The officer as a leader

[Javelin66]

I was prompted to start this thread by a comment made on another thread:

“…Ossifers are "managers", let them manage, but it doesn't take an Ossifer to turn a yoke or handle a HOTAS. The entire concept of the Ossifer Corps is a holdover from the days where the "noble" were the Officers and the "commoners" were the enlisted men, and frankly it's just as much garbage today as it was then…”

What struck me about this statement was not only the over simplistic reduction of commissioned officer leadership to ‘management’, but also the erroneous notion that the concept of the commissioned officer was a holdover from the days of nobility.

The statements may have been off the cuff and not intended to misinform or offend. However, it seems to me that a grossly inaccurate statement like this (and many other similar statements throughout the forum) would tend to paint a false and negative (albeit clearly biased) picture of the commissioned officer as a leader, and could therefore improperly impact those who are studying the military to make a decision about the best way for them to serve.

For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to restrict the discussion to the US Military (at least initially), not only to keep the discussion focused, but also because the original comment was made in the context of the US Military.

The concept of the officer as a mere manager ignores the very large breadth and depth of the duties and responsibilities of a commissioned officer, which leads to the reasons behind the existence of an officer corps. Here’s how the Army defines it in FM 6-22, Army Leadership:

“Serving as a commissioned officer differs from other forms of Army leadership by the quality and breadth of expert knowledge required, in the measure of responsibility attached, and in the magnitude of the consequences of inaction or ineffectiveness. An enlisted leader swears an oath of obedience to lawful orders, while the commissioned officer promises to, “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”

This distinction establishes a different expectation for discretionary initiative. Officers should be driven to maintain the momentum of operations, possess courage to deviate from standing orders within the commander’s intent when required, and be willing to accept the responsibility and accountability for doing so. While officers depend on the counsel, technical skill, maturity, and experience of subordinates to translate their orders into action, the ultimate responsibility for mission success or failure resides with the commissioned officer in charge.”

Note that the word ‘manager’ is not included here. I will not deny that officers do manage; I am simply asserting that management is a small part of the job- in fact, one that most officers delegate in whole or part to non-commissioned officers for day to day activities.

The roots of the US Military officer corps are clear in our foundation documents, and have nothing to do with the concept of nobility:
The origins of this go back to the formation of the Continental Army on June 14th, 1775, when Congress decided to raise 10 companies of ‘skilled marksmen’ as well as adopt many of the existing colonial militia forces. Washington, as the first commander in chief, was chosen because he was the most skilled and experienced soldier available who was also a native born American. No reference was made to nobility- in fact; American officers were often not recognized as such by their British counterparts precisely because they were not nobility, which had major implications in terms of how captured officers were treated.

When ratified, the Constitution gave congress the power to:
“…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; …” “…To raise and support armies…” as well as “…To provide and maintain a navy…”;

It also appoints the president as the commander in chief, with certain authorities:

“…The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, “; with the power to appoint officers ”; “… and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”;

However, the Constitution gives no specific instructions as to how the military should be organized, trained or equipped. This is done in Title 10 of the US Code. Title 10 defines the ranks of commissioned officers, but does not discuss non-commissioned ranks. This is left up to the services in their own regulations.

In other words, from the perspective of congress, the leadership of the Armed Forces is delegated to the president, who appoints (or commissions, subject to congressional approval in many cases) officers who carry out this leadership. The services, in turn, each have their own systems for developing a corps of non-commissioned officers who carry out the orders of the commissioned officers.

NCOs can lead and manage, just as officers do, but they cannot command. The distinction is great, and when a duty requires a commander, it must be a commissioned officer. The size of the command does not matter- it can be a rifle company, a single aircraft, or it can be an Army Group, command is command.

None of this should be seen as diminishing to the role of the NCO, often referred to as the 'Backbone of the Army'. Any commissioned officer will tell you that his NCO counterpart not only served as his 'right arm', but was in most cases a key advisor if not mentor.

NCOs also lead at all levels, even if it is in an office or shop setting. They are the bearers of the standard at the individual and team level, and the absolute expert in those necessary skills. More importantly, they lead in those 'last 100 yards' to the objective, when all the planning and preparing is over and the difference between victory and defeat comes down to the force of will and personal courage.

No military organization can succeed without a solid NCO corps. In fact, it is widely recognized that it is the existance of a trained, empowered, and professional NCO corps that sets Western militaries far above their Eastern counterparts.

