Posted on Feb 12, 2019
Should the Army use the same sort of promotion system as other branches?
10.4K
89
21
7
7
0
I'm sure this is already a dead horse topic, but indulge me, I constantly hear the phrase "we promote based on potential" in regards to a soldiers leadership ability, however, as we all know the Army promotes using Boards, as opposed to the technical tests of other branches.
As a 42A, I sit in on these said boards and watch as countless SM's are promoted, sometimes, in my opinion, way before their ready. Joe Snuffy may have a near perfect firing card, and a 300 APFT score, and can cite everything in AR 670-1, but working for an intel unit, I see a lot of shut ins, introverted personnel who don't seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them. I know points are huge part of the process, but you can rack up near 500 points with a solid PT card, Weapons Card, and a Degree.
I guess my concern, and question overall is, should the Army switch to the way the other branches promote? Using technical tests, that grade you on the knowledge of your job, regulations regarding your job, etc? Keep in mind the tests are not PASS/FAIL, you usually have to score in a certain percentile (ex. only the top 10% get promoted) or should we stay the course and continue to promote using the Board System?
As a 42A, I sit in on these said boards and watch as countless SM's are promoted, sometimes, in my opinion, way before their ready. Joe Snuffy may have a near perfect firing card, and a 300 APFT score, and can cite everything in AR 670-1, but working for an intel unit, I see a lot of shut ins, introverted personnel who don't seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them. I know points are huge part of the process, but you can rack up near 500 points with a solid PT card, Weapons Card, and a Degree.
I guess my concern, and question overall is, should the Army switch to the way the other branches promote? Using technical tests, that grade you on the knowledge of your job, regulations regarding your job, etc? Keep in mind the tests are not PASS/FAIL, you usually have to score in a certain percentile (ex. only the top 10% get promoted) or should we stay the course and continue to promote using the Board System?
Promotions
Rank
Promotion Board
Test
Edited 5 y ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 12
8
8
0
In the past, we had SQT testing that contributed to the centralized board decision to'promote. They were a train wreck, especially for technical MOSs as they could not keep up what was happening, especially for 63H/91H now. You also had to March people in at gun point to get them to test because it was a big fat hairy deal'if they didn't. Some of your best and most competent guys failed these quirky tests all the time. Then one day in a whiff of Ozone they died the death they needed to. The local boards you refer to only impact E5 and E6. Centralized boards handle E7-E9.
I think the issues you discuss don't point to technical competence but ability to lead and work with soldiers. How does am Army multiple choice test assess the ability to communicate at the interpersonal level or counsel a soldier about financial trouble encountered by marrying a bar girl without a green Card he met three days before? That is where the command's recommendation comes in. They know the soldier and have groomed them to advance. The board is a formality at that point. The CSM and the board members are really just doing a taste test on the results. If the guy/gal implodes at the board, that first line supervisor gets the feedback and the blowback. It reflects on their ability to coach, train, and mentor.
I think the issues you discuss don't point to technical competence but ability to lead and work with soldiers. How does am Army multiple choice test assess the ability to communicate at the interpersonal level or counsel a soldier about financial trouble encountered by marrying a bar girl without a green Card he met three days before? That is where the command's recommendation comes in. They know the soldier and have groomed them to advance. The board is a formality at that point. The CSM and the board members are really just doing a taste test on the results. If the guy/gal implodes at the board, that first line supervisor gets the feedback and the blowback. It reflects on their ability to coach, train, and mentor.
(8)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Sir,
Great insight and input. I wasn't aware of the SQT Testing you mentioned, however, I think with the Army's new MLI standard, "Soldiers will go to the board once they hit their primary zones" is a bust. I have seen people within my own shop, that are borderline incapable/incompetent get the go ahead to advance. Its a scary thought, but we have all had toxic/ineffective leadership, and while it may not just at the fault of the board, its certainly is an issue needing to be addressed in my eyes.
Thats also not to say other branches dont have bad members advancing cuz theyre great at taking these tests. Like I said below, I feel there should be some form of integration with the standard set in place. Boards, with testing in some form or another. Im aware everything looks better on paper, I just hate to think theres a better way out there and we just havent figured out what it is yet.
Great insight and input. I wasn't aware of the SQT Testing you mentioned, however, I think with the Army's new MLI standard, "Soldiers will go to the board once they hit their primary zones" is a bust. I have seen people within my own shop, that are borderline incapable/incompetent get the go ahead to advance. Its a scary thought, but we have all had toxic/ineffective leadership, and while it may not just at the fault of the board, its certainly is an issue needing to be addressed in my eyes.
Thats also not to say other branches dont have bad members advancing cuz theyre great at taking these tests. Like I said below, I feel there should be some form of integration with the standard set in place. Boards, with testing in some form or another. Im aware everything looks better on paper, I just hate to think theres a better way out there and we just havent figured out what it is yet.
(2)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SPC (Join to see) - the system depends on people doing their jobs at all levels. The compulsory board is an over reaction to in years past where the NCO channel would hold on to people and not prepare them because they didn't feel they were ready. "Ready" meant different things to different people. Knowing their job. Memorizing a bunch of stuff. Trying them out as Assistant Squad Leaders etc. a sharp Specialist that hadn't gone full Sham Shield was a hot commodity. Many I remember from my PL era are Warrants now.
