Army offers officers incentives

[Rob Thornton]

Looks like main stream news finally caught up with the Army offering CPTs a 20 K bonus to stay. However, they left off some qualifiers - my understanding its targeted for CPTs between 3-8 years of service.

I think this incentive is probably inadequate - here is why:

First its a symptom treatment and not an illness treatment. The officer (and professional NCO Corps) can add and divide. Rather then a targeted incentive which seems like its objective is to turn CPTs into MAJs and put them into a position where its more attractive to stay in towards retirement then to enter into a new job from mid career - how about a strategy (with the types of incentives) that creates an atmosphere where professionals (and their families) inside the Army are content and through word of mouth and good press, attract not only quantity, but the type of quality we say we need?

I've talked to these CPTs (and other officers) weighing indefinite, repeated 15 month tours on their families. Most believe in what we are fighting for and believe in the Army - but they can add and divide - they have also been taught COA analysis in their CCC (CPTs Career Course). They also receive emails from head-hunters, and maintain a vast email network with their buddies from school and their years as LTs. They know who has gotten out, why and how much money they are making on the outside. The married ones have spouses (who also know how to add and divide) who also maintain email communications with the spouses of the officers who have separated - all the cards are on the table.

Here is the question:

So 20K divided over say 4 years equals to about 5K a year. Is the targeted officer going to make more then an additional 5K a year for leaving the Army (with what may equate to 2 x 15 month tours in that 4 years) for a civilian job with no 15 month tours?

Here are a few more questions - on the ground we saw there was a growing CPT problem about 2 years ago. We saw the survey that were trying to gauge it, and new from past surveys that the data would be filtered and dressed then go through a echeloned decision making and approval process that would water down the remedy and create delays. So, is our problem still at the CPT level only, or has it migrated to become a MAJ and LTC problem? With the acceleration of the expansion of the Army competing with an attrition of leadership - what options does that leave the Army to fill critical MTO&E positions? Where will the Army get these officers (and NCOs - I say that because the burdens become proportional to the lack of needed leaders)

Will they promote early and try to fill vacuums? What problems will become compounded as a result? NCOES, OES, the graduate school incentives also discussed?

How about the reserve and inactive officers and NCOs? How will they (and the organizations they currently belong to) be effected?

What about TRADOC and other non-MTO&E billets? Anybody who says TRADOC, ROTC, Recruiting, and functional areas are not critical fails to understand the success of our professional military - you can't just back fill these position with civilians - one because their is a relevancy issue, second because you just create more jobs that require professional military experience and will pay more for it since the contract will allow it - you've just created employment opportunity.

This goes back to several other threads. It ties in with the thread on Public Will and Sacrifice, on establishing a Corps of nation builder peace keepers and with some of the responses to the thread on Army Officer accuses GOs of Incompetence.

Generating and retaining the professionals needed for this Long War require updating the HR strategy required to do so - when only a small percentage of the population shoulders the sustained burden - the need to compensate them and their families grows. I read some of the thoughts from the other threads - some called for congressional involvement and some against. Congress recently approved a pay raise for the military - it really doesn’t do much - its more of a Cost of Living raise - for the average citizen. It does not address the increased hardships (read costs) placed on the families of deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, or the incredible pace of short notice travel placed on those men/women and their families when between deployments as they try and spend time with families, PCS, TDY enroute, etc. At 3.5% it equals out to 1/2 of one more trip to the grocery a month - or maybe an extra fill up of the tank at prices near the $3 mark.

What we need is for Congress to offer the military the $$$ and more importantly the tools to create an atmosphere of quality of life. The first part of these tools would be a real pay raise that recognizes the sacrifice of those in uniform; some of this could be applied toward targeted performance - max out your OER and NCOER and get a bonus; some for better housing (their is much more to this then just the quality of the dwelling - best people to ask about this are the spouses - (but only ask if you are serious); some of this on a return to full medical and dental coverage for families (spouses and kids hat the word dependants now- but it does accurately reflect given the hardships they endure how dependant they are on the soldier/marine/airman/sailor), educational bonuses/incentives as planned - or better expanded towards families, real child care that allows spouses to decompress occasionally while their military spouse is deployed.

All of these things cost $$$$. People cost money. Good people cost more money and the best people cost the most money - if you want to retain them past the point where they feel they have met their obligation and somebody else can shoulder the burden.

