Pentagon leaders looking to make a culture shift within the military

[Pete]

Pentagon leaders looking to make a culture shift within the military

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/2017...ithin-military

"A top Pentagon official believes the U.S. military is moving closer to a new way of doing business that would allow troops and families to stay at installations like Fort Bragg for longer periods of time.

Robert Wilkie, who was sworn in as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness in late November, said he believes the military’s current way of doing business is outdated and detrimental to families and the retention of troops.

He was critical of both the constant movement that has become a trademark of military families and the “up or out” career trajectories of the services, which he said needlessly boots troops who can still contribute to the nation’s warfighting efforts...."

With step pay increases for time in service "up or out" makes sense. You might be the greatest PFC since sliced bread but we don't need to be paying a PFC over 20.

More stability at a "Home Base"? Sounds nice but......

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by Pete

More stability at a "Home Base"? Sounds nice but......

It's only "nice" if you're at the right "home base," and the Household 6 element approves the plan. Otherwise you're stuck someplace less ideal with no way to move...which affects troop morale and retention.

This coming from a guy that had 27 yrs in the Army...with 21 of them at Ft Bragg. Personally, I ain't complaining. My house will be paid off in a little over 5 yrs.

[cbtengr]

“Not everyone is on track to become vice chief of staff of the Army,” he said. “As long as you meet standards, you should be allowed to stay.”

Certainly not everyone is cut out to be a leader but you can sure as hell be the best Grunt, Combat Engineer etc etc and you can be effective for years. I retired with 33 years of service to a pipeline company. I never wanted to run the place and they kept me, they kept me because I did a good job for them. And they had a major investment in me. I respect the fact that the military is a different type of workplace but when it comes down to it it is a chosen vocation, it is a job. I can see E4's with 20 years, as long as they can make the standard.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

“Not everyone is on track to become vice chief of staff of the Army,” he said. “As long as you meet standards, you should be allowed to stay.”

Certainly not everyone is cut out to be a leader but you can sure as hell be the best Grunt, Combat Engineer etc etc and you can be effective for years. I retired with 33 years of service to a pipeline company. I never wanted to run the place and they kept me, they kept me because I did a good job for them. And they had a major investment in me. I respect the fact that the military is a different type of workplace but when it comes down to it it is a chosen vocation, it is a job. I can see E4's with 20 years, as long as they can make the standard.

I think they should bring back the specialist rank to promote those without leadership traits but have exceptional skills.....there are exceptional soldiers who need to be led and babysat because they have no solid character traits that you want in a leader.

Keeping certain skills beyond the old up or out policy is a good start some have no other desires than to be really good at what they do....however the bitterness in the military is poor leadership from top to bottom right down to the squad level....right now the loud, the manipulative, arrogant, cheat, low moral character are getting promoted in SF and Army wide....no soldier with an initiative wants to work in any organization where the dishonest get ahead routinely and the hard working top performers get left behind just because they want to be assessed and promoted off ability and merit not relationships.

[RichL025]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

I understand and agree with the concept to a point. Some MOS's there is no upward movement and the Army needs to retain their technical skills. My worry is the execution of the issue. As you said keeping a 30 year 11B E-4 is not ideal.

Why not? Maybe not 30 years (I'm at 30 and a little broken down) but many people are still pretty physically healthy at 20.

We have been 'conditioned' to think you must "up or out' without any good reason for it. I applaud the guy for questioning the status quo.

Myself, I have PCSd 3 times in 6 years. The wife is getting a little tired of it. It IS a major quality of life issue for us and our family, and forcing us to move for NO GOOD FUCKING REASON will guarantee that I leave when my commitment is up.

I am in an incredible shortage MOS by the way with a 14 year training requirement.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

I think they should bring back the specialist rank to promote those without leadership traits but have exceptional skills.....there are exceptional soldiers who need to be led and babysat because they have no solid character traits that you want in a leader.

Which was the whole point of the rank to begin with. Maybe not leadership material, but an expert in your field. You could make it to E-7 as a Specialist.

[TFA303]

The military is a huge bureaucracy that doesn't handle subtle changes well, and nowhere does the pendulum swing more slowly or more inevitably too far in the opposite direction than when it comes to manpower.

We have "up or out" (via DOPMA for officers) because there was a perception (not entirely unfounded) that upper ranks were filled with deadwood who had retired in place, and high-quality junior troops couldn't get promoted until someone retired or died. This caused morale, professionalism, and retention problems.

There's a chance that we could get it Just Right, and we could keep only the really good troops who aren't promotion material, but still be able to get rid of that deadwood and provide headroom for hard-charging new guys. I'm not betting on it, though.

[Box]

I'm not sure why they are choosing now to advertise a desire to force a cultural shift...
...they are coming off an eight year long cultural shift that was forced down the throat of the American public - why the sudden pretentious fanfare

[Team Sergeant]

Ain't going to work for the combat arms troops. Seriously who wants a 40 y/o PFC on their squad/fire team? The reason troops move up in the lower ranks quickly is because it does not take long to master the lower skill levels. Now if you're going to keep some moron as a PFC then nothing changes and he doesn't get paid as an idiot over 20.

Just my .02


Tech stuff would work. Cook, clerk, mechanic, rigger etc.

Edit to add: Now this would lend itself to hiring the morons of America...... lowering the already low ASVAB to accommodate the real idiots and pay them to carry a rifle for Uncle Sugar.

