So You Want to be an officer, eh!

[chrisf]

I will admit that I did indeed make certain assumptions in my post, mostly based upon what I remember reading about studies on people's capability to learn languages, and how that drops off after a certain age. Although I didn't steal it from the wiki page, although I'll have to go there and edit any sections that disagree with my post 

There's your problem... the ability to learn languages in adulthood DOES strongly drop off... it's much easier to learn a language earlier in life then later in life, just the way our brains are wired... and much easier to learn more languages once you're bi-lingual then going from uni-lingual to bi-lingual...

That being said, don't equate that to adult learning... while it's true that adult brains and child brains interpret information differently, and learn differently, adults are just as capable of learning... they just learn differently, hence why there's different styles of learning... adults are self-motivated learners, and as such, they need to be motivated to learn, look up the term "androgogy" (I'll even save you the trouble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgogy )

Ever wonder why every military class you attend (should anyway) start off the same way? With a review of previous material, and then an explanation of where you'll use the material and why you'll need to know it as well as a structured break down of the class? It's because the military has teaching adults down to a science (Well, science has teaching adults down to a science as well) unfortunately, and this is why some adults have trouble learning, most institutes of higher learning (universities, colleges etc) are not overly good at teaching (Somone who's university educated is going to take offence to that, but quite frankly, most university profs, while experts in their field, are lousy teachers)... so it generally requires aself-motivated individual to learn (A geology class I was attended as a case-in-point, where the prof spent the class mumbling to himself, and clicking through a confusing power point slide)...

Adult learning is all about motivation.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Its not I think all NCMs would make great Officers, but I think having hands-on NCM experience would be of enormous benefit for would-be Officers.  Its not for the leadership qualities they would have acquired, but for the increased understanding they will have.  And there might be merit in institutionalizing it.  Large corporations often have rotational programs for MBA grads, where they spend 12 to 24 months in various functions to get experience in non-managerial areas before becoming a manager.  Heck, in Air Canada's management programme they put you right on the tarmac handling baggage (probably not the best corporate example)

It is wonderful that Air Canada makes it managers handle baggage. Just remember that we train officers: we are not running a management program.

The first developmental period for an officer is quite rigorous and historically has a significant failure rate. This period can last several years during which the young OCdt/2Lt is learning how to be a platoon commander/troop leader etc. They will live in barracks and do station jobs. They will endure inspections of their kit and quarters. They will do PT at O dark stupid in the morning. For combat arms officers they will learn most of the skills that their soldiers learn, albeit not in as much detail for most of those skills (especially driving but some others as well). A successful candiate will come to his Regiment with some field time under his belt and will have been tested under fairly realistic and arduous conditions. He is not just a university graduate who walks off convocation and into his post of Troop Leader.

That being said, with the exception of those that did come from the ranks he does not have the experience of day-in/day-out living as a Private/Trooper in a field unit. He does, however, live and operate with his soldiers in the field. He is not sitting in an Air Canada corporate office while his minions sling baggage. He also has the benefit of his Troop Warrant Officer and his Sergeants who have extensive experience at day to day life in a Regiment. He has to rely on their judgement and advice in order to be successful.

As a Troop Leader my Warrant Officer was the guiding force behind all personnel decisions. I wasn't just sitting there reading Sentinel, but I would never make a decision about one of our soldiers without first going to the WO. For the record his recommendation was always the course of action selected. In the field, tactics were more my "domain", but I still took my WOs and Sgts aside to get their advice first when I could. When I was suddenly in command of a tank squadron for two days in the field as a Lt (the grown-ups had all been pulled away) I grabbed the Troop WOs and the Sqn Ops Sgt for thirty minutes to come up with a way forward. When a combat team exercise was falling apart with regards to tank-infantry cooperation I turned to my old Germany hand Sergeant in front of the assembled Troop/Platoon and asked him to "please un-**** us." Officers in some other armies don't have that luxury.

As a Squadron Commander I follow the same course today. Soldier matters are the domain of my SSM, although we work on these as a team. For tactical matters I engage the team of long-service professionals that the Crown has entrusted to me. I am responsible for all, but I am not in a fortress of solitude finding the solutions in isolation.

