Marine Corps misses retention goal?
Anyone hear about the Marine Corps missing their retention goal for 2008 by 5%? I went back for the article but can't seem to locate it.
I know this thread is about officer retention, but as the economy moves forward, a substantial part of that issue will fix itself.
What I am curious is if the constant grind of Iraq is causing 2nd and 3d term Marines to elect not to reenlist? While the Army has had issues for years in making their enlistment goals, reenlistments have actually been very strong. The Marines have felt some of this pain but have always had an easier time getting quality recruits than the Army. However, if they are now feeling the pain among the group they want to keep as career Marines, this could quickly become an issue. The Marines pride themselves in having much more junior leaders running the same size elements as compared to what the Army uses (SGTs and CPLs running squads, SSGs running platoons). This problem probably wouldn't be felt for some time, even if the issue persists for a few years, but it is of interest. It could impact the Marines in a lot of ways, such as manning and how they operate in a more decentralized manner.
I haven't heard of Marines having any kind of enlistment/reenlistment issues since 2005 and even that was only for a single year and the first time in 10 years.
Don't anyone take this the wrong way - I am not gloating. I have been envious of the USMC for years as to their superior 'combat focus' which the big Army often forgets. It is just a very interesting circumstance and doesn't seem to fit very well with the economy and the likely move of the USMC from Iraq to Afghanistan. I hope it is not a sign of things to come for the Army as well (mainly because the Marines will adapt quickly to fix this while HRC will spin for 2-3 years until they recognize and analyze the issue or give a knee-jerk reaction that treats the symptoms, not the problem).
Tankersteve
Money? Family? Home-time? How about the BS
Greetings all,
I'm new to posting. Here is goes:
I'm currently a CPT recalled from the IRR. I have 4 years active duty and OIFI under my belt. I got out for reasons that are typical of Junior Officers but are often overlooked by the Army: I interpreted my future as being nothing more than dealing with bone-head chain of commands, working in thankless staff jobs, and spending a disproportionate amount of my time working on non-value adding activates like PowerPoint. In other words I did not feel I was being a productive human being. Anybody else out there that felt this way????
I have been following the topic of Officer retention for 10 years now. The lack of internal criticism and self blame for the Army failure to attract and retain this nation's best potential is a real shame. Everywhere I look the Army blames external forces like continuous deployments, priorities of the JO, desires to spend time with the family, civilian pay differential, etc. Am I the only one that has pickup up on this?
Now that I have a few years of corporate leadership experience under my belt, I can attest that some of the management methodologies the Army practices (especially at the BN staff officer level) are so unbelievably draconian that I’m surprised they retain as many JOs as they do.:mad:
Nope, you aren't the only one.
The same thing has been noted by others here on several Threads over the past few years.
Most people, Officer and Enlisted, leave the Army and the Marines (those I know -- and I suspect the Navy and air force as well...) due to either the BS you cite or because they are disillusioned; they thought they were going to do combat like things and found out that instead they did a lot of military like things (the two are not the same all too frequently). Some people tolerate BS better than others just as some people shoot better, command better or play basketball -- or even do Power Point -- more proficiently than do others.:rolleyes:
I noted that factor over 50 years ago, before computers, the internet and SWJ. I and many others have noted it frequently since then. I will also note that the situation is somewhat better now than it was then -- but it still needs much improvement. Much... :mad:
You're correct, issues of family, pay and deployments are a small part of the retention problem. They are problems but they are insignificant compared to the BS, disillusion and stifling factors.
Retention thru elimination?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
We probably need fewer Enlisted types in the CS/CSS arena as well if we could get a little smarter about how we do business, thus could increase both quality and quantity in Combat Arms elements.
[/I]
As a CSS Officer, I can totally agree. When I was a maintenance platoon leader I had a PSG, 2 SFC Section Sergeants, and 2 Warrant Officers in the platoon. Also, not enough work for the platoon to do. A little top-heavy if you were to ask me. Anyway, to this day I still believe that the Army should abolish the PL position in a MT Company. I feel that it would increase officer retention if that officer was in a position that actually needed him in a branch that could employ him.:confused:
If that's true, hopefully they'll be smarter this time.
Much the same thing was done during Viet Nam -- and, to a lesser extent in Korea (for that one there still existed a very large Reserve / Guard pool of WW II Officers). The effect of the VN effort was beneficial, some good Officers, very few bad ones. Most had no problem coping with staff work all the way up to 4-star cmds. Above Bde, it was just as tedious and moslty marginally necessary then as now. Fortunately, there was no Power Point...
However, most of those commissioned were poorly served by the Army after the war. If they had no degree they were sent to Schools to obtain one but the majority were separated from the service regardless of a degree. Many served three years commissioned and reverted to their NCO rank, some (MOS dependent) were just told 'goodbye." The brilliant effort was selection of the best and brightest Warrants, commissioning them for three years and then forcing them out -- no reversion to Warrant, not even back to their old NCO rank. Out. Really a dumb move by then PersCom.
A few survived the RIF. I know several who were accessed as CPTs who made MAJ and served until retirement in that rank, one who made LTC and one who made COL. A lot seemed to depend on collection a decoration for Valor as an Officer, those who did stayed longer. Don't think that will work for these wars, not as many opportunities. I guess the law's still the same -- have to serve ten years minimum as an officer to retire as one, otherwise, you're retired at your NCO rank. They may have changed that; hopefully so.
My guess -- and it is no more than that -- is that during VN, about half those offered a commission declined. I did and know about as many who also did that as I do those who accepted.