[Box]

Concur -

A combat arms soldier that cannot mature past the level of rifleman seems to have very little long-term value. I see plenty of use as cannon fodder during a large scale conventional war for a career infantry private. Meat-sticks in a full frontal assault are an unfortunate necessity, but over time, a guy who only wants to worry about his own foxhole, that doesn't want to move-up has a work ethic that will endanger his entire unit.

A mechanic that likes to turn wrenches is a different story. A mechanic can simply move to higher echelons of repair as they gain experience. Turn wrenches for your entire career if you want - I used to get civilian contractors ALL OF THE TIME that did nothing but maintain our vehicles. One or two even said they would have stayed in the Army forever if they could have stayed on the line working on trucks.


...just my two cents though, I could be wrong

[Badger52]

“We are in the people business, not a machine business,” Wilkie said.

I'd regard a cultural shift from previous 8 years as something vastly different from this.

(oh wait, Air Force focus - never mind)

LOL. So... what bases get mandatory assignments if there aren't enough "volunteers" to hang around as the proverbial terminal PFC? My daughter spent 10yrs at Drum (5-1/2 downrange starting with K2, that kind of cycle) and then was trying to find the 'eject handle' from that place.

[exsquid]

I agree with bringing back the Specialist system. It provides for advancement up to E7 but also allows guys who don't want to be leaders to not have to deal with it. I imagine that being a SFC in SF is what being a SPC7 back in the day was like. I get to specialize in my given profession without really having to "lead" troops in garrison. Leading indig in a war zone is a totally different case and I enjoy that.

x/S

[Old Dog New Trick]

I had an 11B track driver (M113 series) who just wanted to drive the vehicle. He didn’t want the responsibility of an NCO and didn’t ever want to get promoted beyond SP4. He spent his eight to 12-years in the Army and as far as I know left when they kicked him out. This was in the 80’s.

There are people who are happy and content with doing the job they joined for. The medical ranks come to mind too.

As far as permanent station...that too could be something a person wants or doesn’t want. Needs of the Army shouldn’t always outweigh the needs of the individual.

Pay people shit wages and then tell them move their family every two to four years. And then ask yourself...why do quality people seek employment in the private sector?

PS - that guy knew everything about that tracked vehicle and could replace an engine or transmission in half the time. Break track in the muck, no problem...I got this Sarg!

[RichL025]

Originally Posted by Box

Concur -

A combat arms soldier that cannot mature past the level of rifleman seems to have very little long-term value. ... a guy who only wants to worry about his own foxhole, that doesn't want to move-up has a work ethic that will endanger his entire unit... A mechanic that likes to turn wrenches is a different story.....

Strongly disagree. I do not buy that there is a connection between "work ethic" and "desire to go to ANCOC and ride a desk in the S3 shop as part of some CSMs idea on career progression".

I don't know if they still have it or not, but the British army used to have the concept of the "professional private". They conquered an empire that spanned the globe with an army like that. Our army used to have something similar - I can remember reading accounts of cavalry soldiers in the old west who had been in for quite some time but were still "troopers".

What about on teams? Should an E7 with 4 years of team time be forced out into a SWC instructor job for "career progression"? Sure, if the guy wants to make E9 some day. But what about those of us who only wanted to be team guys? Henry Ramirez used to call that "hiding behind a rucksack" but I'll tell you, I did not question their work ethic. I know who _I_ looked to for advice as a young team guy (and it wasn't the Bone clones).

The more I think about it, the more I like that analogy. Really, an E6 or (most) E7s on a team don't lead shit. They are basically SP6 or SP7s. Super specialists in engineering, weapons, languages etc.

OK, for teams that do FID or classic UW, that E6 or E7 might "lead" a platoon of indig, but for every example like that you can find I can point to CIF teams or SMUs that DON't do that. Should we be kicking them out because they don't want to "move up"?

They are exactly like your example of "mechanic" except their trade is in a different career field.

Coming back to the initial example of an infantryman, there is a set of skills and experience in that line of work as well where a "professional private" (or SPC, whatever) can find a niche. I think it is totally allowable for a troop to just want to be the best he can at his job without automatically being forced to rise up.

[Box]

The ODA structure operates separately from the rest of the army and team members have much greater individual responsibilities than an infantry private. If there was a true culture shift - ODA members (in my opinion) should be treated more like technicians than infantrymen.
...which WOULD allow them to spend their careers on an ODA. A career medic would be expected to have infantry skills, provide medical aid for his ODA as well as indigenous troops within his area of responsibility.

A career medic would be required to provide some pretty technical services. SF Commo guys have a wide range of responsibilities -far more than n RTO serving in an infantry platoon - commo-guy responsibilities are far more technical than the skills needed to dig and defend a foxhole. Engineers, Weapons Sgts, and Intel guys would ALL be required to provide a mastery of technical skills that are not resident within an infantry squad.

Leadership skills go beyond the squad level - ODA members must be able to lead host nation troops as well as know when to shut-up-and-row within the ODS structure. ANCOC is a block check that does very little to make SF guys better NCOs but even a career ODA guy would have career progression needs since medical, communications, and engineering technologies are constantly evolving. Even using niche jobs on CRF or SMU require much more technical expertise than just taking a knee and facing out.

A career on an ODA and a career in an infantry squad are very different animals (again -just my opinion).
Not to mention that for every SF guy I have ever heard say "fuck making '8 - I just want to be on a team and do my job" - I have heard the same voice in a much louder tone bellow with rage because they didnt get promoted their first time in the primary. Nobody ever wants to be the team sergeant until they don't get to be the team sergeant - then they just want to bitch that the paygrade/promotion system is broken.

I energetically accept differing opinions, but I'll pass on the chance to work with someone willing to settle for a job as a career infantry private.