The discussion of intelligence and education has brought us very far from George Wallace's intent to advise prospective officer applicants that they are considering something very serious and that they should be prepared to put their own careers and interests last in the orderm of march. At the risk of being called a Victorian-era anti-intellectual, I note that my commissioning scoll says nothing about my intelligence or intellect. It does mention Loyalty, Integrity and Courage.
Cheers

T2B

 

[McG]

... by the time someone reaches adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at its maximum.

I don't really see where in my post I indicated that learning as an adult is impossible.

So lets recap.  I stated that there is an element of intelligence which is related to how you think, and this element can be developed through learning and experience.  You rejected this on the argument that an adult has maxed-out the ability to learn.  I called BS, and now you are back peddling. 

Pick a side of the fence!  You can learn as an adult (how to speak another language, how to be a doctor, how to ride a motorcycle, or how to think more effectively), or you cannot learn as an adult.  If you think it is possible to learn as an adult, then maybe retract your complete dismissal of my assertion that intelligence can be improved.

Maybe there is merit to the argument that as an adult it is more difficult to spontaneously learn new things.  (If you want to learn a second language as an adult, you are going to require a deliberate & structured effort as opposed to the child who might just get the gist through semi-frequent exposure)  I would be willing to accept the notion that intellect growth through osmosis peaks at a certain point, and beyond that point a deliberate effort is required.  To me, this would seem to make a good formal education even more important if we desire to increase the critical thinking ability of the officer corps.

 

[gcclarke]

So lets recap.  I stated that there is an element of intelligence which is related to how you think, and this element can be developed through learning and experience.  You rejected this on the argument that an adult has maxed-out the ability to learn.  I called BS, and now you are back peddling. 

Pick a side of the fence!  You can learn as an adult (how to speak another language, how to be a doctor, how to ride a motorcycle, or how to think more effectively), or you cannot learn as an adult.  If you think it is possible to learn as an adult, then maybe retract your complete dismissal of my assertion that intelligence can be improved.

Maybe there is merit to the argument that as an adult it is more difficult to spontaneously learn new things.  (If you want to learn a second language as an adult, you are going to require a deliberate & structured effort as opposed to the child who might just get the gist through semi-frequent exposure)  I would be willing to accept the notion that intellect growth through osmosis peaks at a certain point, and beyond that point a deliberate effort is required.  To me, this would seem to make a good formal education even more important if we desire to increase the critical thinking ability of the officer corps.
.

I do not think I am back-peddling, although perhaps I simply did not make my thoughts clear, at least apparently not to anyone other than myself.

I stated that I think that as you reach adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at a maximum. What I meant by that was that, as an adult, you do not get any better at learning. The rate at which you learn something doesn't increase, although you may devise methods that suit you better. The throughput of information that you can process doesn't get any better. This doesn't mean that you suddenly cannot process information. It doesn't mean that you cannot learn something past your 20s. It simply means that you can't do so better at 35 than you would have been able to at 25, all other things considered equal.

It is that "all things considered equal" that is important. Now, of course, during that decade, you will also likely have learned a great deal that will likely act as a foundation for whatever it is that you're going through, and will likely make the process easier than it would have been at 25. But if we are talking about learning something that was completely and utterly foreign to you, the difficulty should be about the same.

This is what I meant. I still think that you cannot train yourself to become smarter, more intelligent. I think you can train yourself to do better on certain types of tests designed to measure intellect, but that to me simply seems to be a flaw in the testing mechanism rather than a sign of actual growth. But the mere act of learning something does not equate to an increase of intelligence. One can certainly be both smart and ignorant.

 

[Park]

Fantastic post T2B. 

For me, it was excellent insight

Also, you are right, some of us (including me) have taking the sub-topic of a need for a degree and being an officer off on a tangent with the intelligence argument.  Probably deserves a thread of its own on Radio Chatter.

