Eliminating the separation of Officer / Non-Coms

[J.T.B.]

Would more captains not result in more flag officers?

Not really, as captain - and apparently often is - the 'terminal objective' for many officers.

You build an organization to meet needs, not to create more of a certain rank. More captains equals more captain commands, that means a larger plant and support structure overall, which means more management at higher levels.

The reason that many modern naval officers push beyond that is that they are forced to retire if they don't.

No, that's absurd. The reason people want to get promoted to flag/general officer is that they are highly able, educated, accomplished, motivated (and competitive) people who want the challenge of applying their experience, abilities and ideas at higher levels, as well as the rewards and recognition of achieving something that very few of their peers will achieve. Which also means they are willing to take on very heavy and consequential responsibilities. One of the most irritating ideas that fans seemed to pick up after '80s Trek was that captain was the highest rank that mattered and that an admiral was kind of a loser in comparison.

Umm, yes we do. And even older.

A handful, but not significant numbers.

If captains are staying in grade 20 years, that's going to pass down to all the lower levels. If an average commander is in grade say 15 years, and the remainder of commanders who aren't going to be promoted stay where they're at and no one leaves early, it's hard to figure how there's not a large cohort of lieutenants and below with 30-plus years service. I'm just not convinced this would work as advertised; I would like to see a model of it.

Of course. But, is it believable for them to park in that space for 20-plus years?

Yes. If they're good at it then why not?

So the commander who would also be good at it doesn't have to wait 20 years for a shot. We know what military organizations were like when people went 20 years between promotions, and it wasn't good.

No. We often see people staying in one position a long time, in Captain's position in particular.

In real life or on Star Trek? Just because that's what was done on the show doesn't mean it's believable. The implications of the proposed system are that the officer corps should skew older than shown.

 

[Longinus]

@J.T.B.

In Star Trek we indeed see officers remaining in same positions for decades. I really don't think that this is particularly unbelievable. You need to forget the modern military mentality where promotion is seen as inherently valuable. Starfleet is not really a military, it is mostly a scientific organisation. If you're a researcher at university, it is not expected that you must eventually end up as a dean or a chancellor. So if you're a skilled stellar cartographer or a warp field technician, then you can stay decades in that job in Starfleet, and probably make it to the lieutenant rank at most. And that is perfectly fine.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Starfleet is not really a military, it is mostly a scientific organisation.

While I agree with this in part, I'm not sure the "academia" model is the main one to look to here, law enforcement or business (retail, banking) seems like a more viable option here.

If captains are staying in grade 20 years, that's going to pass down to all the lower levels. If an average commander is in grade say 15 years, and the remainder of commanders who aren't going to be promoted stay where they're at and no one leaves early, it's hard to figure how there's not a large cohort of lieutenants and below with 30-plus years service. I'm just not convinced this would work as advertised; I would like to see a model of it.

IMO, the reason that we don't see this on the show is a combination of "best and the brightest" for prestige assignments like Enterprise and Voyager, realitively small crew numbers for DS9, and the lack of focus on the "junior" personnel (crewman to chief).

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

While I agree with this in part, I'm not sure the "academia" model is the main one to look to here, law enforcement or business (retail, banking) seems like a more viable option here.

I sort of disagree, StarFleet is 1/2 Military, 1/2 Explorer & Science Discovery.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Which is somewhat the case with emergency services, police departments have patrol officers (enlisted), detectives and analysts (science officers), SWAT ('military'). Now they don't typically do the pure research that academia does, but by the same token, academia doesn't include security functions organically (campus security are typically external contractors outside the organisations 'chain of command' and are far less equiped for paramilitary operations than an under-resourced SWAT team).

 

[J.T.B.]

In Star Trek we indeed see officers remaining in same positions for decades. I really don't think that this is particularly unbelievable. You need to forget the modern military mentality where promotion is seen as inherently valuable.

There's no "need" of any kind. But promotion in Star Trek is inherently valuable, too, in a very military way, because it gives increased command authority which those of lower grades are required to respect and obey.

