subscribe  |    email  |    print  |    continue the debate

Majors — the Army’s future senior leaders — are exiting the service at increasing rates during a period of military growth. A recent article in The Washington Post indicated the Army is about 15 percent short of its goal of 15,700 majors. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said, “Retention of battle-tested majors should be the Army’s highest personnel priority. These are the future Pattons, Powells and Petraeuses who will lead soldiers into combat over the next two decades.”

Cost-effective solutions are available. These include financial incentives, leveraging Web 2.0 to enhance mentoring and the personnel assignment process, and uniform vouchers. All could be adopted almost immediately to shore up the ranks.

The Army is already creating innovative solutions to overcome the challenges of recruiting sufficient numbers of enlisted soldiers. During fiscal 2007, more than 107,000 men and women enlisted in the active Army and the Army Reserve. Recruits receive benefits such as the Army Advantage Fund, which provides $40,000 to buy a home or start a small business; the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2008 — commonly referred to as the “21st Century G.I. Bill” — which covers 100 percent of college tuition and also provides a cost-of-living stipend; and the Partnership for Youth Success (PaYS) program that provides priority consideration for civilian employment following Army service.

So you’re thinking “Gee, all that to recruit 18-year-old high school graduates? They must really provide big dough to retain their field-grade officers!” Wrong. The vast majority of majors are not receiving any added financial incentive to continue service.

Few, if any, officers joined the Army to get rich. Most soldiers volunteer out of a sense of patriotism and commitment to duty. But as we wage persistent conflict fought by an all-volunteer force, shouldn’t we recognize all our service members, including mid-grade officers, with some type of retention incentives? As they say, “If you don’t do it, someone else will.” Many majors leave the Army because they have lucrative options in the civilian sector.

According to Harris Interactive polling, 81percent of Americans view military officer as a “considerably prestigious” occupation. Educated, healthy and chock-full of real-world leadership experience, officers are aggressively recruited by corporations — even in periods of economic downturn. Many of these sometimes war-weary officers and their families choose the uncertainties of the private sector over the dangers of continuous deployment and extended family separation. To many, a long night at the office is better than spending every other year in combat. The nature of the military profession is not one that can offer flexible schedules, telecommuting or stock options. Therefore, if the Army wants to keep the best and brightest majors, it must make some financial efforts.

At the Presidential Forum on service, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was asked about recruiting and retention challenges of the military. To reverse current trends he said, “We have got to perhaps offer additional incentives. For a long time, years ago, the Navy and Air Force were losing pilots. So we paid them more, and we had more of them stay in. Their first reason for serving is patriotism, but also, you have got to offer them incentives in order to do so.”

Today, the Army officer with boots on the ground is every bit as important as his aviation counterparts. Other services embrace a broader approach toward providing officer retention bonuses. According to a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, the Navy and Air Force pay about 10 times the amount the Army pays in retention-related incentives. For example, a Navy lieutenant commander, the equivalent of an Army major, commissioned in 1997 could have received $121,000 in retention bonuses during his 12-year career; over that same time, an Army infantry officer has received bubkes. Clearly, the Navy values their surface warfare officers, while the Army has not demonstrated the same tangible commitment to its ground warriors.

At the forum, President-elect Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said, “I think it’s important to work towards increasing military pay ... [and] I do think that we have a special obligation for those who have put their lives at risk, who are risking life and limb on behalf of the security of America.”

Rank does not protect from risks — at least 35 Army majors have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army is making every effort to retain captains. For an additional three-year commitment beyond their college obligation, captains can receive up to $35,000, guaranteed time for fully funded graduate school, slots to Ranger School or duty station of choice. Moreover, to address the shortage of majors, captains can even be promoted two years early. It’s a good time to be a captain. In contrast, majors — commissioned before 1998 — get nothing. Accelerating the promotion of captains to major won’t necessarily lead to majors spending extra time in uniform. It is hoped the incentives for captains to remain will result in officers serving a full career; the jury is still out on this, as the captain incentives are a recent policy change.

So to recap: Qualifying enlisted recruits get up to $40,000; Army captains get up to $35,000; Navy officers, $121,000; and a typical Army major: uh, um, nothin’.

