Personal Choice & Officer Assignments

[M2]

Discuss...

Personal Choice & Officer Assignments

The opinions belong to the author alone and do not imply or reflect endorsement by the U.S. Air Force or the U.S. government.

The military blogosphere is alive with discussion of talent management and retention. Tim Kane’s Bleeding Talent appears to have sparked a wildfire of calls for personnel management reform which to date have gone unanswered. Discussions abound recommending a market-based military assignment system where Air Force officers (or their sister service counterparts) apply for jobs and commanders hire them instead of the current system that pathologically rejects the officers’ desires and commanders’ inputs. In my personal experience, discussion about this possible market-based system immediately and inevitably devolves into the exact same fundamentally flawed question (at least for Air Force personnel):

How are we going to get people to go to Minot?

For those unfamiliar with Minot Air Force Base, it is in North Dakota and, at least according to those who ask that question, is closer to hell than Afghanistan. This article seeks to examine nine common assumptions and claims of those who ask this question and attempts to offer possible implementation methods.

Claim #1: People don’t want to go to Minot.

Assessment: Flawed assumption.

Air National Guard bases throughout the country have people who happily choose (even compete) to live there long-term, even in North Dakota. I’ve heard it’s a nice place from those who have been. Also, although I don’t have data on active duty military members’ location desires regarding Minot, civilians seem very keen on the place. Minot has experienced a 10% population growth per year since 2010. In 2010, the population was 40,000. By 2017, they expect it to be over 60,000. Clearly, there are insane amounts of people who want to go to Minot.

Claim #2: You might get people to go, but the most talented will congregate at “good” locations.

Assessment: Flawed premise.

What is a “good” location? DC? Not for the person who hate the city. Montgomery, AL? Not for the person who loves DC. Destin, FL? OK, that’s probably a “good” location. But, maybe a “good” base is one in which the mission is attractive or the commanders are respected or the quality of life is posh or the base services are solid. Maybe a “good” base is one at which a person can stay for more than two years so their spouse can have a career or their kid can be the high school football star. Maybe “good” means the childcare center is really great or the schools are fantastic or they have free sno-cones in the summer. The definition of a “good” base is different for everyone and is not solely based on location.

The definition of a “good” base is different for everyone.

Claim #3: Assuming Minot is a “bad” base; people don’t volunteer for bad locations.

Assessment: Not supported by evidence.

People volunteer to go to AFGHANISTAN.

Claim #4: Assignment systems that give servicemembers and commanders too much agency (choice) don’t work. The Air Force tried it in the 1990’s and it failed.

Assessment: Flawed premise.

First, we tried drones before WWII. They didn’t work well. Look at us now! Apple tried the Newton in the 1990’s. It didn’t take. Now, Steve Jobs is a legend. Manned flight didn’t work out for Icarus or da Vinci. But last month, we landed a spaceship on a comet. “We tried it before and it didn’t work so we should not try again” is the battle cry of a non-innovative, status quo seeker. We need to find these people and rid our military of them ASAP. I’m all for not repeating past mistakes, but the last time the Air Force tried this was the last millenium. Innovation and improvement are about trying, failing, and then trying again.

Second, the Air Force Officer Volunteer Assignment System of the 1990’s instituted a free labor market, it seems without effective use of market shaping incentives. Market shaping incentives, for example, might be increased pay at some locations or non-financial incentives such as faster career progression or early promotion. There are many possible incentives to motivate people to choose a given location.

Innovation and improvement are about trying, failing, and then trying again.

Third, market-based systems that provide agency (choice) to servicemembers and commanders by utilizing market-shaping incentives exist and work! For example, the Navy market-like Assignment Incentive Pay system not only works, it saves money. The Army recently conducted a successful pilot study of a similar program called the Green Pages. The Air Force also has a variety of personnel management incentives for its enlisted members. In fact, labor-market economics are not really that new, they are proven concepts like democracy and capitalism.

Counterargument: Military members are not motivated by money!

Rebuttal: Some are, some aren’t. Plus, incentives could be any number of things: good quality of life, good schools, good services, good commanders, good mission, good follow-on assignment, good promotion chances, early retirement, etc.

Counterargument: The Air Force doesn’t have the ability to adjust pay by location or purposefully have better services at a particular base.

