I don't think that the goal should be measuring aptitude, selecting candidates, and screening out people for the job during the recruitment phase. That seems unrealistic to me and carries too much risk of losing people who might be good leaders but whose traits, for whatever reason, do not register in the screening process.
I think one positive change would be to use commissioning sources as a weeding out process for the bottom performers. Remember peer evaluations in Ranger School? Garbage, in my opinion. Anybody can shine while the spotlight is on them for a little while. But to use peer evaluations in a setting where people live, work, study, hang out together for long periods of time - like in military school - that is a great place to use peer evaluations. You know everyone, you know what motivates them, you know if they are ethical, trustworthy, et cetera. Peer evaluations have long been used in OBC, ROTC, et cetera, but they have largely been tools to give students feedback. I think ROTC/USMA students should have peer evaluations within their schools. If, in your last semester prior to commissioning, you are ranked bottom of the barrel by the vast majority of your peers, then you may want to seek out a different career path.
Ditto Captains coming up for command. If you've been in the Brigade for long enough to get your turn in the command queue, I think any Captain, Major, or LTC who has been around you for a year or more should have some say in whether they think you're ready to command. If they give you low marks, then you shouldn't take command unless the battalion commander really, for some reason, wants to put you in command of one of his companies. I've never seen a Captain whom everyone thought was a dud go on to successfully command. He either gets relieved or he's a headache for the unit until he reaches the one-year mark and he then gets hussled along to a new job.
Bookmarks