Posted on Dec 18, 2024
Opinions of lower-ranking troops could soon be considered in officer promotions
177
18
7
7
7
0
Opinions of lower-ranking troops could soon be considered in officer promotions
The pilot would include anonymous peer and subordinate feedback to be submitted as part of command selection for O-5 and O-6 ranks.
The pilot would include anonymous peer and subordinate feedback to be submitted as part of command selection for O-5 and O-6 ranks.
Opinions of lower-ranking troops could soon be considered in officer promotions
Posted from taskandpurpose.comPosted in these groups: 
PromotionsPromotions Clerk
Promotion Points
Promotion BoardHealth Promotion, Nutrition, & Exercise Science
PromotionsPromotions Clerk Promotion Points Promotion BoardHealth Promotion, Nutrition, & Exercise Science
Posted 4 d ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
This doesn't Include any prominent focus on the lethality of our military. This sounds a bit woke to me.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Various forms of 360° Evaluation are repeatedly proposed by various "Management Experts" almost all of whom have a PhD but have never been in management.
The concept certainly has merit but the problem comes in finding any fair and consistent way to implement such a system. The concept has been tried in many places, but I don't know of any business that has ever adopted it after a trial period. Usually the reasons for not adopting have more to do with the administrative burden outweighing the benefits rather than any significant abuses of the system. Collecting and anonymizing reviews from subordinates and peers is generally more difficult than initially envisioned, and generally ends up being more trouble than it is worth.
Once you get past laughing at the novelty of the idea, the concept does make some sense.
I'm sure each of us served under someone who made you wonder "How in the world did they get promoted to this level?" Some of us have also had the privilege of serving under a commander whose troops would "follow him into hell and count on him to get them back out again." The fact that both of those kinds of officers exist at the O5 and higher levels demonstrates that the evaluation and selection system isn't even close to perfect. Could adding input from peers and subordinates improve the system? I would guess that more information would help the selection process - once selection boards figured out how to use the information - but I am completely convinced that the trial will fail because the trial won't last long enough for selection boards to learn how to evaluate the data and because collecting and anonymizing that data will become an insurmountable obstacle for a system that is already challenged getting evaluations and support forms all accomplished in a timely manner.
The concept certainly has merit but the problem comes in finding any fair and consistent way to implement such a system. The concept has been tried in many places, but I don't know of any business that has ever adopted it after a trial period. Usually the reasons for not adopting have more to do with the administrative burden outweighing the benefits rather than any significant abuses of the system. Collecting and anonymizing reviews from subordinates and peers is generally more difficult than initially envisioned, and generally ends up being more trouble than it is worth.
Once you get past laughing at the novelty of the idea, the concept does make some sense.
I'm sure each of us served under someone who made you wonder "How in the world did they get promoted to this level?" Some of us have also had the privilege of serving under a commander whose troops would "follow him into hell and count on him to get them back out again." The fact that both of those kinds of officers exist at the O5 and higher levels demonstrates that the evaluation and selection system isn't even close to perfect. Could adding input from peers and subordinates improve the system? I would guess that more information would help the selection process - once selection boards figured out how to use the information - but I am completely convinced that the trial will fail because the trial won't last long enough for selection boards to learn how to evaluate the data and because collecting and anonymizing that data will become an insurmountable obstacle for a system that is already challenged getting evaluations and support forms all accomplished in a timely manner.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
WHAT !!!!!
Voting Officers Into Their Ranks Was Disastrous During The Civil War, Too Many Were Incompetent And Only Got Their Rank By Giving Out Money And Favors.
Officers Should Only Be Appointed And Earn Promotion Through Training And Merit .
Not By A Democrat Process !
Voting Officers Into Their Ranks Was Disastrous During The Civil War, Too Many Were Incompetent And Only Got Their Rank By Giving Out Money And Favors.
Officers Should Only Be Appointed And Earn Promotion Through Training And Merit .
Not By A Democrat Process !
(1)
(0)
SPC James Neidig
SrA John Monette
Yes, But Congress Will Not Be Commanded By Those Who They Selected To Hold A Senior Rank .
Yes, But Congress Will Not Be Commanded By Those Who They Selected To Hold A Senior Rank .
(1)
(0)
SGT James Murphy
Actually as long as it's based on Merit! A meritocracy is a system where individuals are rewarded and advanced based on their abilities, talents, and achievements rather than on factors like wealth, social class, or connections. Here's why it's considered important:
Fairness and Equality of Opportunity: Meritocracy promotes the idea that everyone has an equal chance to succeed based on their merit. This can lead to a fairer society where individuals are judged on their skills and contributions rather than arbitrary factors like family background or social status.
Efficiency and Productivity: When positions are filled by the most competent people, productivity often increases. Organizations or societies function more efficiently because roles are occupied by those best suited to perform them, which can lead to innovation and economic growth.
Motivation and Incentive: Knowing that hard work, talent, and dedication can be directly rewarded motivates individuals to strive for excellence. This can foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement, pushing societal standards higher.
