George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 560
That WO was from PEI, right?
Command-Sense-Act 105 said:And did this WO dislike the Strathconas and was one of his favourite exclamations "JAYSUS!" ?
George Wallace said:He hasn't been on the site for a while......wonder if he is making some more 'bathtub gin' or gone huntin? ................................or both?
George Wallace said:He hasn't been on the site for a while......wonder if he is making some more 'bathtub gin' or gone huntin? ................................or both?
To me, this is what professionalism is - the ability to perform to a high standard even under conditions of extreme hardship and duress.Similarly, if a Pl or Coy Comd has 5 minutes to scarf down grub in between planning sessions, going to orders, whatever, and he either eats when he can or waits until all the troops eat, do you want him making the plan while he is distracted by a hungry belly?
Do you want your commander so sleep deprived because he or she "did their part on sentry and radio watch and laid out their own kit, not making the troops do it for them" that they write down a grid wrong in their FMP or reverse a couple numbers when calling for fire?
cdnaviator said:According to OPME...PSE 402 leadership & Ethics....NCMs are not professionals.....
I know.....i know :
Iterator said:The first OPDP module used to espouse how officers were the only true warriors; NCMs were merely technicians of particular trades/weapons, with NCOs to direct the labour. Only officers could be considered warriors as they studied the theories, strategies and mindset of war.
A couple of caveats: first, I read that part of the module about 16 years ago; and second, I have no copy of the module or reference to it.
It was an oddly worded chapter, but it hints at more than just a professional difference between officers and NCOs/NCMs, at least in the minds of some. Anyone know if this is still part of the curriculum? Or how far off my understanding of it was?
geo said:Iterator,
There was a period of time when junior officers coming off of phase had the attitude of "don't trust your NCOs". Is it a case of some of their NCO instructors giving them a hard time - to which they intended to return the favor? - I don't know but - it was a hell of a time breaking em of that perspective.
Des, pretty much what we're told is to trust our NCOs. Esentially, the thought now is that officers are part of the team and as such, we need to be able to rely on the technical expertise and experience of our subordinates. That is not to say, however, that there are not still some holdovers from the old way of thinking. The impression that I get is that we're all part of the same team, each with our own area of expertise and we need to take advantage of these and face the mission at hand, not worry about infighting. As was mentioned before, we are all professionals in the Profession of Arms.Sig_Des said:I wouldn't mind hearing from some who have recently come out or are in the final stages of RMC, see what attitude has been promulgated to them insofar as NCO's
Big Foot said:The impression that I get is that we're all part of the same team, each with our own area of expertise and we need to take advantage of these and face the mission at hand, not worry about infighting. As was mentioned before, we are all professionals in the Profession of Arms.
I am keenly aware of the functions (at the platoon level) that officers and NCOs must undergo, but none of this precludes them from the basic soldier skills that keep us all alive. A platoon (or a Coy) is not a sufficiently large organisation that it can sustain a leadership caste which is excused from soldiering in order to command.I am not sure that you understand all the functions that your Pl and Coy Comds and NCOs in key positions need to fulfil over and above those that every soldier must undertake.