How to absorb the USMC into the Army and USN

[FJAG]

You just answered all our issues. Double the CAF's budget and problem solved. We don't have to many GOFO's we have too small a budget

Actually we do have too many.

Title 10 section 526 (a)(4) of the US Code authorizes 62 active general officers for the USMC and section 12004 authorizes 10 reserve general officers. So roughly 181,000 active duty Marines and 38,500 reserve ones and roughly 35,000 civilians are commanded and managed by one half of the GOFOs doing the CAF.

 

[quadrapiper]

How much of their tail is handled by admirals?

 

[dimsum]

Actually we do have too many.

Title 10 section 526 (a)(4) of the US Code authorizes 62 active general officers for the USMC and section 12004 authorizes 10 reserve general officers. So roughly 181,000 active duty Marines and 38,500 reserve ones and roughly 35,000 civilians are commanded and managed by one half of the GOFOs doing the CAF.

Why is that though - does the USN take a bunch of the GOFO portfolios? I don't know.

Edit: Basically the same question as @quadrapiper

 

[FJAG]

How much of their tail is handled by admirals?

The same legislation provides that the Navy has a maximum 141 active duty and 48 reserve admirals for a force of 350,000 active duty sailors, 101,000 ready reserves and roughly 200,000 civilians.

Regardless of how you cut it the combined Navy and USMC of some 530,000 active duty, 135,000 reservists and 235,000 civilians are led and managed by a total of 203 active duty and 52 reserve GOFOs. That's roughly 1 GOFO per 3,529 personnel.

We have some 129 GOFOs for a total of roughly 120-130,000 Reg F, Res F and civilians. That's roughly 1 GOFO per 953 personnel.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Actually we do have too many.

Title 10 section 526 (a)(4) of the US Code authorizes 62 active general officers for the USMC and section 12004 authorizes 10 reserve general officers. So roughly 181,000 active duty Marines and 38,500 reserve ones and roughly 35,000 civilians are commanded and managed by one half of the GOFOs doing the CAF.

Agree that we have too many GOFOs, however for accuracy it should be noted that the US Code you quoted continues in section 526 (b) with authorizing an additional 324 general and flag officers for "joint duty assignments". Minimum numbers are assigned by service, with the Navy getting 61 and the Marines 21, though the total of all the minimums add up to only 243 so there are 81 slots that can be assigned without regard to uniform.

Those additional US GOFOs still don't put the USMC into the same realm as Canadian ratios, however most (many?) of the Canadian GOFOs fill positions that are actually "joint".

 

[FJAG]

True enough. Let's try again. This time I'll factor out the civilians because I don't have figures on EX level ones any way.

The US military has 963 authorized Active Duty GOFOs and 422 Reserve ones for a total of 1,385 for 1,36,400 Active Duty and 799,500 Reserve personnel. A ratio or 1,385:2,145, 900 or 1:1,549. Canada has 67,500 Reg F plus 33,000 Res F with 129 GOFOs. A ratio of 129:100,500 or 1:779.

Canada has twice the GOFOs per capita.

 

[CBH99]

True enough. Let's try again. This time I'll factor out the civilians because I don't have figures on EX level ones any way.

The US military has 963 authorized Active Duty GOFOs and 422 Reserve ones for a total of 1,385 for 1,36,400 Active Duty and 799,500 Reserve personnel. A ratio or 1,385:2,145, 900 or 1:1,549. Canada has 67,500 Reg F plus 33,000 Res F with 129 GOFOs. A ratio of 129:100,500 or 1:779.

Canada has twice the GOFOs per capita.

FJAG... <shakes head> You. Oh you. You and your well researched facts...

We've all known we've been pretty damn top heavy for ages now. But to see the numbers above and the subsequent math... Yikes...

 

[daftandbarmy]

FJAG... <shakes head> You. Oh you. You and your well researched facts...

We've all known we've been pretty damn top heavy for ages now. But to see the numbers above and the subsequent math... Yikes...

Luckily there's a meme for that

 

[Blackadder1916]

True enough. Let's try again. This time I'll factor out the civilians because I don't have figures on EX level ones any way.

