Placing Army personnel where they fit best
Hey everyone,
My husband suggested using the forum to help in writing my masters paper. I am writing on how the Army staffs; in particular their lack of utilizing the technology we have to place the best qualified candidate into the right position. We seem to waste a lot of time training Soldiers for specialized positions. In the mean time there could very well be a Soldier that has the skills needed, yet he/she can't be easily located. This is just one of many staffing issues that has caught my attention. Does this have anything to do with our Army being a wartime Army? Is staffing the right person a priority to "Big Army"? Of course the question that always must be asked how will it cost us?
Being married to a Soldier is the closest I am to the Army. He and I talk often about his work so I know his opinions and we also talk about the subjects discussed on this forum and others. I would love to hear opinions as well as any suggestions for journal articles or any other sources that may shed some light on the above stated questions. I appreciate your time and any suggestions. I will follow this post through my husband's username. Thank you again.
VR,
Allie
Thanks for the props, Entropy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
Hopefully Ken will chime in here. I don't know much about the Army system, but from what I've heard it's just as bad in the other services. Essentially they operate on an industrial-era model that's not relevant anymore and puts bureaucratic interest above warfighting capability.
However, I'm not sure I can be much help -- I've been out too long (even longer than Stan... :( ) and the system has changed a bit.
Two things that haven't changed are that industrial era model -- the system is really in need of major reconstruction -- and the bureaucratic interest. I'd add that IMO, the 'system' skews itself for ease of work on the part of the personnel management folks and is not at all responsive to the needs of the Army.
With reference to Allie's specific interest and questions:
Quote:
We seem to waste a lot of time training Soldiers for specialized positions. In the mean time there could very well be a Soldier that has the skills needed, yet he/she can't be easily located.
Yes and no. My perception is that they can be located but often will not be moved for bureaucratic or quasi legitimate reasons -- personal or family hardship as an example of latter; not the right MOSC (for instance, a person with the right skills has MOS 11B3P but the request calls for an MOS 11B4G or an 18B4W7 when an 18BS6 was requested. Those folks put excessive reliance on the numbers to show 'qualifications' and that system is far from infallible...) or "hasn't satisfied the minimum requirements of experience in the current assignment" sort of foolishness (He's on Recruiting duty and must serve there three years...).
A lot can also depend on how much support the request has from people in high places. The right General Officer's 'interest' can make things happen, a routine (but still important) request from DIA for an NCO who speak Russian to go to Georgia on short notice will get a "Just send somebody,,," response Obviously, the amount of other turbulence in the system at the time can have an adverse impact as the sheer number of requests multiplies exponentially as a 'crisis' involves the nation or the Army.
Quote:
This is just one of many staffing issues that has caught my attention. Does this have anything to do with our Army being a wartime Army?
We aren't a wartime Army, haven't been since 1945. People in the Army have been at war many times since then and are at war today -- but the Army hasn't been at war since World War II. The peacetime rules for personnel are and have been in effect and they are designed for ease of administration and to satisfy Congressional concerns for 'fairness' and 'non-discrimination,' not to support the Army in the field.
Quote:
Is staffing the right person a priority to "Big Army"? Of course the question that always must be asked how will it cost us?
I think you answered your own question... :D
If it entails too much work for the 'managers' or if it will violate their arcane rules, they won't support it or will just pay minimal lip service. There are folks working in HRC who truly place the needs of the Army up front -- but in my experience, they are a minority; most of them seem too enamored of rules IMO.
All that said, across the board, they do put the right person in the right job more often that not and most failings are a result of a bureaucratic failure to bend in order to protect the sanctity of the institution that is HRC.
Hopefully, someone far more current than I will offer you some better insights. Good luck.
Thank you and more questions
Thank you everyone so much for your input, it really does help. Something all of you have commented on; likely the biggest issue is that those who decide staffing will always do what is easiest and fastest for them. Is there a way to change this?
