Why Are Our HQ's Growing and Can They Be Stopped?

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Since I joined this site way back in the early 2000's, there has been one standard theme that has run through many, many threads. 
That is the general disgust at the growth of various HQ's, and the amount of valuable money they suck up that could be used for equipment and/or training.

I wanted to start a thread solely on why, after all these years, do they seem to continue to grow?  Do folks conveniently forget once they reach one of them that they used to rail against them?
Is there some 'inner circle' [if you will] that are just looking out for their buddies?  Does the thought of slower promotion and/or no longer having a job make change impossible?

It just seems very hard to swallow that a topic is always somewhere in a thread here on army.ca can not be known by those whom might be able to afford change, and yet after all these years of reading about 'cutting HQ's' being the answer, we seem to be worse off then we were years ago.
Is the Canadian taxpayer being sold out by those who would profit from the abundance of 'lack of command' command's?

I know this topic can be, and has been, part of many threads in the past but I'd like one on the "why's' we can't accomplish what seems to be an almost unanimous consensus for a long, long time here.

 

[Old Sweat]

It must be in our collective military DNA. An old saying goes along the lines of if you put three Canadian officers together in a room, they will create a headquarters. Some of it might be pen_s envy at not having a large enough military to actually field a proper formation structure, some of it might just be the tendency of Type A personalities to want to take charge, and maybe there is some fascination in being part of a giant self-licking ice cream cone.

 

[GR66]

My personal gut feeling is that it's ultimately due to a lack of clear direction as to what the CF is expected to be able to do.  We seem to operate under the assumption that the current CF should be structured in a way to be able to rapidly expand to become a WWI/WWII style (multi?) divisional field force using that same basic structure as our forces already in existence.  I think this is pure fantasy.  We don't have the equipment available to field and maintain in combat even a single fully-equipped division in a peer-vs.-peer conflict.  Vehicles (and aircraft, and ships, and missiles) are so complex now that we can't pump them out of our factories to rapidly build our forces (or replace our combat losses) in the same way as we did in the past and we don't have the money/willingness to stockpile enough vehicles/equipment/munitions in advance to support a force of this size.

If we ever are faced with full-scale mobilization I think either we're going to either have to deploy a smaller (Brigade Group) sized force and maintain it with Reservists and by stripping equipment from the various units of the Reg Force.  Ultimately if the conflict goes on long enough to eat through our available equipment/manpower we will have to come up with a new force structure based on what replacement equipment is actually available. 

If this is the case then our organizational/command structures should be based on the more realistic scenario of a single deployed Brigade Group.  If and when full mobilization ever becomes necessary we should build the new structures to support whatever form of mobilization we're able to support at that time.  We're wasting money now on provisional structures for a what-if scenario that will likely not suit the situation we face at the time it comes anyway. 

The same is true of our military capabilities in general.  We cut funding for various pieces of kit and essentially lose the physical capability in that area (or maintain a very bare-bones capability) but we maintain an organizational/command structure to support that capability I guess in hopes that funding for the kit/Person Years returns or if we need to mobilize and recreate that capability. 

The government needs to produce new and realistic Foreign Policy and Defence White Papers which clearly define what is expected of our military.  Absent that our military leadership has to stand up and say to the government that given the funding that we have we can no longer offer the following capabilities and will restructure the CF to focus on those capabilities we are able to maintain.

With more clarity the CF can focus it's energies on mastering those capabilities we decide to maintain.  The organizational/command structures can then be rationalized to support these capabilities.  At the very least it will allow outsiders to point at the current structures and say "why do you need x commands/HQ to support capability y", etc.  With open-ended priorities and capability requirements you can justify almost anything.

 

[Remius]

Those are good points GR66 but I would also go one step further and blame our culture of careerism and how overranked our system is.  I think it was ER Campbell in another post that indicated that many of our GOFOs are overanked for what they do.  Seeing it first hand I tend to agree.  It's almost as if we are creating positions and groups just to justify the rank levels we have.  Should General's be in director level positions?  How many staff jobs could be better served by the PS? Or vice versa?  I'm convinced that some jobs could in fact be accomplished by Majors and LCols rather than Generals or Colonels for that matter. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Over two years ago, I think Prime Minister Harper gave DND a chance ~ even direction ~ to "cut the fat" and, I suspect to escape much, much deeper cuts. The DND top level management: the previous MND, Peter MacKay, former DM Robert Fonberg and then CDS Gen Walter Natynczyk thought he could be ignored. My prsonal guess is that they were wrong and that some of the deep budget cuts in 2013 and 2014 are, in fact, punitive ... pay back, if you like, for not cutting where Prime Minister Harper directed. (It would not be the first time a PM punished a department.)

 

[Old Sweat]

Over two years ago, I think Prime Minister Harper gave DND a chance ~ even direction ~ to "cut the fat" and, I suspect to escape much, much deeper cuts. The DND top level management: the previous MND, Peter MacKay, former DM Robert Fonberg and then CDS Gen Walter Natynczyk thought he could be ignored. My prsonal guess is that they were wrong and that some of the deep budget cuts in 2013 and 2014 are, in fact, punitive ... pay back, if you like, for not cutting where Prime Minister Harper directed. (It would not be the first time a PM punished a department.)

I think you are probably correct, but I would add the department couldn't or wouldn't organize a sensible procurement system for major projects. This caused the government considerable embarrassment over fixed wing SAR, F35, various ship building fiascos, the inability to buy trucks, etc, etc. Instead DND seemed to concentrate of layering bureaucracy onto an already obese structure. If there was a BMI for organizations, National Defence would be at 35 or 36.

