- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Teddy Ruxpin said:
I split Teddy Ruxpin’s quotes above from the “MND Report Card” thread, as I believe that the subject of attrition within the senior officer and NCO ranks is worthy of some examination and discussion. I can only speak to my personal experience within the Reg F, as I have been out of the Res F system for many years. I will leave it to others to address Reserve “attrition versus expansion” issues.
I fully agree with Teddy that the current government’s ambitious efforts to significantly increase Reg F Army strength will prove challenging unless the ongoing problem of leadership attrition can first be addressed. The fundamental question is whether or not the current situation can actually be rectified, and if so, how? To answer the first question, it may be useful to consider how we have ended up where we are.
Anyone with more than a day in uniform understands that we will never achieve complete success in stemming voluntary releases. Attrition is a perennial problem for every volunteer military, and the CF is no exception. There are historical "steady states" for attrition within each CF trade, and those baseline rates of release must be accepted as an immutable reality of military personnel management. There will always be a percentage of folks who decide at various points along the career path that military service is no longer consistent with their personal goals, their family desires, etc.
Unfortunately, we are currently experiencing a disproportionately high rate of release amongst our experienced Reg F leadership in the ranks of Sgt-CWO and Capt-LCol. This is a significant problem for the Army even at its present strength, and is a potential "show-stopper" in terms of achieving near-term force expansion. At the very same moment the government wishes to increase our overall strength, we are seeing unprecedented rates of attrition amongst the core of experienced leadership that is required to make the expansion initiative a reality. A recruitment and training system that would have already been stressed to support the government’s intent must now also contend with an ongoing haemorrhage of critical talent. So how did we get to this unfortunate confluence of events, and what can we do to address it?
As far as the Reg F is concerned, I see two primary reasons for the sudden, seemingly disproportionate exodus of experienced leadership. The first (and foremost) is simple military demographics associated with a cycle of force reduction and limited recruiting that spanned the 1990s. Recruiting targets during the mid to late 1980s were designed to offset historical rates of attrition for a CF Reg F component of 90,000 personnel. In other words, we were aggressively hiring in comparatively large numbers. Then the Berlin Wall fell and the end of the Cold War created Canadian expectations for an immediate “peace dividend”. The Reg F was subjected to a government-directed force reduction throughout the 1990s that saw our strength drop by 40% to the current figure of approximately 56,000 uniformed personnel. Recruiting was dramatically reduced throughout that decade in order to achieve reduction targets through attrition. Cash incentives and early retirement benefits were also offered to many trades in an effort to encourage early retirement (eg. the Force Reduction Program).
The deliberate reduction in Reg F strength throughout the 1990s put a stop to the steady intake of new recruits necessary to maintain a healthy and balanced force. We ended up with a large "bubble" of personnel who were recruited during the mid to late 1980s moving through the career progression system, with very little “new blood” following in their footsteps. In effect, the force reduction efforts of the 1990s created a recruitment (and succession) void that is now coming back to haunt us. The critical mass of Reg F personnel recruited in the mid to late 1980s are now reaching 20 years of service, and many are opting to release with the basic 40% pension. At the very same time as this “bubble” of experienced personnel are choosing to retire, the curtailed recruitment of the 1990s leaves us with a disproportionate shortfall of suitably experienced “next generation” personnel to fill vacated leadership and staff positions. As a result, the Canadian Army is suddenly faced with an alarming (and increasing) shortage of experienced Reg F Sgt-CWOs and Capt-LCols. The “band-aid” solution is to promote increasingly less experienced personnel into key leadership and staff positions. That approach has the advantage of creating a much "younger" force, but the immediate institutional cost in terms of reduced developmental experience among key leaders and staffs may be high. Efforts to quickly fill the void created by the ongoing departure of the 1980s “bubble” will undoubtedly present short-term challenges and growing pains. I would hazard to guess that it will be upwards of five to 10 years before equilibrium is fully re-established based on the post-2000 resurgence in recruiting.
