Hey Dave,
I don't have a problem with the GOs - most I've met have been pretty amazing people. Most have been people who I've admired for shouldering a great deal of responsibility and carrying it far better then I could hope.Moreover, I stand by my opinion that this issue seriously affects perceptions - especially those of the junior and mid-level officers dedicated to winning the long war and are at the tipping point on whether to stay or bolt. Many of them looked to McMaster as a glimmer of hope in these most difficult times
It is the system that I think needs to be brought in line. I've said before that we are both bureaucratic and conservative and that makes change very difficult. I guess that could be seen by some as a good thing if you believe that by sacrificing getting it too far right, you can avoid getting it too far wrong. However I think that taking a planning maxim and applying it too leadership selection is a poor choice.
We've spent an awful lot of money talking about building leaders that reflect the attributes of $20 words, but when it comes down to it I personally don't see much happening that reflects investment in human capital. Sure we see ACS talk, and some others, but most of it comes with a pretty heavy price tag. I've not seen much in the way of "new". When I read that COL McMasters had been passed over ( and I think this was not his BZ, but his first look - RTK could say for sure) it sort of hit me. The first time I got that feeling was when I looked at a BN CMD slate and saw some guys I would not want to follow slated in MTO&E CMD slots and some I'd follow anywhere in TDA alternates (& yes TDAs need good folks too) - it hit me then that there is no real HR strategy that identifies the very best people to do the most important things - which is when I made some decisions about what was most important to me - after all if these incredible leaders had sacrificed so much only to be put at the bottom of the pile I was not going to ask my family to sacrifice the ways theirs had. I'd always believed that the only place such a large organization can really look after its people is at the lower tactical levels (BDE & below), at the higher levels it more akin to see a hole fill a hole, but then I knew it as gospel. Sometimes we put round pegs in round holes on purpose, but mostly when that happens it seems to be luck.
I'm not sure we can really excel by perpetuating this system. We struggle to come up with good ideas such as revamping the OER system, or rearranging the money, but in the end there are "must do's" that trump the "need to do's" that we just can't get past. This leaves the good ideas with no real staying power, and after awhile they just come across as another hollow slogan. I know people can be petty, but I think COL McMaster's case is more representative of a system that cannot consistently identify and promote excellence.
What I have not figured out is if it can be fixed. It may not be a problem, it might be a condition. The only way I can see us fixing this problem is to make recruiting and retaining the most talented people and their families the priority. This means everything from the list of incentives that DAGGER 6 had listed to questioning our system of promotion at all levels. In another post somebody had mentioned the issues with LTs, CPTs and MAJs. If its a condition, then its a whole nother ball game, and will take some real external efforts to change - like LTC Yingling's thoughts.
I'm sort of past wondering about how this sort of thing applies to me as I've already made up my mind, but I do worry about allot of kids I've led, and I'm even wondering about what kind of Army my own kids will inherit. We had an interesting conversation the other night about who in America is willing to serve. We better be thinking about that one real hard, or one day we're going to wake up and "the next greatest generation" is going to say "hey why don't you take a turn on the wall for awile."
Bookmarks