New Rules for New Enemies

[marct]

Hi Rob,

You've raised some very good issues that apply across a number of militaries.

I think one of the first things that would have to be addressed is the issue of resourcing. You either pay for the type of people you want up front (incentives or appeal), or you develop them (time, money, investment).

Paying up front does not, necessarily, have to be incentives based - at least in the sense of hiring bonuses, etc. ROTC programs are an example of an up front incentive which is universally available. The problem with many of the other types of up front incentives is a complex mixture of loyalty by those hired and resentment from those who didn't get them; at least that is the experience of most of the high tech industry. While internal development takes longer and, on paper, costs more, in the long run it is probably a much better solution.

We are competing for the same types of leaders (in terms of realized or unrealized potential) as the profit based organizations which can afford to offer these people what they desire within the context of an 18-25 year old’s sense of what is important.

TRue. I know of at least one person who graduated with a BA and, within 3 years, was making 3.1 million. But "important" is a very slippery term. In my experience teaching a lot of people in this age range, admittedly Canadians not Americans, many of them are searching for "meaning" and something they can commit to. This need for meaning isn't being met in the current Canadian university environment by the older systems which, in many cases, are getting viewed as increasingly irrelevant. That's probably why the Canadian Forces started their new recruitment campaign (warning, it loads slowly).

....We need to consider what made the difference in that Soldier/Airman/Marine’s decision to go, or stay; then we need to adjust to compensate.

Very true. Surely there have been internal HR exit studies done, haven't there?

If you look at the erosion of benefits that active duty service offers, it most often targets people.... This is just one example of how we either undervalue people skills in favor of hardware.

I think that there are several issues running around here. Some have to do with forced promotions, i.e. an institutionalized Peter Principle. For example, my brother-in-law was given the choice of being promoted out of an area he loved working in and was really good at or leaving. He left. Others are directly related to benefits for family, while others may be more personal.

Resourcing the types of educational investment to build the leaders we want is critical to realizing the goal. While Knowledge Networks, Communities of Practice, and Distance Learning offer opportunities in experience transferal and education on the cheap, the context upon which they draw is limited to the personal ability to internalize it an apply it, therefore it should not be a substitute for small group instruction, but a supplement. So how do we resource pulling out leaders at all level and giving them the right tools to succeed? Granted a bigger pool to rotate is attractive and provides more flexibility, but it also means more resources required for education, recruiting, and retention. Given the people we want often have families that must be entered into the equation; this has a large price tag.

It's tricky, and its not a new problem by any means. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that would work immediately. I know that the Canadian Forces shifted part of their general social role towards disaster relief and SAR operations, and that is now part of the social expectation of the CF. I don't think that solution would be immediately possible for the US forces, even though the expertise is there as is the history.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that one good retention motivator is the feeling that "I am making a real difference". It's a very strong motivator for a lot of people. And as an added bonus once there is general social acceptance, the feeling is reinforced by having your own citizen thanks you for doing it while, at the same time, getting good organizational PR.

I realize that culturally we are much more comfortable with a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) equation vs. the subjective human one, but if we do not resource the kind of people we know we need we will have to lower our expectations in reference to our capabilities.

I suspect that part of the problem is that the expectations are set by politicians, many of whom have never served in the forces and, as a result, have a totally skewed set of expectations. That is certainly the case in Canada.

Our strategy needs to be people centric with the goal to equip them with the best technology that meets their needs. Conversely, if we show a long term trend of taking care of people at the DOD level ( I mention it because I’m not sure it happens for most above the BN & BDE levels), then our reputation for doing so will spread. People want to belong to good organizations that they can both believe in and which believe in them. One of the things you learn early on is that it is not so much what you are doing that makes you happy, it’s the climate of the organization, and purpose or esprit de corps which accompanies it.

I totally agree with your overall strategy and with your comments on organizational support.

Marc