Should all officers rise from the ranks?

2014-10-12T18:12:49-04:00

Some soldiers suggest that all officers should first serve two years in the enlisted ranks (Academies already have a form of lower ranking service). What do you think? Why?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 7:28 PM

2014-10-12T19:28:30-04:00

SGM Private RallyPoint Member, I like the idea, but I'm not sure it's practical. Would we be able to fill the officer billets required with this program? I guess we would have to be smart about the transition to such a change to ensure we have enough officers to fill required billets.

I do believe officers would benefit from serving two years (or some period of time) in the enlisted ranks.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 7:31 PM

2014-10-12T19:31:33-04:00

No..Our officers should be a mix. There are some (not all) great officers from the service academies. IF they are integrated into the services under the tutored ledge of fine NCOs then they should be a well balanced tactical and intelligible force...

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 8:59 PM

2014-10-12T20:59:06-04:00

Here is another take on this subject. To the comments that I needed to be an Airman to tell airman what to do first. Well, does that work in the corporate world? I think if we were to parallel organizational structures in the corporate world that there is a similar pattern. Take a guy who is a electronics manufacturing technician for X company. He's been working there for 20 years. He is excellent at his job and is the SME for putting widgets together.

Then there is a kid 22 years old and just graduated MIT with a BSEE. He gets hired and goes through some OJT on the company's processes. However he does not know the fine details of how to put the widget together. That's not his job. His job is work with a team and know picture processes and make sure they are being designed to a spec. That kid is the team leader with several very technicians under him. His job is to design a new widget and put it together. To do it he uses the expertise of the technician to put the CAD drawing on paper to an actual product. His job not to know the fine details but overall process to put it together. He is the one that is ultimately responsible for making sure the product meets customer specs.

That is parallel to officer leadership. I do not require to know the intricate details of the trained technical experts. But I do need to know the big picture in how it all gets put together to accomplish the mission. I am responsible for the success or failure of said mission.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 9:21 PM

2014-10-12T21:21:35-04:00

I'm glad I did, but I think our military history shows you don't need it. I work with many fine officers that were and were not enlisted, just like great officers come from all commissioning sources.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Oct 13 at 2014 11:41 AM

2014-10-13T11:41:58-04:00

I think the quality of leaders is the real issue and sadly there is no one way to mold everyone into a quality leader. humans have been trying for thousands of years to mold the chosen few into leaders in the form of kings, generals and so on with training starting as young as birth, it works for some people, not for others. i believe we need to put more effort into weeding out those who don't make the cut after 2 or 3 years of service in the officer and enlisted sides and worry less about where they got their degree, what their commissioning source was, or any other background info. it is about service and leadership.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 13 at 2014 12:07 PM

2014-10-13T12:07:32-04:00

I'm on the fence on this. I'd like to call attention to the comments of CWO4 Maria Pettus and add that if we did require an (pre) officer to serve....say 2 years enlisted, sure, they have gained some insight (read: compassion) into the not-so-easy life of a private but typically, in two years, someone would achieve what? LcPl/PFC? they might have learned about what to look for in a leader, but won't have learned much about how to actually BE a leader...and in fact may have forgotten some of what he was actually taught.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 3:41 PM

2014-10-13T15:41:19-04:00

I see positives and negatives on both sides of the issue SGM. I thought long and hard about enlisting first, primarily because I was interested in a particular MOS. I went through MEPS to see what my options were, chose not to enlist, and went instead to Basic/OCS, and I don't feel like I missed out on something that translated to me not being able to do my job effectively. Certainly there is value in officers "seeing how things work" on the enlisted side first; however, if all officers are pulled from the enlisted ranks that could become a major drain on the NCO corps (and potential future NCOs). There are only so many MTOE slots, so there would be less Soldiers to funnel into SGT slots. Add that to the NCO to OCS/WOCS transitions that you already have, and I think the NCO corps would suffer as a result.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 4:22 PM

2014-10-13T16:22:26-04:00

Nope I think things are just fine the way they are. We have a good mix.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 7:47 PM

