# Reducing geographic posting tempo & 3 year Comd terms (from: Benefits Cut...)



## PPCLI Guy (2 Feb 2013)

The real problem is our insistence on moving 20% of the Force every year.  We need to revise our HR model and develop career patterns that only invoke mobility when it is essential to either the military need or the professional development of the member.  I would argue that you can create a useful DCO or OC in an infantry Battalion without them every having to leave (for example) Edmonton.  A CO though needs exposure to the wider Army and CF to understand where his or her unit fits within the bigger picture.  

Many of the HQ staff functions in various HQs do not require routine "refresh" in a field unit.  We de facto already have permanent staff officers - why not codify that?  Indeed, many pers in HQs are quite comfortable where they are....

Bottom line is that we need to be more selective.  Those destined for bigger and better things need to be mobile in order to be exposed to a wider CF.  Garden variety Capts and Majs do NOT need the same exposure, so why not leave them where they are?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Feb 2013)

But...but...but...every officer is a potential CDS!

You can't be suggesting that we actually tell people the truth about their potential to go the distance?


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2013)

The 20% is slightly misleading.

Of that, roughly 1/3 are the off-BTL folks.  That will continue.  There's the ATL as well (where there might be limited economies to find, but the numbers are less); the OUTCAN moves, and the release (or intended place of release) moves.

Once those moves are taken out, it's about 10% of the Reg F trained strength that relocates annually.  Still high, admittedly.


----------



## McG (2 Feb 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Garden variety Capts and Majs do NOT need the same exposure, so why not leave them where they are?


I seem to recall one fairly successful officer comment that it it was the postings and exposure which brought out the more than garden variety in himself during the Capt to Maj period.  I think most of the Army can get that necessary breadth for a Capt in one location, but those units seperated from their brigades will continue to require higher geographic rotations.

I would like to see more time invested in those we see fit to take line billets.  OCs, COs and Bde Comds should all be three year jobs.  Shorter periods would be the exception with high performers leaving faster to fill a higher command or under performers being removed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Feb 2013)

Longer command tours would help somewhat on a lot of levels.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Feb 2013)

3 year command billets for CO/OC and RSM/CSM would be interesting experiment to work with - it could possibly sync command tours to the new 3 year MRP, avoiding this funny problem of all key personnel leave a formation after it has just completed phase (high readiness prep) of the MRP.

Perhaps staff billets need to be examined in this as well - although their can be movement within (say, IMO to G3 Plans), keeping personalities in place for longer than a year may help things.  Some HQs (the CMBGs come to mind) are revolving doors at times.

Moving to 3 years across the board does present some challenges.  It cuts down command oppurtunities by 50% - not that this is a bad thing, considering some of the riff-raff that I've seen take command.  Regiments/Corps would likely need to be more selective.  As well, when you start adding up all the necessary training to go to the top, time starts to become limited.  Take an Armoured Regiment officer who becomes CDS.  He needs to command Troop, Squadron, Regiment, Brigade and Area/Div levels plus an L1 (Army, CJOC).  He's got schooling (French, AOC, JCSP, War College) which all adds up.  As well, he needs to broaden his horizons with staff/training appointments all the way through this.  Add to this those annoying little things called deployments (which seem to freeze things as their are still peacetime venturi to go through upon return) and we start to see why 2 years may be all that is available for Comd tours.

If you add up 6 command levels x 3 that is 18.  Interject ERE staff/training jobs between that is another 15.  Add up that second regimental tour essential for "seasoning" (Adjt, Ops O, Sub-unit 2IC)  We're up to 36.  Add 3 years for the schooling and we're at 39 years.  That gets a 22 year old officer fresh from RMC to the CDS position at 61 years, already CRA'd without even having the chance to be the CDS.


----------



## kratz (2 Feb 2013)

I have observed clerks who have worked in unit only, 
just to carry on with mistakes and errors that were passed on to them from previous staff.

On the other hand, I have met staff who have at minimum worked summer positions in other locations.
Better yet, I have seen the benefit of true open competition for positions every three years. 
New blood and energy, shared ideas and best practices and more often than not providing more current
information on changes to policy or procedures.

