8
8
0
My First Sergeant once told me that being recommended for promotion to the next level at the promotion board means that those top NCOs or officers on the board 'sees' some leadership potential in the individual they are recommending for promotion.
With that in mind is it necessary to 'force' soldiers to the promotion board or any other such boards? Is it not something that the individual should be hungry to go in for? Lastly how does 'forcing' soldiers who might necessarily not be willing, to the board impact the 'kinds' of leaders we have today in the NCO Corps?
So the question is; as far as leadership and ambitions go, SHOULD SOLDIERS BE FORCED TO GO TO THE BOARD?
What are your thoughts?
With that in mind is it necessary to 'force' soldiers to the promotion board or any other such boards? Is it not something that the individual should be hungry to go in for? Lastly how does 'forcing' soldiers who might necessarily not be willing, to the board impact the 'kinds' of leaders we have today in the NCO Corps?
So the question is; as far as leadership and ambitions go, SHOULD SOLDIERS BE FORCED TO GO TO THE BOARD?
What are your thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
NCOs
Promotions
NCOs Promotions
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 35
22
22
0
We are in the business of growing leaders to run our Army.
If a supervisor recommends a Soldier and they do not "want" to go - easy, Bar them for "failure to progress".
Once they understand what the Army is about and they are recommended and want to attend - they have overcome the Bar - it will be lifted.
If a supervisor recommends a Soldier and they do not "want" to go - easy, Bar them for "failure to progress".
Once they understand what the Army is about and they are recommended and want to attend - they have overcome the Bar - it will be lifted.
(22)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC Edwards, I share the same advice as the SMA and other Senior NCO's do on this point. From what I have read and I would have to research this again to find the exact article but when the Army made changes to the TA in 2013, the SMA received an email or a letter from a PFC with 3 years TIS with no profile or Medical condition, complaining how that the Army has hindered their plan to finish their Bachelor’s Degree and the SM only had 2 or 3 classes left and wondered where the "Care for Soldiers" was at? Simply paraphrasing the SMA's response was something to the effect that this is what the benefits of the current Army has produced. Soldiers and Leaders focusing on themselves rather than mission requirements. The fact that a 3 year PFC (with no Medical condition) was receiving TA is wrong in the first place because SPC is automatic at 24 months TIS. If a Soldier (no matter what rank) is more worried about college than they are promotion to the next level, then that Soldier should be Re-evaluated by their leadership for promotion potential. College does not determine leadership potential but the desire to obtain that next level does and for promotion from SPC to SGT and SGT to SSG does not require a degree last time I checked. It does aid in the advancement and shows the desire to move forward but if my leadership says they think I am ready and I say I am not because of college would be like you(hypothetically speaking) telling your PV2 that you are recommending them for promotion to PFC and they tell you they are not ready for it nor do they want it because they cannot recite the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer's Creed and the Officer's Creed. It is irrelevant to their promotion and it shows that the Soldier is able to set the guidelines for their promotion rather than their leader and that fosters confusion. If a SPC/CPL or SGT is chasing points to get to the next level then all well and good but to prioritize a degree over leadership determination of "Soldier Care" and mission requirements is absurd.
(2)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
1LT (Join to see) -
1) You are correct, accomplishing things within the Self-Development Domain is an important aspect of developing an Army Leader. Your comment seems to narrowly define this domain as college/civilian education only. That is not the case, it is only one facet and a very small facet at that. Personally, I would rather a Soldier take self-development courses that increase their job proficiency or would prepare them for the next level. College doesn't necessarily do that, unless you are specifically talking about courses that increase a leaders ability to communicate (public speaking, english composition, etc).
2) College is not a "near requirement" for SFC+. If you look at the percentage of folks not selected, versus selected, it's about the same percentage that have college.
3) As of about 4 years ago, all NCOES includes critical thinking POI that builds upon each level. We're way beyond teaching the answers and are developing NCOs who can problem solve and critically think.
Honestly, it's hard for me to understand why folks think college education for the Enlisted ranks is so important. I'm pretty sure the percentage of enlisted with college degrees during WWI and WWII was pretty low and those Soldiers accomplished phenomenal things by being taught performance-oriented training by their NCOs.
