Cranwell

[vim_fuego]

It is usually the context and the company in which it is said that causes the problem. It is actually a lesson which would do well to be taught and learned across and between all ranks.

To be fair I could have handled the whole thing a lot better and perhaps gave them no option other than balling me out. The bollocking was one of the best I've seen but other than that I was un-punished and the training notes were changed [quietly].

 

[Realist78]

I think you've answered your own question. (I don't think Tashy could be persuaded to have much interest in it either, these days).

Leadership forms the biggest part of the syllabus at all 4 training establishments and we are all taught according to the same model (John Adair, action centred leadership, mission command, etc) so it could make sense to combine that training, separating out only for the academics and Service ethos elements. The problem is that, although the theories of leadership are the same, the application is very different. There are things the other services do well that we would struggle to do and vice versa; I think combining the training would make the output for each Service worse - and there are many who would say they're bad enough already.

So why, in the case of the majority of junior officers (and senior for that matter) that I have had the 'pleasure' of working with, are these learned skills not practised and kept in the cupboard as it were?

 

[gemarriott]

I think you've answered your own question. (I don't think Tashy could be persuaded to have much interest in it either, these days).

Leadership forms the biggest part of the syllabus at all 4 training establishments and we are all taught according to the same model (John Adair, action centred leadership, mission command, etc) so it could make sense to combine that training, separating out only for the academics and Service ethos elements. The problem is that, although the theories of leadership are the same, the application is very different. There are things the other services do well that we would struggle to do and vice versa; I think combining the training would make the output for each Service worse - and there are many who would say they're bad enough already.

My bullsh1t detector has just gone off the scale!

FFS you don't really expect anyone to believe that do you?

 

[Spearmint]

My bullsh1t detector has just gone off the scale!

FFS you don't really expect anyone to believe that do you?

I can vouch for it 100% seeing as I'm one third of the way through having my spine removed. DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[True Blue Jack]

Also if a junior officer isn't allowed to point out when someone above them is in the wrong why employ them as an officer? Surely an A/C who doesn't question anything would be more appropriate.

A big chunk of the leadership phase on IOT is actually all about 'followership'. I could bore you to tears with the theory of "thinking obedience", etc., but in a nutshell it's about having the moral courage to tell your boss when he's wrong. The trick, of course, is practicing the theory - people generally don't like being told they're wrong.

So why, in the case of the majority of junior officers (and senior for that matter) that I have had the 'pleasure' of working with, are these learned skills not practised and kept in the cupboard as it were?

It's a very good question and you probably know the answer. Until 2006, cadets at Cranwell were required only to do as their Flt Cdr told them for 24 weeks and as long as they were assessed as competent during the leadership exercise at the end of the course they went on their merry way, without ever again having to think about leadership if they didn't want to.

5 years ago IOT changed almost beyond recognition and the training no longer stops when you graduate from Cranwell. We all have to go through the snazzily titled 'Junior Officer Development Programme", which takes 6 years to complete. It centres on 3 residential phases at Shrivenham but there is plenty of homework to do before, during and after those phases. In theory, after completing JODP you should be getting competitive for promotion, which brings more courses, then maybe staff college and so on. It will be a while yet before we see how well this 'through-life learning' works; I'll reserve judgment until I've done my first residential in a couple of weeks.

 

[Mag2grid]

You had the delights of JOD1 yet.....not all its cracked up to be.

Staff were excellent, but I left Shrivenham feeling slightly cheated and not learning alot. The most enjoyable part was the final exercise, which actually taught me more then the table top Ex on BAWC.

The issue with JOD1 is that the waiting list/ criteria is so long/ rigid that by the time your average ground branch Plt Off/Fg Off gets around to doing it they have done all the things the course sets out to teach them. Its a good idea for the 2 Winged Master Race (it was quite worrying in my group when one asked "whats a SJAR") but for the other branches, I dont see the first one as relevant. Yes it is a very good introduction to Staff College.

I dont want this to decend into a IOT is crap debate, but I'd argue when the surge courses went through it was a lot easier for the substandard JO to hide, not get noticed and still get their blue letter a couple of weeks into term 3. 140 + OCdts going through compared to about 30-40 now, there isnt anywhere to hide. One of the staff said something to a group of us on our first day on in uniform on IOT "Lads, 30 weeks from now if you are stood on the parade square there will be those that dont belong their, you'll know it, the staff will know it, but the individual wont know it".

