Unless there’s a chain of command, you wouldn’t, as a civilian, render a sir/ma’am in the same way as someone in uniform would. There are settings in which a mixture of civilian and military personnel work together, and in that case you would show sign of respect.
I refer to eight year old kids as sir and ma’am where I work out of habit. If I call a buck private sir it’s because that’s just how I address our visitors.
I work in retail so i call everyone sir or ma’am, military personal will get addressed as their rank or sometimes when writing cups (i work[ed] at Starbucks next to an armory) I will just write E3, E4, O3, I kinda do it jokingly but have never had anyone complain. The ones that come in with a jacket on covering their ranks on though through me off. Arent you not supposed to do that?
Air Force NCO here. I’m going to buck the trend and say that I prefer being called by my first name. That’s how things work in the civilian world, and that’s how I expect a civilian to address me. Rank and last name works, but it’s formal and sounds really wierd when all the civilians are on a first-name basis.
Sir also works, since in the Air Force we’re taught that everyone from O-10 to E-1 is a Sir/Ma’am, and that tends to bear out in practice. But again, it’s formal and not required.
The only thing that really rankles me is “Mr.” If I’m in uniform I’m not a mister, so if you’re going to go out of your way to be formal, at least get it right.
That being said, I’m a grunt and everyone uses my first name because everyone outranks me. It’s different for a Colonel, for example, and you should probably stick with Col Lastname until you’re clear on what he/she wants to be called. It depends on what the mix of rank is in the office, but you’ll figure it out pretty quick based on context.
Missed the edit window: The examples in the OP of “Good morning, colonel” and “Thank you, major” are subject to a lot of nuance given the relative roles of the addressor/addressee and the specific branch. In the Air Force, dropping the last name can sometimes carry a hidden meaning, and I make it a point not to do it. For instance, “L-T” as a term of address for a lieutenant can be respectful, but a senior NCO addressing a butterbar as “Lieutenant” can be an intentional put-down.
However, in the Army, dropping the last name is typical, but dropping the rank modifier is frowned upon. For instance, I’m a staff sergeant, but nobody calls me “Staff Sergeant steronz.” It’s just Sgt steronz, no matter what flavor of sgt it is. In the Army, it’s rude to drop the “Staff.”
There’s probably books worth of material here, and I’m probably just confusing the OP. /shuts up
You most certainly are a mister, I’m afraid, to civilians. I’m sorry it offends you so, but most people in the civilian world have no idea what rank you are and if I’m introducing Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, and… you, you’re Mr. Steronz.
No, he isn’t a mister, not even to civilians. Just because civilians are ignorant of his title doesn’t make it correct.
It is certainly excusable for a civilian to address a servicemember as “Mr. [LastName]” if they are unaware of their proper title. However, just like a physician, I would expect that the addressee would figure out a polite way of correcting the incorrect title, especially if they are likely to run into the person again. I would be embarrassed to incorrectly address a physician as “Mr. [LastName]” instead of “Dr. [LastName]”, and would likewise be embarrassed to incorrectly address a sergeant as “Mr. [LastName]” instead of “Sgt. [LastName].”
Seeing someone in uniform and addressing them by the improper title is willful ignorance, IMHO. If you don’t know what the person’s rank is, there is no problem with simply asking them. A person certainly has no business actually introducing a servicemember to someone else by the incorrect title. That’s simply rude and ignorant to boot. If you insisted on actually doing this, expect the servicemember to cut in with, “That’s Sergeant [Lastname], actually.”
Back to the OP, though. I worked with many civilians in my military career. One was even my boss. Others were peers. We all addressed each other by our first name, just like any other workplace. My civilian boss’s supervisor was also a civilian, and I addressed him by his title (“Dean [LastName]” or just “Dean”).
(This was at a military school, with both military and civilian instructors. I actually had a dual chain of command. For normal administrative matters, I reported to my civilian boss. For purely military matters, I reported to the senior military instructor. Both chains of command reported up to the Commanding Officer of the school.)
robby covered most of what I would say in response to Zsofia, but I just want to clarify that I don’t expect to be anything but a “mister” if I’m out of uniform and outside of a military environment. What rankles me is when I’m in uniform, performing some official part of my duties, and people call me mister. Not for any reasons of pride or honor, but simply because it’s both formal, which I don’t prefer, and incorrect, which gets under my skin.
It’d be like talking about Mr. Petraeus in a news story.
Would you be rankled if someone referred to the president as “Mr. Obama”?
No, because my understanding based on these threads is that Mr. Obama is a correct form of address in certain situations. Even if used incorrectly, it tends not to grate on my ears the same way Mr. Petraeus would.
Of course, those threads show that some people are bothered by it.
Tim:
I’ll agree with Robby. I have the same situation he had: dual chain of commands. Civilian for administrative matters and military for military matters.
I won’t elaborate other than this: Feel out how the military chain-of-command perceives formalities. The reason being that being on a first-name basis can be seen by the military higher-ups as disrespectful (bad for you) or as fraternization (bad for the military you addressed).
If you are in charge of your side, just correct each person how you want to be addressed and let the military side know this. And, ask how they want to be addressed, especially for the “junior” folks.
eb
Yes, ask or find out what they prefer and then do that, whenever possible. Mutual respect and friendliness is best in any workplace environment.
Of course, in broader terms, the military in a democracy serves the civilian populace, not vice-versa. Civilian control of the military is written into the U.S. Constitution, which military personnel swear to preserve, protect and defend. But there’s no reason to ever be rude about it, and the OP will apparently not actually be in the chain of command while working on his new project.
Of course, in broad terms, everyone serves everyone. The attorney is served by the bus driver who’s served by the waitress who’s served by the grocer who’s served by the farmer who’s served by the lawyer. I’d probably have to :smack: any civilian that actually suggested that they were in some supervisory role but not saying anything out of politeness.
My dad served honorably in the U.S. Army in the Fifties. I have friends now serving in the U.S. military and am second to none in my respect for them and their comrades. But the tone of some of the posts in this thread seemed to me, at least, to imply that a civilian working among military personnel has an obligation to use correct ranks and titles. Beyond simple courtesy and respect, which ISTM are more than sufficient reasons, I have to disagree.
A civilian who purposefully referred to coworkers who are military personnel as “Sam” or “Georgette” without being invited to do so, or who called everyone from a four-star general on down as “Private,” would be a jerk and an asshole, and I would want nothing to do with him, but he would be within his rights to do so.
I agree completely. There is absolutely no obligation beyond simple courtesy (which is why I said that above that failure to do so would be rude). A civilian is certainly not required to use proper titles for military personnel.
(Unlike a member of the military, who is indeed required to do so.)