Posted on Nov 5, 2015
The Secretary of Defense is concerned about the military's ability to retain young, talented officers. Are you?
5.27K
39
37
2
2
0
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/us-military-tries-halt-brain-drain/413965/
This article, written by a retired Army Lieutenant General and a senior defense contractor, made some points that resounded with me. I would be interested to hear some others' views on it.
Summarized very succinctly, the current Secretary of Defense is concerned that the military is losing too large a number of young officers because of an inflexible career path and an "up or out" promotion system.
This article, written by a retired Army Lieutenant General and a senior defense contractor, made some points that resounded with me. I would be interested to hear some others' views on it.
Summarized very succinctly, the current Secretary of Defense is concerned that the military is losing too large a number of young officers because of an inflexible career path and an "up or out" promotion system.
Retention
Officers
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 20
3
3
0
A year in London as a 2LT, a free graduate degree, two deployments, an assignment as an ADC, and company command immediately after CCC wasn’t enough?
Greater transparency and ability to be involved in one’s own assignment process would likely lead to higher retention of quality officers. However, the needs of the Army and some standardization within career progression should always take precedence over an overinflated sense of entitlement or individualism.
Greater transparency and ability to be involved in one’s own assignment process would likely lead to higher retention of quality officers. However, the needs of the Army and some standardization within career progression should always take precedence over an overinflated sense of entitlement or individualism.
(3)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
CW2 (Join to see), I agree that that individual was a bad example. I think his case would better be used as someone that could be considered as a good return candidate. Perhaps a few years in the civilian world would round him out, and teach him how good he had it. He could then, if willing, provide his services again.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Capt Byron Chen
/facepalm
I see your point, Captain. Only officers will have an impact on the future of the Military. Senior NCO's, NCO's, enlisted...why. They will have no impact on the future of the services.
/facepalm
I see your point, Captain. Only officers will have an impact on the future of the Military. Senior NCO's, NCO's, enlisted...why. They will have no impact on the future of the services.
(3)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Capt Byron Chen - Hmm. You responded to my angst with professionalism and tact. This gives me guilt :) (Kidding. What it really gives me is respect).
The truth is, I think you'll agree, is that it takes everyone as a whole: good officers, good enlisted, to make the Beast roar as it needs to, in order to intimidate our enemies. You can't take one without the other -- that leads to dysfunction.
The truth is, I think you'll agree, is that it takes everyone as a whole: good officers, good enlisted, to make the Beast roar as it needs to, in order to intimidate our enemies. You can't take one without the other -- that leads to dysfunction.
(1)
(0)
Capt Byron Chen
Haha. I was trying to expand on the question a bit from the article. I've seen a couple like this in the past few years.
Here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/308346/
And: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/how-to-lose-great-leaders-ask-the-army/2013/02/05/725f177e-6fae-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html
Why no love for enlisted ranks by the media?
Here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/308346/
And: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/how-to-lose-great-leaders-ask-the-army/2013/02/05/725f177e-6fae-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html
Why no love for enlisted ranks by the media?
Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving
Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Capt Byron Chen - It's not as glamourous, I suppose. However, I don't give two shits about the Media. I DO give two shits about what YOU think. Most of the media I could cheerfully strangle. You...I'd fight for, and with. Maybe die for. Fuck them. You're the IT.
(1)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
SN Greg Wright, I imagine that there is a similar problem in the enlisted ranks, but perhaps it is not as severe, though I don't know for sure. I would guess this article focused on officers because that is what the SecDef mentioned specifically.
I would be interested to hear what you think regarding enlisted retention. Are we losing more good young service members than we can replace? I know that there are more options available to the military for keeping enlisted members in than there are for officers. In my time, for instance, there were large re-enlistment bonuses for high demand, low density specialties. Some also got choice of duty station or to pick a certain school the wanted to attend.
I would be interested to hear what you think regarding enlisted retention. Are we losing more good young service members than we can replace? I know that there are more options available to the military for keeping enlisted members in than there are for officers. In my time, for instance, there were large re-enlistment bonuses for high demand, low density specialties. Some also got choice of duty station or to pick a certain school the wanted to attend.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I want to focus on the tiny part of the article that proposed solutions.
