Are we promoting too fast? Let me hear your feedback?

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:21:50 -0500

Back in 1984 it was not uncommon to see a SSG that had close to 15 years or more in. It took me three years to make E-3. However I knew my regulations, and I had the time to develop.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Dec 10 at 2014 1:35 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:35:36 -0500

I think there are some people being promoted too fast, but some people being promoted WAY too slow. The military should move away from promotion being based on time, and focus more on when a person is actually ready for more responsibility.

Let the most qualified people rise to the top... and we should stop using time in service as a primary measuring tool for how well prepared somebody is to move forward.

Of course, I realize this is unlikely to happen in the today's military, but that's my 2 cents.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 10 at 2014 2:27 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:27:28 -0500

Are we promoting too fast? The short answer is "it depends". Some thoughts and facts.
- Current US Army promotion system is based upon year group (for officers at least). Opportunities are leveraged or missed based upon a standard timeline that remains mostly unchanged despite changing "pin on points" such as 30 months to CPT vs 48 months to CPT.
- Deviations from the year group model are via below the zone, double below the zone, in the zone, and above the zone promotions. BZ and AZ promotions are a small percentage, however, of the overall annual promotions.
- The overall number of promotions is based upon basic supply and demand signals. Simply stated, high supply and low demand means low promotion rates whereas low supply and high demand means high promotion rates.
- Some leaders are able to progress and mature at faster or slower rates than others. This is generally reflected in their OERs and thus in a board's promotion decisions.
- If anyone thinks this system is bad or can be improved then I would encourage you to look at historical examples and other service or nation models and make specific recommendations on what to change. Otherwise what we have is not perfect but it is better than any other system at this time.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2014 2:52 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:52:40 -0500

Honestly? No. I don't think that we are promoting too quickly. However, I don't think that it would be too detrimental were we to slow down promotions.

I joined during a time of great need. Almost immediately after I commissioned, the Chief of the Army Reserve changed the promotion timetable from 24 months to 1LT down to 18 months. From there, one only had to be a 1LT for 24 months before he/she could be promoted to CPT. So, I was a Lieutenant, 2nd and 1st, for 42 months. That less LT time than my LTC (RET) father-in-law had as an active-duty guy in the early '80s! The average reserve officer commissioned prior to 2006 spent 6 years as an LT. I spent 3.5. However, my last three OERs have been ACOMs with enumeration which says to me that I'm doing something well, and that, as of yet, I have shown no signs that I was promoted too early.

With the above having been said, I absolutely could have benefited from more LT time. I only had two positions as an LT. I could have had at least two more. Perhaps some low-leverage staff time to "show me the ropes" before I became a staff actual. Perhaps an AS3 or AS4. These would have been valuable experiences that I missed out on.

There are those who prove otherwise. There are those who were promoted far too quickly, and vice-versa. This is the problem with our human resources model; it's industrial, and it views personnel as cogs in the HR machine. However, I am not an HR expert (I'm talking real HR, not CGO AG-level knowledge), so I will leave that to those who have studied this in depth and can offer real suggestions.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Dec 10 at 2014 4:25 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:25:49 -0500

Age, itself, isn't necessarily the concern. It's the years of experience someone might have. I think experience at various levels is needed. There's valuable insight and knowledge to be gained. Develop and learn all you can at the junior levels. At higher levels, you make decisions that have significant impact on subordinates professional and personal lives. Without that experience, you won't know what you're doing.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Dec 10 at 2014 5:28 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:28:20 -0500

I was recently in a senior leader discussion group and this topic came up, I'd like to share an analogy from that session.....let me know if it makes sense

Today's Service Members are similar microwave leaders, while the leaders of yesterday are more of a crockpot leader.

The "microwave leaders" expect promotions based on time in service/time in grade - the senior leaders/leaders of yesterday were expected to stew and had, adding a blended type of leadership, stew longer and then promoted...the longer periods between promotions was an accepted part of serving, it was just the way it was.

Can you relate to this analogy?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2014 5:52 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:52:23 -0500

One of the challenges with perpetual conflict is that it tends to cull the talent from the service.

We have promoted people rapidly during the GWOT, but I think that is more a function of being so understrength that we had no other options.

I am convinced that our current officer promotion system has not evolved with current human resources theory and practice.

Dates of rank are important because they establish seniority, yet a promotion system based on time in grade and time in service is not an adequate system.

I believe that our promotion system should reflect meeting specific experiential and educational gateways.