Thank You

 

[Gunner98]

There are 3 field-grade officers - one from each element, currently sponsored on Master of Business Admin and Health Admin programs at Univ of Ottawa, they seem to absorb new info at a much faster rate than their much younger class mates.  Each of these officers completed undergraduate degrees between 10 and 25 years ago and have 20-27 years in uniform. Each has had to adjust to not always being the leader in their small school-group settings and resisting the urge to do everything on their own.  In some ways going back to school is a little easier for them because they have a stable salary/employment and loads of experience in their own environs.

After 25 years outside of a civilian classroom environment it is certainly an adjustment to watch their class mates multi-task by having 5 or more windows open on their wireless-connected computer in class and constantly texting friends while a 3-hour accounting or statistics lecture is going on around them.

Perhaps older people (old being +35) do not learn better but they have learned important lessons: to concentrate on one thing at a time, commit to non-life threatening decisions after reviewing the options only once, and it is reasonable to expect to produce an action plan with priorities of work in less three hours.  This seems not to be as easy for those under 35.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As a Troop Leader my Warrant Officer was the guiding force behind all personnel decisions. I wasn't just sitting there reading Sentinel, but I would never make a decision about one of our soldiers without first going to the WO. For the record his recommendation was always the course of action selected. In the field, tactics were more my "domain", but I still took my WOs and Sgts aside to get their advice first when I could. When I was suddenly in command of a tank squadron for two days in the field as a Lt (the grown-ups had all been pulled away) I grabbed the Troop WOs and the Sqn Ops Sgt for thirty minutes to come up with a way forward. When a combat team exercise was falling apart with regards to tank-infantry cooperation I turned to my old Germany hand Sergeant in front of the assembled Troop/Platoon and asked him to "please un-**** us." Officers in some other armies don't have that luxury.

I'm glad to hear that you were graced with high quality SNCOs to work with.

However, my first tour as a Pl Comd in the regular army was made more interesting by the fact that a) I took over the platoon while they were on operations 2) they had been commanded by the Pl Sgt for about a year and he was universally hated by the troops, who accused him of stealing the platoon fund, beating people up, hitting on their wives/girlfriends  etc etc 3) he basically ignored me from the get go, did nothing to make my job easier and ran an intimidation program to maintain control even though I was 'the boss'.

After about a week of this, it became clear to me that this guy should go, but the OC and CSM were apparently oblivious to his faults and was adamant that he stay. I suspect, to this day, that he 'had something' on them both, but can't prove it. When I first watched the movie 'Platoon' I immediately recognized this guy as the character played by Tom Berenger, 'Sgt Barnes, except that my guy had a large, evil looking herpes lesion on his lip vs. Berenger's facial scar (ewww).

So what to do? Brand new 2Lt, troops in combat in a pretty tough area and they had been IED'd before - no casualties thankfully - but were pretty nervous, Pl 2IC is a card carrying d*ckhead who is apparently covered in teflon, I'm the 'new guy' in the crowd and they hadn't been led by an officer for about a year: all the odds seemed stacked against me.

Well, I just fell back on doing what I was trained to do - lead.

And by that I mean 'going first' ..... alot. So, starting with the basics, I went out with almost every patrol, whether I was running the show or not, to find out what made people tick and to build my own confidence. I literally went first through every hedge, fence, doorway and stream crossing. I took my turn on sangar duty. I search hundreds of cars. I developed and issued proper orders. I studiously avoided being 'chummy' with people at all costs, apart from sharing the occasional brew up or mess tin of scoff. I inspected everything, but not always in the 'stand by your beds' style, more like poking my nose in and asking questions. I led area cleaning patrols to pick up the garbage around our static locations ("It might be booby trapped sir so we don't touch it" - yeah, right). I issued orders directly to the secion/brick commanders and avoided the 'filtering' of information through the Pl Sgt. I'm afraid that I didn't ask for much advice, but what we were doing wasn't really rocket science, and I was able to convey pretty good direction from the top to the frontline. I developed a good working relationship with the CQMS, he had my 'Sgt Barnes' figured out, who looked after our guys when the Pl Sgt wasn't.

