Why are you Leaving?

[Brett327]

No seriously, you better be careful with that...

No, seriously. Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[Spekkio]

It was meant to be a joke...see the smileys? Sheesh, tough crowd

 

[villanelle]

There are several private industries that have come under fire in the media for being male-dominant. My guess about the lack of buzz for labor jobs is that they are viewed as low-skilled and low-pay. Women generally don't have problems getting $30k/year jobs and frequently out-earn men in their immediate post-college years; they have problems getting $60k/year jobs and keeping pace with men into their 30s and 40s.

IRT public service, most of the diversity push in those arenas seems to come from men. I don't see any feminists marching in San Fran asking to be drafted into an 03XX MOS.


You misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to say that the military needs to recruit 50/50 male and female; I'm saying that the military can make a better effort to retain the people it does recruit. If the 'target' is 20% women, then the military should attempt to retain a force composition of 20% women throughout the ranks. So I'm not talking about new recruits, I'm talking about retention. These women have already made the cut and are deciding to leave.

As a sidenote, FDNY has so few women because of the CPAT, which entails carrying/dragging 180 lb dummies and climbing ladders with 50-100 lbs of weight to simulate firefighting gear.


But her frustration clearly arose not from disliking the job, but from her inability to maintain her close personal relationships while doing it.

Can you imagine a general or flag officer telling Congress "yea, this job is just for women who don't want any children?" I don't think they would hold their position very long.
TRIGGER WARNING!!!!

No seriously, you better be careful with that...that kind of talk is likely to get a senior officer fired sooner rather than later...

I don't think it *is* only for women who don't want children though. All kinds are welcome, and there are women with children who thrive in military service. No one is saying, "if you want kids, this job isn't for you". They are perhaps saying, "this job involves long hours, months away from home, unpredictable schedules, and lots of moving. If you want kids and that doesn't fit into your vision of parenthood (mom or dad), then it's likely not a good fit." Just as it isn't a good fit for someone who wants to get of work at 5 every day, whether that's so s/he can take Timmy to swim class or so s/he can chill at home alone in a bachelor pad while playing in an evening WoW league.

 

[Recovering LSO]

@villanelle, you really should post around here more often. good stuff, again.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Hmm, the Army flying warrant idea stands out as a good example of how to keep pilots flying and officers...well...officering. Of course its not perfect either, but certainly shows there is another approach. The fact that there may be less competition from the outside for helicopter pilots can't be ignored either.

The model I had in mind is more what some of the other services (French, Brits) do, wherein they allow guys to step off the "command" track at around O-3/-4 but stay operational. They're essentially Super JOs For Life. I know that the old Flying LDO program, which was essentially that, left a bad taste in the Navy's mouth the last time it was tried and so there's not much interest in reviving the idea.

Still... The Navy bleeds people every year out of the URL communities because there's one path to success, and if that doesn't happen to work for you, there's the door. But I find it very hard to credit that because someone's not particularly interested in being Skipper/CAG/Captain/Flag, they're therefore worthless to the company. There are a lot of dudes with tactical, intellectual and engineering acumen who would add value even if they don't keep climbing the Big Blue Ladder. God knows we promote enough people who are mainly interested in their personal success but otherwise don't contribute much of value to the team.

Imagine a civilian company who sidelined and let go everybody who told their manager, "I'm not particularly interested in going into management...I like what I'm doing, and I'm good at it."

 

[villanelle]

@villanelle, you really should post around here more often. good stuff, again.

Thanks! I hesitate to participate in a lot of the conversations simply because I am not and never have been active duty. But being an unemployed, trailing, overseas spouse with far too much time on her hands, sometimes I can't resist! Bon bon eating only fills up so much of my time, after all. And I do think that sometimes, not having been military but having worked at professional-level jobs for a while gives me a perspective many here don't have. Being on the other side of the fence, I can speak to the color of the grass and testify that it isn't nearly as green as it may look from Over There.

