If a very long time observer can make an
observation...
Let me piggy back on 82redleg's comment:
Quote:
"...The problem is that, as every senior leader I've ever worked for acknowledges, we've made so much "stuff" a matter of regulation (some for good reason, some to CYA, some as a matter of "fairness" or "equality" in some form or another- OPMS XXI may be an example of this) that commander's are forced to pick and choose, because it is impossible to do it all.
This was true to an extent back in th 50s and as I stuck around, the level increased every decade. When I retired from the DAC job in 1995 the sheer volume -- not only at Co level but all through the chain had a tremendously adverse impact.
The really sad thing is that in my estimation the ratio of 'good reason : CYA : equality' in 1995 was about 10 : 70 : 20. Working backwards, fairness and equality are great -- war is not fair and it should not be equal if possible...
The CYA category does include some 'lower validity' items that have morphed into CYA status because not enough time is allowed to do more than pay them lip service. The percentage of 'valid' items is in the eye of the beholder but IMO, it is abysmally low by any measure compared to the other two categories.
Quote:
...it was overridden by the S3 and CSM (the CDR was absent that week for whatever reason), because "SGTs Time has to happen on WED". Never mind that we were executing the intent (in fact, the exact same, NCO-led, NCO-planned, section level training), certain leaders can't get past it.
I'm not surprised; angry, saddened -- but not surprised. The S3 made a bad decision and good commanders will not let their their Staffs intrude in that way; in the absence of the Cdr, someone was the Acting Cdr and the issue should have been resolved by him if a Battery Cdr and the 3 had a disagreement (and the 3, if senior, was the one who had a duty to refer it to the Acting Cdr and to not overrule a subordinate Cdr). The CSM deserved consultation (perhaps...) but he should've kept his nose out of it as long as the NCO element, SGTs Time, was covered. He also IMO, should have told the S3 privately he was exceeding his authority. CSMs don't have much positive power but they do have a whole lot of negative power and they should use it wisely (In my observation most do but the exceptions give the rest of us a bad name :mad: ).
What should be and what is, alas, are rarely the same. I have known over the years a number of senior people who were acutely aware of these growing problems (training distractors and staff interference) and have vowed to do something as they advanced . Some tried -- but most were constrained in what they could do by exactly the same impactors as they reached higher command -- too many Alligators and the imperiousness of the always overlarge, overpowerful, underemployed and therefor overly intrusive next higher staff.
These are problems that can only be fixed by the senior leadership of the Army raking some drastic and radical steps because the Alligators will just reproduce...
Having appeared before and been a board member
on a large number of promotion boards at unit and DA level, I'm here to tell you the Board process is far from an all encompassing solution... :(
Testing for promotion has merit -- as do boards if properly structured but when things occur as they did at one DA Board I was involved with where the President told us what parameters the then-OPM Personnel Actions chief told him HAD to be applied to all potential selectees and the prime criteria was the picture...
However, your point that the current systems are archaic, out of touch, seem to exist to serve the personnel managers rather than the services is well taken.
Target PASs and Agencies/Field Activities
First the only President Appointed, Senate approved individuals in DoD should be the SecDef, DepSecDef, and undersecretaries. All the rest should be hired by the SecDef within criteria set by the Congress and be career SESs.
Second, nearly all Defense Agencies and Field Activities probably could be eliminated or scaled down considerably. The litmus test would be:
What do you do to directly support the warfighter?
What functions/capabilities do you have that are not already resident in the Joint Staff, COCOMs, and Services?
If you scrubbed hard you could eliminate a lot of beauracracy and use the savings realized to plus up the similar functions/capabilities within the Mil Deps. It would be cheaper and more efficient.
Umar, talk to your Congressman
and Senator (and the Pres, while you're at it). DOD political appointees(about 1300 in all) are there because the Congress and the Executive want them. they want to make sure the President's (and Congress') policies are followed and not misinterpreted by the permanent bureaucracy (civilian and uniformed) as happened in DS/DS with the PSRC. One of Pres Obama's best appointments, IMO, is Michelle Flournoy as USD-Policy. But where do you think she got her experience that qualified her for the post? In the Clinton Administration she was a DASD and Principal DASD (political appointments just below the level of Senate confirmation). So, there is reason for the political appointments as they stand, whether we agree or not. (BTW, the Brits do it kind of like you suggest but their career civil service has far more power than ours does.)
Cheers
JohnT