Posted on Apr 11, 2014
Move Up or Move Out is in Effect....What are your thoughts?
22.1K
37
31
3
3
0
NCO's (SSG and above) who fail to qualify themselves for promotion consideration to the next higher grade will be subject to QMP. Reference Army Directive 2014-06, approved by SECArmy 10 April 2014.
NCOs
SSG
Promotions
QMP
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
7
7
0
I have mixed feelings.
What is needed is to remove NONPERFORMERS. For whatever reasons (I have my opinions, but would spend way too much of my Saturday typing...), we don't like to focus on the non-performers and have chosen to use promotion competitiveness as a substitute measure. It's better than nothing, I guess.
One benefit is that it does clear out people who are "camping" in a rank/position and blocking advancement opportunities in the next wave.
In my perfect world, we would have a system that would accept that some people want to just do their current jobs, are happy at it, and add value right were they are. Not everybody needs to be ambitious to be good. This is why I support the return of the Specialist ranks. How we would pull that off in our current organization is a much bigger question...
(7)
(0)
SGM Matthew Quick
This is what the QSP is for...more specifically the Promotion Stagnation-Qualitative Service Program (PS-QSP).
The PS-QSP will look at individuals in the same ranks but who are in a particular MOS that is not currently promoting at a certain rank, thus creating a stagnant promotion environment within those MOSs.
The PS-QSP will look at individuals in the same ranks but who are in a particular MOS that is not currently promoting at a certain rank, thus creating a stagnant promotion environment within those MOSs.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Good point made sir. I am somewhat on the fence and it's because of the correlation between the non-performers and the performers just caught in a "bad timing".
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
An expanded tool the Army can use to eliminate under-performers.
This Directive also eliminates the 19-year total active federal service applicability.
This Directive also eliminates the 19-year total active federal service applicability.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGM Quick; from a more senior leader standpoint, what do you think about this change? Good, bad, fair?
(0)
(0)
SGM Matthew Quick
During a period of required downsizing, an expanded QMP is a good thing...it holds accountable those leaders that made mistakes in the past few years...mistakes that they could have separated junior Soldiers for.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
True "leadership development" looks at, not only High Potential (those promotable two to four grades beyond where they are currently), but also looks at High Performers (those that are outstanding in their technical field). That should be 20% of your organization. I believe there should be a place in the military for High Performers, where they can self-identify and stay where they are until they retire. They are an asset and should be rewarded for being great at troubleshooting, training, targeting, intel gathering, flying, fighting, winning, or whatever skill set we need. The "peter principle" is exactly what happens when we have an "up or out" policy. We end up promoting the best person in the shop, and they are simply not cut out to manage, don't have the aptitude or desire to deal with the administration or politics, or whatever the case may be. I am a BIG THUMBS DOWN for the "up or out" policy...but there needs to be framework around a conscious decision to let military leadership know that you acknowledge that you have found your niche. The military needs to continue to develop leaders that 'lead by example' and 'strive to be the very best they can be'. When someone wants to slow down and say they found their place, then they need to have a great attitude, be outstanding technically, and be able to continue to lead, motivate, and inspire those junior to them, and everyone they come in contact with...so that both the military and the member get what they need in the contract.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir,
I do think this is a problem with our current promotion system. They say that 49% of the officers in a unit are the top block material. After shifting between infantry, SF, Support and Signal units I have found that some units are almost all top performers and there are some that have very few top performers. I understand at higher levels everyone has to work with generalities and not case by case methods but it is true there are better units than others.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
This sounds more like a problem with the appraisal system? Make no mistake, I believe that if you are not truly a superior performer, you should be out if you are holding people up. That is just good force management practice.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
....and I'm sure it wouldn't surprise anyone that most of the people that are for an "up or out" culture are junior-mid tier and trying to move up. Where the more senior a guy gets, the more conservative his leanings are on the decisions like this. I think you you the hit the nail on the head when you said "at higher levels everyone has to work with generalities and not case by case methods."
Do I sound conservative??? Haha.. I need eight more years for 20 TAFMS...but I "work" for a living...and will, right up until my retirement date! None of the ROAD stuff for this guy...
Do I sound conservative??? Haha.. I need eight more years for 20 TAFMS...but I "work" for a living...and will, right up until my retirement date! None of the ROAD stuff for this guy...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google