 

[villanelle]

The model I had in mind is more what some of the other services (French, Brits) do, wherein they allow guys to step off the "command" track at around O-3/-4 but stay operational. They're essentially Super JOs For Life. I know that the old Flying LDO program, which was essentially that, left a bad taste in the Navy's mouth the last time it was tried and so there's not much interest in reviving the idea.

Still... The Navy bleeds people every year out of the URL communities because there's one path to success, and if that doesn't happen to work for you, there's the door. But I find it very hard to credit that because someone's not particularly interested in being Skipper/CAG/Captain/Flag, they're therefore worthless to the company. There are a lot of dudes with tactical, intellectual and engineering acumen who would add value even if they don't keep climbing the Big Blue Ladder. God knows we promote enough people who are mainly interested in their personal success but otherwise don't contribute much of value to the team.

Imagine a civilian company who sidelined and let go everybody who told their manager, "I'm not particularly interested in going into management...I like what I'm doing, and I'm good at it."

I wonder if these people would be okay with a s static paycheck for life. (Not rhetorical.) Slight COL bumps and maybe small time-in-service, but for someone only taking on O-3 work, they'd have to keep getting O-3 pay or the overall system would get much more expensive.

And I wonder what this would do to the people behind them who had fewer opportunities themselves to advance. If you have a cadre of permanent Super JOs, the a whole lot more younger JOs are going to be forced out, because there just aren't jobs for them. And does that not then create an issue with not having enough qualified O-4/DH types? I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it would throw off the numbers balance in ways that can't be ignored. You lose 10% more post-shore tour JOs because there is nowhere for them to go, since there is a group of permanent Super-JOs. So you have neither that 10%, nor the permanent Super JOs in the field for DH selection. That doesn't sound like it would make the system healthier--fewer people to choose from for the more responsibility-laden positions.

And what is the upside? For the military, not the guys who get to stay in the jobs they love? Yes. You have these guys who would have a wealht of experience, leading JOPA (or DH, or whatever level). Is that enough to make the lack of opportunity for those who are motivated to move up, and the lack of breadth of field when selecting at each subsequent level worth it to the Company?

At my last job, we had almost exactly this issue. It was a very flat organization. There were very few levels. And the people at the higher levels had been there for years, and planned to stay. It was great that we had their experience from which to benefit.

And people left in droves because there was no where for them to go. Level 3 never left, which means level 2 had no where to move up to, and level two never left, so level 1 was stuck there, with no real possibility for promotion and no increase of pay and/or responsibility. Which meant people put in a couple years and bailed, taking their experience and training to places where there was more upward mobility. It was a major issue and they were in the process of revamping things because they were hemorrhaging people, even in a time when the job market was pretty bad. We had about 40 employees in the group I was part of, and during my 2 years there, I don't think we had a single month where at least 1 person didn't quit. It was a nightmare.Every year, we had about 50% new people who weren't there the year prior. So sure, we kept around some people with a lot of experience. But the downside was that just about everyone else was pretty darn green and had very little experience.

 

[villanelle]

Gah, the typos! Is there no "edit" option?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I wonder if these people would be okay with a s static paycheck for life. (Not rhetorical.) Slight COL bumps and maybe small time-in-service, but for someone only taking on O-3 work, they'd have to keep getting O-3 pay or the overall system would get much more expensive.

And I wonder what this would do to the people behind them who had fewer opportunities themselves to advance. If you have a cadre of permanent Super JOs, the a whole lot more younger JOs are going to be forced out, because there just aren't jobs for them. And does that not then create an issue with not having enough qualified O-4/DH types? I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it would throw off the numbers balance in ways that can't be ignored. You lose 10% more post-shore tour JOs because there is nowhere for them to go, since there is a group of permanent Super-JOs. So you have neither that 10%, nor the permanent Super JOs in the field for DH selection. That doesn't sound like it would make the system healthier--fewer people to choose from for the more responsibility-laden positions.

And what is the upside? For the military, not the guys who get to stay in the jobs they love? Yes. You have these guys who would have a wealht of experience, leading JOPA (or DH, or whatever level). Is that enough to make the lack of opportunity for those who are motivated to move up, and the lack of breadth of field when selecting at each subsequent level worth it to the Company?

