How much continuity and production is lost due to service members PCSing every 3 years?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:08:20 -0400

RP Members and Connections - Another Great question came up from one our Members Responses.

How much continuity, lost production, and expense is lost due to service members constantly PCSing?

Is there another formula that would work?

Here are three major problems that I see by the short term PCS move (3 years or less) - Just my Opinion and I'm looking for your feedback!

Cost Implications. Replacing service members can be expensive. While the cost varies, total costs of replacement, including training and lost production, can range from 90 percent to 200 percent of what we are actually paying that service member.

Overall Unit Performance. In addition, oftentimes the service members who remain are less productive and less efficient during turnover of service members in key positions. This is because they must absorb the responsibilities of the vacant positions, train new service members upon their arrival, and deal with a depressed work culture and environment.

Turnover can Affect the Culture of a Unit. A culture of high turnover feeds off of itself, leading to lower and lower production within the unit. Not always, but sometimes It can be hard to manage a workforce that is constantly in flux!

SGT Private RallyPoint Member SSG Philip Bruley CPT Private RallyPoint Member SSG Steve Niebergall PV2 Private RallyPoint Member 1st Lt Mike Roetheli SA McGarry Ocheltree PO3 Private RallyPoint Member SPC Phillip Hames CPL Scott Haas Sgt Chris Dennis LCpl Darrell McGraw SSgt Private RallyPoint Member CPL Josh ClarkMaj Bobby Newman CAPT Eric Stilwell SFC Robbie Myers COL Diana Bodner Sgt Private RallyPoint Member SFC Philip Kaough

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 5 at 2016 2:13 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:13:22 -0400

That is an interesting question COL Mikel J. Burroughs
First the primary assumption is that continuity, lost production, and expense is lost due to service members PCSing every three years.
1st since 4-year enlistments include at 6 months of training at the front end, many single enlistment soldiers do not PCS instead they ETS from their duty station or they are sent to a transfer point to ETS.
2nd it makes sense that the standard assignment to a unit is one year less than the basic enlisted soldiers who tend to make up the highest percentage of tactical units.
3rd junior commissioned officers leave at the five-year mark or continue to serve. Junior officers tend to have about 1 year of training and leave prior to their first assignment. Three years on station makes sense for officers as well. Most officers in tactical units are company grade officers.
4th in order to increase the time on station across the Army, the Army would need to increase the basic enlist contract time. If not as soldiers ETS there will be more gaps to fill as individual replacements who may not be trained up when they arrive.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 5 at 2016 2:56 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:56:11 -0400

There's actual data out there that someone looking to do a PhD in Econ might take a turn at. The Commonwealth armed forces, especially Brit Navy, had a long term policy of permanent assignment to a ship and homeport. Promotions were up when vacancies occurred, etc. So with those results you'll also have to work in the cost of cultural inbreeding, etc. We tend to look at only one side of the equation and not apply a value to the benefits of moving every 3-5 years. One thing for sure, it spreads the Alpha Hotels around so they don't make the whole organization go septic.

Cost aside, I think the more important question is does PCSing like we do increase our lethality and survivability or not? That's where you'd do the sensitivity analysis.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 5 at 2016 3:05 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:05:19 -0400

None of us can answer this. We can only offer a hypothesis (a fancy word for "opinion"). My hypothesis is that the constant roil of personnel turnover has some costs but these are outweighed by an increase in adaptability. Unit cohesion and adaptability isn't tied to personalities when those personalities are constantly changing. But, that's just an opinion. Someone else will have to develop the methodology and invest the time and effort in proving or disproving it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 5 at 2016 3:30 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:30:59 -0400

Sir,
You bring up "culture of a unit" which I think should be highlighted. Should INDIVIDUAL units (sub-commands) have a "culture" that deviates from the "culture of the whole?"

I really can't speak to the Army Culture (which looks like unit based) except as an "outsider looking in" but the differences between unit culture seem striking when compared to USMC culture (whole force).

