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