At my last job, we had almost exactly this issue. It was a very flat organization. There were very few levels. And the people at the higher levels had been there for years, and planned to stay. It was great that we had their experience from which to benefit.

And people left in droves because there was no where for them to go. Level 3 never left, which means level 2 had no where to move up to, and level two never left, so level 1 was stuck there, with no real possibility for promotion and no increase of pay and/or responsibility. Which meant people put in a couple years and bailed, taking their experience and training to places where there was more upward mobility. It was a major issue and they were in the process of revamping things because they were hemorrhaging people, even in a time when the job market was pretty bad. We had about 40 employees in the group I was part of, and during my 2 years there, I don't think we had a single month where at least 1 person didn't quit. It was a nightmare.Every year, we had about 50% new people who weren't there the year prior. So sure, we kept around some people with a lot of experience. But the downside was that just about everyone else was pretty darn green and had very little experience.

I think the cost of paying the pilots would be more than made up by not needing to keep training so many pilots and using aircraft, gas, and ordnance to fly the same initial training codes over and over again. You could have fewer pilots in a squadron, they would be more proficient and experienced, and the end result is that you have a cheaper and more effective fighting force, in theory at least.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I wonder if these people would be okay with a s static paycheck for life. (Not rhetorical.) Slight COL bumps and maybe small time-in-service, but for someone only taking on O-3 work, they'd have to keep getting O-3 pay or the overall system would get much more expensive.

And I wonder what this would do to the people behind them who had fewer opportunities themselves to advance. If you have a cadre of permanent Super JOs, the a whole lot more younger JOs are going to be forced out, because there just aren't jobs for them. And does that not then create an issue with not having enough qualified O-4/DH types? I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it would throw off the numbers balance in ways that can't be ignored. You lose 10% more post-shore tour JOs because there is nowhere for them to go, since there is a group of permanent Super-JOs. So you have neither that 10%, nor the permanent Super JOs in the field for DH selection. That doesn't sound like it would make the system healthier--fewer people to choose from for the more responsibility-laden positions.

And what is the upside? For the military, not the guys who get to stay in the jobs they love? Yes. You have these guys who would have a wealht of experience, leading JOPA (or DH, or whatever level). Is that enough to make the lack of opportunity for those who are motivated to move up, and the lack of breadth of field when selecting at each subsequent level worth it to the Company?

At my last job, we had almost exactly this issue. It was a very flat organization. There were very few levels. And the people at the higher levels had been there for years, and planned to stay. It was great that we had their experience from which to benefit.

And people left in droves because there was no where for them to go. Level 3 never left, which means level 2 had no where to move up to, and level two never left, so level 1 was stuck there, with no real possibility for promotion and no increase of pay and/or responsibility. Which meant people put in a couple years and bailed, taking their experience and training to places where there was more upward mobility. It was a major issue and they were in the process of revamping things because they were hemorrhaging people, even in a time when the job market was pretty bad. We had about 40 employees in the group I was part of, and during my 2 years there, I don't think we had a single month where at least 1 person didn't quit. It was a nightmare.Every year, we had about 50% new people who weren't there the year prior. So sure, we kept around some people with a lot of experience. But the downside was that just about everyone else was pretty darn green and had very little experience.

It'd need management, yes, and it wouldn't be a "anyone who wants to stay, can" program. I've brought this up before (in this or another thread, don't recall), but my idea would be to have guys submit for selection with endorsements from current/former COs. I'm thinking WTIs who like the tactics nerdery and don't really care about shiny shirt stars, or guys who want to work Mx Control but keep flying (like an AEDO but in the Fleet)...I don't know, I haven't worked out the wrinkles because no one gives a shit. But I think about the Army warrant types who are their resident SMEs in gunnery/tactics, fly the FCFs (or whatever they call them), instruct the schoolhouses, and so on. I'd rather have a 40-year-old LT - who loves flying the plane and has multiple Fleet tours under his belt - teaching at the FRS, than some guy who's only a year or two since getting his own AC letter. They'd also be great for the VXs.

