Proceedings, January 2008
Time to modernize. The current system is a relic, creaky and counterproductive.By Colonel David A. Smith, U.S. Air Force Reserve (Retired)
Since the Cold War ended, we have seen fundamental changes in threats, military tactics, weapons, and technologies. At the same time, funding constraints have increased—as has competition for talented people. Changing demographics have brought changes in the motivations and expectations of the workforce. The current human capital system, commonly known as the Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education system, must be completely modernized to meet these new challenges—and to improve retention.
Although we do now see a few changes, such as attempts to institute career on- and off-ramps, continuum of service, officer retention initiatives, and sabbaticals, we cannot expect a system that was crafted for the needs of the mid-20th century to be successful in today's vastly different environment. Our 60-year-old system has served our nation well, but it cannot meet the demands of the 21st century. Since 1947, our system has continuously been modified, adjusted, and added to. Now we need a total overhaul.
Shape the New Workforce for WarWe have been using laws and policies that were created for peacetime, but our new workforce is tasked with defeating new, complex, and often asymmetrical threats over many years. We need highly effective methods that will ensure we have the right people with the right skills at the right time and place doing the right work. This means a modern personnel management system based on relevant and measurable information.
To accomplish it, force-shaping tools must be available in law and policies that permit managing personnel resources with the agility, flexibility, and latitude that are needed in wartime. Examples are provisions for quickly and temporarily changing such policies as grade limitations, up-or-out provisions, different incentives or bonuses, retraining protocols, and other tools to readily solve unforeseen problems.
One issue central to our personnel management is the 20-year-cliff retirement system. The norm for a military career is 20 years, with few—other than general and flag officers—staying 30 years or longer. As a result, we lose many talented leaders too early, when their skills and experience are at a peak. Conversely, some unneeded or noncompetitive members are retained because there is no provision for equitably removing them involuntarily before they qualify for 20-year retirement.
The system forces everything—field and staff service, training and education—to be squeezed into 20 years. To comply with the Goldwater-Nichols joint training requirements, even more must go into this two-decade career. New ideas are needed, including retirement matching, and 401K-type and portable pension systems. We must manage the active and Reserve military force more effectively.
We Need More TimeIt takes time to train, educate, and develop officers and senior enlisted personnel. We need to develop longer career planning consistent with a new, longer retirement system and with modifying up-or-out promotion. For years we have been stuffing more requirements into the same period. Goldwater-Nichols added joint education and training, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has directed that increased language and cultural training be provided, and new kinds of threats and weapons require increased training.
Often, personnel with highly developed skills leave the military when still in the prime of their lives and capabilities. In 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked Congress for authority to retain selected officers beyond their mandatory retirement dates.
The up-or-out system was designed to assure that only the most qualified officers remained in the force, and to provide acceptable promotion rates and opportunities for younger officers. However, the unintended consequence is that many skilled officers who perform well and could continue to do so for many more years are eliminated early, without being competitive for further promotions.
If we institute a dual track for some occupations, those so inclined can continue doing the jobs they enjoy as long as they meet established standards. Imagine the effectiveness of a Marine supply officer or maintenance supervisory officer who has ten years' experience in his specialty—and wants nothing more than to continue to be the Corps' best.
Longer careers will mean reducing the number of reassignments and relocations. We should require personnel to remain in one position longer, thereby increasing the quality of their leadership and performance.
More FlexibilityEach Service must have the ability to tailor its personnel management for its own culture and mission. We have outgrown today's one-size-fits-all mentality. A competency-based approach observes and measures patterns of knowledge, skill, abilities, and behaviors. If we use this, we will improve performance, agility, and efficiency. Competency-based management should be accepted as a DOD-wide tool throughout the personnel life cycle.
In support of more flexibility, the compensation system for all personnel must be revised. The military services should formally move toward a market-based compensation system, including bonuses and incentives to reward skills and risks, with a smaller portion going to base pay.
