Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

I am currently enlisted, but thinking of OCS. The main reason is for more money. Why

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I am currently enlisted, but thinking of OCS. The main reason is for more money. Why

    I am currently enlisted, but thinking of OCS. The main reason is for more money. Why should/would one do warrent officer over officer? I want to try the 2 month advance course. Anything I should know?

  • #2
    you were the guy that needed help with the resume. How are things going?

    [URL="http://www.800goguard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11472&highlight=tgpii"]http://www.800goguard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11472&highlight=tgpii[/URL]

    but the reason for OCS over WOCS? OCS is easier to apply and get into.

    Comment


    • #3
      [QUOTE=tgpii]I am currently enlisted, but thinking of OCS. The main reason is for more money. Why should/would one do warrent officer over officer? I want to try the 2 month advance course. Anything I should know?[/QUOTE]

      If you're doing this for money, then I would expect that you'll be quite unhappy. Once you factor in the additional expenses and expectations of being a Guard officer, the money differential isn't quite as large as it looks initially. I recommend serving where you do best. Being an officer isn't better or worse than being an NCO, but it is different. I've seen a number of happy, fulfilled sergeants become miserable lieutenants.

      Comment


      • #4
        [QUOTE=matthew.ritchie]If you're doing this for money, then I would expect that you'll be quite unhappy. Once you factor in the additional expenses and expectations of being a Guard officer, the money differential isn't quite as large as it looks initially. I recommend serving where you do best. Being an officer isn't better or worse than being an NCO, but it is different. I've seen a number of happy, fulfilled sergeants become miserable lieutenants.[/QUOTE]

        Major,
        I have heard similar statements regarding NCO vs. Officer. I whole-heartedly agree being an Officer is in no way better or worse than being an NCO. My father retired as a Lt. Col USAF, and was the first to admit that he absolutely would not have been as successful as he was, had it not been for the NCOs under his command. No doubt.

        However, would you be willing to elaborate on why you believe some NCOs become miserable Officers? I have heard others make the same statement(s) and am curious as to your opinion on why that is.

        Thank You,
        Jon D Hauger

        Comment


        • #5
          [QUOTE=JD512k]<snip>However, would you be willing to elaborate on why you believe some NCOs become miserable Officers? I have heard others make the same statement(s) and am curious as to your opinion on why that is.

          Thank You,
          Jon D Hauger[/QUOTE]

          For the same reason that a great salesman often makes a mediocre sales manager; or an excellent scientific researcher often does a poor job managing a laboratory. They are different skill sets. Look at the people running universities -- they aren't university presidents because they're the smartest professors, but because they have the temperament and skills to handle the president's job (which is very different from being a university professor).

          In the Army, we have an NCO paired with an officer at every level of command -- lieutenants have platoon sergeants, captains have first sergeants, battalion commanders have CSMs. The NCO stands at that level looking down to the details, ensuring that the individual requirements are met. The officer stands at that level looking up, integrating the unit as a whole with the mission of the next two higher elements. Which job is most important? Trick question, we need both to succeed.

          This is why an officer really shouldn't direct an individual Soldier to do anything, he should work through his chain of command. That NCO knows more about the the Soldiers and equipment than the officer. He should tell the platoon sergeant what needs to happen, and let him figure it out. You'll get better results. The officer needs to remain focused on the mission of the unit and that of the next two echelons of command above, so he can make plans and arrangements so his unit as a whole can best support those missions.

          The officer also needs to coordinate and de-conflict all the NCOs in his chain, to ensure that they're all focused on the same goal. That sometimes means picking winners and losers in times of limited resources, and deciding who has the highest and lowest priority. My ammo guys usually got the short end of the stick, since the gun crews always had a higher priority. I'd make decisions about what was best for them, and the ammo guys and FDC and maintenance had to do their best under the circumstances.

          I hope I've given you some sort of impression.

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, you did indeed. I'm an analogy guy, so appreciated your comparisons to the civilian world.

            [I]"Which job is most important? Trick question, we need both to succeed..... That NCO knows more about the Soldiers and equipment than the officer. He should tell the platoon sergeant what needs to happen, and let him figure it out. You'll get better results."[/I]

            Well said. I learned this first hand from watching and listening to my father throughout his career. He frequently told us that his MSGs had forgotten more about how to ______ (fill in the blank), then he himself ever knew to begin with.

            I appreciate your time, thank you.

