The Secretary of Defense is concerned about the military's ability to retain young, talented officers. Are you?

2015-11-05T23:58:53-05:00

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/us-military-tries-halt-brain-drain/413965/

This article, written by a retired Army Lieutenant General and a senior defense contractor, made some points that resounded with me. I would be interested to hear some others' views on it.

Summarized very succinctly, the current Secretary of Defense is concerned that the military is losing too large a number of young officers because of an inflexible career path and an "up or out" promotion system.

Can the U.S. Military Win Wars If It Keeps Losing Talented Officers?

The Pentagon worries its rigid personnel system is driving away the leaders it will need for the conflicts of the 21st century.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 6 at 2015 12:10 AM

2015-11-06T00:10:47-05:00

Saw this earlier over on LinkedIn. Great points. Very little I disagree with in there.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 6 at 2015 12:29 AM

2015-11-06T00:29:15-05:00

Elections have consequences.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 6 at 2015 12:35 AM

2015-11-06T00:35:30-05:00

Just think what it might have been in a hot civilian marketplace vs. the zero growth the past two years following the decline.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 6 at 2015 2:38 AM

2015-11-06T02:38:38-05:00

/facepalm

I see your point, Captain. Only officers will have an impact on the future of the Military. Senior NCO's, NCO's, enlisted...why. They will have no impact on the future of the services.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 6 at 2015 4:35 AM

2015-11-06T04:35:57-05:00

In this zero defect climate military is driving away leaders who could make a difference

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2015 4:59 AM

2015-11-06T04:59:54-05:00

Yes it is, very much so.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2015 7:30 AM

2015-11-06T07:30:36-05:00

What I learn from my leadership experience .... and from a PO1 advising me .... A leader is to make sure they are dispensable. So when in a situation that the leadership is gone ( MIA, KIA OR whatever reason), those that below them will naturally step up to lead.

If we do our job (all ranks), there is no such problem at all. (that is a big IF)

Response by SPC Gregory B Morris Sr made Nov 6 at 2015 7:43 AM

2015-11-06T07:43:55-05:00

No the military will already. There will be change in any organization.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 6 at 2015 10:02 AM

2015-11-06T10:02:28-05:00

What is wrong with this picture? Yes, of course the military is losing its top talent.

Army Times June 12, 2015

A new round of force reductions boards will meet in September to consider certain active component captains of the Army Competitive Category and Army Medical Department for involuntary separation or early retirement, as appropriate.
A similar series of Officer Separation Boards and Enhanced Selective Early Retirement Boards that met in 2014 cut short the careers of 1,188 captains and 550 majors.
Today's service strength stands at about 496,000, some 6,000 shy of this year's goal of 490,000. Strength will further be reduced to 475,000 next year, and is slated to hit 450,000 or more by 2019.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Nov 6 at 2015 11:13 AM

2015-11-06T11:13:00-05:00

Under this current administration - Yes we are losing some of our best. I hope we can last through this onslaught.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2015 8:07 PM

2015-11-06T20:07:53-05:00

I find it odd that most of the comments on the current leadership in our DoD are being made by personnel not currently serving. I personally work for some amazing officers including the 2 star at the top of my functional community who makes it a focus to ensure our airmen are prepared for their missions. Now I never worked for Patton or Eisenhower or anything but I would have to argue that we have plenty of amazing leaders still within our ranks. Are there some civilian leaders at the top that have their priorities mixed up? In my opinion yes, but our uniformed leaders are doing a fine job if you ask me with the priorities that are being handed them by the SECDEF and Service Secretaries. Today's military requires a different leader. We are dealing with the kids and grandkids of you retired members...the generation that only communicates through social media, that has been given participation trophies their entire lives, that have lived in a virtual world and now can't handle real life. Our leaders are also dealing with reduced funding during a time when technology is ever more important in this unconventional war. Have I seen some good officers, NCOs and SNCOs leave earlier that I would have hoped they would...yes, but we are bringing in some outstanding young airmen (in my case) that will be able to replace them when their time comes.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-11-07T12:31:54-05:00

A year in London as a 2LT, a free graduate degree, two deployments, an assignment as an ADC, and company command immediately after CCC wasn’t enough?

Greater transparency and ability to be involved in one’s own assignment process would likely lead to higher retention of quality officers. However, the needs of the Army and some standardization within career progression should always take precedence over an overinflated sense of entitlement or individualism.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 7 at 2015 5:51 PM

2015-11-07T17:51:31-05:00

FDR took the bull by its horns before our entry into WWII. He resupplied the Russians and British with vehicles, tanks, air planes, and ships. He was saving the two countries and conducted shaping operations if we were to be dragged into the war. General Eisenhower was tasked to design a US war campaign against the Germans. He chose to attack N Africa with troops and navy vessels to patrol who goes into the Mediterranean Sea and who uses it for shipping lanes. Rommel was in N Africa and kicked out butts for awhile, however his fuel was flown in because of the blockade and thus his army atrophied. I just want to illustrate that we lack a campaign planner. We rebuild countries, but we don't put terror in the hearts of insurgents, thus conceding the space they need to prolong the insurgency. We are in dire need of strategic acumen.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Nov 7 at 2015 5:56 PM

2015-11-07T17:56:11-05:00

The military will not make the institutional changes needed to reverse the brain drain. No way.

