The Military's Promotion Problem

In a provocative piece this month in our sister publication, The Atlantic, Tim Kane, a senior fellow at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and a former Air Force intelligence officer, looks at why so many talented military officers choose to leave the services. "The problem," he argues, "isn't cultural: The military's problem is a deeply anti-entrepreneurial personnel structure. From officer evaluations to promotions to job assignments, all branches of the military operate more like a government bureaucracy with a unionized workforce than like a cutting-edge meritocracy."

Kane surveyed 250 West Point graduates and found that among active-duty respondents, 82 percent believed that half or more of the best officers are leaving the Army. Only 30 percent of all respondents agreed that the military personnel system "does a good job promoting the right officers to general," and only 7 percent thought it "does a good job retaining the best leaders."

What's the cause of the retention problem? Kane says:

The reason overwhelmingly cited by veterans and active-duty officers alike is that the military personnel system--every aspect of it--is nearly blind to merit. Performance evaluations emphasize a zero-defect mentality, meaning that risk-avoidance trickles down the chain of command. Promotions can be anticipated almost to the day-- regardless of an officer's competence--so that there is essentially no difference in rank among officers the same age, even after 15 years of service. Job assignments are managed by a faceless, centralized bureaucracy that keeps everyone guessing where they might be shipped next.

He makes the case for a radical free market approach to promotions and transfers in the military services, in which units openly compete for the best officers. This, Kane says, would mimic the "best practices of corporate America -- where firms manage vast workforces by emphasizing flexibility, respect for individual talent, and executive responsibility."