Shoot, look at the honours and awards system compared to what we had in the two world wars and Korea. It can take years to get an award approved after it makes its way through multiple committees when it should go from commander to commander until it finally reaches the GOFO authorized to approve or reject the recommendation.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Top heaviness is a big problem, everywhere.

The solution?

First, let's fire all the managers, of course:

http://www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/RTOCT12/GreenHBRarticle.pdf

 

[The Bread Guy]

Top heaviness is a big problem, everywhere.

The solution?

First, let's fire all the managers, of course:

http://www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/RTOCT12/GreenHBRarticle.pdf

Thing is, though, that those who make the "restructuring" decisions are very unlikely to say, "yeah, you don't need me".*

* - I've only seen this happen once in watching municipal politics for 10+ years, where the manager of a sort-of arms-length group said, "Your Worship, Council, your options are A - cutting x staff or B - cutting me and my sidekick, and merging the group into a larger, already-existing municipal organization."

 

[Old Sweat]

That's why cuts have to be arbitrary and imposed by the top down with a distribution by rank so that the seniors do not escape. There also should be as little wiggle room as possible or the bureaucracy will produce a ton of papers, work studies, dire predictions, etc proving that the cuts will actually damage the organization. There have been efforts to reduce organizations that actually resulted in the targeted groups growing after they proved their indispensability. (Is indispensability a real word?)

 

[dapaterson]

(Is indispensability a real word?)

Clearly we need an executive level working group to study this issue and identify recommendations that can be ignored for years.  I think national hearings (in 5 star hotels) are in order.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Clearly we need an executive level working group to study this issue and identify recommendations that can be ignored for years.  I think national hearings (in 5 star hotels) are in order.

Or a Royal Commission!  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Even in the PS, the people you want to cut are very good at protecting their butts, because that is job #1 for them, which is why frontliners take the heat because protecting their jobs from their bosses is why down the list of things to do.

Basically make everyone deployable, send them to the North, cut comms for 2 weeks and see what happens, starting handing pinkslip to anyone not missed as they get off the airplane.

 

[dapaterson]

Basically make everyone deployable, send them to the North, cut comms for 2 weeks and see what happens, starting handing pinkslip to anyone not missed as they get off the airplane.

Problem is that it's very easy to fire the people who are responsible for long term planning - since there's no immediate impact.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The actual business of forcing change is simple. The MND, for example, can direct a major overhaul of the command and control, superstructure including, for example, a reduction in admirals and generals from about 1 X Gen, 10 X LGen 25 X MGen and 60 X BGen (which is about what we have today) to, say, 0 X Gen (a cosmetic change designed to send a message) 5 X LGen (including the CDS) 20 X MGen and 40 X BGen. (That's a 35% reduction.) The reason the MND can, confidently, direct such a change is that there is no right organization for the C2 superstructure, especially not with regard to rank structure. Some structures are better than others, of course, but one thing a proper C2 superstructure should not be is "bloated," as ours certainly appears to be.

The key to finding a better rank "fit" is to examine the first level executive in our system. It seems completely self evident, intuitively obvious to me, that a ship's captain (commander) regimental CO (lieutenant colonel) and RCAF squadron CO (lieutenant colonel) is our first level executive rank. BUT in our HQs the first executive level is Capt(N)/Col; re-rank all those Capts(N) and Cols to Cdr/LCol and, suddenly, you see a huge change and an almost natural downwards progression in rank at the higher levels.

Now, a downward change in ranks is NOT going to save money - in fact it is likely that Cdrs/LCols and above will all get pay raises to compensate them for increased (upward) responsibilities. But, a cut in 35 GOFOs and, say, 35 more Capts(N)/Cols should give us money to hire one company of infantry or the crews for two or three AOPSs.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and yet for the last 13 years I've heard "we need" or "we're bloated" and yet, in times of fiscal responsibility, nothing gets done.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think it will take some will on the part of very senior leadership, despite all the braying and screeching of bureaucrats - both military and civilian.

 

[x_para76]

IMO it's because we're not a wartime military anymore. We went over 40 years between proper conflicts in this country and as result we lost what was important in regard to how a military should be run.

 

[PMedMoe]

very senior leadership

And why just them?  Why not ask some of our "junior" leadership?  Today, I found out our positions were moving because there's no work where we (for us as a trade) are.  I told them that three years ago, and I'm sure someone told them before that.  Exception being those who took advantage of it.  Google "empire building"....everyone is doing it now.  And it makes me want to puke.  :-X

 

[a_majoor]

A plan for the brave (since whoever does this will essentially be doing a Kamakazi run and be outcast for the remainder of their careers):

1. Do "Operation Paperchase" to identify and eliminate useless paperwork, reports and returns in the system. Then eliminate the jobs of the people who look after that paperwork.

2. Have an outside military organization audit the CF to clearly identify the bloat and school the Minister on "best practices". The USMC is one possible auditor, but the Royal Marines, the Armed forces of Singapore or even Australia are also good choices (similar cultures of small fitting forces with limited resources).

3. Have another outside auditor of the CF's logistics and procurement systems. In this case I would look to the commercial world: WalMart or Amazon.com, for example

The Minister can almost certainly do number one on his own and at any time. Methodologies like "Six Sigma" can help identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies. Outside auditors and the resulting restructuring would be very difficult and potentially drawn out processes (as GOFO's and bureaucrats have to be fought hand to hand in the corridors of power, and they will be fighting to the last taxpayer...), but with enough willpower, it could be done.

The bonus is that clearing the decks this way would actually bring far more value for money; even if we don't get any more actual cash the money we do get will go a lot farther than before, which should be a good "hook" for the political process to get started (getting a much more capable military for the same price as we pay now can only be seen as a good thing).

 

[GAP]

Who gets to define the parameters?

Anyone with a vested interest (political/military/commercial) is going to protect their own breadbasket.