1) You are correct, accomplishing things within the Self-Development Domain is an important aspect of developing an Army Leader. Your comment seems to narrowly define this domain as college/civilian education only. That is not the case, it is only one facet and a very small facet at that. Personally, I would rather a Soldier take self-development courses that increase their job proficiency or would prepare them for the next level. College doesn't necessarily do that, unless you are specifically talking about courses that increase a leaders ability to communicate (public speaking, english composition, etc).
2) College is not a "near requirement" for SFC+. If you look at the percentage of folks not selected, versus selected, it's about the same percentage that have college.
3) As of about 4 years ago, all NCOES includes critical thinking POI that builds upon each level. We're way beyond teaching the answers and are developing NCOs who can problem solve and critically think.
Honestly, it's hard for me to understand why folks think college education for the Enlisted ranks is so important. I'm pretty sure the percentage of enlisted with college degrees during WWI and WWII was pretty low and those Soldiers accomplished phenomenal things by being taught performance-oriented training by their NCOs.
(1)
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
CSM Mike Maynard CSM - the Army's changed 180 degrees from when you and I first enlisted. The Army's basically an "up-or-out" organization. No more homesteading.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Thanks for your response CSM Mike Maynard!
It's nice to see a little perspective from your level. Indeed, college education is a facet of the leader development model. My only contestation is that it is an important facet, whereas you qualify it as a “very small facet”. I'm not sure why a professional military would appraise education (college...not NCOES) at such a low level. I know I felt it when I was enlisted. Heck, I enlisted already possessing two baccalaureate degrees. The first question thrown at me: “Why aren't you an officer?” Well, I had my reasons, but I wanted to say, “why can't I be enlisted?” Where does the contempt for higher education come from in our enlisted ranks? I felt it regularly.
To address your counterpoint #1, I hope that self-development courses you mention aren't the SSD types. I felt they had a lot of good information. But practically speaking, my SSD1 experience was worthless. I honestly can't remember a single thing from it, except something about Sigma Six. If you watch soldiers completing those "correspondence courses" for points, you likely will see a lot of mindless clicking and googling of answers on the test.
I agree that “college” is only a part of self-development. You address, in part, a reason for my advocation of it: communication. In greater echelons of responsibility, speaking (briefing, interpersonal tact) and composition (orders, policy, communication correspondence—with some additional professional applications depending upon the CMF) are ever important.
You hit on an important issue in modern soldiering: self-study. It's probably the most important thing any soldier can possess. This is why I feel college is so beneficial. In addition to critical thinking applications, I learned the research process and had to apply it endlessly to proficiency. Self-study with research skills led to my greatest successes as a soldier.
To #2, Point taken. Maybe it is CMF related. A CSM I once worked for said college was a “near requirement”.
To #3, I'm encouraged that, from your point of view, NCOES has POI to build critical thinking skills. I will tell you that from my experience, there was minimal critical thinking at my WLC. I found it was a place for SGLs to become drill sergeants (sometimes, again) and for us students to learn TLPs (which, consequently, I already knew...from self-study). The only critical thinking that took place was to determine how to motivate people to clean the AO after mud found its way inside.
To #4, We're agreed. But WWI and II were very different and our military service had a very different composition. I think your point remains true even through our adoption of the all-volunteer concept.
Some of the worst soldiers I ever had the “pleasure” of working with had baccalaureate degrees. And some of the best soldiers — only high school. But we're talking about leader development and not junior soldier attributes.
P.S. When I talk about university, I'm not talking about AMU/APUS.... I'm talking about a regionally accredited, non-profit, 'brick-and-mortar' university that offers online programs.
It's nice to see a little perspective from your level. Indeed, college education is a facet of the leader development model. My only contestation is that it is an important facet, whereas you qualify it as a “very small facet”. I'm not sure why a professional military would appraise education (college...not NCOES) at such a low level. I know I felt it when I was enlisted. Heck, I enlisted already possessing two baccalaureate degrees. The first question thrown at me: “Why aren't you an officer?” Well, I had my reasons, but I wanted to say, “why can't I be enlisted?” Where does the contempt for higher education come from in our enlisted ranks? I felt it regularly.
