OPMS XXI Failure vs OPMS II

[Ski]

Interesting topic. Hope we get to discuss it in SAMS together this summer.

I think this topic really boils down to a very simple discussion - do we create generalist officers, or do we create specialists? Personally, I think you need both.

The entire branch mentality is a specialist approach - if one is an artillery officer, there are specific technical and mathematical skills that seperate him from other services. The same goes for every branch. At the junior officer level, you need the specialization. The nature of operations today shifts the focus from specialized personnel requirements to more of a generalist nature IMO. FA, armor/cav, MP's and infantry units are performing missions that are broadly similiar in OIF and OEF.

There is a trend towards generalization at the Major level and above within the operations field, but yet at the same time you also have even more specialization in the form of Functional Areas. Personally, I think there is little difference if one wants to call the designation a Functional Area or an ASI - the requirements are still going to be the same for PME and for assignment potential. I'd add that some of the Functional Areas require specialized manpower because of the unique nature of their jobs - you aren't going to pull just any old 04 out of the Operations field and make him a FAO and award him an ASI.

One of the more interesting little quirks of being in the Guard is that I don't get stovepiped within the personnel system with a "tag" of a 59A, or an Ops field guy. I can be both. In fact, I am an armor officer, a 50A Force Management Officer, and have worked as a 59A for two years prior to CGSC. Once I complete SAMS, I'll be sent to another 59A position, more than likely the Deputy G5 of a Division. And I still will have a good chance at becoming a battalion commander, simply because I was a company commander within the Armor Branch. Now, I might not get to command a cavalry squadron or a combined arms battalion, and I might have to command a Division STB, but that's fine as well. I think the personnel system in the Guard - and I can make arguments that it's too flexible - is much more flexible and adaptable that the overly centralized AC system. There are merits and detractors to both however.

[Ron Humphrey]

How closely does this particular issue reflect the decision which was made years ago to do away with specialist ranks in the enlisted branch and many of the problems that have stemmed from that?


Just as doing so there removed some of the "true" expertise through either those who truly where great at what they do having to move up or out and thus no longer available to their particular specialty. Or what it does when those who are really good at a specific job but just weren't cut out for administrative/political crud that comes with NCO status end up becoming the latter and in many ways make it harder for those still doing the former to do their jobs because their busy making things work behind the scenes that that particular NCO is having a hard time with.

But enough about my pet peeve

Not to mention officers are very much the face of DOD to those who work for it and as such sometimes it takes a geek to "geek speak" or a business minded individual to talk business. There really does have to be a balance there too.

[Steel31968]

I have not seen or looked at that correlation. I do know the current personnel management system has made some significant changes to the current enlisted MOS structure in the last couple of years.

Ken mentioned "round pegs in square holes." In my opinion this is very applicable, specifically in the artillery with the proposed merger of 13D Cannon fire direction with 13P missile fire direction. I am still a fan of manual gunnery, showing my age, but 13P's are not trained in any way to this skill set. We saw this initially with the origin of 13D, a merger of 13E (Btry Lvl) and 13C (BN and above) fire direction. Technically there is a lot of ground lost in this merger. The old system had 13E's learn "on the Guns" then move up the chain to 13C as supervisors. The army decided it was better to merge the two thus creating 13D, who can be assigned at PLT through Corps level on their first duty assignment.

I can see the distinct benefits in maintaining the traditional specialist ranks versus hard stripe NCO's. I believe the German Army had a similar policy in the 70's/80's. I can also see the argument that by hard striping them it buoys their credibility in a bigger picture sense.

I do think that true "specialists" in the army should be warrant officers. I have a great respect for all I have served with. I think that may be a COA for the way officers are going. Example Electronic Warfare: Does the Army need a LTC/MAJ EW officer vs. a CW2/CW3? I could also argue that method for Chemical officers, which is the path the Marine Corps chose.

Overall on the enlisted side, the danger is the current merger of MOS's vs. specialist vs. NCO's. This combination does just what Ken said, folks with enough knowledge to get by but not be all they could be in a certain field. I do agree it is a fine line to manage and none of this is easy.

I have been reviewing the recommended changes to EPMS and WOPMS on the OPMS XXI web site: http://www.army.mil/ADSXXI/

[Old Eagle]

OK, Steel, if you're serious about making this a SAMS monograph, you also have to get serious about research. There is tons of anecdotal evidence out here, some leaning in one direction and some in another. To do it right, you're most likely going to have to seriously (3d time I've used the word) define exactly what you're trying to analyze and come up with hard data to support or refute your hypothesis. Probably involves numbers and an appropriate analytical tool (SASS or similar). He said, she said ain't gonna cut it.

That said, it's more fun for us here to bitch about the personnel weanies and their various foibles than to provide much meaningful support. However, as you go down this road, some of us can probably help with some of the hard science and maybe some existing studies.

Good luck!

[Old Eagle]

I have been counselled offline and duly chastised. And I really appreciate it.

Now back to my point.
In your posts on this thread alone, you introduce several topics potentially worthy of investigation. Figure out which one(s) support access to good data. Pick one and define exactly what you're going to analyze. Go get the data, analyze it using acceptable academic rigor, then publish the results.

If you really want to collect personal impressions for data, you're going to need to develop a structured survey instrument. Sorry 'bout that.

On most of the issues you have raised thus far, there are viable arguments for and against the way that the personnel system has evolved. If one COA were clearly the solution to all our problems, I would like to think that we would have figgered that out by now.

Now my personal biases --
I don't like FA 59. Mainstream officers can be developed to be expert planners without leaving the force.
I love the new warrant officer corps.
I like aviation branch because that means that ground maneuver units don't have to put up with pilots as commanders.
I like SF branch for the same reason. An infantry company is not an ODA, and no, sir, we're not going to call the first sergeant, "Sandy".
I do not like single tracking FAOs. Any single -tracked FAO can be replaced by a reasonably competent foreign service officer.

AND in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those arguments, I can reverse the statement and make it defensible, too.

Good luck, and have fun.