Officer Retention

[Steve Blair]

OERs have been inflated pretty much since they began giving them. Same with EPRs. No one wants to consider the fact that doing one's job with a basic level of competence is AVERAGE performance. I think it has something to do with the compulsion to consider everyone special and therefore not average. It's a nasty cycle, and isn't fair to either the person doing average work or the person who's outperforming just about everyone in the unit. But I can't honestly see it changing much in the near future.

I tend to agree with Norfolk that the current exodus is worrying. It's happened before, and the institution survived it, but it also hamstrung development and progress for many years.

And Ken...I'd say that World War I is still defining the Army...which is even more depressing.

[wm]

OERs have been inflated pretty much since they began giving them. Same with EPRs. No one wants to consider the fact that doing one's job with a basic level of competence is AVERAGE performance. I think it has something to do with the compulsion to consider everyone special and therefore not average. It's a nasty cycle, and isn't fair to either the person doing average work or the person who's outperforming just about everyone in the unit. But I can't honestly see it changing much in the near future.

(

The problem with, at least the Army's, performance evaluations is that the person being evaluated is judged for performance in a specific, local position but is measured against a global population. We need to get over that hurdle. I doubt anyone has ever seen a rater or senior rater write "This officer did an average job in this position, but then even the best officer in the force would not have done much better." That is the issue to overcome in evaluation reporting IMHO.

[Rob Thornton]

Some of you have probably seen these, but its always fun to go back and read the list of great staff officer quotes.

Best, Rob

[Cavguy]

NY Times, 21 March

Sovereigns of All They’re Assigned, Captains Have Many Missions to Oversee

JISR DIALA, Iraq — During the war in Iraq, young Army and Marine captains have become American viceroys, officers with large sectors to run and near-autonomy to do it. In military parlance, they are the “ground-owners.” In practice, they are power brokers.

Many in the military believe that these captains are the linchpins in the American strategy for success in Iraq, but as the war continues into its sixth year the military has been losing them in large numbers — at a time when it says it needs thousands more.

Most of these captains have extensive combat experience and are regarded as the military’s future leaders. They’re exactly the men the military most wants. But corporate America wants them too. And the hardships of repeated tours are taking their toll, tilting them back toward civilian life and possibly complicating the future course of the war.

Good article. Captures the issues well. Great point about the year at home not being a break. I found Iraq more relaxing than the year at home, current ARFORGEN resembles "light your hair on fire and spin" for 12 months.

On a related note, a buddy who works with personnel in DC stated that as a total force (active and reserve), we are 10,000 CPT's short of anticipated requirements. Not sure of breakdown active/reserve shortages.

Hacksaw brought up another observation made earlier - about filling the shortage by promoting from the ranks. Right now, OCS is pretty much wide open for anyone who meets the basic requirements. It was when I was a CO, and I understand they've even lowered the bar some more. Pretty much all who want to become an officer can right now, if they're willing to invest the effort. So the shortage includes that of willing NCO's/enlisted to make the transition.

My RTO/Tank Gunner in OIF was that way. Tremendously smart. Good judgement, and I told him he needed to become an officer. He laughed and stated that after watching all I put up with over the past year, no way!

[sandbag]

When I went to my second battalion assignment at Fort Hood in 1997, the battalion had about 30 LTs assigned to it. Before I left Hood for the advanced course in 1999, a dozen of that number had left the service for Corporate America. Back then, the main reason my peers left was an Army culture problem: junior officers (myself included) routinely chafed under micromanagement and a perception of a "zero defects" culture (real? Imagined? Who knows?).

Fast forward to now. We see similar rates of junior officers "popping smoke" for civilian life, but the stated reasons are a lot different. I'm not being an apologist for the Army's ham-fisted approach to officer retention. Rather, I argue that for an organization that puts on airs that they are the equal of any corporate personnel division, "HRC" is still the train wreck as it was when it was known as "PERSCOM". $20 large to keep a kid in that is on the fence, just to throw him back into the meat grinder? No thanks, were I said young officer. If your branch's "Branch Chief's Notes" page on the HRC website reads anything like mine, it says something like:

TAKE WHAT WE GIVE YOU. IF YOU'RE LUCKY, WE'LL GET YOU AN RFO A MONTH OUT.

As laughable as it was when Hernandez told officers via the Army Times circa 2004: "I haven't been, but suck down a couple more rotations, because I said so".

Bitter ranting? Nope; I'm still in, I've pounded my share of sand, and I do what I do because I love the people in the Army. The machine itself, not so much. The young Captain in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago is expressing his generation's reason for leaving in a clear, recognizable message.

I'd like to see the Army listen. I know I'm listening.

[Ski]

I had a chance this past week to talk with someone from RAND about this problem.

The first thing out of his mouth:
"We insult our Captains when we give new recruits up to $15,000 more than the Captains. We expect the Captains to carry more responsibility and more accountability, then we go and offer them less money than someone who had been in high school a week before signing up for his first enlistment. It's no surprise to me why the Captains are leaving with policies like this..."

[jcustis]

I had a chance this past week to talk with someone from RAND about this problem.

The first thing out of his mouth:
"We insult our Captains when we give new recruits up to $15,000 more than the Captains. We expect the Captains to carry more responsibility and more accountability, then we go and offer them less money than someone who had been in high school a week before signing up for his first enlistment. It's no surprise to me why the Captains are leaving with policies like this..."

That's a keeper. Altough I don't have the slightest concern for money for myself, I can personally tell you that it is indeed infuriating when a Marine transfers in, is a total soup samich, but cleared $40K as a reenlistment bonus. The calamity of it all...because you've become the guy who has to clean him up.