Rebuttal: Servicemember housing allowance (Base allowance for housing — BAH) is already adjusted by locale. Cost of living adjustment (COLA) is also adjusted by locale. Imminent Danger Pay is locale-dependent. The Navy’s Assignment Incentive Pay is locale-adjusted. We also have various retention pays (bonuses) that are not locale-dependent, but are designed to retain specific talent or experience pools. With a few policy adjustments or by working with Congress to adjust necessary laws, we could have the ability to do these things.

Claim #5: Commanders and individual officers cannot be trusted to put the “needs of the Air Force” over personal desires.

Assessment: Wrong.

We have people who jump on grenades, fly within range of enemy surface-to-air missiles, and run directly into enemy fire for their country and their fellow servicemembers.
F-22 Raptor releases defensive countermeasures. Image Courtesy Wikimedia.

We give commanders the authority to kill people and put people in jail. We give our Lieutenants $150 million aircraft and nuclear weapons. The people who say commanders and officers cannot be trusted are seriously misguided. Sure, there might be a few people that don’t care for the bigger system, but checks and balances exist which could address such concerns.

There is, however, a valid point that some people have raised:

Counterargument: Commanders and officers don’t have visibility on all the needs of the Air Force and all the assignment spots and thus might prioritize easily visible needs (their own) over ethereal “needs of the Air Force.”
Rebuttal: Valid concern, but web-based systems give us the ability to post requirements for all to see. In fact, an Air Force system already exists to search requirements — the online Assignment Management System. With a little modernization and a bit of shaping by a centralized requirements team, the existing program could be exactly the system we need. Additionally, a LinkedIn-style resume system such as the Army’s Green Pages could support a market-based system and increase the quality of person-job match.

Claim #6: “This isn’t a democracy; we don’t need to care what people want.“

Assessment: Incorrect

This is a democracy. People vote with their feet (i.e. leave the service) and many of our most talented are doing so. See Final Argument #2: Retention below.

Claim #7: “Service Before Self” is one of our Air Force core values. You signed up for this; you should be willing to serve your country unequivocally. Why are you being so selfish? Damn millennials…

Assessment: Shameful misrepresentation of our core values, blind rejection of American societal changes, and a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy.

People do sign up to serve their country. Many die for their country. But no one likes seeing their family jerked around and uprooted every few years with little or no say in the process. It’s “Service Before Self,” not “Service Before Everything Including Family.” This is the kind of talk that undermines the legitimacy of our core values. And, with generational shifts in gender role expectations and increasing percentages of career-oriented military spouses, such misrepresentation of our core values generates work-family conflict that breaks families apart and drives talented servicemembers out of uniform.

Claim #8: “Look, that would be great and all, but we don’t have personnelists in the numbers or of the talent to be able to manage such a system.”

Assessment: Wrong

Our personnelists are not the problem. We have many sharp, intelligent, and innovative personnelists who are hindered by a system which forces them to operate a logistics network that shuffles people around as if they were boxes. Instead, we should enable our talented HR professionals to shape a modern labor market and talent management system that empowers commanders and Airmen while meeting all Air Force job requirements. When we as an Air Force start to prioritize our personnelists and personnel systems at a level commensurate with that of our aircraft, we will have the right number of personnelists with the right tools and a system that works.

Final Claim: “Sure we lose some of our most talented people, but we have enough overhead to be good enough. Our Air Force is still the best in the world, so what’s the problem?“

Assessment: Good question.

1) Inefficiency. How much does it cost to move (permanent change of station — PCS) one-third of the force every year? Approximately $3.76 Billion Dollars. If people chose to stay in one place longer than a few years, it could save dollars in the $B range. The $B range (billion) is where it starts to matter. A lot.

2) Retention. It costs money when we lose people we want to keep. Let us use fighter pilots as just one example, since the USAF currently has a fighter pilot manning problem. They say it costs $6M to make a fighter pilot. This is to make a baby fighter pilot, not an experienced Major (O-4) with 1,500 flight hours. To do that costs (conservatively) five times as much, so let’s say $30M. When one such pilot leaves before we want them to, we’ve just thrown away a $30M investment. In an era of fiscal constraints, throwing away $30M per fighter pilot can add up. Given a claimed coming shortage of fighter pilots in the hundreds (if not more), we seem to be throwing away a lot of money. America should be mad. I am.