TBJ is correct, its no longer about blind followership on IOT (well we'll put the first 6 weeks aside). On the major exercises 360 degree feedback takes place and your every flaw is exposed, despite if you like it or not. Yes that might sound like management b*llocks but it was lacking on the old course from what I am told by senior officers.

 

[Stevienics]

On the major exercises 360 degree feedback takes place and your every flaw is exposed, despite if you like it or not.

Wow. Total peer review. Radical stuff

I feel that might just be a palliative measure though, for the sake of the students' sensitivities. I somehow doubt whether too much will get past the staff and they will have pretty much heard and seen it all before.

 

[gemarriott]

I can vouch for it 100% seeing as I'm one third of the way through having my spine removed. DT_Xtremez_35:

well it is a pity the course fails to deliver officers with necessary leadership qualities so spectacularly then isn't it?

 

[True Blue Jack]

My bullsh1t detector has just gone off the scale!

FFS you don't really expect anyone to believe that do you?

I said it's the biggest part of the syllabus. The quality of the training and the opportunity for some to pay lip service to it is a different discussion entirely and you may be surprised to find my opinion is perhaps not much different from yours. To coin a Cranwell cliche, IOT puts the clubs in your bag but only you can decide to play golf. (Yes, somebody really did say that).

 

[gemarriott]

I said it's the biggest part of the syllabus. The quality of the training and the opportunity for some to pay lip service to it is a different discussion entirely and you may be surprised to find my opinion is perhaps not much different from yours. To coin a Cranwell cliche, IOT puts the clubs in your bag but only you can decide to play golf. (Yes, somebody really did say that).

I refer you to my previous answer

 

[Spearmint]

Wow. Total peer review. Radical stuff

I feel that might just be a palliative measure though, for the sake of the students' sensitivities. I somehow doubt whether too much will get past the staff and they will have pretty much heard and seen it all before.

It's referred to as constructive criticism. Although I've witnessed one female cadet get an absolute cob on after being told by an instructor to suck it up after she heard something (A correct fact as well) she didn't like during a session of peer review.

 

[JPJ83]

Cranwell seems to work its hardest to create an artificial divide between commissioned personnel and the non-commissioned cadre. JOs seem to leave with the "but I'm an officer" attitude. Many have no experience of industry or other public sector positions, so have no experience of managing people. IOT does not set them up for this, although most Phase 2 training tries to.

The bottom line is that the first tour or two are where JOs are really made. The wise ones will learn from their JRs, SNCOs and WOs, and develop their own management/leadership style. The crap ones will still think in the Cranwell mentality of "but I'm an officer" and be destined for a desk in Whitehall.

Same is true in any field, military or not. You can't manufacture a leader, but you can try and teach one how to learn the skills.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Cranwell seems to work its hardest to create an artificial divide between commissioned personnel and the non-commissioned cadre. JOs seem to leave with the "but I'm an officer" attitude. Many have no experience of industry or other public sector positions, so have no experience of managing people. IOT does not set them up for this, although most Phase 2 training tries to.

The bottom line is that the first tour or two are where JOs are really made. The wise ones will learn from their JRs, SNCOs and WOs, and develop their own management/leadership style. The crap ones will still think in the Cranwell mentality of "but I'm an officer" and be destined for a desk in Whitehall.

Same is true in any field, military or not. You can't manufacture a leader, but you can try and teach one how to learn the skills.

It worries me that you think that because IOT is set up to prevent exactly that attitude. Leaving aside the academic studies 80-90% of the course is taught by NCOs, so what are they getting wrong if new JOs come out of the system all "holier than thou"?

 

[Realist78]

It worries me that you think that because IOT is set up to prevent exactly that attitude. Leaving aside the academic studies 80-90% of the course is taught by NCOs, so what are they getting wrong if new JOs come out of the system all "holier than thou"?

Probably not much, maybe it's the JOs who, having jumped through the necessary hoops, come out into the wider RAF and put all that 'Cranwell nonsense' behind them as they know better.

