Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors

[Nostix]

Therein lies the problem with the frequently heard "If you don't like it, you can always leave".

The most skilled and developed talent within an organization can actually afford to leave, while poor performers usually stay where the jobs are secure.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Therein lies the problem with the frequently heard "If you don't like it, you can always leave".

The most skilled and developed talent within an organization can actually afford to leave, while poor performers usually stay where the jobs are secure.

Hey, I'm still in the room man...  ;D

 

[Towards_the_gap]

An interesting and cautionary reminder that downsizing does not always mean keeping the best and brightest:

Military Brain Drain

The Pentagon's top brass is driving away all the smart people.

In his recent book Bleeding Talent, Tim Kane joins a growing chorus of serving and former junior officers to deliver a wake-up call to today's military leadership in the face of a major drawdown. Their message: If you ignore the expectations of today's young, combat-experienced leaders as you shrink the force, your most talented officers and sergeants will exit, stage left.

The military bureaucracy's response? "Good Riddance."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/13/military_brain_drain

Equally applicable to the CF........

 

[McG]

Equally applicable to the CF........

Except that the CAF is not undergoing force reductions.
We do need to reallocate PYs out of HQs, but that does not reduce the force.

 

[GnyHwy]

Therein lies the problem with the frequently heard "If you don't like it, you can always leave".

The most skilled and developed talent within an organization can actually afford to leave, while poor performers usually stay where the jobs are secure.

I'm not buying this one entirely.  Yes it is likely true to an extent, but the talent at the top of any rank level is not separated by that much.  Sure there may be some rockstars that come a long, some go, some stay.  They got that recognition by ending up in a position where they were able to shine, and good on them that they did, they performed a great service.  The thing is, there was probably a handful of other persons that are right behind them that could have performed the same or better if the circumstances had been there.  For every "top" guy there is five or six nipping at their heels, with another dozen or so that have potential to be right up in the mix.

The current or very near "what can you do for me" generation where subordinates expect their bosses to answer to them will eventually burst their own bubble.  Right around the time that these subordinates start becoming bosses themselves and the next generation comes in asking "what can you do for me".

If a few "ubertalents" want to move on, then great for them, I will even help them out.  There are many more willing and capable persons to do the job. 

 

[Jed]

I'm not buying this one entirely.  Yes it is likely true to an extent, but the talent at the top of any rank level is not separated by that much.  Sure there may be some rockstars that come a long, some go, some stay.  They got that recognition by ending up in a position where they were able to shine, and good on them that they did, they performed a great service.  The thing is, there was probably a handful of other persons that are right behind them that could have performed the same or better if the circumstances had been there.  For every "top" guy there is five or six nipping at their heels, with another dozen or so that have potential to be right up in the mix.

The current or very near "what can you do for me" generation where subordinates expect their bosses to answer to them will eventually burst their own bubble.  Right around the time that these subordinates start becoming bosses themselves and the next generation comes in asking "what can you do for me".
If a few "ubertalents" want to move on, then great for them, I will even help them out.  There are many more willing and capable persons to do the job.

Good insight there, GnyHwy. The rockstars from this generation will no doubt undergo attitude adjustments.

 

[Nostix]

I'm not buying this one entirely.  Yes it is likely true to an extent, but the talent at the top of any rank level is not separated by that much.  Sure there may be some rockstars that come a long, some go, some stay.  They got that recognition by ending up in a position where they were able to shine, and good on them that they did, they performed a great service.  The thing is, there was probably a handful of other persons that are right behind them that could have performed the same or better if the circumstances had been there.  For every "top" guy there is five or six nipping at their heels, with another dozen or so that have potential to be right up in the mix.

The current or very near "what can you do for me" generation where subordinates expect their bosses to answer to them will eventually burst their own bubble.  Right around the time that these subordinates start becoming bosses themselves and the next generation comes in asking "what can you do for me".

If a few "ubertalents" want to move on, then great for them, I will even help them out.  There are many more willing and capable persons to do the job.

The last two posts outline the two most common problems with this topic perfectly.

Whenever this is brought up, it is immediately thought to only be the domain of people with a poor, self-centered attitude. We say that anyone who thinks about leaving must automatically think too highly of themselves, and that they're not actually worth worrying about retaining as an organization. In some cases, this is certainly true. But in a lot, it's just a poor way of deflecting the issue, and avoiding any sort of internal discussion.