There will be a few of the best who stay for various reasons, but they are a minority. You can only appeal to patriotism and loyalty for so long without offering more.

[jcustis]

So 20K divided over say 4 years equals to about 5K a year. Is the targeted officer going to make more then an additional 5K a year for leaving the Army (with what may equate to 2 x 15 month tours in that 4 years) for a civilian job with no 15 month tours?

In the majority of cases, the answer is likely "no". We get those spreadsheets that break down your total value, given base pay, housing, medical, dental, insurance, and commissary, and it's pretty much on the money. I found that out 8 years ago when I dabbled with a 8 month break in service. I came back in mostly because I soldier for the sake of soldiering...that and the fact that my wife said if we were going to be miserable b/c we lived in a town with no friends, plus were miserable b/c I was miserable with 10-12 hour work days, we might as well go back to where everyone else was miserable too. It was like a moment from the opening song to the show "Cheers". I haven't looked back.

Even on the worst days, I think the military still cares more for you than any corporation where the $$$ are the bottom line.

[Rob Thornton]

In the majority of cases, the answer is likely "no". We get those spreadsheets that break down your total value, given base pay, housing, medical, dental, insurance, and commissary, and it's pretty much on the money.

Got to love the annual "your net worth" spreadsheet - and it is accurate. But, does it reflect the worth of the soldier/sailor/marine/airman given the job they are doing and will be doing over the next decade or more?

For you and me we've got years in - I'm at about 17 for retirement (6 were enlisted in the Marines prior to college) and 21 for pay. I've got options galore. Most do not have the flexibility I do - At worst I probably have 1 possibly 2 more long deployments somewhere. Anything past 20 is pretty much on my terms. However, I have amassed a great deal of experience in those years. I'm in good health; and for a fellow with a funny accent I'm reasonably competent .

I know a great many young CPTs who are married or considering marriage and are facing up to 15 years to retirement - that could be allot of 15 month deployments - and their families understand this.

Even if the money doesn't add up, the trade off may be worth it. The Army is not only getting tagged for unit rotations of 15 months - the individual augmentation - increasing numbers all the time - are also 15 months. With global commitments to fight the War on Terror - this probably will not abate.

I've seen allot of very good young officer choose to leave. I'm seeing allot of very able 20 year guys at the MAJ and LTC level separate - good jobs vs. continued deployments. I'm hearing about LTCs turning down command - something we've all been bred to accept as the prize for enduring staff work.

I believe that without a significant change in the way we compensate reward the guys taking on these deployments - we will continue to exacerbate this problem and create additional problems in the process.

The Army and Marines have much in common in terms of the commitments - but they are also different animals - specifically with different HR challenges. The Air Force and Navy have different requirements and HR Challenges as a result. However, you cannot differentiate too much in terms of rewards without possibly crippling/impacting the other.

Its a tough nut to crack - but we seem to always identify problems too late and offer up responses which don't mitigate the self inflicted latency.

[jcustis]

During the garrison years, I noticed an interesting thing from where I sat. All we had were UDPd to Okinawa, Med and WestPac floats, and the occasional disturbance that required a condition 1 presence. Many Marines simply got bored and decided to move on.

Shift to the OIF years, where we have no downsizing concerns, and the reasons are markedly different. After doing a run at OIF I, the majority of Marines I knew who made the choice simply said that they had done everything they had come into the Corps for. See a foreign land, prove themself in a combat environment, yada, yada. Some of these motivations were what drove a lot of IRR volunteers to come back on as combat replacements for the second go-around of OIF-II. They wanted to get in the mix.

I've known three good officers who decided to leave after their second tours. All were solid guys, but in almost every case, they simply had something else that they wanted to do on the outside, so they gave it a go. Although a couple would probably never admit, disillusionment with the administration's policies was a factor. They voted with their feet.

I don't think money will capture the 1/3 that "get it", but have competing demands that lure them out. For them it's not the money. The 1/3 who "have no clue" would be all over monetary incentives. To make this thing work, we'd have to connect incentives to quantifiable performance.

"Oh, so you say you're a bag of donuts but want the $20,000 bonus to stay in? Let's take a gander at your performance files. Hmmm, it says you graduated at the bottom of your Basic School class, and the bottom of your Logistics Officer course. No thanks...next please."

