Posted on Jan 24, 2024
What are your thoughts on temporary NCO promotions without PME?
10.3K
34
30
4
4
0
What are your thoughts on temporary NCO promotions without PME? Over 50k promotions have been given yet over 10k recipients have not completed PME
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Promotions
Posted 10 mo ago
Responses: 11
4
4
0
The number of ‘Acting Jack’ NCOs being appointed reveals Big Army concept that is broken! W/o as many fingers in the pie as an acceptable PT test, it still represents another failed concept! Cpl Vic Burk SGT Philip Roncari SFC William Farrell PO1 H Gene Lawrence MSG Joseph Cristofaro LTC (Join to see) LTC Stephen C. LTC Stephen F.Lt Col Charlie Brown SPC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen [~332475:SSG Warren Swan
(4)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
We have had a lot of institutional changes in the last few years, that dwarf what I experienced prior.
(3)
(0)
I am torn on this one, actually.
Myself having gone thru the ranks with a mix of when I got my next rank vs when I went to school...I am an odd duck. I went to PLDC/WLC/BLC (whatever the name wants to be) prior to making Sergeant after having been Boarded. Once eligible, I completed ALC Common Core (Now DLC 2), then Boarded, promoted to SSG, then ALC Phase 2 and 3 complete. For SFC and MSG, I was Boarded then schooled prior to promotion. That's my experience.
Now, I have seen many Soldiers receive their ETP promotions that whole hearted deserved them. Of these Soldiers, they needed to get the ETP promotion because for whatever reason the slots for schools were non-existent or those seats were given to others because those others were front-loaded. Or just plain laziness on BN/BDE Schools NCOs that didn't want to do the work to click a button for schools submission.
Then there are those I have seen that were given an ETP promotion but still needed time to cook in the oven. My most recent deployment, I saw several Soldiers receive the ETP but sucked. They received no mentorship in their previous rank and were still not receiving mentorship in the new rank. Playing favorites with the Juniors. Cow-towing to certain NCOs and Officers above them. I can't say they were bad NCOs because I was not around them often (different units), but when I was around them, watching, they were not good NCOs. Almost acting on the mantra of "pay grade."
Then, you have the issue I stated above about school slots. When you try to sell the STEP program to Soldiers, getting them to hit all their marks, when trying to submit them for the appropriate level PME, they are put on the back burner or denied because all the ETP promotees are frontloaded so they don't lose their newly given rank.
In the end, I see good and bad with this program. Deserving Soldiers that can't get into school and not-ready Soldiers getting ETPs to fill the void of NCOs.
As a SFC Drill Sergeant in my Senior Leader Course (had been waiting for a slot after 5 years being a SFC), said..."If there are exceptions to policies, then why have policies?"
Myself having gone thru the ranks with a mix of when I got my next rank vs when I went to school...I am an odd duck. I went to PLDC/WLC/BLC (whatever the name wants to be) prior to making Sergeant after having been Boarded. Once eligible, I completed ALC Common Core (Now DLC 2), then Boarded, promoted to SSG, then ALC Phase 2 and 3 complete. For SFC and MSG, I was Boarded then schooled prior to promotion. That's my experience.
Now, I have seen many Soldiers receive their ETP promotions that whole hearted deserved them. Of these Soldiers, they needed to get the ETP promotion because for whatever reason the slots for schools were non-existent or those seats were given to others because those others were front-loaded. Or just plain laziness on BN/BDE Schools NCOs that didn't want to do the work to click a button for schools submission.
Then there are those I have seen that were given an ETP promotion but still needed time to cook in the oven. My most recent deployment, I saw several Soldiers receive the ETP but sucked. They received no mentorship in their previous rank and were still not receiving mentorship in the new rank. Playing favorites with the Juniors. Cow-towing to certain NCOs and Officers above them. I can't say they were bad NCOs because I was not around them often (different units), but when I was around them, watching, they were not good NCOs. Almost acting on the mantra of "pay grade."