The second (and arguably more important) reason that we are experiencing a surge in the loss of experienced Reg F leadership is the increasing lack of incentive to continue serving. As ironic as it may seem, although opportunities for promotion have increased as a result of the ongoing attrition "bow-wave" from late 1980s recruitment, promotion simply isn't as attractive as it used to be for many of the officers and senior NCOs who are now reaching 20 years of service. The "pinnacle" positions that experienced leaders once aspired to (eg. RSM, unit CO, Bde Comd) have lost their lustre and are now viewed as being far more bureaucratic than operational by those who remember "the good old days". Let's face it - under the current Army Managed Readiness Plan, the vast majority of unit COs and RSMs are relegated to nothing more than "Force Generators" responsible for training sub-units to deploy under someone else's operational command. Unless the stars align and you are one of the two unit headquarters anointed to deploy a Task Force each year, you will "command" little more than a training establishment. In other words, you now get all of the administrative headaches but none of the professional rewards formerly associated with unit command. The net effect is greatly reduced incentive for for operationally-focused leaders to aspire to unit and formation command.
Given the above, it is no coincidence that within the past 24 months, two LCol COs within 1 CMBG have voluntarily released after serving just one year of their two-year unit command tour. Couple that with the increasing tendency of top-performing majors to decline selection for Toronto Staff College (the LCol qualifying course), and it becomes apparent that there are serious problems associated with the lack of meaningful unit command.
Compounding the demoralizing state of higher command appointments is the realization that only a very select few will actually attain such a position. The vast majority of officers and senior NCOs reaching the rank of LCol/CWO will end up in the staff stream, serving in an endless cycle of desk jobs at various HQs and training establishments. While key staff positions can be very rewarding in their own right, those appointments are simply not what "warrior leaders" aspire to. As a result, the majority of my peers now consider sub-unit (vice unit) command to be the pinnacle of their service. Once company/squadron/battery command has been completed, typically prior to the 20-year point, what is there left to look forward to? If the answer is "not much", then one tends to look elsewhere for personal and professional fulfillment. Sure, there will always be those who are content to continue serving after their duty within operational units has ended. All the power to them, provided that their motivations are not entirely self-serving or purely financial in nature. In my experience however, those who joined to lead soldiers on operations are increasingly discouraged by their comparatively “boring” job prospects following sub-unit command. Hence the reason that so many are suddenly opting to release at the 20 year point with the financial assurance of a basic pension to enable their pursuit of greener pastures.
The results of a recent CF job satisfaction survey provide further evidence of emerging problems vis-a-vis the future health of CF senior leadership. The survey clearly indicated that the most dissatisfied rank within the CF, regardless of trade, is LCol. Is it any wonder that senior officers in that rank are opting for early retirement in ever increasing numbers? Is it surprising that more and more majors want nothing whatsoever to do with the next rank? Houston, we have a problem…..
I offer the above comments from the perspective of a Reg F infantry officer who has made a conscious decision to leave the Army at the conclusion of my final regimental posting in the Summer 2007. I reckon that this makes me one small part of the ongoing “experience exodus” problem that Teddy Ruxpin refers to. As a member of the group in question, perhaps my personal outlook can provide some useful insight as to what makes many members of my military generation “tick”.
When I retire next year I will have completed six years of Res F service as an NCM, followed by 21 years of commissioned Reg F service. I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of various command and instructional appointments, culminating in deputy command of an infantry battalion. I have zero regrets and would do it all again without a second’s hesitation. The fact remains however, that I am not the least bit interested in what further Reg F service has to offer beyond this stage of my career. This is a view that I can unequivocally state is shared by an increasing number of my peers – many of whom have already reached the 20-year point and released, or are fast approaching that milestone and have made their intentions clear. I have outlined the underlying reasons for our disinterest in further CF service with my preceding comments. The prevailing line of thought among many of my peers is that we’ve given as much as we’ve received in dedicating the best years of our lives to the CF and to the nation. We therefore bear no moral obligation to continue serving in a role that has limited potential to offer us future job satisfaction. If that sounds a tad selfish, particularly in light of the fact that our departure may be leaving force expansion in a difficult situation, then so be it. At the end of the day, I believe that it is better for people of my era to leave on a positive note and make the transition to civilian life rather than stick around out of a misplaced sense of obligation that would inevitably lead to dissatisfaction for all concerned.
