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.

I'm not even concerned about a time frame. I was more concern about these being promoted when they are still early in the developmental process. Just because you are promotable doesn't mean you should be promoted. The Marines use meritorious promotions for enlisted. That young marine may be more ready than a marine who has been in longer.

MGySgt Forward is dead on. I was highly successful in Company Command because I had done plenty of time in a primary staff position at Bn and Bde. Being an S4 helped, but if you keep your eyes open and watch what others do, successful and unsuccessful, you will not be doomed to make their mistakes and can build on their successes. I will also say that NCOs will make or break you. Turn them loose, trust them, and let them do their jobs. This includes making future NCOs and helping you train your officers. You don't need 90+ versions of you walking around and if they hit 80-90% on everything they will make you great.

MAJ Mark Wilson - Agree with your points. I succeeded because of my years as an NCO and my time served as a Company Grade and Field Grade staff officer. Too often, we move officers from Platoon Leader, to XO, to CO, then to school. I have found that alternating between staff assignments, training units (cadre) and command assignments is a better mix. Leadership billet (tactical and operational) should go to a staff assignment; then a staff assignment should go to a training assignment; then back to a leadership assignment. It takes plenty of skills to 'train, man and equip.'

I cringe every time I hear a 1LT taking command prior to attending the Captains Career Course and doing some staff time. In my opinion their command is doing them an injustice. I don't care how good they think they are or what potential they hold, they simply do not have the tools and experience to be a good commander. The Soldiers and NCOs deserve someone that is prepared, well prepared. When I was on BDE staff a captain came up for command and I told the XO that the person was not command material. I had know them from a former unit and nothing had changed with them. I was told they "deserved a chance". Six months later they were relieved. 120 soldiers suffered because of it and that officer's career was essentially over. Maybe a little more mentoring would have gotten them ready, maybe not, but what a huge disservice was done to the unit and it's officers, NCOs, and soldiers.

Which doesn't have a lot to do with 'needs of the individual.' We are an 'all volunteer' force.

Army requirements drive promotions.
Yes, boards evaluate files;
yes, board members give each officer a score based on their opinion of the strength each officer's file;
yes, scores are compiled and officers are rank ordered based on those scores.
but, in the end, the number of officers promoted is based on Army requirements;
Sometimes those requirements dictate a "fully qualified" board where any officer that meets the minimum requirements and has no negative paperwork is promoted, such as a rapidly expanding Army trying to meet the requirements of a wartime surge.
Sometimes those requirements dictate only the "best qualified" officers are selected, and sometimes at rates far below the DOPMA goals, such as a shrinking Army meeting the needs of Congressional downsizing driven by Sequestration.
Needs of the Army out weigh the needs of the individual.

If a person can barely do their job world you promote them anyway? In addition, are 1LT and CPT promotions based on potential or time?

CPT Russell Pitre - To 1LT is TIG. To CPT is a board promotion so it's on potential.....but remember the bar is not set too high on purpose. the reality is, officer stratification and weeding out begins at CPT. You may have made it to CPT, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a command (which is a discriminator) or a key staff job (another discriminator).

CPT Russell Pitre - If they can barely do their job do they have potential to do more? This is why counseling and mentorship are so important. Good officers and NCOs will always seek a mentor(s) and latch on, often for an entire career. We have all seen people promoted that had no business being promoted. We also know their raters failed to properly counsel them.

1st Lt Rev David Poedel - Been there, done that.

Field and Flag promotions have an increasing variability of political influence (inside and outside of the beltway). There are some, who rode the right coat tail while others did not. Selection to War College is the first political discriminator because without it, you retire as a Colonel.

COL (Join to see) - I thought going resident at CGSC is a discriminator

CPT Joseph K Murdock - Nope. War College is the discriminator. ILE/CGSC is a rite of passage to COL. Resident or not, completing is all that matters. War college is much tougher to gain acceptance or credit. For instance, if you complete Air War College correspondence, which you can gain entry without board selection, then you get CGSC credit. However, if you are board selected for the same course, you get War College credit. I discovered this too late. While serving in joint billets for many years, I decided to take sister service education. So, I was a member of the first online Navy War College (Command and Staff course a CGSC level course), I attended the Reserve two year CGSC course (resident and non-resident) as well as completing the Air War College correspondence course (all before LTC). If I had been a member of the Air Force or board selected for Air War College, I would have received War College credit. But, I was neither. Because I was mobilized or deployed for nearly 10 years as a member of the Reserves, I was always considered 'mission critical' and as a result, never selected for War College. So, despite my accomplishments, I was ineligible for GO and retired as a COL.

I was told by a an 0-6 mentor that it's who you know that will determine if you become a GO.

I'm sure that it was done to build a track to promote themselves. We have more GO than 15 years ago with less divisions. I don't know the ratio for GOs to the size of the army overall but I'm sure it is at its worst.

I do remember reviewing something a few years ago that when the Army was down sizing the officer corps that it grew the GO population by around 11%. I believe that is a failure of the house and the Army's HHQ.
It just seems like a lot of potential "fall men" are in the loop, that "if you watch my back, when I pick up my next star, I'll insure you get this seat, but if something happens, well I'm passing you the buck"
It's coat tell riding...

Do you not have an HHC CDR or equivalent? That person should be the PHRH and sub hand receipt it down to you.

A lot of it is the joint-operations concept that we're laboring under. By their nature, they tend to have higher-ranking staffs than a similarly-responsible single-service command.

In addition, there is probably an issue of retaining retirement-eligible officers who would likely be picked off by the corporate world. If you've already done twenty years of this and CorporationX is offering you a significant pay raise, the service might have to sweeten the deal.