Then, you have the issue I stated above about school slots. When you try to sell the STEP program to Soldiers, getting them to hit all their marks, when trying to submit them for the appropriate level PME, they are put on the back burner or denied because all the ETP promotees are frontloaded so they don't lose their newly given rank.
In the end, I see good and bad with this program. Deserving Soldiers that can't get into school and not-ready Soldiers getting ETPs to fill the void of NCOs.
As a SFC Drill Sergeant in my Senior Leader Course (had been waiting for a slot after 5 years being a SFC), said..."If there are exceptions to policies, then why have policies?"
(3)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
In COMPO 2 and 3, for every Soldier not going to school because of a lazy schools NCO, or needs a very tough to get ALC or SLC in one of five impacted CMFs, there are several Soldiers not going to school because they can't pass HT-WT, can't pass ACFT, flagged for another reason, or just don't want to go because it's not convenient for them and their MDAY/TPU commander confuses "requirements" with "convenience of the MDAY/TPU".
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1SG (Join to see) This is an ongoing "which school of thought" are you in conversation that happens someones.
On one hand, they have done the time and have the experience in the MOS, presumably they have the leadership skill and the Army promoted some great NCOs in the past with zero PME who went on to do great things. Today, they will eventually get their PME (because their CSM will be on a $!%* call every other week to tell the same people the same thing about quotas they did on the last call), and the Army is short NCOs anyway. Why not throw someone in the spot who can get the job done and pay them for the work at the appropriate level? If it's stupid and works, it's not stupid. Generally, most of these NCOs will get the job done, get their PME completed and move on.
On the other hand, the NCO corps is playing catch up. The initiatives to "professionalize" NCOs in the same vein as Officer Development is still pretty young. This includes robust PME that develops along the Army Leadership Model: comprised of Attributes (A) (Character, Presence, and Intellect) and Competencies (C) (Leads, Develops, and Achieves). If that is our goal, temporary promotions may undermine that objective if that development occurs in the institutional domain (PME) instead of the organizational (ULDP). We are throwing people into leadership positions without the base understanding of the core A/C required just to fill a gap. It works, but what is the effect? For however long this NCO is in a position, they are building a team culture based on what they know to date. They are "developing" their subordinates based on what they know to date. As well all know, most times they do not have the whole picture yet and these leaders tend to devolve into the leadership style that revolves around their authority and ability to say, "just do what I say".
Junior Soldiers today are far more 'educated' today, and this leadership style is not as efficient or work as often or on as many Soldiers as it used to. They can spot a weak leader from a mile away and with so many that lack this understanding, chances are not only is their FLL not outstanding, but their Squad Leader may not be either.
All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; we are supposed to provide that leadership. In each of the development domains we are failing our Soldiers:
Institutional: some courses are Soldiers mills, sure we accredit our courses, but we move them through without ensuring they completely understand how they apply the basic Learning Objectives and we don't have enough instructors to seat enough classes to accommodate the need to promote.
Organizational: How many units (BN/BDE) have actual honest to goodness Unit Leader Development Plans that meet doctrinal requirements? Sure we throw NCODP and ODP on the schedule and make them do IDPs, but does all of that align with the METs and the Army Leadership Development Model.
Operational: are we really putting Soldiers in broadening and operational assignments (and noting them correctly on NCOERs) that develop them according to their strengths or are we caught up in "progression" assignments? Do we billet our additional duties strategically or just fill gaps? The assumption is every NCO has been the NCOIC of a range, been an ADSNCO, UPL, SARC, etc. But to they actually have the diversity of experiences necessary to build a well rounded NCO in 10 years for consideration of 1SG?
On one hand, they have done the time and have the experience in the MOS, presumably they have the leadership skill and the Army promoted some great NCOs in the past with zero PME who went on to do great things. Today, they will eventually get their PME (because their CSM will be on a $!%* call every other week to tell the same people the same thing about quotas they did on the last call), and the Army is short NCOs anyway. Why not throw someone in the spot who can get the job done and pay them for the work at the appropriate level? If it's stupid and works, it's not stupid. Generally, most of these NCOs will get the job done, get their PME completed and move on.
