Tim Kane thinks the U.S. military produces great leaders but then paralyzes them with its bureaucracy.
A product of the military system himself, Kane graduated from the
U.S. Air Force Academy and worked as an air force intelligence officer
during two tours of duty in Asia. He also earned a Ph.D. in economics at
U.C. San Diego and is now the chief economist at the conservative
Hudson Institute. In his new book,
Bleeding Talent: How the U.S. Military Mismanages Great Leaders and Why it’s Time for a Revolution,
he argues that the military should get rid of its inefficient, lockstep
promotion bureaucracy and replace it with a more entrepreneurial
structure. Under the current system, some of the most talented officers
resign in frustration because, he writes, “the military personnel
system—every aspect of it—is nearly blind to merit.”
The root of the problem, he says, is a 1980 law called the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act, or DOPMA, which lays out exactly how
leaders in all the services should be promoted. The law includes a
progression track with strict rules and timetables. Compensation has
nothing to do with merit, assignments have little to do with officers’
abilities and evaluations fail to give useful feedback or skills
assessments. He describes officers always being promoted from second to
first lieutenant and from lieutenant to captain, and often to major, no
questions asked. “One would have to commit a felony or two to hinder his
or her chances for promotion,” he writes.
There are also strict seniority rules for promotion to higher office
like colonel or general, which require 20 years and 22 years,
respectively. Then after just two years at the rank of general, an
officer can retire with a full pension. The military never allows
“lateral entry” from outside its forces, even among former officers who
have taken time away from the service. If enlistees show extraordinary
leadership potential, they must still abide by the lockstep timetable.
Kane believes this system stifles and ultimately chases away the most
talented. Officially there are performance evaluations within the
military, but in practice they tend to give high marks to mediocre
performers, he writes. It’s also very tough to specialize within the
system, since officers are matched with open positions using those empty
performance evaluations, from a central human resources office in Fort
Knox, Kentucky.
Kane wants to chuck this entire bureaucracy and replace it with a
system that is much closer to the civilian world of promotions and
assignments. The military should get rid of its strict seniority rules,
making it possible for talented young officers to apply for challenging
senior posts. There is nothing wrong, he says, with a colonel of 31
supervising a major who is 42.
The service should also open the officer ranks to lateral hires,
including enlistees who show talent and former officers who may have
done a stint in the private sector. He favors greater specialization and
the option to remain a captain or a major for a longer period than the
lockstep system allows. Many officers leave the service because they
don’t want to give up commanding troops to hold a higher rank.
Commanders, instead of the military’s central HR office, should have the
power and authority to fill open slots, he says. The military should
also make it easier to lay off officers who are performing poorly. He
wants evaluations to be more meaningful and to weed out poor performers.