Wanted: A Compelling Vision for the Canadian Armed Forces

Let’s talk about the “Institution” that is the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), its lack of vision and why it’s overdue for an external leadership review.  

I used to laugh reading doctrine or pamphlets that used the word, institution, when describing the CAF. What I found humorous was the second of the two most common definitions for the word, which according to Merriam Webster Dictionary are:  

1. “An established organization or corporation (such as a bank or university) especially of public character”; and,  

2. “A facility or establishment in which people (such as the sick, or needy) live and receive care typically in a confined setting and often without individual consent”.   

Obviously, the CAF chose the first definition for its implicit meaning, but I personally know most of my friends and I felt the latter was a better fit.  

Most often, the term institution is tied to Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Leading the Institution, which is a foundational leadership instructional manual published in 2007. It was preceded by Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada (2003) and Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Doctrine and Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations (2005). Its target audience was, “all senior officers and non-commissioned officers who serve in key appointments, their staffs, and others with the abilities and commitment to contribute to CF Strategy”.  

Unfortunately, if the manual were a mirror, and it was held up in front of the institution's current leadership, the reflection would not match what is written so succinctly on its pages. Fifteen years after its publication and there are still many recommendations which the CAF has yet to fully adopt or even bothered to try. The area lacking most predominantly, in my opinion, is a compelling vision. Without a compelling vision how can people believe in the organization and act accordingly to achieve it.   

I was fortunate to have reached the rank of Master Warrant Officer in 16 years. This rather speedy progression was due in equal parts to a well-timed war, a willingness to volunteer, work hard, being positive, and broad exposure to toxic and exemplary leaders alike. The last four years of my career as an MWO were awesome and I got to experience the ups and downs of being part of a small unit Command Team. But it was also extremely frustrating because I was privileged to be able to look behind the curtain of command and was disillusioned by how needlessly complex, cumbersome and lost the organization was.   

This was one of the reasons I retired when I did. I didn’t see myself in the organization anymore, I didn’t know what it stood for. Because I didn’t believe in what I was doing, I didn’t feel comfortable asking others to follow my instructions. In short, it was time for me to go.  

That said, a person can deal with a lot of things, and CAF members must slog through many hardships in their career. Postings, deployments, and familial separation all present a myriad of challenges, but most will keep with it for the camaraderie, lifestyle or pay cheque. But those factors will only take a person so far. At a certain level, which will vary for everyone, the lack of an organizational vision and leadership is going to result in the attrition of very capable, competent, and desirable people. This occurs across the rank spectrum, but it hurts the organization the most when it’s a senior Non-Commissioned member or senior Officer. The loss of investment and experience at this level is incalculable.  

It would be unfair and false to say that all releases/retirements from the CAF at more senior levels of the NCM and Officer ranks are a result of a lack of a compelling organizational vision. Some are simply at the natural end of their careers. But some are hastened needlessly to this point and still potentially could have served another 15 years. What could the organization have done to prevent their premature exit?   

This is where I believe a clear and compelling vision along with an external leadership review would be greatly beneficial.   

Why? Because of something a former member of the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry told me in the fall of 2000 while we worked together as hunting guides before I left for basic training.  

“The army is like a rain barrel full of water with holes, there are more holes at the bottom then there are at the top. Everyone gets in at the bottom, they’re all hard as rocks and gung-ho. But once all the rocks are in the water it becomes clear that some are in fact just dried up pieces of sh*t. Those pieces of sh*t will slowly start to float above the rest and invariably make it to the top. Over time, increasingly more sh*t floats to the top where there are less holes to get out. At the same time as more rocks enter the barrel and look up, all they’ll see is an impenetrable layer of sh*t and decide it's not worth the fight and get out. That’s what happened to me”  

Obviously, this isn’t the case for all senior officers and NCM’s, but it is for some. There are less incentives to get out at the top of the organization. The pay is excellent, the influence and autonomy are unparalleled, and it apparently comes with almost total impunity from the Code of Service Discipline. No need to push for a compelling organizational vision when you’re at the climax of your career. That would require change, and change is work. That vision also must resonate with the entire Force and that would mean listening to them and implementing their suggestions.  

This is why we need an external review of CAF institutional leaders, to ensure that a compelling vision is communicated, the change process is implemented, and the process sustained over a period of years to see it successfully achieved.   

If you're not advancing the organization to achieve the vision, then in the words of the rapper Ludacris, “move bitch, get out the way!” You're blocking a position from someone with the ideas and the drive who can. An experienced but unmotivated body in a key position is a waste. We need a way to find and incentivize them or remove them. To be fair this goes for the public service as well.  

It’s like one of the old truisms that CAF instructors, regardless of trade, repeat in classrooms across the country, “If you have a question ask it, because chances are someone else has the same question.”  Well, it’s time we ask what the CAF’s vision is, and what the plan is for that unnecessarily thick top layer that has no incentive to provide one.