8
8
0
Here's a problem I've always had with the Army. Not sure if the other forces do it too, but here goes. I don't understand their thinking of 'move up or get out.' They force people to be leaders. Even now at a time when it is evident that quick promotions are hurting the Army leadership. Even though self improvement is a good thing, it doesn't mean everyone wants to be the one in charge. When I compare this line of thinking to the civilian world I believe the civilian world is doing it right. If a soldier or employee is happy where they are at, then let them stay in that position. If they look for a promotion then promote them.
So lets compare. We have a soldier who is a mechanic and a civilian who works at the local repair shop. They both like their job. They both know their job. And they both are happy right were they are. Neither are looking to run the shop. They both just want to turn wrenches and be thankful for their paycheck. Now the boss comes by and says, 'Hey we have an opening for promotion.' They both say 'Thanks, I'm good where I'm at. The civilian gets to keep their job and the soldier gets forced out. The civilian company keeps a trained employee while the military looses one, who they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to train, feed and house. The civilian company doesn't have to hire a new employee, while the military does, which costs even more money.
I could never figure the Army reasoning out. So will someone please try to explain the benefits of this. There will always be somebody who wants to wear the crown. Let them. And let the others do what they want to do. Thanks and have a good one.
So lets compare. We have a soldier who is a mechanic and a civilian who works at the local repair shop. They both like their job. They both know their job. And they both are happy right were they are. Neither are looking to run the shop. They both just want to turn wrenches and be thankful for their paycheck. Now the boss comes by and says, 'Hey we have an opening for promotion.' They both say 'Thanks, I'm good where I'm at. The civilian gets to keep their job and the soldier gets forced out. The civilian company keeps a trained employee while the military looses one, who they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to train, feed and house. The civilian company doesn't have to hire a new employee, while the military does, which costs even more money.
I could never figure the Army reasoning out. So will someone please try to explain the benefits of this. There will always be somebody who wants to wear the crown. Let them. And let the others do what they want to do. Thanks and have a good one.
Posted in these groups: 
Promotions
Promotions
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 15
1
1
0
Some are made to lead, others are made to follow.
I completely understand where you are coming from SSG Reed. Many of my fellow NCOs would have preferred to remain technicians and do the job that the Air Force called on them to do. To them, being a technician was much simpler of a job to do. They didn't have to wade into the political BS that is found in all military organizations. All they had to do was do their analysis and brief leaders on that analysis.
The military often loses their best technicians this way.
I completely understand where you are coming from SSG Reed. Many of my fellow NCOs would have preferred to remain technicians and do the job that the Air Force called on them to do. To them, being a technician was much simpler of a job to do. They didn't have to wade into the political BS that is found in all military organizations. All they had to do was do their analysis and brief leaders on that analysis.
The military often loses their best technicians this way.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My frustration is
1. you only get 3 looks, a 3 year window. The attitude is that if you arent ready in those 3 years, you never will be??
2. If you are not selected for promotion, then the Army doesnt need you at your current rank either, or any rank.
This makes me realize that being in the service really is selective and competitive. Wish I had known this 15 years ago.
1. you only get 3 looks, a 3 year window. The attitude is that if you arent ready in those 3 years, you never will be??
2. If you are not selected for promotion, then the Army doesnt need you at your current rank either, or any rank.
This makes me realize that being in the service really is selective and competitive. Wish I had known this 15 years ago.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I personally understand your situation, the standards need to be looked at ,the military makes to many mistakes and are quick to pass the puck. This red tape needs to stop if you don't want the position you should not be forced to take the job. If needed go out to a different unit and passed it on to the one's that really wants the position. The top senior official should be more understanding in some of the younger officer and NCO'S.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It is how the Military is set up as a couple of others have already stated.
This is not a company or corporation. I know that in the past few years some have tried to compare it in the manner you have. Move up or move out is the only way those at the bottom have a chance to be successful.
If you are not trying to reach the top at some point you shall be in the way of those who want it.
They are supposed to be doing this at the SGM/CSM level as well nowadays. If a person declines a position then they are kindly asked to retire.
I do not necessarily care for the methods all the time but there has to be a measure/standard by which we evaluate everyone.
This is not a company or corporation. I know that in the past few years some have tried to compare it in the manner you have. Move up or move out is the only way those at the bottom have a chance to be successful.
If you are not trying to reach the top at some point you shall be in the way of those who want it.
They are supposed to be doing this at the SGM/CSM level as well nowadays. If a person declines a position then they are kindly asked to retire.
I do not necessarily care for the methods all the time but there has to be a measure/standard by which we evaluate everyone.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The one thing I don't agree with so far in some of the comments is how remaining stagnant keeps others from getting promoted. Yes, if the Army as a whole stagnates then the Army as a whole will not get promoted. But if one soldier is holding one slot how does that prevent soldiers in same job but different slots from getting promoted, and others falling into that empty slot? There is such a high turn over rate in the lower ranks that a few stagnate soldiers would hardly put a dent in those who remain in the service and choose to move up.
Even though I originally compared a soldier to a civilian, it might not have been the best example. I was trying to pin point the ups and downs of both. With the intention of showing the down fall for the military. For me I do not see the benefit of spending all the money the military does to get a soldier to their current rank and then say, 'we don't want you anymore so we will do it all over again with someone else.'
I do agree with some of the comments stating all soldiers need to be ready to lead. I 100% agree with that. I was even put in that position many times. But here's the kicker, my rank was never equal to those leadership positions. I was always at least one, but usually two ranks lower than what the position called for. I.E. As an E-5 running a full blown motor pool. Or as an E-6 I gave unit briefings to a MG for our unit missions while deployed. So examples like this debunk the theory you need to be ranked up to lead. A soldier will lead if they want to. With or without the rank.