The second is that we commit the fallacy of thinking "A body is a body". If number one leaves, number two is almost as good and can fill in.  That only works on a small scale, within the performance of a single job. On an organizational level, for every person from the top 5% you lose, you're bringing in someone who is average.  Yes, whatever talent you have in the organization will be able to rise that much more quickly, but you're still left with a large performance gap from where you should have been.

The military will always be able to get the job done, regardless. But we're certainly not making it any easier on ourselves.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I would also add that the 'rockstars', as you so dismissively put it, are not leaving because the CF won't do enough for them, but rather they are leaving because they find themselves beating their heads against an immovable leviathan of mundanity that sees change, innovation and an ability to risk-take as things that must be avoided so that they get a good PER this year, get promoted and carry on one more year to pension age.

I have seen some very awesome, capable and intelligent majors/capts and Sgt/WO's say 'screw this' and either go work in the public sector or go SF. But I guess they are just replaceble numbers eh?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you are looking to avoid "immovable leviathan of mundanity that sees change, innovation and an ability to risk-take as things that must be avoided" types, don't join the PS, the risk aversion of the current crop is breathtaking. Mind you in the big companies that same risk avoidance is climbing quite steeply as well.

 

[GnyHwy]

The last two posts outline the two most common problems with this topic perfectly.

Whenever this is brought up, it is immediately thought to only be the domain of people with a poor, self-centered attitude. We say that anyone who thinks about leaving must automatically think too highly of themselves, and that they're not actually worth worrying about retaining as an organization. In some cases, this is certainly true. But in a lot, it's just a poor way of deflecting the issue, and avoiding any sort of internal discussion.

I don't know how you inferred this from what I wrote, but OK, I'll bite.  If they are thinking about moving on then they must see themselves better employed somewhere else.  So whether that is self centered or not, they clearly see themselves above what they are currently doing.  As far as deflecting the issue?  There is a lot more "internal discussion" about retention than you may think, particularly with western soldiers where there is plenty of work.

The second is that we commit the fallacy of thinking "A body is a body". If number one leaves, number two is almost as good and can fill in.  That only works on a small scale, within the performance of a single job. On an organizational level, for every person from the top 5% you lose, you're bringing in someone who is average.  Yes, whatever talent you have in the organization will be able to rise that much more quickly, but you're still left with a large performance gap from where you should have been.

I'm not saying that number two is "almost" as good.  I'm saying they ARE as good.  Anyone who thinks they are not replaceable needs to get over themselves.  Also, I'm not seeing the performance gap you are talking about.  Anyone who has been involved with a merit will tell you that there are very fine lines between the placings, which is why 1 point can make a difference.

I would also add that the 'rockstars', as you so dismissively put it, are not leaving because the CF won't do enough for them, but rather they are leaving because they find themselves beating their heads against an immovable leviathan of mundanity that sees change, innovation and an ability to risk-take as things that must be avoided so that they get a good PER this year, get promoted and carry on one more year to pension age.

I have seen some very awesome, capable and intelligent majors/capts and Sgt/WO's say 'screw this' and either go work in the public sector or go SF. But I guess they are just replaceble numbers eh?

I did not mean rockstars in a bad way.  If I meant it as bad I would have called them hollywood.    I get your point about change and innovation, but it's not so easily done.  By the time someone comes up with a good idea, the several layers above them have already set a plan into action.  Should they change everytime the good idea fairy comes along?  The good idea fairy comes along way too much as it is, and causes unnecessary change and complexity that ultimately accomplishes the same goal, just in a different way.

Another thing about ideas for change is that a lot of times these ideas have already been thought of and even tried, only to have someone else come along with their good idea and eventually you come full circle back to the original way.  If you have ideas then pass them up, but don't expect to get them all implemented.  I say if you can get even a few passed then you are doing pretty good, and don't take it personally for the ones that didn't get passed.  A fallacy I see when peoples ideas get shot down is assuming that the system is broken rather than being critical of their own idea and admitting that their baby is ugly.

Are they just replaceable numbers?  I say yes!  To say no to that would be to discredit and diminish the lineup up of persons who are waiting for the opportunity that this person doesn't realize they have.  And, if they're are truly that good, head and shoulders above and beyond everyone else, irreplaceable, and practically the second coming, then we can't afford them anyway.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you are looking to avoid "immovable leviathan of mundanity that sees change, innovation and an ability to risk-take as things that must be avoided" types, don't join the PS, the risk aversion of the current crop is breathtaking. Mind you in the big companies that same risk avoidance is climbing quite steeply as well.

And amen said the choir......

I hate "Safety First".  It is right up there with "The Precautionary Principle".

