Are you offering to pay for my gym membership?
3 Likes
Disagree with first bit but agree with the second although itâs not just HQAC but RAFAC volunteers as well (when I was a cadetâŚetc)
However there I have know witnessed and experienced issues although it does say more about the individual than the system. Whilst everyone plays nice things are fine but as soon as there is a philosophical class rank would start getting thrown across the room.
But (most importantly to me) it is confusing to the cadets who are trying to learn the concept of rank and still use to hierarchical structures from home & school.
If we are using the RAF as a theme & allegory for teaching the cadets then we do need to have some basic lip service to the rank structure.
Going into uniform is volunteering to take on extra responsibilities. Increasing rank is also volunteering for extra responsibilities. If Donât want/or able to give the extra responsibilities or commitment anymore then revert to substantive, regardless of time served.
Completely agree but OCs are doing their role so I wouldnât see them having to revert.
Ones I were referring to are the ones whoâve plateaued & not taking on extra responsibilities - sorry if didnât make that clear!
True enough, though we do need to ensure that our structure fulfils our purpose.
When we have people kicking around at ranks which bear little, or no, parity to others of the same rank, and little to no relationship their role and responsibilities, then Iâd argue that the current system doesnât fulfil any purpose.
We do have too many WOs currently. This is partly because, as has been said above, we donât have the same numbers exiting the service as the RAF do. Also because promotions have too readily been handed out for the sake of it.
We had a chance to set things properly on track 18 years ago during the LASER review, but we didnât.
Now weâre left with the fall out.
The whole point of rank is that those senior should generally be more skilled and able to manage those junior.
So the way to fix it is to start by ensuring that promotions to FS are made appropriately, to those people who demonstrate the additional skill and responsibility for leading and managing Sgts. That will reduce the âpotential WOâ pool and hopefully avoid the issue of promotions to WO of those who really arenât doing anything beyond Sgt level.
The idea then becomes that a WO is an SME in their field, and the promotion to the rank is aligned with filling a role responsible for 2UP development, training, and management of Sgts and 1UP of FSs.
The idea of a âSqn WOâ is long overdue for overhaul. Even the RAF donât put a SWO in place automatically. Plenty of stations have a FS Discip filling the role.
The role on an average ATC Sqn will be very sensibly filled by a Sgt or FS Discip.
If someone only wishes (or is only able) to engage at their Sqn and nothing beyond, thatâs absolutely fine. But that person is not going to be a WO because they wonât be doing the job of a WO.
Itâs no different than the Fg Off who turns up twice a week to their Sqn to serve as a Sqn Officer.
They are valuable to the organization, but theyâre not a Sqn Ldr because theyâre not filling that role.
My input to the discussion was that we can very well do what the SCC does - make WO an acting rank in post, until one has served 5 years at that rank, after which it is retained.
Wish my 2 just turned up
1 Like
Fun fact, for years I ran a detachment with 2 x Lt (1 me) and one Sgt.
The rank structure doesnât really have a purpose except for the Cadets. I donât care if the person Iâm working for is a CI or a Sqn Ldr.
But restricting the number of people promoted even when they meet all of the skills isnât going to fix.
Which is the crux of the problem. We will always have more at the Senior ranks because people donât leave so either we a) Demote people who arenât doing the role anymore or we b) accept that we will have experienced people who are back down at a local level in ranks that donât fit some pretty structure drawn up by people who wouldnât understand volunteering if it hit them round the head.
For Officers they seem to have gone with option a, with NCOâs they seem to be going with option c) donât promote competent people for âreasonsâ.
I agree with the SCC method of getting the rank through role and experience but after time served it becomes permanent. But as Iâve said before of its going to apply to WO it should apply to Flt Lt and Sqn Ldr as well.
2 Likes
Arguably, that is because we have let slip until it has no purpose. It should have a purpose. And that purpose should be as I describe above. i.e. higher rank= higher responsibility and a more âmanagerialâ role.
I disagree⌠Iâd say that they seem to be going for option d) âPromote competent people to WO into established rolesâ, and âpromote competent people to FS if they are performing above the level of a Sgtâ.
That seems, to me at least, to be the right approach.
This is the real question.
Arguably this was a predictable outcome of the DYER report now ~20 years on.
Did that report ever stipulate what each SNCO rank was for? Or did it simply suggest/recommend the introduction of additional SNCO ranks as a way of offering a progressive SNCO rank structure?
Now 20 years on, is anyone surprised with a promotion matrix, which is a tick box exercise, we now see the same issues DYER tried to tackle â ie too many WOs and faced with a glass ceiling for progression?
There is no real achievement in the promotion matrix, it is a simple tick box exercise which can be achieved by attending (perhaps offering minor support to) a single event which is relevant to the box being ticked with no follow up expectation of continued attendance.
With regards promotion SNCOs can be cut three ways
1 â The dedicated Staff who is active - For many it is a time served promotion, as a âtypicalâ active CFAV can achieve 75% of the matrix by continuing on as a dedicated CFAV, with effort placed in attending a camp they might not otherwise.
2 â The keen Staff who are happy doing their bit - For a handful they simply donât care and happy doing what they are doing, enjoying the uniform they are allowed to wear.
3 â Those who put status above action - The annoyance I have with the system lies with those who are promotion hungry. Although committed and dedicates to the ATC, they are not âactiveâ they are a tea drinking attendee to events and only seen working hard when ticking matrix boxes. They suddenly are running and leading activities and attending shooting or AT events to âsupport a wing teamâ even though they only come with a FA ticket and have no intention of gaining relevant qualifications.
