Quote:
Originally Posted by trinity
You mean, like, Specialists?
|
(DISCLAIMER, this is IMO/IME in MI and MI only, in my MOS and my MOS only.)
No. I am referring to far deeper problems. Just because someone is called a Specialist does not mean that they are. The same applies to Warrant Officers. We base someone as being a technical expert based on what?
The Army currently does not have a baseline to that test for MI jobs (Besides linguist) because there is not a test to prove it. A soldier can be completely forgotten of their MOS basic tasks for their entire career and still be promoted to a CSM. That is because their job is only a small factor of our promotion system for NCO's.
I frankly do not believe it is even a little bit of a priority to be good at your MI MOS to be promoted. Formula, again, (IME) in MI, appears to be, do none of your MI job, and do everything you can to avoid it, and you will be promoted. You will then be highly successful in the Army. Do the opposite...well good luck. Lots of good jobs out there.
My view is there should be NCOs that are technical experts at their jobs without any expectations of leadership roles or leadership schools. Pay grades E5-E9 as a SME in their MOS. A SME in their job should be just that. Especially with regionally aligned units. Especially in times of war. (I get the argument of the necessity of dynamics for leadership in predictability and probability of future calculation of a foreign analysis, determining adversary course of action, however that does not apply to all micro positions.)
Its hard to explain, but (IME) in MI you rarely, if ever do your job in your entire career under this system. The Army will spend hundreds of thousands on training for all kinds of schools for MI. Then never have them do any of it. I speculate that is because those that are getting promoted and making choices about assignments and TDA placement do not understand the MOS's jobs or missions, however the Army keeps rolling along.
The Army's focus to NCO promotion is mandatory leadership schools, Basic soldier leadership blocks (Squad leader, Platoon SGT..ext), PT, and a few sections on a NCOER. Eventually, for SFC, on the path to all others, the Soldiers information goes to a board that does not have to be made up of anyone whom understands the Soldiers MOS or career progression. In my situation, I have been told that a former MI CSM may be on the board, but no idea if they understand the specialized MI MOS or not. The board members review each file, then the board members tally numbers and decide whom is getting promoted based on needs, timing, and whom is decidedly the best within a given need percentage. (At certain levels, BN, BDE, maybe the makeup of the board is good. But maybe not at SFC or MSG.)
Under this system being really good at the basics of general Soldiering is what appears to set Soldiers apart for promotion. It has to be general information that is not too technical on NCOERs to get board notice. For example. Soldier was a PSG for two years of eighty Soldiers, equals to the board, "Great, make them a SFC." Vs. (Fictional) Soldier solved a complex mathematical cryptographic algorithm which allowed the USG to prevent a foreign government’s invasion of a bordering country…To the board members that equals… "well I do not know what that means, so pass on promotion. Why are they not being a PSG or a Drill SGT?!?!?!"
A recent big red flag is for example the Army computer hackers, 35Q. Huge money spent on those MI soldiers. (Hundreds in the Army and that is it.) The Army is DA selecting them for Drill, Recruiting ext just like everyone else for multi
year assignments. Not really sure that is the right answer when they MUST do their job to remain proficient and we are critically short in a very dangerous time of war and most importantly cyber war. I have seen the same mind set for many other highly specialized Army jobs which crawls its way to the higher ranks.
It just does not seem right to me. Much of it falls upon the Company level. But again, currently the politics fuels the leadership choices.
I suppose it’s possible to be a good politician and a technical expert. I fear that those like that, often get smoked out because of what it can do for those that are not, which have already risen higher. I believe that explains other training and retention problems.
I have met a few great CSM's, but many bad ones as addressed above in my career branch. It’s an automatic system in that you check the Political blocks, you get promoted. That is very political and not really performance, education, or a leadership related system that is bleeding dangerous second and third order effects down to the company level, which in turn makes us less effective in our mission in a time of war. Making it more political shows a total failure of the system. I believe it will damage the MI NCOs/Intelligence and the Army further if it is not first repaired before being deployed.
(Edit: There is a plot hole that I see here too...Do we want experts, leaders, or both? Is it possible to have both under the current system?)
Linear Mode