After about a month, people just started to accept me as a neutral third party and started aligning with me and what I was doing. No one got killed or injured, we worked hard, people got happier, Sgt D*ckhead was marginalized and spent most of his time in base, life went on...

So what helped?

1) I didn't care what anyone thought of me, or ask much advice or permission. I just saw what I thought needed to be done and did it in a 'follow me' kind of way. Call it 'the courage of my convictions' mixed in with a pinch of sheer bloody mindedness and a dash of blissful ignorance.

2) I was the platoon's 'Energizer Bunny'. I'd had a solid grounding in the 'principles' of being an Officer during my training, which were really quite simple, as well as in some basic leadership and technical skills - like reading a map, basic tactics and weapons handling, and the orders process. I was one of the fittest guys in the platoon. I poked around in everything and was active doing all sorts of wierd things, like combat garbage patrols. People were confident that I had the right values, I guess, and I gained more confidence in every little task I took on.

3) I was seen as different from my soldiers in some key areas e.g., I'd had a couple of years of college, was not from the ranks and didn't have any of that kind of baggage (and I saw some Officers, who were from the ranks, struggling), and was more 'mission focused' and didn't need to hang around and be 'one of the boys' or swing the lamp to influence people to get things done.

4) The resiliency of the rifle company. It's like a human body: if one part starts to fail another steps in to take over; like the senior Cpl who started to take on more Pl Sgt level responsibilities, or the CQ who spent a little more time helping my platoon. Everyone was well trained and experienced in their jobs too, so there was no need to be worried about Pte. Bloggins because he didn't know how to do an ambush etc.

Would it have helped if I had had spent time in the ranks or held a Masters degree? Thinking back, I seriously doubt it, but this is a very subjective experience and what worked for me might not for another person.

IMHO, whatever you need, apart from your rank, position and basic values, to have the courage of your convictions and the energy and personal confidence to lead from the front when required, are the basic skills required of a commissioned Officer.

 

[McG]

I do not think I am back-peddling, although perhaps I simply did not make my thoughts clear, at least apparently not to anyone other than myself.

I stated that I think that as you reach adulthood, your ability to learn how to do something is pretty much at a maximum.

Clearly, you were only clear to you ... and maybe still are.  However, I'm not going to bother with your argument that an individual's ability to learn hits a peak on entering adulthood and plateaus from there on out.  I will also not question how you reach this conclusion through your premise that children are better learners (I would think this premise would lead you in a different direction).  It all doesn't really matter, as that argument is not tied to your real opinion on the matter:

This is what I meant. I still think that you cannot train yourself to become smarter, more intelligent.

I disagree.  This is my opinion.  It is based on observations which lack a little rigorour of the scientific process but which I feel fairly comfortable non the less.  My sample is a mix of WO, MWO, Capt & Maj.  The ages are clustered in the late twenties and in the mid-late forties with a few outside these groups.

I have seen people go through challenging academic training & come out of it more intelligent.  As I alluded to earlier, there was a deliberate focus made on learning to think, learning to form arguments, learning to recognize fallacious arguments, learning to recognize cognitive biases, learning to organize thoughts, and learning to solve problems.  For the vast majority of what I observed, the guys come out smarter.  They could think faster, handle more information at once, solve more complicated problems (and ones outside their comfort areas & experience), etc.  I even watched an old infantry MWO deflate the position of a team of mechanical engineers in a subject that would have been their strength.

Also, you are right, some of us (including me) have taking the sub-topic of a need for a degree and being an officer off on a tangent with the intelligence argument.  Probably deserves a thread of its own on Radio Chatter.

I don't think it needs to be.  The subject is too interwoven to this thread as it was a focus of attack near to the start.  It can't be neatly split, so we may as well have it out here.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm glad to hear that you were graced with high quality SNCOs to work with.

Which Army were you serving in? As I noted, not every officer in the world will have the luxury of truly professional long serving non-commissioned officers.

You were clearly in a bad spot, and it raises a good point. At the end of the day the officer must be ready to chart the course that he knows is right, even if it is difficult and he has no support. Perhaps that is why Courage is one of the three traits mentioned on the Commissioning Scroll.

