FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Armed Forces recruiting falls short

   
Author Topic: Armed Forces recruiting falls short
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Army Still Behind in Recruiting
War, Lower Unemployment Cutting Into Pool of Enlistees

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A17

The active-duty Army is forecast to miss its recruiting targets again in March and April, as the prospect of combat-zone deployments in Iraq discourages American youths -- and adults who advise them -- from considering military service.

The Army expects to fall short of its targeted number of recruits, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told reporters yesterday, confirming the likely continuation of a trend that began in February when the active-duty Army missed its monthly goal for the first time since 2000. Last week, Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief, said in congressional testimony that "monthly recruiting figures from March and April will be difficult to achieve."

Francis J. Harvey, who became secretary of the Army in November, said of the branch's recruiting problems: "Are we concerned? Absolutely, I'm very concerned. But I'm not going to give up."

As the Iraq war, coupled with lower unemployment, creates one of the toughest recruiting environments in years, Army leaders are struggling to come up with innovative ways to reverse the trend of insufficient enlistees, which threatens core assumptions about the all-volunteer force.

"Are we concerned? Absolutely, I'm very concerned," Harvey said at his first Pentagon news conference since assuming his job in November. "But I'm not going to give up."

Harvey voiced cautious optimism that the active-duty Army, which had 94 percent of its year-to-date goal in February, would achieve its target of 80,000 recruits by September, as would the Army Reserve. He and other leaders expressed doubt, however, that the Army National Guard, at 75 percent of its year-to-date goal, would fulfill its manpower requirement this year.

Harvey dismissed the idea that the Pentagon would institute a draft, bursting into laughter when a reporter posed the question.

"The D-word is the farthest thing from my thoughts," he said.

He also said he knows of no plans by the military to lift the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the armed forces. The number of service members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" rule has fallen steeply since 2001. The Sept. 11 attacks began a period of unprecedented deployments.

"I know of no move along these lines. No move at all," he said.

Instead, Army leaders will increasingly appeal to patriotism to sway wavering parents and drum up recruits, Harvey said. He said he intends to launch a national grass-roots campaign in which senior Army leaders and civilian staff, as well as members of Congress, will make speeches in communities about "the value of serving the nation, the noble calling."

"It's going to be more at the Rotary Club. It's going to be more at the Kiwanis Club. It's going to be out there in the heartland," he said.

This "national call to service" reflects a growing belief among Army leaders that traditional methods of boosting enlistment -- increasing bonuses and college funds, advertising campaigns and additional recruiters -- can go only so far in persuading young people to make the sacrifices required by joining the military.

"I don't think money at the end of the day will solve all of the recruiting issues," Gen. Richard A. Cody said this month at a hearing on readiness held by a House Armed Services subcommittee.

Nevertheless, Pentagon officials in charge of recruiting are seeking new authority to grant lump-sum payments, saying those types of bonuses particularly appeal to 18- and 19-year-olds.

"They value money now. . . . They like present compensation over deferred compensation," Charles S. Abell, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the House Armed Services subcommittee on personnel last week.

The Marine Corps also failed for the first time in nearly a decade to attain its "contracting mission" for January and February, as the number of people who signed contracts slipped. But it has continued to meet what it considers more important monthly targets for shipping recruits to boot camp, and it is confident of meeting its recruiting goal this year, Lt. Gen. H.P. Osman, the Marine Corps recruiting chief, told the House personnel panel.

...emphasis mine.

We will have a draft by the end of the calendar year, unless we are able to start pulling out of Iraq & Afghanistan.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fishtail
Member
Member # 3900

 - posted      Profile for Fishtail   Email Fishtail         Edit/Delete Post 
There won't be a draft. For one thing, no one currently serving wants to serve with draftees. There have been plenty of years when the Army in particular has not met its recruiting quotas.

People throw around the idea of a draft so lightly, it astonishes me sometimes.

Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Draft and conscription troops do not perform well.

They lack the motivation to embrace the training and their jobs with the enthusiasm and professionalism that enlistees do.

As a result, conscripts are as likely to get killed or cause serious injury to their peers as the enemy.

Those are liabilities the US Military is unprepared and unwilling to accept.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
20X6
Member
Member # 6447

 - posted      Profile for 20X6   Email 20X6         Edit/Delete Post 
aw crap, don't tell me this is going to be another liberal thread
Posts: 32 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, it is quoting the Washington Post -- what do you expect?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
The military is also competing against the private sector for recruits. I heard on NPR a few months ago that the the average salary for a private security officer in Iraq is about $80-100k per year, tax free.