Cross training is a strength due to the exposure to other unit's and better ways of conducting business.


----------



## Jed (2 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Moving to 3 years across the board does present some challenges.  It cuts down command opportunities by 50% - not that ...
> 
> If you add up 6 command levels x 3 that is 18.  Interject ERE staff/training jobs between that is another 15.  Add up that second regimental tour essential for "seasoning" (Adjt, Ops O, Sub-unit 2IC)  We're up to 36.  Add 3 years for the schooling and we're at 39 years.  That gets a 22 year old officer fresh from RMC to the CDS position at 61 years, already CRA'd without even having the chance to be the CDS.



Add in a small war and / or a tight economy and all the 3 yr posting business quickly spins beyond control. The system is the way it is because it has proven time and again the only way it functions for the sustainable long term.

So in my humble opinion, put this 3 yr posting idea in the good idea fairy pile and consentrate on sorting out the fair and equitable compensation for frequent moving.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Feb 2013)

Infanteer-

How about just Commanding Officer tours at 3 years and everything else no change?


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Feb 2013)

How does the posting for the RCN and the RCAF work?  Can an e.g. RCAF Pilot get that breadth of experience at RCAF Station Trenton?  Bagotville?  

Moving people "just because" doesn't make sense; however, there are some moves that make perfect sense.  Moving "some" to Ottawa to get that experience (well, the experience they ought to get), perhaps at CFJOC or NDHQ or whereever.  And there are the school houses that need those from the field force to come in and bring in that experience to pass on to the new candidates.  So, NCM and Officer alike, there is a need to move.  How much, however, that remains to be seen.

The alternate is to have 2 RCR be entirely responsible for Infantry Officer Training, and 4 ESR be entirely responsible for Engineer training.  The Vandoos (et al in SQFT) are also responsible for all recruit and officer candidate training in St-Jean.


----------



## kratz (2 Feb 2013)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> How does the posting for the RCN and the RCAF  work?  <snip>



The RCN works as a whole element.  Sailors do not adhere to one ship (Regiment) because in a quick moment they could be 'shared', attached, or posted to another ship. This ability to easily and willingly change unit is foreign to the army's combat arms as they are loyal to their regiment, where a sailor is loyal to the element as a whole, the RCN.

In broad general terms, Techno's suggestion of specialized areas is exactly what the RCN does. There are only three formations and fleet schools in the RCN. Each holds it's own shared role with the purpose to meet the needs of the RCN. If you are a hard sea trade (equivalent to combat arms MOS) it is common to not need to move (allowing to own a house) for 15 yrs+ in the same city and three+ promotions/postings.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Feb 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Infanteer-
> 
> How about just Commanding Officer tours at 3 years and everything else no change?



Well, when you cut that down (and count a few 2 year staff jobs to boot) that would get the example Armoured Officer down 5 years or so, which is about right.

Question is, why only CO tours?  Why would sub-unit or brigade command not receive the same sort of attention?


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2013)

RCN also works off home ports , especially for NCMs.  Thus, with two main bases (sorry, Quebec City) there's a great deal more stability, and it's easier to reduce the movement.

The RCAF suffers from some of the same problems as the army: lots of bases and a need to move some folks around.


Planning the posting plot is part science, part art.  Lots of interdependencies - a single promotion can cascade into multiple moves because of the merit list standings - Bloggins is made a WO, and Jones, the top MCpl, is halfway across the country, so Jones gets promoted and posted because of Bloggins.  With fewer moves, it's possible we'd see more 01 December promotions - folks would spend half a year overranked in their old positions as they were promoted off the old merit lists - and miss out on 6-7 months of increased pay.


----------



## kratz (2 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> <snip>
> With fewer moves, it's possible we'd see more 01 December promotions - folks would spend half a year overranked in their old positions as they were promoted off the old merit lists - *and miss out on 6-7 months of increased pay.*



...and Ottawa is looking to make budget cuts? That half of a year of underpaid can have desired consequences from some quarters.
I am not supporting the idea that comes to mind, but seeing the cutbacks in IR and other benefits, delayed promotions are not too far off either.

