| -Caveat Lector-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus: Why Junior Officers are Leaving the Military -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Phillip Carter
In war, individuals make a difference.
From King Leonidas at Thermopylae to Colonel Joshua
Chamberlain at Gettysburg, having the right man at the right place and time has
meant the difference between victory and defeat.
Now, as the United States Army struggles to define
itself in a changing world, an exodus of talented young officers threatens to
strip the Army of the lieutenants and captains it needs to lead America's sons
and daughters into the next century.
The current rate of attrition decimates the officer
corps each year. Between October 1999 and September 2000, 10 percent of the
Army's junior officers left the service. This fiscal year, that number is
projected to increase to 12 percent. Most military leaders agree that a rate of
7.5 percent is manageable - even desirable. But at the current rate, these same
leaders agree the Army will not have the officers to lead the force in 10 or 20
years.
President-elect George W. Bush decries this exodus
as a sign of military unreadiness; a reflection of neglect by the Clinton
Administration. Some critics blame the military's changing mission, and the
uncertainty in the Army about its mission. Academics mostly point to America's
economic boom, and the heavy recruiting of junior officers by industry.
But to those in the ranks, including myself, those
criticisms miss the mark. Indeed we arguably have a more clearly defined mission
today than ever before. Our Army is engaged today around the world, keeping the
peace and saving lives in places like Haiti, Honduras, Bosnia, Kosovo and Korea.
Though not the all-out war we train for, these deployments have tangible results
that soldiers can see: children fed, displaced civilians returned to their
homes, elections held.
For most of my peers, more concrete and
institutional reasons exist for our decisions to get out. These include time
away from home, uncertainty about career progression, a lack of performance
incentives, and a dearth of educational incentives. Of course, the economy plays
a major role too - good officers choose all the time between lucrative
private-sector opportunities and continued service in the Army.
Regardless of the cause, the immediate effect is
easy to discern: leadership positions in the field are unfilled now, and there
is a serious crunch in the non-fighting units which the Defense Department has
robbed to keep its warfighters in fighting trim.
The bottom line is that in 20 or 30 years, today's
junior officers will command the nation's military. If the best and brightest of
this class gets out of the military now, the pool left in 20 or 30 years may not
contain the right talent for the job.
* * *
First Lieutenant Jason Siminski stands 5 feet and 8
inches tall and looks like a recruiting poster for Army officers. His frame
packs nearly 175 pounds of muscle, he has the kind of boyish face that
generations of enlisted soldiers have looked to and called "LT".
The patches on his uniform tell the story of a
young officer on the rise. He wears the Army's elite Airborne and Air Assault
wings, and a faint outline on his shoulder tells other soldiers that Siminski
spent a year in the Army's forward-deployed unit on the Korean Demilitarized
Zone.
Now he serves in the Army's 4th Infantry Division,
unit currently testing the Army's next generation of digital technology. For a
young officer, serving in this unit provides the chance of a lifetime, to be on
the cutting edge of military development. But instead of planning his career in
the Army, Siminski is planning to leave the Army next year for corporate
America.
Siminski doesn't suffer for a lack of patriotism.
He became an officer because it gave him a noble way to serve his country, while
developing his leadership skills and doing something he enjoyed. Despite his
desire to get out, he still feels the Army is one of the best ways a young man
can serve his nation.
But when asked now why he wants to leave, he cites
two main reasons - financial opportunities on the outside and desire not to be
sent overseas again. If the Army would guarantee his next assignment, or give
him a year off to pursue an MBA, he might stay in. The camaraderie and sense of
purpose still resonate with Siminski, and he would like to lead soldiers again.
But without any incentives from the Army, it's hard to turn down the offers he
has from the private sector.
Unlike civilian corporations, who can recruit
managers at all levels from foreman to Chief Executive Officer, the military
grows its own leaders from the ground up. Middle managers and executives
literally work their way up from the bottom. This system makes the attrition of
junior officers so critical for all four services. If the current generation of
leaders leaves the military, the entire officer corps could have to restructure
in 15-20 years.
