Officer Retention

[MattC86]

The problem in my initial posting was not how to attack ivy league types (who will never elect to enter military service). My objective was to discuss the problem of keeping company and field grade officers in the Army.

Sir, my apologies; didn't mean to hijack your thread. I do want to respond to Rob, though.

Hi Matt,
Thanks for making a decision to serve!

Thank you. But only if they let me - I still gotta apply and pass OCS. . .

So I'd ask you how you change the attitude of your peers? How do you convince the bright & ambitious young men and women of Cornell, that a career in the uniformed service is something they not only should do to safeguard their freedoms, but something they want to do because it will fulfill both their moral sensibilities and their more physical ones such as providing a standard of living for them and their families which is comparable to the many other vocations their abilities might secure?

Best Regards, Rob

Certainly the money is an issue - it's the right place to start. Beyond that, I'm not sure I can solve the problem; maybe just further diagnose it. The problem lies in part in what my peers value - and what their parents value. My parents are exceedingly unhappy about my decision, and they aren't nearly as shallow as some were about the importance of "Ivy League" status or any of that. It's as if some parents (and it transfers to their kids) believe all that matters is status, as represented by money and "rank" on the social totem pole. Beyond the money, the military is no longer viewed by these people as honorable. The stereotype of homocidal neanderthal remains. The only way to break that cycle, obviously, is to prove it wrong by attracting more ambitious college grads.
So it's a self-perpetuating problem. The only way out of it I see is a national call to service - someone or something simply has to inspire certain kids in my generation to stop worrying only about instant gratification and serve the nation. I think Bush failed after 9/11 to do that. There was no call for America's best and brightest to put off their legal or I-banking ambitions and don a uniform. And at this point, I don't think anyone would listen to him. I am not sure what short of a new leader and a new national catastrophe would change that.

I know - I didn't really solve the problem, just explained it more. Oh, well.

Matt

[Rob Thornton]

Matt,
You are going to make a very fine officer I think. We certainly appreciate your candor - it will serve you and those you lead well.
Best regards, Rob

[jonSlack]

It's as if some parents (and it transfers to their kids) believe all that matters is status, as represented by money and "rank" on the social totem pole. Beyond the money, the military is no longer viewed by these people as honorable. The stereotype of homocidal neanderthal remains.

I think part of the problem is that being an officer in the military is no longer viewed as a profession but rather as just another management job that comes with the added "benefits" of being more dangerous, having crappier hours, and providing less pay.

The only way to break that cycle, obviously, is to prove it wrong by attracting more ambitious college grads.

How do you attract those college grads?

How about target them while they are still undergrads? I not talking about my stepping up current recruitment strategies.

Rather, lets send back high quality post-command captains and even junior captains for a second undergraduate degree. Introduce undergrads, many of whom may still be undecided about their post-graduation plans, to an officer not much older than them. Show the undergrads via first hand personal interaction that the military is not full of "homocidal neanderthals" but men and women who at the core are not much different than them. Additionally, the officers' main task would not be to actively recruit, their main task would be to earn a second undergraduate degree. However, through the social interaction that will happen in classes and study groups as well in extracurricular activities such as campus organizations, clubs, and intramural sports they are able to present a positive image of what a military officer is.

Basically, I think one of the the best ways, if not the best way, to change the negative perceptions undergrads may have of the military is by increasing personal contact and relationships with those currently serving in the military.

So it's a self-perpetuating problem. The only way out of it I see is a national call to service - someone or something simply has to inspire certain kids in my generation to stop worrying only about instant gratification and serve the nation. I think Bush failed after 9/11 to do that. There was no call for America's best and brightest to put off their legal or I-banking ambitions and don a uniform. And at this point, I don't think anyone would listen to him. I am not sure what short of a new leader and a new national catastrophe would change that.

I do not know how much of an impact the call to service would have had immediaetly following 9/11. A think alot of the young people who would have been inclined to heed the call would have been the same ones who saw the "implied task" in watching 9/11 unfold live on CNN and were already looking into how to serve. Additionally, a call to national service now would also be ineffective as those who are willing to serve are already planning to serve. The "call" now may push some fence-sitters but I think more fence-sitters will end up being drawn in by the recruiting bonuses out there.

Reference money: I think money is atleast a partial answer to recruiting and retention at all levels. However, while I think the increased OPTEMPO requires bonuses as a reward/incentive for staying, I also think that a substantial increase in base pay across the board, E-1 to O-10, would be a signal that the military, and the nation, is willing to invest in servicemembers and that an increased level of financial compensation will remain over the long-term, not just as long as there is increased OPTEMPO. Additionally, if you intend to retain officers, and junior Soldiers and NCOs, by selling the military to be a longterm career the increased base pay would provide more financial promise than the current system of relying solely on bonuses. Increased base pay equals relatively guarenteed and predictable future financial compensation while bonuses are really just a short-term increase in base pay for as long as there is an increased demand and/or decreased supply caused by increased OPTEMPO or other factors.

