I've covered a new idea for the Army's allocation of manpower, moving from a centrally-planned depot system to a free-market system of allocation. Now I'll explore some of the effects of implementing such a system.
A system like this would allow Army units much more flexibility in choosing their soldiers and leadership. The leadership selection would no longer be driven by HRC, and the implied importance of OERs and personal relationships; it would be driven by the units themselves, competing to acquire the best leadership available. This would go a long way to solving a long-standing problem of the military, namely, the ass-kissery so prevalent among Officers and NCOs alike. A bidding system would reduce--though not negate--the importance of subjective evaluations and place those evaluations in a subordinate role to the objective accomplishments of the individual, communicated formally (OER/ORB and enlisted counterparts) and informally (individual and unit reputation, interviews, et cetera).
Sought-after leaders would be the ones displaying the traits necessary to succeed. This would be effected through the public nature of Army missions and assignments. The Army is a relatively small community; there are extensive personal networks in the Army, and every level from individual through corps has a reputation in the relevant arena. For Staff Sergeants to Colonels in this system, reputation as well as job position filled would go a long way in determining worth, which is not something that the current OER/HRC system can necessarily claim. In short, the Army would take a sharp tilt towards a meritocratic method of advancement and promotion, based on performance in assignments.
As an end result, the Army's best leaders and soldiers would be rewarded for doing a good job, and non-performers would be relegated to positions they did passably, or they could opt out of the Army. Recruiting would go up if the volunteer Army remained--the Army would stop being a welfare agency, and instead become an opportunity for economic as well as service-oriented achievement--or a draft could fill slots based on losses. This last assertion is based on a back-of-envelope analysis, but seems to be born out based on why people join the military-- it's not based on service or nationalistic tendencies, but rather tends to be to get away from bad circumstances or get job training. Better opportunities would also equal better recruits joining up.
On strictly personnel-management based grounds, this would have a couple of other effects. Individuals would manage their own careers directly, instead of dealing with the caprices of a branch manager or Army-planned jobs. Organizations would manage their own personnel needs, instead of relying on an HRC which bases personnel allocation on an MTOE that is not always filled, or not always suited to the assigned mission. For an organization that is stretched thin, I know a lot of folks who are in positions that they shouldn't be; this either because there truly is no better place for them in the Army, or because the Army is doing a poor job of personnel allocation. I tend to believe the latter, though because I am not privvy to the HRC databases, my evidence is purely anecdotal.
Budget compliance should also increase. I have seen units purposely blow budgets in order to get more money, immediately or in the following year. This is a good tactic, in the military; but how far would it go in the civilian sector? There are two responses of the parent organization: 1) Go for it! Your division/organization is more important than the other things we have going on, so we'll give you more of our precious resources to execute, and 2) Tough noogies; you spent it, you're done. The Army, because the US is at war and because it is a government organization with access to gov't coffers, tends towards solution #1. This is justified on grounds of winning wars, but instead can frequently turn out to be cover for waste and inefficiency.
How would this system affect mission readiness? Well, if you follow the point of the system, which is that we're looking for the most efficient way to allocate the scarce personnel resources in the Army, then mission readiness and effectiveness would-- at a cursory glance-- increase. I am not sure what metrics to use for this question, although personnel turnover during training cycles and deployments could be one, surveys of army personnel and retention rates would work, and number of "Mission Accomplished" banners would certainly be a large one. Under this system, retention rates should go up as individuals find the units they are suited to, the home stations they desire, and the career experience they want.
However, in the current low-intensity, asymmetrical environment, measuring numbers of Missions Accomplished can be very difficult, particularly 1) in near-real-time, and 2) at the varying levels of operations. Which leads to the next point, covered in Objections, in the next post.
As always, I welcome comments and critique.
No comments:
Post a Comment