For example, prior to competing for promotion to major, there should be certain duty positions and mandatory schooling that must be complete to be considered. That puts the onus on the individual to prepare him or herself according to their specific timeline.

Response by CW5 Kenneth Foster made Dec 11 at 2014 11:28 AM

CW5 Kenneth Foster — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:28:07 -0500

I would emphatically state yes especially in the technical MOS's. The Soldiers that enlisted during the combat mission either didn't work their job or because of the Army transforming from force 21 Army to the light modular unit. There are now positions that NCO's will never get the requisite experience to be an effective leader or to achieve Warrant Officer candidate experience. Any NCO desiring to be a Warrant Officer has to demand different job assignments to get the requisite experience. Otherwise if lucky they will still be behind in technical proficiency let alone have he leadership skills required as a Warrant Officer. It is no longer an Army where you must be technically proficient as a Warrant Officer. You must have the leader skills to go toe to toe and nose to nose with any commissioned officer and state that IAW requisite regulations I advise you to do or not do something. We are missing this requirement in our toolkit for NCO's. They get fast tracked and never learn how to lead and recognize which style of leadership is required for any situation. Instead we either win over the NCO's, enlisted, and commissioned or we bull our way through our careers and those Officers/NCO's that we bullied and or be-little can become our next senior rater and that will be pay back time.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 3:05 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:05:25 -0500

It's hard for me to say, "Yes," as I'm one of those you're talking about. I made it from E-1 to E-5 in aprox. 3 years. I was 25 when I enlisted, and had a bit of life experience behind me, which has certainly helped in my career progression. I think it has less to do with time and more to do with quality of soldier. There are some soldiers who aren't going to be ready to be an NCO if they stayed in for 15 years! The Army used to recognize this with the specialist ranks. You got more pay as a reward for staying in, but you didn't become an NCO. I wasn't even born yet when they dropped this system, so I have no idea how it actually worked out in real life.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 4:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:10:24 -0500

I think it is a mix of Soldiers being promoted too fast and also NCO's/Officers not maximizing their opportunities in the duty positions and organizations they are assigned in. There are times where you just don't receive the OPD, training, and development that you should as a Soldier and this is the fault of senior leaders both NCO's and Officers.

I'm for fast tracking Soldiers that show they can handle the rank and responsibility in a mature manner.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 4:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:36 -0500

I think this discussion goes hand in hand with the idea that we are bringing in folks at higher starting grades based on civilian education. CPT Heather Davis, you mentioned the time it took to achieve E-3. How do you feel about your military knowledge compared to a soldier coming out of AIT at E-4 and possibly becoming E-5 in a few months?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 4:55 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:55:46 -0500

@CH Heather Davis I recently went to a professional NCOES school (ALC) and many of the young Sergeants and Staff Sergeants were under 25, (almost 20 years my junior)....but I will say their uniform looks like they had been in 25 years; triple row ribbons, multiple schools, 3-4 badges, and some with three combat deployments -- more than myself.

So, I think many of the promotions are well deserved, I think they need to look at the maturity of the NCO, not just the experience and education. My .02. You are right though, it took about 12 years to make E6...in my earlier USMC career. Anything sooner and your destined for SgtMaj

Response by CPL Edgar Rodriguez made Dec 11 at 2014 7:18 PM

CPL Edgar Rodriguez — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:18:21 -0500

I agree that we should master each rank and get the most of each step, however on an Army with multiple years of deploying soldiers you run in to the issues of senior leader retiring or ETSing so some of the ranks will have to fill to continue the mission. Now that we drawing down, we should go back to the more developmental and actually having classroom training instead of all these online click and print training.

Response by SSG Leonard J W. made Dec 11 at 2014 7:28 PM

SSG Leonard J W. — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:28:21 -0500

Wow, CH (CPT) Heather Davis, this is a really good discussion, ma'am. It's also pretty interesting to hear a promotional perspective from a chaplain.

There have been a lot of good answers on here. Here is my two cents from the enlisted side:
There are a lot of good Soldiers and NCOs that have lots of promotion potential, but there are not enough slots (based upon MTOE) to adequately reward their performance or potential. As a result, they are being promoted too SLOWLY. My MOS would be a prime example. Many of my peers (and I) are performing in SFC (skill level 40) positions, but we are already overstrength for SSG and SFC. Chances of promotion at this rate are as high as the 10 year old carpet in a local store. This is one reason why I agree with LTC Yinon Weiss's post.

However, there are a lot of others that have obviously been promoted too fast. The ERS is a fairly effective method of determining who to promote versus who to retain in grade, but the system seems flawed at times. Everyone has met those personnel who look fantastic on paper - but they are hardly worth a mention once you've met them.