For the most part, officers and enlisted personnel
in the military co-exist roughly as white collar and blue collar workers do in
an industrial corporation. Officers provide the overall leadership for the
organization, as well as long-term planning and upper-level management. Enlisted
personnel, who account for more than 80% of the military's ranks, actually do
the work of the military and provide most of the middle and lower-level
management for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
By law, all officers must have a four-year college
degree, which 90 percent earn through one of the military academies or the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) program. Some former-enlisted persons
come up through the ranks and go to a 3-month school to earn their commission as
officers.
The first job a new officer will hold usually
involves supervising between 15 and 45 enlisted persons in some type of
specialty area. Army and Marine Corps lieutenants are called "Platoon Leaders;"
Navy ensigns are "Division Officers." Whatever the name, the job remains the
same: leading, training and caring for people on a daily basis. And it is this
management experience is what makes junior officers such a hot commodity for
corporate recruiters.
A typical junior officer will lead between 15 and
45 personnel, be responsible for between $100,000 and $16 million in equipment,
and have to manage their small unit's training, maintenance, supply, health
care, personnel matters, and personal lives to some degree. Of course, they
receive help from the sergeants in the units who average 10-15 years in the
military.
Nonetheless, most junior military officers carry a
burden of responsibility that far exceeds their peers from high school or
college. And they also carry some measure of pride as well, in knowing that the
nation's success or failure on the international stage depends on their actions.
In its recent report on misconduct in Kosovo, the
Army pinpointed blame on the junior officers and sergeants in the 3rd Battalion,
504th Infantry, for not enforcing the standards of right and wrong in their
unit. Not the colonels or generals in charge of Kosovo, or the 82nd Airborne
Division, but the lieutenants and captains and sergeants at the grunt level.
According to the report, the lax environment eventually they permitted led to
several criminally aggressive arrests, interrogations, and the rape and murder
of an 11-year-old girl.
Broken down, that means that a group of 25-year-old
officers and 30-year-old sergeants failed to tell a group of 20-year-old
soldiers how to behave. And that nonfeasance now affects American foreign
policy, as we try to rebuild credibility in Kosovo.
Whatever they may say about their pay or benefits
relative to their civilian peers, junior officers know they carry a heavy burden
for their nation. That burden also brings a sense of pride, in knowing that
America depends on their willingness to shed blood, sweat and tears in order to
accomplish their missions abroad.
Siminski, like most officers his age, says he has
had a fairly positive experience in the Army. In Korea, he served as the
chemical officer for a light infantry battalion, where he was the subject-matter
expert on chemical warfare for a 500-man unit. Then he switched units and became
a platoon leader, in charge of 30 men and women just 20 kilometers from the
Korean Demilitarized Zone.
But in the stateside Army, where units spend up to
two thirds of their time performing maintenance or working at the post gym,
young leaders like him become extremely discouraged. Moreover, without a large
enemy looming over the horizon like the Soviet Union, the military has lost the
collective sense of purpose it had thirty years ago.
The Army of the Cold War was a much different force
than the one today. First, it had money - more money than any peacetime military
in American history. Second, it had a clear mission to deter Communism through
readiness, and to deploy when necessary to place around the world to fight the
Cold War. Events such as the Berlin Airlift and Cuban Missile Crisis reinforced
the military's sense of purpose.
For leaders today, the end of the Cold War presents
a major challenge: how to justify the hardships of military life to their
soldiers without a clear mission, or clear international situation. But this
should not be a difficult challenge. Political and military leaders should be
able to easily justify interventions in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and
Somalia - places where American soldiers can make a clear difference and save
thousands of lives.
Some might argue that soldiers and families don't
understand the complex reasons for intervention in Bosnia. But that argument
ignores the overwhelming percentage of the American public who did favor our
deployment to Bosnia in 1995, and did favor our deployment to Kosovo in 1998 and
1999. Americans believe in stopping suffering abroad, and support the use of the
military to do so.