[reddog]

A thoughtful post and I enjoyed the read. I've been privileged to have had a few Officers who walked (or ran) that 'last 100yds to the objective' by my side. I know that's not always possible, but by doing so, the added respect given by his men is unmeasurable and not soon forgotten.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

[Javelin66]

Kipling said it best:

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And – which is more – you'll be a Man, my son!

-If

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

-The Young British Soldier

[RogueNavy]

In my opinion, officers and NCO's are supposed to be defined as leaders. Far too many of the ones I met were directors. Not many knew how to lead, but most knew very well how to point at what needed to be done.

Leadership, in my book, is all summed up in two words..."follow me". You cannot lead your people if you're looking at their backs.

[Javelin66]

Officers and NCOs are specifically designated as leaders in all of the services; the fact that you saw some poor leaders was the fault of those individuals (and their leadership).

All of the services have leadership development programs designed to train and develop leaders at all levels. Sadly, there are elements and organizations in all of the services that do not put enough of an emphasis on leadership and leadership development.

The stereotype is that the combat arms develops the strongest leaders, and it is generally true. However, I have run across strong leaders in the support and services area as well- it comes down to the 'Be, Know, Do' ethic.

[RogueNavy]

Very true, Javelin. Despite the training, some shoddy people become "leaders".

[SlightlyCatholic]

One thing I found interesting as a Sea Cadet was leadership training. I went to a ten day leadership school a few years ago and one point they stressed was the difference between a leader and a manager and how the best leaders are able to do both. Leaders are individuals who can take care of people, while managers are individuals who can take care of peripherals and material in relation to personnel. Ultimately, "leader-managers" are the ideal leaders.

[03_SHOOTER]

Well Javelin, that's a very well constructed essay on the theoretical mission of Ossifers, but it was my experience that only 1 in 5 actually met your standard, and the rest were overpaid Airmen with delusions of adequacy, who were best suited to polishing a chair with their backsides and pushing papers from this stack to that (IOW, managing).

Of course, that's just my opinon, based on my own experience, yours may vary.

EDIT: As to your notice of Washington, I notice you failed to mention that one of the reasons Washington was chosen was the fact that he was RICH, and could therefore afford to originally raise and support his Army out of his own pocket, just like the various Knights, Lords, and other Nobles of Great Britain had been expected to do, so the end result was the same, the "nobles" managed and the "serfs" did the actual fighting.

[SlightlyCatholic]

One thing I find interesting is in Plato's Republic, where he states that service in the military is for those who have spirit (translated as patriotism or zeal) but not enough intelligence to make laws or govern. I wonder what Plato would say if he spoke today with an Air Force Staff Sargeant who has a Ph.D?

[Javelin66]

Shooter, rather than succumbing to the great temptation of brining your experience into this argument I will stick with the facts. Of course, I didn't serve in your career field, but if you feel that most Airmen were overpaid and inadequate back then you are certainly welcome to that opinion. I have nothing but the highest opinion of my brothers in arms in the Air Force.

(I am confused, however, because from your previous posts I assumed that you were out at the pointy end of the stick where there is no room for desks, much less people to polish the chairs with their backsides. I guess they could afford to rest easy with you out on the flightline rolling around on the ground with random strangers.)

None of this is theoretical, it is reality today and has been since the beginning of American military experience. Beginning with Washington, through Jackson, Pickett, Winters, Cole, and on through today, commissioned officers have led by example.

Based on my extensive experience in peace and war, it is my professional judgement that the NCO corps is the backbone of the Army and fills a similar role in all of the services. I also know from first hand experience that the junior enlisted troops can and do bear any and every burden in the defense of freedom.

Similarly, I know that commissioned officers (including myself) are there, in the fight, at every level from platoon through theater commander. I know that the rule, rather than the exception, is platoon leaders that lead from the front, company commanders that accept every risk that they ask their men to take, and battalion commanders that are out in the streets every day with their men, even if for no other reason than to be there.

For you to imply or assert otherwise is not only damaging to the character of the military service in general and misleading to those who are trying to learn about the military, but is also a grave insult to men who have served and are serving today.

Finally, I would love to see the factual basis for your implied assertion that Washington paid the Army out of his own pocket, as well as your contention that he did not lead the Army in combat.