Ken, you said that more often than not people are assigned to where they are most useful. Do you believe this was true during your time in and have you come across any concerns to the contrary in forums about today's military? I now understand the difference between being a wartime Army and being in the Army while there are combat deployments going on. Are the rules of a peacetime Army appropriate for today?
Staffing issues such as Stan was referring to. Taking someone who speaks the language of the area and replacing him with someone who does not. Thankfully Stan was cognizant enough to call branch and call them on it. Some younger/newer Soldiers may not know to do this. Perhaps I am being naive, but I am just curious. Stan, my husband does contribute to posts and has been helping a lot with this paper. :wry: I am learning more and more about the system that you have had to work with and through. It gives me a better understanding of his day to day frustrations.
One of the other things that I am looking at as a smaller side area; the fact that the job market today in general is having to facilitate four generations. This is new to the employers. The Army is no exception; though it is more like three generations as the youngest traditionalist would be approximately 67 years old. The three generations are: Baby Boomer, X and Y. How can we best utilize all generations?
Thanks again for anyone reading and writing. I really appreciate the insight and will definitely utilize it in my paper. As a military wife I am extremely proud of my husband and the work he does; that extends to all those in the service branches. Thank you for all you do.
Force early retirements!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IronTwoSix
...those who decide staffing will always do what is easiest and fastest for them. Is there a way to change this?
IMO it can be changed a bit but it's really a function of human fallibilities. All of us will try to make our jobs easier, the good guys will do so consistent with getting the job done right, the less good will be more concerned with their ease and comfort. You can change the rules but people will just game the system. Long answer, that -- short one is probably not significantly.
Quote:
Ken, you said that more often than not people are assigned to where they are most useful. Do you believe this was true during your time in and have you come across any concerns to the contrary in forums about today's military?
Both. I have a long and still serving son; he and his friends keep me reasonably up to date. Remember, I also said "and most failings are a result of a bureaucratic failure to bend in order to protect the sanctity of the institution that is HRC." That protection involves both keeping their power and keeping senior leaders -- and Congress -- happy. The "more often than not" is generally true but there are peaks and valleys caused by deployment turbulence and by individuals who evade or otherwise aren't available from time to time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. In all cases, we're talking about people so there are infinite variations...
A part of the problem is overstrength elements. We are effectively over-Officered and over NCOd; too many of each for the number of lesser Peons. There are units that really do not need to exist; most Staffs are too large by far. All those things and a few more exist or are that way to keep a pool of Officers and NCOs at hand in case of a need to mobilize or rapidly expand the Army. Our Personnel System was developed in 197 to cope with a major mobilization for WW I. The system was 'refined' for WW II -- and it still bases much of what it does on mobilization requirements. The problem all that creates is that when ever there's an over supply of anything, allocation becomes muddied and waste is prevalent.
Consider also if you have MAJ Heebley and / or SFC Schmedlap assigned to a Corps Staff and the Army needs either or both for another assignment; it can sometimes settle down to which General (the one they're working for or the one who wants 'em) has more pull in Washington; needs of the service often become secondary.
Quote:
Are the rules of a peacetime Army appropriate for today?
Not in my opinion but then I'm a Neanderthal. Or a Dinosaur -- maybe both...:D
However, reality is that we live in a democracy and that war based training and assignments would be expensive and would impose a training casualty rate of over 1%. Both those things are anathema to Congress who do not like Mothers to get upset by their kids getting hurt 'unnecessarily' and who wish to use taxpayers Dollars to reelect themselves and not spent so some can play Soldier. The peace time orientation is a function of all that. We won't go to a war footing unless we have a WW II-like existential war and then it'll take us a while to ramp up. That's why that for Korea, Viet Nam and today, the Pentagon and HRC are at peace. :rolleyes:
Quote:
The three generations are: Baby Boomer, X and Y. How can we best utilize all generations?
Force all the Baby Boomers to retire, they have not been helpful. They had a chance, post Viet Nam and post Cold War to fix a lot of these and other problems and they didn't do it... :wry:
That last is a serious comment BTW.