A close look reveals that many aspects of a market-based system are already being adopted, slowly and piecemeal. We are paying bonuses for referrals, re-enlistments, and keeping mid-grade officers; we are paying incentives for special skills such as information technology specialists. If we had a new system based on modern portable pensions, base pay would no longer be the basis of retirement pay.
The current automatic two-year longevity increase provision does not reward performance and should be abolished. Pay bands and performance standards similar to those of the new civil service compensation should be adopted.
And it is time to implement continuum of service. The way things stand now, one can move easily from active duty to the Reserve components, civilian, and/or contractor status. However, there are very few ways (called ramps) that permit people to move from Reserve and civilian status back to active duty—for example, being reintegrated with the regular component—without career-ruining consequences.
Continuum of service would provide for a seamless integrated Total Force, with on- and off-ramps for military and civilians alike. Many military personnel leaders are talking about it as a means of accessing scarce skills as needed. For example, in 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called General Peter Schoomaker out of retirement to serve as Army Chief of Staff. But to implement this at lesser grades, many laws and, more important, traditions would have to change.
Smaller Crews Need More TrainingBy using competencies to determine training requirements, the Navy has planned and built ships for the future (such as the new, highly computerized Smart Ship) that require significantly fewer personnel. Both the Navy and Air Force are reducing active duty end strength in order to save money that can be used to build new weapons.
But new weapons are more complex. And fewer people are available to use these weapons, so they must be trained to assume multiple functions. Controversial though this may be, the limits of funds and the high cost of skilled personnel result in reducing crew size as much as possible.
We find similar examples in the Army and Marine Corps. However, these services put people in combat, while the Navy and Air Force man platforms. The two ground services are therefore increasing total end strength to build more force structure and combat capability.
More innovation and certification will have to be included, thereby allowing military personnel to respond to new mission requirements more quickly. Training and education should be used to develop multi-skilled personnel to handle newer technologies, thus reducing the personnel required for mission accomplishment.
As in the private sector, this training should involve improved certifications, more standardization, consolidation of redundant programs, and development of technologies.
Joint Is the Way to GoToday's conflicts have demonstrated that lower-grade officers and enlisted personnel are increasingly involved in situations where they are making decisions that have strategic importance. As a result, further revisions to joint professional military education are needed.
Currently this education involves two levels. Phase One material is taught at the services' intermediate service schools and senior service schools; Phase Two at the Industrial War College, National War College, and Joint Forces Staff College.
Aside from more cultural and language proficiency, joint professional training and education need to be provided much earlier in careers, with changes to and lengthening of officers' careers. Therefore, intermediate service schools should come earlier, while senior service schools would come later.
The National War College should become a true National Security University, adding more leaders from other federal agencies as both students and faculty. This should be in addition to service war colleges, and it should come at about the 25-year point.
With longer careers, war college graduates could be expected to remain on active duty longer. Officers selected for War Colleges (Senior Service Schools) should be selected for, or already be promoted to, O-6. These officers should then be committed to stay in the service for at least 30 years, and be eligible for extended service beyond that as needed.
Tear Down the HouseOur present system is like a modest house that was built in 1947, then added to and adjusted over the next 60 years as children came, grew, and left. The result today is an overburdened structure still sitting on the same foundation. We see many such old, chopped-up, inefficient houses in our neighborhoods. We also see them being torn down, while new houses go up.
We must rebuild our chopped-up, many-times-changed 1947 Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education house. Instead of fiddling with it and making it even more complex and less satisfactory, let's have the foresight and willingness to start the long, difficult process of a total reformation. We need a state-of-the-art Human Capital Planning, Development, and Management System.
Colonel Smith was most recently the vice president for Manpower Analysis and Reserve Affairs at the Wexford Group International, now a CACI International company. He has been an analyst of manpower, human resources, training, and organizational policies and issues for 40 years, serving in leadership and policy positions at Headquarters U.S. Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Executive Office of the President. Smith is a Naval Academy graduate.
WASHINGTON, July 19, 2007 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates paid an emotional tribute last night to one of the Marine Corps’ fallen heroes of the war in Iraq.