English composition 2

Centralized Promotions vs Army Leadership

Literature Review

The army like other organizations promote their members. They do so through three systems (semi-centralized, centralized and decentralized) with each system having benefits and setbacks. This literature review aims at illustrating centralized promotion system in the army. It explores on this system of promotion from the past to date. Credible sources such as books and journals are used to enlighten us on centralized promotions and army leadership. They help to illustrate the pros and cons associated with centralized promotions. They help us evaluate how disconnection and discontinuity in the promotion process render the centralized promotion system a broken system.

In January 1969, centralized promotion to E-7 through E-9 began in the army. It broke the traditionally old unit promotion system (The Sergeants Major of the Army, n.d). It aimed at bringing about equity and a uniform procedure for promoting major sergeants and master sergeants. Promotions using the centralized system during this time were done locally based on updated records. A vacancy was essential though not a must in order for a member of the U.S army to get a promotion. A slot for promotion could exist from retirement, death or firing. For instance, a sergeant major could retire creating a slot for promotion. However, today a vacancy must exist to create room for promotion in the U.S Army.

In the centralized promotion system, the Army decides which enlisted members are to be promoted E-7 through E-9 (Soldiers Manual, 1977) These promotions are conducted at the Army Personnel Headquarters. Unlike in the decentralized system where the unit is responsible for promotions, the centralized system does not give the unit or battalion any power to influence the promotion process. Additionally, promotions here do not require a minimum time-in-grade for one to get promoted. However, the soldiers must meet certain time-in-service requirements to qualify for promotions. These include the Sergeant Major (E-9) and First Sergeant (E-7) to have a minimum service time of between 6 -8 years accompanied with great experience at their job (Army, 1958). This denies soldiers who have worked for less than 6 years the opportunity for promotion at E-7 through E-9.

A Centralized Promotion Board consisting of a minimum of five members foresees the promotion process. Separate panels of the board members review and score enlisted soldiers promotion records (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions, 2015). The promotion records comprise of military records of soldiers such as duty positions, educational accomplishments, performance reports, and disciplinary action records and military training among others. The board members evaluate these records and score each record to determine whether a solider deserves the promotion or not. Those who qualify are assigned a promotion sequence number based on seniority.

The centralized promotion system has advantages such as soldiers being promoted based on performance records and experience. This gives soldiers through E-7 to E-9 equal opportunity for promotion (The Sergeants Major of the Army, n.d). Additionally, it has a Centralized Promotion Board to ensure that the promotion process is fair to enlisted soldiers. The board members review the enlisted soldiers’ records before agreeing on promoting or not to promote him. This helps prevent biasness since the board members collectively agree on who to promote or not to promote based on merit. They base their decision on evidence, in particular, soldier’s promotion records.

One key disadvantage of the centralized promotion system is toxic leadership that could influence the decision made by the board members (Zwerdling, 2014). Personal interests and attitudes could affect the process of evaluating soldiers for promotions. Some board members could base their arguments on orders from above. This will influence the promotion decisions made rendering the process unfair. Favourism of certain applicants will prevent fair promotion. Such actions could break careers for certain people who are determined to serve in the military until they retire. Lack of a decision framework creates room for such unethical practices (Campbell et al., 2011).

Another challenge is the difficulty of getting a promotion for not meeting the time-in-service requirement. This means that those at low ranks who do not have good performance records may stay at their job position for years without getting promoted that is quite de-moralizing. Lee (2007) argues that those who served in the military at high ranks are more likely to get promotions because of the opportunities they have for developing skills. Serving in the army at a higher rank increased a soldier’s probability of moving up the ladder compared to those at lower ranks. This challenges the notion of equity and fairness in the promotion process.

Additionally, the promotion process is quite costly as it uses resources such as time and money. Centralized boards for promotions range from 23 to 30 days (Kosovo, 2000). This is a lot of wasted time used in finding the right soldiers to promote. This time could be used to address other meaningful pressing issues in the army.

Promotion within the army transformed from electing officers to earning it by merit that is not an easy task. The centralized promotion system is often used to select a qualified soldier for a higher rank based on his performance record. However, the disconnection and discontinuity in the promotion process renders it a broken system. Despite the system being in place since 1969, much needs to be done to make it effective in promoting soldiers in the U.S Army. Like a coin with two sides, the centralized promotion system has both setbacks and benefits within the army. It is beneficial in that a board foresees the promotion process and base it on merit. This minimizes chances of biasness that are common in many organizations. However, the disconnection and discontinuity in the process influences promotion of soldiers.

Introduction

Promotions in the army within the course of service occur just like in all other organizations. Soldiers are promoted from time to time based on several factors including performance, academics and years of working in certain positions among others. Three systems used when promoting soldiers are; centralized, decentralized and semi-centralized. The centralized promotion system is considered suitable for promoting soldiers fairly through E-7 to E-9 based on records. However, some consider it a broken system with the decision-making process being a key challenge. The centralized promotion system uses soldiers’ military records to determine whether or not they deserve a promotion. Additionally, a board of at least five members is established to oversee the promotion process that is based on merit. They evaluate an eligible soldier for promotion based on performance reports, duty positions, disciplinary action records, and educational accomplishments among others. It is quite unfortunate that the board members decisions can be influenced leading to unfair promotions. All the same, a well-designed centralized promotion system should help promote soldiers accordingly to the next rank. However, the broken system is not the most suitable system for promoting soldiers. The disconnection and discontinuity in the promotion process renders the centralized promotion system a broken system.

References Army. (1958). Army, volume 9. Association of the United States Army. Campbell, A., Kunisch, S., & Muller-Stewens, G. (2011, June). To centralize or not to centralize? Retrieved from McKinsey Quarterly: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/to-centralize-or-not-to-centralize Enlisted Promotions and Reductions. (2015). AR 600-8-19 02/02/2015 Enlisted Promotions and Reductions. Us Department Of Defense. Kosovo, P. (2000, December 21). Preparing for a centralized selection board while deployed. Retrieved from Association of the United States Army : https://www.ausa.org/preparing-centralized-selection-board-while-deployed Lee, C. (2007). Military positions and post-service occupational mobility of Union Army veterans, 1861–1880. Explorations in Economic History, 44(4): 680–698. Soldiers Manual. (1977). Soldier's manual: dental laboratory specialist, skill levels 1/2. Department of Defense, Department of the Army. The Sergeants Major of the Army. (n.d.). Government Printing Office. Zwerdling, D. (2014, January 06). Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders. Retrieved from npr.org: https://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/259422776/army-takes-on-its-own-toxic-leaders