Posted on Jul 26, 2014
Should we Approach Employment in the Military Similar to Professional Sports Teams?
11K
85
68
8
8
0
Many folks have this notion that volunteering to join entitles them to a life-time job. This is the root cause of angst in the force related to force-shaping tools that terminate a service members employment - the expectation of life-time employment.
Would it be better, philosophically/psychologically, if we approached employment in the military similar to how it's done with professional sports teams - only the best play, only the best stay?
Getting to the "show" is an honor in and of itself. Only the best are on the team - talent/effort. Only the best stay - you can only have so many on the roster. And, the most controversial - if you get hurt and have a "career ending" injury, you don't get to play anymore.
Now, in order for this to even be viable, we would have to have robust educational, job transition and medical services to those transitioning out - they earned that, just maybe not a life-time job.
You never see the public/fans looking upon a former athlete with shame just because they got old, broke or slow - we still honor/respect them for their talents and accomplishments while they played.
Let me know what you think about this approach.........
Would it be better, philosophically/psychologically, if we approached employment in the military similar to how it's done with professional sports teams - only the best play, only the best stay?
Getting to the "show" is an honor in and of itself. Only the best are on the team - talent/effort. Only the best stay - you can only have so many on the roster. And, the most controversial - if you get hurt and have a "career ending" injury, you don't get to play anymore.
Now, in order for this to even be viable, we would have to have robust educational, job transition and medical services to those transitioning out - they earned that, just maybe not a life-time job.
You never see the public/fans looking upon a former athlete with shame just because they got old, broke or slow - we still honor/respect them for their talents and accomplishments while they played.
Let me know what you think about this approach.........
Posted in these groups: 
Human Resources
Human Resources
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
CSM - great discussion. I think your analogy extends past sports teams... and rather to pretty much every high performance organization in the world. Nobody goes to work at Apple for example expecting to work there forever just because they showed up on the first day successfully. Any high performance organization expects its members to perform, promotes its best, and lets go of those not meeting expectations.
One key difference between high performing organizations, and the military however, is that compensation and advancement goes up significantly with increased performance. A top rated athlete can make 50x more than a third string player in the same position. Similarly, a top performing private sector engineer can make 2-3x more than a mediocre one. High performance organizations tend to graciously reward high performance, and eliminate low performance. For a long time, the military has done little on both ends, which I believe is a key driver in the culture of our Armed Forces, for better or for worse (and I would say more for the worse).
Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric had the 20-70-10 Rule. The top 20% are super productive and drive progress with passion and leadership (the "A" players). The next 70% are not great, but adequate, and necessary to get the job done (the "B" players). The last 10% are under-performers, and net drains on the system (the "C" players). Jack Welch is famous for insisting that 10% of GE be let go each year, as a continuous process of removing C players from the organization. Some refer to this as the Vitality Curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve#Rank-based_employment_evaluation
One key difference between high performing organizations, and the military however, is that compensation and advancement goes up significantly with increased performance. A top rated athlete can make 50x more than a third string player in the same position. Similarly, a top performing private sector engineer can make 2-3x more than a mediocre one. High performance organizations tend to graciously reward high performance, and eliminate low performance. For a long time, the military has done little on both ends, which I believe is a key driver in the culture of our Armed Forces, for better or for worse (and I would say more for the worse).
Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric had the 20-70-10 Rule. The top 20% are super productive and drive progress with passion and leadership (the "A" players). The next 70% are not great, but adequate, and necessary to get the job done (the "B" players). The last 10% are under-performers, and net drains on the system (the "C" players). Jack Welch is famous for insisting that 10% of GE be let go each year, as a continuous process of removing C players from the organization. Some refer to this as the Vitality Curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve#Rank-based_employment_evaluation
Vitality curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A vitality curve is a leadership construct whereby a workforce is graded in accordance with the individual productivity of its members. It is also known as forced ranking, forced distribution, rank and yank, quota-based differentiation, and stack ranking.
(10)
(0)
1LT Shawn McCarthy
Think about this:
We have salaried leadership and support staff. How do you group them with regards to the percentage quotas?
You can't have a superior and subordinate in the same group.
Do you lump support staff and leadership together?
What about jobs that are easier to perform, perhaps compensated less...do you want to let those guys with the easier jobs own the top percentages even though they may not bring more value to the company?
And on what criteria do you rank a leader? The performance of his team? What if he was assigned a more difficult team because he is a better leader? What if there are factors he can't control that hampered performance? What if he gets the key metrics by gaming the system or running a slave ship where all hims employees are miserable?
Performance evaluations are too subjective and someone's evaluation doesn't necessarily equate to their overall value to the company.
And what if the bottom 10% aren't "low performers?" Depending on the size and makeup of the group, seeing the a guy in the bottom who meets his objectives and does a good job isn't uncommon.
Like I said, too many flaws and many corporate climates are staying away from it. Hopefully mine will too, someday.
We have salaried leadership and support staff. How do you group them with regards to the percentage quotas?
You can't have a superior and subordinate in the same group.
Do you lump support staff and leadership together?
What about jobs that are easier to perform, perhaps compensated less...do you want to let those guys with the easier jobs own the top percentages even though they may not bring more value to the company?
And on what criteria do you rank a leader? The performance of his team? What if he was assigned a more difficult team because he is a better leader? What if there are factors he can't control that hampered performance? What if he gets the key metrics by gaming the system or running a slave ship where all hims employees are miserable?
Performance evaluations are too subjective and someone's evaluation doesn't necessarily equate to their overall value to the company.
And what if the bottom 10% aren't "low performers?" Depending on the size and makeup of the group, seeing the a guy in the bottom who meets his objectives and does a good job isn't uncommon.