On the other hand, the NCO corps is playing catch up. The initiatives to "professionalize" NCOs in the same vein as Officer Development is still pretty young. This includes robust PME that develops along the Army Leadership Model: comprised of Attributes (A) (Character, Presence, and Intellect) and Competencies (C) (Leads, Develops, and Achieves). If that is our goal, temporary promotions may undermine that objective if that development occurs in the institutional domain (PME) instead of the organizational (ULDP). We are throwing people into leadership positions without the base understanding of the core A/C required just to fill a gap. It works, but what is the effect? For however long this NCO is in a position, they are building a team culture based on what they know to date. They are "developing" their subordinates based on what they know to date. As well all know, most times they do not have the whole picture yet and these leaders tend to devolve into the leadership style that revolves around their authority and ability to say, "just do what I say".
Junior Soldiers today are far more 'educated' today, and this leadership style is not as efficient or work as often or on as many Soldiers as it used to. They can spot a weak leader from a mile away and with so many that lack this understanding, chances are not only is their FLL not outstanding, but their Squad Leader may not be either.
All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; we are supposed to provide that leadership. In each of the development domains we are failing our Soldiers:
Institutional: some courses are Soldiers mills, sure we accredit our courses, but we move them through without ensuring they completely understand how they apply the basic Learning Objectives and we don't have enough instructors to seat enough classes to accommodate the need to promote.
Organizational: How many units (BN/BDE) have actual honest to goodness Unit Leader Development Plans that meet doctrinal requirements? Sure we throw NCODP and ODP on the schedule and make them do IDPs, but does all of that align with the METs and the Army Leadership Development Model.
Operational: are we really putting Soldiers in broadening and operational assignments (and noting them correctly on NCOERs) that develop them according to their strengths or are we caught up in "progression" assignments? Do we billet our additional duties strategically or just fill gaps? The assumption is every NCO has been the NCOIC of a range, been an ADSNCO, UPL, SARC, etc. But to they actually have the diversity of experiences necessary to build a well rounded NCO in 10 years for consideration of 1SG?
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CSM William Everroad when I first came in, active duty troop strength was roughly 750k now we stand at roughly 460k, rely more on COMPO 2 than ever, have an unsustainable ops tempo that leaves training for MOS truly last, and leadership that all too often is more concentrated on the colors of our KRI’s than true mission readiness and mos mastery. IMHO
(1)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
1SG (Join to see) - for sure. "Big Army" has been throwing wrenches into unit level planning for years now. It certainly isn't helping us figure out development when we can't even prioritize MET specific training.
It is really shocking when we develop our "work hours" matrix to determine where the work hours are going: Administrative, MET supported tasks, or development.
I have made a concerted effort to make sure that my Commanders have firmly prioritized MET and development over all else. Just by having that conversation we have eliminated a lot of distractors and returned a lot of focus to training and development, but you are right, Army tends to step on Mission Command pretty hard, either on accident or on purpose (if on purpose, do they really support MC?)
This problem is not going away. But what I tell my 1SGs is that recruiting and retention is an everyone problem. If we don't take care of the Soldiers we get, by training and developing them to accomplish the mission, why would someone want to be in, or stay in our organization? What do our Soldiers tell other people about our unit? Do they even want to be there? Does the leaders care they are there or achieving stuff?
I have seen leaders throughout various units use their platform to decry everything the Army does or is and mix politics and ideology with their persona. Soldiers see this and don't like it. The focus at the unit level is not on what the Army does, its should be on what we are supposed to be doing.
It is really shocking when we develop our "work hours" matrix to determine where the work hours are going: Administrative, MET supported tasks, or development.
I have made a concerted effort to make sure that my Commanders have firmly prioritized MET and development over all else. Just by having that conversation we have eliminated a lot of distractors and returned a lot of focus to training and development, but you are right, Army tends to step on Mission Command pretty hard, either on accident or on purpose (if on purpose, do they really support MC?)
