![]() ![]() If it was known that lieutenants were forced to work as company commanders as a matter of course, many many officers would become unhappy very quickly, and see less incentive to stay in the service.īasically, the promotion itself has to be decided by people farther in the rear. Let’s not forget that the military is a job, and things like rank determine your current pay grade and your retirement benefits, among other things. But you still have to take on the full workload and responsibility of a CEO.Īre you going to be happy with that arrangement? Probably not. But you’re only an acting CEO, so you aren’t going to get the same salary, stock options, and other benefits of a real CEO. They ask you, a lower-level manager, to fill in as CEO until further notice. Let’s look at it this way: Let’s say the board of directors of your company fires all of the upper management. ![]() My question is: why do you need to give a rank along with a position? Will the world come to an end if a Lieutenant were in charge of a company? Authority is delegated to lower ranks, but not all types of authority. I understand, although I don’t see how the person in question is any less “deserving” than anyone else (if he’s proven himself capable of a job, why not give it to him permanently?).īut to WHOM has he proven himself capable? As stated, his field commander may feel that he is qualified, but a full review by the rear brass may find that the field commander was in error, and that the man does not yet deserve a permanent promotion. Soldiers even refer to their commanders by their position rather than their rank - we’d say “the Company Commander” instead of “the Captain.” I’ve seen some pretty strange formations over the years - such as a sergeant commanding a squad full of sergeants - and the chain of command always seemed to work. In the Israeli army, positional authority is everything, while rank is just a formality deriving form training and seniority. My question is: why do you need to give a rank along with a position? Will the world come to an end if a Lieutenant were in charge of a company?īear in mind, I’m not talking from an American viewpoint. I understand, although I don’t see how the person in question is any less “deserving” than anyone else (if he’s proven himself capable of a job, why not give it to him permanently?). If they just gave away those positions, then deserving people would not get the promotion. ![]() Or an existing E-8 who is transferring to that area in need of a position. But somewhere out there is a deserving E-7 who is ready for a promotion. It should be noted that I can’t recall ever seeing qualified ranks used in the Forces themselves, but only in the cadet programs. ![]() Sometimes special rank insignia exist for the Qualified ranks. This isn’t really an “Acting Rank”.Ĭonversely, in some branches there exist “Qualified” ranks, for when a member has all of the qualifications for promotion and has demonstrated the aptitude, but there isn’t room in the member’s unit structure for the member to be promoted (like, you’re only allowed so many Petty Officers Second Class in a corps). The acting rank is worn by the member, but may be withdrawn if the requirements are not met by some deadline.įor further confusion, Second-Lietenants in the maritime forces are called “Acting Sub-Lieutenants”, an artifact of naval tradition. In a slightly different way, the Canadian Forces and their cadet programs sometimes use the ‘acting’ designation when a member has most of the qualifications for promotion and has demonstrated the aptitude, but some on-paper requirement is not yet complete. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |