Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Good point made by the Spectator

For a start, unlike most of the public sector, neither the military nor the police are allowed to strike.

Both have a disciplined hierarchical infrastructure, and internal codes of conduct that are acknowledged and adhered to by all in the organisation.  Similarly, there are established lines of accountability and inter-dependence between all ranks and all departments.

The efficiency produced by the Army and the police is down to common loyalty and commitment to the group purpose, and a distinct pride in what they all do as individuals.   The CO is just as much a cog in the machine as the guys who carry out his orders, fix his kit, cook his grub, etc.   He's just bigger and <ahem> has more teeth.

The only real method of producing anywhere near the same strength of commitment acroass the board in civvy street is with cold hard cash.   Even then, the sense of loyalty is lacking, and anyone who can get better benefits elsewhere is offski without a second thought.

The main reason for that lack of loyalty is because loyalty is a two-way affair.   It would be a foolish Colonel who ignored his RSM, but civvy Managers are far more prone to ignore the old and bold, the experienced, or the clever in their organisations - mainly because they're scared of them or feel themselves to be a different social animal.   Civvies also tend to 'drift' into positions of influence rather than be fitted properly for the post.

Frequently civvy organisations perpetuate their dull performance figures by insisting on recruiting a constant stream of Graduates, with no experience of life beyond the College Bar, and the man-management skills of a particularly odd reclusive or introverted hermit.

Finally, the Army rewards performance with promotion - carrying automatic higher pay to a commonly applied and published payscale, and even then rank/pay is not necessarily an indicator of the level of expertise.

In civvy street, pay peanuts, and you get monkeys.   Pay till you bleed, you get parasites that drop off on the next host.   The entire public sector is full of poorly paid jobs, performed by poorly motivated people, supervised by equally poorly motivated but promoted people, and managed by overpaid, over-rated Senior Managers.
I want some of the drugs Woody is taking

Org - leave Woody alone you smarmy c**t.   For a start, he's entitled to his opinion.   Secondly, your supercilious post is utterly pointless and unfunny.  Thirdly, if you don't agree with what the man says, then spit it out, you clever tw8t.  

Target stop.   Next target front, go on.
The general argument on this thread is the role of unions, as I understand it. Jamspangler made all the points I would have done, so I won't repeat them. However:

Today and for the past couple of decades the workers are far more intelligent and educated, and more importantly, they know their own value. Bosses today too know that the workers are the key to successful business and would not, and could not, abuse them overly.

The first sentence is largely true, the second sentence I would very much take issue with. The main thrust of my job is management training and development, and I have carried out this function from factory line leaders up to senior executives. I'm not sure you would believe the number of so-called managers who are in their posts with having received absolutely no training or coaching of any description whatsoever. The amount of crass incompetence, never mind the mere mediocrity of your average British manager is truly breathtaking. The scale of "rule by fear" that is perpetrated in the name of "strong" management is also truly incredible.

You talk about 'workers' - there are very few 'workers' that have no level of responsibility beyond their basic job role. The drive for productivity means that companies have cut out layers of management and increased the supervisory responsibilities of those lower down the food chain (sometimes at no extra pay!) - but again, did not give these people any training (unless they can get it for free on Govt funded courses).

The managers that are left behind from these 'delayering' exercises work longer hours, with fewer resources and under a greater level of stress- again, with no training or understanding of basic management principles.

And you think all this leads to good management??!! There is as much need for people to have a support mechanism than there ever was.

A company I was carrying out a short course training factory line leaders in recently - during their exam (important to them and leading to a decent qualification) one of them was called out at the angry insistence of one of the director' turns out he was lost and couldn't find his way to the motorway, half a mile from where he was, and  he wanted his Transport manager to give him directions...........

The same company a week later made every single supervisor and manager redundant. They reduced the line leaders (some of whom had been my students) to the same pay level and status and job role as the shop floor workers, and then asked them to volunteer to be team leaders (which increased their responsibility from their old jobs) AT NO EXTRA PAY - they were invited to do it 'for the status'. The MD told them that "this company has paid thousands on the wages of managers, hasn't seen the benefit, and so is getting rid of them........." apparently, the workers were wandering around the factory, not knowing what to do. Incidentally, at the last count, not  single person had volunteered for the post of team leader.

I agree totally that the military have more effective managers - but the military select, train and keep training their personnel - if civilian personnel had anything like the training and development you lot have, they would be significantly more effective - and motivated.