This problem is not going away. But what I tell my 1SGs is that recruiting and retention is an everyone problem. If we don't take care of the Soldiers we get, by training and developing them to accomplish the mission, why would someone want to be in, or stay in our organization? What do our Soldiers tell other people about our unit? Do they even want to be there? Does the leaders care they are there or achieving stuff?
I have seen leaders throughout various units use their platform to decry everything the Army does or is and mix politics and ideology with their persona. Soldiers see this and don't like it. The focus at the unit level is not on what the Army does, its should be on what we are supposed to be doing.
(1)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
OK, I've been out long enough that there are some details I cannot comment on directly, but we have faced this same problem before and we will face it again (and again, and again). No, I'm not talking about just the Temp NCO Promotion w/o PME issue, that is just a symptom. The real problem is policies that look good but we know don't work. We have repeatedly established "standards" that look good on paper but that we know do not work in the real world.
In my day it was NCOA, later we called it PNCOC, BNCOC, and ANCOC, but the description and purpose seem pretty much the same.
One question I would ask the senior NCOs who are still on active duty: Does PME really work? Does a SPC or CPL attending BLC come back a month later having suddenly learned to be a "leader"? I'm sure some of them learn something, but is leadership a skill that can be taught in a school? I've always felt the soldiers learned leadership by being led -- some of them develop it, some don't, and it was up to NCOs to foster and encourage leadership among their subordinates while identifying the ones who had the combination of leadership and MOS skills to become leaders.
In my day it was NCOA, later we called it PNCOC, BNCOC, and ANCOC, but the description and purpose seem pretty much the same.
One question I would ask the senior NCOs who are still on active duty: Does PME really work? Does a SPC or CPL attending BLC come back a month later having suddenly learned to be a "leader"? I'm sure some of them learn something, but is leadership a skill that can be taught in a school? I've always felt the soldiers learned leadership by being led -- some of them develop it, some don't, and it was up to NCOs to foster and encourage leadership among their subordinates while identifying the ones who had the combination of leadership and MOS skills to become leaders.
(1)
(0)
CSM William Everroad
MSG Thomas Currie - You bring up great points. To answer your question, the answer is no. PME teaches doctoral concepts, your unit leadership is supposed to take those concepts and teach your junior leaders how to apply them.
This is because units rely on the schoolhouse to do all the work. A SGT goes to BLC (PLDC) to learn how to do counselings, teach skill level 1 MOS and WTT tasks, they learn about regulations and promotions, they learn the Army Leadership Model, they might get some instruction on Skill Level 2 WTT tasks so they are familiar.
When they come back, that SGT's squad leader can assume they know the Army way of doing all that stuff, but they don't walk them through it when it comes time to do the tasks. These SGTs have been exposed to the Army Leadership Model, but when it doesn't tie into their evaluation or the assessment of their performance, what good is that knowledge?
This is where is all falls apart. The schoolhouse does not have the time nor capacity to PE students to death so that they can effectively apply every principle in the LO list and then come back and teach their leaders how to lead them. This is a similar model of Officer PME, a MAJ can go to ILE and learn mission command, but it is on their rater (the BN CDR) to have an ODP that puts them through the concept from theory to application BEFORE you make them your XO and they have to do it for real.
This is because units rely on the schoolhouse to do all the work. A SGT goes to BLC (PLDC) to learn how to do counselings, teach skill level 1 MOS and WTT tasks, they learn about regulations and promotions, they learn the Army Leadership Model, they might get some instruction on Skill Level 2 WTT tasks so they are familiar.
When they come back, that SGT's squad leader can assume they know the Army way of doing all that stuff, but they don't walk them through it when it comes time to do the tasks. These SGTs have been exposed to the Army Leadership Model, but when it doesn't tie into their evaluation or the assessment of their performance, what good is that knowledge?
This is where is all falls apart. The schoolhouse does not have the time nor capacity to PE students to death so that they can effectively apply every principle in the LO list and then come back and teach their leaders how to lead them. This is a similar model of Officer PME, a MAJ can go to ILE and learn mission command, but it is on their rater (the BN CDR) to have an ODP that puts them through the concept from theory to application BEFORE you make them your XO and they have to do it for real.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google