Social Mobility: Meritocracy can facilitate social mobility, allowing people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to climb the social ladder based on merit. This can help reduce income inequality over time as talent is not confined by one's birth circumstances.
Diverse Leadership: By focusing on merit, a broader range of individuals might reach leadership positions, bringing diverse perspectives and potentially leading to more balanced and effective decision-making.
Reduction of Nepotism and Corruption: In a true meritocracy, there's less room for favoritism, nepotism, or corruption since the criteria for advancement or reward are transparent and based on merit. This can lead to a more just system where people trust that the system works fairly.
However, it's important to recognize the challenges and criticisms of meritocracy:
Measurement of Merit: What constitutes "merit" can be subjective or biased. There's a risk that cultural, educational, or inherent biases might influence what is deemed meritorious.
Access to Opportunity: Not everyone starts from the same baseline; differences in education, upbringing, or resources can mean that some individuals might not have the same opportunities to demonstrate or develop their merit.
Stress and Inequality: An overemphasis on merit can lead to high levels of stress and a sense of failure among those who do not succeed, potentially exacerbating social inequalities if not balanced with supportive systems.
Static vs. Dynamic Merit: People's abilities can change over time or be context-specific, suggesting that a rigid meritocratic system might not always serve justice or efficiency.
In summary, while the ideal of meritocracy aims at creating a society where everyone can succeed based on their own merits, its implementation must be carefully managed to ensure it does not inadvertently perpetuate or even worsen existing inequalities. It's a balance between recognizing and rewarding talent while ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to develop and express that talent.
Fairness and Equality of Opportunity: Meritocracy promotes the idea that everyone has an equal chance to succeed based on their merit. This can lead to a fairer society where individuals are judged on their skills and contributions rather than arbitrary factors like family background or social status.
Efficiency and Productivity: When positions are filled by the most competent people, productivity often increases. Organizations or societies function more efficiently because roles are occupied by those best suited to perform them, which can lead to innovation and economic growth.
Motivation and Incentive: Knowing that hard work, talent, and dedication can be directly rewarded motivates individuals to strive for excellence. This can foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement, pushing societal standards higher.
Social Mobility: Meritocracy can facilitate social mobility, allowing people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to climb the social ladder based on merit. This can help reduce income inequality over time as talent is not confined by one's birth circumstances.
Diverse Leadership: By focusing on merit, a broader range of individuals might reach leadership positions, bringing diverse perspectives and potentially leading to more balanced and effective decision-making.
Reduction of Nepotism and Corruption: In a true meritocracy, there's less room for favoritism, nepotism, or corruption since the criteria for advancement or reward are transparent and based on merit. This can lead to a more just system where people trust that the system works fairly.
However, it's important to recognize the challenges and criticisms of meritocracy:
Measurement of Merit: What constitutes "merit" can be subjective or biased. There's a risk that cultural, educational, or inherent biases might influence what is deemed meritorious.
Access to Opportunity: Not everyone starts from the same baseline; differences in education, upbringing, or resources can mean that some individuals might not have the same opportunities to demonstrate or develop their merit.
Stress and Inequality: An overemphasis on merit can lead to high levels of stress and a sense of failure among those who do not succeed, potentially exacerbating social inequalities if not balanced with supportive systems.
Static vs. Dynamic Merit: People's abilities can change over time or be context-specific, suggesting that a rigid meritocratic system might not always serve justice or efficiency.
In summary, while the ideal of meritocracy aims at creating a society where everyone can succeed based on their own merits, its implementation must be carefully managed to ensure it does not inadvertently perpetuate or even worsen existing inequalities. It's a balance between recognizing and rewarding talent while ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to develop and express that talent.
(1)
(0)
SPC James Neidig
SGT James Murphy
I Am A Strong Believer In Working For A Goal.
My Father Was A Chesapeake Bay Waterman Who Got Paid Each Day For The Work He Did That Day.
He Eventually Made Enough Money To Buy His Own Boat And I Started Working For Him At Age 12 , At 17 I Joined The Marines And Have Worked Hard My Whole Life, I Have Owned Two Businesses, One I Sold And The Other I Still Am Half Owner Of.
If A Person Strives To Be Better Than They Should Be Rewarded For Their Hard Work.
Not Elected To Hold A Position They May Not Be Qualified To Hold..
We Learn This Each Time We Elect A Politician Who Can Not Do The Job and Have To Wait Until Their Term Is Up To Vote Them Out.
I Am A Strong Believer In Working For A Goal.
My Father Was A Chesapeake Bay Waterman Who Got Paid Each Day For The Work He Did That Day.
He Eventually Made Enough Money To Buy His Own Boat And I Started Working For Him At Age 12 , At 17 I Joined The Marines And Have Worked Hard My Whole Life, I Have Owned Two Businesses, One I Sold And The Other I Still Am Half Owner Of.
If A Person Strives To Be Better Than They Should Be Rewarded For Their Hard Work.
Not Elected To Hold A Position They May Not Be Qualified To Hold..
We Learn This Each Time We Elect A Politician Who Can Not Do The Job and Have To Wait Until Their Term Is Up To Vote Them Out.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google