3) Talent is our advantage. Based on the rapid rise of military competitors, our technological edge is eroding and the quality of our people may be our only advantage. We need to keep our margin of talent as high as possible. Let’s take China for example (they are not an enemy, but they are definitely a competitor). Will we win the defense spending competition? No — and Russia circa 1990 would argue it’s not a good idea to try. Will we win the manpower numbers game? No—China has four times the people of the US and almost twice as many military members. Will we win the technology advantage? Maybe—but our lead is shrinking rapidly, especially given the intellectual property pursuits of various nefarious actors (i.e. raiding the cyber cookie jars of US weapons contractors for F-35 plans). Thus, we must leverage and retain what may be our best, if not our only, strategic margin — our talent.

We need to keep our margin of talent as high as possible because it may become our best, if not our only, strategic advantage.

Our talent is too important to squander in an industrial-age system that, as Tim Kane said, is more logistics network than labor market. And, despite what the Minot-haters say, it is time for a change. And it’s time to stop bleeding talent.

[osulax05]

I saw this floating around FB the other day, lots of bitter individuals posting about getting screwed over and having to live in [insert terrible base].

Most of the arguments this guy makes are very abstract or big picture ideas (service before self, population growth of a city) that he tries to tie directly to individual behavior across the service. This makes his arguments invalid in my opinion. Trying to say Airmen should/will put service before self and choose a "bad" assignment sounds like a ridiculous ROTC case study that shoes think has a black/white answer.

We can certainly do better at matching talent with the right jobs. I think that starts at the SQ/CC level. These are the folks that (should) know their people the best and be best equipped to find the correct next assignment for them. But giving commanders the ability to hire subordinates (outside of BNR billets) or officers the opportunity to hand pick their assignments will certainly creat a whole new batch of favoritism issues and bitter underperformed who post on FB because they don't get to homestead at Eglin.

In the end, the assignment system would be significantly better if leaders would simply lead more and worry about what their boss would think less. I guess the same thing can be said about all issues in the AF.

Edited January 3, 2015 by osulax05

[ViperStud]

You only get one true choice in the AF and it happens 10 years after you graduate UPT, much sooner for clerks and Navs. Screw Minot, how would we man Laughlin or Cannon if everything were by preference.

Didn't some general try this in the 90s? I've heard some old hats bitching about getting superFAIPed because they couldn't leave until enough people wanted to PCS to their base.

[hindsight2020]

At least in the Reserves, #1 claim is fact, supported by differential expenditures bona fide hometown units do not have, period dot. The numbers and the people speak clearly on this issue. The concept of hometown unit model versus commuter unit model is very well known and quantified within the ARC. The fact people in AD leadership don't acknowledge places like Cannon/Minot/Laughlin/et al as undesirable may be political in nature, but it is not supported by fact (number of separations per AFPC assignments per capita to said location, for instance). Must be an active duty thing.

[Champ Kind]

I'm glad there is discourse on the state of military morale and retention, but a system like this will just ensure the rich will get richer.

[Homestar]

If the monetary incentive to live in Minot or Clovis was right I'm sure there would be volunteers. Money talks.

The Air Force would rather do if for nothing though, so I don't think this rock will roll.

Wouldn't really work well for FAIP jobs, as previously mentioned. But I like the idea of applying for your job though a professional "Linkedin" type of system. Allow people to apply for the jobs and locations they want then let them homestead. Want a raise? Apply for a job with higher "location pay".

[Breckey]

I'm theory shouldn't the functionals do this in conjunction with the squadron commanders?

[pawnman]

The main point he's making, which I think is correct, is that instead of bouncing every officer from assignment to assignment as if they will all need that breadth of experience, instead of taking stock of just how many staff jobs there are versus cockpits open, is hurting our retention, hurting our budgets, and hurting our continuity.