The US military has 963 authorized Active Duty GOFOs and 422 Reserve ones for a total of 1,385 for 1,36,400 Active Duty and 799,500 Reserve personnel. A ratio or 1,385:2,145, 900 or 1:1,549. Canada has 67,500 Reg F plus 33,000 Res F with 129 GOFOs. A ratio of 129:100,500 or 1:779.

Canada has twice the GOFOs per capita.

And to add to the comparison, while the CAF seems bent on a path of even more GOFOs, the US Congress has taken steps to reduce their numbers.

A couple of excerpts from a February 2018 Congressional Research Service report:
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces: Background and Considerations for Congress

"As of November 1, 2018, there were 891 active duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, which is 72 less than the maximum of 963 authorized by law. There were also another 29 exempt from the statutory caps. The current number is about average for the post-Cold War era, though substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, . . ."

"Grade Limits after December 31, 2022 The FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision, codified at 10 U.S.C. §526a, to reduce the number of GFOs authorized to be on active duty.29 The conference report that accompanied the bill highlighted congressional concerns that the military departments had not demonstrated a willingness to implement GFO reductions directed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2011 and, furthermore, noted the context of significant reductions in personnel strength that occurred in the 2011-2016 time frame. 30 Starting in 2023, §526a will lower the number of GFOs that may be on active duty to a maximum of 620 for Service positions and 232 for Joint positions, a reduction of 111 from the current number of GFO positions authorized by 10 U.S.C. §526."

 

[FJAG]

And to add to the comparison, while the CAF seems bent on a path of even more GOFOs, the US Congress has taken steps to reduce their numbers.

A couple of excerpts from a February 2018 Congressional Research Service report:
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces: Background and Considerations for Congress

"As of November 1, 2018, there were 891 active duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, which is 72 less than the maximum of 963 authorized by law. There were also another 29 exempt from the statutory caps. The current number is about average for the post-Cold War era, though substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, . . ."

"Grade Limits after December 31, 2022 The FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision, codified at 10 U.S.C. §526a, to reduce the number of GFOs authorized to be on active duty.29 The conference report that accompanied the bill highlighted congressional concerns that the military departments had not demonstrated a willingness to implement GFO reductions directed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2011 and, furthermore, noted the context of significant reductions in personnel strength that occurred in the 2011-2016 time frame. 30 Starting in 2023, §526a will lower the number of GFOs that may be on active duty to a maximum of 620 for Service positions and 232 for Joint positions, a reduction of 111 from the current number of GFO positions authorized by 10 U.S.C. §526."

That's a good find.

For me the plethora of GOFOs has nothing to do with their compensation. It's all about the proliferation of staff positions and even further siloing and addition of bureaucratic layers. There is a large amount of bureaucratic friction created as you add more managers. There's even more regulating of the work force and the possibility of conflicting redundancies.

Pretty much every management work study (and D&B is much more into this than me) recommends cutting layers and reducing silos in order to create a more responsive leadership structure.

Canada's CAF is the home of the committee cult. To me that's because rather than centralizing decision making in a clear line, we spread it around a diverse group some of whom have only a peripheral touch on the subject matter. Risk avoidance (and blame avoidance) causes DND/CAF to take far too much time and effort to deal with a matter. At the same time leaders are too far removed and isolated from the shop floor to properly appreciate how their decisions impact the work force.

My aim in reducing GOFOs has little to do with saving a few bucks on their compensation packages. It has everything to do with reducing the bureaucracy that supports them (and their collective pay packages) and creating a sleeker and more responsive leadership.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's a good find.

For me the plethora of GOFOs has nothing to do with their compensation. It's all about the proliferation of staff positions and even further siloing and addition of bureaucratic layers. There is a large amount of bureaucratic friction created as you add more managers. There's even more regulating of the work force and the possibility of conflicting redundancies.

Pretty much every management work study (and D&B is much more into this than me) recommends cutting layers and reducing silos in order to create a more responsive leadership structure.

