Posted on Apr 20, 2014
I realize I am stirring a hornets nest, but: We keep hearing about budget cuts. Why are there still so many GO's?
2.71K
3
10
0
0
0
This question is multi-part.
In the current age of technology, with the ability to pick up a phone and call across the globe in a fraction of a second, do we still need the number of GO's that we have? Do we need them in the levels that they are? I work in a command that has I believe 3-4 BDEs reporting to a 2-star, but no 1 star in the command. Never has been that I am aware of.
Posted in these groups: 
General Officers
Budget
General Officers Budget
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
Understandable, you look at the general officer positions from the perspective of a line unit soldier. How many do we need in our division or corps?
However, sit back and think more corporate. How many generals do we need to interact with our coalition partners? How many do we need to work with congress? How do we build the future of our Army unless we have senior leaders working acquisition, contracting, training, etc? Do you really want to leave those positions to be all civilian, even if some are retired military?
I have seen most general officers have an overwhelming schedule of requirements for their time and attention. Most have a huge scope of responsibility, and limited resources of people and funding to accomplish everything Congress (and America) wants them to do.
However, sit back and think more corporate. How many generals do we need to interact with our coalition partners? How many do we need to work with congress? How do we build the future of our Army unless we have senior leaders working acquisition, contracting, training, etc? Do you really want to leave those positions to be all civilian, even if some are retired military?
I have seen most general officers have an overwhelming schedule of requirements for their time and attention. Most have a huge scope of responsibility, and limited resources of people and funding to accomplish everything Congress (and America) wants them to do.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
sir, you make great points. I don't want to see any jobs go from service personnel to gs/ctr. In general they cost even more, especially since most of them are already drawing retirement. I understand the need to interact with outside personnel. I just see that having the rank structure so bloated leads to excess staff jobs as well. I don't think the number of people should necessarily be downsized, just the rank of the people performing the job. for example, my job can be done by a spc. based on what I do, I am a waste of taxpayers' money. I think the only thing that makes me of any value to the army is that I help teach life support courses at the hospital and I have a rather extensive background in both it and medical fields and try to help the medics and s6. Neither if which have anything to do with my field the army branched me to. It's just a little defeating to have only a single report that occurs once a month that is of any significance. 3 degrees including biology, ems, and it and the best I do is power point slides and reformat calendars for higher. ...if there are spelling or grammar errors in this post, it is because I'm using my phone.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Our branches, broadly speaking have way too many senior executives (Flag Officers), even for organizations as large as they are. Technology can certainly be leveraged to increase a General's span of control / influence. Furthermore, setting a strategy and letting his subordinate commanders execute should be a mantra that alleviates the need for other Generals downstream. Said another way, if Generals set strategy and make institution level decision, why would I want more Generals, or in other words more strategy setters between me and my subordinate commanders?
For example, the Commandant sets a strategy for the Marine Corps, then between him and my CO (a Colonel), there's say 15 Flag Officers that are going to reinterpret his directions, then modify it to fit my division's mission / capabilities, and before you know it, the Commandant has to wait 2-3 years for me to lift a finger executing his original direction.
This may be a very simplified parody of what happens, but my point is that senior executives make an organization more vertical, slow innovation and they ARE the actually inertia that exists in our organizations.
For example, the Commandant sets a strategy for the Marine Corps, then between him and my CO (a Colonel), there's say 15 Flag Officers that are going to reinterpret his directions, then modify it to fit my division's mission / capabilities, and before you know it, the Commandant has to wait 2-3 years for me to lift a finger executing his original direction.
This may be a very simplified parody of what happens, but my point is that senior executives make an organization more vertical, slow innovation and they ARE the actually inertia that exists in our organizations.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google