Replacing “up or out” with performance criteria.
I’m a concerned here. What is meant by “performance criteria?” Would it be specific jobs? We have the “Key Developmental” assignment deal in the Army where you have officers crawling over each other to get KD positions. It encourages a “check the box” approach to personnel management, and that is exactly part of the current failing of the system. If it means performance as defined by OERs (evaluations), please allow me to refer you to my many Rally Point comments on the flaws of the system; I cannot see any benefit at all on attaching more value to it. I would like to see a system where specific assignments are not over-emphasized or completely devalued. I would like to see an evaluation system where the number of people in your rating chain doesn’t have a primary impact on your rating. And where you actually have to do something *right* to be promoted, rather than our current system where you just have to avoid doing something catastrophically wrong.
Establishing a technical, or enterprise, career track.
This one is an out and out emergency and MUST be implemented…yesterday if possible. Where I work in my civilian job, I am surrounded by people with no military experience at all trying to build things for the military. They have the requirements, but they can’t picture what we would use it for. Additionally, they cook up these Good Idea Fairy concepts that have minimal or no real-world application. At the same time, the handful of Soldiers we have are either have the wrong military experience and/or they have no technical expertise. We NEED MI officers with an Engineering (not Army Engineering), Computer Science, or Math background *and* have experience at no less than 3 echelons with at least one purely tactical assignment. There are many times when people point out that it would be better for me to be in uniform, but there are no billets. If there were, our current Officer Management System is not equipped to get me the people I need.
Which brings me to a concept that is not suggested in the article:
Get rid of the current Officer Management System and let officers have more say.
I envision a system where Officers would have a standing military resume. The majority of O3 and above positions would be projected “open” and Officers would be able to search for positions they were eligible for and express interest in those positions (eligible: correct MOS, open to PCS, rank, etc). The OIC of the job search would then notify candidates that are in the running. Officers who are not selected by any of the positions they applied for would be placed by “needs of the Army (military),” and same with positions that are not selected by any officers. This fact would encourage Officers to apply for many positions, not just plum assignments, and would encourage “hiring” officers to express interest in a broad set of candidates knowing that the BN XO position at Ft Suckit might not be every candidate’s first choice. It also introduces the idea of promotion based on qualification. If as a CPT, I am chosen as the best qualified candidate for an O4 position, frock me for a year and if I can cut it, give me the promotion. Will there be insider trading? Yep. But get real, it’s happening anyway. West Pointers have assignments I never even knew existed in the Army. At least with this system, it would all be out in the open.
Expanding civilian schooling.
Um…maybe. I agree that too many degrees are coming from degree mills (not going to name names and piss people off) and military run schools. We as a military need to recognize the “group think” paradigm we are constructing by taking people when they are 17-18 and indoctrinating them into a single belief system for their entire lives. While I think my civilian schooling has been a huge benefit, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that a fellow CPT would be allowed to collect full pay for 2-8-years and be on the same promotion track with me while attending school full time, for free. I would rather see it as a hybrid with the article’s next solution:
Increasing “permeability.”
This is another initiative that should have been implemented yesterday. I would just want that there be some kind of order to it. For example, you will declare what you are going to be for the next 2-4 years, picture the enlisted system of re-enlistment. If you NG/RC/AC/CIV, you have to declare upfront that you are coming in for some period of time and then you will be expected to return to your previous status – I could see having an option to “re-up” again, but it would not be guaranteed. Want to go to school? Why not choose the Reserves option? For those caring for a sick relative, why not look at taking a civilian job for a few years with stable duty hours and location? For those looking to start a family, why not be guard for the first two years after the baby and not have a full time job at all? It creates a lot more flexibility than special family programs. This way, officers can leverage these options for whatever reason without having to invite the Army into their family problems/ fertility plans.
Improving parental leave and other family policies.
