What are your thoughts on forcing upward mobility?

SSG Adam Reed — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:39:40 -0500

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.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Feb 22 at 2015 11:04 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:04:57 -0500

The first problem with your argument is that you are trying to compare the military with a civilian occupation. That could be pertinent if the military was an organization that was perpetually in a garrison environment, which, of course is not the case.

All military personnel need to be prepared to assume leadership roles, as pointed out by SMSGT Thomas. One never knows when the situation will require that mechanic you discussed to take charge and be responsible for other soldiers.

In addition, the military needs people who are motivated to better themselves, not just be content with the status quo. It is not enough to simply want to be the best mechanic.

Our military needs a constant stream of young, healthy soldiers in the lower ranks, not a bunch of older, less fit and unmotivated individuals.

People who have no ambition for advancement have no place in the military beyond their initial enlistment.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Feb 22 at 2015 11:09 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:09:44 -0500

The military wants leaders, pure and simple.

Response by Cpl Michael Strickler made Feb 22 at 2015 11:31 PM

Cpl Michael Strickler — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:31:39 -0500

I can see your argument. It definitely makes sense. I felt that way when my LT was taken away from us to be promoted and the new commander of a different unit. He always told us he was not big on the office side of things and he much more preferred being out with his Marines. Taking that promotion was one more step away from that.

But a counter argument is that our military is supposed to be the best. Being the best requires advancement and progress. Though that one mechanic may have been great at his job, the best even, he was only in a position to help the others in his shop. If he had taken on the responsibility of two shops (or how ever it would have worked out) he could have shared his experience with more and built up more just as good as him.

The big issue with the push for advancement in my opinion is that (i believe all services) allow someone to advance simply because of rank or time served. In my opinion the USMC loses a lot of great infantry leaders because they promote/ or put in leadership roles guys who come from security forces simply because they have more time served or a higher rank. Experience should be the deciding factor. Book knowledge only takes you so far and those Marines that get passed up chose to be on the front lines, not a cop.

*No offense to SFs intended*

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 11:33 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:33:49 -0500

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.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 2:17 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 02:17:38 -0500

What you described is exactly what is wrong with the Army. You have young Soldiers and NCOs that think of the service as a job. They don't think of themselves as specialists or sergeants, they think of themselves as E-4s and E-5s. It's just a paycheck not a responsibility.

Developing leaders is Army doctrine. Like COL Jean (John) F. B. said, one needs to be prepared to take charge and lead other Soldiers regardless of MOS. If you are a great mechanic the Army wants you to teach others to be great mechanics. If that mechanic remains stagnant he/she is holding a position that prevents others from moving up that want to lead.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Feb 23 at 2015 3:43 AM

SGT Tyler G. — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 03:43:03 -0500

I believe getting rid of the Spec branch of the enlisted promotion tree did a disservice to the military. Not everybody is fit to be a leader, some being great soldiers that are excellent at their jobs and a boon to the Army, but just not with aptitude in leadership. We both lose valuable technical expertise and get poor leaders because we force leadership on those who aren't fit for it but are still valuable soldiers.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 6:57 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:57:48 -0500

The Air Force does the same thing and I'm personally very happy with it. If you would like to stay a technician there is a place for you but you won't like the pay check there. From E-5 on we expect Airmen to supervise others, grow their Airmen into better Airmen and look out for the well being of them.

So what you want is to stay an E-4 or below and basically have no responsibility other than yourself, of course that is fine, just don't expect to get paid more or promoted. On that note, why do we need someone with no drive to better themselves or those around them when others right behind you are willing to do more?

Response by SFC Francisco Roman made Feb 23 at 2015 7:42 AM

SFC Francisco Roman — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:42:20 -0500

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.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 8:28 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:28:49 -0500

The British military figured this out long ago. You can easily be a 20 year mechanic in the UK. The US military seems to think that all of us need to be trained for CJCS, when in fact 99.9% of us will never make it to that level.

