Sunday, January 23, 2011

Why the US military's best officers are leaving


A few days ago I linked to a New York Times article on military leadership, referencing the experiences of a company commander in Afghanistan. In that light, an article in the Atlantic titled 'Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving' made very interesting reading. Here's an excerpt.

Why does the American military produce the most innovative and entrepreneurial leaders in the country, then waste that talent in a risk-averse bureaucracy? Military leaders know they face a paradox. A widely circulated 2010 report from the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College said: "Since the late 1980s ... prospects for the Officer Corps’ future have been darkened by ... plummeting company-grade officer retention rates. Significantly, this leakage includes a large share of high-performing officers." Similar alarms have been sounded for decades, starting long before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made the exit rate of good officers an acute crisis. When General Peter Schoomaker served as Army chief of staff from 2003 to 2007, he emphasized a "culture of innovation" up and down the ranks to shift the Army away from its Cold War focus on big, conventional battles and toward new threats. In many respects (weapons, tactics, logistics, training), the Army did transform. But the talent crisis persisted for a simple reason: the problem isn’t cultural. The military’s problem is a deeply anti-entrepreneurial personnel structure. From officer evaluations to promotions to job assignments, all branches of the military operate more like a government bureaucracy with a unionized workforce than like a cutting-edge meritocracy.

After interviewing veterans who work at some of the most dynamic and innovative companies in the country, I’m convinced that the military has failed to learn the most fundamental lessons of the knowledge economy. And that to hold on to its best officers, to retain future leaders like John Nagl, it will need to undergo some truly radical reforms - not just in its policies and culture, but in the way it thinks about its officers.

. . .

In a recent survey I conducted of 250 West Point graduates (sent to the classes of 1989, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2001, and 2004), an astonishing 93 percent believed that half or more of "the best officers leave the military early rather than serving a full career." ... Among active- duty respondents, 82 percent believed that half or more of the best are leaving. Only 30 percent of the full panel agreed that the military personnel system "does a good job promoting the right officers to General," and a mere 7 percent agreed that it "does a good job retaining the best leaders."

. . .

65 percent of the graduates agreed that the exit rate of the best officers leads to a less competent general-officer corps. Seventy-eight percent agreed that it harms national security.

The shame of this loss of talent is that the U.S. military does such a good job attracting and training great leaders. The men and women who volunteer as military officers learn to remain calm and think quickly under intense pressure. They are comfortable making command decisions, working in teams, and motivating people. Such skills translate powerfully to the private sector, particularly business: male military officers are almost three times as likely as other American men to become CEOs, according to a 2006 Korn/Ferry International study.

. . .

Why is the military so bad at retaining these people? ... the reason overwhelmingly cited by veterans and active-duty officers alike is that the military personnel system - every aspect of it - is nearly blind to merit. Performance evaluations emphasize a zero-defect mentality, meaning that risk-avoidance trickles down the chain of command. Promotions can be anticipated almost to the day - regardless of an officer’s competence - so that there is essentially no difference in rank among officers the same age, even after 15 years of service. Job assignments are managed by a faceless, centralized bureaucracy that keeps everyone guessing where they might be shipped next.

The Pentagon’s response to such complaints has traditionally been to throw money at the problem, in the form of millions of dollars in talent-blind retention bonuses. More often than not, such bonuses go to any officer in the "critical" career fields of the moment, regardless of performance evaluations. This only ensures that the services retain the most risk-averse, and leads to long-term mediocrity.

When I asked veterans for the reasons they left the military, the top response was "frustration with military bureaucracy" - cited by 82 percent of respondents (with 50 percent agreeing strongly). In contrast, the conventional explanation for talent bleed - the high frequency of deployments - was cited by only 63 percent of respondents, and was the fifth-most-common reason. According to 9 out of 10 respondents, many of the best officers would stay if the military was more of a meritocracy.


There's much more at the link. I highly recommend this article to veterans, current servicemen, and all who are concerned about the future of the US armed forces.

Peter

3 comments:

piasa said...

Hence the saying that it’s difficult to soar like an eagle when you work with turkeys!

Anonymous said...

If a man does nothing he cannot do something wrong.
Paul in Texas

Anonymous said...

A buddy of mine is a logistics officer in the U.S. Army, and took issue with more than a bit of this author's research and conclusions--worth reading! http://seeking-insight.livejournal.com/384496.html