Should we Approach Employment in the Military Similar to Professional Sports Teams?

CSM Mike Maynard — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:00:27 -0400

Many folks have this notion that volunteering to join entitles them to a life-time job. This is the root cause of angst in the force related to force-shaping tools that terminate a service members employment - the expectation of life-time employment.

Would it be better, philosophically/psychologically, if we approached employment in the military similar to how it's done with professional sports teams - only the best play, only the best stay?

Getting to the "show" is an honor in and of itself. Only the best are on the team - talent/effort. Only the best stay - you can only have so many on the roster. And, the most controversial - if you get hurt and have a "career ending" injury, you don't get to play anymore.

Now, in order for this to even be viable, we would have to have robust educational, job transition and medical services to those transitioning out - they earned that, just maybe not a life-time job.

You never see the public/fans looking upon a former athlete with shame just because they got old, broke or slow - we still honor/respect them for their talents and accomplishments while they played.

Let me know what you think about this approach.........

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 26 at 2014 6:28 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:28:55 -0400

Could work during times of relative peace.
The elite join, get in, stay...
The rest flush out.

But, in times of war, logistical demands will dictate that we need too many troops for this system to work. "Standards" would have to lower...

Perhaps...'the rest' move to a RC sort of thing where they continue to engage in some drills but can't work on active duty...
That way, times of increased need can be met with troops from this pool.

Basically, you join..."try out" if you will...and if you make the cut you are an active duty service member.
If not, you are some sort of modified reservist where you get a chance to stay fresh on your skills...and maybe still make the team later on down the road.

Isn't this basically what Israel does, except the 'try-out' is compulsory?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2014 6:43 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:43:00 -0400

I don't know about employment. But we should provide the same kind of medical care - because servicemembers are in essence superathletes!!!

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jul 26 at 2014 7:35 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:35:23 -0400

CSM - great discussion. I think your analogy extends past sports teams... and rather to pretty much every high performance organization in the world. Nobody goes to work at Apple for example expecting to work there forever just because they showed up on the first day successfully. Any high performance organization expects its members to perform, promotes its best, and lets go of those not meeting expectations.

One key difference between high performing organizations, and the military however, is that compensation and advancement goes up significantly with increased performance. A top rated athlete can make 50x more than a third string player in the same position. Similarly, a top performing private sector engineer can make 2-3x more than a mediocre one. High performance organizations tend to graciously reward high performance, and eliminate low performance. For a long time, the military has done little on both ends, which I believe is a key driver in the culture of our Armed Forces, for better or for worse (and I would say more for the worse).

Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric had the 20-70-10 Rule. The top 20% are super productive and drive progress with passion and leadership (the "A" players). The next 70% are not great, but adequate, and necessary to get the job done (the "B" players). The last 10% are under-performers, and net drains on the system (the "C" players). Jack Welch is famous for insisting that 10% of GE be let go each year, as a continuous process of removing C players from the organization. Some refer to this as the Vitality Curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve#Rank-based_employment_evaluation

Vitality curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A vitality curve is a leadership construct whereby a workforce is graded in accordance with the individual productivity of its members. It is also known as forced ranking, forced distribution, rank and yank, quota-based differentiation, and stack ranking.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2014 7:42 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:42:31 -0400

CSM Mike Maynard I agree with the caveat there exists those who deny any measurable factor. Just being good. Like Manny Ramirez mitigates the harm he did but being exceptional. But I agree, in a time of constriction there is room for intangibles and the exceptions.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2014 8:20 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:20:12 -0400

Awesome post CSM... Unfortunately I'd like to post this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Supply and demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It concludes that in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good, or other traded item such as labor or liquid financial assets, will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded (at the current price) will equal the quantity supplied (at the current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity...

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 26 at 2014 8:49 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:49:17 -0400

Only if the pay and benefits are commensurate. Athletes put out the way they do because they are paid millions to play children's games. I really doubt we can raise our standards 200% without a substantial concurrent increase in benefits. We would hemorrhage personnel.

Plus our numbers are substantially larger than your average sports team, with massive turn around.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2014 9:00 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:00:33 -0400

If this happens I'm holding out for more money and a better contract.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2014 9:42 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:42:36 -0400

CSM Maynard, I think this is something great to strive for, especially in a drawdown. My issue is that I don't think it is currently possible for the Army to consistently determine who the best are. There are far too many variables, even within year groups, MOS, and units for DA to manage who is truly the best.

In pro-sports, owners and managers hire and fire. In the Army, a very large and not well understood HQ (at least to me) makes those decisions. I'll probably never meet the people who deliberated over my OSB packet or my promotion board. I'm not even sure who sat on my SOF selection board when I was applying to CA. By the time a top prospect rookie gets the chance to go pro, he's been stalked at by pro scouts and possibly even wined and dined by their perspective boss (sport dependent). It is a personal process where people motivated to win and make money spend thousands of hours picking a roster from a national pool of candidates that shapes up to somewhere between a rifle platoon and a tank company. Generally speaking, Commander's in the Military don't get to do that. I think it could be done to a point though.

Currently, we all get rated once or twice a year, and we aim to hit KD jobs at least once during every rank to meet arbitrary assignment minimums. Every few years the Army tells us we have to move, and we go somewhere and meet a new commander who we were likely allocated to based on needs of the Army.

Without getting into a huge discussion, allowing Commanders to hire and fire could go a long way to bringing NCO and Officer management more in line with pro sports. NCOs and Officers would find open positions, apply, and interview with Commanders to get the job of their choice. They apply until either they get hired, or they run out of opportunities. If they don't get hired, they transition out after a certain amount of time without an MTOE or some sort of General Officer created position.

I'd even recommend promoting with responsibility and not by timeline. For instance, if you brilliantly command a company and the BN and BDE Commander think your ready, they sign off on your MAJ promotion and move you to their vacant BN S3 slot. Same thing could be done on the NCO side. In both cases, if you are moved up and found to be wanting, those same Commanders could fire you right back down to a CPT sitting in the 3 shop. There wouldn't need to be a lot of coordination from the top, because you promote with position instead of timelines. The only thing that DA might have to do is open and close positions for filling based on mission priorities and the size of the pool of candidates for all open positions.

I think this would unleash quite a bit of motivation and professional growth in the ranks and inspire leaders to up their game. The type of people we want in the military are the type of people who want to develop and compete based on their capabilities, not the decision of a board that spends about a minute deciding their fate every few years. Even with the OSBs and promotion boards tightening up now, a lot of officers feel like they just need to get an ACOM or two and hit their PME on time and they will probably be ok. I think that attitude would be wiped out with changes like the ones I'd like to see.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 26 at 2014 11:33 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:33:54 -0400

Since my first attempt at contributing resulted in an ambush...

The military service is held in three different tracks:

Regular service (שירות חובה) – mandatory military service which is held according to the Israeli security service law.
Permanent Service (שירות קבע) – military service which is held as part of a contractual agreement between the IDF and the permanent position holder.
Reserve service (שירות מילואים) – a military service in which citizens are called for active duty of at most a month every year, for training activities and ongoing defense activities and especially for the purpose of increasing the military forces in case of a war.

That is Israels system.
What CSM Maynard is discussing could work in a similar manner, minus the compulsory service.
Perhaps everyone enlists on a short (1-2 year) stint. During which time they are 'needs of the service' placed. They are given a chance to prove themselves and demonstrate their value.
Those who are deserving then get to 'enlist' and select a career path.
Those who do not make the cut are then moved into a NEW (as in 'not currently existing') RESERVE FORCE (not the current reserves) where their basic skills are maintained and they are called upon in times of need. (Not unlike how a pro team might call upon its farm club). Then, during these call-ups, they might demonstrate their professional growth and be given the option to join.

Again, this is a THEORETICAL idea, based on CSM Maynard's topic and the current IDF structure.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Jul 27 at 2014 3:58 AM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:58:32 -0400

One of the biggest problems we have is that we have talented and skilled individuals that we lose when we need to cut the budget that would probably be better to retain than some of the people who are in specialties that aren't as in demand. I do like the idea that the best personnel should have a better shot at staying than someone who can barely cut the standards just because that MOS is in demand.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2014 11:01 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:01:54 -0400

The reason why this model works for a few elite professional sports is not just because of the money and the fame. It is because it is an activity that people feel emotionally drawn to do and that non-performers aspire to. We have this. What prevents us from having the status of the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc is the belief that we will take all comers. When I first told people that I was joining the Army, almost everyone told me I was "too smart" for that. Even the Army career counselor at MEPS opened my folder, looked at it for three seconds, shoved it at me and said, "go talk to the Air Force."

Why are people enamored with Special Forces, the SEALs, even the Marines in general? It's because people know that these programs are highly selective. We should be much more public about how many people do not make the cut at MEPS. Then we should point out how many do not make it through BCT/boot camp/etc. Trust me...it will drive the number of applicants UP. Look at DoS: on average, 20,000 people take the Foreign Service Officer exam and less than 600 get in. People pay to take prep classes just to have a chance. When I took over the MBA Bosnia project, tuition was free and they had 4 applicants. I set tuition at 23,000 Euro (at that time about $28,000) and we had more applicants than we had seats.

Bottom line: you will only get the best by being the best. Being the best starts at the recruiting posture. NOW is the time to pull up the drawbridge. You will get criminals if you accept criminals and let judges remand criminals to military service. If you let people in on ASVAB waivers, you won't get many valedictorians. We do have a very special organization that people already idolize and want to be a part of to some degree; let's give folks a team to cheer for and the rest will take care of itself.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2014 2:37 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:37:49 -0400

CSM Mike Maynard , great topic. As are many of the comments that follow.

The Army has made various attempts to establish more effective ways to rate their personnel. But we still see the NCOER's where everyone gets a one block. And the OER's where all officers are super awesome.

This is primarily because the rater is typically moving on from their position shortly after the rating, and don't need to deal with the consequences of the rated individual's performance. It is also because, while performance reviews do effect promotion, they don't effect a person's position.

One thing I recommend is starting with the result in mind. Quantify what it is the military is supposed to accomplish in measurable terms. This will pressure military leaders to change the selection process and promotion of individuals that will help us to reach goals. LTC Yinon Weiss

I am not suggesting that we overlook the human dimension, but a pro-football player is payed based on his potential for delivering profits to the teams owner. And if we can quantify combat capability a soldiers should be rated, promoted and compensated based on their ability to deliver effects on the battle field.

Looking forward to your comments,

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Jul 28 at 2014 9:07 AM

CSM Mike Maynard — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:07:19 -0400

Most of the comments to this thread have been narrowly focused on improving the performance and quality of our force and monetary incentives.

One of my main reasons on posting this question was the recent outrage when 48 deployed CPTs were notified that their service was no longer needed. Most folks thought that it was not very classy to "fire" those that are serving in combat.

That's the problem - they didn't get "fired" - it's just that their services were no longer needed - they didn't do anything wrong. They don't deserve pity.

I just think the current culture (entitlement to life-time job) creates a feeling of being dispensable or of being thrown away or fired when your service is no longer required.

Nothing could be further from the truth - even if you're SERB'd or RIF'd or QSP'd or RCP'd or any of the other honorable (not misconduct/QMP) acronyms that mean we no longer require your service, there is no shame in that and we should not feel pity for them.

I think the ultimate goal has to be that someone that has to leave the service under honorable conditions should feel good about their service and we should celebrate their service.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2014 2:00 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:00:52 -0400

Would farm services be instituted? If you want to join active service you must prove yourself in a guard/reserve unit. And if you do not cut it in the active service you will get bumped back down to a guard/reserve unit.

If you excelled would you have the ability to go free agent and trade for more money and a better team?

If you really excelled and retired would you become and officer or just a civilian contractor?

What if a foreign team offered you a higher salary? Would that be permissible?

I think perhaps the sports analogy leaves a few holes in the logic.