Though some leaders at the lower levels have said
it, the ones at the top have not. The military's mission today is more
well-defined, and more noble, than it ever has been. Today's Army secures the
liberties and rights of the world, and exists to prevent dictators from abusing
those rights in places like Kosovo and Indonesia, where US troops have
intervened recently. That purpose ought to energize today's military more than
ever before, because its results are so easy to discern in terms of towns
rebuilt, people fed, and lives saved.
Show Me The Money
Money clearly stands out as the most-cited factor
in the exodus of junior officers from the military. A seasoned lieutenant makes
approximately $40,000 a year in gross pay, depending on where in the world he or
she is stationed.
Contrast this with what they could earn in the
civilian sector. A typical graduate of a top-tier university who doesn't go
through ROTC could earn the same amount in a management program his first year.
By his third year, his salary could approach $75,000, or more if he's given
stock options or other incentives by his corporation. Other perquisites, such as
paid travel, company cars, corporate computers, and 401k plans help to make the
private sector even more attractive in monetary terms than the military.
But haven't military officers been a hot commodity
for decades?
Yes, they have, according to several recruiters.
But corporate America didn't whet its appetite for military officers until the
mid-1990s, in the wake of the Gulf War, when the military cut its ranks by two
thirds and forced many of its finest officers onto the street. Those officers
subsequently entered the private sector, and established the reputation that
currently puts young soldiers like Siminski on the A-list for recruiting firms.
With his a degree in biochemistry and experience in
the Army's Chemical Corps, Lieutenant Siminski is a hot draft pick for many
Fortune 500 companies. They look at the time he spent in Korea leading soldiers,
his science-based education, and his experience in a large organization, and
practically salivate over the prospect of hiring him.
"I've talked to recruiters who told me that I could
easily interview with 6 or 7 firms in one day at their hiring conferences,"
Siminski said, adding that firms would often outbid each other for an officer
who they knew would receive several lucrative offers. "It's hard to turn down an
opportunity like that, especially when I wouldn't have to work harder than I do
already in the Army - for money that's twice as good."
Junior officers don't have to look far for these
opportunities either. Recruiters swarm onto military posts after junior officers
like bees to honey, looking to entice them with stories of other officers who
have gotten out and are now making big money.
Recruiting firms regularly stuff their mailers into
the office mailboxes of junior officers on posts around the country. Some firms,
such as American Federal Recruiters and Lucas Group, gain access to personnel
rosters and address their letters and e-mail advertisements by name to junior
officers. And in any given month, near any large military base, one or more
firms will hold recruiting conferences for those looking to get out.
"What makes these young men and women so attractive
to the corporate world is their proven ability to manage people," said a
recruiter who specializes in helping corporate firms recruit junior officers.
Can't Compete With Private Sector - OPTEMPO
For some, the call of duty fades after a while -
drowned out by an operational tempo faster than what the American military has
ever felt. After a deployment or two, family estrangement and financial
difficulties begin to have a significant effect. It only takes one divorce in a
unit to make every soldier question his motivation for continuing to serve.
The Army has always offered a stabile, secure
environment to those hoping to raise a family and make a military career for
themselves. Housing, medical and dental coverage, and education provide powerful
incentives for those who want to stay in the military - and have a family. But
as the time they spend at home dwindles, many in the Army feel the cost of
staying in is too great, and the strain on their families too severe to bear.
Between 1945 and 1989, the U.S. Army deployed for
ten major operational commitments around the world, including the Korean War and
Vietnam War. In the decade after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, this number rose
fourfold, representing nearly a 400 percent increase in the operational tempo
for the armed forces. At the same time, the nation's military cut its ranks by
more than half, slashing the number of combat divisions in the Army from 18 to
10 and the number of Navy ships from 600 to 450.
Soldiers today grumble about the amount of time
they're forced to spend away from their homes and families, and the numbers
support their gripes. Today's military works harder, deploys more, and does more
with less personnel than at any time in American history.