To address your counterpoint #1, I hope that self-development courses you mention aren't the SSD types. I felt they had a lot of good information. But practically speaking, my SSD1 experience was worthless. I honestly can't remember a single thing from it, except something about Sigma Six. If you watch soldiers completing those "correspondence courses" for points, you likely will see a lot of mindless clicking and googling of answers on the test.
I agree that “college” is only a part of self-development. You address, in part, a reason for my advocation of it: communication. In greater echelons of responsibility, speaking (briefing, interpersonal tact) and composition (orders, policy, communication correspondence—with some additional professional applications depending upon the CMF) are ever important.
You hit on an important issue in modern soldiering: self-study. It's probably the most important thing any soldier can possess. This is why I feel college is so beneficial. In addition to critical thinking applications, I learned the research process and had to apply it endlessly to proficiency. Self-study with research skills led to my greatest successes as a soldier.
To #2, Point taken. Maybe it is CMF related. A CSM I once worked for said college was a “near requirement”.
To #3, I'm encouraged that, from your point of view, NCOES has POI to build critical thinking skills. I will tell you that from my experience, there was minimal critical thinking at my WLC. I found it was a place for SGLs to become drill sergeants (sometimes, again) and for us students to learn TLPs (which, consequently, I already knew...from self-study). The only critical thinking that took place was to determine how to motivate people to clean the AO after mud found its way inside.
To #4, We're agreed. But WWI and II were very different and our military service had a very different composition. I think your point remains true even through our adoption of the all-volunteer concept.
Some of the worst soldiers I ever had the “pleasure” of working with had baccalaureate degrees. And some of the best soldiers — only high school. But we're talking about leader development and not junior soldier attributes.
P.S. When I talk about university, I'm not talking about AMU/APUS.... I'm talking about a regionally accredited, non-profit, 'brick-and-mortar' university that offers online programs.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
CSM,
Call me crazy (and I know that some times you do...) but I think we do a disservice forcing people to the board who aren't ready or permanently penalizing someone who declines for what may well be very personal, but valid reasons. If a Soldier wants to stay a specialist for 10 years and they maintain proficiency, work hard, and get the job done, what's the harm in that. I'd rather have 20 of those guys/gals than even 1 hard charging type whose self serving initiative fits the Army's promotion timeline better.
As you know, I have 5 kids. Each one of them learned to walk, talk, run, and throw at their own pace. God help me, but SJ might literally be doing flips from the floor before her 5th b-day!! But I digress... point is, as with any skill- whether it be physical, mental, or leadership (or fill in the blank) we are all different and we all develop at different speeds and based upon different experiences. The environment that a Soldier grows up in will have a tremendous impact on how they develop, their resiliency, their desire to succeed, and their threshold for failure or success.
What is so magical about an arbitrary timeline that changes with the winds (or at very least depending on the personality of the SMA)? I think we can all agree that we just flat out promoted people (officers and enlisted) too quickly from 2006 to 2012.
I say send a trooper to the board when they are ready and have a desire to do it. If they aren't ready or willing, get them ready or make sure they understand that their peers will be passing them by and giving them orders before too long. Worse leaders I ever had were the ones that got promoted because it was simply "their time."
Tip of the hat to you brother... great question and discussion!!
Call me crazy (and I know that some times you do...) but I think we do a disservice forcing people to the board who aren't ready or permanently penalizing someone who declines for what may well be very personal, but valid reasons. If a Soldier wants to stay a specialist for 10 years and they maintain proficiency, work hard, and get the job done, what's the harm in that. I'd rather have 20 of those guys/gals than even 1 hard charging type whose self serving initiative fits the Army's promotion timeline better.
As you know, I have 5 kids. Each one of them learned to walk, talk, run, and throw at their own pace. God help me, but SJ might literally be doing flips from the floor before her 5th b-day!! But I digress... point is, as with any skill- whether it be physical, mental, or leadership (or fill in the blank) we are all different and we all develop at different speeds and based upon different experiences. The environment that a Soldier grows up in will have a tremendous impact on how they develop, their resiliency, their desire to succeed, and their threshold for failure or success.
