What is the purpose of "up or out"?

[Peter Knutsen]

A thought I had, a day or two ago, is that a military system could possibly reward dilligent service with highly visible decorations (that is, decorations worn daily, as opposed to only on special occasions) and better living quarters (in GURPS terms, the equivalent of being supported at a fractionally higher Cost-of-Living), and of course higher pay and a better retirement arrangement.

That is, instead of promoting specialists to generalist-sergeants, you honour them by making the expert specialists, eventually even elite specialists. Likewise if a company-level NCO or officer appears to be well suited for that job, he could be honoured explicitly, instead of being promoted to a staff position where he might not do all that much good.

Of course, that's really just a different form of up-or-out. A specialist who gets neither promoted to sergeant nor honoured to expert specialist, must eventually get the boot of forced retirement. Likewise even an expert specialist can't stay onboard forever (unless there's a shortage of whatever his specialty is) but must make elite specialist or get booted.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

reward dilligent service with highly visible decorations and better living quarters , and of course higher pay and a better retirement arrangement.

These are promotions, and one reason there's been so much rank inflation. You don't really need all those shades of enlisted, NCOs, and officers just for command-and-control reasons. E-2's don't manage teams of E1's, and teams of E-2's aren't in turn managed by an E3. All those ranks exist so people can get periodic recognition, with finer granularity in what's essentially the same role. Rank insignia are your visible everyday decorations.

[cosmicfish]

I think what he is looking for is different than a conventional promotion, however. One of the problems with contemporary militaries is that they combine command responsibility and skill performance effectively into a single metric and reward based on that. A mediocre Sergeant is paid the same as an exceptional Sergeant, and is considered more highly skilled than an exceptional Corporal, for example. There have been a few nods towards this inequity between specializations (such as bonus pay for special ops) but otherwise it is addressed purely through informal respect. I think Monsieur Knutsen is looking for a system where the above is NOT the standard.

One system that I had set up a few years ago treated rank, rating, and performance independently where possible. Rank was a function of leadership and management, and was shown uniquely as rank insignia. Rating was a function of skill breadth and depth, and was shown uniquely as a special skill insignia. Performance was a function of character more than anything else, and was shown as decorations and awards. All three contributed to pay and to "peacetime" accommodations.

Some examples:

Lieutenant Able has a decade experience* as an engineering technician and then officer, was adequate but not exceptional in his technical skills but was a solid leader. He wears Lieutenant's bars on his collar, a few decorations on the left side of his chest, and a few "basic" skill badges on the right side. He is well paid and has comfortable off-base accommodations typical of an officer of his rank.

Chief Baker has two decades experience as a radioman where he was in the top 10% by skill evaluation, and performed with heroism and leadership in combat. He wears chief's stripes on his sleeves, the insignia of an Expert Radioman on the right side of his chest, and a host of decorations on the left side. He gets a pay bump for his expert rating, and because he was named a member of the Order of Merit he has a private luxury apartment near his home base.

Torpedoman Charlie has only been in a few years, and despite a near total lack of leadership skills he has demonstrated astonishing proficiency with his trade. He wears only 3rd class stripes on his arm (giving him no authority over people) but has the large and gaudy insignia of a Master Torpedoman on the right side of his chest - the left side is nearly empty, as his performance in combat has been highly skilled but not showing much character otherwise. He gets a big pay bump for his skills, and is sought after as a practitioner and teacher, but gets little respect otherwise.



*: My scenario did NOT use up or out, and required officers to reach at least E-4 or such before applying for a commission.

[Anaraxes]

Most companies I've worked for have (or claim to have) both a technical and a management track. The technical track rarely gets as much use as the management track. And it's not just bias of managers toward their own. There's a limit to how much you can do by yourself, and how awesome you can be. At some point, you have to start influencing other people to get things done with you. But that's a management function.