I'm not saying I have the right answer for this dilemma. I'm not even saying there is a dilemma. All I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit of booting a soldier out who is properly trained and skilled at their job. Especially with all that is invested in that soldier.
Thanks for posting and listening.
Even though I originally compared a soldier to a civilian, it might not have been the best example. I was trying to pin point the ups and downs of both. With the intention of showing the down fall for the military. For me I do not see the benefit of spending all the money the military does to get a soldier to their current rank and then say, 'we don't want you anymore so we will do it all over again with someone else.'
I do agree with some of the comments stating all soldiers need to be ready to lead. I 100% agree with that. I was even put in that position many times. But here's the kicker, my rank was never equal to those leadership positions. I was always at least one, but usually two ranks lower than what the position called for. I.E. As an E-5 running a full blown motor pool. Or as an E-6 I gave unit briefings to a MG for our unit missions while deployed. So examples like this debunk the theory you need to be ranked up to lead. A soldier will lead if they want to. With or without the rank.
I'm not saying I have the right answer for this dilemma. I'm not even saying there is a dilemma. All I'm saying is that I don't see the benefit of booting a soldier out who is properly trained and skilled at their job. Especially with all that is invested in that soldier.
Thanks for posting and listening.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
SSG Adam Reed
I never questioned your ability so I am not quite sure how to take your response. The experience and knowledge of a MSG far outweighs the experience and knowledge of a SGT, regardless of MOS. What that may be is the MSG has moved through the ranks and positions of probably every Soldier that works in that motor pool. If he didn't actually serve in that position he probably supervised the section. He is familiar with the organizational aspects of the motor pool and how it supports the entire battalion (or whatever size) unit. I have no doubt you did an outstanding job running the motor pool and that is not the point.
If you reached your RCP before you were needed to run the motor pool somebody would of been put in charge and, that's my point. Everybody is replaceable in the military, it's set up like that for exactly that reason.
I never questioned your ability so I am not quite sure how to take your response. The experience and knowledge of a MSG far outweighs the experience and knowledge of a SGT, regardless of MOS. What that may be is the MSG has moved through the ranks and positions of probably every Soldier that works in that motor pool. If he didn't actually serve in that position he probably supervised the section. He is familiar with the organizational aspects of the motor pool and how it supports the entire battalion (or whatever size) unit. I have no doubt you did an outstanding job running the motor pool and that is not the point.
If you reached your RCP before you were needed to run the motor pool somebody would of been put in charge and, that's my point. Everybody is replaceable in the military, it's set up like that for exactly that reason.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Clinton Britt
From what I understand, if you pick up SSGT then you have the opportunity to stay your 20 but you gave to be promotable
(0)
(0)
SSG Adam Reed
CSM . . . thanks for the great discussion. Even though we seem to have different views on this issue I believe it is these views that help each of us understand different aspects of the issue.
On that note, let me ask you this. Why would any organization, civilian or military, want to force out someone with whom they have so much time and money invested in. And then turn around and spend that time and money again on someone else who might end up in the same spot?
On that note, let me ask you this. Why would any organization, civilian or military, want to force out someone with whom they have so much time and money invested in. And then turn around and spend that time and money again on someone else who might end up in the same spot?
(1)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
SSG Adam Reed
To answer your question in my opinion. I think they are looking for someone who won't be in that same spot, someone who will go the extra mile to continue to advance. Do we want to pay this sergeant E-5 pay for the next ten years and then pay him/her retirement pay for the next 30 to 40 years? Or, do we let them go for someone who will progress and serve in the Army for 30 years and then we pay them retirement pay for the next 20 years?
I am not totally defending the Army, because it definitely makes a lot of mistakes. Some times it recruits more Soldiers than it needs for certain MOSs, it promotes more Soldiers than available positions in some MOSs, and it has to reduce the force because of fiscal constraints. All of that stuff is based off projections and historical data, how many are retiring, how many are ETSing, how many are we retaining. It's a scientific guess because we have to look into the future fiscal year.
We have an extremely aggressive hiring program and a very aggressive retention program, unlike many civilian businesses. Civilian businesses are happy to hire someone at a $35,000 a year salary to just keep the accounting records and if the accountant is happy with that salary and a raise every couple years, that business will keep them forever. The Army wants to keep that accountant around too but they want him/her to be the Department of the Army G-8 because there are 1,000s of other accountants in the force.
The Army is the largest corporation in the world. If everyone kept the same position all the time we would have an Army of old decrepit Soldiers that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
Great discussion indeed.
To answer your question in my opinion. I think they are looking for someone who won't be in that same spot, someone who will go the extra mile to continue to advance. Do we want to pay this sergeant E-5 pay for the next ten years and then pay him/her retirement pay for the next 30 to 40 years? Or, do we let them go for someone who will progress and serve in the Army for 30 years and then we pay them retirement pay for the next 20 years?
I am not totally defending the Army, because it definitely makes a lot of mistakes. Some times it recruits more Soldiers than it needs for certain MOSs, it promotes more Soldiers than available positions in some MOSs, and it has to reduce the force because of fiscal constraints. All of that stuff is based off projections and historical data, how many are retiring, how many are ETSing, how many are we retaining. It's a scientific guess because we have to look into the future fiscal year.
We have an extremely aggressive hiring program and a very aggressive retention program, unlike many civilian businesses. Civilian businesses are happy to hire someone at a $35,000 a year salary to just keep the accounting records and if the accountant is happy with that salary and a raise every couple years, that business will keep them forever. The Army wants to keep that accountant around too but they want him/her to be the Department of the Army G-8 because there are 1,000s of other accountants in the force.
The Army is the largest corporation in the world. If everyone kept the same position all the time we would have an Army of old decrepit Soldiers that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
Great discussion indeed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google