I still believe we will not have a draft. Americans won't stand for it. But the cost of this war is going to skyrocket like no tomorrow.

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
I get worried when spokespeople burst out laughing.

That's all.

I hope all you people who assert so calmly that there won't be a draft are willing to come back and revise your statements when this comes to pass.

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean 20X6.

Fishtail: It's probably a lot easier to not meet quotas when we're not fighting a war. Or is that not a problem.

TMedina. Is there data on this? It seems to me that there's been a fairly profound lack of training evidenced by at least some of the troops already there. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse seems to scream "lack of training" to me.

All: When the people who are current in the services and in the reserves or guard start really bitching about the amount of time they're spending over there, and the failure to rotate home when promised, etc., etc., what choices will the military have. Sure, they can tell those people "tough luck" but they're veterans now. You don't think they can rally a few in Congress to their aid? You don't think their stateside families are going to get sick of it?

Even the people who support the war 100% aren't going to support short rotations home.

Farmgirl -- the Washington Post is on the liberal side. The mention of the fact that we're probably running out of options other than conscription is my take on it, not theirs.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Verai
Member
Member # 7507

 - posted      Profile for Verai   Email Verai         Edit/Delete Post 
There will not be a draft. My biggest sorrow lies in that by the time you people realize that there there was and will not be a draft, it'll be years too late to say "I told you so"
Posts: 169 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
Not really, Verai. Bob_S stated that he thinks it'll happen by the end of this calendar year. Stick it in your appointment scheduler to bump this thread on Jan. 1 2006 and rub it in if he's wrong.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
Saying we're going to have the draft by the end of the calendar year is probably a little on the side of blowing things way the heck out of proportion. First off, I believe there has to be an act of congress to re-instate the draft. Public sentiment towards a military draft is something beyond negative right now, and just about any congressman/senator who chooses to vote for one will likely lose his/her job. Secondly, our military is more than capable of handling the load in Iraq. If it happens that not enough soldiers elist, then the military will pull units from Active duty stations in other countries to move them into Iraq or Afghanistan as needed.

[ March 24, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jay
Member
Member # 5786

 - posted      Profile for Jay   Email Jay         Edit/Delete Post 
Army boosts maximum recruiting age for reservists to 39

They just raised the age. It won't be long till we start needing less and less troops in Iraq. We just redid some of our other oversea deployments too. I imagine a few guys with a number more stars know how to get troops where we need them. Not to mention if it really gets to crunch time I’d imagine they’d raise the salaries and incentives before they’d even consider a draft. As long as the GOP is in charge there won’t be one, so vote that way and you’ll be safe!

Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Bob, compared to the grunts dropped into Viet Nam who were drafted.

And even with the best training programs, people are going to be stupid, petty, malicious and vile.

I have every respect for police officers, yet how often do we hear stories about idiots who slipped through the screening process or fell from grace while on the job.

Why do you expect soldiers to be any different?

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
There will be no draft--my opinion--unless one of the following things happens:

Some terrorist group detonates a nuclear weapon given to them from Iran.

North Korea launches a nuclear weapon at South Korea or Japan or begins an invasion of South Korea.

Osama Bin Laden or some other Al Queda leader takes control of another government.

Or the Canadians invade Wyoming, and even then we may not object.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or the Canadians invade Wyoming, and even then we may not object.
They just better go through North Dakota on their way, 'cause... wait... actually, they can come through Minnesota. That would be fine. *comtemplates good public transportation and socialized healthcare* Anything I can do to encourage y'all to invade?

Added: And for all you "love it or leave it" types out there -- I'm KIDDING. It's a JOKE. Just thought I should clarify.

[ March 24, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Look, all I'm saying is when the spokesman starts laughing, watch out.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
He's laughing because he knows how completely absurd and patently unlikely the draft is and he's amused at the knee-jerk terror the mere notion of the "d word" inspires in people who don't know enough to appreciate that the "d word" has a snowball's chance in Hell of coming back.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
By emphasis, do you mean where he was quoted saying the same thing twice? Or did he really say the same thing twice? Also, how is recruitment for all the other services going? Even though my baby brother joined up with the army, we tried real hard to talk him into going into the Air Force. And Marines are sexier.

