Recruiting for the Corps is truly on it's arrse, more so than for other capbadges. Does anyone have any suggestions to bring the best and the brightest back through our doors? The only idea I have is pay and lots of it, probably in the form of a bonus as NEM is unlikely to change.
I don't disagree with any of your gripes (other than appearing to associate Cyber with SIGINT) however, none of this appears in the brochures, and the embittered are generally at least 5 yrs in.We could professionalise roles, let personnel who have a flare for a particular capability (Cyber/SIGINT) remain in that role; a well rounded individual (jack of all trades etc) who can complete a PFA in 9 minutes is not necessarily the biggest asset to our technical Corps. Just a thought, maybe technical people are?
Also maybe clearly define tasks according to commanders intent, and enable the Supervisors and (lesser) SNCOs to realise this accordingly in conjunction with DE and LE Offrs, thereby using experience as a guide to procurement. This may actually give JNCOs and Siggies something to aim towards, as attractive as the red drinking suit is, the privilege of being able to wear it no longer holds the esteem it once did.
Or we could continue the cycle of using ill-qualified, under educated DE Offrs as equipment/capability 'experts' on assignment for a maximum of 2.5 years where they can spend approx 6 minutes on delivering major programmes with no thought to actual requirements; the LEs and SNCOs are, after all, just petulant children and should be treated as such. JNCOs and Siggies love that shit.
I don't disagree with any of your gripes (other than appearing to associate Cyber with SIGINT) however, none of this appears in the brochures, and the embittered are generally at least 5 yrs in.
How does generic pump leadership and management in the '90s improve recruiting today?Back in the mid 90s a 'task force' came out from UK to discover why the Signals Regiment I was with in Germany had the worst sign-off rate in the Corps and the third worst in the Army. I got some inside gen from one of the clerks saw their report. Dreadful career management of soldiers both their own and attached - even though this was before the days of harmony guidelines you had people doing 6 month tours with two months between while suitable volunteers were ignored, I knew of two chaps who did 3 tours in two years against their wishes and it cost them both their marriage, aloof and arrogant officers (with a very few notable exceptions) who invented their own fitness standards in compete disregard of official policy, specialist tradesmen endlessly being fukked about by passed over RD bullsh1t merchants - led by a complete cnut of an RSM who terrorised his own SNCOs, vehicles and equipment that didn't work and a CO who had absolutely no idea what was happening in his unit. The CO was 'posted early' and I think things improved as I left myself shortly after (no connection there).
I suspect nothing has changed very much, though my later exposure suggests the quality of officers is higher than it used to be.
Because, (apologies for starting a sentence with because), the dross that these clowns promoted on the Mates Net are now in charge themselves. One shit weasel promotes 3 or 4 of his DS watching lizards above talented soldiers, it's them who are in command now and not the talented onesHow does generic pump leadership and management in the '90s improve recruiting today?
Every Corps has been through similar issues, and has similar problems, and will continue to do so. They don't affect recruiting.^ my point was that many people nowadays might recognise how little has changed and draw the conclusion that previous efforts to improve the model have failed. As I always say, there are two types of people, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...