 

[Mag2grid]

Wow. Total peer review. Radical stuff

I feel that might just be a palliative measure though, for the sake of the students' sensitivities. I somehow doubt whether too much will get past the staff and they will have pretty much heard and seen it all before.

You might mock it, but bare in mind this might be the first time the OCdt's might have been told their short comings.

I too can vouch that it can be brutal, and it needs to be. During the first time on IOT it might be watered down by the students themselves keen to get on and make friends in their new environment, I'll admit I held back, just not to stick out at the start of the course, however by the time Ex MIL AID comes around the truth does come out, if OCdt Jones thinks OCdt Smith is a right royal **** then he will tell him, as long as he can back it up with facts it is encouraged.
They have backcoursed students on peer feedback, even on my phase 2 in a secret base in Suffolk it caused a day 1 recourse (the bloke was jack as f**k though).

 

[gemarriott]

It is fairly obvious Cranwell doesn't turn out leaders but merely clones willing to spout the party line.

Example TBJ went to Cranwell as a Cpl with a spine and the ability to speak his own mind and came out as an Officer with an over inflated ego and the inability to spout anything other than the party line and without the courage to make up his own mind let alone discuss it.

 

[Stevienics]

You might mock it, but bare in mind this might be the first time the OCdt's might have been told their short comings..........

.............They have backcoursed students on peer feedback, even on my phase 2 in a secret base in Suffolk it caused a day 1 recourse (the bloke was jack as f**k though).

I don't mock it for the simple reason that I have to undergo it every year in my wonderfully progressive European company. Naturally, I accept the constructive criticism when it comes from superiors, ackowledge the praise when it comes from anyone and make sure that I find out who writes the bad $hit about me amongst my colleagues, for future reprisal action.

One thing that NEVER happens is that it is released for general consumption. I am the only one who sees it, and this is common HR practice for any 360. It is a tool designed for the individual to undergo his own personal mia culpa and address weaknesses......I don't have any, BTW.

For this reason, if this was ever used as the foundation for recoursing and not simply mirroring a known negative trait, then there woud be somthing very wrong in the state of Denmark. That is a terribly sad indictment indeed.

 

[Mag2grid]

For this reason, if this was ever used as the foundation for recoursing and not simply mirroring a known negative trait, then there woud be somthing very wrong in the state of Denmark. That is a terribly sad indictment indeed.

It wasnt the sole basis for the recourse, however (as with all trg establishments) the individuals actions which lead to that feedback highlighted to the staff a training issue, which so far into said course warranted recoursing the address shortfall, as it could not be addressed within the time scales.

 

[Nialligimino]

So far interesting insights...

So far interesting insights...

I can state with due certainty that unless your desired role is as a Rock Officer then your not taught to advance on the enemy in a contact (apart from some brief exposure but nothing concrete) so there isn't any stabbing of sandbags going on.

...Is that side of things addressed in a similar manner to RMAS if you are intending on becoming a Rock Officer?

Also, not implying I know all, but I have an understanding 'Task, Team, Individual' and have used SMEAC extensively and 'Do, Review, Learn and Apply' sounds a bit like an extension to the lesser known (in the Cadet World) PICSIE.

Not being a Jack Ba$tad or a mong is obvious enough, along with the so-called 'Airman Tendencies', however, while those with barcodes are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard of behaviour, surely there's some overlap (after commissioning) of being I/C and being one of the lads as part of the camaraderie - the Holier than Thou attitude being the extreme of removing yourself from those you lead; to be truly respected is it not the case to maintain the right balance of friendship AND leadership? I feel that my experiences as a Spacey would help me repress any God Complex I may develop.


As I would be joining as a non-grad, does a track record of going above and beyond and positively effecting those and the processes around me in a civvy job, do enough to make up for this, given that it's experience that most Grads wouldn't have?

Which Goater is best to speak to about the Regiment, particularly the Commissioned/Commissioning side of things?

 

[vim_fuego]

Any true rock officer would have tried to kill most of us whilst we slept...I'm still alive...so I don't believe we have any unless they are deep and silent...The latest person through the sausage factory is Spearmint on here afaik...I would have thought the only difference between any other commissioned person and a rock officer is a shed load of fitness and the fact that shaping your beret into something unrecognisable as a standard beret is your lifetime occupation DT_Xtremez_26: