Posted on Jul 20, 2014
Strategic Messaging / Branding of Officer Separation Boards
25.1K
6
2
6
6
0
It appears that notifications of involuntary separation for 1,100 captains have been completed, and that notification of involuntary separation for 500 majors is imminent, if not already commencing. I've witnessed the process over the last year or so for E-7s, and it seems the Army didn't learn any lessons from the terrible execution of E-7 involuntary separations.
I believe that the Army has really screwed up the process of notification, and has embarked on a completely negative branding/strategic messaging of how the Army is going about shaping the force.
Name. The process is called an "Officer Separation Board." The opposite, an "Officer Retention Board," would accomplish the same force shaping objectives and would communicate a positive message.
Notification Process. Only those selected for involuntary separation will be notified. Had the Army opted for publishing a centralized list of officers retained, with individual notifications before the release of the centralized list for those selected for involuntary separation, all officers would have confirmation of their status (instead of waiting for a notification that might never come). Secondary to this, the Army could have published a date for the release of the centralized list. This would alleviate relying on RallyPoint, rumors, the spouse network, etc, and help the Army own the process.
Perhaps HRC and Army leadership should consult with our vast number of public affairs, information operations, and psychological specialists when designing the communication of force shaping programs. Instead of approaching force shaping from a purely negative branding/strategic messaging platform, the Army could have employed a more positive approach.
Also, I doubt any of us in the target population for the OSB care at all if we learn (learned) of our status (involuntary separation or retention) from the first O-6 or O-7 in our chain of command or from an e-mail or centralized list. In fact, I'd assess that most of us probably think it ridiculous that notifications have been delayed so that they can be done in person. At least in my way of thinking, if promotion lists are centrally published, then lists of those retained in an OSB probably could be as well. For example, take the recent list of those selected for promotion to LTC. 37% of our colleagues looked at by the LTC board were not selected. I understand that none of them received a personal notification of non-select. While getting passed-over for promotion probably pales in comparison to getting involuntarily separated, it is at least in the same ballpark.
I also understand some of these points were discussed following the notification of captains selected for involuntary separation. It will be interesting to see if the Army and HRC continue to use a purely negative strategic messaging campaign in future rounds of force shaping, or if some of these identified failures are addressed.
Thoughts?
I believe that the Army has really screwed up the process of notification, and has embarked on a completely negative branding/strategic messaging of how the Army is going about shaping the force.
Name. The process is called an "Officer Separation Board." The opposite, an "Officer Retention Board," would accomplish the same force shaping objectives and would communicate a positive message.
Notification Process. Only those selected for involuntary separation will be notified. Had the Army opted for publishing a centralized list of officers retained, with individual notifications before the release of the centralized list for those selected for involuntary separation, all officers would have confirmation of their status (instead of waiting for a notification that might never come). Secondary to this, the Army could have published a date for the release of the centralized list. This would alleviate relying on RallyPoint, rumors, the spouse network, etc, and help the Army own the process.
Perhaps HRC and Army leadership should consult with our vast number of public affairs, information operations, and psychological specialists when designing the communication of force shaping programs. Instead of approaching force shaping from a purely negative branding/strategic messaging platform, the Army could have employed a more positive approach.
Also, I doubt any of us in the target population for the OSB care at all if we learn (learned) of our status (involuntary separation or retention) from the first O-6 or O-7 in our chain of command or from an e-mail or centralized list. In fact, I'd assess that most of us probably think it ridiculous that notifications have been delayed so that they can be done in person. At least in my way of thinking, if promotion lists are centrally published, then lists of those retained in an OSB probably could be as well. For example, take the recent list of those selected for promotion to LTC. 37% of our colleagues looked at by the LTC board were not selected. I understand that none of them received a personal notification of non-select. While getting passed-over for promotion probably pales in comparison to getting involuntarily separated, it is at least in the same ballpark.
I also understand some of these points were discussed following the notification of captains selected for involuntary separation. It will be interesting to see if the Army and HRC continue to use a purely negative strategic messaging campaign in future rounds of force shaping, or if some of these identified failures are addressed.
Thoughts?
Officer Separation Board (OSB)
Branding
HRC
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
We're starting to see now some of the messaging the Army employed, based on posts from those selected by the OSB/ESERB. Apart from the generic message from the Army (ie, "The Army is being forced to downsize, we're cutting people, and some good folks are bound to get cut in this process"), we've seen that HRC did an assessment of all files, categorized files into BCOM, COM, COM+, and ACOM categories, and directed the first O-6 in the BCOM officer's chain of command to counsel them in January. Perhaps the Army explained this back in January; if so, I missed it.
So, best I can tell, the Army's messaging on this consists of the two points above:
1) "The Army is being forced to downsize, we're cutting people, and some good folks are bound to get cut in this process"
and
2) "Officers identified as BCOM / high risk were counselled by the first O-6 in their chain of command in January 2014" (even if the Army didn't send this out as a strategic message, it took this action, so I'll give it some credit here)
and, as a third point, the Army allowed (?) the stats to leak, so that's a bit of unintentional (?) messaging as well.
Has anyone seen anything in addition to these two/three points?
So, best I can tell, the Army's messaging on this consists of the two points above:
1) "The Army is being forced to downsize, we're cutting people, and some good folks are bound to get cut in this process"
and
2) "Officers identified as BCOM / high risk were counselled by the first O-6 in their chain of command in January 2014" (even if the Army didn't send this out as a strategic message, it took this action, so I'll give it some credit here)
and, as a third point, the Army allowed (?) the stats to leak, so that's a bit of unintentional (?) messaging as well.
Has anyone seen anything in addition to these two/three points?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sounds like the Army should call up the Navy; we've had some practice over the past few years with our senior enlisted boards
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google