slots for career spec 4-6’s.
(5)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
A great comment - Good technic skills lost to the Army because, "We can't adapt." ???
Kinda goes against the grain, but I saw it again and again.
Kinda goes against the grain, but I saw it again and again.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Absolutely. The Army needs talent, and that talent is not always cut out for Leadership. I know we tend to over emphasize leadership, but without talented managers and parts changers, the mission would fail just as surely as it would without quality leadership.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
The Officer Corps is realizing that not all positions are leadership positions like say budget and should not penalize them for it.
(1)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
MAJ Ken Landgren - Thank you for the comment. I need to think on that. Any details available or sources?
(0)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
Especially when you think about the new skills we need like Cyber, bringing back the higher specialist ranks makes sense to me.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google