The Power of Fill Your Boots; Real or imagined?

If you are shit at your job, you are generally sacked, Officers should not be exempt from this.
Since I left, one of the things I’ve noticed is that it is much more common for people in the civ world to be sacked (at all levels; analyst to Managing Director) than it ever was in the army.
 
Last edited:
Which says to me that you are doing something to the detriment of your unit as a whole to make your troop a better place to be.
I'm not usually one to support stacker1 but the man (could be a woman, I simply don't know) appears to be doing his best to look out for his troop.

Just out of interest, how is making his troop a better place to be, to the detriment of his unit as a whole? Units have always had inter-squadron/inter-troop rivalries since time immemorial.

I'd rather work for a staffy who has the courage of his convictions and his boys/girls best interests at heart, than a middle ranking officer who's worried about the career limiting effects of an offline chat with the CO.
 
I completely agree, but what you are still yet to offer is a workable process for doing this taking into account all the environmental factors. What you have said so far is that someone should be sacked because the sign off rate at their unit is higher than average, spiced up with subjective opinion from those that have signed off. This is laughable at best. MoD would be taken to the cleaners for millions and every officer would avoid command jobs like the plague.
Actually I didnt say that, but the sign off rate is a good indication.
Any officer who would avoid a command job because he is a shit leader shouldnt have one in the first place. They love the command jobs but dont seem to want to be held responsible for it.
 
Can you explain that a bit more because on first sight it appears a recipe for making the Army generally worse.
For example, is he ensuring that he only has troops without J1 issues, not hard to do if you’re in with the SSM. This would place an additional Burden on on the other Tp SSgts and potentially make their troops a shitter place to be.
 
Actually I didnt say that, but the sign off rate is a good indication.
Any officer who would avoid a command job because he is a shit leader shouldnt have one in the first place. They love the command jobs but dont seem to want to be held responsible for it.
Any officer that avoids a command tour because they don’t want to lose their career due to the subjective opinion of some disgruntled troops that have signed off sounds sensible me. Are you actually going to offer anything workable here?
 
For example, is he ensuring that he only has troops without J1 issues, not hard to do if you’re in with the SSM. This would place an additional Burton on the other Tp SSgts and potentially make their troops a shitter place to be.
One could also argue that he's giving his troop the time in work to sort out their admin, rather than messing them about.

Perhaps a symptom of good management rather than a special case.
 
Which says to me that you are doing something to the detriment of your unit as a whole to make your troop a better place to be.
You mean I look after my soldiers? Its not particularly hard, but some people will make excuse for continuing to treat their soldiers like shit.
 
One could also argue that he's giving his troop the time in work to sort out their admin, rather than messing them about.

Perhaps a symptom of good management rather than a special case.
Possibly, the law of averages swings both ways, and he’s been around a long time so knows how to handle the heirachy.
 
Any officer that avoids a command tour because they don’t want to lose their career due to the subjective opinion of some disgruntled troops that have signed off sounds sensible me. Are you actually going to offer anything workable here?
then I guess they better start being better at doing a command tour rather than acting like cunt and not wanting any sanction for it.

You have to be an absolute penis to suggest "some disgruntled troops" would cause a CO to lose his job, when some becomes a alot then the CO deserves to lose his job unless he can prove there are outside factors.

Or we can just continue how it is now.
 
Possibly, the law of averages swings both ways, and he’s been around a long time so knows how to handle the heirachy.
You can't really hang someone on the law of averages.

I'm sure there's a Tp. SSgt floating around on here who often wonders why he seems to have all the regiment's fück-ups working for him.
 
You mean I look after my soldiers? Its not particularly hard, but some people will make excuse for continuing to treat their soldiers like shit.
I think the question would be do you manage your troop for their benefit or do your manage your troop for the benefit of the unit as a whole? It isn’t hard to ring fence your troop from shit jobs, meaning other troops get them at a higher frequency. For example, I rarely see a QMs dept messed about as they have a grumpy LE for top cover.
 
For example, is he ensuring that he only has troops without J1 issues, not hard to do if you’re in with the SSM. This would place an additional Burden on on the other Tp SSgts and potentially make their troops a shitter place to be.
I took over a Troop that had severe discipline and fitness issues, I now have a Troop that currently has 4 people on App 9 (3 from training, cheers Deepcut). My Troop regularly come first in mil skill competitions with in the sqn. It was hard graft, but now its done its a look easier to manage.
My last SSM was a spineless cunt who fucked over his soldiers to brown nose officers, (Doubtless thats why he got his commision) The new one has the same mindset as me, punish the bellends and look after the good lads.

What gets me, is that its not some great secret, there is no mysterious and special training needed, you just need a bit of common sense and some very very basic ideas, yet it appears beyond the understanding of some people.
 
then I guess they better start being better at doing a command tour rather than acting like **** and not wanting any sanction for it.

You have to be an absolute penis to suggest "some disgruntled troops" would cause a CO to lose his job, when some becomes a alot then the CO deserves to lose his job unless he can prove there are outside factors.

Or we can just continue how it is now.
OK, so the CO now spends his time trying to defend a high sign off rate, what do you think that will result in, because it won’t be a better working environment. Perhaps a better way would be a 360 reporting process, but then how do you resolve the cut throat actions of the Sqn Comds and so on.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top