Should pay grade be partly decoupled from rank?

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:37:04 -0400

In many cases, the pay makes sense for the rank.

However, sometimes it doesn't.

Maybe a SPC or SGT filling the role of a squad leader should get E-6 pay. Maybe medical personnel who hold high ranks because of their medical expertise but who have little knowledge of the military itself would do better as 2LTs making O-6 pay, for example. Maybe we can attract desperately needed cyber warriors by giving them Officer pay reflecting their value but leaving them at junior Enlisted ranks reflecting their formal education and military experience.

The way we have done things, may not be the best way to do things as we move forward in our changing world.

Response by CSM William Everroad made Jun 23 at 2023 9:08 AM

CSM William Everroad — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 09:08:34 -0400

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, good thoughts. But it wouldn't work large scale. SPC and SGTs in a squad leader billet is the exception, not the rule. The military is a strict hierarchal organization and as such has expectations for each rank and the pay grade matches that.

There is not an expectation for a SPC to fill the role of Squad Leader. It happens, sure, but it is not supposed to. You could make an argument that a SPC in a leadership billet should get some kind of temporary pay bump, but decoupling rate and grade will only make the problem (shortage of NCOs in certain MOS) worse.

Medical is a different beast. Those O6 doctors are in charge in a similar fashion, just a different unit structure. There is no danger of a MED O6 stumbling into an IN BDE and taking charge. They are in charge of other MED officers in a medical setting. I am not sure we have a shortage of medical officers that we would need to change things to bring more in (after all the army pays for their medical school).

The military is having the conversation of how to attract cyber professionals into military service, changing the pay structure itself isn't the solution, it's the base pay that is the problem. The military will never be able to compete with industry.

I agree with you, the "standard" way may not be the best way and there is some good conversations of how to flatten the management structure, but I think many would agree that is a bad idea for most of the military to tilt less than vertical. Organizations with more horizontal structures tend to have the "multiple boss" problem and lack the ability to tightly control emergent situations. Its just not feasible with such large organizations.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2023 9:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 09:31:18 -0400

Not really, under the same logic some recruits with MBAs will also ask for a better pay rate...not happening

Response by COL Randall C. made Jun 23 at 2023 10:04 AM

COL Randall C. — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 10:04:51 -0400

"Decoupled from rank"? No.
Discussion about expanding special pay (proficiency, retention, incentive, etc)? Yes.

Remember, your "base pay" is only one of the things that the military uses for compensation. I'm not talking about compensation that all Servicemembers get (Commissary, TSP, etc), but rather incentive pay, special education programs, etc.

For example, since you mentioned Cyber, DoD spent over $160 million on cyber retention bonuses last year. Additionally, many Services give up to $500/month in special pay for cyber operators.

Additionally, many other MOSes will get special pay if they are in an assignment that has unusual degree of responsibility, is a shortage MOS, or to reflect a closer comparison to civilian counterparts (especially in the medical field).

Response by LTC Eugene Chu made Jun 23 at 2023 10:09 AM

LTC Eugene Chu — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 10:09:00 -0400

As COL Randall C. mentioned, there are special allowances along with base pay. While higher ranks make more overall, a servicemember with a family who is deployed to a hostile fire zone will get additional allowances compared to a single person stationed in CONUS.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jun 23 at 2023 11:25 AM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 11:25:22 -0400

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA I like the outside the box thinking. I believe there is some level of merit - possibly even a HIGH level of merit - in your proposition. Unfortunately, I have to agree with CSM William Everroad , but for different, albeit similar reasons. My concern is still implementation. However it is tied to personnel mobility and assignments.

The only way to successfully implement your proposal that I can see is to tie pay to bullet. In the Army, the rule is two up or one down. So what happens when you have too many SSGs and you have to make one a TL? You are cutting pay for things beyond that Soldier's control. What if that same SSG just PCSed from a unit that was short SFCs and was in a PSG slot? Now you are cutting E7 pay to E5 pay all at once, which is a BIG Deal. And you can't tell everyone pay is tied to duty assignment, and then pay one TL more than another.

