Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In all honesty, I have no military experience and know next to nothing about practical leadership, but I'd assumed that in any hierarchical organization it takes different skill sets for different levels of management, and that ideally everyone more or less reaches their best fit in terms of how high up on the totem pole they rise. Obviously the type of leadership expected of a project leader is different from that needed from a CIO, which again differs from what the CEO does.
Perhaps I'm looking at this wrong; is it more like school, where promotion to the next grade or year is expected, and failure to obtain that tells the world that you really can't handle the grade you're in, let alone progress to more advanced material?
I was going to bring up the Peter Principle, actually.
It's actually more like, all the people rise to their natural level, then their evaluations kind of reflect it's their natural level. While you would think 'getting good' at your natural level by staying at it for a really long time would be a good thing-like it is in civilian firms, where someone might stay in the same slot for a decade-it really means in the system that we impose on the services, you've just removed the chance for opening up a spot for an officer below you to get promoted
In a perverse way, by doing what seems right for the individual, you've really screwed the organization as a whole. You've removed incentive for those below you to strive and learn. By you sticking around because you, I don't know, 'love to fly', the slots never open for those who ALSO love to fly, but can do other things and have more potential for higher ranks-as demonstrate by their performance and potential.
If the slots never open, very few people coming up get promoted. If they don't think they'll get promoted, why would the good ones stick around? Thus, we end up with really mediocre generals in a business where mediocrity can quite literally kill.
By the time you are up for the O-5 or O-6 board, not getting selected doesn't mean you're truly bad. It means your evaluations weren't as good as the guys who made it.
And no, I strongly disagree it's because your wife didn't kiss ass. It means you weren't as good-not that you were bad, just not as good. Guys who don't make some cut-promotion, school, etc. (and I didn't make a few cuts during my active career, so this is not some smarmy advice from someone who's never known failure) to a certain level usually come up with some reason "why." Why, is because their ego wrote checks their ability couldn't handle. There's always someone better. Usually quite a few someones.
Is it possible to change 'up or out' to stay at one level and promote a much, much smaller percentage? Sure. It just has to be done deliberately, and with plenty of warning to those already in the system, and maybe change the idea of one realistic chance (the primary zone) to multiple chances, much more similar to what Army NCOs have today (they have several years to realistically make the next rank rather than just one). For sure, most LTs didn't enter the last couple of years expecting to stay a LT for an extended period-but switching it up now with little warning would have that exact effect.
Last edited by GeorgiaTransplant; 12-22-2013 at 08:15 PM..
I am enjoying the holidays, my grandchildren, and my memories. This is a fun forum to read. I was a FTCS (E8), CWO4 (W4), USN, USNR, and GS-12, retired from both. While I can remember what I consider my worst tour of duty, I have so many good memories that it adds up, for me, to have been a very rewarding career.
And no, I strongly disagree it's because your wife didn't kiss ass.
This isn't about my wife, I'm just an innocent bystander.
Quote:
It means you weren't as good-not that you were bad, just not as good. Guys who don't make some cut-promotion, school, etc. (and I didn't make a few cuts during my active career, so this is not some smarmy advice from someone who's never known failure) to a certain level usually come up with some reason "why." Why, is because their ego wrote checks their ability couldn't handle. There's always someone better. Usually quite a few someones.
This all makes sense as you explain it. It still sounds a bit cutthroat, though, coming from a civilian perspective, as if they "do a Pete Best" on people who may be very effective and capable, but not as effective and capable. It doesn't seem to be much of a recruiting enticement for those who don't come from the service academies where, I assume, everyone already knows all about this from day one.
Does this generally work the same way for direct-commissioned technical and professional officers, like doctors and lawyers? (Sorry if someone already answered that, but I must have missed it if they did.) For instance, let's say you're a doctor doing pretty much what any doctor would do in civilian life, except that you work in a military hospital and you wear the insignia of an Army captain. Could you conceivably stay in that slot for a decade, or would you be expected to be running the whole building by that time?
(As for Pete Best, I'm not denying that the Beatles wouldn't have been nearly as good if they hadn't replaced him with Ringo Starr, so I do appreciate the fact that it's sometimes necessary to make changes that will be unpleasant for some of the people involved.)
The thing that gets me is that promotions are based all on OER's. What about things that don't show up on OER's? I've seen some FGO's absolutely destroy the morale of an entire BN due to the way they've treated their people and run them into the ground. Are the boxes checked? Yep, sure are but look at the cost. When you run your staff into the ground with fear, maniacal rants and a bipolar attitude, is that really the guy you want promoted?