The idea of people staying in the same position for decades is fine. All I am saying is that system being advanced here has practical, plain-numbers implications that don't seem to be reflected in the organization as depicted onscreen. No one so far has presented a model which explains why a large percentage of the Starfleet lieutenant commanders and lieutenants shown are not in the same age range as we see for captains and admirals.

Starfleet is not really a military, it is mostly a scientific organisation. If you're a researcher at university, it is not expected that you must eventually end up as a dean or a chancellor. So if you're a skilled stellar cartographer or a warp field technician, then you can stay decades in that job in Starfleet, and probably make it to the lieutenant rank at most. And that is perfectly fine.

I agree the concept is fine. What I don't buy is that such an organization would happen to have an officer structure basically like a late-20th century navy.

If I was going to formulate a blank-slate star fleet, I would go with an all-officer force, but the vast majority would be "mission specialists," to borrow a NASA term, who advanced in their own field but without broader command authority/responsibility. Those who wanted to could apply to enter the command grades, but one could serve an entire career working in ones specialty without the need to exercise much command authority, if any. The structure wouldn't look like a pyramid but some kind of weird tree.

IMO, the reason that we don't see this on the show is a combination of "best and the brightest" for prestige assignments like Enterprise and Voyager, realitively small crew numbers for DS9, and the lack of focus on the "junior" personnel (crewman to chief).

Well, I don't believe the idea of concentrating the "best and brightest" in "prestige assignments" is realistic or practical. It would be singularly stupid to concentrate the best personnel in a few units, inevitably rendering other units less effective. You would want your best personnel spread throughout the fleet where they could be of the most benefit. But, even if that was the case, it would argue for more experienced (i.e. more senior, older) personnel.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

If I was going to formulate a blank-slate star fleet, I would go with an all-officer force, but the vast majority would be "mission specialists," to borrow a NASA term, who advanced in their own field but without broader command authority/responsibility. Those who wanted to could apply to enter the command grades, but one could serve an entire career working in ones specialty without the need to exercise much command authority, if any. The structure wouldn't look like a pyramid but some kind of weird tree.

I agree that Starfleet's structure probably looks more 'tree' rather than 'triangular'/'pyramid' shape ala modern western militaries. However, even if I buy that all the technical and scientific personnel are at least on a degree program even if they don't have a degree at application, there are still jobs that don't require that kind of commitment -- of the naval aviation ratings, less than half of the USN's twelve are even potentially something like a degree would be useful for and less than that would benefit -- electrician, weatherman, electronics, maybe structural mechanic -- only two of which carries over to the leaner three-rating CG aviation community -- maintenance tech and electrical tech.

 

[Longinus]

There's no "need" of any kind. But promotion in Star Trek is inherently valuable, too, in a very military way, because it gives increased command authority which those of lower grades are required to respect and obey.

But why would you want that? To pump your ego? If you have the sufficient authority to do the job you need to do, why would you want more? That extra authority would indubitably come with all sort of responsibilities that might distract from what you actually want to do. I mean if you're some sort of skilled researcher on Strarfleet, you are probably some sort of junior officer (an ensign or a lieutenant.) You get to boss around some research assistants (enlisted or ensigns.) If you were promoted, that would probably come with some sort of department head position. Now some might want that but not everybody. Such job would entail all sort of managerial stuff which would leave less time to then thing you actually signed up to do and are good at.

The idea of people staying in the same position for decades is fine. All I am saying is that system being advanced here has practical, plain-numbers implications that don't seem to be reflected in the organization as depicted onscreen. No one so far has presented a model which explains why a large percentage of the Starfleet lieutenant commanders and lieutenants shown are not in the same age range as we see for captains and admirals.

I really don't think that this empirical evidence you refer to exists. Whilst on average people might be somewhat older on the higher ranks as you might expect, (some get promoted, some retire) there is no clear consistent connection between the rank and the age. Picard was older than many admirals we've seen. Kirk was a captain at the age many other characters were lieutenants.