Response by CDR Kenneth Kaiser made Nov 7 at 2015 6:15 PM

2015-11-07T18:15:33-05:00

The article poses some interesting suggestions but seems to be concentrated on the ground elements. One possible problem is that the "Generals" he refers to appear to have the attitude that they stayed the course and survived. That is your decision making pool in part that is dealing with the problem. There have been other discussions about leadership in the services and it is my opinion that many of the senior "leaders" are politicians more than leaders. So one of the key problems in retention is that the policy drivers are not necessarily the best and brightest.

Secondly there are the politicians that control the policies etc either indirectly or directly namely congress, and civilian heads of various departments. Aside from determining the budget (which in turn drives the number you can afford to retain despite the deteriorating world situation due to their own ineptitude). They also control other policies such as benefits and other "attractors" When my dad was in the Army we had exchanges where you could truly get good deals. Now they have to be within 10% of the average retail stores in the area which can include Nordstrom's and others which in turn raises the average price pool. Thus exchanges and such cease to be really good deals except on select items. We also had medical care , now we can pay for it through Tri Care up until you are eligible for Medicare then you have to sign up for that before you can get Tri Care. Since Medicare is the primary, it is difficult to find doctors which will accept you as a Medicare patient regardless whether you have Tri Care or not. So there has been a benefits erosion as well.
So those are the factors that you cannot control before you even start to talk to folks about staying in. There are also factors such as dissatisfied or disgruntled spouses, short turn around between deployments, repeated deployments (more so now because theyhave already cut the manning level down to a bare minimum and since we no longer fight to win we have to keep going back and so on.
So now we are down to the command level where you are trying to convince folks to stay in. You have limited incentives to offer and none that you can control. Since for most disciplines there is no difference in pay, at least not significant. You cannot offere them benes like a company car, so what can you do?

I don't know what it is like now, I have been out longer than I was in by this point in my life, but I remember going on ships and manning was a real problem. You either didn't have enough people to do the job, or you had the wrong kinds. For instance within a computer related division you had allowances. You needed a certain number who could handle display or workstation issues, a certain number for say computer repair a certain number for control interfaces.. Unfortuneately these were all within the same rate . So if you were allocated 25 I guess now they would be ITs you may have them but they might all be Work Station types vice the variety you needed.
Then there was equipment. Since the Navy or the other services don't develop their equipment, but contract it out you would get test equipment that was not ruggedized so your maintenance would go to hell because you didn't have working test equipment.

I guess what I am trying to say that there are a lot more variables that go into solving the Brain Drain problem than the article touches on. Furthermore it extends to enlisted folks too. If you want to solve the brain drain problem you need to look at the system of variables rather than just the basic problem. Some who get out will go into reserves and maintain their skills but others will go into several other areas and all of the training will be lost. This is a significant problem that we continue to kick down the road. Non military personnel (and there are a lot of them) do not realize the training pipeline and other issues that go into replacing lost talent. The assumption is that if we need them we will draft them or they will join voluntarily. I think the last statistic I read was some low percentage of kids today join the military (less than five percent?) so where do the replacements come from. The military needs to learn how to make its case, we also need more in Congress and in the support areas that have served and not just in posh billets.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Nov 7 at 2015 6:59 PM

2015-11-07T18:59:19-05:00

The SYSTEM has to change. And for the SYSTEM to change, the LEADERS have to change their thinking process....It can be done, but not likely..... I won't hold my breath.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 7 at 2015 7:27 PM

2015-11-07T19:27:04-05:00

It will be extremely difficult. Some of the most common recurring themes in our best thinkers are a lack of acceptance of arbitrary authority, critical thinking and a willingness to go against the grain in their thought processes, none of which the military really smiles upon... The military would have to promote based on ability, intellect and creativity. We really don't know how to do that right now, so we focus on easily quantified but irrelevant metrics like haircuts and sit ups... Capturing what matters is something we don't have a system in place for... Evaluations right now are too subjective and generic...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 7:47 PM

2015-11-07T19:47:35-05:00

I voted that it "can" but I doubt it will.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 7:26 PM

2015-11-08T19:26:28-05:00

I want to focus on the tiny part of the article that proposed solutions.