If you think about it, NSW/EOD already does this by leaning heavily on promoting and commissioning from within and keeping guys in the Teams once they're in khaki. Your typical SEAL jg is very rarely the same as a typical ship or aviation jg. They do it to keep the experience where it can be cultivated, used operationally, and passed on to the new pups. Aviation says it values experience and tactical acumen, but how many hours does your average LT WTI have? Never mind the Fleet DHs or even the Skipper.

Promotion potential and giving guys a shot at command is great, but aren't we supposed to be in the business of fighting wars?

None of us got into this for the earning potential. Plenty of solid guys would be LTs for life if they could.

 

[Zanklin]

I think the cost of paying the pilots would be more than made up by not needing to keep training so many pilots and using aircraft, gas, and ordnance to fly the same initial training codes over and over again. You could have fewer pilots in a squadron, they would be more proficient and experienced, and the end result is that you have a cheaper and more effective fighting force, in theory at least.

This would apply to ships, subs, etc.

I wonder if these people would be okay with a s static paycheck for life. (Not rhetorical.) Slight COL bumps and maybe small time-in-service, but for someone only taking on O-3 work, they'd have to keep getting O-3 pay or the overall system would get much more expensive.

And I wonder what this would do to the people behind them who had fewer opportunities themselves to advance. If you have a cadre of permanent Super JOs, the a whole lot more younger JOs are going to be forced out, because there just aren't jobs for them. And does that not then create an issue with not having enough qualified O-4/DH types? I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it would throw off the numbers balance in ways that can't be ignored. You lose 10% more post-shore tour JOs because there is nowhere for them to go, since there is a group of permanent Super-JOs. So you have neither that 10%, nor the permanent Super JOs in the field for DH selection. That doesn't sound like it would make the system healthier--fewer people to choose from for the more responsibility-laden positions.

And what is the upside? For the military, not the guys who get to stay in the jobs they love? Yes. You have these guys who would have a wealht of experience, leading JOPA (or DH, or whatever level). Is that enough to make the lack of opportunity for those who are motivated to move up, and the lack of breadth of field when selecting at each subsequent level worth it to the Company?

At my last job, we had almost exactly this issue. It was a very flat organization. There were very few levels. And the people at the higher levels had been there for years, and planned to stay. It was great that we had their experience from which to benefit.

And people left in droves because there was no where for them to go. Level 3 never left, which means level 2 had no where to move up to, and level two never left, so level 1 was stuck there, with no real possibility for promotion and no increase of pay and/or responsibility. Which meant people put in a couple years and bailed, taking their experience and training to places where there was more upward mobility. It was a major issue and they were in the process of revamping things because they were hemorrhaging people, even in a time when the job market was pretty bad. We had about 40 employees in the group I was part of, and during my 2 years there, I don't think we had a single month where at least 1 person didn't quit. It was a nightmare.Every year, we had about 50% new people who weren't there the year prior. So sure, we kept around some people with a lot of experience. But the downside was that just about everyone else was pretty darn green and had very little experience.

This cadre of permanent Super- JOs you speak of, actually was what the US Army looked like in the years between World War I and II, and it was this situation that led to the creation of the Personnel System we have today.

According to Wikipedia, so its definitely 100% accurate: "Prior to World War II, the US Army and US Navy had different philosophies governing the promotion and retention of officers. The army maintained a seniority system based on tenure; promotions only occurred if there were vacancies at the next higher grade. Due to Congressionally imposed limits on the size of the army officer corps and extremely low turnover (resignations, retirements, and dismissals), a significant logjam in promotions developed during the interwar period. In 1940, army Chief of Staff General George Marshall (with the permission of President Roosevelt) purged the senior officer ranks to create vacancies for junior officers. Congress granted further authority to cull the ranks in July 1941 with the passage of the Army Vitalization Act."

 

[villanelle]

So it's been tried and failed? I'm not terribly surprised, though admittedly, there seems to be a significant amount of gray area between letting anyone stay as long as they want, and what they have now. Perhaps allowing 10% of any rank to be Peter Pan sailors who are content to stay there indefinitely would allow for at least some people to have that opportunity, would infuse some additional experience at various levels, and yet would still allow room on the escalator for those who do have interest in advancing.

