Posted on Mar 26, 2016
Does the cliff retirement system create mediocrity?
12.9K
23
15
7
7
0
Just my observation, but the cliff retirement system seems to create mediocrity. It has created three distinct groups of NCOs and officers.
1. Exceptional to average performers that will serve until they are ready to leave the service. (Consider this you so you are not offended.)
2. A broad grouping from marginal to excellent performers that will leave the service once retirement eligible. (They are in too deep to get out or it just makes sense for them.)
3. A grouping that is scared to separate so they continue to serve for as long as possible or well qualified personnel that have external factors and they continue to serve as well.
Who falls into what grouping and at what percentage is not for me to decide, but I have definitely met people that fall into each.
That second grouping is dangerous, even if it has been around for a very long time. The cliff retirement is a great benefit, but it is also financial coercion. Once your heart is no longer in it, it creates self serving, lazy, mediocre yes-man. That are more concerned with pushing through, than improving things and serving others. They could also be excellent, but they don't want to be there. The third grouping is also dangerous to a degree, because it clogs up your senior ranks until they filter out.
You are going to have a mixture of competency in any organization, but that second grouping to me is disturbing. I believe it has a heavy cost, but we are so use seeing it. Examples are personnel that check out well in advance of their retirement and SFC's and field grade officers that just go through the motions.
Just my observation. I believe the solution is to continue to blend the retirement system with 401k options to reduce the coercion behind a cliff system. What are your thoughts? Have their been any studies on cliff retirement systems and their impact on production?
1. Exceptional to average performers that will serve until they are ready to leave the service. (Consider this you so you are not offended.)
2. A broad grouping from marginal to excellent performers that will leave the service once retirement eligible. (They are in too deep to get out or it just makes sense for them.)
3. A grouping that is scared to separate so they continue to serve for as long as possible or well qualified personnel that have external factors and they continue to serve as well.
Who falls into what grouping and at what percentage is not for me to decide, but I have definitely met people that fall into each.
That second grouping is dangerous, even if it has been around for a very long time. The cliff retirement is a great benefit, but it is also financial coercion. Once your heart is no longer in it, it creates self serving, lazy, mediocre yes-man. That are more concerned with pushing through, than improving things and serving others. They could also be excellent, but they don't want to be there. The third grouping is also dangerous to a degree, because it clogs up your senior ranks until they filter out.
You are going to have a mixture of competency in any organization, but that second grouping to me is disturbing. I believe it has a heavy cost, but we are so use seeing it. Examples are personnel that check out well in advance of their retirement and SFC's and field grade officers that just go through the motions.
Just my observation. I believe the solution is to continue to blend the retirement system with 401k options to reduce the coercion behind a cliff system. What are your thoughts? Have their been any studies on cliff retirement systems and their impact on production?
CPT
Retirement
Personnel
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
Your observations are as honest and valid as I may have written myself. Nothing to add to those points.
As you view the current program as less good. What are your suggestions to change the retirement system that will continue to support group 1, entice group 2 to perform to the best of their abilities all the way to the end, and encourage or dictate group 3 separate now.
BTW,I was in group 1... and Im not concerned about saying that... I was building a rapid deployment divisional level TOC/ HQ element that was only hours away from deploying to a African region just days before I signed out on leave, having already spoken to the ADCM and CSM, affirming I would deploy as part of the team for the infill and setting conditions for follow on elements w-nce we secured the airfield had security, COMS and life support up.
As you view the current program as less good. What are your suggestions to change the retirement system that will continue to support group 1, entice group 2 to perform to the best of their abilities all the way to the end, and encourage or dictate group 3 separate now.
BTW,I was in group 1... and Im not concerned about saying that... I was building a rapid deployment divisional level TOC/ HQ element that was only hours away from deploying to a African region just days before I signed out on leave, having already spoken to the ADCM and CSM, affirming I would deploy as part of the team for the infill and setting conditions for follow on elements w-nce we secured the airfield had security, COMS and life support up.
(4)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
SGM Erik Marquez, I honestly believe we need to recognize the issue and turn to the civilian sector for help. The cliff retirement is only one aspect of an overall broke personnel management system that breeds mediocrity. How to fix the issue is where things can get controversial, but the first step is recognizing the problem.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
We no longer have a 20-yr retirement, except for those grandfathered in. Do you think the new retirement system fixes any of these issues?
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/655705/dod-plans-benefit-revision-with-blended-retirement
True, and like I said, folks are grandfathered in. The new system goes into effect on 1 Jan 2018. Folks that joined after 1 Jan 2006 but before 31 Dec 2017 will have the chance to pick a plan.
True, and like I said, folks are grandfathered in. The new system goes into effect on 1 Jan 2018. Folks that joined after 1 Jan 2006 but before 31 Dec 2017 will have the chance to pick a plan.
DoD Plans Benefit Revision With ‘Blended Retirement’
Defense Secretary Ash Carter has cited a blended retirement system as a key step in modernizing the department’s ability to recruit, retain and maintain talent.
(1)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
I believe the new system still offers 40% at 20 years. 40% with 401k isn't enough of a difference to fix the problem. I would propose something closer to 20%. The freed up money would boost the 401k's across the board, but also, establish funding for performance bonuses. If 20% is too low, make it 25% or 30%.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT Mark Gonzalez - how would you organize performance bonuses? With promotions? With evals? With awards? I can't see a way in the current system where this wouldn't be abused.
Perhaps instead of performance bonuses we could just increase base pay.
Perhaps instead of performance bonuses we could just increase base pay.
(0)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
Sir all systems are open to abuse. Whether that be the current or future ones. There is illegal and immoral abuse or just adjusting yourself to take maximum value within a given system, which is allowed even if not intended.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
i generally agree with these observations. Having spent 12 years active army and now 19 years in the commercial worked as a senior HR leader, I can attest that these general groups exist in both worlds, and the structure of compensation schemes has only limited positive impact. The "1s" will always drive on successfully. "2s" are varied and represent the biggest potential for compensation packages to influence behaviors. Group "3" is fear-based and/ or circumstance constrained - adding a define contribution compensation component will not reduce fear (no financial certainty) or change their circumstance. My opinion - while it is prudent to evaluate and update compensation strategies, effective leadership including goal setting, performance evaluation, developing the willing/capable, and exiting the unwilling under performers is key.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google