leadership?
-
Does it mean that getting into OCS and become an officer means you have leadership and can show leadership? How about those who are not?
-
pui! Then go SISPEC leh?
-
my foot la... it oni show u can study higher than o level heheOriginally posted by Ekit08:Does it mean that getting into OCS and become an officer means you have leadership and can show leadership? How about those who are not? -
ummm... some just dun have the cut. when time to lead you just cannot find them...Originally posted by Ekit08:Does it mean that getting into OCS and become an officer means you have leadership and can show leadership? How about those who are not?
ATEC knows it very well that why most of the time during an attack, those YSL sure 'die' and the next one up is the PS. sad to say, NCOs somehow are still not very well taken care of, and till today it seem the same in SAF. oni some high rank take care of NCOs but how many can they.
back to the topic, we should lead to win and not to death. sorry and sad to say, those who just pass or wat 'we' call them YSL are the worst. all the kan chiong king. anyhow chiong, so I think OCS teach them chiong and not much on leadership.
One thing i notice, they like to say:"when i was in OCS..." -
No, going to OCS entails being trained for leadership roles, albeit at the platoon level or equivalent.
Actually application of leadership takes place upon being deployed to an active unit, which with operational outfits often requires a slight readjustment of expectations & management skills. The Hokkien peng's, for one, aren't always highly-motivated or purposeful as OCS cadets, & the newly-commissioned officers have to think & gel at their level too, inc. picking up the dialect lingo.
Why else do you think they came up with the "Air Level" put-down? -
There is some truth in what above post says but falls short what what the SAF actually requires. It needs ppl to lead by example, to follow the tough orders and to be able (God willing) after several years of following rather slavishly - give orders.Originally posted by Moxie:No, going to OCS entails being trained for leadership roles, albeit at the platoon level or equivalent.
Actually application of leadership takes place upon being deployed to an active unit, which with operational outfits often requires a slight readjustment of expectations & management skills. The Hokkien peng's, for one, aren't always highly-motivated or purposeful as OCS cadets, & the newly-commissioned officers have to think & gel at their level too, inc. picking up the dialect lingo.
Why else do you think they came up with the "Air Level" put-down?
You need the "Air level" because the technical ability to lay a 155mm barrage cannot to trusted to a 'tikam tikam' intellect. Not to say that the brightest cannot make an error and make a "3625 mils" as "3652 mils" "fire for effect" order (FYI its called a transposition error).
My units' signal platoon has first class engineers in civi street, some CEO potential, some head engineers in multi-million dollar technical positions. They are all Corporals, not because they are dumb. They can think but because of their physical fitness (all PES B), end up as linesman and radio operators, what more they are more technically savy than their PC.
Officers are trained to accept painful orders and ensure that it is carried out (without question and without hesitation). That is drummed into them during OCS and for the first two years of service or when they reach captain. Because an officer is only as good as his ability to receive and give orders.
What drives the men are the NCOs. The backbone of the armed forces. Ask any scout, pioneer or commando. Seldom do these elements operate as a platoon (the smallest size where you'd expect to see an officer). There basic leadership is practiced hands on, from the ground up. You don't need an "Air level" to become an NCO. However good NCOs seldom, if ever become, good officers (extremely few exceptions).
I am the first to admit that LTC above (Battlion), another form of leadership needs to be seen (see Colin Powell). However we should never forget the "Lions led by Donkeys" war (the Great War a.k.a. WW I) when all the generals could do was to reinforce failure at a very high cost in blood. e.g. July 1, 1916, the British lost some 56,000+ men in 24 hours, thats all our active SAF (not counting NSMen).
What I hope we never have to test or learn the hard way whether we are right in the way we select our leaders and how well we prepare them. -
Israel has a different method of identifying leaders during their NS. All Israelis enter BMT as equals. They pass out and go into different units for their vocation training. After a year in service, the good ones are identified and sent to the NCO course. The very best are sent to officer cadet school. Selection is based not only on education, but on soldiering skills and performance as well. When they passed out as NCOs or officers, they return to their units or join new intakes. Males will serve 3 years, females 2 years. In short they prove themselves as soldiers first, before being NCOs or officers.
-
Officers are trained to accept painful orders and ensure that it is carried out (without question and without hesitation). That is drummed into them during OCS and for the first two years of service or when they reach captain. Because an officer is only as good as his ability to receive and give orders.
It seems you know much about the training of officers and how they are "taught" to react. Do share with the NCOs and enlistees on the insight you might have.What drives the men are the NCOs. The backbone of the armed forces. Ask any scout, pioneer or commando. Seldom do these elements operate as a platoon (the smallest size where you'd expect to see an officer). There basic leadership is practiced hands on, from the ground up.
