Programme CASTLE

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I lay much blame at the door of the Corps senior leadership. They must have known of the mutual contempt between the baying imbeciles and the rest. How could they let such a dysfunctional structure exist for so long? The trades were changed a couple of times while I was in, that was a golden opportunity to put this to bed. Yet no matter what the new titles were, it always came back to the same tired old nonsense.
But this is exactly the point about the whole Army. The senior leadership are selected based on, and increasingly only on, qualities of cronyism and managerialism. For them to change the systems beneath them would both make themselves obsolete and say their personal competencies aren't that important. Unsurprisingly this doesn't happen.

Change will need to be imposed from outside.
 
Reports from the CASTLE version of LECAB - AOSB SSE - was an oversimplified version of capbadge LECABs brought to the lowest level. And apparently the Cognitive/Aptitude testing will now not even appear in the reports of those who attended!

Lots of PR for possibly not much substance?
 

theinventor

War Hero
A most splendid description.

I lay much blame at the door of the Corps senior leadership. They must have known of the mutual contempt between the baying imbeciles and the rest. How could they let such a dysfunctional structure exist for so long? The trades were changed a couple of times while I was in, that was a golden opportunity to put this to bed. Yet no matter what the new titles were, it always came back to the same tired old nonsense.
Exactly. The qualities sought in successful young corps officers at 2Lt-Capt (lots of green-time, being seen being active by combat arm 1 and 2-ROs) aren't those that make for good technical experts at Maj and above.

I left REME as a junior major because I couldn't see a future doing stuff I like (and think I'm quite good at) - delivering big hairy technology programmes into complex organisations. Industry was much more obliging and I make a good living doing so.

See the Ajax thread for the consequences...
 
But this is exactly the point about the whole Army. The senior leadership are selected based on, and increasingly only on, qualities of cronyism and managerialism. For them to change the systems beneath them would both make themselves obsolete and say their personal competencies aren't that important. Unsurprisingly this doesn't happen.

Change will need to be imposed from outside.
Probably brutally to be honest.

Large swathes of VSOs are going to have to be forcibly retired with no option unless they're willing to learn and I don't see that happening
 
Reports from the CASTLE version of LECAB - AOSB SSE - was an oversimplified version of capbadge LECABs brought to the lowest level. And apparently the Cognitive/Aptitude testing will now not even appear in the reports of those who attended!

Lots of PR for possibly not much substance?

Absolutely predictable and they certainly won’t include anything that will upset the apple cart. “What do mean that the RSM isn’t the most suitable in the Battalion to do a range of staff jobs” ^~

And of course it’s all a bit pointless because selection for commission is all based around Corps quotas anyway. You can be better than 50 of your peers, but if your capbadge is full, unlucky :)

Castle will be a success when we get an RLC RCMO in the Guards and we have DE welfare officers and QM’s, because that’s what it says on it own tin. I won’t hold my breath :)
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Here's a thesis which I invite folk to reflect on and perhaps discuss:

"Soldiers, largely, trust their NCOs, Warrant Officers and Late Entry officers, while largely not trusting Direct Entry officers."
 
Absolutely predictable and they certainly won’t include anything that will upset the apple cart. “What do mean that the RSM isn’t the most suitable in the Battalion to do a range of staff jobs” ^~

And of course it’s all a bit pointless because selection for commission is all based around Corps quotas anyway. You can be better than 50 of your peers, but if your capbadge is full, unlucky :)

Castle will be a success when we get an RLC RCMO in the Guards and we have DE welfare officers and QM’s, because that’s what it says on it own tin. I won’t hold my breath :)
I think we had the biggest ever cohort attend from R Signals this year. I was the general view that individuals attending would find it easier to stand out against the masses.
BTW, I'm all for DE QMs, G4 might actually move forward for the first time.
 
Here's a thesis which I invite folk to reflect on and perhaps discuss:

"Soldiers, largely, trust their NCOs, Warrant Officers and Late Entry officers, while largely not trusting Direct Entry officers."
If this thesis is true, and propagated by SNCOs, WOs and LEs, all three categories should resign.
 
Here's a thesis which I invite folk to reflect on and perhaps discuss:

"Soldiers, largely, trust their NCOs, Warrant Officers and Late Entry officers, while largely not trusting Direct Entry officers."
I've seen much more trust towards DEs than LEs...

WOs can be a mixed bag, as can some SNCOs, although that's getting better.

Some of the RSMs turned Welfare Officers are actuebly avoided by their soldiers. Says all you need to know about how well that system is going...
 
Absolutely predictable and they certainly won’t include anything that will upset the apple cart. “What do mean that the RSM isn’t the most suitable in the Battalion to do a range of staff jobs” ^~

And of course it’s all a bit pointless because selection for commission is all based around Corps quotas anyway. You can be better than 50 of your peers, but if your capbadge is full, unlucky :)

Castle will be a success when we get an RLC RCMO in the Guards and we have DE welfare officers and QM’s, because that’s what it says on it own tin. I won’t hold my breath :)

It's almost as if you've seen some of the feedback

Unsurprisingly to many who know them, many RSMs did not do blindingly well when asked to do some of the staff tasks.....

