Military Staff

[Ken White]

...(a Commander) is to inspire by some way, act, or process his men to perform their duties, and to execute the missions tasked to his unit...however, I believe that leading and planning are two separate and distinct functions...I certainly think there is room to make staffs more powerful and more effective.

A point on Command -- leading and inspiring is good but not a mandatory item; unfortunately, getting people to lay their lives on the line requires more than leadership and inspiration. It requires the force of law and command authority. That's why commanders are not called leaders.

Leading -- or commanding -- and planning are indeed two separate functions. However, the Company Commander is responsible for both and has no staff to assist. Higher commanders have staffs to assist but the responsibility for the plan is theirs, not the staff's...

I've already said but will reiterate because it's important -- staffs are too powerful now; they need less and not more power.

... I think the Army only gives lip-service to character development and can do much more in that regard.

No, the Army cannot do much more for character development, it does not have the time -- and more importantly, that is NOT the Army's job; that was the job of parents, educators and society. If a person in the Army has character flaws, place the blame where it belongs.

...I will dispute that adversarial decision-making necessarily undermines loyalty or teamwork. It can and it does undermine, but I do not think that it must necessarily follow from disagreement as you suggest...

Adverserial decision making undermines cooperation and / or teamwork -- as you'll later see -- far more importantly, it just takes up too much time. In an academic exercise, it can be illuminating -- in combat it is an attempt to replace a rapid good enough plan with a far too slow closer to perfection plan. Won't work -- will get people killed.

...Part of my intent is to find out (1) whether alternative relationships exist in other staff systems and (2) if such alternatives can produce better results than what we have now.

You say better results. On what basis do you think current results are unacceptable?

If personality types have a measurable impact on performance, then I think taking advantage of that is something worth looking into.

They have been looked into, numerous times by untold numbers of people and organizations. Check the research data; no sense in reinventing a wheel.

...I'm very interested in the abstract principles and assumptions that goven commander-staff relationships, and what, if anything, can be modified and improved. Obviously my comments so far indicate an interest in increasing staff powers relative to a commander. That's liable to make the commander types upset.

Abstract principles are all very well. It has been my observation that entirely too much effort in the Army is directed toward those at the expense of preparation for dealing with reality. If you're going to increase the power of the staff vis a vis the commander, you're going to turn over 5,000 years of military history around -- good luck with that.

You might want to eschew the abstract principles and try for practical solutions that can realistically be expected to offer a prospect of improvement...

I think the major contributing factor to our disagreement is the fundamental contradiction in our initial assumptions: I believe your assumption is that an intuitive, direct single decision-maker will make, on average, better (or more relevant?) decisions than a collaberative, deliberate process. I am assuming the opposite. Am I accurate? If so, what do you think are the implications of those opposing assumptions?(emphasis added / kw)

Might I suggest that your statement of your assumption appears to be correct as this thread illustrates but that your stated belief that RTK's assumption is as you state may be in error as in his case it is not an assumption at all but an acceptance of demonstrated fact?

I'd also very strongly suggest that you replace the word I emphasized with 'timely.' You may or may not wish to do that; I can assure you that most people in combat will do so.

...if a staff were semi-autonomous...

Why would anyone want a staff that was semi autonomous??? Who would they serve??? Far more germane to the issue, what purpose would they serve???

Do you think the thoroughness of MDMP is effective? Also, if a staff were semi-autonomous, do you think it would be helpful for it to run continuous MDMP (with the necessary changes) similar to continuous IPB?

No and no.

[AmericanPride]

You asked for advice. You then disputed the perspectives given to you. I've evaluated 1500 lieutenants just like you in the last 2 years. I've punted 15% of them. Take that perspective and advice for what it's worth.

I appreciate your input. Duly noted.

I've already said but will reiterate because it's important -- staffs are too powerful now; they need less and not more power.

I noticed that claim before. Sorry I missed it earlier. In what ways are staffs too powerful? Too much authority? To much bureaucratic inertia? I recall you mentioned their size, as did several others, as a problem also.

Might I suggest that your statement of your assumption appears to be correct as this thread illustrates but that your stated belief that RTK's assumption is as you state may be in error as in his case it is not an assumption at all but an acceptance of demonstrated fact?