When people are only re-upping to PCS or retire if PCS isn't available, then you've got some serious issues.
I laugh at people in this thread who think Officer promotion is actually based on performance.
Officer promotion is based on how well you play the game. Army_Guy is spot on.
some agreement here but you do have to have the technical proficiency and instinct to perform. And yes being an officer is about politics of all sorts. And from what I hear the politics required in the last 6 years or so are horrible and pointless. So you have a definite point, sadly.
Old time story:
As an early female Army officer, I watched my male peers and such and came to believe it is a game of winners or how badly do you want to win. And what we want is winners in charge of our operations and troops. So it isn't that bad.
Those who will find a way to win, such as Captain Kirk in the star trek movie where he reprogrammed the nonwinnable simulation so that it was winnable. Simply because his goal was to win.
I remember a captain who had just completed a simulation exercise and he won the game by inputting the data as negative elevation for his helicopters- essentially he tunneled under the earth to the objective. As the observer controller I had to write it as it was but I had to give him credit for reaching the objective. After he got roundly chewed out for breaking the rules; I heard he got an attaboy for his innovation.
And we went back and changed the code so no one else could manipulate the input.
This isn't about my wife, I'm just an innocent bystander.
This all makes sense as you explain it. It still sounds a bit cutthroat, though, coming from a civilian perspective, as if they "do a Pete Best" on people who may be very effective and capable, but not as effective and capable. It doesn't seem to be much of a recruiting enticement for those who don't come from the service academies where, I assume, everyone already knows all about this from day one.
Does this generally work the same way for direct-commissioned technical and professional officers, like doctors and lawyers? (Sorry if someone already answered that, but I must have missed it if they did.) For instance, let's say you're a doctor doing pretty much what any doctor would do in civilian life, except that you work in a military hospital and you wear the insignia of an Army captain. Could you conceivably stay in that slot for a decade, or would you be expected to be running the whole building by that time?
(As for Pete Best, I'm not denying that the Beatles wouldn't have been nearly as good if they hadn't replaced him with Ringo Starr, so I do appreciate the fact that it's sometimes necessary to make changes that will be unpleasant for some of the people involved.)
It applies for doctors, too. You need to make a flag rank by 30 years in, which you only get if you stop seeing patients and start doing admin. We've known quite a few forced out before then because doctors become very expensive to keep. They are the highest paid people in the military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf
I laugh at people in this thread who think Officer promotion is actually based on performance.
Officer promotion is based on how well you play the game. Army_Guy is spot on.
I don't think we have experience with the same military.
I laugh at people in this thread who think Officer promotion is actually based on performance.
Officer promotion is based on how well you play the game. Army_Guy is spot on.
Sat a board? I have. Any single OER might be political, but stringing together 10-12 of them that in the aggregate say you're average, or say you're above average, based on politics alone, would be an unbelievable trick.
If you try to play politics with the guy that sees through it and is really trying to do the right things-and they are out there, in probably larger numbers than the politicians-you'll pay. On your evaluation. With a below average OER.
If you try to do the right things under a politician, you'll probably get an average to slightly above average OER, and he'll be shaking his head at how unbelievably hard you're working-but you got a decent evaluation, and your pride is intact.
It applies for doctors, too. You need to make a flag rank by 30 years in, which you only get if you stop seeing patients and start doing admin. We've known quite a few forced out before then because doctors become very expensive to keep. They are the highest paid people in the military.
I don't think we have experience with the same military.
Do explain. Do you honestly believe that promotion is actually based on ability and performance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant
Sat a board? I have. Any single OER might be political, but stringing together 10-12 of them that in the aggregate say you're average, or say you're above average, based on politics alone, would be an unbelievable trick.
If you try to play politics with the guy that sees through it and is really trying to do the right things-and they are out there, in probably larger numbers than the politicians-you'll pay. On your evaluation. With a below average OER.
If you try to do the right things under a politician, you'll probably get an average to slightly above average OER, and he'll be shaking his head at how unbelievably hard you're working-but you got a decent evaluation, and your pride is intact.
The system works.
The system is based on taking the right billets and getting good FITREPS.
I don't buy that the system is based on ability. It's based on how well (and willing) you are to play the game. Take the right billets, go where you're told, do the right deployments, stay on career track, etc...The promotion to O-4 is around 90%. Up to O-3 is automatic.
I have no idea how you took that as play politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