Indeed, it is uncommon for a service-member to
spend more than a year at any time with their families, particularly when
assigned to a a deployable unit. Some specialties, such as Signal, Medical, and
Military Police units, bear a heavier load than others due to the nature of
their mission. Often times, soldiers in those units will be gone for 8 to 10
months of the year.
It's easy to imagine strain this places on military
families - particularly those where both the husband and wife are in the
military, or where both family members work. The divorce rate for all four
services exceeds the national average. For certain duty stations, like Korea
where families are not authorized, the rate is even higher. Even with military
support networks, the situation is often untenable.
"I've been away from my family for 20 of the last
24 months," said one sergeant in Texas who returned from Korea in 1999 to a unit
that spends nearly 10 months a year in the field. The same sergeant blames the
current administration for the military's overuse, saying that "if President
Clinton wants to build his legacy on our backs, he ought to pay for more
soldiers to share the cost."
Junior officers face this dilemma as well - and
many choose to get out as a result. Why risk losing their families for a
deployment, many ask, echoing the sergeant in Texas's sentiments about the
military being forced to do more with less. Many choose to get out instead,
opting for a plush corporate job without the risk of deployment over the hard
life of a field soldier.
Generational Differences
Since the end of the Vietnam War, however, the
military's presence in households across America has declined significantly. By
ending the draft, Congress also removed the military as a rite of passage for
American manhood. A generation ago, every man had a military experience -
whether it was being drafted to serve on active duty, or just called in for his
induction physical.
In addition, the current cohort of 20-year-olds was
raised by the Vietnam War generation - a generation for which military service
was an extremely contentious issue. Both those who served and avoided service in
the Vietnam matured with a large amount of animosity or ambivalence towards the
military. And that surely affects their children, who are now serving on active
duty as soldiers and officers.
Conscription exposed generations of men to the
Army, but it also introduced the Army to generations of Americans through their
experiences. These men (and women who voluntarily enlisted) came home after
their tours of duty, told stories to their friends and family, and generally
promoted the military as a tough place, but a "good experience." Sure, every
other person had a mean commander, or a sergeant who was unfair, but for the
most part, the military became a rite of passage for young men.
"My dad served in the Army for 22 years and made it
all the way to colonel," said Milt, a captain in the Army's Corps of Engineers.
"The Army is all I've ever known, and it's what I grew up wanting to do. The
officers I know without my family connection don't feel such a strong bond, and
I'd say that's why a lot of them (get out) when the going gets rough."
With less military experience in their families to
hear about, adolescents today naturally feel distant from the military, and less
inclined to join. Many of those who become officers don't feel as strong a
connection to the military as their parents may have, after growing up on
stories of World War II and the Korean War. And of course, the negative
Vietnam-era experience plays a part too in shaping the views of the current
generation on the military. In part, this translates into a lower level of
loyalty to the organization, which in turn helps today's junior officers think
of the military as a job - and not a lifelong career.
This is a major generational difference between the
teenagers who grow up today and those who grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Today's officers probably don't have a military tradition in their family, and
are less likely to feel a family or personal loyalty to the military as a
result. Consequently, they feel less of an attachment to the service, and are
more likely to get out when the going gets tough.
Each generation views employment in a different
manner. For the World War II and Baby Boom generations, lifelong employment was
the standard. Either immediately after college or following a short period of
moving around, an individual was expected to settle down with one corporation on
their management track, and spend 20 or 30 years in that corporation rising to
the limit of his potential.
Lifelong employment is no longer the norm, either
for the Baby Boom generation or their children, the so-called Generation X.
Indeed, staying with an organization too long can hurt career progression.
In fields such as computer programming and the
Internet, professionals will stay only 6 months before hopping over to another
corporation in the same field. Others, such as education and law, boast longer
average stays for their professionals. But a fluid pool of talent remains the
norm, and corporations in the private sector face the same challenge as the
military in trying to recruit and retain the best people.
The military does enjoy some advantages here. It
guarantees the chance to move around every two or three years, and it virtually
guarantees career advancement. However, it's still the same organization, and
many young officers don't feel comfortable devoting their entire life to the
same firm - military, corporate or otherwise.
