[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Officer ZZZ
Date: 09 Sep 2000
Time: 15:49:13
To all majors across the board, I apologize. I, like many young officers, used to regularly embrace the belief that the hardest part about getting promoted to major was the mandatory frontal lobotamy. Upon reviewing the comments made by majors in the recent Chief of Staff of the Army's Leadership Survey, I found reversed my opinion and found heart in the fact that our field grade officers are really in touch with what is happening in the junior officer ranks. I have cut and pasted a few of the best examples from that survey here, with an occasional commentary.
"People get promoted not on how well they do their jobs—but on what jobs they have—if all jobs aren’t important to the Army, then why have them?" A good example is the typical shuffling around of O-4s to check the block as a battalion S-3. A guy should be able to be an XO for 3 years and not be at a disadvantage to the guy who was the S-3. The Army is talking a lot of smack about how "manner of performance" is more critical than which jobs you held to the promotion boards, but thats not what is happening.
"Like the Marine approach to recruiting; make it the challenge" I agree, but we then need to back that up with some teeth. If we try to sell the Army as a challenge, we need to deliver in Initial Entry Training. I think everyone will agree that today's stress-card politically correct IET doesn't fill that bill.
"Junior officers aren’t having fun – and more importantly, see that their immediate superiors aren’t having fun either." This is why massive pay raises aren't going to help.
"Housing is deplorable. Not only here but across the board. There is not enough housing and what exists needs remodeling. If the CSA wants to work on retention how about pumping some dollars into adequate and plentiful housing for our soldiers." I think a large part of the housing and other quality of life issues is that senior leaders see life exclusively from a quantitative perspective. Anything that doesn't show up on a USR slide is not contributing to readiness. I would argue that spending dollars on housing IS investing dollars in readiness. A soldier who has a decent place to stay is more likely to stay in the service, and be a more effective soldier. That eliminates the need to recruit and train another to take his place, and it keeps experience in the Army. THAT IS READINESS!!!! Unfortunately, leaders can't seem to make it across that mental bridge because we don't have a USR slide entitled 'Number of soldiers that didn't punch out because they had decent quarters.'
"We all waste so much time trying to suck up and making slides with statistics that we are not doing our jobs." Anyone ever hear of a USR NCO slot on the MTOE? Didn't think so. Who do senior leaders think are doing the USR research? Officers and NCOs who should be training soldiers to fight. If leaders don't think that USR takes time, wake up. Companies don't have the automation or training they need to have a database that makes it easy. It's doubly hard when the CG wants a by name list of everyone that failed the APFT.
"Compensate those separated better. Recompense should be higher for those on short notice deployments, or back-to-back. Also should be extra for cumulative time away." The first time I went to NTC as a young 2LT, I thought I would be getting some good cash to be away from my wife for a month. Instead, I got my BAS yanked.
"Commanders put too much on the training schedule and demand that it all be done perfectly; the result is mediocre training, long hours, frustration, and disillusionment." More trying to check the block for USR / QTB.
" We need a complete revision of how and who we recruit. For example, the army continues to entice young men and women with quantitative rewards, such as large sums of bonus money to join the army, but what are we doing as a collective campaign to target young men and women with qualitative rewards such as leadership skills, sense of pride, and dignity." Additionally, CSA has placed a great emphasis on getting recruiting. Every knows the recruiting duty sucks and NCOs and BQ CPTs avoid it like the plague. If we want to do good recruiting, we need good recruiters and that means making that assignment enjoyable and rewarding in terms of career value.
"Recruit disabled persons in a limited capacity" Maybe - very selective fields
"Lift the ban on homosexuals" Bad bad idea.
"Provide 15-year contracts as other European countries do." In today's job market, wouldn't work.
"Give $1,000 bonuses for every service member who signs up a person into the military" Who has time to do recruiting? We should be training.
"Place recruiters right next to college campuses to sweep up the drop outs" We can barely sign up the high-school dropouts.
"Conduct partnership with industry whereas soldiers in certain skill sets, are trained and work in the military for 5 years, and then are guaranteed a job with Fortune 500 companies." We want to keep 'em in, not kick 'em out.
Thanks, gentlemen. Keep up the good work. It's great to see that someone in the field grade world is still in touch.