Motorola (not one of the companies I've worked for) had a system where the employee badges were colored gold, platinum, etc, depending on how many patents you had. Patent count is a pretty narrow metric, but you can imagine the same system based on more general critera. Though I'm not sure I'd want people to wear their performance review scores on their sleeve.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Most companies I've worked for have (or claim to have) both a technical and a management track. The technical track rarely gets as much use as the management track. And it's not just bias of managers toward their own. There's a limit to how much you can do by yourself, and how awesome you can be. At some point, you have to start influencing other people to get things done with you. But that's a management function.

I find that funny because the last President of my company was talking to a few of us and said "management produces nothing - it just clears the way for those that do!" At my company the pay divergence between technical and management doesn't really kick in until you are at the VP level - we have a few engineers making mid-to-high six figures.

At the same time, one problem that companies are seeing now is that it is getting harder and harder to get/retain innovators when you are treating them as inferiors. Fewer corporate engineers pursue patents now, because they know their employers won't reward them for it. Instead, if they think they have a good idea, they leave and start their OWN company!

[moldymaltquaffer]

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

You're missing a very important piece of the puzzle or two.

A professional standing military is a bureaucracy. "Up or out" gives the bureaucracy a great way to deal with those troublemakers who would upset the status quo.
See also, Mitchell, Boyd, etc.
It also works at the low end of the scale. If you've earned Sgt, but you're still stuck as a terminal Lance, you aren't going to re-up when your contract expires. Young staff NCOs have a great deal of latitude in selecting who their future rivals for promotion will be. And they do take full advantage of this.

It's also official US military doctrine that people are interchangeable cogs, especially in the lower ranks. If you excel and exceed, that makes you difficult to replace. That's considered a bad thing, especially if you're in an MOS that expects high casualty rates.
Doing so also makes you a threat to the NCOs and Staff NCOs bucking for promotion as mentioned above.
It can also easily segue into undermining the authority of your superiors. After all, you'll almost certainly have more training in your MOS than your officer does, and if you've made an effort at it, you're even farther ahead. But he's the one in charge, and he must be deferred to, even when he's clueless and possessing of a massive chip on his shoulder.

Granted, my experience was in the peacetime military. The past decade+ may have changed things for the better.
Or not. If there's one thing bureaucracies are known for, it's inertia.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by moldymaltquaffer

You're missing a very important piece of the puzzle or two.

A professional standing military is a bureaucracy. "Up or out" gives the bureaucracy a great way to deal with those troublemakers who would upset the status quo.
See also, Mitchell, Boyd, etc.
It also works at the low end of the scale. If you've earned Sgt, but you're still stuck as a terminal Lance, you aren't going to re-up when your contract expires. Young staff NCOs have a great deal of latitude in selecting who their future rivals for promotion will be. And they do take full advantage of this.

It's also official US military doctrine that people are interchangeable cogs, especially in the lower ranks. If you excel and exceed, that makes you difficult to replace. That's considered a bad thing, especially if you're in an MOS that expects high casualty rates.
Doing so also makes you a threat to the NCOs and Staff NCOs bucking for promotion as mentioned above.
It can also easily segue into undermining the authority of your superiors. After all, you'll almost certainly have more training in your MOS than your officer does, and if you've made an effort at it, you're even farther ahead. But he's the one in charge, and he must be deferred to, even when he's clueless and possessing of a massive chip on his shoulder.

Granted, my experience was in the peacetime military. The past decade+ may have changed things for the better.
Or not. If there's one thing bureaucracies are known for, it's inertia.

You just described my military service, during the same decade ('90s).

[cosmicfish]

I just wanted to add that part of the purpose of Warrant Officers in the modern US military is to sidestep the worst losses from "up or out". There is still mandatory promotion timelines but the selection rate is >90% for most fields and ranks, compared to comparable enlisted ranks that may be <30%.

[Stormcrow]

I thought "Up and Out" was the button you pushed when you wanted to fly your glass elevator out of your chocolate factory.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by rust

Well, Germany's Bundeswehr does. It does not make that much sense to re-
move someone who is really good at his job from his post, especially when it
comes to posts where long term experience proves to be valuable.

especially how well liked the changing of garrison for families/spouses is.

Weekend relation or driving for hours combined with older than 25 No Place in the Barracks