There were also Specialists who,loved being a specialist. So much so, they'd ride right up to their RCP without even a passing thought of boarding for promotion until the last possible minute followed by a painful sprint for PLDC (now WLC?) We are also only reenlisting "the best" so it's forcing people to "develop".
There were also Specialists who,loved being a specialist. So much so, they'd ride right up to their RCP without even a passing thought of boarding for promotion until the last possible minute followed by a painful sprint for PLDC (now WLC?) We are also only reenlisting "the best" so it's forcing people to "develop".
(3)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
LTC Jason Mackay Understood Sir. I just feel there's a better way, it'll never be perfect, but there is always room for improvement. Ive brought it up at AG Week to the HRC CSM's including HRC's CSM of Promotions. He politely declined to speak on the subject, saying he wasn't really able to speak on it, which in my eyes as a prying SPC, that its at least in the talks of a possibility.
I'm more or less just curious as to what some of here on RP think about it, hence the survey poll Sir.
I'm more or less just curious as to what some of here on RP think about it, hence the survey poll Sir.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
It should be both really, that's how its done in the corporate world... well at least in my experience. You get a degree and start out at the bottom, then you gradually add certs followed by decent evals to get noticed, and then you go through a series of interviews for advancement (similar to the board) to test not only your knowledge but also your maturity/goal alignment w/ the company. If your company likes your interview results you're assigned a temporary but higher role (designed to be harder than it needs to be so the company sees how you react to failure/stress/uncertainty), if you pass you get the new job title after so many months of successfully doing the job for x amount of months (note its not about proficiency rather potential... in other words can you handle more responsibility?).
Of course that was during 2 different engineering firms and 1 fast food job so your results could be different. Also, both these industries have high turn over rates and so advancement is readily available unlike the Army. Note I never got far in the Army promotion-wise (because I was a dead beat) so I never really understood the whole promotion system. Plus, the Army has different types of promotions. Decentralized Promotions (E-2 thru E-4), Semi centralized Promotions (E-5 and E-6), and Centralized Promotions (E-7 thru E-9). Each type is very different than the other. I believe (not 100% certain) that semi centralized promos are based on input from your records and from the results of your board interview. So maybe the E5/6 is using the test and board thing. I did read somewhere the Army is replacing the "move up or out" model with a more performance-based system that also removes the TiG/TiS requirements.
Of course that was during 2 different engineering firms and 1 fast food job so your results could be different. Also, both these industries have high turn over rates and so advancement is readily available unlike the Army. Note I never got far in the Army promotion-wise (because I was a dead beat) so I never really understood the whole promotion system. Plus, the Army has different types of promotions. Decentralized Promotions (E-2 thru E-4), Semi centralized Promotions (E-5 and E-6), and Centralized Promotions (E-7 thru E-9). Each type is very different than the other. I believe (not 100% certain) that semi centralized promos are based on input from your records and from the results of your board interview. So maybe the E5/6 is using the test and board thing. I did read somewhere the Army is replacing the "move up or out" model with a more performance-based system that also removes the TiG/TiS requirements.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
It's not clear to me how a technical proficiency test will address the issue you're identifying, that Soldiers who are "shut ins, introverted personnel who don't seem to have the social skills, to hold a conversation, let alone guide soldiers beneath them" are getting promoted. Will these test be assessing social skills and the ability to talk to others better than boards do?
(5)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
CSM (Join to see) SGM, I understand, I addressed it below in my comment to open the discussion regarding my initial question above, I guess I should've been clearer in the OP. I usually wont post a discussion on here without first stating where I stand in the comments to start said discussion.
To clarify, I feel a SM isn't ready to be promoted until they HAVE led peers, had soldiers beneath them. Could be a squad leader, or team leader, or being the go to E4 in their respective shop. Its not just being good at your job, correct. Its being able to lead and mold soldiers into future leaders first. I feel this isn't addressed in most of the boards Ive recorded for. A SPC needs experience, guiding, counseling and being a leader before they become one officially as an NCO in my opinion.
This is something that can be addressed in the board, the testing should focus on the job aspect of the process, your technical skills within your MOS. While the board should focus on your leadership abilities, and the intangibles of being a well rounded soldier/NCO. Handling Soldiers problems, emergencies and guiding them to better both themselves and their unit. I feel that should be the focus of the board, gauging that potential we say we promote off of, if that makes sense.
I hope that clears up my views on the question at hand SGM.
To clarify, I feel a SM isn't ready to be promoted until they HAVE led peers, had soldiers beneath them. Could be a squad leader, or team leader, or being the go to E4 in their respective shop. Its not just being good at your job, correct. Its being able to lead and mold soldiers into future leaders first. I feel this isn't addressed in most of the boards Ive recorded for. A SPC needs experience, guiding, counseling and being a leader before they become one officially as an NCO in my opinion.
This is something that can be addressed in the board, the testing should focus on the job aspect of the process, your technical skills within your MOS. While the board should focus on your leadership abilities, and the intangibles of being a well rounded soldier/NCO. Handling Soldiers problems, emergencies and guiding them to better both themselves and their unit. I feel that should be the focus of the board, gauging that potential we say we promote off of, if that makes sense.
I hope that clears up my views on the question at hand SGM.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google