Canada's CAF is the home of the committee cult. To me that's because rather than centralizing decision making in a clear line, we spread it around a diverse group some of whom have only a peripheral touch on the subject matter. Risk avoidance (and blame avoidance) causes DND/CAF to take far too much time and effort to deal with a matter. At the same time leaders are too far removed and isolated from the shop floor to properly appreciate how their decisions impact the work force.

My aim in reducing GOFOs has little to do with saving a few bucks on their compensation packages. It has everything to do with reducing the bureaucracy that supports them (and their collective pay packages) and creating a sleeker and more responsive leadership.

Most management structures exist for a reason.

The problems with siloeing start to pile up when you don't continually review the reasons for those structures and adapt them to meet new requirements.

Government structures are harder to demise/adjourn/adapt/renew based on emerging needs because human resources, and their associated processes and IT infrastructure, are notoriously 'inflexible' for a variety of reasons. Compared to their private sector counterparts, public sector leaders are also vastly undertrained and poorly selected for that type of leadership role in an environment that prizes constancy and loyalty over speed and effectiveness.

 

[FJAG]

Most management structures exist for a reason.

The problems with siloeing start to pile up when you don't continually review the reasons for those structures and adapt them to meet new requirements.

Government structures are harder to demise/adjourn/adapt/renew based on emerging needs because human resources, and their associated processes and IT infrastructure, are notoriously 'inflexible' for a variety of reasons. Compared to their private sector counterparts, public sector leaders are also vastly undertrained and poorly selected for that type of leadership role in an environment that prizes constancy and loyalty over speed and effectiveness.

I think one of the key reasons they become 'inflexible' is because public sector agencies are virtually impossible to performance measure. Most private ones are assessable as against their contribution to profit. Government agencies generally set their performance criteria on esoteric intangible attributes that can't be assessed against any meaningful metrics. See here if you want a chuckle:

Departmental Results Report 2019-2020 - Canada.ca

Table of contents/Index Page

www.canada.ca

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think one of the key reasons they become 'inflexible' is because public sector agencies are virtually impossible to performance measure. Most private ones are assessable as against their contribution to profit. Government agencies generally set their performance criteria on esoteric intangible attributes that can't be assessed against any meaningful metrics. See here if you want a chuckle:

Paradoxically, the military is an excellent example of a 'nimble' public sector agency... as long as you're talking about those organizations that are more 'front-line oriented'...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The concept of "who are we serving" was a constant topic on 20 years of being in the regulatory business. If I am reviewing a project to determine if I can issue a permit and what the Terms and Conditions might be, is my client the proponent, the Minister, the Taxpayer, the First Nations or the people that live, recreate and work in the area to be impacted by that work?

 

[daftandbarmy]

The concept of "who are we serving" was a constant topic on 20 years of being in the regulatory business. If I am reviewing a project to determine if I can issue a permit and what the Terms and Conditions might be, is my client the proponent, the Minister, the Taxpayer, the First Nations or the people that live, recreate and work in the area to be impacted by that work?

Clearly, this dynamic is unique to the public sector and one of the biggest challenges in managing any project.

It's fun to work with a group to process map that out, and watch the eyes get wider as people realize the important stakeholders they might be unintentionally ignoring in favour of the 'squeaky wheels'.

As you know, one of the biggest issues they're facing these days is the retirement of the more experienced leaders, who can't be replaced, who know how to balance these things out. You can't buy that kind of skill and knowledge with an algorithm.

 

[FJAG]

As you know, one of the biggest issues they're facing these days is the retirement of the more experienced leaders, who can't be replaced, who know how to balance these things out. You can't buy that kind of skill and knowledge with an algorithm.

You can build it through mentoring which fosters leadership cloning itself in its own image. Frequently that is not a good thing.

What is sometimes needed is a governing board that can recruit a "new direction" CEO from outside. Not an option for the CAF whose only source is an incestuous inbred pool. That may sound a little harsh but what else can you say about a leadership that finds advancement within the existing culture? It tends to be married to the existing structure whether right or wrong.

We do send some senior people out to work in the headquarters of our allies to get some exposure to and an understanding of other systems and we do have some very bright leaders, unfortunately too many of them get beaten down by the mediocracy and limitations that the system imposes.