The Power of Fill Your Boots; Real or imagined?

I’m old.

In my day it was “number 2 and 4 riflemen double forward and draw fire!” Hoping to expose the enemy and form a plan of attack. I can’t even imagine fighting an enemy that don’t even care if they get killed as they have some virgins (insert raisins here) waiting for them.

Respect.
 
If a company loses millions of pounds every year, do the shareholders just accept the board's excuse that its all the fault of lower management?
It would go broke. Natural selection. The shareholders wouldn’t have much, if any, influence.

I don’t believe the field Army has a clue about the value of its human capital; how much it costs to replace trained soldiers. Someone leaves, they eventually get replaced. So no-one carries genuine responsibility at the level that actually makes a difference. Which is really your level and not much beyond.

Why not make retention rates a KPI and hold key appointment holders responsible. Performance manage them and sack them if they fail.

Like almost any meaningful change, changing the way soldiers are treated has to come from within. No amount of top down direction will work; it’ll just get ignored unless cocks are on blocks.
 
Tell that to a retired centurion who spent 20 years marching 25 miles a day carrying 20kg, plus shield and sword, in sandals followed by a few hours of building fortifications ceaselessly

Times and expectations change
Neither the centurions nor the optio(s?) built the fortifications at the end of the day. They were simply responsible for ensuring that their share was built, in addition to:
  1. Ensuring that the half century that wasn't building were actually carrying out their stags.
  2. Receiving orders from the "proper officers".
  3. Checking up on the sick, lame and lazy.
  4. Carrying out the myriad other tasks/dick-jobs which junior and mid-level officers have done since time immemorial.
 
If a company loses millions of pounds every year, do the shareholders just accept the board's excuse that its all the fault of lower management?
It would go broke. Natural selection. The shareholders wouldn’t have much, if any, influence.

I don’t believe the field Army has a clue about the value of its human capital; how much it costs to replace trained soldiers. Someone leaves, they eventually get replaced. So no-one carries genuine responsibility at the level that actually makes a difference. Which is really your level and not much beyond.

Why not make retention rates a KPI and hold key appointment holders responsible. Performance manage them and sack them if they fail.

Like almost any meaningful change, changing the way soldiers are treated has to come from within. No amount of top down direction will work; it’ll just get ignored unless cocks are on blocks.
Which would be fine if I were granted power over any of the top five reasons why people leave.

But I don't, so you hold me responsible for other people's decisions with quite literally no power to do anything about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Was anywhere in Northern Ireland ever mortared so often they mounted ******* Phalanx around the place?


I'd have loved half the kit from Northern Ireland in Iraq. It would have been nice to have had Snatch and Saxon rather than driving down IED Alley in Basra in a stripped down Wolf 110.
That alarm brings back a strange feeling, hearing it now.
 
Which would be fine if I were granted power over any of the top five reasons why people leave.
Which presumably don’t include being fcucked around by the immediate chain of command.

Slacker’s constant arguement is that blokes are leaving because they are screwed around by their CofC. If that is the case, then why shouldn’t that CofC be held responsible?

If course it might also be bollocks, not supported by anything but the chip on Slacker’s shoulder!
 
Which would be fine if I were granted power over any of the top five reasons why people leave.
Which presumably don’t include being fcucked around by the immediate chain of command.

Slacker’s constant arguement is that blokes are leaving because they are screwed around by their CofC. If that is the case, then why shouldn’t that CofC be held responsible?

If course it might also be bollocks, not supported by anything but the chip on Slacker’s shoulder!
Inability to plan life.
Impact of service on spouse's life.
Pay.
Opportunities outside.
Morale of self and service.

As an SO1 Commander I can do bits and pieces about each, but I don't control my macro-program nor any of the TACOS. And they're the bits that fûck people off.

I can give all the weds afternoon sports and long weekends I want, but if I only get 80% of the time to do my maintenance and 8 weeks notice of a 7 month deployment, that'll mean cock all...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If course it might also be bollocks, not supported by anything but the chip on Slacker’s shoulder!
I did wonder if someone was going to either accuse me of being chippy or having a chip on my shoulder, once again you sound like a senior officer desperately trying to deflect the blame.
 