I don’t think this is the answer. I have had Soldiers who have experienced their spouse giving birth while they were overseas. When do they get their 18 weeks? Mid-deployment? Post-deployment? If they can wait until post-deployment, can anyone pick and choose? Can a female Soldier do that too? If I am a male with 3 baby mamas I can take a year off paid? If my partner is also a woman, could we stagger our pregnancies and get more than half the year off? Throwing more time off at the situation is not the answer. Families have been saying for years that they need better daycare (especially sick care) options for their kids. They need the opportunity to “homestead” and/or co-locate with non-military family. The previous solution about allowing all components of DoD service (NG/RC/AC/CIV) to be put on the table as equal options is a much better path.
I really don’t feel any of these options are all that radical or expensive. Our current system was designed at a time when people signed up to work at the local factory, management picked a job for them, managed their entire career, and then gave them a gold watch at the end. People today have (or perceive they have) so many other options. Change is necessary, but not unattainable. We , and our own limited thinking, are the biggest obstacle here.
Replacing “up or out” with performance criteria.
I’m a concerned here. What is meant by “performance criteria?” Would it be specific jobs? We have the “Key Developmental” assignment deal in the Army where you have officers crawling over each other to get KD positions. It encourages a “check the box” approach to personnel management, and that is exactly part of the current failing of the system. If it means performance as defined by OERs (evaluations), please allow me to refer you to my many Rally Point comments on the flaws of the system; I cannot see any benefit at all on attaching more value to it. I would like to see a system where specific assignments are not over-emphasized or completely devalued. I would like to see an evaluation system where the number of people in your rating chain doesn’t have a primary impact on your rating. And where you actually have to do something *right* to be promoted, rather than our current system where you just have to avoid doing something catastrophically wrong.
Establishing a technical, or enterprise, career track.
This one is an out and out emergency and MUST be implemented…yesterday if possible. Where I work in my civilian job, I am surrounded by people with no military experience at all trying to build things for the military. They have the requirements, but they can’t picture what we would use it for. Additionally, they cook up these Good Idea Fairy concepts that have minimal or no real-world application. At the same time, the handful of Soldiers we have are either have the wrong military experience and/or they have no technical expertise. We NEED MI officers with an Engineering (not Army Engineering), Computer Science, or Math background *and* have experience at no less than 3 echelons with at least one purely tactical assignment. There are many times when people point out that it would be better for me to be in uniform, but there are no billets. If there were, our current Officer Management System is not equipped to get me the people I need.
Which brings me to a concept that is not suggested in the article:
Get rid of the current Officer Management System and let officers have more say.
I envision a system where Officers would have a standing military resume. The majority of O3 and above positions would be projected “open” and Officers would be able to search for positions they were eligible for and express interest in those positions (eligible: correct MOS, open to PCS, rank, etc). The OIC of the job search would then notify candidates that are in the running. Officers who are not selected by any of the positions they applied for would be placed by “needs of the Army (military),” and same with positions that are not selected by any officers. This fact would encourage Officers to apply for many positions, not just plum assignments, and would encourage “hiring” officers to express interest in a broad set of candidates knowing that the BN XO position at Ft Suckit might not be every candidate’s first choice. It also introduces the idea of promotion based on qualification. If as a CPT, I am chosen as the best qualified candidate for an O4 position, frock me for a year and if I can cut it, give me the promotion. Will there be insider trading? Yep. But get real, it’s happening anyway. West Pointers have assignments I never even knew existed in the Army. At least with this system, it would all be out in the open.
Expanding civilian schooling.
Um…maybe. I agree that too many degrees are coming from degree mills (not going to name names and piss people off) and military run schools. We as a military need to recognize the “group think” paradigm we are constructing by taking people when they are 17-18 and indoctrinating them into a single belief system for their entire lives. While I think my civilian schooling has been a huge benefit, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that a fellow CPT would be allowed to collect full pay for 2-8-years and be on the same promotion track with me while attending school full time, for free. I would rather see it as a hybrid with the article’s next solution:
Increasing “permeability.”
