When you're on a firing range, one of the most important things to understand is what constitutes *your lane*. If a target pops up outside your lane, you don't shoot at it -- that's not your business.
Metaphorically, this applies to staff jobs as well, and what I'm learning these days is where my limits are. In Korea, the high turnover rate adds to such factors as personalities, staffing levels, and unit history in affecting who does what.
[Caption: something that has just been put in my "lane."]
For example, CSSBs (combat sustainment support battalions) have a SPO (Support Operations) section that is specifically dedicated to coordinating logistical support to outside units. If the "X" brigade needs to relocate their motor pool, the CSSB will assign trucks to go help them out. It's the SPO's job to assign responsibility based on who's got the right equipment to fill the need, how much is needed, and who's got the most manpower available. In a single phrase, SPO handles "external logistics."
However, internal taskings, such as preparing a convoy for a training event, are considered the purview of the S-4 Logistics section. This is how the Army is organized -- even in field artillery units, there's going to be an S-4 in charge of the logistics.
Yet in a whole
battalion of logisticians, is it really all that important that this gets done *specifically* by the S-4? The SPO shop will probably have route maps on hand and may be more familiar with how to run a convoy. Why not have them take charge? If you consider that the S-4 is manned with a bunch of supply sergeants and a single maintenance guy, that argument becomes stronger.
Responsibility for maintenance is also affected -- if the SPO shop has four times the maintenance people than the S-4 shop, why not let them run the periodic maintenance meetings? It seems there's always someone out of the office due to vacation, training, temporary duty, or additional taskings -- if there's only a single maintenance guy to begin with, the S-4 shop would have a harder time redistributing that workload.
[Caption: something that is not my "lane."]
The secondary effect of this situation is that greater emphasis is placed on certain functions than others.
I remember a question I heard last year when I was an executive officer. The motor sergeant didn't understand why the battalion XO (a major) wasn't involved in the maintenance meetings. That was the way things were in his last unit.
I realize now that he probably came from a maneuver unit, where there is no SPO shop and the S-4 is robust enough to handle the maintenance piece. The S-4, along with the S-1 (administrative) and S-6 (communications) shops, fall under the battalion XO's authority. That person was involved because their battalion's maintenance condition was "in their lane."
Personality and politics also factor in how big an emphasis a particular role gets, and my guess is that battalion XO either had a strong personality or had a lot of pull with the big boss. I saw that in the National Guard battalions I worked under in Afghanistan. If your section was not a priority or you didn't have the boss's ear, your concerns got less attention and resources.
To summarize what I've learned, a unit's staff responsibilities may deviate from Army norms based on staffing levels, capabilities, and past experience. It's important to understand what those roles are so you can know 1.) when to take the lead on a project, 2.) when to coordinating or advisory role, and 3.) who to go to for a question.
[Caption: something that has just been put in my "lane."]
For example, CSSBs (combat sustainment support battalions) have a SPO (Support Operations) section that is specifically dedicated to coordinating logistical support to outside units. If the "X" brigade needs to relocate their motor pool, the CSSB will assign trucks to go help them out. It's the SPO's job to assign responsibility based on who's got the right equipment to fill the need, how much is needed, and who's got the most manpower available. In a single phrase, SPO handles "external logistics."
However, internal taskings, such as preparing a convoy for a training event, are considered the purview of the S-4 Logistics section. This is how the Army is organized -- even in field artillery units, there's going to be an S-4 in charge of the logistics.
Yet in a whole battalion of logisticians, is it really all that important that this gets done *specifically* by the S-4? The SPO shop will probably have route maps on hand and may be more familiar with how to run a convoy. Why not have them take charge? If you consider that the S-4 is manned with a bunch of supply sergeants and a single maintenance guy, that argument becomes stronger.
Responsibility for maintenance is also affected -- if the SPO shop has four times the maintenance people than the S-4 shop, why not let them run the periodic maintenance meetings? It seems there's always someone out of the office due to vacation, training, temporary duty, or additional taskings -- if there's only a single maintenance guy to begin with, the S-4 shop would have a harder time redistributing that workload.
[Caption: something that is not my "lane."]
The secondary effect of this situation is that greater emphasis is placed on certain functions than others.
I remember a question I heard last year when I was an executive officer. The motor sergeant didn't understand why the battalion XO (a major) wasn't involved in the maintenance meetings. That was the way things were in his last unit.
I realize now that he probably came from a maneuver unit, where there is no SPO shop and the S-4 is robust enough to handle the maintenance piece. The S-4, along with the S-1 (administrative) and S-6 (communications) shops, fall under the battalion XO's authority. That person was involved because their battalion's maintenance condition was "in their lane."
Personality and politics also factor in how big an emphasis a particular role gets, and my guess is that battalion XO either had a strong personality or had a lot of pull with the big boss. I saw that in the National Guard battalions I worked under in Afghanistan. If your section was not a priority or you didn't have the boss's ear, your concerns got less attention and resources.
To summarize what I've learned, a unit's staff responsibilities may deviate from Army norms based on staffing levels, capabilities, and past experience. It's important to understand what those roles are so you can know 1.) when to take the lead on a project, 2.) when to coordinating or advisory role, and 3.) who to go to for a question.
No comments:
Post a Comment