P.S. My brother joined the reserves but is deploying to Iraq, I see this is about the active duty Army. Also, I missed where it said by how much the quota was missed.

[ March 24, 2005, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
urbanX
Member
Member # 1450

 - posted      Profile for urbanX   Email urbanX         Edit/Delete Post 
The Air Force and Navy actually have to many troops and are forcing some of them out. Or if you're forced out of the Air Force or Navy you can join the Army.
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
TMedina, that's one possible interpretation. To fail to recognize the other potential interpretations seems a bit too trusting and naive to me. But then, I grew up in an era when we knew better than to trust much of what the politicians and military leaders told us was true. They lied fairly consistently back then.

I'll admit that my views are colored by this past experience. But I also don't see much currently that makes me believe things have changed all that dramatically.

I have a lot of respect for our fighting men, but as you go up the food chain in the military and when you finally arrive at the upper echelons of our government, things get murkier and less respectable.

Expediency and "ends justify the means" type of thinking is rampant. It's the old "can do" attitude mixed with a culture of unquestioning loyalty.

Ultimately, it just comes down to trust and lack thereof. I can understand those who want to trust the military leaders and the president. But, frankly, I haven't seen one since Truman or maybe Eisenhower who were at the top of this food chain and still remained sane, honorable, and dedicated to truthfulness.

When you mix party politics with civilian control of the most powerful armed force on the planet, you can end up with something remarkably great or horribly bad (or anywhere in between). Even if I thought the US military was run well, I'd be more comfortable with tighter controls. Given that I believe it is run today just as it has been through all the times I've lived through, I am completely uncomfortable with it as an institution.

That's not to say there aren't some truly excellent people in it. I know several. I also know what some of these truly excellent people have had to deal with and what direction stuff flows (downhill) in the military.

The rampant hypocrisy at the top levels of a an institution that insists on (and gets) sacrifice and honor from the people at the lower levels is a poison.

Look, this is all vague BS. I'm not going to convince any "patriot" of my views. I'm just telling you what I've seen during my lifetime. Overall, it stinks.

I'm sure there must be people who really loved their time in uniform and think of it as worthwhile and valuable. I just haven't met them.

Maybe it's just fashionable to grouse about the military.

Or maybe it's one of the most dysfunctional institutions imaginable and we should be cautious about ever actually using it for anything.

[ March 24, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The rampant hypocrisy at the top levels of a an institution that insists on (and gets) sacrifice and honor from the people at the lower levels is a poison.
Name an institution that doesn't do this in some way.

[ March 24, 2005, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]

Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Boris. Irrelevant.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm interested to note that the army itself is calling the size of it's current force too small and that a crisis is looming.

From PBS NewsHour

Yeah, I know, PBS is a "liberal" media outlet. But look at who the interviewees are and what they said. It wasn't like Tom Lehrer scripted it for them. They said it...

quote:
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991;
130,000 Army troops are in Iraq. Pentagon officials had hoped to reduce that number, but the ongoing insurgency prevented it; 9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea.

John VinesLT. GEN. JOHN VINES, U.S. Army: So currently, we are stretched extraordinarily thin.

Congress is calling on the president to increase the size of the army.

Hmm...

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
Nevermind. That wasn't kind.

[ March 24, 2005, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stan the man
Member
Member # 6249

 - posted      Profile for Stan the man   Email Stan the man         Edit/Delete Post 
ARRRRGH! There will not be a draft. It has been stated time and again, and that is about the only truthfull thing being said by the politicos.

An' Verai, if ya forget to revive this thread on Jan 1, 2006.....I'll try to remember.

Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
America doesn't need the size it used to have, like during world war two, our army maxed out at 8.3 million men.

Today's army is more mechanized, with with the help of advanced technology, we're far more deadly with less people than before. I doubt they would institute a draft unless our safety was imminantly in jeopardy, and I don't mean that Level Orange crap, I mean real jeopardy, the kind that military force was needed to stop. Or if an ally were attacked. Short of that, I don't see us using our military that much in any heavy invasions or anything similar.

