posted
For those of you who have served in the military:
What would you change about the way the military is run if you had all encompassing authority?
For me, make it a whole lot easier to kick people out. I know that when someone gets in trouble off duty it often ends up getting them kicked out, but if someone is just flat incompetent it is nearly impossible to get rid of them. They get promoted and put in charge eventually because no one is willing to write honest OERs and NCOERs. Just my 2 cents
posted
If it's any consolation, incompetent people don't get fired any faster in the real world, either. I believe it's called the Peter Principle: individuals tend to be promoted up to the first level at which they find themselves incompetent, and then remain indefinitely at that level.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunatly in the military they often get promoted well past where they were competent.
Of course in the enlisted ranks there is the problem that to get promoted you have to become a Non-com. They assume that just because a mechanic was good at being a mechanic that they ought to promote him/her into a position of leadership. They used to have Specialist ranks beyond the Specialist 4 that they have now so that good technicians could get promoted and get the pay increases they deserve, because they are in fact very good at their jobs. Now when they get promoted the don't do their jobs anymore but are relagated to leadership roles that they may be totally unfit for.
I really should be over this now that I am out of active service but every time I think on the subject I get fired up.
posted
Sergeant- My bf's dad is a civilian working as an engineer for the navy. He's turned down a ton of promotions because the only way they can promote him is into a management role, and he's an amazing engineer and loves engineering.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had carte-blanche to change the military, I'd get rid of the separate career paths for enlisted and comissioned officers. I'd get rid of nearly all the lower officers jobs and have them filled with NCOs. I'd create a clear path to move from NCO to commissioned officer and no one would receive a commission without first having proved themselves as an enlisted person.
The distinction now between the two career paths seems mostly a hold-over from the days when there was a felt need to maintain a social barrier between the educated, gentleman-soldier, and the unwashed masses. These days the distinction is non-existent.
I think such a move could be the single biggest move toward streamlining the military, promoting based on merit, and creating a leadership core that is more efficient and better able to understand the needs of the service as a whole.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I agree about the proving enlisted to be an officer. In fact the Navy agrees more or less as well. The Navy has taken to trying to get more of their trained enlisted personnel to go officer. It has gotten quite easier over the past few years. I served with quite few previously enlisted now commisioned officers in the past 5 years.
But I wouldn't make any changes to that kind of stuff. Too trivial these days.
The problem of basing advancement on merit is that you can fall into the trap of the "Good ol' Boys' Club." I detest this as it happens almost everywhere in the fleet.
Why should they not be advanced based on how well they know their job? Is someone that is great at managing but sucks at his field going to be better than someone that is great in their field but is poor at management? Screw that. That's why there is the "body pool." Others in their field of the same or greater rank to teach them how to do these things. No one ever truly learns how to do something on their own.
What I actually would like to see changed is the supply system. If any of you ever get a chance to see it, it is a freaking mess. Tools, supplies and parts are too expensive for their own good. Most of us would often go to Sears and buy us a new set of Craftsman tools and it would cost tons less than ordering thru the Navy supply system.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not in the military, but I had a very good friend who was. He is now with the VA arranging jobs for ex-soldiers.
If I could change anything it would be to improve the post-military training for civilian job situation--or at least offer better translation.
Many of the resume's my friend sees are filled with perfect military lingo--language that the soldiers and sailors spent years perfecting, but that are unknown to the average HR person.
This results in the majority of ex-military being hired mostly by ex-military. This limits their job market greatly.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem of basing advancement on merit is that you can fall into the trap of the "Good ol' Boys' Club." I detest this as it happens almost everywhere in the fleet.
Why should they not be advanced based on how well they know their job?
I think we're using "promoting based on merit" differently. (Actually, I think you're mis-using it, but I'm open to being corrected on that. ) To me it is the same as promoting based on how well they know/perform their job. (i.e. the promotion is granted based on how much one merits/deserves a promotion.) This seems to be the opposite of promoting a "good old boy" system wherein people are promoted not because of merit, but because of who they know.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
eh, I probably misused it. I only had 2 hours of sleep in the past 2 days, so I'm not quite all there.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We made the "BIG MISTAKE" early on in WWI when we put commissioned officers in air planes. It makes no tactical sense and is economically disastrous. If we had the power to do it now, we should reduce the size of the officer corps by at least a factor of three. Then, revive the concept of the "purple suiter"; officers that are professional managers but not connected to any service.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) To me it is the same as promoting based on how well they know/perform their job. (i.e. the promotion is granted based on how much one merits/deserves a promotion.) This seems to be the opposite of promoting a "good old boy" system wherein people are promoted not because of merit, but because of who they know.
