What do you all think of U.S.M.A and R.O.T.C officers?

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I do not have your level of expertise, actually I have no expertise, in the corporate world, but let me share an observation or two. Unless things have changed drastically, GPA is not, nor was it ever, the sole determinant of where you stood on an OML in ROTC. It was a basic indicator for further recommendations that were factored in to other aspects of your performance both within and outside of the ROTC program.

As for the corporate world having the greatest area of expertise, that may or may not be true depending on the particular professions you are addressing. Let me elaborate. When I retired from the military and did my manadatory processing through the VA, the VA informed me that my skill sets were not really applicable to obtaining a position in the civilian world and that my previous BS and MS degrees were so old that anyone reading my thesis as a point of reference would recognize that fact because dinosaurs no longer roamed the earth. So, they figured, I needed to get another MS, but this time in business and they packed me off to St Michaels University. What I found was that many models used by business were those used by the military and the only thing that really changed were the acronyms. I also found that what corporate America called "leadership" was for the most part "management" and that "teamwork" was more of a feel good phrase of where you fit in the big picture. Because businesses operated against the bottom line the metric used was that of how best to enhance the bottom line and not how best to ensure that your subordinates succeeded-unless of course it contributed to the bottom line. Business seemed to hire to fit "jobs" and not necessarily to "develop professionals". They expected loyalty to the company but the company mistook pay and benefits as motivators to maintain loyatly. We had many folks that had worked as corporate and business employees in this program for various corporations and we had corporate respresentatives teach portions of the course. No one seemed committed to anything other than amassing wealth and moving to the next "job" (either within or outside of the same "profession" and teamwork was limited to "getting along" and "playing nice" with others on site). Now this is not true of all organizations within corporate America, but it seems more and more to me that corporate America is apersonal and statistic driven where personal are viewed more as resources to be consummed and replaced than as assets whose commitment to the corporate goals (which by the way is flawed from the outset because for anyone to be committed to any goals they would have to embrace everything that organization represented) would maximize both performance and the bottom line. So, I think it is a hell of a lot easier to fill the slots in corporate America than it is to find the right metrics to assess and fill the leadership slots in the military. Frankly we do not know who is going to succeed or not because we have yet to define what a good leader is in the military-traits like audacity are great for combat arms but not so great for CSS and while we have "templates" that allow us to define "leaders" in general a good leader in SF is not the same as a good leader in a CSS unit because we need certain traits to be more dominant than others. I think the Army is finding that out with their MiTTs. Unlike corporate America, where you have defined expectations for a particular job and where the variables are better defined and under more control than in the "military workplace", it becomes a difficult task to replicate those situations where a military leader will be placed. There are just too many variables that fluctuate day to day, season to season, hour to hour, etc. So while I can hire joe-s..t the rag man off the street and teach him to play nice and work well in a controlled setting where he can remain for his entire career, I cannot do that in the military very well. It is the very reason why we have SFAS and even that is not a fail safe. It is also the very reason why their are good staff officers and good commanders, but many times some not suited well for both or either. So the best that the military can do is let them in the door if they show the minimum potential needed and let the leveling begin in their basic courses-those that don't fit leave and get hired by the corporate world-dispite their inability to perform in the military as a leader or ability to make a commitment to what the military leader is all about. That does not make him a bad person, but it does provide a fertile ground for recruits for the corporate world because inspite of the officer's failings or lack of commitment he is now more mature, has shed a lot of his baggage that the corporate world will not have to cull, and will go on to do great things outside the military-or not. Just my observation.

[jsragman]

COL Moroney:

Since you mentioned it, and in case anyone was curious, I dug up the stats on the current system used by ROTC to evaluate cadets.

GPA isn't the sole determinant, just the primary factor thats separating most people. In general, the scores in the other categories are pretty centralized around the average or aren't worth enough points to make a significant difference.

-Derek

[Razor]

I don't know if the ratios are the same now, but the old USMA OML ratios were (IIRC) 50% Academic, 35% Leadership, 15% Physical.

Originally Posted by Silent Storm151

Hello everyone, the topic is pretty self explanatory, the reason I ask is because I am currently a candidate for West Point, as well as a 4 year A.R.O.T.C scholarship winner, my main goal is to be the best officer possible. It should be noted that this topic is open to anybody with any sort of military experience. While I have been researching what makes a good officer, I want to know what you all think.

Thanks.

It took a while, but reading the entire thread this morning, I noticed a few things that jumped out at me.

After a 3 year break in thread activity, another four years of news, world events, corporate, wall street, and politics, I wanted to ask, "what makes a leader?" vs. 'What makes a good officer?" Are the two related? I think they are, but I know of several leaders who are not officers, and many good officers who are terrible leaders, despite the fact they keep getting promoted.

Leadership is more than simple Army codes and Values and/or Academy. Genghis Khan ruled by fear, Alexander the Great by compromise, Hitler yelled and promoted loyalty, his values also driven by a low self esteme and insecurity. Mussolini by greed.

So the question is, what makes a good leader vs just a successful officer?

[Jack Dale]

Originally Posted by wet dog

It took a while, but reading the entire thread this morning, I noticed a few things that jumped out at me.

