Sorry, I'm Not a Technical Officer.....

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#81
norfolkandchance said:
...However it would make sense if our glorious HR team used the info provided to them for deciding postings (i.e. Posting Prefs and details of degree courses) to make an educated decision on who to put in more 'technical' junior officer posts...
You're suggesting that decisions are actually made about postings at so junior a level, rather than merely by the judicious use of dice/dartboards/numbers-in-a-hat at Glasgow? SO2 Junior Officers, speaking to a roadshow earlier this year, implied that that the first couple of postings (i.e. all those before the Capts' Grading Board) were almost entirely random and down to luck, and the confluence of a) when your adjt phoned to ask MCM where you were going next, and b) what jobs happened to be on her desk at that time that needed filling at some point in the next few months. Surely you just have to accept that you need to go where you're told, and that if you're really lucky, it may bear a passing resemblance to your posting preferences!?
 
#82
boney_m said:
Norfolk, not so much a comeback but an oppinion.

Arts degree/Sports science/history/david beckham - dont really give a rats. If the officer is of high calibre, is willing to take and learn from the advice of their SNCO's (and JNCO's/Sigs where necessary) and is dedicated to the job and a natural leader of men, i'm happy with them. IMHO they make the best officers and are our future unit commanders.

Having a technical degree is without doubt an advantage, but an officer with aptitude and dedication can be an asset to the Corps, no matter what their degree. Also, in my honest oppinion, the person makes the officer, not the degree.

Boney
I couldn't agree more.

It may be fine to specify that an Engineering or technical degree is preferred, but to dismiss all others is nonsense.
 
#84
I always thought the reasons for YofS's and FofS's was to cover the arse of officers who could not answer basic questions in life, like where am i, who am I, why am I.
 
#86
Puma said:
that is true
but officers should not hide behind them all the time
Yes but I think your looking in the wrong area, we excel at providing ICS infrastructure (all supervisors) and nothing needs to be changed there.

Although we don't have some representation in the application level, its dominated by DCSA and Defence firms. Lack of representation from Sigs causes problems in projects, I think we should really have more people at SO1/2/3 giving advice and assistance on these projects. Staff Officer is not normally a carer path our supervisors will take. My view is that we should have technical staff officers (with relevant degree) who are groomed for these roles, potentially spending their early carer alongside a FofS/IS Sup.
 
#88
TA_sig said:
Jeeeeeze that's crazy talk, stop it, you'll be doing us out of a job!
Ah yes, I know you've only just started but you will see it soon. Its annoying. You see the obvious cheap solution, only for it to be project managed to the extreme .. and finally come down to the conclusion that project X is using too much bandwidth.. which you said on day 2
 
#89
polar said:
Staff Officer is not normally a carer path our supervisors will take. My view is that we should have technical staff officers (with relevant degree) who are groomed for these roles, potentially spending their early carer alongside a FofS/IS Sup.
The temptation to make some sort of Leeds United analogy is almost unbearable.

I can't be bothered to trawl through 5 YEARS worth of opinion here to see whether I am covering old ground, but here's my tuppenyworth anywho:

Bear in mind that R SIGNALS actively recruits people with non-technical backgrounds. They have been known to say they prefer it. Don't blame the individual that fell for the patter!

Even if the Corps could only recruit technical officers (it can't, there aren't enough), the danger is that we wouldn't be recruiting the right kind of TROOP COMMANDERS. At the end of the day, that is what we are recruiting for, because that's what comes out of Sandhurst. Ultimately, in the WORST case scenario, when the chips are down, officers (and ALL ranks, including Techs) may need to fulfil their equivalent Infantry post. There will therefore always be a need for leadership ability alongside technical ability.

Who is to say that there might not be a genius with a fine art degree that when given a reasonable amount of in-service technical training, could wipe the floor with some dolt that scraped a BSc in Computer Studies from Blackpool Poly. (Trust me, this scenario ain't uncommon).

I could go on.

Ask a better question: Why don't we place a ceiling for those without Chartered status? (I believe the RE do this, or used to, and they don't solely recruit professional engrs).

Oh, and I've now seen boney_m's post above, and have nothing to add......... :dead:
 
#90
compus_mentus said:
Even if the Corps could only recruit technical officers (it can't, there aren't enough), the danger is that we wouldn't be recruiting the right kind of TROOP COMMANDERS. At the end of the day, that is what we are recruiting for, because that's what comes out of Sandhurst. Ultimately, in the WORST case scenario, when the chips are down, officers (and ALL ranks, including Techs) may need to fulfil their equivalent Infantry post. There will therefore always be a need for leadership ability alongside technical ability.
No recruiting for DE's remains exactly the same, the change is we are recruiting ICS PQO Captains (Professionally Qualified Officers - same as medics & chaplins) . The succes of the first (LIAG(V)) has led to the creation of a second technical officer unit (/squadron) (LCISG(V)). Obviously these are TA 2 Sig Bde but where did the CS op first appear? 2 Sig Bde
 
#91
I know I'm opening the 'one-army' tin of worms here, but LIAG(V) are a different kind of beast entirely. This is a specific example within the TA and the same argument does not carry across the whole of the Regulars and TA.
 
#92
compus_mentus said:
I know I'm opening the 'one-army' tin of worms here
Maybe not, has the TA's traditional role of RCZ/UK comms gone.

Its now moving to the flanks of the regular corps (loosely referring to the ISO model). What I means is the normal TA will provide GD siggies on Ops and specialist TA will provide the interface to industry/expert knowledge at the other (on Ops).

Hmm, got me thinking. We don't need regular technical officers if we can get more RSigs (TA and ex-Regular) into Defence ICS firms. I'm working on a defence project that isn't hitting the headlines :D , corps membership has certainly eased inter firm boundaries.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top