In the short term the Cadets win as thanks to their input opportunities for the Cadets are available, but the long term influence is poorly competent Sgts end up at the dizzy heights of WO yet have paid lip service to gaining more skills, knowledge, or qualifications, with the biggest factor they learnt is how to get promoted while amassing âexperienceâ.
Without any target what the role of a Sgt or FS should be from DYER then all they become are delaying tactics to the inevitable problem they tried to solve.
Without any distinction between Sgt â FS â WO other than âexperienceâ in uniform, there is only ever going to the outcomes we see and it frustrates me when I see a uber keen former shining star and role model CWO now Sgt CFAV who is filling their calendar with events supporting a healthy mix of Squadron and Wing events, while picking up new skills and qualifications, while next to them is a WO who got their by ticking boxes yet is the one who is deemed more responsible (senior), with more authority (senior) and greater knowledge and experience (ie time served)
But it isnât going to solve the problem, because when these WOâs step down form there WO jobs they will still be WOâs in FS roles, so we will still have more WOâs than we âneedâ. (Not that I see that as a problem anyway).
If there is a problem with too many WOâs (which I would dispute) itâs going to be localised. In both the Wings that I regularly work all of the WOâs are either Sector WO a WSO or a Sqn OC (or they have held those jobs). The only exceptions being a couple of legacies who predate the LaSER review.
Said it before, will say it again
We are a uniformed youth organisation - we all volunteer but some are happy to take on more responsibility than others or have specific skills we bring to the party
UNIFORM and RANK are cosplay that we use as part of the organisation in front of the cadets - I donât care what rank you are when we work together - its about the skills and level of responsibility
We have the structure on Officer side - NCO should therefore mirror
Sqn Level - Plt Off/Fg Off - Sgt, FS
Sqn Command - Flt Lt - WO
Wg Staff/Senior SME(primary appointment) - Sqn Ldr/WO
Step down in role - step down in rank - remember it is dress up - if the rank is that important to you maybe you are in for the wrong reasons
For those that it is important to - on retirement if you have done enough years in rank then Retain the senior rank
8 Likes
There is always going to be complication due to the volunteer nature.
When itâs your job you can progress upwards and eventually retire or leave for pastures new. It isnât very often youâd take a promotion and a few years later want to go backwards - whereas with cadets this is entirely possible.
You could be an OC for years and then find that you need to wind down for any reason but want to stay involved.
I suppose the issue is consistency. If the policy is to go up and down the ranks and this is seen across the board and is consistent, when you are demoted it wonât be seen as that.
We need to get away from the opinion that promotion is for hard work and being a good CFAV, and demotion is for being naughty or inadequate.
As far as the cadets go they donât care if you are a CI, an NCO or an Officer⌠Youâre just staff. So those staff that use rank for willy waving, or equivalent, need to go have a word with themselves.
1 Like
Any staff Willy waving in front of cadets will have more to worry about than their rank
4 Likes
So since CFC came in - how many Officers have gone up and down in rank?
And how many pre CFC (VR(T))Flt Lts and Sqn Ldrs have stepped down from jobs but retained their rank whatever they are doing
The problem then comes back to how long we all stay in the Organisation. If in the past demotion has only happened to naught people that view isnât going to change overnight, indeed I doubt it would change in 30 years.
Iâve known a few but itâs been inconsistently enforced - I know of one since the CFC came in get promoted to Flt Lt for a wing roles then Sqn Ldr but when they stood down (total time less than three years) reverted to Flt Lt despite going to a Sqn officer role.
However Iâve known others who have reverted to Fg Off or Flt Lt.
Indeed, that is the very problem with the (especially the previous) promotion âmatrixâ.
Nothing of value in it and it merely provided a simple way to say âyesâ or ânoâ to someoneâs promotion without any need to consider the individual.
I detest it⌠Though, fortunately the process now is supposed to be that the matrix is merely a series of minimum requirements (Though personally I think itâs still filled with nonsense) and the decision to promote or not should be made by the CoC considering the individual and their role/responsibility.
Nothing is going to âsolveâ the problem entirely. But thatâs no reason not to take steps to improve it.
A good portion of current WOs are those who predate the Laser review. They will, in due course, retire.
Had we taken proper steps 18 years ago weâd have fewer âjust becauseâ WOs now.
With every one of those wasted years they let the problem get worse, because once weâve promoted an âunderservingâ FS or WO that legacy will hang around for decades.
If we donât do something now to bring some structure and purpose into play then the problem will only be worse in 30 years time.
2 Likes
As such what would your thoughts be if we had to resubmit a matrix to requal for Flt Lt/WO ranks say each time our DBS was renewed. Reviewing hours, activities etc
Similar to how RCOs have to renew.
Starts to build in familiarity with Up/Down ranks & allows people to gracefully step down.
Iâm not sure⌠Mainly because Iâm not at all convinced of the value of the Matrix, frankly. Especially because it now places such a heavy emphasis on camps (I couldnât care less how many camps somebody has done - when theyâre say in front of me as their promotion board what Iâm interested in is what their leadership capabilities are, which role they are filling/are about to fill, and what that entails).
But I do think that with promotion being role/responsibility specific, and with suitable posts (such as Wg WO) being limited tours then we kind of achieve the same end result.
1 Like