Supervisor Training - Who Needs it?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by digifishdiablo, May 21, 2005.

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. I don't know if it is just my perception, but there seems to be a lot of posts within units filled by individuals doing the job of the supervisors without the training (maybe they were'nt seen as good enough on the respective boards). There are lots of Tech Staffies doing a FofS job etc.

    In fact because they havent been indoctrinated in the skill of looking after their own careers by continually chopping the legs off of everybody around them and disappearing up their bosses arrse. The guys without the training seem to do a better job and don't cost as much.
  2. Its not your perception at all here. Its you having a dig at the supervisory roles.

    I agree, i've met Tech/Is Eng/RS Op staffies in gapped supervisory posts who do an excellent job. But i havent got vision on the issue Corps wide so would never be in a position to say they are better. To be honest i think your arguement is utter rubbish, the amount of quality YofS/FofS/Supvr IS/Supvr Radio i've met far outweighs the dross.

  3. Which Bit?

    The employment of untrained supervisors to bridge the gaps, the quality of the untrained supervisors carrying out the task. Or whether the quantity of excellent YofS/FofS who actually give a hoot about their guys is in the Majority or Minority.

    Surely, those guys who are bridging the gaps are proving something, and should receive the recognition they deserve. After all, they are not the ones on easy street for the promotion they deserve. They have'nt done the course and avoided the work involved between the ranks of Cpl to SSgt.
  4. Have to agree with Boney, I held a supervisor slot for a short time and yes I could get by, but then went on a did the course itself and realised how little of the job I was doing.
  5. What about us poor tw**s that had 5 years to do in the Corps to be told we were to old for supervisor

    to be then put in the post of supervisor hold the post for two years... then watch the new breed make a complete sack of it.....

    Then to add salt in the wound get tasked to sort it all out again
  6. The crux of your arguement seemed, to me at least, that the trained supervisors out there are self centered, and not fulfilling their roles and responsibilities (towards their subordinates). You say that their untrained counterparts are doing a better job, in a minority of instances that may be true.

    An individual may miss the window for supervisor training for many reasons, from they dont want to do it, to they were not selected. Years later they get the opportunity to fill the role and do a good job. Its not surprising, years working in trade and the Corps environment will give alot of the necessary skills of a supervisory role. The supervisory training gives the skills and knowledge needed to fill the gaps.

    There will always be good and bad supervisors, but alot of whether a supervisor is a bad egg is based on perception of subordinates who dont realise the responsibilities of the job or the bigger picture. In my experience the Corps get it right in the selection process and we end up with the right people in the job. If you are the wrong person for the job, its unlikely you would last long.

  7. Couldn't one also argue that a lot of things have to be sacrificed in order to get to supervisory level? After all, there are very few mafiosi who are still actively involved in things like Corps football and other joyous activitities. To that end, perhaps one could consider it 'opportunity cost'. If you sacrifice the chilled lifestyle to get to the top then surely you deserve the promotion and higher band pay?

    If only! :twisted:
  8. There are of course some exceptions to the rule PD :wink:

  9. I think the processes in place to select those for supervisory training is more than sufficient to weed out 99% of those unsuitable for the job. I have seen people, whom I thought would have had no problem, fail to gain a place on a supervisory course. The comeptition is very stiff.

    I think the minority could be those who wanted to use the position to jump to the higher echelons, and once they have achieved this, have no ambition to further themselves, and therefore rest on their laurels. Especially if you are in your last 2 years, will not be selected for promotion and are more concerned about your resettlement than the job.

    I would hate to think that there were more than 1 or 2 of these people out there :wink:

  10. digifishdiablo

    Not sure what you are getting at....the supervisor courses are specific to trade not manmanagement.

    Chopping of the legs of whom!!! Please explain a bit more........or is your brain pissed at the moment.

    Bollox, the guys without the training can do so much. They can manmanage and as far as their trade experience goes do some of what a supervisor is trained in. To a point. After that they are missing the broadband aspect that supervisors are skilled in (taught in).

    I agree that there are exceptional senior tradesman out there who are as good as the supervisors but........ and this is a massive BUT, they are very very far and few between.

    Hence.........funny old thing. Why the Corps has supervisors. Hay, they don't get it right all the time, but I think in this case........they have.

    If you did not get is some good advise.

    Get out.....or be the best Mil training, hair checking, smartest, meanest, blanket stacking, duty dolling, vehicle checking, arse kissing soldier you can be. Then, and a big Then you may also climb the social ladder.
  11. I concur. My course was an eye opener. Also realised how much of the job I should have been doing.
  12. you're way out of tune DFD. Next you'll be dragging up the Blandford Three thread and trying to re-crucify the CIS Wing training team.

    I wonder which songsheet you're singing off...pray tell.