After a 3 year break in thread activity, another four years of news, world events, corporate, wall street, and politics, I wanted to ask, "what makes a leader?" vs. 'What makes a good officer?" Are the two related? I think they are, but I know of several leaders who are not officers, and many good officers who are terrible leaders, despite the fact they keep getting promoted.

Leadership is more than simple Army codes and Values and/or Academy. Genghis Khan ruled by fear, Alexander the Great by compromise, Hitler yelled and promoted loyalty, his values also driven by a low self esteme and insecurity. Mussolini by greed.

So the question is, what makes a good leader vs just a successful officer?

Wet Dog, I think there's no such thing as a bad leader. You either are a leader or you're not. What we call a "bad leader" would be more accurately described as a "ruler," witness Hitler the Murderous Screamer ("do it or I'll have you shot")and Alexander the Great the Bargainer and Wheedler ("okay, you won't do that. What will you do?").

The difference is that you'd follow a leader into hell if that's what was required, but having to follow a ruler would just be hell, a minor but significant difference.

I don't know all the traits of a leader (as opposed to a ruler), but I do know that I wouldn't consider a person to be a leader unless I knew s/he wouldn't hesitate to do what I was being asked to do, although circumstances might require that I do it instead.

My reference points are real leaders I've known, but especially my own father. Men who flew with him in the Philippines and Java in 1941-1943 have told me that he was always the first into the cockpit when it hit the fan and was the best "stick" in the Air Corps. Of course, these were guys who looked up to him and followed him and my hero is always more of a hero than your hero, no matter who you and I are. But, isn't that one of the real yardsticks by which we measure leadership, that the followers think the leader is the best there is and would do ANYTHING for them, so they will do anything the leader asks?

I don't know the answers, but I can't think of a better forum in which to ask the questions. Anybody got an opinion?

[akv]

My $.02 is effective leaders I've met have the ability to stir great emotion in the hearts of men, either fear or love, and the great ones both.

As for grades, Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein had a matrix for assessing his officers;

Dumb and Hardworking- Fire immediately, they will do more damage to the organization than good.

Dumb and Lazy- Perfect for the menial low importance jobs every organization requires to function.

Smart and Hardworking - middle management.

Smart and Lazy- Promote to high command, because they have the ability to imagine or think outside the box.

Good leader traits: (in my opinion only)....

Knowledgable, knows his craft, knows the lives of others well lived, knows the historical significance (event, location, etc.).
Experienced, seen it, done it, not much gets past him. Has made mistakes, some big ones, learned from those tough times.
Listens to others.
Is aware of his surroundings.
Humble.
Clever.
Is a student and teacher.
Emotional strength, intestinal fortitude.
Calm.
Resourceful.

others, please chime in...

[Scimitar]

"Leaders aren't born, they are made. "
~ Vince Lombardi

My take is that leadership is a technical skill that can be learned. It's not a potion or a spell or some mystic power and it certainly isnt limited to only a certain personality type.

I like to start with what's called the Organizational Leadership Job Description.

If you don't know WHAT your job is, how can you do it. (And I'm not talking about the kinda documents that HR kicks out everytime you hire someone new, it certainly aint that simple.)

I will ask a leader that I'm about to come under, "What would you say organizational Leadership is, on a day to day basis, for you?"

If he or she can't give a pretty clear answer, then I tell you what they ain't gonna hit the mark they can't see are they. (I tend not to take those jobs.)

I've got a few favourite models I use. But that's the basis of it. Leadership is Influence, and you can't lead leaders if you can't show focus. No internal understanding of the job description, no focus.

You can lead followers through inspiration, but you lead leaders through showing them that you have wisdom and focus. Trick is ya gotta have it before you can show it.

Having seen my old man lead in the Army, I'd hazzard a guess that the major difference between other leaders and Army leaders is that from my point of view Corporate does not do a very good job AT ALL training its leaders, where as it seems that the technical skill of leadership is vurtually handed to the new Officer.

Just my $0.02

Scimitar

[Buffalobob]

An interesting thread simply because it contains some of Jacks writing.

[QUOTEI]t is also the very reason why their are good staff officers and good commanders, but many times some not suited well for both or either. So the best that the military can do is let them in the door if they show the minimum potential needed and let the leveling begin in their basic courses-those that don't fit leave and get hired by the corporate world-despite their inability to perform in the military as a leader or ability to make a commitment to what the military leader is all about. That does not make him a bad person, but it does provide a fertile ground for recruits for the corporate world because inspite of the officer's failings or lack of commitment he is now more mature, has shed a lot of his baggage that the corporate world will not have to cull, and will go on to do great things outside the military-or not. Just my observation. [/QUOTE]

I served under Jack in a very stressful time for Special Forces and I believe Jack saw me and my contemporaries and that formed a lot of his opinions and views of the world. I agree with many of his views. Mostly I agree that 2Lts simply are not mature enough to be COs of ODAs. My peer group of 2Lts at 10th SFG(A) was simply the worst collection of lost little boys you ever saw in your life. No matter how hard you tried and no matter how hard you wished it differently you simple had not had enough life experiences to lead. The best decision I ever made as a ODA CO was to leave SF and go to RVN and get some experience.

As Jack opines, I went on to rise to the heights of my profession outside the military because of what I learned in the military.