Military Staff

[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?