 

[dapaterson]

I have an issue with folks who are unwilling to commit to make change.  Yes, it's long and hard to do it.  But do we want institutional leaders who look at things and say "too hard, I don't want to do it."?

I have more than a little frustration with certain folks who enjoy complaining about the way the CF is run, but who fight tooth and nail to avoid being posted to HQs where they could (a) influence change or (b) understand how things got to the way they are, and what the constraints are.

Leadership is sometimes doing the crappy jobs that need to get done, not the easy jobs that lead to glory and plaudits.

 

[ARMY_101]

One of the major points of his report was the inability of commanders to effect change. The commander will say "X has to changem, I want it to be Y" and the staff will say "yes, sir. We will get to it" and then wait until he is posted. A prime example is the fact that even though the directive from the government is to make cuts to the admin side and not touch the operational or training side, the bureaucrats and agreeing with them, then doing what ever the hell they want.

Disgusting. Completely unacceptable.

Why do we even need a public service-DND anyway?  Just create one "Department of Public Safety" headed by one minister and a few associate ministers.  This department would take care of correctional services and national security, as they do now (e.g. CSIS), plus National Defence.  Or, do the opposite: merge the current Public Safety into a Department of National Defence (or, if "National Defence" is deemed too-military like, a Department of Homeland Security?  > )

The expeditionary, overseas fighting and killing would still be left to Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel, but the backroom administration (DND's sole mandate is to "support" the CAF) would be absorbed and rationalized.

 

[Monsoon]

Disgusting. Completely unacceptable.

Why do we even need a public service-DND anyway?  Just create one "Department of Public Safety" headed by one minister and a few associate ministers.  This department would take care of correctional services and national security, as they do now (e.g. CSIS), plus National Defence.  Or, do the opposite: merge the current Public Safety into a Department of National Defence (or, if "National Defence" is deemed too-military like, a Department of Homeland Security?  > )

The expeditionary, overseas fighting and killing would still be left to Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel, but the backroom administration (DND's sole mandate is to "support" the CAF) would be absorbed and rationalized.

To be fair, DND/CAF is almost as big as the rest of government put together (bigger in some respects). The opposite case to yours could be made: that it's "too much department" for just one minister with functions that should be broken-out, not merged-up. Don't know where I sit on the issue and I see merit to both points. I gather that in your view, the CAF should exist as a semi-independent government agency like CSIS or the RCMP, and thus entail less public service overhead. But I think that much of what's wrong with DND/CAF is the fact that Treasury Board guidelines and a lot of other policies are designed with much smaller government entities in mind (think Canadian Heritage, with a budget just north of $1B). The sheer scale of DND/CAF in comparison to that design ideal is the problem, and I don't know that making the CAF an agency vice a department would change that - for instance, the same Treasury Board guidelines would apply.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Plus they don't have the politics of community base employment, big honkin procurements. You could expand the CE's to be a bit more like the Seebee's, during peacetime, they do most of the base maintenance, but then get deployed and support the forces in the field by building FOB's, KAF's LAV friendly Tim Horton's drive throughs  etc,etc. Of course the garrison will have to accept lesser service or contract to have service covered during the deployment. However as mentioned the "Empire's death star" (aka TB) will fight ooth and nail to ensure the stranglehold of it's polices are maintained of the CF.

 

[Jed]

Plus they don't have the politics of community base employment, big honkin procurements. You could expand the CE's to be a bit more like the Seebee's, during peacetime, they do most of the base maintenance, but then get deployed and support the forces in the field by building FOB's, KAF's LAV friendly Tim Horton's drive throughs  etc,etc. Of course the garrison will have to accept lesser service or contract to have service covered during the deployment. However as mentioned the "Empire's death star" (aka TB) will fight ooth and nail to ensure the stranglehold of it's polices are maintained of the CF.

I am of the opinion that this would be a more efficient model for the CAF. Good luck changing the civilian and military politics to take this approach, though. The civilians won't like the loss of unionised employment and loss of financial control and the pointy end military will consider the CE troops somewhat higher up the ladder rungs then PAT platoon and several rungs lower than pilots or combat arms troops, and maybe one or two rungs lower than Maintenance techs. 

 

[TCM621]

Disgusting. Completely unacceptable.

Why do we even need a public service-DND anyway?  Just create one " of Public Safety" headed by one minister and a few associate ministers.  This department would take care of correctional services and national security, as they do now (e.g. CSIS), plus National Defence.  Or, do the opposite: merge the current Public Safety into a Department of National Defence (or, if "National Defence" is deemed too-military like, a Department of Homeland Security?  > )

The expeditionary, overseas fighting and killing would still be left to Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel, but the backroom administration (DND's sole mandate is to "support" the CAF) would be absorbed and rationalized.