What may be a decent solution is a preference-plus. How about if officers got the same "base of preference" options that the enlisted do after completing a 365 or a short-tour in Korea? How about if a guy states flat-out, "I'm not in the running for SQ/CC and above, I just want to keep flying airplanes...why don't you send the fast-burner over there to the staff job?", we actually listen? How about we pay attention to personal preferences instead of what leadership thinks will look good on the next board? All that requires leaders to know their people and their people's goals. Maybe one guy's goal is to provide some stability for his family, stay in one place for three more years while his kid finishes high school with his friends, while another guy's goal is to climb the ranks, no matter what base that takes, and another guys goal is to get an overseas assignment and see some of the world. Is it really so hard to give officers more of a voice in where they PCS?

And if, as would likely happen, people don't go to Cannon, or Minot, or Laughlin...then you can non-vol people. But it should be a rare thing, not the normal operating procedure, to drop orders on an officer's desk every three years, using only the ADP as a guide to what the officer wants.

[sky_king]

Lower base pay and introduce location pay. The new total pay for the force should stay the same. Then places like Randolph and Hickam will get say $100/mo in location pay. Places like Cannon and Laughlin will get $1000 in location pay. Then people put in their dream sheets and AFPC actually uses them. After the end of each fiscal year, AFPC can then determine if they completely filled the billets. Too many people want Travis? Lower the location pay $50 next year. Too few people want Vance? Raise the location pay $50. After about 5-10 years, the system should be working itself out. Just put a cap on the min/max location pay. People will still get non-vol'd to locations, but at least they'll get a new flat screen out of the deal thanks to their buddies living the high life on the Vegas Strip.

Edited January 4, 2015 by sky_king

[dvlax40]

all these suggestions seem to point to being more like the guard...

get rid of (or limit) BAH and raise the base pay a little to be more competitive with commercial counterparts.

want to fly in a beautiful place? be prepared to pay higher cost of living. want more discretionary money? go to a base with lower COL.

[HeloDude]

Lower base pay and introduce location pay. The new total pay for the force should stay the same. Then places like Randolph and Hickam will get say $100/mo in location pay. Places like Cannon and Laughlin will get $1000 in location pay. Then people put in their dream sheets and AFPC actually uses them. After the end of each fiscal year, AFPC can then determine if they completely filled the billets. Too many people want Travis? Lower the location pay $50 next year. Too few people want Vance? Raise the location pay $50. After about 5-10 years, the system should be working itself out. Just put a cap on the min/max location pay. People will still get non-vol'd to locations, but at least they'll get a new flat screen out of the deal thanks to their buddies living the high life on the Vegas Strip.

I think we should implement flight pay and aviation continuation pay (aka the bonus) to better retain pilots.

...and yes, I'm well aware of the majority opinion that the bonus does not incentivize many people to stay in vs get out, hence my comment. If the Air Force doesn't need to throw money at the problem to either incentivize people to stay in/go to a certain location and/or extend their ADSC, then the Air Force won't wont throw in the money. Not saying you have an entirely bad idea, just that it's not how Big Blue thinks/operates. Since when is the AF having a difficult time manning Minot?

Just my $.02

[ViperStud]

In my little corner of the AF it appears to be HO that's the problem. One of the reasons I punched is because I figured I had about 99% chance of spending 3-4 of my remaining 8 there. Either that or go to my location of choice now, easy decision. Had a bro working in AFPC who said that they would probably end up having to send mostly dudes with commitments (UPT or bonus) there. Anyone there that can vouch? Is manning an issue or is it business as usual?

[11F]

In my little corner of the AF it appears to be HO that's the problem. One of the reasons I punched is because I figured I had about 99% chance of spending 3-4 of my remaining 8 there. Either that or go to my location of choice now, easy decision. Had a bro working in AFPC who said that they would probably end up having to send mostly dudes with commitments (UPT or bonus) there. Anyone there that can vouch? Is manning an issue or is it business as usual?

Anecdotal evidence: Of the 10 or so Eagle Drivers I know who were stationed there, 2 Stink Bug Drivers, and 10 or so Raptor Drivers, I never heard one say they hated their assignment there. YMMV

[ViperStud]

Hate is a strong word; I didn't hate my worst assignment location simply because of the bros, but I would never want to go back. Maybe viper dudes just equate it with Cannon and can't get that taste out of their mouths. I still think the ideas here are wishful thinking. With "applications" or "hardship pay" the AF still should and will fill needs. Give it 10 years and people will be clamoring for the new iteration of a supposedly "fair" assignment process. Nothing is going to stop the BNRs and the brow on the line will always be the lowest priority.