2014-10-13T19:47:27-04:00

Bottom line up front: NO, Officers should not be required to have prior enlisted time before being commissioned. Soldiers and Noncommissioned officers concentrate on individual skill sets and levels; Officers are trained on collective skill sets and battle tasks. Young LT platoon leaders (when grabbed around the neck by "good" platoon sergeants, are taught the individual tasks that he/she needs to learn. In the big picture, it comes to Proper Mentoring both by NCOs and Sr. Officers in the chain of command.
I've read where some have said, they have seen both good and bad from both sides (prior enlisted and not)...that's reality. All NCOs go thru the same centralized development process and are super outstanding NCOs and at the same time, we've had some whom should have been washed out a long time before yet somehow progressed thru the promotion system to make it to SGM/CSM.

No system is perfect, however, its fortunate that the system does allow for outstanding enlisted to make the transition to the Officer Corps as well as to become Warrant Officers. Some continue to be outstanding and some as we all know, are not suited for it at all.

The Backbone of the Army (NCO Corps) has developed to the point where NCOs can no longer focus on developing and training Soldiers on individual Soldiers skills and tasks. Sr. NCOS have for generations filled the void where commanders have depended on them to develop and train LT/platoon leaders on their roles and duties in the collective tactical training environment and in fact filled both PSG and PL positions when there was no PL assigned. Weak PSGs often resulted in weak PLs.

Of course there will always be the individualists who have a mindset of their own and set their own destiny both positive and negative, regardless of how they are prepared and developed in their early days as PLs. The same is true of the NCO Corps as well!

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 13 at 2014 8:10 PM

2014-10-13T20:10:50-04:00

I can see both arguments, as most of you have also.

I personally do not think that there should be a requirement to serve enlisted in order to commission. I do think that there is a value to having "done the work" when it comes to understanding the "work", but...Officers are in place to lead, not to do the "work". I do think that the military has a responsibility to and should strive to recruit the highest quality young, educated, enlisted personnel to commission (in addition to the normal Officer recruiting that is already transpiring.

Good Commanders are going to recognize talent and attempt to push those talented folks into those roles. Yes, they may lose some solid young NCOs, but..they may gain some outstanding young Officers.

That being said, I think that the best Officers are students of people. Those who garner an understanding of what makes people tick make the best leaders (this also holds for enlisted leaders). Anyone can bark out orders. Getting troops to follow a leader and embrace the mission requires Leadership. We have all seen and worked for folks that could not find their way out of a paper sack, and that is miserable. More and more, that fat is being cut. It is much tougher these days to make a career out of the AD Officer route, than it was years ago.

And, when you do become a Commander, you really have to CARE about your troops. But this a topic that has already been covered in previous links.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 8:33 PM

2014-10-13T20:33:31-04:00

It sounds like reading this board what really going on is the need for mutual respect. And I think there is also a maturity aspect to it as well. Yeah there are pretentious obnoxious jerks in walks of life. I have been on business end of it. As a contractor for the Air Force doing a RPA SME job I am in a place where the GS civilians throw the fact that they are actually government and we are not, in our faces all of the time even though most of us are either reservists or retired military in both the E and O world. Than I work sometimes for NCO's as a ctr. They treat us better than the GS civilians some even recognize we are former/current officers in some respect and still call us sir even though they don't have to. As a contractor our rank might as well be E-0. I am fine with that I chose a job that my customer is the government and I work for them to provide them a product.

Then I I go on orders I am a Major and I have a Senior who works for me. We do our job, there are no egos. We both recognize we have a bigger picture mission granted it is just oversight but it still there.

It all about mutual respect and if it is not there than that is breakdown of the leadership on both sides. All it does at the end of day is create animosity. Is that what you want in an organization when shit hits the fan? It sounds like these are things that the Army needs to incorporate in their training more.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 13 at 2014 9:09 PM

2014-10-13T21:09:14-04:00

The concept, deep rooted in tradition, has merit - learn the organization from the bottom up. I don't think that it would be as effective in today's service given the several routes to commissioning available. Like the academies, ROTC uses a rank system to give the semblance of being enlisted during freshman and sophomore years.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Oct 13 at 2014 9:36 PM

2014-10-13T21:36:29-04:00

I agree with that, for the most part. With a few exceptions, most of the best officers I've ever worked for were prior enlisted.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 10:44 PM

2014-10-13T22:44:12-04:00

BLUF: No, officers should not be required to enlist prior to being commissioned.