[Stan]

Hey Matt !

I echo the praise of the others herein...Thanks for joining what I consider to be America's finest institution !!!

Certainly the money is an issue - it's the right place to start. Beyond that, I'm not sure I can solve the problem; maybe just further diagnose it. The problem lies in part in what my peers value - and what their parents value. My parents are exceedingly unhappy about my decision, and they aren't nearly as shallow as some were about the importance of "Ivy League" status or any of that. It's as if some parents (and it transfers to their kids) believe all that matters is status, as represented by money and "rank" on the social totem pole. Beyond the money, the military is no longer viewed by these people as honorable. The stereotype of homocidal neanderthal remains. The only way to break that cycle, obviously, is to prove it wrong by attracting more ambitious college grads.

I recall our neighbors freaking out when my old man told them I was joining the Army. He blew it off, but not before giving them a load of Sierra for not wanting their son in the service of our country. Later in the 80s their kid joined anyway.

I don't recall if the issue was just money (back then it wasn't the greatest paycheck), but our neighbors were very worried about the status quo. Some colleges won't permit US Military recruiters to post ads or even let them address classes.

So it's a self-perpetuating problem. The only way out of it I see is a national call to service - someone or something simply has to inspire certain kids in my generation to stop worrying only about instant gratification and serve the nation. I think Bush failed after 9/11 to do that. There was no call for America's best and brightest to put off their legal or I-banking ambitions and don a uniform. And at this point, I don't think anyone would listen to him. I am not sure what short of a new leader and a new national catastrophe would change that.

I fully concur with you. Following 9/11 would have been an ideal opportunity for a draft. Granted not all will remain after fulfilling their conscript periods, but those that remain want to, and that's paramount. At the very least, we will have a cadre of young educated folks that better understand the US Military, appreciate what others are sacrificing, and who are sufficiently trained to pick up a weapon and fight for the USA !

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi Matt,

Sir, my apologies; didn't mean to hijack your thread. I do want to respond to Rob, though.

Well, I don't think it is a topic hijacking . Actually, recruitment, retention, professional development and retirement are really all part of a unified system (along with a bunch of other areas).

The problem lies in part in what my peers value - and what their parents value. My parents are exceedingly unhappy about my decision, and they aren't nearly as shallow as some were about the importance of "Ivy League" status or any of that. It's as if some parents (and it transfers to their kids) believe all that matters is status, as represented by money and "rank" on the social totem pole. Beyond the money, the military is no longer viewed by these people as honorable. The stereotype of homocidal neanderthal remains. The only way to break that cycle, obviously, is to prove it wrong by attracting more ambitious college grads.

Back in the 1950's and 60's, sociologists used to rank professions o their social status (I haven't seen any of those since the 1980's or so - then again, 'm not really looking for them). "Professions", as a group, all tend to have exemplars in popular culture that help to establish and maintain their status. This, in turn, "teaches" the younger professionals how to act. I remember reading a study of the Mafia years ago, and it turned out that a lot of them used the Godfather as their role model.

So, what role models do we have in popular culture for the military? Just in the TV show area, I can really only think of JAG and The Unit - neither of which is exactly the "normal". Then we have shows like Over There and, sorry, blanking on the name - it's a Vietnam era series, that tend to send out anti-military narratives or, if not full narratives,then at least anti-military tropes or schemas (which you also find to some degree in Jag and the Unit).

The big archetype that is missing is the old defensor hominem (Defender of Mankind - think the Archangel Michael in Roman Catholicism, Mithras in the Roman Legions, or Horus in Egypt). In a very weird way, this archetype has been co-opted by the anti-military crowd using a justification of the military attacks civilians therefore we protect humanity by attacking the military. This is probably one of the roots of the homicidal neanderthal stereotype (or "myrmidon" for the Ivy League types ).

The truly encouraging, to my mind at any rate, point is that for anti-military social movements to adopt this archetype, they have to be willing to act as if the were military forces (which we can see happening) - and they are freakin' incompetent in this role! Furthermore, that narrative when grabbed by the anti-military movements is quite unstable, and subject to a really good counter narrative that appropriates elements of their own position. A really good example of such a counter narrative ("Fight Fear") is the current series of recruitment commercials for the Canadian forces (available here, requires Flash 8).

You say that "The only way to break that cycle, obviously, is to prove it wrong by attracting more ambitious college grads" and I both agree and disagree. Yes, certainly attracting college grads is a crucial component of countering that stereotype, but it also has to be done by media campaigns - counter narratives - and also by something similar to what JonSlack is suggesting. And, BTW, the counter narratives have to start early, e.g. kids cartoons and shows.

