Changes in Army HR objectives, strategies and incentives
Several articles out there today regarding pursuing end strength increases faster. Army and DoD leadership seem to agree on the need and the time line. What I found most heartening is that there is now mention of approaching retention with an understanding of the effects of both families and other opportunities. Extending things like educational benefits to families will help create a more inclusive culture - our families share the risks, and pressures and weigh heavily on decisions to stay or leave. Acknowledging that makes good sense - our families and service members offer a different kind of recruiting tool - they recruit and retain by both the silent influence they exhibit when considered by family and friends (in terms of how well the Army takes care of them) and they recruit and retain overtly by the strength of their association with the Army as the organization or family which provides opportunity for their spouse and family.
Which brings me to recruiting - my opinion is that we have often tried to compete with the Navy, Marines and Air Force on the terms of what makes each service special. When you look across the Army I'm not sure that is reflective of our strongest attribute (all our services have qualities that attract and recruit new service members). The Army is big, and it is diverse - we should consider that as a strength. We should market that as opportunity - because the Army is so big, and so diverse it constantly has needs that translate to opportunities - if you want to do something else within the Army - it can probably accommodate you. Within the Army are more specialized communities for those who are looking for that specifically.
Fortunately we are also now considering how to extend this diversity with education and opportunities outside the "uniformed" community. This is also in line with fostering leadership qualities harder to cultivate from an "inside only" perspective.
The Army is huge in terms of branches, functional areas, MOSs, etc. It is reflected in its ability to campaign and bring all the other "stuff" needed to sustain and build long term infrastructure.
We need to bring that picture of diversity and opportunity forward in our recruiting and discuss it with the leaders we want to retain. Big Army seems to understand the problem now and seems to be moving toward applying a broad strategy with resources toward managing the problem ( this is not one of those problems with a fire and forget solution - it must be constantly managed).
Best Regards, Rob
Getting our narrative and actions in synch - lets tell folks who we are
Why not combine aspects of our recruiting and retention campaigns?
We have stories to tell that matter. Many of our recruiting strategies have shied away from dealing with combat, but they are in fact the ones that matter the most. We have real heroes out there do and inspire extraordinary things.
They are across the spectrum in our Combat Arms, Combat Support , and Combat Service Support communities. We can show the combat patrols that go out, Civil Affairs influencing people, Intelligence soldiers providing critical analysis, Logisticians moving mountains to the people who need them, JAG personnel upholding morals and ethics, Surgical Teams and medics saving lives and limbs, MPs & Advisors working with indigenous forces, Helicopter crews working in dangerous and forbidding places, soldiers enabling civil authorities here in the United States, Leaders working across the Joint, Coalition and Inter-Agency spectrum to accomplish national security objectives.
We have a story to tell about who we are – and why it matters. We have the most challenging conditions to highlight what our people are capable of accomplishing.
We should tell these stories across the broad spectrum of the media- T.V., print, radio, the Internet, etc.
Best Regards, Rob
That's because the Councils of Colonels have
forgotten what Joe is like and read the WaPo, NYT and WSJ. They think Mr. & Mrs. America are worried about body bags. They aren't; they just want the job done quickly and correctly.
They also may -- just may -- be cuing in on the fact that the CSS area is suffering in both enlistments and reenlistments. That's true while the Combat arms are bringing in first termers and reups out the ying yang. My suspicion is that they do not know that latter fact and are concentrating on the soft skills to avoid "turning off the kids (while the blood thirsty little gits do not care!) and their parents (some, not many, of whom may care)."
There are about 20% of kids who want to go combat arms and will no matter what's going on and that applies to enlisted and officer accessions. Give 'em a job where they get to shoot at something that shoots back and holler a bit and they'll stay. Put 'em on the range or in the motor pool too often and they'll leave.
Most people, again, officer and enlisted, leave because they're disappointed.
P.S. Cavguy, you get my update on LTG Lee?
I'm going back a long way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
Hi Matt,
Thanks for making a decision to serve!
I agree with you. I also agree with the your observation about youth, ambition and talent. What I am trying to say though is you have to change that sentiment, and you have to break down how you do that. It is probably not mono-causal since we are dealing with people's perceptions. I do think the first step in changing perceptions is by demonstrating the value you place on something. How do we do that in our society? When we really want to demonstrate how much something or somebody means to us, we sacrifice. How much does an education at the best University cost & why do people value it? How much does the best mechanic in town cost and why are people willing to pay him? How about food, automobiles, or anything else in our society? All of those things have some type of value and worth that translates and appeals to the general public. No matter if we are talking services or goods, we place value on things.
So I'd ask you how you change the attitude of your peers? How do you convince the bright & ambitious young men and women of Cornell, that a career in the uniformed service is something they not only should do to safeguard their freedoms, but something they want to do because it will fulfill both their moral sensibilities and their more physical ones such as providing a standard of living for them and their families which is comparable to the many other vocations their abilities might secure?