It could be argued that this would be a difficult task to accomplish, given the poor state of our awards systems and such, but the GS side has been using performance awards for years. All it takes is conscientious administrators who follow the letter of the program, and it can be effective. Applying it to the military context would be tough, but I wonder if it has even been explored.

Amongst the 1/3 that do get it, I think there is a sense that standards continue to decrease, the "lost ones" continue to find promotions and juicy assignments, and personnel rotation policies are out of whack. Heck, it was just recently that I heard that Master Gunnery Sergeants (E-9s) were going to hold a conference, comparable to the Sgts Major conferences that are held routinely. As I think about it, that sort of stuff should have been happening all along. It was refreshing to hear from a MGySgt (recently joined to the battalion when we were deployed) tell me that he had stiff-armed the Sgt Maj and let him know that he would be talking to the career monitor for the MOS 0369 staff sergeants and above, as well as helping those Marines chart their course.

Some times it is a lack of focus. I know many Marines who think the leadership should focus on the most serious of matters that face us, and prioritize acquisition of a new PT uniform to the bottom of the list of things to do. Oh, and if anyone thinks that they can find the triggers for a servicemember's separation aims, it won't come from a ream of anonymous surveys, met thinks.

[Rob Thornton]

From JC:

"Oh, so you say you're a bag of donuts but want the $20,000 bonus to stay in? Let's take a gander at your performance files. Hmmm, it says you graduated at the bottom of your Basic School class, and the bottom of your Logistics Officer course. No thanks...next please."

JC - Concur- we should not reward sub-standard performance - but under a blanket 3-8 yr target - I think we'll get some of that - unless - we say something to the effect of "OK - thanks, but your potential is limited". Unfortunately, I think that is a harder sell to the Army then to the Marines. Having been both and wondered about the differences over the years, my thoughts are that the Marines can afford to be more selective given their size (they punch well above their weight given everything from the ability to run a MAGTF, MEUSOC in a MEF - and I think their fat to muscle mass ratio reflects that). The Army is different, its a large bureaucracy with the strengths and weaknesses given the size of a heavy weight. Within the organization are some very agile organizations, but both within those organizations and in the support areas around them, there are allot of empty billets.

Increasingly we have the competing requirements of Mass and technical. The former is the ability to field sufficient formation to meet all the mission requirements it has, the latter reflects the reality of both technical fields and the emotional maturity to deal with people on and around the battlefield. Any organization that requires such a large number of qualified people is going to have problems, particularly when it competes on a government budget.

I'd say look at the recruiting strategies as an example of marketing. Who do they target and what is their message. The Marines have had pretty much the same message since I joined in 1984, although they have gotten better at presenting it and refining it. It basically says, "Come and be challenged by the best and prove your worth". Semper Fidelis, and "The few, the Proud, the Marines" resonate and have not lost their edge with their target. The Army has had to change its message over the years, and its incentives for enlistment given among other things the need to meet its recruiting goals. Because the Army is so big and diverse, many can do the job they'd like to do, get the skills they'd like to aquire and still probably get some kind of bonus. They can also change jobs fairly easy, try out for OCS or Green to Gold, attempt to join the Army SOF community etc. their are always holes to fill and the some part of the Army is always willing to do allow for that - but taking the filler from one hole and filling another still leaves a hole.

That is what I meant when I said the Army has some different HR challenges. Consider the SOF community. They have been told to grow without compromise of standards, a tall order. It means cutting attrition and growing recruitment - those bodies have to come from somewhere. How do you entice some of them - how do you retain some of the others - Many a PMC I met was prior SOF - the money was just that good. Some were 20 year veterans - they felt they'd done their time, and it was time for them to make a little money doing what they enjoyed and were qualified for. Who could begrudge them or anybody who served even for 1 tour in that small percentage of the less then 1% who actually serve at all?

From JC:

Some times it is a lack of focus. I know many Marines who think the leadership should focus on the most serious of matters that face us, and prioritize acquisition of a new PT uniform to the bottom of the list of things to do.

I think you are on the money here. There are allot of glass balls in the air (at least somebody's concluded their ball is glass) in terms of how funds should be spent. There is also the problem of flexibility in allocation - what monies go where and how they are used to fix problems.

