Does the cliff retirement system create mediocrity?

2016-03-26T09:14:07-04:00

Just my observation, but the cliff retirement system seems to create mediocrity. It has created three distinct groups of NCOs and officers.

1. Exceptional to average performers that will serve until they are ready to leave the service. (Consider this you so you are not offended.)

2. A broad grouping from marginal to excellent performers that will leave the service once retirement eligible. (They are in too deep to get out or it just makes sense for them.)

3. A grouping that is scared to separate so they continue to serve for as long as possible or well qualified personnel that have external factors and they continue to serve as well.

Who falls into what grouping and at what percentage is not for me to decide, but I have definitely met people that fall into each.

That second grouping is dangerous, even if it has been around for a very long time. The cliff retirement is a great benefit, but it is also financial coercion. Once your heart is no longer in it, it creates self serving, lazy, mediocre yes-man. That are more concerned with pushing through, than improving things and serving others. They could also be excellent, but they don't want to be there. The third grouping is also dangerous to a degree, because it clogs up your senior ranks until they filter out.

You are going to have a mixture of competency in any organization, but that second grouping to me is disturbing. I believe it has a heavy cost, but we are so use seeing it. Examples are personnel that check out well in advance of their retirement and SFC's and field grade officers that just go through the motions.

Just my observation. I believe the solution is to continue to blend the retirement system with 401k options to reduce the coercion behind a cliff system. What are your thoughts? Have their been any studies on cliff retirement systems and their impact on production?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 26 at 2016 12:14 PM

2016-03-26T12:14:04-04:00

Your observations are as honest and valid as I may have written myself. Nothing to add to those points.

As you view the current program as less good. What are your suggestions to change the retirement system that will continue to support group 1, entice group 2 to perform to the best of their abilities all the way to the end, and encourage or dictate group 3 separate now.

BTW,I was in group 1... and Im not concerned about saying that... I was building a rapid deployment divisional level TOC/ HQ element that was only hours away from deploying to a African region just days before I signed out on leave, having already spoken to the ADCM and CSM, affirming I would deploy as part of the team for the infill and setting conditions for follow on elements w-nce we secured the airfield had security, COMS and life support up.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2016 12:20 PM

2016-03-26T12:20:51-04:00

We no longer have a 20-yr retirement, except for those grandfathered in. Do you think the new retirement system fixes any of these issues?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2016 5:34 PM

2016-03-26T17:34:56-04:00

I would add the how the heck are they still in lazy or never show up. They skate through and get away with murder and still get promoted, giving everyone false hope that they too can be promoted if this person can. And concern at the same time as wow we have a (insert rank) that is like that!! What an example.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 26 at 2016 8:46 PM

2016-03-26T20:46:27-04:00

Yes. Well put.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2016 4:34 AM

2016-03-27T04:34:55-04:00

I've had this conversation with several senior officers. Senior colonels and generals really seem to feel that the system works----it selected them, so it must be working! I think those that the system hasn't selected, or hasn't selected yet, feel quite differently.

I don't think the cliff retirement system by itself creates mediocrity. It is interesting to note, though, that a very high percentage of those who retire do so at exactly the 20 year point.

Combine the cliff retirement system with the centralized and impersonal human resource / talent management process and an over-reliance on written evaluations in promotion processes......now we might have a recipe for mediocrity.

The most depressing part of this might be that as an institution the Army is ok with producing mediocrity. I don't mean to offend anyone, but the very best who join the military do not stay in, and the very best of our society do not even join the military, despite what we may have been told at various points along the way. The best of those who join don't stay in, they go on to be CEOs, Congressmen, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, etc. We can look at our recruiting pools and efforts to demonstrate that the military doesn't even attempt to recruit the best of society.

Response by CPT Bill Kieffer made Mar 27 at 2016 9:29 AM

2016-03-27T09:29:39-04:00

i generally agree with these observations. Having spent 12 years active army and now 19 years in the commercial worked as a senior HR leader, I can attest that these general groups exist in both worlds, and the structure of compensation schemes has only limited positive impact. The "1s" will always drive on successfully. "2s" are varied and represent the biggest potential for compensation packages to influence behaviors. Group "3" is fear-based and/ or circumstance constrained - adding a define contribution compensation component will not reduce fear (no financial certainty) or change their circumstance. My opinion - while it is prudent to evaluate and update compensation strategies, effective leadership including goal setting, performance evaluation, developing the willing/capable, and exiting the unwilling under performers is key.