I'd also very strongly suggest that you replace the word I emphasized with 'timely.' You may or may not wish to do that; I can assure you that most people in combat will do so.

I agree that one type of decision-making is more 'timely' than the other as a fact -- and also appreciate the suggestion to use that word in place of relevant. As far as one making 'better' decisions than the other, I'm not entirely sure. I'll have to investigate it some more, though I will state that my assumption has been (and continues to be) that it's good to seek a 'best' solution as opposed to a 'sufficient' solution; I will further caveat that by stating I understand that it's not always possible or desirable to find the 'best' solution when constraints compel sufficiency (the implied questions being: what constraints; their origins/causes? real or perceived? imposed/self-created? etc). Is it a "fact"? I think that's an open debate.

You say better results. On what basis do you think current results are unacceptable?

Not unacceptable. See above about my assumptions. Also -- when comparing the satisfaction of US staff officers, and the perception of staff work, with that of historical examples, there seems to be a major difference. How that affects output, I'd like to look into also.

Why would anyone want a staff that was semi autonomous??? Who would they serve??? Far more germane to the issue, what purpose would they serve???

For discussion purposes, I'd like to detach the staff's planning and facilitating responsibilities. A knot is tied between the two, I understand, but I'd like to talk about the former before addressing the latter. In that regard, I think a semi-autonomous staff focused on/addressing/otherwise conducting planning would be in a greater position to conduct continuous planning (I understand this goes on already in a variety of ways through means other than MDMP). Rather than time-bounding COAs and then comparing them, the staff could build a continuous stream of action; adding and detaching activities and tasks to a central timeline. I'll have to take some time to think on the practical differences of the concept I'm attempting to explain in order to flush out it more fully. I know it sounds like what already occurs in some ways; X echelon planning Y months ahead; but it sounds different in my head. I promise. I'll get back to you on it when I've thought it more through.

we add bodies and process to fix what is a training AND experience issue because as soon as one gets competent, they get moved, probably to never repeat the same job but rather to start the learning by doing cycle all over again.

What is the cause or reasoning for the continual reassignment? Another poster mentioned DOPMA -- is the 'up or out' process a significant contributing factor in your opinion?

[patmc]

What is the cause or reasoning for the continual reassignment? Another poster mentioned DOPMA -- is the 'up or out' process a significant contributing factor in your opinion?

At the BN level, most staff officers are CPTs or specialty branch LT (ie SIGNAL or CHEM). 1/2 those CPTs are usually recently promoted, awaiting CCC or if really lucky, a command. The other 1/2 are CPTs waiting on command. When a slot opens in a company/battery, or CCC orders come in, or a tasking for an officer comes in, one CPT moves in, and someone else has to fill that slot. KD, formerly Branch qualified CPTs are not authorized by MTOE in non life-cycle units. With officers constantly moving in, and the push to get KD so you can be utilized elsewhere, most officers do not stay in primary staff jobs that long. I was a S4 for 7 months, then got 12 months as S2 before HRC realized my branch detail expired and sent me to CCC. I asked to stay for a deployment, but was told negative.

To really get good at your staff job, it can take many months, if ever. Often, by the time you learn it, you are moved out to fill elsewhere or leave. Also, I was not a volunteer for the S4 slot. If I had been forced to be S4 for 19 months as a FA/MI officer, I would likely be Mister, not Captain right now (not joking). Few jobs are fun, but some are much less fun than others. If you forced officers into multi-year jobs, they would become specialists, and if they did not like that job, retention and satisfaction would drop.

There are likely other players and forces involved, but that's my view from below.

[Ken White]

...I noticed that claim before. Sorry I missed it earlier. In what ways are staffs too powerful? Too much authority? To much bureaucratic inertia? I recall you mentioned their size, as did several others, as a problem also.

"c. Both of the above." Also they're very rank heavy, officer and enlisted. That is far more designed to build a mobilization base and to cover possible shortfall in retention than it is due to any need for those ranks and that many on the staff (though Parkinson's law applies). Those extra people and that over-ranking contribute a great deal to the noted malaise. The size factor contributes to the problem in that if X people are on the staff, then X people need to be involved in the 'production' of staff products. Not correct at all but an understandable phenomonen as some try to insure all are 'productive.'