At my first unit (3/1) I came on board during the post-deployment transition (they just got back from Somalia), and I was one of the first of a new batch of people. We had 50% of the Command Team (and remainder of the unit) transition shortly after I arrived, so when we were ready for work-up (predeployment) 12-18~ months later, our "culture" was fairly well established. After taht deployment, everyone who was there before me transitioned (making me one of the longest serving members of the unit), but we still had 50% of the Command Team (and remainder of the unit).

We were the same unit. Nothing really changed. It was kind of like changing parts on a car. First we changed the tires, and oil, and lights, and then a year later we changed the engine, but 3 years later it was the same car. When I left it was still 3/1/ Sure most of the parts were different and no one was there from before I got there, but the "culture" remained because each successive member learned it as they joined and reinforced it on the to next person. Taking that from Micro to Macro, the Marines tend to do that force wide, and it wasn't until I started communicating with Soldiers more that I realized the Army had a much different mindset (outsider looking in).

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 5 at 2016 4:05 PM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:05:03 -0400

Others may have worded this more eloquently than I can/am about to try, but promotions would be affected as well.

Think about it. That PO1 isn't going to move up in rank as long as that CPO is there filling the Chief's billet. Sailor's (service members) careers would stagnate.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Aug 5 at 2016 4:22 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:22:01 -0400

I lost a lot of productivity as I learned new jobs without a continuity book.

Response by CMSgt Mike Esser made Aug 5 at 2016 5:51 PM

CMSgt Mike Esser — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:51:26 -0400

this is why Air Guard C ratings are so high, we stay put.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Aug 5 at 2016 7:35 PM

SFC William Farrell — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:35:16 -0400

Well COL Mikel J. Burroughs the last job I had before I retired as a civilian for the Air Force was in the personal property office where we coordinated the move of service members and their families who were PCS'ing. I can tell you that the government wastes a lot of money on moving things like pianos and other valuable antiques and things like that. Hey, you want to have a Steinway Grand Piano, thats your business, doesn't me we should pay to move it every two or three years. You want a third floor apartment and your couch doesn't fit up the stairs, why should the government pay to have a crane lift it up! You want to have a boat, why should we move it! This happens quite often and those are just some quick examples. Given some time, I could come up with many more that should just not happen.

I also think longer assignments at some bases should be expected and this would reduce much of the expenses of moving all too often.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2016 2:34 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 02:34:40 -0400

I was just talking about this today. I feel like the units I have been in took around three years to buid competence and cohesion, but that is generally the time frame the Army decides to PCS soldiers. My first deployment was a steady train up, combat, then redeployment. Then they all left but me and a couple other guys and we had to start from the bottom with brand new soldiers. The cycle continued after that. I always felt like we finally got to a point where we were a good fighting unit, then the Arm threw us to the four winds.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2016 9:44 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:44:36 -0400

Cross-pollination of people, ideas, and knowledge. I was at Ft. Riley for 8 years......8 years.......I can't get those back.
I was the senior Signal warrant officer and had the biggest head known to mankind. Whereas I shared and supported the sharing of knowledge and experiences, professionally, it was time for me to move on and let someone else take the reins so they could take over. I also needed to move on to bigger and better things. You know that 'vast potential to serve in areas of increased responsibility' or 'unlimited potential' they write about in evals?
Some cultures need a shock. Toxic leaders need to move up to the Pentagon so they get a taste of humble pie. Good leaders and troops need to move on to broaden experiences and make good units great.
And to Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS 's point, isn't the Culture of the Whole more important than the Culture of the Unit?

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Aug 13 at 2016 5:37 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 05:37:09 -0400

Same issue where I work, lose a man or two and everyone else has to pickup the slack. And sending someone to school on farm equipment is not cheap.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2016 5:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 05:41:24 -0400

Sir, It doesn't seem like that to me. I do see Officers continually PCS but I have seen Enlisted member grow from PVT to SFC in the same SQDN. However I believe that a more versatile force is whats needed members who have been in multiple types of units at multiple echelons to include Joint assignments. As that leader grows they will understand the bigger picture much clearer and be able to accomplish the commanders intent more efficiently.

As opposed to a Soldier who has only been on Fort Hood or Fort Bragg for their entire career. They may understand the CAV or the Bragg way but they will need to learn their way.

