The Realities of Military Personnel Transformation

A distinguished panel of military leaders engaged in a frank discussion of the challenges that the military faces with personnel transformation: Lt. Gen. John Bradley, Chief, Air Force Reserve, U.S. Air Force; Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), U.S. Department of Defense; Vice Adm. John Harvey, Chief of Naval Personnel, U.S. Navy; Dan Denning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Training, Readiness and Mobilization.

Admiral Harvey gave a striking example of the challenge at hand, comparing naval platforms of the past, present, and future:

Qunicy CA-71
Commissioned: Dec 1943
Crew: 1142
Sensor Range: 60 miles
Weapon Range: 18 miles
Battlespace Awareness: 60 miles

- Small cadre of highly skilled crewmembers
- Much of crew was effectively cannon fodder
- 1000 young white men – all others were limited to cooking and cleaning

Cape St Geogere (CG71)
Commissioned: June 1993
Crew: 380
Sensor Range: 256 miles
Weapon Range: 800 miles
Battlespace Awareness: Theater wide

- Much more highly trained crew, but still possible to operate fully without 10%
- Reflects diversity of nation, but still heavily white and male

CG (X) 71
Commissioned: In development
Crew: 150
Sensor Range: 500+ miles
Weapons Range: 1000+ miles
Battlespace Awareness: Global GIG

- Dramatic increase in capabilities requires dramatic increase in crew capabilities, and every crewmember is absolutely essential.

Here are some other key comments from the panel:

- Need to move military personnel out of jobs where industry can fill the function and into jobs with inherently military functions.

- Need to tell reservists up front that they should expect to be deployed.

- Focus of personnel transformation is getting the right person with the right skills sets in the right place at the right time.

- Millenials, the current under-25 generation, is more focused on giving of themselves to a cause greater than themselves (WWII generation doesn’t have anything up on these young folks), yet they also require greater flexibility in how they structure a career in the military – the military needs to provide more career choice as well as “off ramps” and “on ramps” that enable flexibility.

- Need to rethink how long it takes to acquire skills – goal is to shorten timeframes by using “intense experience” as a substitute for more leisurely skill acquisition.

- Pilot programs are key – not necessary to commit the nation to a result in advance. Military leaders can go up to Hill and say, here is something that we’d like to try, and the Congress has been very receptive. Pilots allow for experimentation and learning before deploying programs on a large scale. It’s a step-by-step process, not a sweeping end run around past approaches.

- As to the challenge of expanding diversity, there are specific efforts to recruit heritage speakers. With minority officers, it is an issue of college degree completion. The military needs to connect with key influencers in the community, and with future recruits at a younger age. Talking to high school juniors and seniors is five years too late – need to inform influencers, networks, and prospective recruits about what the incentive is to make it through college.

- As to reaching a diverse pool of prospective recruits, the military is moving beyond “mainstream media” (Univision, Telemundo, and Jet Magazine) into text messages on cellphones, podcasts, and highly targeted Internet sites.

- Regarding key cultural barriers to military transformation, the military is a largely successful enterprise – at what point do you let the old players go and start planning for future? Need to show the new approach is at least as good as the old.

- Military is a “zero defects environment” – need to be really sure about not making a mistake, because stakes are so high. Mistakes live on 5-10 years.