Probably the first cultural line of defense against talent reform — or for that matter, any transformational change — is the perspective that dictates: if it’s not broke, don’t fix it…
Another factor that will likely impede talent reform is the Army’s formidable egalitarian culture. The Army prides itself on being the service that leaves no one behind and treats everyone the same. Egalitarianism pushes back hard against any notion of offering high-potential individuals opportunities that will be denied to those with less talent. Thus, egalitarianism led to the 2004 decision to send all majors to resident Intermediate Level Education instead of just the top 50 percent. Similarly, an egalitarian culture convinced decision-makers during the Fiscal Year 2007 captain exodus to offer a retention bonus to all eligible captains regardless of their record of performance or future potential.
That was from the excellent Leonard Wong and Stephen Gerras at War on the Rocks.
As Wong and Gerras make it appear, the Army’s egalitarianism — or proclivity toward “French equality” — has in some respects led to the selection of poorer performers. There shouldn’t be any surprise about the outcome. The baseline expectation is that the ambitious, skilled, and risk-taking individuals will exit an egalitarian system, and if not, they will revert to the mean.
It’s interesting that pay-scales and other aspects of promotion were not addressed at all in an article about culture. It seems that how people are paid and recognized in the organization is incredibly important. Egalitarianism is in effect the opposite of a “meritocracy.”
And the Army may be getting left further behind the curve. The best performing firms will let top contributors at the lower-levels make more money than the top levels. Sure, NCOs can earn more than Lieutenants, but that’s because of their years of service and other factors according to strict pay scales. You won’t find a twenty-something promoted to colonel, or getting paid like a colonel, or running a program office. But you will easily find twenty-somethings running labs and companies in the private sector.
One other thing is that we often talk about acquiring or managing “talent,” but talent may be thought of as the natural aptitude prior to learning skills. I imagine that the Army is mostly about shaping soldiers through a culture of continuous learning. I do not imagine that the Army tries to get as many people through the system as possible so that it can select those with “talent” and filter out those without “talent.” So the culture should be geared toward improvement, but also identification and acceleration of the top performers.
At any rate, offering bonuses to everyone regardless of performance is a good way to let the soldiers sort themselves — on the margin the poorer performer will accept the bonus to stay.
Here is Wong and Gerras again with a couple good lines:
… our intent here is to point out that the Army — while earnestly trying to accomplish noble missions — has repeatedly suffered because of the ignominious effects of ignoring culture. The stage has been set and the key actors are in position to bring about a radical transformation. We should not squander this rare opportunity by failing to recognize and adjust to the pervasiveness of Army culture.
Definitely check out their excellent and influential work: “Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession.” Wong’s appearance on EconTalk is what turned me onto them.
Leave a Reply