A view from the Army Personnel Center

#2
As long as the some total output of the Army is to have a really efficient posting system rather than a really effective deployable combat force.

On this reasoning we should bring back Roman ranks and structures.
 
Q

quick-morser

Guest
#3
"If knowledge is power, it would be the equivalent – using the opening analogy – of always having your device plugged into the power socket."
**** word bingo winning line.

How does this system propose to transfer people on the old structure into the new? What happens to the career corporal? Why restrict the star performer to a promotion timetable? Whose the winner - the person who gets a five year desk job or the five year trip to the tank park as by this reckoning you can only have one posting per rank?

Perhaps we should form a focus group to report to the committee.
 
#4
So a civvy bloke with 3 years of managing bits of paper with names on amongst posting plots on some faceless database says the answer is to rewrite the promotional model in accordance with his lovely spreadsheet.

Great!

Edit - I will add the stress of ranks and posting fitting into the 22/24 year model are due to the over promoting of soldiers expecting a 2 year bounce between ranks is due to inflated SJARS from populist OC's, thats what needs gripping.
 
#7
I happened to read this paper by Danny before I left. I actually thought it was a good paper that would stimulate debate and may give some ideas on how to fix some of the problems that are faced when managing careers.

There is no silver bullet and no single answer, but at least someone who is not even a squaddie is giving it some thought.

If you feel that you have something to add or an idea of your own then write a paper and send it into the RSI.

Yup thought so!
 

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
During the 'tough recruiting environment' of the late 90's early 00's the idea of reducing the amount of ranks in certain trades was floated, it went down well then too.
 
#14
(Quote)Years 2-6: Signaller. The first year following Trade Training is spent as a Class 3. The 2nd and 3rd are spent as a Class 2 and the 4th and 5th are spent gaining a Class 1. The Soldier is awarded the nominal rank of LCpl to signify that he has attained Class 1 status or that he is currently engaged in Class 1 training. Class 1 training should be spread out over the two years so as to allow, if needed, the soldier to be recalled for the more immediate business of his unit. It would ease the pain, and threat of pain, currently imposed on units and rosters by the Class 1 vacuum, but it would depend entirely on an increased capability of the units’ integral training wing. For those unfamiliar with Royal Signals, these are residential Career Courses that take anywhere from 4 to 42 weeks depending on trade. For those trades with longer courses, this is a significant time spent away and has a considerable impact on manning.(quote)

Because obviously there would be no inherent admin issue created by moving people on and off courses, nor retention of that knowledge as you are chopped and changed between course and core job.
I could go on, but anyone that cannot spell 'focused' properly should not be allowed anywhere near something this important!



Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#16
It seems to be that they are aligning R Signals soldier promotion with R Signals Officer promotion insofar as Officers need 5 OJARs to promote from Capt to Maj and from Maj to Lt Col...
 
#17
He has a very unbiased view on the Signals and as such it would be wise to at least consider his views.

Anyone who is active in the Signals will have their own experience of things and will in some way be biased.
 
#18
He has a very unbiased view on the Signals and as such it would be wise to at least consider his views.

Anyone who is active in the Signals will have their own experience of things and will in some way be biased.
Why? Why would it be wise? The tramp on the street has an unbiased view of the bleeps but would it because to listen to him? I don't think he has thought the issues through fully at all.
Implications on recruiting and retention? Would you join a corps that only promoted once every five years? That had fewer ranks therefore offered fewer incentives?
This seems like another CS thruster who has written a blue sky paper which will be viewed as visionary by the CS. Move him up a grade and screw that corps into the wall. Just saying!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#19
I think it was the Sheedy Review (1994/95 ish?!) that proposed losing certain ranks.......the Sec of State launched that particular Study and, well, it got nowhere.

I feel that the progression of young Danny's ideas peaked with their appearance in your Corps mag.
 
#20
He's slightly misleading on Class 1 courses. He mentions courses up to 42 weeks, and the effect on the unit. In reality a unit doesn't lose a tradesman for 42 weeks, as the soldier would be SOS from the unit and posted to 11 Sigs, thus freeing a spot for another soldier to be posted in.

I'd imagine it would be Operator Class 1s causing the most hurt in losing a bloke to a 'long course', and they are significantly shorter than 42 weeks.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top