Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving

[Rheo]

The Atlantic:

John Nagl still hesitates when he talks about his decision to leave the Army. A former Rhodes Scholar and tank-battalion operations officer in Iraq, Nagl helped General David Petraeus write the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual, which is credited with bringing Iraq’s insurgency under control. But despite the considerable influence Nagl had in the Army, and despite his reputation as a skilled leader, he retired in 2008 having not yet reached the rank of full colonel. Today, Nagl still has the same short haircut he had 24 years ago when we met as cadets—me an Air Force Academy doolie (or freshman), him a visiting West Pointer—but now he presides over a Washington think tank. The funny thing is, even as a civilian, he can’t stop talking about the Army—“our Army”—as if he never left. He won’t say it outright, but it’s clear to me, and to many of his former colleagues, that the Army fumbled badly in letting him go. His sudden resignation has been haunting me, and it punctuates an exodus that has been publicly ignored for too long.

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.

[SrWoodchuck]

Rheo!

 

I have mixed feelings about this post.

 

The daughter of our very close friends, is now a Captain in the US Army. We were very priviledged to see her ceremony of Commission into the Army; at Colorado University. She was awarded a special honor at the time, the Rippetoe Award, due to her commitment during her time in the ROTC at CU. It is a ceremonial sword that is given once a year, to commemorate CPT. Russell Rippetoe, one of the first heroes, killed in Iraq. She has already served two tours & has gone back for her third. On her last tour, she was awarded the Bronze Star, for leading her detachment in an engagement, while on a patrol that was ambushed. She represents the best of American men & women serving & had planned on an Army career; but on her last leave, said that she's tired of the nonsense that is apparent when moving to new command. The crux of her disappointment seems to be that you serve a short time with a select group of people & when things start to gel & operate smoothly; you are separated & rotated to a new group. only to deal with the petty jealousies, slackers & ego's in a new environment. You have to deal with all that & keep your wits about you for your own safety & the safety of the men & women under your command. She's thinking of giving up her commission at the end of her present tour.

 

I looked up the author of the article, Tim Kane. Ex-college professor, Air Force officer......and currently an "economist/author" living near DC. He appears to have supported John McCain in the last election.

 

I just can't help thinking that his writing is a slam for the great number of officers that remain serving. Also I don't agree that the Army, or any other of the services; exist for their officers to be entrepreneurs. Command structure dictates that orders & the chain of command be strictly followed; for military discipline. Officers are expected to be innovative in carrying out their orders, but the Army cannot be a Corporation of individuals, striving to make their singular mark on the services; to the exclusion of that military discipline.

[Rheo]

I don't know enough about the military workings, the names quoted in the article, the author or the source, but I heard about it through Dana Perino's tweet and was interested in the opinions of those of you who do know more than I.

Ok, that is pretty much everyone.

[pollyannaish]

I would suspect that the people who know the most about this sort of thing are people within the organizations. And they probably aren't going to be able to comment one way or another. In any situation like this, I think there is truth to the story, but they're are many broad generalizations that tar entire groups of people unfairly. It's one of those things that is best solved by the people on the inside.

 

The best reform is done by people who know the culture, and are positioned to make necessary changes. I trust that overall, the quality of the military is such that if this is true, they will analyze why and make adjustments.