For the sale of fairness, the problem isn't just with the public service. During the MOSART review a few years ago, it was discovered that every single bit of the NAVCOMM occspec was covered under some other trades occspec. The plan was created to split the trade up and put people in various other trades based on their desires and aptitudes. So no longer would you have a guy who joined to be on the upper decks stuck in a hole fixing computers or a IT guy doing flashing light Morse code. It was widely accepted amongst the rank and file. However, as soon as Mosart was killed the snr  pers were ecstatic. An email from the Moc advisor circulated saying saner heads have prevailed, no change. It lead to a lot of remusters, early retirements and releases. Not an enormous amount but enough that it was noticed. The military is inherently resistant to change so is government bureaucracy. It is a bad mix and has been part of the reason the CF hasn't recovered from Trudeau.

 

[a_majoor]

Had an interesting conversation toda. Someone asserted that something on the order of 11,000 CF and DND positions were identified as surplus, overlapping or redundent in Ottawa alone several years ago.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this figure is in the ballpark, we have seen multiple efforts over the years, from LGen Leslie's report to the Government's direction to reduce administrative overhead, yet administration costs still apparently increeased 27% last year alone (according to CTV News yesterday). This is unacceptable for many reasons, but mostly since it indicates that there is no effort to follow direction from the civilian or departmental leadership on this issue. I have no idea if this is sabotage, negligence or incompetence (or all three), but some high level people have to be thrown on their swords over this or there will NEVER be any movement on this issue.

</rant>

 

[Monsoon]

This is unacceptable for many reasons, but mostly since it indicates that there is no effort to follow direction from the civilian or departmental leadership on this issue.

Do you really believe that? I just spent a good chunk of the afternoon sifting through the neo-byzantium that is the Treasury Board Travel, Hospitality and Events Guidelines to try to figure out if something we're going to do is an "event" or not (if it is, there's some not-entirely-clear reporting that needs to happen). Fact: the new "event" regulations came about because someone had the great idea of trying to clamp down on wasteful travel and conferences. The bad news is that the regulatory mechanism to do this contains the kind of hair-splitting that makes arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin look tangibly practical. You need staff college and a postgraduate degree to figure it out, yet the reporting requirement has been farmed out to every nook and cranny of DND. Not only will the guidelines not prevent wasteful conference activities, but there's been an increase in overhead burden caused by the regulatory framework that was supposed to reduce the waste.

This wasn't caused by a lack of effort to follow through on the political will, it was caused by not knowing how to create the right incentives to achieve that will. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

 

[dapaterson]

Not a credible source.  There are not 11K surplus / overlapping folks in NDHQ; I do not have an org chart in front of me, but that number is oversized.

The Leslie report is not a credible source either.  He invented his own definitions, and his own financial model, so nothing in his report can be compared to existing baseline data., or to future data.  Convenient way to avoid argument or discussion: invent your own method that has never been used before and will never be used again.


Looking at the PBO report: There is no granularity or detail; merely two numbers without context as to how they were derived.  "Internal Services" is a bit of a catch-all; according to the VCDS, it includes:

Governance and Management Support 5.1.1
  Management and Oversight 5.1.1.1
  CF Readiness Management and Oversight 5.1.1.2
  Communications 5.1.1.3
  Legal 5.1.1.4

Resources Management Services 5.1.2
  Human Resource Management 5.1.2.1
  Financial Management 5.1.2.2
  Information Management 5.1.2.3
  Information Technology 5.1.2.4
  Travel and Other Administrative Services 5.1.2.5

Asset Management Services 5.1.3
  Real Property 5.1.3.1
  Material 5.1.3.2

Source: http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=7769

So, spending on systems such as DRMIS would be attributed here.  I suspect things such as the cash-out of leave for civilians (and possibly military) would be attributed here; acknowledge that military severance was not paid out in 12/13, but I believe the department began earmarking the funds in 12/13.  Alternatively, it could be costs related to the settlement of the SISIP class action suit.  Of course, the media would have to ask intelligent questions, and not merely say "Oh, look, 27%!"

Certainly, a 27% increase is a good sound-bite.  Too hard, I guess, for the media to do anything more than look at the PBO's spreadsheet (where, for the record, it's 27.8% more, so if they're rounding, they've done it wrong).  PBO spreadsheet is at: http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/Savings_Breakdown_Program_Activites_P6FINAL.xlsx