Response by SPC David S. made Feb 23 at 2015 10:02 AM

SPC David S. — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:02:18 -0500

I think this has something to do with combat related attrition. Imagine a Infantry platoon engaged in a fire fight and they lose their platoon Sargent. If the sarge goes down then the next guy needs to fill those boots and do so rather quickly. The platoon really can't just wait around for someone to want to take the lead. This factor seems to be a big part of Ranger School where they want to assess an individual's leadership skills. You want your troops vying for that opening. I think this philosophy coming out of combat arms has been picked up by the other non-combatant branches. While it makes more sense in the combat arms environment than non-combat arms in terms of quick replacement and the need to lead, as everyone in the Army is a soldier first I think this doctrine is a necessity as really all need to be able to take the reins.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Feb 23 at 2015 10:13 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:13:26 -0500

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.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Feb 23 at 2015 10:14 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:14:43 -0500

If the person wants a job working for the Government, particularly in a support field as you describe, then he or she should leave the military and become a civil servant. Civil servants can work for many years, actually decades, at the same job never concerning themselves about promotion if they want. They get good pay and benefits, and guaranteed increases in pay for longevity. The Army and Air Force civilian employees I worked with were generally very good people who knew their jobs, did them well, had solid integrity, personal generosity, and sincerely cared about the military members and the country. There were exceptions, but they were a small percentage of the workforce. Good supervisors knew how to get rid of the folks who didn't our wouldn't do their job. (Yes, it is possible to fire a civil servant.) A good civilian or military supervisor will challenge good employees to grow in their career field, improve their skills and education, and encourage them to apply for positions in increased grade and responsibility. Ultimately it's up to the employees to pick up the challenge or not. If they don't, they can still count on the good pay, etc., mentioned above.

CSM Oldsen and others in this string addressed the need for leaders better than I can. It's the strongest case for up or out.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 12:17 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:19 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Adam Reed made Feb 23 at 2015 8:47 PM

SSG Adam Reed — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:47:20 -0500

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.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Feb 24 at 2015 2:39 AM

1SG David Lopez — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:39:01 -0500

If a person cannot promote within a specified time limit, than maybe they should get the boot (for possibly being stagnant lower achievers). But in my case, I had just PCS'd to an ROTC in California. I was select for E-9 promotion. I hadn't been in California for six months. They said I had to leave in a few months to attend the SGM Academy in Fort Bliss, TX. I had no problem with that. My problem was, I wanted to come back to California to finish out my (supposed) three year tour/cycle. The Army told me "No". You'll go to the SGM Academy and then be assigned somewhere else, but not California. But concern was, My kids barely knew our family in California. I wanted them to get to know their family. I just got there, my 7th duty station in 18 years. I felt my family deserved a little normal family roots bonding with family. Anyhow, I greatfully declined the promotion, in order to stay my three years in California. And to my surprise, the Army told me that I would have to Retire if I did not accept this promotion. I asked why, If I am not a sub-standard performer, then why are you forcing me out of the military. They claimed that those are the policy. I could not understand, I stated, let me get this straight, I am selected to get promoted ahead of my peers, but because it does not fit into my personal life at this time, you are going to make me ETS? They said Yes. I said, well, what if I do not have enough time to retire, then what? (I only had 18 years in at the time). They looked through the Regs, and had me sign something that said as soon as I have 20 years in, I would have to retire. I smartly said Roger That, I guess I have two years to find a job. That's my story, right or wrong. I loved the Army, every bit of it, I had a very good career, very fortunate. But I felt selfish towards my children. I was always deployed or in some school somewhere, not at home. I felt they needed me, before it was too late. I retired from the Army and started my second career at a young age of 38. I believe every thing happens for a reason, God was looking out for me. I am planning on retiring from my second career in about three years at the ripe old age of 53. I can only thank the Army for all the training and good friends. But I am still a little soar at being forced out for not accepting a promotion.