As an aside, I find that the informal duality we have in our command gives us great strength. The young, keen and perhaps idealistic junior officer is balanced by the experienced NCO. This duality also means that our command structure is resilient.

 

[PMedMoe]

I have seen people go through challenging academic training & come out of it more intelligent.

I'm not pointing fingers here, but I think people are mixing up intelligence and learning (or education or knowledge, whatever you want to call it).

Simple analogy (at least to me):  If you have a 100 litre barrel, it can hold anywhere from 1 cc to 100 litres, however, it can never exceed the 100 litre capacity.  So if a person's intelligence is a fixed point, that point will never be exceeded.  That's not to say they cannot learn new things or even new ways of doing things (or thinking or problem solving or what have you).  That makes them more educated, knowledgeable or learned, not more intelligent.

Now, don't use my simple barrel analogy to say there's a limit on what one person can learn. 

 

[mariomike]

Simple analogy (at least to me):  If you have a 100 litre barrel, it can hold anywhere from 1 cc to 100 litres, however, it can never exceed the 100 litre capacity.  So if a person's intelligence is a fixed point, that point will never be exceeded.  That's not to say they cannot learn new things or even new ways of doing things (or thinking or problem solving or what have you).  That makes them more educated, knowledgeable or learned, not more intelligent.
Now, don't use my simple barrel analogy to say there's a limit on what one person can learn. 

So that's what my mother meant when she used to tell me I was two pickles short of a barrel!

 

[George Wallace]

I hope you were holding a 'hockey sock full' of pickles.  >









If not; it would be a fairly small barrel.

 

[Infanteer]

long serving non-commissioned officers.

We still have those?

 

[McG]

I'm not pointing fingers here, but I think people are mixing up intelligence and learning (or education or knowledge, whatever you want to call it).

You are pointing fingers, and I am not making this confusion  ... but you know that as you've read reply #112 and seen how I've described those as different.

Intelligence is not a genetically fixed constant.  Intelligence is not just a measure of potential capability, it is a measure of the actual capability.  Much like athletic prowess, intellectual prowess can be improved through training, practice and application of skill.  A good education provides the training & develops the skills.

 

[PMedMoe]

Okey-dokey, then.  I'm outta here, this thread is over my head. 

 

[ballz]

I've followed this thread since it started and still feel like I probably shouldn't post quite yet because I'm still so on the fence about a lot of this stuff. But there are opinions I've had before this thread started that still haven't changed so I guess I'll start with them.

First off, let me say I hate you all because you've caused me to open up my Psychology textbook which I swore I was going to burn soon. I was trying to find their definition of intelligence, that I argued with the prof about until I was blue in the face. Still can't find it, but it basically divides intelligence into categories.... Some bogus ones at that. Basically anything that you can be talented in, means you are intelligent. They broaden the boundaries of intelligence by making categories such as "musical" intelligence and "athletic" intelligence. Pure BS in my opinion but it's things like this that have caused me to not hold much weight with psychology.

Anywho, my opinion, and what I've told people that asked me "How will having a Business degree help you be an Infantry officer? How does any of it apply to Infantry?" And to be honest, I don't think it really does or will help. My reponse is that the military wants us to have bachelor degrees to prove that we're at least competant enough to obtain one. Does that level of competance mean you have the level of competance required to do the job of an Infantry officer? Curse words no. But at least it means you don't have people that are seriously so incompetant that they couldn't get a BA leading troops.

This is why you can CFR. You've already proven that level of competance, they don't need you to get a degree to prove your smart enough to get a degree, you've already proven it with your other accomplishments and experience that they have been able to moniter. Let's be serious, of all (and that's a very limited number) the SNCOs and WOs that I've met, it becomes pretty damn clear pretty damn fast that they've got their wits about them, and I don't doubt for a second that they could obtain a Bachelor's degree.

But taking a guy off the street with no experience, wouldn't you want to know that he's at least competant enough to get a fricken Bachelor's degree?