So, to agree with COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM's statement of "It depends..." would probably be the safest decision. It depends upon the person and those who rated them. It depends upon whether the person is capable of successfully performing the duties required. It depends upon whether the person sees the promotion as an increase in pay and privileges or as an increase in responsibility and empowerment to assist their subordinates. I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2014 11:23 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:23:10 -0500

It is possible that many are being promoted to fast. However, I will not complain about it if they rightly deserve the promotions. Some of the promotions have to do with being at the right place at the right time with the right opportunities and experiences under the belt of the individual, coupled with assertiveness. I sometimes wonder if the notion of getting promoted too fast might be an outgrowth of society of entitlement. No one is entitled to a promotion as far as I'm concerned. It must be earned.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 8:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:19:34 -0500

I don't think we are promoting too fast at all. If the Individual knows their job and performs above standard and can perform it at the next level then why not promote them? I personally recommend my Soldiers and NCO's for promotion as soon as they hit the time in service/grade requirement if they demonstrate through performance and their potential in the next rank is there.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2015 2:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 02:13:35 -0500

Party of my issue is that for a while, I did not have anyone in the SSG pain that I felt could actually mentor me into getting ready for the next grade. I had tons of E6's, but not many that actually knew the job and that bothered me. I was moved to work under a SFC and he has mentored me more on the next rank than any SSG did. I still am not promotable, but that it's due to me attempting to reclass. Some of the SGTs in my old PLT under those E6's have been told that they are not going to the board, not because they aren't ready for the rank, but because the SSG doesn't want to be passed up by them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 1:59 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:59:06 -0500

CH (CPT) Heather Davis Traditionally, the junior enlisted is all fresh out of high school. In recent years, a significant number of junior enlisted has a bachelor degree and more mature due to age. Moreover, some of them may have experience from other branches as well.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 8:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:53:43 -0500

PVT to SPC/E-4 no I think we are right on track for the promoting. SGT/E-5.... Yes I do, I will be honest I was promoted to fast and paid the price the first year I was a NCO, I was lucky to have had one of the best NCOs I have met as my Squad Leader who quickly gave me a hand. However many NCOs are not as lucky as I was and are left flapping to fail.

I will hit on the great point LTC Yinon Weiss hit on and some folks are promoted way to slow. I have been a Sergeant in a promotable for 5 years and have served in Staff Sergeant and Sergeant First Class billets consistently but I am the guy facing RCP.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Feb 22 at 2015 9:04 PM

CMC Robert Young — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:04:32 -0500

YES!! When I entered service, CPOs (E7) were 15 plus year guys who had learned the ropes, developed leadership skills, and upheld the traditions of our hallowed service.

Fast forward 20 years, and I'm sitting in the Chief Petty Officers' Academy with a guy who has six years service. Boot Camp to E7 (a position teeming with responsibility, heritage and in the USCG, authority & discretion unlike the other branches). There was no way this guy was ready for the job, and it showed.

The problem is that he wasn't an isolated case. Until recently, members routinely reached the middle (E5-6) and even senior (E7-9) enlisted positions eight to maybe 14 years. It is impossible to learn what is required to be an effective leader and keeper of the service's faith in that time frame. I've seen plenty of people who were technically proficient and had awesome job related skills, but they rarely if ever espoused the heritage and tradition which makes us unique. Being in the military isn't like corporate America. It's something far more special, and something that requires far time, effort, energy and commitment from its members.

There is not anyway for people to become fully inculcated into what it means to be a member of our armed services and to uphold the traditions which make us special in such short times as are typical now. We need to slow down the progression and require more of those to whom we expect to leave our respective organizations.

Response by SSG Adam Reed made Feb 22 at 2015 9:20 PM

SSG Adam Reed — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:20:36 -0500

I don't see a problem with fast promotions if they are well deserved. Some are born leaders, while others are born followers. Promote those who have shown their leadership potential and not those who pretend to be leaders.

