.
How can private-sector best practices be implemented to improve talent management in the United States military and the broader national security enterprise? Serving military officers answer here in a new series of features in collaboration with Military Leadership Circle (MLC).
With the military’s introduction of the Blended Retirement System (BRS) in 2018, the Department of Defense aligned itself more closely with private industry in regard to pension plans. Given the private sector’s decades-long head start in that one aspect of organizational management, it may be worth asking if there are other long-overdue, private-sector inspired changes that should accompany the introduction of the BRS. In consideration of that very question, I have asked Naval leadership what they see for the future. Specifically, will the military 20 years from now still have a similar detailing and billeting structure? The initial input I received tended to be that the BRS will have little impact on current military structures. I believe nothing could be further from the truth.
BRS can fundamentally change how commanders think about personnel by providing much greater managerial flexibility—but only if the military branches have the foresight to change their current structures and implement appropriate processes. Many in the military, for instance, have longed for a personnel system in which they have more authority to select the teams that work for them. The traditional mindset of the military has been that each command has designated billets with certain requirements, and anyone who fits those requirements is equally appropriate for the job. Personnel assignment processes are overwhelmingly centralized. This is in stark contrast to civilian organizations. At every forward-leaning corporation, C-suites are pushing human resource departments to recruit people who are the right fit—to look beyond just the resume.
This often means that wise companies allow the direct supervisor to be involved in the screening process for potential hires. As I look back on my military career, in contrast, I have never been able to interview permanent military personnel before they are assigned to my department. Some would say that a good leader in the military should be able to take anyone and turn them into an all-star, but this sidesteps a critical issue. Leadership also entails being able to put together the right team for a given task. As military leaders, we don’t get the opportunity to develop this skillset. I believe that is about to (or at least should) change.
As the BRS will lessen the perceived obligation to keep people until retirement, I see all billeting following the model that the military reserves currently use. In my previous dealings with reservists, I viewed all applications, spoke with previous supervisors, and spoke to the members themselves. This allowed me to pick personnel I was comfortable with. It also gave me the ability to manage the budget for reservist’s salaries. Making decisions such as whether to pick three junior enlisted personnel or one more senior person for roughly the same cost required me to determine the right size and expertise level of my team. It also allowed for personnel supply-and-demand cycles to work quicker than the normal up-or-out promotion cycle. If there were no reservists available, I made do with less. But, when there were multiple people available, I picked only the most qualified and the rest waited for another opportunity—without draining the command’s budget. The reservist model, in other words, may not only be more appropriate for a post-BRS military, but it will also develop critical new leadership skills in supervisors.
As we go forward in re-shaping the military, I can’t say which specific business or company we should model. I do know that others have gone before us and reshaped their organizations to match the current economic and social environment. Open lines of communication—talking with, researching, and understanding private sector managers—will allow us to glean their lessons learned to make sure that the military is more efficient and effective in the future.
About the author: Santhosh Shivashankar is a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy and a member of the Military Leadership Circle. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not represent the positions of the Department of Defense, United States Navy, or any government agency. More information on the Military Leadership Circle can be found at https://militaryleadershipcircle.com.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Improving Military Talent Management: Give Operational Leaders a Voice in Selecting Their Teams
July 19, 2018
How can private-sector best practices be implemented to improve talent management in the United States military and the broader national security enterprise? Serving military officers answer here in a new series of features in collaboration with Military Leadership Circle (MLC).
With the military’s introduction of the Blended Retirement System (BRS) in 2018, the Department of Defense aligned itself more closely with private industry in regard to pension plans. Given the private sector’s decades-long head start in that one aspect of organizational management, it may be worth asking if there are other long-overdue, private-sector inspired changes that should accompany the introduction of the BRS. In consideration of that very question, I have asked Naval leadership what they see for the future. Specifically, will the military 20 years from now still have a similar detailing and billeting structure? The initial input I received tended to be that the BRS will have little impact on current military structures. I believe nothing could be further from the truth.
BRS can fundamentally change how commanders think about personnel by providing much greater managerial flexibility—but only if the military branches have the foresight to change their current structures and implement appropriate processes. Many in the military, for instance, have longed for a personnel system in which they have more authority to select the teams that work for them. The traditional mindset of the military has been that each command has designated billets with certain requirements, and anyone who fits those requirements is equally appropriate for the job. Personnel assignment processes are overwhelmingly centralized. This is in stark contrast to civilian organizations. At every forward-leaning corporation, C-suites are pushing human resource departments to recruit people who are the right fit—to look beyond just the resume.
This often means that wise companies allow the direct supervisor to be involved in the screening process for potential hires. As I look back on my military career, in contrast, I have never been able to interview permanent military personnel before they are assigned to my department. Some would say that a good leader in the military should be able to take anyone and turn them into an all-star, but this sidesteps a critical issue. Leadership also entails being able to put together the right team for a given task. As military leaders, we don’t get the opportunity to develop this skillset. I believe that is about to (or at least should) change.
As the BRS will lessen the perceived obligation to keep people until retirement, I see all billeting following the model that the military reserves currently use. In my previous dealings with reservists, I viewed all applications, spoke with previous supervisors, and spoke to the members themselves. This allowed me to pick personnel I was comfortable with. It also gave me the ability to manage the budget for reservist’s salaries. Making decisions such as whether to pick three junior enlisted personnel or one more senior person for roughly the same cost required me to determine the right size and expertise level of my team. It also allowed for personnel supply-and-demand cycles to work quicker than the normal up-or-out promotion cycle. If there were no reservists available, I made do with less. But, when there were multiple people available, I picked only the most qualified and the rest waited for another opportunity—without draining the command’s budget. The reservist model, in other words, may not only be more appropriate for a post-BRS military, but it will also develop critical new leadership skills in supervisors.
As we go forward in re-shaping the military, I can’t say which specific business or company we should model. I do know that others have gone before us and reshaped their organizations to match the current economic and social environment. Open lines of communication—talking with, researching, and understanding private sector managers—will allow us to glean their lessons learned to make sure that the military is more efficient and effective in the future.
About the author: Santhosh Shivashankar is a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy and a member of the Military Leadership Circle. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not represent the positions of the Department of Defense, United States Navy, or any government agency. More information on the Military Leadership Circle can be found at https://militaryleadershipcircle.com.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