So onto the topic of WOs and Sgts being more fit to lead a platoon than a young Lt.... That's probably true 99% of the time. I know that if I were put in comd of a platoon and had guys like WO Janek as a 2IC and Sgt Harpelle as a section comd, I wouldn't have much to worry about in terms of the platoon functioning. I 'd be ecstatic to be teamed up with these guys to consult with and guide me through whatever decisions I needed to make.

And that's what it is at the end of the day. It's a team, not a boss and subordinates. No single person could bear all the trials and responsibilities and make all the decisions on his own. Just like the President of the US that has his team of consultants that he uses to make decisions. By God there's no way I'd be making any decisions without getting the input of those much more knowledgeable and experienced in the area than me, and I doubt any competant President would be making decisions on healthcare without talking to the top doctors in the country, or making a military decision without talking to a team of Generals.

What exactly is wrong with this system? It seems to be working quite well. It's no secret that these Sgts and WOs are the backbone of success. I think the only flaw comes when a young officer thinks he holds more merit because of his rank than these Sgts and WOs, but also when these Sgts and WOs, who know they know more from their experience than this young chap with his commission, and instead of contributing to this team effort, undermine the young officer's efforts. I've come across an attitude so far in this thread, and I won't mention who's, but it makes me worry that I might be teamed up with a team of leaders that act the way he does. But these are flaws with the people, not with the system. Unfortunately people aren't perfect, so whatever system you choose, it won't be either.

 

[Another Mom]

Global intelligence in adults is generally accepted to be the degree to which one can problem solve and reason abstractly (as opposed to thinking magically or concretely). There are many domains or skills, which can comprise "intelligence" (verbal/ math/ interpersonal/ visual perceptual/ spatial, etc.). All people have their own personal patterns of strengths and weaknesses and other factors (ability to pay attention, remember, plan, organize, control their emotions, memory, delay reward, etc.) also figure in. Measuring these attributes has pretty good predictive value, within limits and although the brain is plastic, intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, is fairly stable over the life span.  Scores are more affected by cultural factors than education. When people get older, they lose the ability to learn new material as quickly as they did when they were younger and their memory degrades.  This may be balanced by developing wisdom. A certain degree of intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for wisdom, which requires experience (of which education can be one part) and the awareness of relativistic, uncertain and paradoxical nature of human problems.  I have no idea what kind of attributes make a good officer, but I would guess, good organization, verbal ability, interpersonal skills, calmness under pressure and  knowledge of and ability to solve problems in their domain of work.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Which Army were you serving in? As I noted, not every officer in the world will have the luxury of truly professional long serving non-commissioned officers.

You were clearly in a bad spot, and it raises a good point. At the end of the day the officer must be ready to chart the course that he knows is right, even if it is difficult and he has no support. Perhaps that is why Courage is one of the three traits mentioned on the Commissioning Scroll.

As an aside, I find that the informal duality we have in our command gives us great strength. The young, keen and perhaps idealistic junior officer is balanced by the experienced NCO. This duality also means that our command structure is resilient.

British Army, the Parachute Regiment: "Every man a whimperer!". And, though an 'elite' formation, not immune from their fair share of thuds, as I have noted above.

 

[SeanNewman]

+1 to most of Ballz's post.

I fully agree with the "Team" aspect of the officer / NCM relationship, particularly at platoon level since the Lt has essentially nil real-time experience (talking about a fresh-to-arrive one, not one that has done a tour and is about to be promoted to Capt).

I would strongly advise the attitude that when you show up, you have the mind set (and even say it aloud for others to hear) that you are there to adapt to that platoon's SOPs, not the other way around.

You will usually have a WO that you can trust your life with, one superstar experienced Sgt, one newly promoted keen Sgt, and one old and crusty Sgt* who may do everything he can to add poison to the team loyalty atmosphere.

*Not knocking the rank of Sgt, it's probably that same balance for every environment with three subordinates.

 

[Greymatters]

*Not knocking the rank of Sgt, it's probably that same balance for every environment with three subordinates.

Unfortunately, if you have three Sergeants, one of them has to finish last - but not all of them are poisonous wrecks...