Selection for Major General rank

[Stan]

To reiterate Mike and Max's posts herein...

In general (pun intended), and having served on a selection board there is no way you could communicate with board members. Those are the rules and process.

One more reference:

US Army Human Resources Command

BTW: I've noticed that since the server change, the editor can't handle umlauted vowels - so, "hyva" in the Finnish sentence in opening.

Hei Mika !

Mitä sanoitte?

[davidbfpo]

Don,

I found this Thomas Ricks article via the Lowry Institute's mailing, perhaps it explains your quest, even if at the rank of brigadier-general:http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...pisrc=obinsite

An intriguing title 'A 1983 Army War College study found 1/4 of Army brigadier generals shouldn’t be':

It's pretty strong stuff. Reid looked at the Army's new class of 25 new brigadier generals, most of them from the infantry and artillery branches, and asked the 110 battalion commanders who had served under them to assess them. Consistently, about one-third were rated by name as incompetent, not caring about their people, not developing subordinates, and more managers than leaders. Most significantly, about one-third of the battalion commanders said they would not want to serve under that general again or be led by him in combat. About a quarter of the new BGs should not have been promoted to that rank, Reid bravely concludes.

(Ricks asks)I wonder what a survey today would find.

[Don Riggs]

David,
I read the article... hairy stuff; thanks. I was thinking about a process special, something bookish or to run on Military Channel, about the process. Any thoughts?

[davidbfpo]

Don,

Not my area of expertise. Perhaps an article for SWJ, that may help your own thinking and expression. I expert, albeit from the UK, some media types in the USA do check here and of course we have Robert Haddick's expertise too.