This is another initiative that should have been implemented yesterday. I would just want that there be some kind of order to it. For example, you will declare what you are going to be for the next 2-4 years, picture the enlisted system of re-enlistment. If you NG/RC/AC/CIV, you have to declare upfront that you are coming in for some period of time and then you will be expected to return to your previous status – I could see having an option to “re-up” again, but it would not be guaranteed. Want to go to school? Why not choose the Reserves option? For those caring for a sick relative, why not look at taking a civilian job for a few years with stable duty hours and location? For those looking to start a family, why not be guard for the first two years after the baby and not have a full time job at all? It creates a lot more flexibility than special family programs. This way, officers can leverage these options for whatever reason without having to invite the Army into their family problems/ fertility plans.
Improving parental leave and other family policies.
I don’t think this is the answer. I have had Soldiers who have experienced their spouse giving birth while they were overseas. When do they get their 18 weeks? Mid-deployment? Post-deployment? If they can wait until post-deployment, can anyone pick and choose? Can a female Soldier do that too? If I am a male with 3 baby mamas I can take a year off paid? If my partner is also a woman, could we stagger our pregnancies and get more than half the year off? Throwing more time off at the situation is not the answer. Families have been saying for years that they need better daycare (especially sick care) options for their kids. They need the opportunity to “homestead” and/or co-locate with non-military family. The previous solution about allowing all components of DoD service (NG/RC/AC/CIV) to be put on the table as equal options is a much better path.
I really don’t feel any of these options are all that radical or expensive. Our current system was designed at a time when people signed up to work at the local factory, management picked a job for them, managed their entire career, and then gave them a gold watch at the end. People today have (or perceive they have) so many other options. Change is necessary, but not unattainable. We , and our own limited thinking, are the biggest obstacle here.
(2)
(0)
Capt Whitney Davis
Wow, CPT (Join to see), there is a lot to unpack there. I pretty much agree with everything you said. The only thing I can add to that is a suggestion. If you haven't read it yet, get a copy of Tim Kane's book Bleeding Talent. It goes into great detail on this problem and hits on many of the solutions you recommended (thinking about it now, I will bet that you have already read it).
What are your thoughts on retirement? I ask because the book goes into that to some degree as well. His suggestion, if I remember correctly, is essentially a generously matched 401(K). The idea (generally) would be to limit those that stay extra years just to get to 20, and to reward those that do less than 20 while still limiting costs for retirement benefits.
What are your thoughts on retirement? I ask because the book goes into that to some degree as well. His suggestion, if I remember correctly, is essentially a generously matched 401(K). The idea (generally) would be to limit those that stay extra years just to get to 20, and to reward those that do less than 20 while still limiting costs for retirement benefits.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
No, I didn't read the book, but I am glad to see someone else (probably more influential than me) is working solutions and not just writing another "the military sucks" piece. I have lots of details too, but it was a struggle to even get what I was able to post up.
I haven’t done enough math on the retirement plan to have a real answer, but I can say something that I hope lawmakers understand: we cannot let military retirees run out of money. A 401K opens up that possibility. The veteran homelessness problem is improving, let’s not go backwards. I have heard people say that there could be a 401K that converts to a pension at 20, but that sounds even more expensive than what we’ve got going now. I understand that it would let people who serve for shorter lengths of time get something, but I disagree that you would be doing real good. Someone who joins up at 18 and gets out at 25 would probably end up cashing out the 401K for a car. If they can’t cash it out, it’s not a 401K. I don’t know what the right answer is, but the current system is crippling us. People are living so much longer than they did 50 years ago, and medical costs are not just high because of the costs of the procedures and medications, but also because people are getting more procedures than ever before.
I haven’t done enough math on the retirement plan to have a real answer, but I can say something that I hope lawmakers understand: we cannot let military retirees run out of money. A 401K opens up that possibility. The veteran homelessness problem is improving, let’s not go backwards. I have heard people say that there could be a 401K that converts to a pension at 20, but that sounds even more expensive than what we’ve got going now. I understand that it would let people who serve for shorter lengths of time get something, but I disagree that you would be doing real good. Someone who joins up at 18 and gets out at 25 would probably end up cashing out the 401K for a car. If they can’t cash it out, it’s not a 401K. I don’t know what the right answer is, but the current system is crippling us. People are living so much longer than they did 50 years ago, and medical costs are not just high because of the costs of the procedures and medications, but also because people are getting more procedures than ever before.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google