It seems you have not heard of LRRP teams and BRC teams? The officers become Team-leaders of at least 3 other men. Would that not be smaller in size than a platoon, or even a section? -
when i was serving, i had chance to observe 2 differnt batch of officers.
1st was a poly batch, 2nd was a air level one.
not much dif between except the fact tat poly batch officer
make the effort to gel with the men; join them for soccer, makan session after book out... makes them easier to approach when problems arises.
but at the end of the day, respect have to be earned, not given.
doesn't mean u passed out from OCS means u have leadership. u're jus perceived to have, tat's all. -
Oh yes.That's extremely true.I've come across officers which are placed in leadership positions where they fail lead effectively because of low EQ and Specialists with leadership who are placed in jobs where they are the "men" by virtue of physical ability.The system does need some tweaking, and being a JC kia myself, it's often the environment we grew uo and studied in that actually showed itself after vocational training, especially how we relate to our men and stuff like that.
-
If the officer fails to lead, what can we do? die together with him?
-
nah..u can always shoot him in the back n bury him..or better still make it look like he die in a gunfight(both can only be use in war scenerio)..its him vs the whole platoonOriginally posted by Ekit08:If the officer fails to lead, what can we do? die together with him?
-
"I'm hereby relieving you of command, you will offer no resistance while being detained in an undisclosed location till the end of hostilities."
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Oh yes.That's extremely true.I've come across officers which are placed in leadership positions where they fail lead effectively because of low EQ and Specialists with leadership who are placed in jobs where they are the "men" by virtue of physical ability.The system does need some tweaking, and being a JC kia myself, it's often the environment we grew uo and studied in that actually showed itself after vocational training, especially how we relate to our men and stuff like that.
i often wonder why people like to compare between the poly and jc education system, the schools, the gals, the students, the products, the kind of officers they become, etc etc. and more often than not we hear ppl say all the good things about poly students and all the bad about the jc ones. but of course, no one can offer anything more than anecdotal evidence. and i have always kept in mind the profile of people responding in this forum, and those who are more likely to respond than the others.Originally posted by foga:when i was serving, i had chance to observe 2 differnt batch of officers.
1st was a poly batch, 2nd was a air level one.
not much dif between except the fact tat poly batch officer
make the effort to gel with the men; join them for soccer, makan session after book out... makes them easier to approach when problems arises.
but at the end of the day, respect have to be earned, not given.
doesn't mean u passed out from OCS means u have leadership. u're jus perceived to have, tat's all.
no studies have been done, but i hope some sociologist would one day pick this up and conduct a conclusive survey to finally draw the links (or the lack thereof) between the school system and the personalities. -
If I may bring an extra variable into this topic discussion: the SAF scholar.
For the most part, I think all OCS-trained officers are fine, or at least the ones I've worked with as part of an operational unit. There's always an initial easing-in period as they find their niches, trying to a right balance between "pulling rank" per se (aka chickensh!t in US parlance) on one extreme & Pasir Laba-style can-do collective team spirit on the other. [It's another story with the couple of 2LTs from each batch who tend to wear their ego like their rank.]
For the rest of the NSF stint, they tend to play 2nd-fiddle to the regular OC/CSM's or equivalent, but IMO this system works cuz they settle in very well upon taking full control come reservist time (with their maturity as well as the overall unit's).
Well, from my experience anyway & from the ancedotes I hear.
More to the point: I did my NS during a time when the "2nd-generation " of SAF scholars, i.e. those in the '80s, was fast-tracked into their training/appointments & I can honestly say they provided for a fluctuating quality of leaders then. Without naming names, I served under 3 of them (one a CO) & Lee Hsien Loong's pioneer influence was still lingering throughout the formation. I'm sure they'll all brilliant students & worthy OCS cadets, but the sense of entitlement one of them displayed was a huge turn-off.
On the one hand, we Hokkien pengs knew they were high-fliers who's essentially climbing on our backs & that they'll definately be promoted no matter how they led us. On the other, it can be a very alienating experience having to follow & tolerate a megalomaniac's "leadership" - even our 2LTs & experienced sergeant major were pissed off with him.
I dunno if the selection process got better since the '90s, but here's hoping they've weeded out the conceit trait since then. -
I've never agreed with the officer-scholar types. Fortunately I never got to serve under one. From what I gathered, enlistees, specialists & WOs, most of them are brilliant staff officers but many doubt they can be as efficient on the battle-field. I had the pleasure of knowing a fair lot of officers which I feel have very good leadership qualities and would have their men proud to serve under them. They were able to inspire their men and push them to accomplish what they thought was impossible, yet still maintain a healthy standard of welfare for them.