[11F]

Hate is a strong word; I didn't hate my worst assignment location simply because of the bros, but I would never want to go back. Maybe viper dudes just equate it with Cannon and can't get that taste out of their mouths. I still think the ideas here are wishful thinking. With "applications" or "hardship pay" the AF still should and will fill needs. Give it 10 years and people will be clamoring for the new iteration of a supposedly "fair" assignment process. Nothing is going to stop the BNRs and the brow on the line will always be the lowest priority.

Well said.

[guineapigfury]

I think the solution is simple*. Designate your bases that are generally considered as undesirable as such, and people who go there get a controlled tour with either a bonus or base of preference afterwards.

*Everything in war is simple, but the simplest things are difficult. - Clausewitz

[Mark1]

Claim #3: Assuming Minot is a “bad” base; people don’t volunteer for bad locations.

Assessment: Not supported by evidence.

People volunteer to go to AFGHANISTAN.

Yeah, that's true. I did so multiple times...because the alternative was to be at Cannon dealing with all the bullshit that goes along with home station. Sadly, after about 2 months exposure to home station, Afghanistan was a welcome break. When the choice is between being at Cannon dealing with the bullshit, or being at Hickam dealing with the bullshit, you're going to run short on volunteers.

Claim #5: Commanders and individual officers cannot be trusted to put the “needs of the Air Force” over personal desires.

Assessment: Wrong.

We have people who jump on grenades, fly within range of enemy surface-to-air missiles, and run directly into enemy fire for their country and their fellow servicemembers.

Not even close to comparable. I wish individual officers approached all things with the same selflessness that might lead them to jump on a grenade, but it's just not true to life.

Reference the active thread on this forum of people calling bullshit for having to pay $10 out of pocket for food while sitting alert. They'll fly into enemy WEZs, but won't put up with being subjugated to the same treatment that any private citizen called into work to fix an issue on the weekend faces: having to feed themselves with funds from their paycheck. And it's not an unexpected response given human nature.

When faced with the opportunity to raise your hand and volunteer to take an assignment at Minot, or just let the lottery happen and accept your fate if your number is pulled, you're not going to see a lot of hands shooting up.

Claim #7: “Service Before Self” is one of our Air Force core values. You signed up for this; you should be willing to serve your country unequivocally. Why are you being so selfish? Damn millennials…

Assessment: Shameful misrepresentation of our core values, blind rejection of American societal changes, and a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy.

People do sign up to serve their country. Many die for their country. But no one likes seeing their family jerked around and uprooted every few years with little or no say in the process

In claim #3 he says that people will selflessly sacrifice and voluntarily take non-desirable assignments for the good of the force. Now all the sudden seeing their families jerked around and uprooted every few years with little or no say in the process is enough to throw in the towel? This is a direct contradiction of his assertion in claim #3.

The assignment system can absolutely be improved and his general premise is sound, but you cost yourself credibility when you propose a solution to a problem that has no 100% correct solution, and then defend your proposal from all angles as if it's perfect. Just propose it as a better alternative, not a perfect one. Explain the benefits of the proposal and acknowledge that there are inevitably some shortcomings, but that they're less significant than with the status quo.

[matmacwc]

all these suggestions seem to point to being more like the guard...

get rid of (or limit) BAH and raise the base pay a little to be more competitive with commercial counterparts.

want to fly in a beautiful place? be prepared to pay higher cost of living. want more discretionary money? go to a base with lower COL.

That's a great point, 60 year retirement collection is next.

[LookieRookie]

The Minot population increase is due to the oil industry.

[Homestar]

The Minot population increase is due to the oil industry.

Right. Oil industry paying high wages.

[Majestik Møøse]

The Minot population increase is due to the oil industry.

Yep. He lost me at "Claim 1". Not sure how how he couldn't have heard of the oil boom up there, so he's either poorly informed or hiding facts to make his argument better.

[pawnman]

Yep. He lost me at "Claim 1". Not sure how how he couldn't have heard of the oil boom up there, so he's either poorly informed or hiding facts to make his argument better.

The point still stands that the population is growing. That population growth will driving building of houses, restaurants, shopping centers, recreational facilities...

Based on my years in Rapid City, I think I'd prefer Minot to my current West Texas environment.