Replacing “up or out” with performance criteria.
I’m a concerned here. What is meant by “performance criteria?” Would it be specific jobs? We have the “Key Developmental” assignment deal in the Army where you have officers crawling over each other to get KD positions. It encourages a “check the box” approach to personnel management, and that is exactly part of the current failing of the system. If it means performance as defined by OERs (evaluations), please allow me to refer you to my many Rally Point comments on the flaws of the system; I cannot see any benefit at all on attaching more value to it. I would like to see a system where specific assignments are not over-emphasized or completely devalued. I would like to see an evaluation system where the number of people in your rating chain doesn’t have a primary impact on your rating. And where you actually have to do something *right* to be promoted, rather than our current system where you just have to avoid doing something catastrophically wrong.

Establishing a technical, or enterprise, career track.
This one is an out and out emergency and MUST be implemented…yesterday if possible. Where I work in my civilian job, I am surrounded by people with no military experience at all trying to build things for the military. They have the requirements, but they can’t picture what we would use it for. Additionally, they cook up these Good Idea Fairy concepts that have minimal or no real-world application. At the same time, the handful of Soldiers we have are either have the wrong military experience and/or they have no technical expertise. We NEED MI officers with an Engineering (not Army Engineering), Computer Science, or Math background *and* have experience at no less than 3 echelons with at least one purely tactical assignment. There are many times when people point out that it would be better for me to be in uniform, but there are no billets. If there were, our current Officer Management System is not equipped to get me the people I need.

Which brings me to a concept that is not suggested in the article:
Get rid of the current Officer Management System and let officers have more say.
I envision a system where Officers would have a standing military resume. The majority of O3 and above positions would be projected “open” and Officers would be able to search for positions they were eligible for and express interest in those positions (eligible: correct MOS, open to PCS, rank, etc). The OIC of the job search would then notify candidates that are in the running. Officers who are not selected by any of the positions they applied for would be placed by “needs of the Army (military),” and same with positions that are not selected by any officers. This fact would encourage Officers to apply for many positions, not just plum assignments, and would encourage “hiring” officers to express interest in a broad set of candidates knowing that the BN XO position at Ft Suckit might not be every candidate’s first choice. It also introduces the idea of promotion based on qualification. If as a CPT, I am chosen as the best qualified candidate for an O4 position, frock me for a year and if I can cut it, give me the promotion. Will there be insider trading? Yep. But get real, it’s happening anyway. West Pointers have assignments I never even knew existed in the Army. At least with this system, it would all be out in the open.

Expanding civilian schooling.
Um…maybe. I agree that too many degrees are coming from degree mills (not going to name names and piss people off) and military run schools. We as a military need to recognize the “group think” paradigm we are constructing by taking people when they are 17-18 and indoctrinating them into a single belief system for their entire lives. While I think my civilian schooling has been a huge benefit, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that a fellow CPT would be allowed to collect full pay for 2-8-years and be on the same promotion track with me while attending school full time, for free. I would rather see it as a hybrid with the article’s next solution:

Increasing “permeability.”
This is another initiative that should have been implemented yesterday. I would just want that there be some kind of order to it. For example, you will declare what you are going to be for the next 2-4 years, picture the enlisted system of re-enlistment. If you NG/RC/AC/CIV, you have to declare upfront that you are coming in for some period of time and then you will be expected to return to your previous status – I could see having an option to “re-up” again, but it would not be guaranteed. Want to go to school? Why not choose the Reserves option? For those caring for a sick relative, why not look at taking a civilian job for a few years with stable duty hours and location? For those looking to start a family, why not be guard for the first two years after the baby and not have a full time job at all? It creates a lot more flexibility than special family programs. This way, officers can leverage these options for whatever reason without having to invite the Army into their family problems/ fertility plans.

Improving parental leave and other family policies.
I don’t think this is the answer. I have had Soldiers who have experienced their spouse giving birth while they were overseas. When do they get their 18 weeks? Mid-deployment? Post-deployment? If they can wait until post-deployment, can anyone pick and choose? Can a female Soldier do that too? If I am a male with 3 baby mamas I can take a year off paid? If my partner is also a woman, could we stagger our pregnancies and get more than half the year off? Throwing more time off at the situation is not the answer. Families have been saying for years that they need better daycare (especially sick care) options for their kids. They need the opportunity to “homestead” and/or co-locate with non-military family. The previous solution about allowing all components of DoD service (NG/RC/AC/CIV) to be put on the table as equal options is a much better path.

I really don’t feel any of these options are all that radical or expensive. Our current system was designed at a time when people signed up to work at the local factory, management picked a job for them, managed their entire career, and then gave them a gold watch at the end. People today have (or perceive they have) so many other options. Change is necessary, but not unattainable. We , and our own limited thinking, are the biggest obstacle here.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 8 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-11-08T21:14:37-05:00

Could it be they see that loyalty is a one way street as they watch superiors get the pink slips?