 

[Kor]

I'm not sure enlist is exactly the right word there, though the KT!Starfleet does use it, however you are correct that professions aligning with the "Navy Staff Corps" (medical/dental, nursing, vetinary (?), medical admin, legal) definately do in most services (O2-3 for the most part, but O4 is possible for Masters and above), and degrees in highly technical fields are likely to promote faster within dedicated units.

KT was a little wonky with the terminology. "Resigned commission" is another expression that was used incorrectly. And the Federation is "a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada."

Kor

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

If you were promoted, that would probably come with some sort of department head position. Now some might want that but not everybody. Such job would entail all sort of managerial stuff which would leave less time to then thing you actually signed up to do and are good at.

Which is exactly the main complaint of medical/surgical consultants and a multitude of other expertise-driven professions the world over (I think lawyers are about the only profession that allows senior people to remain mainly 'hands on').

 

[The Wormhole]

And the Federation is "a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada."

IIRC, that mistake was caught at a time when they couldn't do anything about it. With the writer's strike going on when the scene was filmed, they weren't allowed to make changes to the script and since "Federation" was what was written in the script, it's what had to be spoken.

The again, this wasn't a problem for the other two movies, and they still had wonky dialogue. STID has the reference to an "aft nacelle" and Beyond has Kirk himself addressing the bridge's night shift watch officer as "Lieutenant" though that at least is in a deleted scene.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Dialogue from Flashback confirms both that it possible to go from enlisted to officer, and that it's in line with the STA-21 program (one of the most open programs in modern day):

RAND: You're not going to have time to drink that, you know. You're due on the bridge in five minutes.
TUVOK: It's not for me. It's for the Captain. I've observed that Captain Sulu drinks a cup of tea each morning. I thought he might enjoy a Vulcan blend.
RAND: Oh, I see. Trying to make Lieutenant in your first month? I wish I'd have thought of that when I was your age. Took me three years just to make Ensign.
TUVOK: I assure you, I have no ulterior motive.
RAND: Whatever you say, Ensign. See you on the bridge.

Now, admittedly it's not clear what rank Rand was when the three year clock started, which may be inconsistent with her holding Chief rank during TMP, but it does make it clear that transistion is possible, and relatively simple given that Rand wasn't even rated in the appropriate field as an enlisted (she was a YN, though possibly the broader USCG usage that includes elements of the PS and NC(C) ratings, whereas you would expect a COMMO to access through ET, IT(S) or OS)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The structure wouldn't look like a pyramid but some kind of weird tree.

I liked your simple hand drawn diagram =D

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

All I am saying is that system being advanced here has practical, plain-numbers implications that don't seem to be reflected in the organization as depicted onscreen. No one so far has presented a model which explains why a large percentage of the Starfleet lieutenant commanders and lieutenants shown are not in the same age range as we see for captains and admirals.

One aspect that I noticed within StarFleet and general society / work hierarchy is that not everybody in life is suited to management and not everybody should be forced down a management role.

A individual Officer should be allowed to rank up as a IC (Individual Contributor) while others can go down the path of management and both should get very far down their career because that's the path that they want and are good at.

Look at Scotty, he may have the rank of Captain, but he doesn't really want to become the commander of a Starship, he just wants to work on his StarShip engines and mechanical issues.

Same with Barclay, he's not really a management type guy, he's more of a individual contributor and can get very far as a IC when we see a future version making commander.

Support: Most personnel needing to support the crew and the mission - medical, research and development, logistics, legal/PR/admin, construction, training. NB: Normally exercise authority only within their own branch (including command of specialist ships/bases), but specific and limited case-by-case exceptions are allowed (usually medical or JAG officers).

I'm thinking that the classical 3x Divisions needs to be expanded with a 4th Division
All Major Divisions:
- Command Division
- Sciences Division
- Operations Division
- Support Division (Supports the other 3 Divisions)

 

[1001001]

This thread hasn't had a response in over two years, and you've been around long enough to know better than to bump your own dead thread.

Closing.