"As much as I like the Army, I don't want to spend
my entire life doing the same thing, for the same people," said a senior medical
lieutenant stationed at Fort Bragg. Despite multiple opportunities for graduate
school or travel offered for medical officers, she said that working 20 years
for the same organization seems "boring," and not something she wants to do.
This changing dynamic of employment plays a small
part in the Army, particularly when taken in conjunction with the military's own
recruiting ads. The overwhelming majority of Army recruiting advertisements
focus on "money for college" or "skills for life" themes - not the idea of
lifelong service to your country. Consequently, a large number of entering
enlistees and officers come in for those educational and vocational benefits,
and plan their exit accordingly.
Convincing soldiers and officers to stay beyond
their initial commitment requires an inordinate amount of effort by that
person's leadership. You have to convince the man or woman that he or she has a
higher purpose in the military, and that this is a way of life that is better
than the civilian world. Patriotic service notwithstanding, that is a tough
challenge.
Solutions
If corporate America lures the best officers away
from the military - or the best leave of their own accord for reasons other than
money - tomorrow's Army may not have the Pattons, Powells and Chamberlains it
needs to win our nation's battles. Instead, the mediocre majority will be left
to lead the nation's military.
"The studs and duds get out, for different
reasons," says an Army major assigned to the Pentagon. "Studs will get out
because they chafe against the system, and can find better work on the outside.
Duds will get out because they're forced to, and see no opportunity for
promotion."
Obviously, the military does not mind the "duds"
getting out. Indeed, such officers usually find themselves pressured out by poor
efficiency reports and poor prospects for promotion. The "studs" are the
military's main concern - how to retain the best and brightest officers so they
can eventually lead the top echelons of the Army.
Certain things lie beyond the military's control.
We can't control deployments - the President decides where we go and fight. We
can't control pay - Congress approves our pay as part of each year's budget. And
we can't pick our soldiers - they come to us as the product of American society.
But the Army can control a long list of areas that
would significantly influence junior officers' decisions to leave military
service. Personnel policies, performance incentives, schools policies,
assignment policies and educational incentives all fall within the military's
purview. Small changes to these policies could make a very large difference to
junior officers, and influence a number to stay in.
After talking to my peers, here are a few areas
that many say would make the Army a more attractive institution to stay in:
Assignments Policies
Stabilized, predictable assignments would make a
big difference to many officers. As it works now, officers go where the Army
tells them, subject to the needs of the Army. Individuals exercise a little
influence on the system, letting the Army know where they want to go. But more
often than not, they find themselves moving somewhere they don't want to go,
uprooting their families in the process.
As the system works now, the Army allows enlisted
soldiers deciding to reenlist to choose where they want to go next. The Army
could offer the same incentive to young lieutenants and captains. Instead of the
uncertain choice they face now, a young captain would be given a list of options
he could volunteer for. This would be a very powerful incentive indeed, and
would help tip the scales in the Army's favor for undecided officers.
Performance Incentives
The Army has a paradox that if you want to be
promoted, you have to take the tough jobs. But your reward for taking the tough
jobs and being promoted is a subsequent tough job. And so the circle goes, until
good officers are burnt out and unwilling to take another tough job.
In a large organization, this trend may be
inevitable. After all, we want the best officers leading our sons and daughters
at the tip of the spear. But the Army ought to also build more depth in its
bench, and reward good officers who work hard with an assignment every few years
that gives them time with their families in a nice location.
Assignments ought to be tied to performance. Good
officers should be rewarded with their choice of assignments to locations like
Hawaii, Italy, or Washington, DC. Not only would this help the officer himself
or herself, but it would also justify that person's long hours to their family,
who also has to endure the hardship of a tough job.
Second, promotions ought to be made more flexible,
to reward outstanding performers more than they are today. As the system
currently works, officers are considered for promotion on a rigid time schedule,
in accordance with how many years they've served. Only a few are allowed to
compete for promotion outside those time zones.
