Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Redshaggydog, Dec 14, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Here is a question for you all;

    Why should the majority of members on selection boards for Senior and Junior NCO's be Officer

    Are our Seniors not able to do this?

    Who knows best what best makes a Junior or Senior NCO?

  2. You could always ask to be an observer on the board if you feel there is any impropriety going on and want to put your and your peers minds at rest. :twisted:
  3. This has changed.

    I believe all boards up to Sgt now have a WO1 on the team for the exact reason you stated.

    Go see the MCM roadshow for more info or ring your RCMO.
  4. Thanks for the info - I was not too sure on that point - good to see it is happening across all the Corps :oops:
  5. I know that boards up to and including Sgt have Warrant Officers as part of the board, hence my question majority.

    What I am asking is, do officers have the monopoly on the knowledge required to sift chaff from seed when promoting junior and senior NCOs?

    I am quite certain they do not. Therefore why do hold this sway on the promotion of soldiers?

    Whilst I understand that they should play a serious part in the selection of Warant Officers I do not think they should in regard to the other ranks.

    Are our seniors in the Corps and Army as a whole not suitable and knowledgable enough to be able to select whom they think are worthy and proven?
  6. GunnersQuadrant

    GunnersQuadrant LE Moderator

    Maybe to stop any favouritism from particular SNCOs (or the accusation of) possibly.
  7. GunnersQuadrant
    But is that not the same for the Officer boards held now?

    Good point but does not hold up in the light of day.
  8. Interesting question. But if you follow your own logic through then, surely, junior NCOs should form the boards to select signallers for promotion to Lance Corporal, since they should know better than officers or seniors what makes a good junior NCO. If you would not support such a change, then why would it be different, and right, at senior NCO level?

    The rationale, I suspect, lies in the extent of the separation that exists between a board and those it selects. Officer boards have such a separation - captains don't select captains and majors don't select majors. Similarly, while warrant officers now participate in selecting senior NCOs they don't select other warrant officers.

    If you think there is such a gulf between officers and senior NCOs that, for example, a CO or independent squadron commander is incapable of making a rational and impartial judgement on individuals, then I can only disagree with you - profoundly.
  9. Donny

    Not exactly, I think you are missing the point. Although some officers come up through the ranks, most do not really have the foggiest what makes a good/bad JNCO/SNCO.

    They have an idea, but, since they have not been through the process, have not had any experience in the matter, how can they then approve or disapprove.

    The Warrant Officer does not suddenly become one, or else pick one up in the Cpls Mess Christmas Ball. He moves steadily through the ranks gaining experience from his own time and the time of others.

    Surely OR's as we are want to be called, can and should manage our own careers.

    Our, are Officers so much more intelligent and experienced than us that we children should not be left to tend to ourselves?
  10. Currently Officers have a system in place called OJAR - soon ORs will have a similar system in place - this will allow almost 180 degree reporting on CRs - it will empower you to give your view of the reporting officer - this will be taken on board by the promotions board. :twisted:

    If I read you correctly - your point is why have the OF cadre got so much influence on mere mortals.

    As I am now beginning to find out industry works very differently to the Army and can promote a person on "ability" very quickly - the Army needs to look inwards and not be too elitist - I shall now be a heretic and say maybe Maj (rtd) Joyce - now an MP was on the right lines when he exposed this.
  11. Don't think so.

    I don't agree with you at all. And if you were right, your logic would extend to not allowing anyone who isn't a Yeoman select future Yeomen. Ditto Foremen. Or, if we go to extremes, how can anyone who isn't the Prime Minister select the next one?

    But what do you think the officer who has been a troop and squadron commander, and perhaps a commanding officer, been doing?

    No, of course not, and I don't think anyone who matters in our Corps has ever thought that. Good units come from a combination of good officers, good warrant officers and seniors, and good juniors, and if any one of those elements is missing then the result is predictable and visible to anyone who knows what they're looking for. What I think is what I said, that the reason we do it the way we do is to ensure there is a separation between the selector and the selected, to reduce the risk of partiality by voting members. Courts Martial follow the same principle, with warrant officers, but not seniors, serving as members. And the CR process also folows the same idea, otherwise you would have a signaller reported on at part one by a det comd, and at Part 2 by the troop sergeant.

    I said it was an interesting question and I still think so. But I wonder if you have an underlying prejudice? If your premise is actually that seniors really run the army and should be allowed to get on with it then, again, I don't agree with you. More significantly, you may just have chosen the wrong career, because Animal Farm is only a book. And it is satirical fiction, not factual idealism.
  12. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    Industry can (and often does) also promote on the basis of patronage or nepotism, something that is practically impossibe under the Army boarding system (whoever sits on it)
  13. Donny
    I quite agree, I think that all Supervisors should be selected by a board of their ilk, Traffics, TOT's and such.

    Not sure to be honest. Adventure Trg, CRs, inspections, re-writing SOPs. Certainly not what the toms are doing. They certainly don't have a clue what goes on in a) the NAAFI or b) the accommodation.

    All promotions are undertaken at a board. The board is always seen as impartial because a) The board itself is normally a higher rank; b) The board has a spread of experience from across the Corps c) The way each candidate is marked ensures that if known the board member can not try to sway his vote.

    This would be the same if run by Officers or Seniors.

    Your point is what actually, that it has to be Officers?

    My point is that Seniors are better positioned to do this as they know exactly what they need in an individual. Officers THINK they know, but are often as not led to this point by their Seniors. If you disagree - who originally drafts the CR for the 1st Reporting Officer and where does the 2nd Reporting Officer get his info from.

    Officers are very very good at what they do. What they do very well indeed is look after their own. I think it is time that ORs were allowed to mature and start to look after their own interests.

    Yes, Animal Farm is a book, but the Pigs are in control. You just can not see it and it is time for the sheep to control their own lives. You dogs can do what you do best, bark and keep us sheep moving in the right direction (as a unit not as individuals).
  14. ...whilst appreciating a level of cynicism that makes mine look like mild scepticism. But remember.....

  15. Donny

    Yes yes yes....... but remember!

    There is always "Us and Them"