Do officer promotions need to be fixed?

And believe it or not the Pentagon (and our fabulous Sec Def) are considering appointing SENIOR officers from off the street to get what they perceive is much needed technical expertise. Last time I looked we called those folks "civilian technicians": http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/careers/2016/06/19/military-lateral-entry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/

What they will get is chaos and disaster. No one worth he trouble would willingly give up 6 and 7 figure salaries to put up with PT belts, formations, bewildering administrivia and Sergeant Majors on the warpath...

1st Lt Rev David Poedel - Nope, we still recruit physicians from the private sector and bring them in as LTC or COL. I was unfortunate enough to learn this firsthand when a new Hospital Commander took command of my unit. He was a Harvard grad neurosurgeon who was provided with 13 years constructive credit, accessed as a LTC and immediately sent to OBC, then AOC, then Army War College within a year of joining. Upon completing his 'training,' he took command of a Forward Surgical Team. 3 years later, he was promoted to COL and took command of the hospital. He was an O-6 with 3 years TIG and 4 years TIS. After seeing him in action as a Commander, I made it a point to never serve with him and swiftly moved to a new assignment. He was technically proficient but tactically deadly (and arrogant).

The principle isn't really that different. There has to be a vacancy for an officer to be promoted into. In the active component, there is an economy of scale in that the vacancies are Army wide. In the RC its not nation wide, so there are places where there are overages and shortages of opportunity.

You are correct. Having served in National Guard, USAR and USA units, I can confirm that there are some similarities but many differences. In each case, there has to be vacancy within the limits of established end-strength. These vacancies are created due to growth (expansion during conflict), retirements, promotions, deaths, discharges and retirements. Ideally, there are enough vacancies to promote qualified people, every year. But, the military is anything but ideal. For USAR and Active Component, there is a global personnel demand, which is broken into AC, AGR and SelRes (IRR, IMA and TPU). For the National Guard, there is minimal demand based on the State's end strength.

However, the point about what determines 'best qualified' for promotion is valid because all promotion boards only consider those 'in the zone', 'above the zone', or 'below the zone.' Best qualified is only considered after Time in Grade and Time and Service are considered. Which can be a problem.

Jack Welch, former CEO of GE wrote a great distinction about promotions and their impact on organizations. He identified workers as 'A workers,' 'B workers,' and 'C workers.' 'A' workers required little training or supervision to develop into the next CEO (Strategic, Chief of Staff of the Army, BDE Commander, etc.); 'B' workers required development and usually became specialized (Operational, Armor, Logistics, Medical, etc.) and 'C' workers required so much effort to train and supervise that 15% should be cut every year. However, if the 'A' worker does not get promoted in a timely manner (has to wait until TIG and TIS is met), they usually leave for a better opportunity, creating vacancies for 'B' workers, who lack strategic capability. After several cycles of 'A' workers departing and 'B' workers climbing above their capability, 'C' workers become the norm in the company and they determine who gets promoted. Not wanting to promote anyone better skilled than the 'C' workers in leadership, then more 'C' workers get promoted.

You will notice from above that this is a race to the bottom. In the Army, we require specific military education, assignments and time requirements to get promoted, even for the best qualified. Many highly capable people lose patience and quit while the minimally capable, patiently wait their nearly automatic promotion (because they took few career risks, made few mistakes and kept their nose clean). It isn't the best way to manage personnel but it has been the norm since 1947.

If officers are supposed to be examples, why do they skip PT, walk around with their hands in their pockets and not one senior officer will correct them?

SSG Paul Shim - NCOs and Soldiers can correct officers, and should. We are all human and make mistakes. I would say maintain your professional bearing and ensure you are a standard barer yourself or the message will not be well received. I learned more from NCOs and Soldiers than fellow officers during my career. Officer Basic Courses are largely taught by NCOs. NCOs should help train their officers. I had a Platoon Sergeant point out to me onetime that "You are down here for a year, maybe two. Some of us are down here our whole career."

For an officer, you need to build a history before any evaluation of their performance (barring misconduct) is meaningful. That's why the first two promotions are automagic. Lieutenant is when the Navy starts letting officers actually compete in a meaningful way.

It's a tough gig no matter how you cut it. Most of the junior officer courses have more civilians and contractors than military teaching them these days. I've seen good junior officers get the boot while mediocre senior officers make GO. I always appreciate the guidance from WOs and NCOs. They make me a better officer.