Once AOSB SSE is the first hurdle towards a commission and is pass/fail it might have a chance. Whilst it's purely advisory to the capbadge board it's fairly pointless when the board already have their superstars picked to commission regardless of AOSB SSE reports....
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
"Soldiers, largely, trust their NCOs, Warrant Officers and Late Entry officers, while largely not trusting Direct Entry officers."

Not the case. This is tautological, but soldiers largely trust people they find trustworthy, which tends to be some combination of integrity, competence and intention. There are plenty of exploitative, substandard and self-interested NCOs, WOs and LEs who soldiers despise. Since it's your background, this applies more so to the Int Corps because a combination of factors meant a lot of very inadequate SNCOs were created over the past decades.

If there is a rule of thumb at all, soldiers mistrust anyone more than two command levels away from them.
 
.

If there is a rule of thumb at all, soldiers mistrust anyone more than two command levels away from them.
And that's likely driven by the increasing breadth of outlook which means those 2 ranks below may not be seeing the 'bigger picture' of those 2 ranks above.
 
Here's a thesis which I invite folk to reflect on and perhaps discuss:

"Soldiers, largely, trust their NCOs, Warrant Officers and Late Entry officers, while largely not trusting Direct Entry officers."

From my (limited) experience, soldiers largely trust the majority of their NCO’s, most of their WO’s and some of their LE’s. Even in a large Corps an individual can build a reputation, good or bad that will precede them.

In general, they barely come into contact with any DE above the rank of Capt and will judge those they do on how well they have looked after them and their mates.

A trusted Junior Officer will be very busy and always have a queue waiting to speak to them. Junior officers can lose that trust very quickly and will very rarely get it back as they progress through the ranks

What I have noticed over time is that officers (as a reflection of society) have become more selfish and their behavioural standards have ‘slipped’! The lines of social interaction between all ranks has blurred (what I do outside work is my business) and this can role over and have a detrimental effect in the work environment.

Lots of generalisations above and I am sure there are differences in niche areas, but just my observations :)
 
I think we had the biggest ever cohort attend from R Signals this year. I was the general view that individuals attending would find it easier to stand out against the masses.
BTW, I'm all for DE QMs, G4 might actually move forward for the first time.

I have no issues with DE QM’s in principle by the way, some LE’s are truly awful. Usually those that rely on their past WO status to get them through the day rather than any sort of intelligence ^~

But... be careful what you wish for. A QM job will not attract the best and brightest DE (not for a long time in the future anyway). Just imagine a frustrated J3 warrior in a J4 environment :)

I coulda been a contender.. ^~
 
And that's likely driven by the increasing breadth of outlook which means those 2 ranks below may not be seeing the 'bigger picture' of those 2 ranks above.
I’d go for two “levels of Command” instead of ranks.

Interestingly, on CODC, we were told toxic leadership really starts when people don’t see the impact on people’s lived experience as a result of their decision.
 
I have no issues with DE QM’s in principle by the way, some LE’s are truly awful. Usually those that rely on their past WO status to get them through the day rather than any sort of intelligence ^~

But... be careful what you wish for. A QM job will not attract the best and brightest DE (not for a long time in the future anyway). Just imagine a frustrated J3 warrior in a J4 environment :)

I coulda been a contender.. ^~
Or you could have a professional logistician instead…
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I’d go for two “levels of Command” instead of ranks.

Interestingly, on CODC, we were told toxic leadership really starts when people don’t see the impact on people’s lived experience as a result of their decision.

Problem is that describes basically everywhere except a platoon or FOB. It also includes simply absent or weak leadership. Which isn't the meaning of toxic leadership.

The Army needs to accept the reality that many of its officers do see bad impacts on their soldiers but ignore, justify, or fail to adequately take responsibility for it, usually because doing otherwise will harm their own self-interest. Until it does that cynicism about its LEADERS will continue.

CDS is doing a great version of this in the media at present. He's "responsible" for (undefined) mistakes which are conveniently free of any consequences, at least to him.
 
Problem is that describes basically everywhere except a platoon or FOB. It also includes simply absent or weak leadership. Which isn't the meaning of toxic leadership.

The Army needs to accept the reality that many of its officers do see bad impacts on their soldiers but ignore, justify, or fail to adequately take responsibility for it, usually because doing otherwise will harm their own self-interest. Until it does that cynicism about its LEADERS will continue.

CDS is doing a great version of this in the media at present. He's "responsible" for (undefined) mistakes which are conveniently free of any consequences, at least to him.

I'd say that Battalion/Unit COs would be surprised to be told they don't see the lived experience of their people.

I agree that toxic leadership exists at every level - from LCpl to CDS, but that's what we were briefed.
 

Latest Threads

Top