            JD

            Comment


            • #7
              [QUOTE=matthew.ritchie]For the same reason that a great salesman often makes a mediocre sales manager; or an excellent scientific researcher often does a poor job managing a laboratory. They are different skill sets. Look at the people running universities -- they aren't university presidents because they're the smartest professors, but because they have the temperament and skills to handle the president's job (which is very different from being a university professor).

              In the Army, we have an NCO paired with an officer at every level of command -- lieutenants have platoon sergeants, captains have first sergeants, battalion commanders have CSMs. The NCO stands at that level looking down to the details, ensuring that the individual requirements are met. The officer stands at that level looking up, integrating the unit as a whole with the mission of the next two higher elements. Which job is most important? Trick question, we need both to succeed.

              This is why an officer really shouldn't direct an individual Soldier to do anything, he should work through his chain of command. That NCO knows more about the the Soldiers and equipment than the officer. He should tell the platoon sergeant what needs to happen, and let him figure it out. You'll get better results. The officer needs to remain focused on the mission of the unit and that of the next two echelons of command above, so he can make plans and arrangements so his unit as a whole can best support those missions.

              The officer also needs to coordinate and de-conflict all the NCOs in his chain, to ensure that they're all focused on the same goal. That sometimes means picking winners and losers in times of limited resources, and deciding who has the highest and lowest priority. My ammo guys usually got the short end of the stick, since the gun crews always had a higher priority. I'd make decisions about what was best for them, and the ammo guys and FDC and maintenance had to do their best under the circumstances.

              I hope I've given you some sort of impression.[/QUOTE]
              That's a really good explanation.

              A lot of former NCOs have a hard time converting to officership. You may be an infantry officer, but with the exception of your couple years as a PL you're almost never doing anything like an infantryman. You're managing infantrymen, doing planning, logistics, etc. Officers aren't really specialists in their branch, they are generalists. All officers do the same kind of planning, logistics, management, etc. What the unit is actually doing almost doesn't matter very much.

              NCOs are hands on & are specialists through experience in their particular field. They are physically doing the job & expert in the detailed aspects of it so they can train & enforce individual standards to meet the required tasks.

              It's hard when you see soldiers doing stupid stuff & you're used to being the guy that goes over there & fixes it, versus staying back & seeing the big picture of lots of soldiers doing stupid stuff and telling your NCOs to enforce the standard. When you're a natural leader and good with interpersonal stuff, it's hard to be hands off. It's hard not to be out in the field getting your hands dirty at a job you trained for. It's hard to be leading operations when you're not the most expert person out there. Some people don't take to that well, some find it a hard habit to break.

              Comment


              • #8
                Excellent read and very informative. Thank you.

                If I may ask, where does a WO fit into the picture? It appears to me WO is more of a hands-on affair than Commissioned Officer.. is that correct? Looks as though it can be quite a rewarding endeavor as well.

                Again, appreciate your taking time to feed our inquiring minds.

                JD Hauger

                Comment


                • #9
                  [QUOTE=JD512k]Excellent read and very informative. Thank you.

                  If I may ask, where does a WO fit into the picture? It appears to me WO is more of a hands-on affair than Commissioned Officer.. is that correct? Looks as though it can be quite a rewarding endeavor as well.

                  Again, appreciate your taking time to feed our inquiring minds.

                  JD Hauger[/QUOTE]

                  Warrants are put at those intersections of the two, where you need someone with a depth of specific knowledge, but also a level of integration into the larger whole. For some examples, warrant officers are property book officers (keeping detailed accountability for property that may be spread over an entire theater of war), pilots (who are experts in their aircraft, but of course have an impact on the whole battle), LAN managers (again, needing detailed knowledge, but having a huge impact on the whole unit).

                  Not all career fields have WO slots, and in terms of raw numbers, WO are the smallest of the three categories (E, O, W). I consider the WO to have the best of both worlds. It's too late for me, but I encourage others to pursue it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=matthew.ritchie]Warrants are put at those intersections of the two, where you need someone with a depth of specific knowledge, but also a level of integration into the larger whole. For some examples, warrant officers are property book officers (keeping detailed accountability for property that may be spread over an entire theater of war), pilots (who are experts in their aircraft, but of course have an impact on the whole battle), LAN managers (again, needing detailed knowledge, but having a huge impact on the whole unit).

                    Not all career fields have WO slots, and in terms of raw numbers, WO are the smallest of the three categories (E, O, W). I consider the WO to have the best of both worlds. It's too late for me, but I encourage others to pursue it.[/QUOTE]

                    That's a very interesting suggestion Major. Since I have been sitting pondering right now while I am enlisted, on whether or not I will be using my degree to go the Warrant or Commissioned route. Would you mind elaborating?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X