It would go broke. Natural selection. The shareholders wouldn’t have much, if any, influence.

I don’t believe the field Army has a clue about the value of its human capital; how much it costs to replace trained soldiers. Someone leaves, they eventually get replaced. So no-one carries genuine responsibility at the level that actually makes a difference. Which is really your level and not much beyond.

Why not make retention rates a KPI and hold key appointment holders responsible. Performance manage them and sack them if they fail.

Like almost any meaningful change, changing the way soldiers are treated has to come from within. No amount of top down direction will work; it’ll just get ignored unless cocks are on blocks.
It will go broke when it eventually runs out of money, in the meantime (Which could be several years) the shareholders just sit quietly, while the board blame the lower management every year?

We arent replacing those leaving, thats part of the problem. This isnt a new thing, its been happening for over two decades at least. What have senior officers done about it? Fuck all except try to pass the blame downwards.

People arent getting sacked, which is also part of the problem, unless the MOD gets sued no one cares. Where all these values and standards the bellends at the top are always droning on about?
 
It would go broke. Natural selection. The shareholders wouldn’t have much, if any, influence.

I don’t believe the field Army has a clue about the value of its human capital; how much it costs to replace trained soldiers. Someone leaves, they eventually get replaced. So no-one carries genuine responsibility at the level that actually makes a difference. Which is really your level and not much beyond.

Why not make retention rates a KPI and hold key appointment holders responsible. Performance manage them and sack them if they fail.

Like almost any meaningful change, changing the way soldiers are treated has to come from within. No amount of top down direction will work; it’ll just get ignored unless cocks are on blocks.
That would probably lead to every Officer in any sort of high readiness organisation signing off. Come to think of it the queue to hand their kit in was pretty long when we told our lads (and lass) when we told them they were off on a fruity Herrick tour. The CoC can’t be blamed for that can they?
 
It will go broke when it eventually runs out of money, in the meantime (Which could be several years) the shareholders just sit quietly, while the board blame the lower management every year?

We arent replacing those leaving, thats part of the problem. This isnt a new thing, its been happening for over two decades at least. What have senior officers done about it? **** all except try to pass the blame downwards.

People arent getting sacked, which is also part of the problem, unless the MOD gets sued no one cares. Where all these values and standards the bellends at the top are always droning on about?
And what do you sack them for? Remember, no one is going to willingly lose their pension without an expensive fight.
 
I did wonder if someone was going to either accuse me of being chippy or having a chip on my shoulder, once again you sound like a senior officer desperately trying to deflect the blame.
Senior NCOs never Deflect blame
Shit floats to the surface it rolls downhill and of course is always in a sandwich
Of course officers are easy to blame rather than admit you fucked up
 
And what do you sack them for? Remember, no one is going to willingly lose their pension without an expensive fight.
Being shit leaders that have cost the MOD money in having to recruit and retrain,

Or we can just let the fuckers do what they like because the MOD is scared they might go to court.
 
Senior NCOs never Deflect blame
Shit floats to the surface it rolls downhill and of course is always in a sandwich
Of course officers are easy to blame rather than admit you fucked up
If I fuck up, I'm in front of the CO.

When they fuck up, nothing happens, they can even have NDs excused if they are a bit tired.
 
And what metric do you apply when defining a shit leader?
Soldiers leaving due to not being looked after and/or fucked about because the CO is a twat.

Or do you think shite leadership should be rewarded?
 
Soldiers leaving due to not being looked after and/or fucked about because the CO is a twat.

Or do you think shite leadership should be rewarded?
I’ll ask again, what metric do you apply to show shit leadership? Think about what you are actually saying and how you would defend it in court, you can’t because you’re talking like a barrack room Cpl.
 
Soldiers leaving due to not being looked after and/or fucked about because the CO is a twat.

Or do you think shite leadership should be rewarded?
do you even accept that some of this is well above and beyond a CO's powers to effect?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top