Best Regards, Rob
Rob, I know I am going back a ways but I haven't had the time to sit down and respond on this issue.
1. Our “best and brightest” is a complicated group to deal with as well as define. First, with the movement in the educational system too many of those who are truly of this sort are being discouraged and hurt. There is a trend towards (forgive me) “goody-two-shoes” book smarts over actual academic excellence. It is hard to find a subject which has not been destroyed under the name of “progressive education. (Niel Postman the father of “progressive education” has written about this.) Our best and brightest are no longer our best and brightest. Their educations have predominantly been myopic and are lacking in depth. I do believe with incentives there would be no problem finding potential officers for positions more in logistics, communications and other technical areas. On the other hand I believe that there will be difficulty finding those with good, let alone exemplary, potential for infantry (and other front line jobs.) Too many of them have had pragmatism, creativity (not in an artistic sense), common sense, mental toughness, the ability to cope with moral ambiguity and most importantly “pride” beaten out of them. We have indoctrinated a generation (or 2+/-) of people that think they are the most important thing. We have taken “don't be a hero” which used to mean “don't get yourself killed for stupid silly reasons”, but it did not mean “don't be a hero, save yourself at all costs.” Also, the concept of working form the inside is gone. Kid's say they want to stop certain “things”, but they wouldn't dare work from the inside where you can normally make the most difference. I know I am ranting a little, or a lot, on this but I really think these are the issues. I just don't know if many people are left (or available) who can psychologically, intellectually and practically deal with the moral as well as real world stresses. Here is the question I have to bring up: Are those we are considering our “best and brightest” really our “best and brightest?”
2. College isn't what it used to be. Too many people are in college today who don't belong there. Degrees are becoming less and less meaning full. Bachelors and Graduate degrees are becoming more and more specialized. We have invented disciplines which are ridiculous. We have turned psychology into a farce. As much as there are many exemplary professors one only has to look at the writings by the staff at many so called “top” universities to see the decline over the last 50 years. It's been really bad the last 20 years. I'm tired of literarature professors talking about how Blake's “Tiger, Tiger” is all about G-d. Anyone who has studied Blake knows this isn't true. The private sector hires the top graduates out of Harvard's law and business schools and pays them 120k (or more) starting wage. The problem is they don't know much and aren't worth pocket change. We have MBA's running around thinking they actually know how to run a company.
- Incentives are a good and bad idea at the same time. While they may in fact get more officers we may not be getting them for the right reasons.
- I understand the difficulties socially for officers serving one tour after another. I understand how it is hard to go so long without companionship, but should so many young officers have families so early on in their career. Traditionally in the service (I'm going back at least 45-60 years), especially among the elite, for officers to refrain from marriage until their early 30's if not later was quite common. Normally, by this point those who were not to stay in the service would have been settled in a civilian job, while those still in the service would have achieved a pay grade better suited to supporting a family. I am not preaching this, but I am commenting this is one of the differences now vs. historically. It is less and less common to have 8-12, let alone more, years separating couples in age today.
- I think too many people on this site (from the military) are being too modest about their academic capabilities. Most students graduating from “Ivy League” institutions may be more polished (in certain very narrow areas) but I would not say that many of them are more intelligent, nor are most as knowledgeable. Whether or not you went to college I think that pretty much everyone I have encountered here wants to learn and is self starting. As the educational lingo says these days, “a life long learner.” I've always said that college can be a great learning experience but not necessarily beneficial to being well educated. A motivated person with basic academic skills (I should note that what I consider basic may be more lofty than what you would expect), or what a person should come out of high school with, merely needs a public library card and the will, determination and humility to surround oneself with those who are more knowledgeable than oneself to gain a first class education.
- SEE THE REST NEXT POST
WaPo - Army Offers Big Cash To Keep Key Officers
WaPo - Army Offers Big Cash To Keep Key Officers
Quote:
More than 18,000 Army captains are eligible for the bonuses and more than a third of those have taken them since the new cash offer was announced on Sept. 13, senior Army officers said this week. An additional 900 officers have taken other incentives to stay on.
...
The Army's goal is for 85 percent of those eligible to stay on, either taking the bonus or another incentive such as attending graduate school or selecting their next post.
Going on the "economy" for our kids' education
Quote:
nd there may come a day when the teachers lose that bond with the parents they support, and then Johnny comes home black and blue from a bully that the teacher ignored for weeks on end. You should see the teachers at all of my daughters' schools. They are married to Marines, were raised by Marines, etc. They don't take crap from anybody, least of all a snot-nosed 5th grader.
