academic argumentative research paper (Centralized Promotions vs. Army Leadership)

Centralized Promotions 5

Running Head: Centralized Promotions vs Army Leaderships

Centralized Promotions vs Army Leaderships

Staff Sergeant, Alberto J. Rivera, US Army

Columbia Southern University

Centralized Promotions vs Army Leaderships

The Topic

Since the beginning of the Senior Sergeant ranks in the Army there has been a strict way of getting to those hard to attain grades of more power, authority, and responsibility. This process is called the Centralized Promotion system. This process takes place once a year for the following ranks; E7 Sergeant First Class (SFC), E8 Master Sergeant or First Sergeant (MSG or 1SG), and E9 Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major (SGM or CSM). This process does not happen as often as the unit level board because of the amount of time it takes for this to commence and end. This promotion system is designed to select the most qualified to led our fighting force against all enemies foreign and domestic. With this selection it also separates those that have gone above and beyond the expectations of their ranks to demonstrate they uphold the fines traditions of the Army which have exceeded the standards of their current position showing they have portrayed the magnitude of leadership needed to perform at these levels. But with this in mind there’s always the influence that the leadership has over these candidates that are eligible for promotion.

The Controversy

The issues that have happened in the past is some of the Soldiers that where eligible for these types of promotions where being promoted on a “buddy hook up” basis. If your packet and DA Photo came across the board voter’s desk and they recognized you they would place your packet on the “promote now” list. Rather than compare and voting fairly against other eligible candidates that might have been better than you or been more qualified than them. Since there is no proof besides the evaluations that the service member is or is not substandard, then anyone can just get promoted. This is the reasoning behind a lot of Soldiers ending their time of service, or receiving chapters with failures to adapt. Toxic leadership is the end result of the wrong person getting pricked for promotion. Also the board members voting do not know you from any other regular Soldier unless they have served with you prior to your board packet coming before them. In all actuality the process needs to be unbiased when it comes to these evaluations that they are receiving prior to submitting their paperwork before the promotion board. This is where the Chain Of Command comes in. their job is to annotate and track your performance during a year of rated time. These evaluations are supposed to be fair and precise to their performance in which we know is not the case. Chains where at one point scared to give bad ratings that could destroy or hinder ones career. Now with the new evaluation form there is more than one way to fairly rate and articulate ones performance in numerous sections to ensure all equality is met. Given that the rater or evaluator knows what he or she is doing.

Pro Side of the Controversy

There is still an upside to this whole “Centralized Promotion” ordeal. It’s now been revamped and the standards to be met are harder than before. Now your rating chain has to show precise proof that you have not been performing at that next level needed for advancement. At that point it will be annotated in your evaluation. But keep this in mind not everyone will have the same rating anymore. The new evaluation system has a narrative section for both rater and senior rater. Those sections allow them not to write about your accomplishments during that year period but it gives them an opportunity to describe you in their own words to the board members so they can see you in your absence. Not all people can write but they sure can express themselves about you personally. Which can make for a tie breaker between different candidates that are of equal achievements. This was not viable on the old forms used because everyone could just get a rating or 1 over 1 which means you walked on water. Not those are gone and the blocks are: did not meet standard, met standard, exceeds standards and most qualified or top block. Not everyone will get those because a rater and senior rater will have to build up to those based on the amount of time they have had leading or rating. Which makes it even harder to compete. So now you literally have to walk on water to receive that block. So since no one is God there will be more people that will disqualify themselves. I speak from experience that when your rater or senior rate do not like you, you will not advance. It has happen to me with a rater that did not have the same outlook of career advancement or care as I did for the mission or myself.

The Con side of the Controversy

The problem with this is that now there will be more of the shading of your battle buddies theme going on. Also this give your chain more ammunition to destroy you by any means necessary. The Army will only keep those that actually perform at the top. But how do you determine what that is if there are no standards outline to be met. This powerful form can give the rater the crushing tool they need to have you removed or considered for termination of service. I’ve seen this happen on more than one occasion when someone does not see eye to eye with their senior. Even if they do everything that is required the rater can still write his or her own opinion based on personal thoughts and feelings (which we are not supposed to do) and once that is submitted it is in stone. There is a rebuttal and challenge process which takes it to the seniors of the division and it starts investigations and then you will see what the true outcome will be for that rated individual and rater. There still needs to be some guidelines in which a rater must meet before being assigned over an individual for their career management. Not everyone can handle the responsibility of someone else’s career. If they have not met the training to become one.

Tentative Thesis Statement

Promotions should be based on potential, achievements, motivation, leadership skills, and unit enhancement. The new evaluation form does reflect all of these where the old one does not. But the raters now need to know that they are also held to the fire if they do not hold up their end of the mentorship process needed to develop the junior leaders into what they need to become. They have allot of influence and power careers so they need to be careful of what is at stake. Rated soldiers need to know the process of rebutting and maintain their records accurate to avoid these issues with their raters. Board members need to look into the soldiers files deeper when they see potential instead of word of mouth. Anyone can write something great but the background that backs it is there as well for revisal.