Response by Sgt Joshua Anderson made Feb 22 at 2015 9:35 PM

Sgt Joshua Anderson — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:35:20 -0500

I've seen a Marine in my MOS get promoted to Corporal (E4) within SIX MONTHS of hitting the fleet. Whereas I've also seen others have to wait for three or more years to reach the same grade in similar MOS's. I think the whole promotion system needs an overhaul. I believe that more consideration needs to be taken as to whether or not that SM has had the time to grow in his or her current grade. Also take into consideration their time out of the schoolhouse and in the proper fleet. Have they really had the time to figure out the 'flow' of operations and what goes on in the daily grind? If not, maybe more time where they are needs to be had. Maybe I'm not wording it the best but I believe overall the whole system needs to change.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 9:49 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:49:57 -0500

I think this is a genuine concern as well. I remember in 2008 meeting a MSG who was 31 years old. He had 13 years TIS and a slick right sleeve. That is too quick in my opinion. When I deployed 2 out of 3 of our PSGs had less than 10 years TIS. That is a far cry from the 20 year veterans young enlisted Soldiers and Lieutenants are brought up to expect. While they performed their duties admirably, one of the things we as a force depend on is the experience NCOs gather over time. Competence can compensate for this to a degree, but it does not replace it.

The Officer side is guilty of this as well. Up until relatively recently we were promoting junior officers to CPT within 3 years. If you include BOLC, ASI schools like Ranger and Airborne, PCS moves, etc some of these CPTs likely had less than 2 years in the operational force. While this may fill spots and maintain career progression, it is not a model for success.

We need competent, mature leaders in both the enlisted and officer ranks. I agree completely that the current system does not foster this. Increasing TIS and TIG requirements for each rank would be a good first step, followed by increasing the quality and quantity of PME for each rank. Replacing "check the block" distance learning with resident courses would also be a good step in the right direction.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 11:27 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:27:00 -0500

The promotion system is definitely flawed! Some should not be promoted as fast as they are and others deserve promotions, but are held back due to TIS/TIG requirements. This topic is also usually directed towards the enlistment ranks, so I've always had a negative feeling of people that justify an officer being promoted to pay grades 0-4/O-5 from 10-20 years and saying it should take much longer for enlisted to reach E-6/E-7. If leaders would do what they're supposed to, the right personnel would be promoted and not have to compete with the ones that shouldn't.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 1:10 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:10:07 -0500

I don't necessarily think we're promoting too fast, but I do think we are promoting without enough evaluation of the SM potentially being promoted.

I've got almost 10 years in. I'm just now getting to the point in my military career where I believe I am prepared and capable of doing what the next rank would require of me - physically, mentally, and emotionally. It's taken me 27 years of life and almost a decade of service to get to this point.

Does that mean everyone should wait as long as I have? Absolutely not. But we've all seen leaders, at all levels, that were clearly promoted faster than was appropriate, because they knew the right people, or could reliably parrot near-useless board answers, or because they had a great PT score. Leaders that are unreasonably egotistical, quick to anger, unreasonable in their thoughts and actions, and so inflexible as to be a detriment to the mission. Leaders that are racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some other manner.

We've all seen leaders that are terrible at what they do, and many of them likely could have benefited from more mentoring and personal growth before they were put in positions of power and authority.

I think that changes involving evaluations by subordinates, in some capacity, and by peers - rather than simply by superiors - would help weed out these bad leaders, but I don't think it's the right answer.

The promotion system itself needs a massive overhaul, at least in the Army - I can't speak for the other services. I feel that one of the biggest changes that needs to be made is significantly more observation and evaluation of soldiers prior to their recommendation for promotion - but this also in the end boils down to poor leadership, as leaders at all levels should *already* not be pushing forward their subordinates for promotion, until they genuinely believe they are capable of performing at the next level.

With all that said, what would this overhaul would be, or how would it be implemented, specifically? I have no idea, so I feel that my room to criticize what is currently in place is limited. I can acknowledge that changes need to be made, but I don't know what those changes are. More than likely it's a system that, like so many others in the military and in life, will never be perfect, but that are maintained by us constantly pushing to improve it.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 24 at 2015 10:27 AM

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:27:35 -0500

I would venture that soldiers are not necessarily being promoted too fast but I would say that in the Army at least there is little support and education of leaders as they move up. In my experience leaders were learning on the fly instead of having structure to their development and the structured development (PLDC/WLC) was pretty much a waste of time as at least 75% of the material was prior knowledge for me. I understand there have been improvements for leaders as far as education but I still think there is something lacking.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 10:44 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:44:06 -0500

Some guys are not ready for promotion. They lack job experience, leadership/mentorship abilities, out of regulations via AR 600-9 (yet some how a go?) and other desperately needed qualities.

Others are passed up or do not have a slot to move into in there unit. Guard is very guilty of this do to the face you have 20 year SGTs and SSGs that cant move up because someone is in there way.

I moved very quickly however I was a barracks rat reading FMs/TMs and then applied to every school possible to improve myself as a lower enlisted.