From JC:

Oh, and if anyone thinks that they can find the triggers for a service member's separation aims, it won't come from a ream of anonymous surveys, met thinks

You know although I hate the surveys, I always fill them out - and usually write comments. In my mind I imagine the poor contractor who says " well, that is a valid point, but it fits no where on our quantitative roll up, so out the window it goes." The survey seems to be the instrument of justification to go before somebody and tell them what we already knew a year earlier. Its a process that is ponderous and reflects a large bureaucratic organization where the distance between the brain and the fingertips makes finding out what you are touching difficult.

What we may need to do is consider the problems that will be created (ex. shortage of CPTs will create a shortage of MAJs/LTCs) and regain the initiative by holistic solution - ID the symptoms - Diagnose the Illness/problem - prescribe a cure fast enough to work or at least treatments that put the disease in remission until a cure comes along.

[jcustis]

Increasingly we have the competing requirements of Mass and technical. The former is the ability to field sufficient formation to meet all the mission requirements it has, the latter reflects the reality of both technical fields and the emotional maturity to deal with people on and around the battlefield. Any organization that requires such a large number of qualified people is going to have problems, particularly when it competes on a government budget.

Can we say that the investment in technology and equipment hurt our ability to invest in people?

[phil b]

Stories about re-enlistment/retention usually assume that anyone in the military intends or is open to a career in the military and that current policies or conditions drive people out of the services. But the reality is that most people who serve never intend to make the military a career. This is true not only in our time when facing perhaps multiple 15 month tours in combat, but also in peacetime. In peacetime your job is a lot of garrison bull#### and training for combat that you'll never see. After a while its just boring and once you have accomplished your individual goals it's time to move on. Whether people stay in or get out has become a political issue, but what is ignored are the variety of individual motivations. If someone joined the military for a defined period of time and then intended to get out then it doesn't make sense to portray them as a potential career officer or NCO who was lost due to current curcumstances. There is a kind of Catch-22 in all of this: in wartime people don't want to stay in because there are too many deployments, but in peacetime people don't want to stay in because there are no real world deployments and it's just a lot of bs.

[Strategic LT]

This is an excerpt from an article Army Times.

"Officer bonuses. Active and reserve officers could receive bonuses for commissioning or appointment, for affiliating with or transferring to a reserve component, and for agreeing to stay on active duty.

Commissioning and reserve affiliation bonuses could be up to $60,000. Bonuses for transferring to the reserves or for continued active service could be up to $50,000 for each year of additional service.

Like bonuses for enlisted members, payments could be either lump-sum or installments, at the discretion of the services"

This is too good to be true. If it is make my extension literally indef. haha!

Here is the link to the whole article

http://www.armytimes.com/money/pay_c...nuses_070523w/

[Rob Thornton]

Its a start. Now they need to tackle long term Quality of Life improvements targeting families - make them an offer they can't refuse

[Van]

$20K is a real slap in the face to Army officers, when Air Force officers (including several non-pilot specialties) were getting $100K+ bonuses. So an Air Force Security Police officer is worth five times as much as an Army MP?

If you're going to try to bribe people, make sure you're at least meeting if not exceeding the going rates in nearby neighborhoods.

[jcustis]

I for one would be happy just to be able to use my GI Bill with more flexibility. Even if it was only me pulling out the $1,200 I put in years ago, I could apply that to a tactical training school or two, and gain much from it, or that UN Peacekeeping Institute POI that I've eyed for at least 9 years now.

[Steve Blair]

Very interesting piece! A great deal of what is said seems to agree with Vandergriff's comments about needed overhauls in the personnel system (including the desire to return to a unit than an officer "grew up" in).

[Sargent]

A friend sent this to me from Iraq. Should start up some more discussion.

Interesting. I would note that many Marines get frustrated by the B-billet rotation -- "I didn't join the Marine Corps as [fill in combat arms mos] to sit behind an [expletive deleted] desk in DC or Quantico!"

Another thing that concerns/worries me is the idea about giving Reg/Brig COs and Bn COs the ability/authority to favor "top performers." There was a reason that this sort of practice was done away with, and that was the problem of the "pets" and favorites receiving benefits to the detriment of others, who, deserving though they might be, were not raging sycophants. This sort of a program needs to be tightly controlled/monitored lest it become a vehicle for field grade officer vanity.