Like I said, too many flaws and many corporate climates are staying away from it. Hopefully mine will too, someday.
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
1LT Shawn McCarthy Facts have numbers, figures, and data, or at least physical evidence. You are stating an opinion, which you are entitled to, but you should realize that you can put a lot of people off with such statements, which makes people take what you say less seriously. If your goal is to influence the opinions of others, I don't think you are doing so in an optimal way. If your goal is to express your opinion as a universal truth, then you are successful in the latter. I don't think there is much room for learning however in that setting, so I will exit the conversation.
I will just add however, that if a private sector organization has no way to measure which employee is doing well or which employee is not doing well, and which employees are great and which employees are terrible, I find it hard to imagine that organization lasting for very long.
I will just add however, that if a private sector organization has no way to measure which employee is doing well or which employee is not doing well, and which employees are great and which employees are terrible, I find it hard to imagine that organization lasting for very long.
(1)
(0)
1LT Shawn McCarthy
Sir, I welcome this discussion. I have debated the Welch model before.
I was stating a fact, albeit a non-scientific one and I added the caveat that I knew it wasn't a universal truth.
The fact is, Microsoft and other big companies have moved away from the model.
You cannot attach the success of a company to their use of the Welch model as a causation in most situations...
And, while around 60% of Fortune 500 companies use SOME sort of ranking systems, most shy away from the use of forced quotas, which was the basis of the Welch model and something he defended.
My opinion is that the model, when implemented, is toxic.
The fact is, many, many others feel the same way and my opinion is becoming more prevalent in the private sector than support of the Welch model.
I was stating a fact, albeit a non-scientific one and I added the caveat that I knew it wasn't a universal truth.
The fact is, Microsoft and other big companies have moved away from the model.
You cannot attach the success of a company to their use of the Welch model as a causation in most situations...
And, while around 60% of Fortune 500 companies use SOME sort of ranking systems, most shy away from the use of forced quotas, which was the basis of the Welch model and something he defended.
My opinion is that the model, when implemented, is toxic.
The fact is, many, many others feel the same way and my opinion is becoming more prevalent in the private sector than support of the Welch model.
(0)
(0)
1LT Shawn McCarthy
Also sir, I would be genuinely curious to hear your responses to my theoretical questions. How would YOU structure it?
And when I first joined the private sector I was taken aback by the lack of a solid ranking system. Trouble is, I can't design a good one either.
Rating salaried professionals is difficult and relies on subjectivity, which requires exposure to the person rating you. Truth is, 80% of the things I do are for people OTHER than the person rating me. How is she to know what I have done?
Sure, she can conduct a mini-investigation and talk to everyone I may have interfaced with, but she has a number of other subordinates and a limited time.
It is an imperfect world, and I have yet to be able to come up with a perfect solution for it.
But I seriously welcome debate on the details.
And when I first joined the private sector I was taken aback by the lack of a solid ranking system. Trouble is, I can't design a good one either.
Rating salaried professionals is difficult and relies on subjectivity, which requires exposure to the person rating you. Truth is, 80% of the things I do are for people OTHER than the person rating me. How is she to know what I have done?
Sure, she can conduct a mini-investigation and talk to everyone I may have interfaced with, but she has a number of other subordinates and a limited time.
It is an imperfect world, and I have yet to be able to come up with a perfect solution for it.
But I seriously welcome debate on the details.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
The reason why this model works for a few elite professional sports is not just because of the money and the fame. It is because it is an activity that people feel emotionally drawn to do and that non-performers aspire to. We have this. What prevents us from having the status of the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc is the belief that we will take all comers. When I first told people that I was joining the Army, almost everyone told me I was "too smart" for that. Even the Army career counselor at MEPS opened my folder, looked at it for three seconds, shoved it at me and said, "go talk to the Air Force."
Why are people enamored with Special Forces, the SEALs, even the Marines in general? It's because people know that these programs are highly selective. We should be much more public about how many people do not make the cut at MEPS. Then we should point out how many do not make it through BCT/boot camp/etc. Trust me...it will drive the number of applicants UP. Look at DoS: on average, 20,000 people take the Foreign Service Officer exam and less than 600 get in. People pay to take prep classes just to have a chance. When I took over the MBA Bosnia project, tuition was free and they had 4 applicants. I set tuition at 23,000 Euro (at that time about $28,000) and we had more applicants than we had seats.
Bottom line: you will only get the best by being the best. Being the best starts at the recruiting posture. NOW is the time to pull up the drawbridge. You will get criminals if you accept criminals and let judges remand criminals to military service. If you let people in on ASVAB waivers, you won't get many valedictorians. We do have a very special organization that people already idolize and want to be a part of to some degree; let's give folks a team to cheer for and the rest will take care of itself.
Why are people enamored with Special Forces, the SEALs, even the Marines in general? It's because people know that these programs are highly selective. We should be much more public about how many people do not make the cut at MEPS. Then we should point out how many do not make it through BCT/boot camp/etc. Trust me...it will drive the number of applicants UP. Look at DoS: on average, 20,000 people take the Foreign Service Officer exam and less than 600 get in. People pay to take prep classes just to have a chance. When I took over the MBA Bosnia project, tuition was free and they had 4 applicants. I set tuition at 23,000 Euro (at that time about $28,000) and we had more applicants than we had seats.
Bottom line: you will only get the best by being the best. Being the best starts at the recruiting posture. NOW is the time to pull up the drawbridge. You will get criminals if you accept criminals and let judges remand criminals to military service. If you let people in on ASVAB waivers, you won't get many valedictorians. We do have a very special organization that people already idolize and want to be a part of to some degree; let's give folks a team to cheer for and the rest will take care of itself.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google