Rethinking talent management in the military; 20 questions with Tim Kane

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:08:01 -0500

"The irony for me is humorous: America’s cold warriors successfully defended free-market capitalism and drove central planning out of Moscow, but it escaped and infiltrated our personnel commands."

"If the Secretary of the Air Force handed you the keys to the Air Force Personnel Center tomorrow, what would be the first three things you’d change?"

Yeah...I like #5 a lot.

https://medium.com/@Doctrine_Man/talent-were-not-always-sure-what-it-is-but-we-know-we-want-some-but-do-we-truly-value-talent-b6a73b0524ce

Breaking Bad: Rethinking Talent Management — Beyond the Objective

20 Questions with Time Kane

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2015 3:40 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 03:40:39 -0400

I enthusiastically vote for number 5. Allowing more control over careers would immediately boost morale. Allowing external input and hiring decisions by commanders would produce satisfied personnel (we all know we are not getting more money, etc. These aren't the primary reasons we joined) while allowing focus on the mission. As long as it is legal and within regulations, some sort of complementary input to the hiring process, coupled with more visibility on the assignment process would pay dividends today!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2016 1:29 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:29:41 -0400

I was about to post something on this and found this thread instead before posting the question. I find it criminal that only 6 people have commented on this since 2015. THIS is a conversation that needs to be had in the military. THIS has real consequences for the future of the force and how decisions are made and by whom. If you can't take the time to read the article, here is a book review done by Tim himself along with GEN(R) Dave Barno and a couple of others on the panel. I can only pray that this conversation kicks off with some thoughts about how we need to change the way we select senior officers in the military and what their roles should be. Personally I believe things need to change in a big way. I have made it, by all measurements. I'm going to be a COL. That's a pretty good run. That being said, the process for selecting who is going to be a general officer was already made during my battalion command time. I don't think I'm one of the guys who made the cut. Why do I think that? There are jobs that you get after command if you are one of the chosen. I didn't get one of those jobs. The grapes aren't sour here. I don't begrudge those that did. Most of them are great leaders of character, but this same system has produced the adulterers, philanderers and narcissists that continue to pop up in the national media. It's few and far between, but it goes beyond this small (though significantly troubling) fraction of our senior leaders. Are we ensuring diversity in the senior officer corps? I'm not talking about race and gender and sexual orientation here. I am talking about socio-economic, philosophical, emotional-intelligence level, and intellectual diversity. Do we have strategic leaders that are up to the challenges of today and more importantly will we have them in the future? That's what this piece brings up.

Response by MAJ Monique Ruiz made May 22 at 2017 4:01 PM

MAJ Monique Ruiz — Mon, 22 May 2017 16:01:03 -0400

The main reason I commissioned after being enlisted for seven years was to be able to make a change in the personnel system. I knew I was not going to make a big influence to significantly affect change unless I was at the top. To get there, I needed to commission. Now I just need to get there. I wish I could get there faster, but until then, I'll learn and listen to consider what the personnel system needs.