Let me toss out a final point here that has been touched on in a lot of the retention discussions and that is "family life". One of the key points about status and status displays, and now I'm using an evolutionary psych argument, has always been to attract and retain mates. Just from a quick gleaning of the other threads, one of the key retention issues for junior officers and NCOs appears to be related to either starting a family or keeping one together which has become increasingly difficult with the heavy op tempo. It's also damn hard to justify in terms of mating strategies. Think about it for a minute - "hi, marry me - I'll have a competitive salary and you'll only see me three months out of every year and, oh yeah, I'll be posted in that place where we are getting blown away." This is not a good argument that you will be around to help raise the kids (although it may be a good argument for other things ).

So, how do we make the military (rather than the anti-military) "attractive" in the sense of mate selection? I'm not sure, although there are some areas that would help - dependents benefits, money, education for the entire family (esp. children), etc.

Marc

[Old Eagle]

Retaining best & brightest

With the obvious frustration at 100% promotion rates, you max out BZ selections for the best officers. Whatever Congress allows, you go for it. That's a motivator beyond $$$ and schools.

The ROTC dilemna

Most arguments are chicken and egg. We lost a lot when some of the fancy schools threw ROTC off campus. That said, I worked at a major Boston ROTC detachment back in the day. We had cadets from 5 Boston area schools, including Harvard, and commissioned only a few new LTs a year. Despite a HUGE waste of taxpayer money, the Army did the right thing and kept the program alive. So, does the Army close NE ROTC programs because we don't "like" that area of the country or do we close them because they are not sustainable?

By the way, read a similar argument about the Army's Chaplains Corps. Army recruits too many conservative, evangelical chaplains who produce too many conservative, evangelical soldiers. Hmmm. Can't wait to see the run from the liberal mainstream seminaries to the recruiting stations to offset that trend!

[Smitten Eagle]

Has anybody read the book "AWOL: The Unexcused Absense of America's Upper Classes from Military Service", by Schaeffer and Douquette.

I read it some time ago, and found it quite enlightening on two fronts:

1) The level of antipathy members of the professional class have against the military. These people would not admit to it openly--they "support the troops." But the second their son decides to take the commission, their true feelings come out.

2) Much of this antipathy is at least partly related to an isolation between the military officers and the professional/chattering class.

I can personally attest to some of this, as I'm sure many others can who read this forum. My wife is a good Minnesota liberal of the Garrison Keillor variety. Her father is a university professor, and her mother is professional as well. Their circle of friends who have anything to do with the military are from the Vietnam cohort--no one more recent, and their thoughts/feelings are colored by the Vietnam experience. They have not been updated in 40 years!

Indeed, it's bad when I'm introduced as a Marine Captain, and they ask me how long it took for me to make Sergeant. They were trying to humor me by giving the impression that they knew something about the military. Their level of knowledge only betreyed their ignorance.

Their ignorance is their fault, but our responsibility to fix. If the military has any professional ethic at all, it needs to fix its reputation as the abode of neanderthals (true or not).

So, bottom line, I think that the military's social standing is certainly related to officer retention and recruiting. I'm not sure increased salaries are useful except to the extent that it brings social repute to attract talent and to re-integrate the military into professional society. Likewise, I don't think civilian masters degrees are particularly useful except to the extent that they improve the military skill set of the soldier and to the extent that they increase positive interaction between the professional class and the military officers. This is key if we are going to be prepared to fight wars with armies with backing from the entire population, not just rural conservatives.

AWOL addresses these issues. Highly recommended.

Pardon the length of this screed.

[RTK]

1) The level of antipathy members of the professional class have against the military. These people would not admit to it openly--they "support the troops." But the second their son decides to take the commission, their true feelings come out.

On the other hand, as a good USMC buddy of mine told me a few days ago, "everyone has a story about how they were ALMOST a Marine."

[MattC86]

Smitten, I haven't read the book, but from the description you gave, I can personally attest to those issues.

I'm from the North Shore suburbs of Chicago, and to put it mildy, it ain't military country. My high school had over 1000 kids graduate in 2004 - only one kid was going in (to West Point). No other officers, no enlistments, nothing.

And now, as I try to explain to my parents (my dad was at UC Berkeley in 1968, so figure that out) why I'm applying for PLC, all this same stuff comes out. They really got furious when I explained that they had always taught me the values of service, selflessness, and doing what is right, and now I was trying to do just that.

I think my mom is more just worried about physical safety, but in my dad you can see every stereotype he's ever had about the military (and Marines in particular) come to the surface.

The attitude with all these people you refer to is a "You're young and talented with all the greatest advantages in life - how could you ever throw it away to join up with a bunch of angry sociopaths with small brains."

And no matter what we do, that attitude will take a long time to dismantle, if indeed it ever happens.

Matt