Of course, the overall promotion rate would still be smaller. Tell the guys from the last DH board that it would "only" mean another 10% fewer were able to move up, and I don't know that they'd be so serene about it. Would that be offset by telling them that they wouldn't be forced out of the didn't select? Maybe, but if the Peter Pans are limited to 10%, their chances of getting a coveted "neither up nor out" slot would be minimal, meaning we'd be right back to "up and out" for almost everyone. And would motivated JOs who wouldn't be content Peter Panning (or wouldn't have the opportunity so stay at O-3 because those 10% slots would stay full and rarely be available) even bother staying in past a first commitment if overall promotion rates to DH/O-4 were <40%? Given that people are claiming that the 50% rate is driving people away, I'd be skeptical.

It's all ripple effects and unintended consequences. In the end, it just seems like different people are unhappy. So if it comes down to choosing between those who want to move up and continue to grow, and those who don't, it's difficult to make a case for the latter, I think.

 

[Zanklin]

I will be happy with whatever promotion system most enhances our ability to carry out our Title 10 functions- "The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas." Whatever works best to that end is what we need to have....And as you rightfully state, the answer probably lies somewhere between either extreme.

 

[Spekkio]

Imagine a civilian company who sidelined and let go everybody who told their manager, "I'm not particularly interested in going into management...I like what I'm doing, and I'm good at it."

Yes, but being a commissioned officer in the military IS analagous to being in a company's management track. If you want to keep doing the same job for 20+ years, enlisting is an option. If you're speaking of aviation specifically, it sounds like you're advocating that the Navy adopts the Army's way of doing business with warrant officers primarily filling the pilot billets. There are already several 'off-ramp' career options for URL O-4/O-5s within the Navy.

I don't think it *is* only for women who don't want children though. All kinds are welcome, and there are women with children who thrive in military service.

You're correct - there is no official policy barring female officers from having children. And yes, there are some female officers who have children. However, they are choosing to do so at a substantially lower rate than their male counterparts.

It's one thing to have to work long hours. It's another thing for someone to go through the hassle of rebuilding their family support system and integrating into a new community every 2-3 years so that both spouses can maintain a career. That is something that the vast majority of people in the civilian workforce are not faced with doing, and I have encountered very few officers with children who have a spouse that works full-time.

 

[nittany03]

Yes, but being a commissioned officer in the military IS analagous to being in a company's management track. If you want to keep doing the same job for 20+ years, enlisting is an option. If you're speaking of aviation specifically, it sounds like you're advocating that the Navy adopts the Army's way of doing business with warrant officers primarily filling the pilot billets. There are already several 'off-ramp' career options for URL O-4/O-5s within the Navy.

The word I've gotten from the Army guys I've talked to is that the problem with this system is that of credibility. Specifically, the commissioned officers have none compared to the warrants. They get less flight time, get slammed with a greater load of admin BS, yet somehow are expected to lead people who have vastly more experience and credibility. I've never seen it myself; that's just what I've been told. Take it FWIW.

Let's be honest, though. The "if you want to do the same job, enlist" argument is a red herring. Our enlisted folks are technical SMEs with a small amount of senior folks who step into more generalist leadership roles such as a CMC. Yes, they lead people, but enlisted to officer is an apples-to-oranges comparison. This does NOT validate the model we have now, where every O is bucking for CNO and departs that track at his/her peril.

I believe there is an argument which could be made for a cadre of permanent O-3/O-4 "professional aviators." The problem with the Army example is that they didn't keep the system moving so as to keep some influx of fresh blood. If we split the community up into a command track and a flying track, we will still need to fill JO spots as the command track people make DH or get out. We also will still need to fill professional aviator slots as those folks retire. Potentially, we also play with their PRDs and manning numbers so as to utilize them in a RAG/TRACOM role for their shore tours, thus generating a demand to put a few more JO butts in fleet seats as they rotate out. TRACOM manning and student demand would go way down, but I think it would just be a matter of crunching the numbers to ensure the system didn't choke the demand off for new studs completely.