That said, I am one of those who enlisted first and am extremely glad that I did. In fact, I already had my bachelor's degree when I enlisted but knew that I wanted to gain valuable experience being an enlisted soldier. The training and lessons I recieved were priceless.

That experience has thus far paid huge dividends during the course of my career. I would encourage anyone to follow this same path but it is certainly not for everyone.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 11:03 PM

2014-10-13T23:03:18-04:00

Officer are given different conditions for a reason and have their own route to follow...going through 2 years of junior enlisted will force them into a different mind set...it's better to mold them as officers instead of taking a junior and trying to remold again.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 14 at 2014 2:40 PM

2014-10-14T14:40:07-04:00

SGM Private RallyPoint Member, the answer, IMHO, really depends on what are you trying to fix. I don't think our commissioning system is broken per se, and being prior service does not necessarily make you a better officer. I will agree that the results of the commissioning pipeline may vary, but that is highly dependent up on a lot of factors which include the training a cadet/candidate receives in his commissioning source and the adaptitude of the cadet/candidate themselves. If I would do anything to the pipeline, I would make it so that all officer candidates are receiving the same level and types of training. We've done this partially by sending both ROTC and USMA cadets to LDAC, which give alls cadets equal footing for assessment.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2014 8:11 AM

2014-10-15T08:11:30-04:00

During Desert Storm a policy was issued that we would not "battlefield commission" any soldiers. I don't think that was wise.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2014 3:09 AM

2014-10-16T03:09:07-04:00

I don't think that serving as enlisted will always make an Officer a better leader, in some cases it may hinder them, as they not be able to 'switch' their mentality to the way that you have to think as an Officer. We have had some great Officers who were not enlisted prior to commissioning, and we have had some really bad Officers who were enlisted. I think that at the end of the day it depends on the person, and how they are able to handle the responsibility that is associated with the position that they are in.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Apr 15 at 2015 2:35 PM

2015-04-15T14:35:28-04:00

I've served with Mustangs and those who came in through the Naval Academy, PLC, and ROTC. In my opinion, a prior enlisted background helps most at the junior officer levels. By the time officers make Captain, the playing field is more level, and the difference in officers is harder to tell. Any advantage of prior enlisted experience has been made up by the other officers as they gain military experience in their day to day duties as officers.

Some of the best officers I've met have had no prior enlisted experience but they possessed good leadership skills, were intelligent and learned quickly. Prior military experience helps but it is not a guarantee of success.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 12 at 2015 9:01 PM

2015-06-12T21:01:36-04:00

I would say yes, actually. It would be good for the troops AND good for the officers. Some might decide they don't want commissions, when they see how officers are treated. In any event, officers would have a better appreciation for how the other side lives. Academy attendance is no substitute.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 7:59 AM

2015-06-19T07:59:52-04:00

No. They should be a mixture of prior enlisted and College Graduate (first). I have seen some prior enlisted officers that were Walking Cluster F's and some Academy Graduates that were on point.

I do think they should always be attached to the Senior Enlisted of their Unit and always seek councel with their E-9's and First Sergeants.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 29 at 2016 9:40 AM

2016-02-29T09:40:36-05:00

It will not work for recruiting Army JAGs. Opinion from being their basic course manager, starting 26 years ago. No knowledge of today. Back in 1988, The JAG had pull to get a SF officer. Any motivated basic branch officer could have worked, combat arms would be good. I had a training background, Inf AIT, SROTC instructor (MSIII, where the rubber meets the road) , I was directly recruited by VII Corps JAG CWO who heard me talking to my assignment officer. He came to coordinate his annex to the war plan. I was interviewed by the Corps SJAG that day. He made BG and told people he was responsible for hiring me. I replaced a very good SF MAJ., one good enough he was extended two years PAST 20 year limit for MAJs. The JAG is the top Army LAWYER, and is buds with the Chief of Staff.