A flexible promotion system would allow talented
young officers to rise faster, competing for promotions when they feel they're
ready - and their mentors are willing to sponsor them. It would reward "fast
track" officers, and early promotions would provide visible and tangible results
for their outstanding performance.
Military Schools
I joined the Army to lead soldiers, and experience
things I could never do as a civilian. Unfortunately, the Army implemented a new
policy in 1997 that drastically cut the availability of schools like Airborne
School and Ranger School. These were the adventurous challenges I looked forward
to as a college student, so I was very disappointed when I learned I could not
go.
The Army decided in 1997 to limit these schools to
soldiers and officers who absolutely had to have the training. Only combat
soldiers could go to Ranger School, and only soldiers assigned to airborne units
could go to jump school. To officers like me, who wanted to attend such schools
for their pure training and adventure value, there was the Army said no.
Like assignments, these schools can serve as a
powerful incentive for young officers to stay in. Graduates of these schools
earn the right to wear coveted insignia, like the Ranger Tab or Parachutist's
Badge, and they also carry the pride of accomplishing a very tough goal. All of
these things combine to make these schools a very lucrative incentive, and one
that could help keep junior officers in the Army.
Civilian Education
The Army encourages all officers to earn their
master's degree on active duty. Indeed, for promotion to Major, not having this
degree can hurt your chances of promotion. However, unless they win a
prestigious Rhodes or Marshall Scholarship, most officers are limited to
pursuing part-time degrees online or from small state universities.
Clearly, today's Army is an intellectual
organization. Leading soldiers in the twenty-first century requires more
knowledge of management, human nature, systems and psychology than ever before.
With this in mind, the Army ought to invest in its own human capital, and
develop programs that will fund graduate degrees for talented officers the Army
wants to keep.
Such programs today are limited in scope. Officers
can earn a PhD to teach at West Point, or a master's in their narrow field. As a
Military Police captain, my option is to earn a master's degree in criminal
justice from a small university in Missouri. But why would I want to? As a
leader, the most practical degree for me would be an MBA, or a master's degree
in human-resource management.
Fortune 500 companies regularly invest in their own
leaders by putting them through a fully-employed MBA program. The Army should do
the same. Talented officers should be encouraged to take the GRE and GMAT, and
apply to graduate schools. The Army should then give them a year to pursue their
degree, at the Army's expense. Not only would this give the officer a tangible
benefit, but it would symbolically tell the officer that the Army cared about
his or her personal development.
* * *
But the most effective fix may also be the least
costly and most subtle. Today's Army suffers from a self-esteem problem, which
is due in large part to the end of the Cold War and the military's lack of a
well-defined mission. In this vacuum, the Army's leaders have not stepped up to
define their mission - and teach it effectively to the ranks in order to build
pride in the organization.
More so than ever, military service ought to be
noble. The military won its most dramatic victory ever just a decade ago, in the
Persian Gulf War. And given the missions our Army has undertaken in the past
five years - peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, nation-building, and so on -
it ought to appeal to the altruism, selflessness, and patriotism in all
Americans looking for a way to serve their country.
Many officers who have chosen to stay in cite this
tradition as the main thing that keeps them in - despite turbulent lives and
lucrative offers from the outside. They say that the idea of doing something
important for America has a big impact when you're weighing whether to work for
the Army or a Fortune 500 firm.
"I feel not only my nation's call to lead its
soldiers, but know that I have the ability and training to do so that is
becoming increasingly rare in our society," said Lieutenant Adam Ake, a 1997
graduate of West Point and a Rhodes Scholar. "How many of my contemporaries are
capable of doing what I can do; and, as far as my country is concerned, must do?
How can I turn my back on that responsibility?"
(Phillip Carter served for four years on active
duty as an Army officer, leaving as a Military Police Captain in 2001 to study
law at the University of California, Los Angeles. His e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED].)
http://www.sftt.org/article04192002d.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm "Let he who hath no sword sell his cloak and buy one." ----- Jesus, Luke 22:36. ab Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om |
