I see it all too often! But I can also bring to mind a few waste of space FS as well.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record I’m going to again relate our system of pointless box ticking to that of the SCC - who really have a better setup.
For them to even be appointed to substantive PO/Sgt (SCC/RMC) they have to achieve more than our Sgts do:
Then for promotion beyond that they actually have to achieve something additional:
So by the time they reach CPO/CSgt they will have been in uniform for at least 6 years (12 months in Acting rank and a further 5 as substantive); they will have specialised and be an active instructor in their field; and they will have passed a qualifying course.
The majority of instructors will not get beyond CPO/CSgt (FS), since promotion to WO is for specific roles only:
Tougher requirements for appointment in the first place. More emphasis on training and development. Longer time in rank… These add up to better Senior Rates/SNCOs.
What do we do?
Run through a poor checklist (it’s not a matrix, despite what they might call it).
“Attended AEF” - What relevance does this have? If someone is a cracking candidate for FS who cares whether they’ve sat in the crew room supervising the cadets for 8 hours?
“Attended a blues camp” - Were they any good? No they were and actually made the week harder than it should have been… But they “attended” so they get a tick in the box…
“Attended a greens camp” - Who gives a toss? If they are a DI, for example, and would make a great Sector WO why should it matter if “greens” is not their sphere?
We put all the emphasis on arbitrary criteria which don’t really matter and then we don’t put enough emphasis on the question “does this person stand out above their peers?”
Promotion shouldn’t be a “well done” for being mediocre in rank for 4 years - but it routinely seems to be!