It’s not just about the money, however. While financial incentives will be a necessary condition for retaining majors, it will not be entirely sufficient. Many majors feel a communications gap between them and senior leaders. That perceived divide can be bridged by effective mentoring. According to a recent survey conducted at the Army’s Command and General Staff College, a lack of mentorship from senior leaders contributes to majors electing to separate from service before a full 20-year career. The Army Field Manual on Leadership (FM 6-22) describes mentorship this way: “A leader with greater experience than the one receiving the mentoring provides guidance and advice; it is a future-oriented developmental activity focused on growing in the profession.” According to Black Enterprise magazine, “Companies with strong [mentoring] programs can enjoy ... improved staff performance and increased staff retention.” The Army can incorporate its own guidance with Web 2.0 technology in an effort to retain majors.

Social networking may be a solution to improving the informal mentoring program in the Army. “Senior Army leaders have fallen behind the breakneck development of cheap digital communications including cell phones, digital cameras and Web 2.0 Internet sites such as blogs and Facebook,” Army Secretary Pete Geren said at a trade conference on July 10. That helps explain how “just one man in a cave that’s hooked up to the Internet has been able to out-communicate the greatest communications society in the history of the world — the United States.”

The Army can use existing civilian online social networks such as LinkedIn and match senior leaders to mentor a pool of majors in similar career fields. This would not eliminate the need for face-to-face communication; however, it would provide a 24-hour medium to stay informed of an officer’s career. Additionally, social networking would provide a reliable method of staying in contact over deployments, changes of duty station and even retirements.

Social networking can also make the assignment process more efficient. In the future, Army Human Resources Command could post open duty assignments on LinkedIn and develop an active dialogue among the assignments officer, the majors moving in or out of the job, and the supervisory authority at the gaining unit. Susan M. Heathfield, of the Society of Human Resources Management, said, “Involving employees in decisions that affect their job” is an important technique to retain quality staff. With more mentorship and buy-in on career moves, majors would be more likely to stay. All along, the Army could constantly collect data as click-throughs are recorded during visits to the LinkedIn-type Web site. This would provide an ancillary benefit by eliminating the needs for pesky Scantron surveys.

NEW SUITS

There’s one more win-win strategy for reducing the number of officers who choose corporate grey over Army green: give them a new blue uniform. In August, the Army announced the new Army Service Uniform (ASU). The current polyester green uniform is being dropped from the Army wardrobe, and all soldiers must have the blue ASU by 2014. Privates will get theirs free at basic combat training; other enlisted soldiers will receive an increase to their annual clothing allowance. Majors and other officers are on their own in purchasing the new uniform. Let’s be honest: After serving for about 12 years, the uniform tailored for a 22-year-old lieutenant probably fits snugly on many majors. Instead of an unfunded mandate, there’s an opportunity for the Army to cover the roughly $400 cost per major with a one-time uniform voucher.

Over the next few years, as officers enter their required Intermediate Level Education schools, they could receive the voucher while in-processing and wear their freshly tailored uniform by graduation. The total cost to the Army would equal the price of a nice row house in Washington, D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood. The Army would benefit because majors who appear “Army Strong” in their new uniforms will set the example for soldiers they will lead in battalions and brigades. All soldiers are issued the latest personal protective equipment for combat. For those who’ve ever attended a military funeral, you know the Army Service Uniform is just as important as the Army Combat Uniform. For a small fee, shouldn’t we outfit soldiers for all duties?

Frequently, these suggestions are mired in the legislative process. If the Army is short of funds for majors, perhaps they can put a few of its obsolete unarmored Humvees on eBay.

In recent comments to the Military Officers Association of America, comedian and actor Ben Stein said: “It’s amazing to me that we have a group comprised of one-half of 1 percent of a population — mainly the military ... who bear almost all of the risks for injury protecting their county. And then the other 99 percent just lives it up and is endlessly complaining about having to pay too much taxes or having too much regulation or in some way of being inconvenienced. And then people in the military, who have the real serious inconvenience of being away from their families or being wounded or losing their lives, hardly ever complain.”

Take this commentary as a solution-oriented entry into the Army “suggestion box.” Oh, one more thing. The Army expects to be 20 percent short majors by 2012 — the end of the next commander in chief’s first term. It’s time for the Army to take direct action to address the “quiet surge” of majors leaving the service.