Comments
The reasons that people remain in or leave the military are as varied as the people that fill our ranks. Ultimately, we can only speak for ourselves as we attempt to explain departures from the officer corps. It seems to me that there are as many changes to our professional environment as there are reasons for an exodus: high optempo, less-than-competitive compensation, a perception of mediocre leadership, a civilian work force that values military experience, the desire for a "normal life," the unpredictability of the future, the inability to plan life events, the strain on the family, the list goes on. Ultimately, we can discuss changes to talent management and the hiring process; and I believe this would affect one variable that some officers may consider when deciding to remain in the military. However, I believe that as long as things stay the way they are politically and economically, we'll see the same rate of turnover within our ranks no matter how we conduct personnel management. But that's just my $1.05.
This article is on point, I served 24 years and a few deployments my last Battalion commander could not make command decisions, he and the BDE commander preferred not to make any waves or to raise issues because it may look bad for them, they could not motivate Soldiers. They did not rewarded merit but instead shielded the officers that made bad decisions/mistakes in combat. The officers that were great were looked down, because they were successful and Soldiers admired them. Now the BN commander is a Col and the BDE commander is a BG General. Todays defense department worries more about repealing dont ask dont tell than to get help for the Soldiers deploying back with PTSD. And the CSM/SGM corps has the same problem the good ones are getting out and the bad ones staying in.
I disagree with having an up or out, command or out type system. I don't think there should be one cookie cutter approach to promotion and advancement. Our system should not only have different paths to "success", success should be situational/person dependent. Really top-notch, respected and agile companies don't promote people to their level of incompetence, but instead are flexible enough to adjust career paths to keep the best people in, happy, and productive for the institution as a whole.
Although I think command of troops is admirable and something I aspire to myself, I don't think that is the be-all, end-all that our culture makes it out to be. This focus, in my opinion, keeps many officers at the tactical level for too long. So, our future senior leaders many times have seen few jobs outside of the preferred platoon leader- company commander- battalion ops officer- battalion commander, etc. pathway. Without some diversity of experience- especially civilian higher educational opportunities, other governmental agency jobs, and higher-level staff positions I think we run the risk of a cookie-cutter and conformist culture devoid of true divergence of ideas and easily beholden to groupthink.
Lastly, I don't think just because you are a great battalion commander you will necessarily be a great brigade commander, etc. It amazes me that successful companies can bring in charismatic, sharp, and innovative leaders from different industries to run their companies- and most do quite well- and yet we can't even entertain the idea of a non-traditional path person FROM WITHIN OUR OWN ORGANIZATION running things at different levels at the "generalist" rank. I seriously doubt leaders like George Washington, U.S. Grant, and Eisenhower would rise to the same levels they did in today's war-time environment because of the highly structured and bureaucratic systems of the current institution.
I'm not sure it was a good thing to make Nagl the poster child for officer personnel management reform. It would be nice to be rewarded for one's unique skill and potential contributions to the service, but the Army - and I assume all the other services - must affirm its core values and core competencies first and foremost. I reconnected with an old friend from school, who got bounced as an MI major in the 90s prior to 20 year retirement. This officer spoke 4 languages and was very gung ho - but the "reward" of getting into tactical intelligence killed her career. Maybe adopting a regimental system would be better - or may be it would just be "old boy" politics as usual. In any case, we don't serve for self-actualization, we serve because the sacrifices we make are good in and for themselves, and it we are fortunate, we all can look back and think what a great ride it was, irrespective of the rank we held upon release from active duty or retirement.
The sad fact is that most military officers are average or below average. Truly excellent officers are rare and they become rarer as the rank increases. The answer is to make being an officer more difficult, make promotions more difficult and reduce the number of officers killing time or place holding.
If I were creating an army I would try to keep my best officers in command of troops: the top 25% of platoon, company and battalion commanders would have the option to extend their command one additional year rather than go to a staff job. Generally if a man was doing a very good job and liked it he would be encouraged to keep doing it- rather like football coaching. Ticket punching is built into the present personnel system and should be stopped.
I would also make promotion to major far more difficult. Promotion to major would require graduation from staff college (selection would be by competitive exam for a limited numbers of places) in the top 75% of the class. In light of this out or up would not apply to captains.
I would also greatly reduce the number of officers sent on graduate studies (the exception would be for technical education). Universities should not be used to warehouse excess officers. The place for officers is in command of troops. That is the only place to claim officership as a separate profession and where officers should expect to spend most of their time and effort.
The aim should be to flatten the rank pyramid and concentrate the best of the officer corps in troop commands. As the numbers of officers is reduced the need to find jobs for them would decline and HQs would be reduced as a result.
Attrition of the best officers may be reduced as they become part of a smaller and more competent corps but if my recommendations only caused increased attrition among the left side of the bell curve it will be doing a great service as well.
This article is on point regarding the promotion system and retention of officers. Reading it explained why I am not an officer today; the Army has total control over my future career progression within the Army. Tim Kane did a great job explaining how the military is still functioning as an industrial era company rather than one of the free-market companies, to which is merit based and promotions are not time sensitive.
I myself specialize in counterinsurgency, a passion I picked up during my Masters research. Unfortunately, even with 10 years of enlisted experience, I only see myself being removed from the area of expertise I truly want to work in. It is more like a roll of the dice. Why should I do that when I can choose my career path in this field as a civilian, which I currently work? If the Army changed to a merit based free-market system to which I compete for positions in my career track, I will join as soon as I can. I am sure there are many others as well.
I don't think the loss of good officers is the most troubling issue. The Army is, as the author correctly highlights, not a good learning or risk-taking organization. For good officers to remain there would be to retard their development. If I were to go back in time 3 years to meet myself prior to ETS, I would, intellectually and physically, run circles around that 3-years-younger mental and physical weakling. ETS was the best thing that I could do to focus on my development as a thinker, leader, and to get back into reasonable physical shape years of coffee, fast food, and no sleep.
Rather than continue to focus inwardly on how to fix this problem, the Army should be more willing to discharge poor performers and be more willing to accept recently separated officers who wish to return after pursuing their own development in the outside world (the kind recommended by <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=290">Gen Petraeus</a>, incidentally). For example (and full disclosure), I ETS'd less than 3 years ago. Two graduate degrees later, the Army won't take me back. Reason? They are already over-strength on most Officer MOS (particularly mine, 11A). So, they are retaining both good performers (and probably not helping them to develop to their full potential) and retaining bad performers (if things are the same as prior to my ETS, those bad performers simply get shifted to random staff jobs), while many who pursued their own development and want to return and provide added value to the organization are told, "sorry, go work for someone who will pay you more money and give you more free time." Okay, I guess I'll have to.