The Marine Corps is considering non-cognitive testing to identify the best officers. Can this testing achieve its intended result?

Well said. Thanks for your input Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS.

I will agree with you on that Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA. One can read all the books they want, write papers and do empirical research on leadership yet if one can not "read" people none of it is applicable. I think a great deal of being a good leader is understanding the dynamics of personalities and how to communicate in such a way that the information or message is read loud and clear. Its more about managing the communication with the array of relationships than actually manage the people. Manage things vs lead people.

Well said.

Chris,

First: OCS, in the Marine Corps is not a "school", it is a screening process. The culture of Marine Corps OCS is all about eliminating the weak leaders / weak individuals by placing increasing levels of stress on the individual, to push him to the breaking point - physically and mentally. As I recall (I went through the process in '88), there were two primary reasons for attrition: 1) injury - I believe that was quite a high percentage and 2) subjective leadership evaluation which the SNCOs and NCOs had a great influence in. Like the Operators (SEALS and I believe Special Forces) the Marine Corps uses peer evaluations as well to get "voted off the island". As the article mentions the attrition rate is quite high - and it does come down to "grit" or tenacity. Ultimately, this is what getting through the process is supposed to determine - are you an individual, that will not quit, will remain positive and inspirational in the most trying of situations. To this day, I look back and consider it to have been one of the most difficult things I have endured.

Sir, I understand what you are saying but I do not feel incorrect in calling it a school since OCS stands for Officer Candidate School. Your statement that it is a screening process is the very core of any selection and both the SEALs and Special Forces have schools and training events that do the same type of screening. The article is trying to pick better potential attendees to OCS so there isn't as much of a wash-out. I was trying to convey a possible systematic approach is to see what criteria they currently use to send Marines to school and compare that with current outcomes. With that data, they can adjust the inputs to receive a potential change in output.
Essentially, I believe that there is a low chance of being able to change the outcomes due to the human nature component. There is no quantitative test for leadership and personal recommendations and evaluations are always steeped in personal bias and prejudices. You will never be able to predict all of those who will get voted off the island in order to prevent them from going to OCS in the first place. If you could, OCS would become a right of passage instead of a screening process.

There are pro's and con's to that. As a Mustang, I am tempted to agree with that, but in my experience I've seen both good and bad prior enlisted officers. The bad ones never stopped thinking like troops. I've met guys that didn't go through the Naval Academy, but instead were NROTC midshipmen and they went on to become fine officers.

Totally agree with your assessment Capt Jeff S.. I was just responding to this specific question. I have also seen Academy Grads I would not give a plug nickel for so it is more dependent on the individual than the school, both VMI and The Citadel also come to mind, just to name a couple.

MCPO Treants, I have to disagree with you STRONGLY, on this. Before I give my exposition, please know, I was prior enlisted, for ten years. Your success as an officer in the Marine Corps, has zero to do with prior enlisted service, and I don't see it as being necessarily effective in increasing graduation rates at OCS. Now, many years later as a Colonel, indulge me. Success today, in any large organization, military or civilian, is contingent upon many things, but certainly we can agree upon these three: 1) loyalty from your juniors to carry out the plan, 2) agreement or "buy in" from your peers to provide the resources needed to carry out the plan, and 3) support from your leadership that your plan is supporting the overall operational or strategic plan. Frankly, Marine OCS, does one thing and it does that one thing very well -- it measures a person's grit or tenacity. Furthermore, having been through both recruit training and OCS, I can assure you that OCS is exponentially more difficult than recruit training -- I see a person's success or failure as an enlisted Marine completely unrelated to their later success as an officer. You could be an abysmal failure as an enlisted man and a great officer and the other way around. To be honest, at OCS it is the Marine SNCOs who really determine who our officers will be. They are best positioned to determine who can communicate with the kid from Compton and the kid from Orange County. The one value that does come from being formerly enlisted, is a broader perspective. Years ago (in the mid eighties) we had a huge number of drops as a result of injuries, we changed some things and cut the injury rate down. I think today, with the advent of big data, widespread DNA testing, and the Internet of Everything, we are on the cusp of massive changes in our approach to solving many problems -- including attrition at Marine Corps OCS. Who knows, maybe there is a genetic marker for tenacity? Maybe there's an unrelated correlation to eye color, hair color, finger length, etc. to certain desirable psychological capabilities. We've come a very long way from where we began, when commissions were purchased, or officers were politically appointed. The Israeli Army has the majority of their combat arms officers attend recruit training and are assessed during their first few years for leadership abilities. In many non OECD countries commissions are still purchased. Just recently there was a large scandal in the PRC as it was uncovered that General Officers were selling commissions. Martin L. Van Creveld wrote a book "Training of Officers: From Military Professionalism to Irrelevance" about the making of officers some years ago. I'm rehashing quite a bit of his scholarship. I don't know what's the optimal approach - but given my limited understanding of big data, I believe we will soon be able to improve upon the process. A few things need to be unchanged, the training needs to be gruelingly physically, mentally, and psychologically rigorous, all candidates should be in the physical top 10% with great upper body strength and endurance, all candidates should be well spoken, well read, well written and degreed. The SNCOs must continue their role as major players in the subjective component of selection. We used to jokingly refer to their role as "Subjective Unit Leadership Evaluation".