Do you think the "good ol boy" network is alive and deeply rooted in today's Army?

LTC David B. — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:50:25 -0400

UPDATE: Sorry everyone! For some reason, MANY comments in this thread were lost, or stripped of a LOT of comments.......and I have NO idea why. Thank you for those who contributed; I remember a lot of the input just not sure who did the contributing. Again, I'm sorry.......but thank you!
.
.
In order to improve tomorrow's Army we have to identify today's problems. Positions that make or break a career are filled with (qualified) friends.....not necessarily the best person for the job. Doing the hard right may get you excluded because it's rare and often seen as nonconformist. Leaders want someone in those positions that support their agenda......easily manipulated......often not the BEST qualified. Also, let the spouse have "1 strike against them" and the service member is ostracized......no matter how good they are. A spouse with a career or not involved, or having no spouse at all WILL hurt future selection for key positions. <div><br></div><div>True or False? </div><div><br></div><div>If true, CAN it be fixed? </div><div>If false, does the perception exist?</div>

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 14 at 2014 10:53 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:53:40 -0400

I think, if you felt the need to ask, the answer is self evident...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2014 11:16 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:16:03 -0400

I think some would want us to believe these cliques are pervasive. I just wish that social tinkering would stop.

Response by SFC James Baber made Mar 14 at 2014 11:20 PM

SFC James Baber — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:20:04 -0400

Sir,

We actually addressed this topic a few months back, and the over whelming majority of answers were pretty much that it is still alive and kicking in many areas of DOD, primarily at the senior level of the Pentagon and DA, so to your original question, yes it is and until we make the cuts and adjustments at the right levels of leadership and where the true over inflated costs are to some of the military over spending it will stay that way.

We have stars that are currently serving that had their pensions multiplied to above their active duty pay just for them to stay in, and they are the same ones that didn't fight for the SMs when Congress voted to reduce pensions via the COLA cuts because it wouldn't effect any of them. The same with the Congress, we need to trim the fat at the top before any cost cutting of benefits or equipment needs to take place. Point blank, get rid of the "good old boys" at the top of the heap and then we can progress forward for the betterment of all.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2014 2:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:22:37 -0400

It is alive and living large, in the military or the civilian sectors and government or private sectors. You know those special assignments and hard to get jobs? You would have almost no chance getting them unless you know somebody. Even on a lower level, you wouldn't get a position in the battalion or above unless somebody "recommends" you. Another example, people rotate around different part/position in Korea to keep getting those cushy jobs. Back when Germany had a lot of slots, people would rotate on and off Germany for the same thing. Even officially, a position is FIRST available to the people in house. When they can't find any qualified people in house, they would resort to posting the position to the public. Recently, I learn another shady practice around the "fair" opportunity in the Army. A position was available to the military and they announced to interview potential candidates. It was all a dog and pony show because they already had somebody in mind to take that position. They just wanted to make it look "equal opportunity". It doesn't matter how qualified the other candidates were. The person they wanted in that position would get it.

Response by LTC David B. made Aug 3 at 2014 12:34 PM

LTC David B. — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 12:34:52 -0400

Sorry everyone! For some reason, MANY comments in this thread were lost, or stripped of a LOT of comments.......and I have NO idea why. Thank you for those who contributed; I remember a lot of the input just not sure who did the contributing. Again, I'm sorry.......but thank you!

Response by CPT Mike Sims made Aug 4 at 2014 2:21 PM

CPT Mike Sims — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:21:41 -0400

The good ole boy network was certainly alive when I was in... if you worn a certain ring, were part of a certain fraternity, or ethnic group or golf club - then you were certainly the recipient of great benefits being included in the network. So, I definitely agree with LTC Bell's view - a lot of "leaders" tend to place people in key positions and subordinate command / staff positions who will support their agenda and who will not challenge them, and in doing so - this isn't Leadership... it's Dictatorship.

The Army has been plagued by this problem for a long time - which tends to force out a lot of exceptionally bright Soldiers (Officers, WOs and NCOs), who are excellent leaders but they choose to take their talents and skills elsewhere rather than be forced to play a game that goes against their morals and ethics.

There are a few great leaders who manage to fight through the bureaucracy and politics - while also challenging dictators - and sometimes they prevail and go on to lead troops in a positive way, and make a huge impact for the Army where their influence is felt in many circles inside and outside the command.

I also agree with the comment about spouses in the military - particularly for senior NCOs and officers who are Captains and above. Have a spouse not looked upon favorably by command - and you will likely not be in the network. Don't have a spouse and you will likely not be considered for senior command positions because the Army feels that senior leaders without a spouse or family will not be able to relate to Soldiers within their command who have families. I have seen some leaders with families act horribly and care less about Soldiers needing time with the families - and I have witnessed leaders who were single that made it a point to ensure troops had time with their families.

The Army is about to enter into a cultural change where Generation X and Millenials will out number the Baby Boomers in the military - which means they will have more influence and persuasion as time goes on. In time, they will begin to occupy more senior levels positions. These generations tend to operate with more common sense and have little tolerance for a "good ole boy network". They tend to challenge conventional wisdom - and are quick to adopt new solutions as opposed to just doing things the way we have always done them. There are a few in the Baby Boomer generation who led this charge to ensure that those who were most deserving were the ones who succeeded in leading and being rewarded for their efforts - now they will have two more generations getting ready to back them and hopefully force out the bigots that have plagued our military for way too long!

As always, I appreciate LTC Bell in his ability to generate these kind of discussions. These kind of topics are often one's that we do not want to acknowledge - but they do exist, and as leaders or Veterans it is up to us to achieve solutions to help transform our military in an effort to continuously make it better for each generation.

Response by SSG Kenneth Ponder made Aug 16 at 2019 12:31 PM

SSG Kenneth Ponder — Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:31:18 -0400

That don't never change, never will.