Staffs today also, as Eden noted, filter a tremendous amount of information to present only what is 'pertinent' to the Commander -- thus the staff, with minimal responsibility, is determining what the Commander with total responsibility sees and acts upon. That is not good, in fact it is bad -- and your idea of semi-autonomous staff would make that far worse.

...As far as one making 'better' decisions than the other, I'm not entirely sure. I'll have to investigate it some more, though I will state that my assumption has been (and continues to be) that it's good to seek a 'best' solution as opposed to a 'sufficient' solution; I will further caveat that by stating I understand that it's not always possible or desirable to find the 'best' solution when constraints compel sufficiency (the implied questions being: what constraints; their origins/causes? real or perceived? imposed/self-created? etc). Is it a "fact"? I think that's an open debate.

Investigate merrily. Let us know your outcome. Let us know if that belief changes after you're involved in your first fire fight...

You may assume that a 'best' solution is preferred. That does raise the question; what if your opponent opts for a 'sufficient' solution while you are trying for a 'best?'. Do recall we are not conducting an experiment or producing a product (where in both cases I agree your rationale would or might apply) -- rather we are fighting, probably fighting an opponent who is far less bureaucratic then we are and thus more flexible and generally quicker.

You now have the luxury to presume that is an open debate. Can you take that risk as a staff officer where lives will be at stake?

For discussion purposes, I'd like to detach the staff's planning and facilitating responsibilities. A knot is tied between the two, I understand, but I'd like to talk about the former before addressing the latter.

I believe you'll find that not only is there a knot between the two but also that the echelon involved significantly impacts how much time is spent planning and how much in facilitating, i.e. at Bn, it's almost all facilitating, Bde and Div are a mix -- and the composition of that mix is influenced by the Commander as well as other factors...

Only at echelons above reality (Corps and higher -- and so named for a very good reason...) does planning get more time and effort than facilitating.

I'm also curious about the prospect of having a discussion that is divorced from reality. What is gained by that; theory is fine but in the end, a practical product should result; else one is doing a lot of wheel spinning.

In that regard, I think a semi-autonomous staff focused on/addressing/otherwise conducting planning would be in a greater position to conduct continuous planning... the staff could build a continuous stream of action; adding and detaching activities and tasks to a central timeline....

Let me give you some unsolicited advice based on over 40 years of staff experience in peace and war. When you get to be a senior officer and inherit a staff, if there is a plans cell or section -- disband it. Totally. Kill it before it hurts you or gets some of your troops killed.

'Planners' operate in isolation and rarely have any responsibility for the chaos their products produce. Their products produce chaos because they almost invariably suppress reality to make the plan 'work.' You've probably heard the old saw "No plan survives its first contact with the enemy." That's why. Planners 'assume' too many things to make their plan look good on paper.

If you want truly successful plans that will work, split your ops shop in two, an 'A' and a 'B' section; one operates while the other plans -- and when a 'B' Section plan is implemented, 'B' Section becomes the operational cell, no exceptions, with responsibility for implementation and thus a stake in the success of their plan.

Your idea of a semi-autonomous staff takes an entity that already has limited responsibility for its actions and moves it yet further away from any responsibility. Do you really want to do that? If your answer is that you can require them to do well, consider the fact that it is virtually illegal to own a pistol in Chicago yet about 100 murders with pistols were committed there last year. Unenforceable laws and regulations don't mean much, harsh reality and direct accountability do mean something.

You're also confronted with the fact that a continuous stream of action will seldom be required and that in combat, you do not set the timeline -- not ever. In fact, you rarely set it anywhere. Thus your 'planners' have a lot of down time...

What is the cause or reasoning for the continual reassignment? Another poster mentioned DOPMA -- is the 'up or out' process a significant contributing factor in your opinion?

DOPMA is a part of the problem; the main problem is that HRC justifies its existence and manpower by performing personnel actions. Those include PCS, promotions and career progression factors. Thus, they want to move people every two to three years and, given the intense competition for promotion to LTC and above, every Officer has to insure he or she does all the right things. Those factors combine to insure a 30% turnover in most units most years -- in combat, staff turnover can easily reach 100% in less than a year.

What does that do to your planning process...

[AmericanPride]

Thanks for the input everyone. I'm going to work out the mechanics of it all through the weekend; I'll return with some workable material to restart this give and take (more like you giving and me taking ) process. I appreciate the insights, suggestions, and recommended readings.