The problem this creates is that branch managers now have to assign people not just mased on full 7 digit MOS, they have to look at current pay grade so that the are not cutting pay in the assignment process. Or you have to tell everyone that they cannot make long term financial plans (like buying a house) because there is no guarantee for what you will be making next year, let alone 5 years from now. Either of those propositions is bad for the Army, IMHO.

I can maybe see an expansion of pro pay, similar to jump pay or language pay. You have your base pay, and then when you maintain certain qualification and are slotted in a position requiring those qualifications, you get a monthly bump. But everyone understands that is incentive pay, and is not guaranteed. I think that can work for the cyber field and Soldiers working above their pay grade or in particularly difficult/demanding assignments (like 1SGs in HQ bullets, or SGMs in EAB billets). I do not know enough about the medical field to assess how well it would work there. And it would have to be a bump, not a massive raise (like 2LTs making O6 pay).

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2023 12:02 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 12:02:08 -0400

No. In my opinion, this mentality takes too much ideology from the business world. Our hierarchy exists as a foundation for fighting wars, as does it's compensation. I think we sacrifice a lot of our stability by replacing it with the complexities of modern industry.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jun 23 at 2023 4:02 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 16:02:11 -0400

I write a winded response that probably would have bored you, then it was gone.

Listen this topic has been reviewed again and again. No idea is a bad idea, but not all ideas work.

From my perspective and I believe it is shared by almost any Senior Enlisted Advisor, and senior officers throughout the ranks, there is no MOS or specialty that contributes more than the other to the military’s combat mission.

It is very simple, a combat Team is comprised of essential skill sets brought together to accomplish a certain task, take any one component out of the scenario and life gets tougher, and often results in some level of failure. I have multiple personal examples I could give of units I deployed with at varying grades throughout my years of service and each time a different warrior was brought to light, and from those we got the occasional hero. Even the hero would tell you that without his training, his team, his weapon, the intel, his amp, the specialty gear, the vehicle maintenance, the targeting package, the orders given and the commands competence all played a roll in that singular act tgat rendered them a hero.

I love the Army Motto, it has been brought back, Be All You Can Be, Lead Fight or get the Hell out of the way. No one service, or service member is an Island.

Just a blip of my perspective. In closing, I had multiple opportunities to become a Warrant or Commissioned officer, I have more than the requisite education, each time I relished my career, proximity to the troops and my personal roll. One thing that stayed consultant throughout was I everyone fit in, from the private to the CSM, from the 2LT to the General.

Our scale and grades have proven a catalyst for how great the US military truly is.

If every Cyber expert was an officer- If every Medic was a Col. (By the way, as an advanced EMT I was better qualified than a standard medic) who would do the work. Essentially you are saying, if a job happens to be more technical it warrants more money.

If that what folks want, they can ets and become a contractor working for the government, I assure you they make more and have no other responsibility.

I suspect that most service members who continue to serve want the responsibility and not the cubicle for 20 year.

Sorry if I got off on a rant.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 24 at 2023 10:14 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 24 Jun 2023 10:14:43 -0400

This is a tangent. Pay SMs more because the spouses often experience employment challenges.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Jun 24 at 2023 5:23 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Sat, 24 Jun 2023 17:23:41 -0400

Except in cases of acting jacks, not so important anymore. As acting CPL. I was a CPLE2 and then CPLE3. Upon transfer to another unit, I became a PFCE3. When I first came in, the Army created E-8 and E-9 and reversed the pay grade order from E7 to E1 to the current E1 to E7. Adding two grades resulted in MSGE7 and MSGE8, TechSgtE6 and TechSGTE7, and SSGE5 and SSGE6. This was because the NCOs were not busted. The USAF kept SSG at E5 and TechSGT at E7, and created 2 new ranks for E8 and E9 and eliminated Flight Officers* and had E9s do their jobs.
*AF WOs

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Jun 26 at 2023 8:58 AM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:58:11 -0400

Splitting them seems to be a good way to cause mass confusion with little return on investment. Working in a senior billet to your current rank happens. This is where awards and other incentives can be used to reward going above and beyond.

