Why military officers are commanding fewer enlisted troops than ever before

Usually when there had been a reduction in force it included officer positions. with less enlisted people a smaller number of officers would be required. It seems that not the current trend and the result is not only getting top heavy but ends up with reduced workload for officers and often overworked enlisted people. Officers that have noting to do end up becoming a burden and can be very annoying and result in the loss of even more enlisted people with what ends up being harassment. Too many Bosses and not enough workers NEVER works well.

I agree the Military is too ‘top heavy’ with Officers of questionable leadership skills MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.. Maybe if they got rid of most of the Generals and other high-paid ‘pencil-pushers, we might become more mission ready

I completely understand that each officer is not DIRECTLY leading 4.7 troops. Higher officers lead lowers officers, adding to the total number of officers. Plus officers have officer staffs, etc.

BUT

At one officer for every 4.7 enlisted, it is equivalent to each officer having one fire team. That is downright ridiculous.

Officers are an important part of making the military work. But the enlisted are the ones who actually DO the work. When we start transferring enlisted duties to contracts you know what we can ALSO do? Transfer the LT in charge to a contract, too. One CPT can run 50 or so contracts, and downsize 50 LT positions. Boom, Officer corps shrunk!


Oh, and don't even get me started on rank inflation, which the article VERY briefly touches upon. As COL McCarthy said, “Services must be required to identify not which GO/FOs they want to give up but which ones they want to keep.”