Move Up or Move Out is in Effect....What are your thoughts?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:48:28 -0400

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.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 7:04 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:04:27 -0400

I think it is a great idea. I have seen too many people clogging the system and not allowing junior Soldiers the opportunity to get promoted. Being AGR and seeing over the last five or so years that there are very few Engineers making E8 and seeing some E8s just relaxing in their jobs and not putting out their full effort in order to coast to retirement is just frustrating. I think you need to promote to bring in fresh blood and to avoid people becoming frustrated to the point where they give up and stop working or get out themselves.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 8:29 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:29:16 -0400

The real question is, is it effective? Does it kick out the right individuals who don't deserve it?

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 11 at 2014 10:06 PM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:06:50 -0400

Nuts!

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 11 at 2014 11:00 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 23:00:44 -0400

An expanded tool the Army can use to eliminate under-performers.

This Directive also eliminates the 19-year total active federal service applicability.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 12 at 2014 3:07 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 03:07:46 -0400

Isn't that called high year tenure

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 12 at 2014 8:32 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:32:47 -0400

Should have been done a long time ago...some of the dead weight that I got to witness get promoted over me and others, that had no clue of what they were doing in their primary MOS but had been awarded Audie Murphy or SGT Morales so HAD to be top notch NCOs.....hopefully big Army get's it right!

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 12 at 2014 11:43 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:43:40 -0400

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...

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 3:50 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:50:13 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 8:16 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:16:47 -0400

Officers have been using this for years and it really starts at CPT. I am sure that good officers are caught up in the mess on the other hand we have seen a lot of trash that made it through the 100% promotion times. Note it doesn't say you will be removed but can be considered for QMP so that if there is something negative on the file that prevents them from moving forward, 4/4 or bad values etc..., than maybe they do need to be QMPd. Just a thought.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2014 10:17 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:17:37 -0400

I think it's a powerful tool. If you are aware of the Peter Principle, basically a person rises to the highest level of their incompetence, and leadership roles are left filled with incompetent people because the organization doesn't demote or remove those incompetent individuals.
When QMP/QSP thin the herd, it creates room for advancement within the lower ranks, encourages competition, and fosters growth. The idea is that in the Army, we create leaders, not 20 year Privates.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2015 12:35 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:35:20 -0400

I agree with it though sometimes there are late bloomers too. In my experience, those who hadn't done their part to try and advance were generally responsible for it and lacking serious initiative. Supervisors failed them and let them become stagnant. It can be challenging for those who have gotten in trouble but damn, take some initiative and get back on track (or get out)!