This is all hypothetical, but if we are posting it here some 'good idea fairy' has already considered it.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> RCN also works off home ports , especially for NCMs.  Thus, with two main bases (sorry, Quebec City) there's a great deal more stability, and it's easier to reduce the movement.
> 
> The RCAF suffers from some of the same problems as the army: lots of bases and a need to move some folks around.



So, the problem isn't so much posting cycles or progression schemes, but RACF/CA dispersion and the geographic realities of Canada.

The RCN seems to represent the ideal - many units (ships, shore establishments and HQs) confined to 2 bases.  Add Ottawa as the mothership and as a sailor, outside of reserve units, you are largely limited to 3 areas to be posted to.

The superbase, in essence, becomes the solution.  In terms of the Army, Valcartier represents the likely optimal COA.  The entire CMBG and the ATC are located on the base.  If they moved the Area HQ from Montreal, it'd work even better.  One offs like like CFLRS are probably better off canned and recruit training absorbed by existing environmental training centres (Victoria, Borden, Gagetown).

Of course, none of this takes into account the fact that more posting means less corporate memory - would things run better if everybody was left in their job twice as long?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Feb 2013)

On your second point- maybe.  I have also seen the benefit of a new eye being posted into a unit and seeing problems from a new perspective.

As for how many CF installations we have, vs how many we need (and where)- I am quite certain no one has taken a holistic look at this recently At least, and have it survive political input.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Of course, none of this takes into account the fact that more posting means less corporate memory - would things run better if everybody was left in their job twice as long?



In a few of the staff positions that I have had, I would have been the problem if I stayed for a third (in one case a second) year.  You can become stale once you see "the cycle" the third time around....

I would imagine that it is different for command.  No doubt in many cases the incumbent had just mastered the culture of the organisation, and was finally making headway only to have to move on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In a few of the staff positions that I have had, I would have been the problem if I stayed for a third (in one case a second) year.  You can become stale once you see "the cycle" the third time around....
> 
> I would imagine that it is different for command.  No doubt in many cases the incumbent had just mastered the culture of the organisation, and was finally making headway only to have to move on.




I had 2 1/2 years in unit command ~ I was at my most productive in my last year and would have been even more so, I think, in the last six months of a three year tour.

Most of my staff tours were like yours - but it should be (relatively) easy to move good staff officers between challenging jobs in large HQs. The exception was my last job: I was director of a small, highly specialized group for several years, which was a good thing, because two of my successors complained that they were posted before they had even learned the job, after three years in each case. They found that their long-in-the-tooth civvy deputy director (a chap I put in place) was running the place because he was the only person who a) really understood the job, and b) had the confidence of the "clients."


----------



## Ostrozac (3 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The superbase, in essence, becomes the solution.  In terms of the Army, Valcartier represents the likely optimal COA.  The entire CMBG and the ATC are located on the base.  If they moved the Area HQ from Montreal, it'd work even better.  One offs like like CFLRS are probably better off canned and recruit training absorbed by existing environmental training centres (Victoria, Borden, Gagetown).



On the face of it, I agree with you. But I spent quite a bit of time in Petawawa, and I saw a base infrastructure that was creaking and straining under the burden of what was really a quite gradual and phased period of expansion. In some ways, I think that the base road network, buildings, housing and single quarters never really adjusted to the move of 1 RCR to the base, let alone the creation of CSOR and 450 Sqn. Even with the expansion of Pet over the last 20 years, it still has less than half the population of Fort Drum (a rather modest-sized base, by US standards). 

I would love to see us operate 8000 man superbases, giving us many of the advantages that the Navy currently has when it comes to the posting plot. I would certainly be happy to see western area HQ, all the 1 CMBG units, and the western area training centre all on one base.  But I also wonder if we have the administrative ability to build and organize a real super-base, or if the Canadian Army's admin skills fall apart after a base grows too big, which is what my Petawawa experience suggests.

An 8000 man superbase, that has a road network, water system, rifles ranges, single quarters, kitchens, PMQs and POL facilities that were all built for a 2000 man base isn't the ideal solution.


----------