Bush already uses the army like a drunken guy swinging a broken bottle in a bar fight. And either way, we have thousands and thousands of units, troops, all over the place in other parts of the world.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Boris. Irrelevant.
Oh no, I think it's very relevant. If you think you really understand the problem with today's military, come up with a solution. Don't just sit there pointing and complaining about how it doesn't work. I think that if a quarter of the time spent complaining about problems with the world were spent coming up with solutions TO those problems, those problems wouldn't exist anymore. Think about it, you spent how long typing up that list of problems with the military? And what did you accomplish?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
But aren't you complaining about Bob's complaining? [Wink]

[ March 25, 2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm giving him a solution too. Quit complaining unless you have a solution.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
Like don't engage in preemptive strikes unless you have sound contingency plans? Or perhaps don't start wars under dubious pretenses? But I guess that's in the past, so it is not really a constructive solution.

Edited to add: *sigh* Sorry, that was a snarky remark and completely not constructive. So, what is the solution for the military's recruiting woes? We can pump more money into the private sector and have them take over even more responsibility. Beyond that I'm fresh out of ideas.

[ March 25, 2005, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Boris, Military reforms. Since you asked.

Let me preface this by saying that since I'm not a soldier or a veteran, I don't have much to say about how to train people to actually fight. I believe they (our military and most other militaries) do a pretty good job of this. I might suggest that we borrow more from the British model of modern soldiery, but aside from that, I have not much to say on the actual conduct of shooting wars.

But, I see a lot wrong with how we deal with problems in our military. It's a structural thing. The best practices from all other walks of life (participative decision making, total quality control, ISO, whatever...) aren't easily applied in a hierarchical structure. So, here are some specifics for you.

Please see that they're implemented.

1) Our soldiers are no longer exempt from the World Court. This, to me, is a major mistake on our part. World Court only has jurisdiction when the country in question fails to follow-through on serious crimes (i.e., it chooses not to investigate). It just makes us look like we have something to hide. The fear of some third world country with an axe to grind counting coup on us is just insane.

2) Our soldiers are trained in the Geneva Convention's provisions and learn that serious consequences will follow for any breaches thereof. This goes all the way up the ranks. If someone orders a soldier to act illegally, and the soldier does it, they all get court martialed.

(yes, I know, you say this is already the case. I say it never really works that way in practical application -- besides, the training MUST be inadequate or we have no good explanation for prisoner abuse except mass psychosis.)

3) The military includes people who want to fight, regardless of sexual orientation. Those who don't like it can leave with a dishonorable discharge.

Get over it. Now. The concerns about homosexuals in uniform are as stupid as the ones about black men in uniform, or women in uniform. Tough.

4) We thin the top ranks. From what I'm reading there are too many people at the top. We could do with a lot more people and positions at the mid-level officer ranks.

5) Cultural awareness training is mandatory for all officers. They should understand the people they are working with and the countries we are occupying, protecting, etc. The mission has changed, but our tactics are still in the old days. In particular, we have almost no soldiers with language skills equipped to work in the countries we're "visiting."

6) The president's power to start a war is changed. Bush has shown us that imminent danger can be construed in ANY situation, even ones that are and have been static for years. So, we clearly can't trust this decision to one person anymore. We should retain the ability to strike fast if we are truly in danger, but in other situations, starting or escalating a conflict either has to go through Congress or we should have a panel making that decision. Not just the president.

7) Most of military intelligence is folded into our overall intelligence operation. We don't need separate operatives plowing the same ground. And, really, the military's needs aren't served through having their own spy network. The services should retain technical experts who can interpret data and ask questions of the intel people, but entire networks is just wasteful and duplicative.

8) Military contracting procedures are just insane. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that scum like Halliburton would get the job, we should probably just privatize all procurement. Instead, we need to adopt TQM-like methods in the supply and procurement side of the military. Instead of people who can be "ordered" to do something or other, we should have people who can exercise common sense and stop the entire process if things are screwed up. Seriously, this is the area of the military I have the most experience with, and I can say without any reservations that it is a total mess and should be reformed with a cleaver and mallet, not a scalpel.

9) Military courts should be answerable to civilian courts and follow the same rules. Period. This, to me, is a no-brainer. The fact that the standards of evidence are different in the military and the rules of appeal are different really means that the people we honor most as citizens are stripped of their rights as citizens.

A citizen army is our heritage and we should honor that first and foremost.

10) Anyone colonel or above found engaging in any illegal activity should face federal criminal charges and be tried in a civilian court, period.

I might think of more, but these would seem to be a fair sample of the kinds of things that I think would make the military not only run better, but be better.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Boris, one more thing:

I appreciate your call to "not complain without offering a solution." In general, I agree with this. Unfortunately, the government doesn't ask for my assistance in fixing the things they screwed up in our military.

