An Officer.......

"ArtKramr" wrote

When an officer's decisions are challenged by those below him
explanations are signs of weakness and make for poor leadership.

That wasn't even true in WW#2. All I can say is that your unit was
really a SNAFU outfit.

In OCS we were taught that information saves lives, and creates
victories. How do you get that? You ask questions. When one of
your men challenges the plan, you listen. I've come out of the
commanders tent after hours of planning, only to be confronted by
a PFC who didn't agree with our tasking. The only reason I am
still here, is because my men challenged our orders. On the other
hand, I've listened, and I decided otherwise. Sometimes I got
casualties so heavy I doubted my decision, but once my men
agreed to go forward, we went forward, and we kept going
forward until we could no longer sustain the fight.

Cute little sayings, like you have here, are signs of immaturity.

Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And there
are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That was
what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of the
privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: An Officer.......
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/23/04 6:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 22 Feb 2004 19:22:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.

An officer never explains.

Show me an officer who won't explain to those he is leading the why of
the issue and I'll show you a poor leader.

And an officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive.

If you don't find yourself on the defensive occasionally, you are
little more than a caretaker and not being either innovative or
aggressive. Reaching beyond the horizon will occasionally put you on
the defensive. How you deal with it is the measure of how good you
are.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


We learned our jobs at a different time and in a different war. And we
didn't
do all that badly in the process. I guess we learned to something right.
Show
me an officer who complains and I'll show you a whining wimp. How an
officer
behaves always trickles down to his men and his complaining can demoralise
troops and result in defeat. Be strong, always be strong. When an
officer's
decisions are challenged by those below him explanations are signs of
weakness
and make for poor leadership.
And when challenged he need only be secure in his decisions and demand his
orders be followed. That is a strong leader. Once troops qustion a leaders
decisions, he has lost both the control and faith of his troops. But I
was
trained in the army. You were trained in the Air Force. That may be the
difference. No offense of course.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Rick Folkers" wrote in message
news:AKx_b.1212$Ri6.512@lakeread04...
Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And
there
are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That
was
what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of
the
privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.

There are several styles of leadership, and the style Art was taught was
identified at OCS as 'Autocratic'.

We were also taught that a good officer should be able to adapt his
leadership style
to the circumstances he was in. There are times when it *is* very
necessary to be autocratic
and there are times when its better to be rather less so. A good
officer should be able to alter
his style according to need without comprising his integrity, authority
or effectiveness.

Times change and so do the philosphies of leadership. It's worth noting
that the autocratic type of
officer historically came about when the OR's were uneducated and mostly
illiterate, ie dumb grunts.
(I'm not talking recent history here).

Consequently leaderships styles have had to become both more flexible
and less autocratic, as we
are dealing with rankers that are far better educated than many officers
were a hundred years ago.
It hard to drive such people, but they can be *led*.

The CO

Subject: An Officer.......
From: "The CO"
Date: 2/23/04 6:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Rick Folkers" wrote in message
news:AKx_b.1212$Ri6.512@lakeread04...
Art, that is just BS. There are times and ways to complain. And
there
are times and ways to explain to subordinates. Anybody who thinks
they are above explanations was a sorry excuse for an officer. That
was
what I used to call an "Imperial Officer", one who was more aware of
the
privileges of being an officer than of the responsibilities.

There are several styles of leadership, and the style Art was taught was
identified at OCS as 'Autocratic'.

We were also taught that a good officer should be able to adapt his
leadership style
to the circumstances he was in. There are times when it *is* very
necessary to be autocratic
and there are times when its better to be rather less so. A good
officer should be able to alter
his style according to need without comprising his integrity, authority
or effectiveness.

Times change and so do the philosphies of leadership. It's worth noting
that the autocratic type of
officer historically came about when the OR's were uneducated and mostly
illiterate, ie dumb grunts.
(I'm not talking recent history here).

Consequently leaderships styles have had to become both more flexible
and less autocratic, as we
are dealing with rankers that are far better educated than many officers
were a hundred years ago.
It hard to drive such people, but they can be *led*.

The CO



Here are some more caveats from my training. When you issue and order to a
subordinate there are only three answers allowed. They a
1. YES SIR
2. NO SIR
3. NO EXCUSE SIR

But when you are issued an order from a superior officer there are three
answers allowed. They a
1.YES SIR
2. NO SIR
3. NO EXCUSE SIR

Remember that I wasn't in the Air Force. I was in the Army Air Corps, emphasis
on ARMY and went through a full schedule of combat infantry training as well as
flight school and as an officer as well.. Good thing too because during the
Battle of the Bulge we were all issued M-1 Carbines and thrown into the line
along with the XXX Corps. And I never ever heard any long discussions
involving diverse opinions on what we should do. Orders were issued and were
followed without question. We knew what we should do and we did it. And
remember we won that war so maybe we knew something back then that the military
has forgotten since.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 22 Feb 2004 19:22:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.

An officer never explains.

Show me an officer who won't explain to those he is leading the why of
the issue and I'll show you a poor leader.

And an officer never allows himself to be put on the defensive.

If you don't find yourself on the defensive occasionally, you are
little more than a caretaker and not being either innovative or
aggressive. Reaching beyond the horizon will occasionally put you on
the defensive. How you deal with it is the measure of how good you
are.

We've had our differences but, as Nappy used to say to his paramour, "Not
tonight, Josephine!". You're right on the mark, Ed. (*-*)))

George Z.

In article ,
says...
An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.


Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.




--
On the free trade agreement between Australia and the US there is a big
difference between the heading of the agreement and the body states.

Observations of Bernard - No 47

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:33:36 +1100, Bernardz wrote:

In article ,
says...
An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.


Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.

I remember reading a report right before the Soviet Union broke up. A
delegation lead by a Soviet general was visiting American bases in Germany.
A US Army general was leading the tour and pointed out enlisted barracks on
one base. After pointing them out he also noted to the Soviet that the
majority of the enlisted personnel actually lived off-post renting their
own apartments and houses. The Soviet general thought about that for a few
seconds before asking, "How do you get them to come back?"

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa5d38fc0183f9f98992b@news...
In article ,
says...
An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.


Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.


Given that the Soviet Authorities had a a habit of sending anyone
found complaining to a Gulag this is scarcely surprising.

Keith

"Bernardz" wrote

Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.

Hilarious! The reason so many Russians died in WW#2, was their
officers kept shooting them.

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa5d38fc0183f9f98992b@news...
In article ,
says...
An officer never complains.

Show me a group that isn't griping, and I'll show you a group with a
morale problem.


Soviet soldiers in WW2 did not complain. According to the Russian
authorities they had few if any morale problems.

And the little matter of those NKVD units to their rear had no
influence...right?

Brooks