How can the Army leadership create more stability in our units?

Leaders will change positions/units every 2-3 years, give or take a few in some circumstances. This is necessary for many reasons. With such a big force, our organization recognizes the need to grow it's service members in different areas, to support various staff functions, to rotate experience and knowledge, and to reward people with new opportunities. This is true on and off the battlefield.

But let's splash some cold water on our faces. For most positions of direct leadership, it takes 6-12 months for you to find your bearings and 12-24 to finally see your roots reaching the formation and displaying potential for lasting change. From there, you need 2-5 years to enforce/refine new habits and make what was once your "vision" cemented as SOP. And this is under ideal circumstances, nothing ever goes as planned. So, as soon as we're at that point of roots finally growing, we hand the baton off. I think it's rare for a unit to actually cement change in 2-3 years. And what usually happens is the next in line throws your baton in the garbage and makes a new one.

The point is, with our current model (and let's also admit that the backdrop of modern culture plays a part), things are shaken up every 3-4 years in whatever unit we find ourselves and the stability within our local climate is chipped away or cashed in for credit. It has corrosive effects on the spirit and effectiveness of troops/habits at the bottom, let alone what's going on at the command-team level. I think we all know what I am getting at, we have all felt this tension.

Couldn't the Army create certain positions that serve as inherent stabilizers for a unit? The imagination can run wild: platoon-sergeants with options to extend their time in the slot up to 2 years, S-3 leadership as a 3-year position, BN commanders slotted for 5, or even warrant officers stabilized in their units for 6 years and given more advisory roles. I had an interesting conversation with one warrant in fact, who thought all warrants are under-utilized and if bolstered they could single-handedly fulfill the role as central stabilizers in various units. But then he also told me not to tell anyone his ideas because he didn't want to actually have to start coming to formation.

Often times in a discussion, a friend or mentor will move the conversation to the NCO corps from here and make good points about the backbone of the Army. But why does this fall on the NCO? Honestly, The NCO corps cannot solve every probelm, why not shift this need for stability onto officers a little more and ask us to sacrifice a little of our careers by extending our time in key roles a little longer (or offer new incentives to remain in the same position). And to that end, I think senior NCOs often (not always) do a much better job of handing off the baton then officers, if for no other reason then the fact that they try not to change everything as soon as they transfer authority. But none the less, we all know the major source of change or stability is always a commander. That's by design, and for good reason. That's where we would get the biggest return for our dollar on initiating new policies towards this end.