Would re-signing incentives or cash bonuses help to curtail the ongoing exodus of experienced Reg F leadership? I can only speak with certainty for myself, and the answer is a resounding “no”. Money has never been a significant factor in my decision to serve, and a “bribe” would have zero influence on my decision to retire. I was never in it for the money. Service, personal challenge, excitement, job satisfaction, and all of the other “intangibles” associated with military service were my sole motivation. I feel quite secure in extrapolating my personal views to encompass the vast majority of officers and Senior NCOs of my particular era.
As far as preferential postings are concerned, I am sure that it would be nice to be able to live and work wherever one prefers. But geography is irrelevant if there is not a suitably challenging and rewarding job to be done when you get there. And therein lies the crux of the issue – there are precious few jobs that fit the bill for guys like me who have already held what they considered to be the best jobs available within the Army at the time. There is no going back. Our successors are nipping at our heels and they need the essential formative experiences that only those “good go’s” can provide. The bottom line is that when the best jobs are already behind you and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that holds similar personal appeal? It is simply time to move on.
Based on all of the above, which I readily admit is nothing more than a distillation of personal observations and views, I can’t honestly see a solution to the problem of experienced senior leadership leaving the Army at this critical juncture. The departure of key personnel in the Sgt-CWO and Capt-LCol ranks at this particular point in time is the result of myriad institutional and personal influences – some of which have been 20 years in the making and are only now coming home to roost. Additional pay and benefits aren’t going to change the situation. And at the end of the day, do we really want to retain the kind of people who would only stick around for the money? I don’t think so. Alternative or complimentary incentives such as preferred postings are simply another form of bribe (in cases other than those involving legitimate compassionate circumstances where the member wants to serve but can’t unless posted to a specific location). Such incentives wouldn’t convince me to stay, as they have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental problem of job satisfaction. And therein lies the rub. There are relatively few appointments that are of sufficient interest to operationally-focused leaders following their service as a sub-unit commander or Sergeant Major. Most leaders didn’t join to fly a desk. Staff duty is a “necessary evil” which many accept as the price to be endured between operational postings. Once regimental duty ends and there is nothing further to look forward to, all bets are off. How do you generate enthusiasm for further military service when the system cannot offer the individual something that he or she aspires to?
Will Army expansion be adversely affected by the “bow-wave” of experienced leadership attrition? Well, the ongoing loss of so much expertise certainly can’t help matters in the short term. I expect that there will be some difficult and busy times for those who continue to serve and must “step up” to the initial training and leadership task while perhaps lacking the same degree of training and experience that their predecessors enjoyed. Such is life – junior NCOs and officers will simply have to suck it up and get on with the job, knowing that the institution we all cherish will eventually be stronger for their efforts.
Having said that, I have complete faith in our current and future generations of developing leaders. My recent experience with junior officers and NCOs in training establishments and within operational units has left no doubt in my mind that they are every bit as bright, motivated, dedicated and innovative as their predecessors – perhaps moreso. That bodes very well for the future of our Army, regardless of the various challenges that lie ahead. I for one, will be happy to step aside and hand over the reins to my successors when the time comes. I’ll have done my bit, and it will be their turn to shine. I have every expectation that they will do so in spades.
My apologies if my personal take on this subject seems unduly negative or depressing. That certainly wasn’t my intent! As I stated earlier, I’ve enjoyed a tremendous military career with so few regrets that they are irrelevant in the overall picture. There is much for young officers and NCMs to look forward to these days. I am personally convinced that after a decade of decline, the Canadian Army and the CF as a whole is now moving in a very positive direction. Public recognition and appreciation are at an all time high, we are fully engaged in interesting and meaningful missions on the world stage, funding for essential equipment and training appears to be forthcoming, the force is expanding, new “high-speed” units are being created, etc, etc. It is a very exciting time to be in the Army, and I expect that those who are just starting out or are in the early stages of their careers will thoroughly enjoy themselves. Just give it a few years, and nobody will miss the retiring “dinosaurs” from the dark ages….
Sorry for the long ramble. As you can perhaps appreciate, Teddy Ruxpin has touched upon a subject of considerable personal interest to me. I look forward to hearing the views of anyone who cares to offer their thoughts on the matter. I can't promise prompt responses (if any are warranted), but I will certainly look in on the thread to see what fellow Army.ca folks think.
Cheers,
