What is the best method to retain our best military leaders?

I think that having the ability to transition from one MOS to another might be a good incentive to keep good leaders. I have seen a gear number of good leaders ETS out because they are burnt out on doing the same thing for years and years. Unfortunately if they are in an MOS that is under strength then they are basically stuck...the only way out is to get out.

I'm not saying we should all be able to change MOS's at the drop of a hat but if say 10 years in we are given the option to change up or keep driving on the burnt out factor might go away and fewer good leaders will disappear. Not to mention it's cheaper to retrain someone already in the Army then to get someone brand new. Just a thought.

Like the article describes, I think it's not just a single "method" that will allow us to retain our best leaders, but a combination of culture and structure.

1) CSM Reed's response was dead on, and it's encouraging to hear it from the senior NCO side. The Eval System absolutely needs an overhaul. I would echo all of his comments.

2) Connected to the Eval System is the mentality that we promote, especially among the Officer Corps, that "more is always more". Senior leaders are rarely praised for streamlining processes or eliminating bloated programs. Instead, awards and NCOER bullets praise how our leaders "implemented such-and-such NEW program". This is why our Company and BN level leaders are swamped with administrative tasks that, if done to standard, can consume a majority of available training time. Starting at the top, promote efficiency and quality, not time/energy spent.

3) Better software could be part of the solution. There's virtually no reason for NCOs and officers to have to wait for a human being at HRC to build a time-consuming Excel spreadsheet for assignments. EMILPO, USR, HRC personnel requisitions, these should all be automatically integrated and viewable to the individual in a user friendly way, who then could actually reach out and apply or interview for the jobs (within MOS/ASI/other requirements) that he/she wants. The beauty of better, more integrated software with fewer separate systems is that it's a single problem that a focused effort could solve.

4) Drop the zero-defect mentality, and let unit Commanders choose to accept the risk of "applicants" with past adverse action. Which has more credibility, a successful leader who can speak from young experiences about the risks of alcohol or a mediocre leader who can tell you how he/she never has more than two beers and you shouldn't either? There are lines, of course, but the attitude now is "do risky things, then do even riskier things to avoid getting caught." A "job board" with open slots and individuals applying/competing for them is part of this solution.

5) Reduce bureaucracy and admin overhead. Among my peers and many of the outstanding NCOs/Soldiers I've been lucky to work with, this is one of the top reasons for separating. But there's so much low hanging fruit here. Our software systems don't play nice with each other. We insist on hand carrying hard copies because "it's easier". An NCO or officer can be responsible for Soldiers' lives and millions of dollars worth of equipment, but not for taking leave OCONUS (that includes Hawaii and Alaska...) without 60 days notice and an inch-thick packet. By my last count there are over 50 hours (more than a work week) of online mandatory annual training between 350-1, G6, ALMS, and other entities, not including the hours it takes to reestablish all of these separate (why???) accounts each year and for leadership to track and report completion. Again, better software (cough... not DTMS) is part of the solution here, and so is reducing/streamlining requirements. If all 1.1 million Soldiers (Active, Guard, and Reserve) spent 25% less time required to access, complete, turn-in, and track annual mandatory online training, the Army would save, give-or-take, 16,500,000 man hours per year (that's 1,883 years... every year) for ACTUAL METL TRAINING. And that's what we want to do, isn't it?

SIR, thanks for posting the article. It was an interesting read; it mentions the one thing that has been one of my biggest pet peeves for years, that is our Evaluation System for both Officers and NCOs. The Evaluation System is in dire need of an overhaul. Our current evaluation system along with our personnel management tools ensures that we maintain a certain level of mediocrity across all levels. So I guess the short answer to your question is to overhaul our evaluation system on both the Officer and the Enlisted side. Maybe they are also frustrated in seeing good leaders on both sides either not selected for promotion or selected for separation. We need to find a way to identify and retain those who truly deserve the promotions and are best able to serve at higher levels. Nobody seems to want to take on this overhaul although I’ve heard it mentioned a few times. I will have to say it is a huge challenge however; if we don’t attempt to fix it mediocrity will become the norm.
I’ve heard several good suggestions on how to fix the Evaluation System, some of these include using different Rating Criteria for different ranks e.g. stick with the current NCOER for E5 and E6, another form for E7 thru E9 that includes the current NCOER plus a peer review form, this form would be somewhat like the Multi Source Assessment. Include an annual test commensurate with the rank they are eligible for promotion or appointment to, not like the SQT it would include technical, tactical, resiliency, doctrine, CAPE, etc based questions. Evaluation Reports that would include background information on the individuals in the Rating Chain. Tailor the evaluation to specific areas Maneuvers, Logistics, etc. in order to identify who truly is well rounded. These are just a few and I’m sure there are a lot more out there.
Throughout my years of service I’ve continuously been told that it is important to be well-rounded, multi-functional, or whatever other buzz word or adjective you want to use that means versatile. Unfortunately we have yet to develop an Evaluation System that helps us define and identify who really is that versatile Troop and even if we did our personnel management tools may prevent that individual from progressing. DA PAM 600-25 provides all Troops with guidance pertaining to career progression in their particular CMF and the Army also has Career Maps to help them understand what they should be doing to progress through the ranks. A Troop could do all those things and at the end of the day may turn out to be a stellar leader but will not get promoted due to lack of MTOE / TDA slots available. This is why the Qualitative Service Program is really nothing more than a convenient means to an end being sold as an “Attrition Tool”.
Sir my response got a bit lengthy but, again, this has always been a sore spot for me. I would like to see more effort in addressing this but it appears we choose to focus our energy on tattoos, hairstyles, and camo patterns.