So, for the most part, all that's left to me is to point out the problems and ask that they fix them.

Someday, when I'm in charge, I'll also find a better way for average citizens to have a say in how the government operates. Our representative form of government has been perverted by the allowance of lobbying and campaign fundraising through parties and organizations.

That's a whole other fundamental flaw in our processes which I feel completely at liberty to complain about -- and to complain about the end results.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
The Air Force actually has implemented a *lot* of TQM procedures. In fact they credit TQM for being able to keep their planes flying so efficiently through the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. I actually T.A.'d for a retired general who taught a managment class at my university who was involved in getting the TQM for the Air Force up and rolling.

The other branches aren't quite as with it in that regard, I'd don't think. I think the Navy has come on board somewhat, but the Army is probably the last bastion of non-TQM thought. But there is also a reason why the Air Force is called the Chair Force and looked down on by the other branches.

AJ

[ March 25, 2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can understand those who want to trust the military leaders and the president. But, frankly, I haven't seen one since Truman or maybe Eisenhower who were at the top of this food chain and still remained sane, honorable, and dedicated to truthfulness.

How about Carter?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I appreciate your call to "not complain without offering a solution." In general, I agree with this. Unfortunately, the government doesn't ask for my assistance in fixing the things they screwed up in our military.
True, but the government doesn't really spend a whole lot of time looking at Hatrack to see what's wrong with the country. However, in giving me solutions to the problem, you convince me and others more of a need to solve the problem. I mean, there are a million people out there who are running around saying "The sky is falling." It gets to the point where it all just becomes white noise. It's the people who give solutions along with the problems that break out of the masses and actually cause changes to occur, even if they are small. I appreciate the time you spent coming up with those solutions. And I like them. Now, to me, your argument has some substance.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged
Member
Member # 7476

 - posted      Profile for Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged   Email Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged         Edit/Delete Post 
And now to lighten the mood, a joke.
quote:
Airman vs. Soldier
There's an Air Force guy driving from McChord AFB to Ft Lewis, and an Army guy driving from Ft Lewis to McChord AFB. In the middle of the night with no other cars on the road they hit each other head on and both cars go flying off in different directions.

The Air Force guy manages to climb out of his car and surveys the damage. He looks at his twisted car and says,....."Man, I am really lucky to be alive!"

Likewise the Army guy scrambles out of his car and looks at his wreckage. He too says to himself, ..... "I can't believe I survived this wreck!"

The Army guy walks over to the Air Force guy and says,...... "Hey man, I think this is a sign from God that we should put away our petty differences and live as friends instead of archrivals"

The Air Force guy thinks for a moment and says,

"You know, you're absolutely right! We should be friends. Now I'm gonna see what else survived this wreck"

So the Air Force guy pops open his trunk and finds a full, unopened bottle of Jack Daniels.

He says to the Army guy, "I think this is another sign from God that we should toast to our new found understanding and friendship"

The Army guy replies, "You're damn right!" and he grabs the bottle and starts sucking down Jack Daniels. After putting away nearly half the bottle the Army guy hands it back to the Air Force guy and says, "Your turn!"

The Air Force guy twists the cap back on the bottle and says, "Nahh, I think I'll wait for the cops to show up."




Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Boris, cool.

In my first supervisory job, my new staff (two people) came in on the first day and told me all their problems. Which was fine. I needed to know.

Weeks later, they were still just operating in the mode of "bring Bob our problems and dump them."

I instituted a policy:

"Don't bring me a problem without also proposing a solution. Even if it's a crappy solution, at least show me that you've spent time thinking about how we should solve it."

I'm not exactly sure how this worked as an OVERT thing. I mean, did I just tick the guys off so much that they stopped wanting to bring me their problems? Or, did they start solving their problems themselves? Or, did we actually solve so many of the problems that they no longer felt the need to complain?

I'd like to think it's the latter.

I mean, we did negotiate to cancel 20 or so "back burner" projects that a previous supervisor had dumped on them with no hope of ever getting them done.

But really, in future I just instituted that rule from the far better expedient of just asking people what they'd like to see as the ideal solution whenever they brought me a problem. Then we work to make that solution happen (assuming it's reasonable, of course) Soon enough, people learn to at least prepare a solution in advance because they get what they want.

So, anyway, I appreciate your challenge.

Cool.

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2