Amen - we recently moved off post for the move to Carlisle for BSAP where we moved to a nearby town because after 14 months deployed I decided to take the family with me vs. leaving them for another 8 months then going back to a high OPTEMPO job - my attempt to balance out my responsibility to the Army and my family life (BTW - so far it looks in the too hard to do column - the Institution is not geared to resource balance) - back on thread - anyway the school we wound up in had a good reputation and the corporate housing we leased had some good families in it (although I've about maxed myself out to make it happen - personal choice and worth it to us). My boy was having some problems getting integrated into the school - he'd never had problems before - he'd always done really well. So one day when I had driven back there on the weekend commute from Belvoir (location of current follow on school for new majors- also not "installationally" geared to the soldier returning from deployment and TDY enroute) I went and saw his teacher. Nice lady, good school, but no clue of what its like to be a service member, no real understanding of what deployments do to kids, no real empathy for kids whose parents do what we do, and not the same types of teachers we had at Knox. Kids were different too - they'd all been friends since Kindergarten - whereas kids on post know what its like to show up at a new post and have to make new friends, they know what its like to have a dad or Mom deployed, and they know at least one other kid whose mom or Dad did not come back. Military kids are special in that regard, and they deserve the very best - and so do their military parents - the last thing we want is for deployed Moms and Dads worrying about their kids and their spouses while they should be focused on the mission. Doing away with DoDS means kids being bussed off post in many cases and civilian kids being bussed on post as subject to local zoning rules. It also means local teachers paid by local standards vs. the quality of teacher who will commute for the extra DoDS money - it makes a difference.
Norfolk - you are absolutely correct - it is starting to feel like a corporation in all the ways we don't like,and all the ways that we profess we are different - honestly - it leaves you with a knot in your stomach.
Best, Rob
Not directly officer related, but I was relieved to see this
Just got this snippet from an AAR of a recent SNCO selection board. It would appear that the Corps has started to turn the ship on the significance of MiTT folks:
Quote:
4. Although not a precept for this board (and, of note, combat deployment was not addressed in the precepts, but rather: “bloom where you are planted” was), Marines who had served or are currently serving in these billets should be considered "highly qualified" for promotion and get top consideration for selection, as our national strategy and success in Iraq and Afghanistan literally depend on their success.
I do not know if the officer selection boards are applying the same rules of thumb, but there is hope.
Ultimately painful medicine for an illness
After recently talking with senior pers types I've come to the conclusion that the medicine offered, monetary incentives for officer retention, is ultimately bad medicine for this illness. How many officers on the fence have opted to remain on active duty due to incentives? How many officers who were going to stay took the incentive anyway? It's the bang for the buck idea. If the benefit is worth the cost then the incentive is valuable. But I would venture to say that we've spent an enormous amount of money not in retention but in a backdoor one time pay raise for a very select group of officers.
Currently, we're paying earily shippers one year's salary up front, re-enlisting Soldiers up to E6 generous in-theater bonuses, paying Captains a one-time$25-35k. We need a serious discussion within the military community on the active duty conpensation system. The shortage of officers will not remain with Captains. The shortage bubble that currently hangs over Captains will migrate to Majors and if we are not careful will once again review this problem in 3-5 years time and again throw a pile on money at the problem.
A more creative program for all members of the active military is essential so we do not create a population of haves and have nots but reward those deserving of higher compensation. Currently, we treat every Captain as deserving when in fact there are some who should not remain and in previous times would never have been promoted.
We do not need to create an officer corps of mediocre performers simply because they are breathing and wear two bars. Incentive pay for green-tabs, advanced education, combat experience, special deployment compensations, special skills, and performance can create the right incentives even with current levels of OPTEMPO.
Here's something to think about - if every eligible Captain received the one-time incentive pay (about 18k Captains x $30k (average incentive pay)) it would cost the Army $540,000,000. But the reality is we will not retain enough Captains with this program and it will cost us over $300,000,000. That's a lot of zeros for zero.
My bottom line - There is no relief in the near term (out to 5-7 years) for a shortage of officers. Recognizing this we need to also recognize that not every billet will be or should be filled, not everyone will get their desired assignment, the mission of supporting combat operations (pre, during, post) is the first mission of all services, and finally creativitiy and not simply the same old medicine is what we need for the future.
Over revving the engine???
Over time, as part of the “peace dividend" that resulted from the West “winning” the Cold War, the active component of U.S. Army has been about halved. What is amazing to this writer is that during the same period, the size of the globe has not gotten any smaller, the missions of the Army have not decreased, and the number of potential enemies to be engaged has probably increased. Once the US faced a monolithic major enemy in a fixed location (the Soviet Union in Europe), with the potential for also having to engage several smaller enemies. Now, the US faces the lreality of dealing with a stateless enemy of global scope (terrorism) as well as an even greater number of smaller potential enemies, many of which have greater military capabilities than ever.
The response to the dissolution of the evil empire has been, “do more with less.” As anyone who has any understanding of the real world knows, doing more with less is not possible. What ends up happening is the system breaks by being overtaxed. A system may be able to surge for a short period, but after that surge it can no longer perform at optimum levels. The American military on the ground is near its post-surge point. It is now like an engine that has been run past its RPM redline—If we do not back off soon, it will need a major overhaul that could take it out of competition for quite a while.