Depends on how you see it, some soldiers only think of themselves and cannot get out of their civilian mentalities. These people will still brand any officers who don't give them the welfare they seek as lousy or bad, they never see the bigger picture: There is no "I" in TEAM. -
this are the people who serve with a grudge..the less of them the better..but in this present manpower state..we have to tahan them..Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:I've never agreed with the officer-scholar types. Fortunately I never got to serve under one. From what I gathered, enlistees, specialists & WOs, most of them are brilliant staff officers but many doubt they can be as efficient on the battle-field. I had the pleasure of knowing a fair lot of officers which I feel have very good leadership qualities and would have their men proud to serve under them. They were able to inspire their men and push them to accomplish what they thought was impossible, yet still maintain a healthy standard of welfare for them.
Depends on how you see it, some soldiers only think of themselves and cannot get out of their civilian mentalities. These people will still brand any officers who don't give them the welfare they seek as lousy or bad, they never see the bigger picture: There is no "I" in TEAM.
n there are getting more n more of this people...it is the society that create this attitude...it will get worst..
ive know of Spec n men who serve unwillingly but do their best in watever they do..they will kpkb n their hand will still move n their legs will still run.. -
ummm... not all will kpkb and move at the same time, some Spec will just stop all activity and see what is going to happened. more for those old beng NCOs kana condemn type, never get staff sgt or something like that. those ppl really dun give a damn to who the officer is. sad to say most of them like me are out liao. during peace time, SAF dun need ppl like us to be around.Originally posted by NathanG5:... ... ... ive know of Spec n men who serve unwillingly but do their best in watever they do..they will kpkb n their hand will still move n their legs will still run..
for those NCOs or Spec (referring to regular) that make things move not because of orders that the officer gives, they move because they want to train the man, impart the knowledge they have to the man. -
Well there is alway some that have it and some that learn it , and some that will never get it forever.Originally posted by Ekit08:Does it mean that getting into OCS and become an officer means you have leadership and can show leadership? How about those who are not?
It is like that in the every organisation. Also there are those who feel they away can do better if they got that job, but when they are in that seat, they fail worst . -
Teach you new word "fragging".Originally posted by Ekit08:If the officer fails to lead, what can we do? die together with him?
To wound or kill (a fellow soldier) by throwing a grenade or similar explosive at the victim.
Don't say you learnt it here. Whatever happens you still have to respect the rank, even if you don't respect the person.
Quote from "Band of Brothers":
"you don't salute the officer, you salute the rank." -
Yep, don't like the officer, shoot him.Originally posted by baer:Teach you new word "fragging".
To wound or kill (a fellow soldier) by throwing a grenade or similar explosive at the victim.
Don't say you learnt it here. Whatever happens you still have to respect the rank, even if you don't respect the person.
Quote from "Band of Brothers":
"you don't salute the officer, you salute the rank."
NCOs take over, don't like them as they do things not your way also, shoot them also.
Ownself take over, don't agree with each others, well then shoot each others.
Who needs enemy ! Since a person who don't like this and that and alway complain one and think he can do a better job, the real problem is him - himself, better off shooting himself. -
Couldn't have put it any better than this.Originally posted by storywolf:Yep, don't like the officer, shoot him.
NCOs take over, don't like them as they do things not your way also, shoot them also.
Ownself take over, don't agree with each others, well then shoot each others.
Who needs enemy ! Since a person who don't like this and that and alway complain one and think he can do a better job, the real problem is him - himself, better off shooting himself. -
Originally posted by storywolf:Yep, don't like the officer, shoot him.
NCOs take over, don't like them as they do things not your way also, shoot them also.
Ownself take over, don't agree with each others, well then shoot each others.
Who needs enemy ! Since a person who don't like this and that and alway complain one and think he can do a better job, the real problem is him - himself, better off shooting himself.
-
ummm... most US LT in Viet. are shoot by his man from behind.Originally posted by storywolf:Yep, don't like the officer, shoot him.
NCOs take over, don't like them as they do things not your way also, shoot them also.
Ownself take over, don't agree with each others, well then shoot each others.
Who needs enemy ! Since a person who don't like this and that and alway complain one and think he can do a better job, the real problem is him - himself, better off shooting himself. -
Hmm yes, and their soldiers smoke pot as well. Interesting coincidence, no?Originally posted by Joshua1975:ummm... most US LT in Viet. are shoot by his man from behind.