What is so magical about an arbitrary timeline that changes with the winds (or at very least depending on the personality of the SMA)? I think we can all agree that we just flat out promoted people (officers and enlisted) too quickly from 2006 to 2012.
I say send a trooper to the board when they are ready and have a desire to do it. If they aren't ready or willing, get them ready or make sure they understand that their peers will be passing them by and giving them orders before too long. Worse leaders I ever had were the ones that got promoted because it was simply "their time."
Tip of the hat to you brother... great question and discussion!!
(7)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Sir - I understand what you're saying and it's definitely very valid.
But, if a Soldier is recommended by their whole chain of command to attend the promotion board, they are probably ready.
If they don't feel they are ready (they can voice that at the board) or they truly aren't ready, then they won't be recommended anyway.
An appearance and not recommended is the same as someone not going. No harm, no foul.
My comments and philosophies are actually meant to thwart the "Command List Integration". Once a Soldier makes it past their Primary Zone, they will automatically be integrated into the Promotion Standing List without attending a board. Talk about least desirable way to create NCOs - promoting someone who was not recommended and was never boarded.
So, it's imperative, that we communicate the Army's intention to grow leaders and also communicate the expectation that they prepare and be ready to assume more responsibility and demonstrate that at a promotion board.
But, if a Soldier is recommended by their whole chain of command to attend the promotion board, they are probably ready.
If they don't feel they are ready (they can voice that at the board) or they truly aren't ready, then they won't be recommended anyway.
An appearance and not recommended is the same as someone not going. No harm, no foul.
My comments and philosophies are actually meant to thwart the "Command List Integration". Once a Soldier makes it past their Primary Zone, they will automatically be integrated into the Promotion Standing List without attending a board. Talk about least desirable way to create NCOs - promoting someone who was not recommended and was never boarded.
So, it's imperative, that we communicate the Army's intention to grow leaders and also communicate the expectation that they prepare and be ready to assume more responsibility and demonstrate that at a promotion board.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
The Army is a progressive system. It requires us to build leaders not to maintain followers. Some Soldiers are great Specialist but we are meant to take on the next higher roles in the absence of orders. Its not a means to force Soldier to become leaders rather to prepare them for the worst. The Army established Retention Control Points both for Officers and Enlisted because they have recognized this need to build resilient and capable leaders.
Many don't care if their peers pass them up. Hopeing on this to work is not a good motivator. No promotion system is perfect but I think we hurt other Soldiers by allowing leaders to stay stagnant instead of shooting to learn and grow. While we will always have bad leaders its best to train and develop good ones even if not all of them turn out good.
Many don't care if their peers pass them up. Hopeing on this to work is not a good motivator. No promotion system is perfect but I think we hurt other Soldiers by allowing leaders to stay stagnant instead of shooting to learn and grow. While we will always have bad leaders its best to train and develop good ones even if not all of them turn out good.
(1)
(0)
SPC Michael Sanders
I agree when I was in I kept being told I was going to the board I studied everyday and knew my job and my task not to mention the board questions but when it came time for the board there was always an excuse from my leadership so after 2 years of being told I was going and not getting to and getting numerous awards for my work and being in a leadership position it came time for me to ETS I started clearing and 9 days before I was to get out I was told I had to be in my dress blues for the board I explained that I was clearing and was getting out but that didn’t stop them when the day came for the board I got my turn when I walked in My CSM asked me if I was still getting out when I said that I would be on terminal leave in 9 days he asked my 1sg why I was there and she said to try and get me to stay I then told them I was promised For the last 2 yrs and the CSM asked her and when she Confirmed he then excuse me from the board and had a meeting with her this is where it becomes a problem with soldiers getting forced to the board and soldiers getting promised to go to the board
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
While I can't say I volunteered to go to the Promotion board, I would not say I was forced necessarily. I was told simply that I would need to start studying for the board, because I would be going as soon as possible. Unfortunately at this time, due to leave that is coming up, I will not be able to go to the very first one that I am eligible to go to. However, I anticipate using some of the down time to study so that I will be more than ready. I honestly am proud of the simple fact that my leadership sees something in me that make them believe I will be a good NCO. That fact alone has already filled me with confidence and pride, that I am doing the right thing, and that my leadership wants to see me succeed.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google