A continual turnover rate every 3-5 years allows other leaders to progress and experience different assignments which only grows that individuals leadership ability and allows another leader to replace them.
Especially at the harder to fill or not as wanted assignments like the Fort Polks for example.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Aug 23 at 2016 3:55 PM

PO2 Pete Haga — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:55:03 -0400

Will have to defer on this one not much experience on it.

Response by TSgt Joe C. made Aug 29 at 2016 4:41 AM

TSgt Joe C. — Mon, 29 Aug 2016 04:41:52 -0400

I was stationed at Grand Forks AFB, ND for 7 years. Continuity was great until the flight chief PCSd, then it sort of spiraled a bit COL Mikel J. Burroughs

Response by PO1 Kevin Arnold made Nov 4 at 2016 11:12 AM

PO1 Kevin Arnold — Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:12:47 -0400

To me it did not make sense of moving to a different area every 3 - 4 years. Yes, I do admit that at times I was glad that I was moving to a different command. I know that I would not want to be on sea duty for my entire career. That is what would happen if we did not move around as much as we do now. If there could be a way to keep a service member in the same area that would be a way to change duty stations only. That is the nature of the beast, yes it is costly but no one wants to be just in one duty station for to long. For instance, a service member makes rank or is unable to make rank will want to move onto a different duty station. For they want to prove themselves to new people and a new ranking structure. It would be hard for a service member to go from lets say an E3 to a E5 or even higher and be an effective leader. Everyone will see that service member as only the E3 and not the higher rank that they earned while serving on that command. For others who can not make rank due to the current command structure might want a change in command or area to hopefully prove themselves to others who will only look at what they see after that service member arrives. Yes they will read evaluations, but they know that evaluations are only as good as the people that write them. I know that if I was going to be stuck onboard a submarine for my entire tour while in the Navy, I would not have stayed in the service as long as I did. Yes, I did not like having to move from Bangor Washington to Groton Connecticut for my last duty station of only 2 years, but that was the only billet/job available at the time. They needed someone more in Groton than Bangor at the time so I had to move to Connecticut. Like the saying goes the "Needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few".

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Nov 4 at 2016 1:10 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:10:53 -0400

We minimize it for the "Host" program that addresses living and working.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 7:53 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:53:16 -0500

Sir, I understand the implications of having to PCS every 3 to 4 years and its effect on productivity. However in contrast how much productivity is lost when you have people that have become become complacent in their jobs. The fact that we move soldiers around every three to four years I think is to ensure that no clicks or factions are formed. Additionally when you have people that have become become complacent in there jobs. The fact that we move soldiers around every three to four years I think is to ensure that no clicks or factions are formed. Additionally you mention the effects on unit cohesiveness as a factor butt imagine a unit that has become 2 cohesive and too friendly with each other. When you work with someone for a long time you start the form those bonds and you feel more comfortable with them which is something that you want happening but sometimes it gets to a point where that familiarity breeds overconfidence and black of understanding of ring structures.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Nov 28 at 2016 7:34 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:34:53 -0500

Three years is short term now, huh? I remember the 18 month PCS. If I could pick and choose a unit I would not mind the the 3 year assignment but since the Army randomly assigns the units I think the chance of landing in a bad unit would be intolerable. 18 months or 2 years I could probably handle a bad unit, 3 years or more would be a real challenge. Being Single in the Army of the 1980's was kind of a curse because the Army used you as filler and could care less how much you moved around. I am sure not a whole lot has changed there and I could see myself landing 3-4 year tours with units that suck that nobody wanted and only getting 18 month max tours at units that people thought were awesome.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 28 at 2016 8:19 PM

SFC George Smith — Mon, 28 Nov 2016 20:19:58 -0500

when i was in they Army was talking about going to a 4 year rotation like the AF for that reason... I spent 5-6 years in Conus assignments and 2-3 years on unaccompanied OConus assignments...

Response by 1LT Voyle Smith made Apr 17 at 2021 7:06 AM

1LT Voyle Smith — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 07:06:37 -0400

It’s incredibly expensive to move members every three years and does nothing to improve a unit’s performance. The whole process needs to be re-worked and the culture changed to improve the units’ and members’ performance.