You could also look into what Col Cudworth mentioned in regards to special pay. In the Marine Corps Special Duty Assignments (Drill Instructor, Recruiter, MSG) receive incentives in the ways of special pay and other perks. This is something that could be instituted for specific billets and such. That could always be something to discuss but creating a sub structure by decoupling grade from rank just sounds like a hot mess.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2023 5:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:54:03 -0400

Perform to the level of your pay grade.

Nothing annoyed me more than being a 40yo SPC with an MBA, and way more productive in my MOS than my enlisted peers half my age and experience pulling down BAH with dependents, effectively getting paid more than me simply because they procreated.

Now that said, the military makes significant economic incentive adjustments. For example, in the form of retention bonuses, literally one of my PVT's could be getting paid more than myself (while the company commander) to be a drilling reservist.

There was a window there where my 92A E1-E4 could get $20K just to stay on another three years, and didn't require anything other than simply continuing to show up. If you took that number, applied it to a PFC, and then amortized it over the hours spent at Battle Assembly against the hours I spent working in relation to USAR commander stuff then on an hourly basis the PFC was getting paid more per hour.

Now, not everyone is going to look at the numbers in such stratified detail but when $$$ show up to the retention contract folks generally have a good gut feeling if it's worth the incentive or not.

While deployed the SF soldiers I was attached to were getting $100K bonuses to stay on a few more years. The 1SG of the SF team had planned his whole deployment around that window, and him being out of the country to cash in on that tax free $100K.

So the money is there. The military makes adjustments to retain desired skill sets and experience, but there are to things that handicap their retention efforts.
1) The way the economic incentives are executed have to be astronomically methodical, and immune from public criticism. This creates a very regimented process that will never seem ideal to everyone.
2) By way of #1, the process is slow to act against the real world labor markets. Some skills are over paid for, some skills are under paid for. The military will always be behind the curve.

***********
One thing I observed early in my civilian financial career as the guy that calculated out the bonus pay out to bank sales employees (based on sales goals): Employees (service members in this case) will always find the path of least resistance to bump up their pay check. So various pay incentive programs need to be very well thought out, lest the employer end up with an unintended sway in outcomes.

Finally............. (off topic).

I would be curious if the USAR simply offered up $100 to soldiers that pass their for record ACFT each time if there would be an economic benefit that is much more cost effective than all the resources dumped into chasing down ways to push that pass rate percentage up indirectly. There is going to be an economic equilibrium of cost benefit. It won't easy to find, but it should start low, and keep bumping it up until the desired level is reached. It's probably much cheaper than the DOD would be willing to spend.

I will tell you this...................

It will be cheaper than the whole disaster that is the ACFT that Congress is threatening of canning and having something started over from scratch.

Response by SGT Jodi WittBailey made Jun 29 at 2023 2:41 PM

SGT Jodi WittBailey — Thu, 29 Jun 2023 14:41:07 -0400

Bring back the spec ranks for those who are technical experts but don't want to occupy an NCO slot.

Continue service instead of valuable expertise being thrown out with the bathwater as TIS and TIG expires.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Jul 7 at 2023 11:29 AM

SSG Carlos Madden — Fri, 07 Jul 2023 11:29:32 -0400

I feel like we did this before with the old SPC ranks (https://ncohistory.com/short-history-of-the-specialist-rank/). I'm sure there was a good reason for moving away from this system but perhaps its time to reevaluate.

Short History of the Specialist Rank - NCO Historical Society [dev]

The Specialist is in the normal career progression for enlisted soldiers in between the career path of going from an apprentice enlisted soldier to the NCO.

Response by SPC Jacob Viano made Jul 17 at 2023 7:54 PM

SPC Jacob Viano — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:54:37 -0400

I support going back to the system the Army had decades ago with separation between specialist rank and NCO rank. They had Spec 5's, Spec 6's and so on. These folks were technicians and not necessarily leaders. The more you knew about your MOS, the higher Spec level you went Not everyone is a born leader. Some just suck at it. I believe this system would help rid the Army and other branches of some of the toxic "leadership" that exists.

I was born in the late 70's and I'm working off of what some old times explained to me so if I'm mistaken, please correct me