The Officer And His Men

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 32, 8 February 1943, Page 2

The Officer And His Men

■THE recent address by the Adju- ■*■ tant-General of the New Zealand forces to officer cadets at their passing-out ceremony, follows, I suppose, the lines of many addresses given on similar occasions, from Sandhurst to Duntroon, via West Point. It is, however, none the less valuable on that account. The point of Brigadier Conway's clear and emphatic exposition of the principles that should govern the relations between officers and men, is sharpened by war, and what he says should be heeded by civilians "as well

By Cyrano

as by soldiers. It is not enough for a civilian to applaud the soldiers of his country; he should try to understand their job. The choosing of officers is a vital part of preparation for war, and the success of that preparation when put into practice will depend largely on that choice and on the relations between commanders and commanded. Managing Men Brigadier Conway emphasised two main points, that officers must lead, not drive, and that they must take an interest in their men. Relations between the ranks must differ somewhat between armies, according to the social system in the respective societies, but these two principles stand for all armies. In the British regular army, where officers belonged to a different class from the men, they were strongly inculcated. * An officer was (and is) expected to lead in battle, and in the field and off it to take every care of his men. At one time, indeed, it was a complaint that officers led rather too well, in that they were inclined to expose themselves unnecessarily. It must be pointed out, however, that care for the rank and file is not the duty of the officer only; it is enjoined on all non-commissioned officers from corporal upwards.- But, of course, formulation of principles is one thing and carrying them out is quite another. Any capable lawyer could draft a political constitution; it requires the united wisdom of many people to make it work. So leading and caring for soldiers is part of the difficult art of managing men. This art, I believe, starts with a-natural gift. It can be cultivated, but if a man hasn't got the root of the matter in him to begin with, he will not succeed as a manager in either civil or military life. Firm and Just Courage is the first thing needed in an officer, but so it is in a civilian. It is the foundation pf all the virtues. I should say that, given this foundation, the first thing a soldier requires of his officer is that he shall not order others to do what he does not do himself. It might be better to say that the first thing a soldier requires is that the officer should know his job. Well, this readiness to lead and share risks is part of the job. Then the officer should be a good disciplinarian, firm and just. Soldiers don't object to discipline, so long as it is intelligent and even-handed. Rifleman Harris, who wrote one of the best books on the Peninsula War, said of a commanding officer that "he was a tight hand, but a soldier likes that better than a slovenly officer; and, indeed, he was deservedly loved by all who knew him." What is hard to bear is hardness one minute and weakness the next, and, worst of all, favouritism. It is the same at school. Most of us remember that we didn't mind strictness of control so long as it was reasonable in degree and fair to all. We didn't like the master who had favourites. I don't sup : pose trying to curry favour with subordinates is any more successful in the army than in other callings. Respect is everything. How an officer will deal with individuals will depend on his wisdom and experience and the circumstances of the case. Knowledge of men comes in here, and that can only be gained by mixing with men and studying them. An old "Regular" friend of mine tells me that one of his colonels, when he was a young officer, used to let off first offenders with an admonition, in which he made it very clear that next time there would be punishment. When my friend imposed his first punishment, so many days' "C.8.," the colonel gave him the tip to be on the spot when the offender "came out." My friend was there, and took his man off to play in a hockey match. "A good regiment," he said to me, "is just like a big happy family." Civil and Military Life

The expansion of an army in time of crisis raises special problems. A civilian coming into the army may bring a freshness of outlook that will operate against the deadening side of military tradition. On the other hand, he may suffer because he has not been influenced by the good side of that tradition. It is significant that Brigadier Conway, referring to complaints that some young officers were not always as interested in their men as they should be, used the words "not necessarily young in years, but young in rank." This opens up an interesting psychological aspect of the question. Cadets who go straight from a military academy into the officer class are picked men; they have been watched to see if they have the vocation. Moreover, they do not acquire the inhibitions and repressions (if those are the right terms) of civil life. But a man who goes for a commission after some years of civil life may be a disappointed man. He may be a failure in his work or his social life, and may long for an opportunity to assert himself. It is well recognised that this is what attracts many men to Fascism. Denied authority in their daily round, and conscious that they don't exert any marked influence on their fellows, they get great satisfaction from wearing some kind of distinctive shirt and throwing their weight about. If such a man is given authority in the army, there is a danger that he will over-exercise that authority and exaggerate his own importance. ' * "

No Sarcasm Bullying and sarcasm were condemned by Brigadier Conway. Bullying goes without saying. Sarcasm is often a form of bullying, and I must say I am particularly pleased that the brigadier mentioned it in the way he did. Sarcasm applied collectively may be harmless. I don't suppose anyone suffers from the sergeant-major's pleasantries to squads: "Thank God ,we have a navy!" But sarcasm applied by superiors to individual subordinates who can't answer back is often a mean and cowardly form of attack. I am not thinking of the army only. I remember how we used to squirm at school under the sarcasm of masters. There is a type of teacher who is-too fond of airing his wit at the expense of defenceless pupils, and his kind is to be found in all walks of life. If you have to wound. do it cleanly.