Note to Ron and Ken: I e-mailed the paper you requested.

[Ken White]

If I had been forced to be S4 for 19 months as a FA/MI officer, I would likely be Mister, not Captain right now (not joking). Few jobs are fun, but some are much less fun than others. If you forced officers into multi-year jobs, they would become specialists, and if they did not like that job, retention and satisfaction would drop.

leave the Army and Marine Corps due to having been assigned as a Support Platoon Leader or the S4...

[Cavguy]

leave the Army and Marine Corps due to having been assigned as a Support Platoon Leader or the S4...

I hate to say it, S4 was a great time for me in combat as far as staff jobs went - think Don Rickles' character in "Kelly's Heroes" (well, not that bad).

Then again, I was working for an absolutely spectacular BN CO and XO, whom I would have been happy working for in any capacity.

S4 CAN be fun.

Just to add context, because of "queues" for command I took command relatively late, spending 3.5 years on staff before command and 8 months after (stop-loss). While it sucked, for those 3.5 years I was a S3A, S4, and S1 at BN and BDE, and an AST Commander in Kosovo. I learned how a BCT worked, and how to get things done. I watched other CO's do well and poorly, learning from their mistakes. When I took command I KNEW how to run a company inside of that BCT, and get what I needed/wanted. If I hadn't have had that staff time I doubt I would have been nearly as effective. So it isn't all bad. In fact, the S4 time paid huge dividends in command as I learned to work the system to get everything we needed. My company never wanted for anything, and I was able to train my XO as well.

I was blessed with serving under good officers during most of my staff time as well, which made it much more bearable. But it isn't all bad.

That said, nothing beats a command position.

[Ken White]

I hate to say it, S4 was a great time for me in combat as far as staff jobs went - think Don Rickles' character in "Kelly's Heroes" (well, not that bad).

er... worse???

Then again, I was working for an absolutely spectacular BN CO and XO, whom I would have been happy working for in any capacity.

That does make a big difference...

S4 CAN be fun.

I've known a few who made it that, biggest problem I've seen with the jobs were bad, overenthusiatic Bn / Bde XOs.

I was blessed with serving under good officers during most of my staff time as well, which made it much more bearable. But it isn't all bad.

True, I've always found a pony in there somewhere...

[patmc]

leave the Army and Marine Corps due to having been assigned as a Support Platoon Leader or the S4...

Just for the record, I was made S4 because I did so well as the HHB XO / BN Ammo Officer aka the de facto Support PL. Also, my S4 NCOIC broke his pelvis a month before I took over, and was then out for several months. Airborne! I was quite happy when he came back.

And for Cavguy's comments. Sir, I agree with you, and recommend to all my buddies that if they are going to take command in a unit, S4 is actually the best job because you learn all the systems and contacts. Otherwise,draw a pistol and 1 round from the arms room.

Staff is a definate learning experience, and the people were great, but the actual work was rarely fun.

[ODB]

Ken White:

The MDMP should be taught at BNCOC and at OBC.

Back some years ago this was the case. I cannot speak for what is taught now. If I was a betting man MDMP has probably been replaced by PowerPoint 101. When I attended BNCOC the class was horrendous, I rewrote the class. I had the luxury of having just come off staff and had great teachers. The S3 made it a requirement that NCOs were involved in the MDMP process (I still thank him to this day for it). He insisted that when conducting COA development each planning cell had an NCO in it to keep the officers level headed. We tried to get him to let the NCOs do our own but he'd never bite, think he was afraid we'd out plan them. It's actually kinda funny in hindsight, MDMP is something you do all the time, you just never knew that it was what you were doing.

One of the biggest issues I've seen over the years regarding staff personnel is why soldiers are put on staff. I have seen two approaches. The first approach is least preferred IMO, when the tasker goes to the companies to provide someone for staff no one wants to get rid of their "stud", so they send the less desirables. So instead of this guys realm of influence being contain it has just been greatly widend. This happens more than not on the NCO level. The second approach I have witnessed is the staff being "handpicked". I learned early on, if you want to be successful surround yourself with good people. IMO staff should be your "studs". It may be painful at first to have them gone but the benefits will be a hundred fold in the end.