New Army recruitment campaign

Perhaps two year is a result of having too many ranks and having to jump the right hurdles to promote.
Not really (or remotely!) likely since promotion doesn't come every two years.

Far more likely, like four month and 6 month tours, someone just plucked a number out of thin air for all the wrong reasons (assuming there were reasons) and the Army's been stuck with it ever since however counter-productive it might be.
 
Wouldn’t the recruiting partnership have gone a whole lot better if those who deemed the concept had implemented it?
At last ..... back to hanging the guilty bar-stewards out to dry.

Unarguably, in the form of Nugee, he did deem the concept and implement it.

Despite the protestations to the Defence Council that those who "signed off" on the RPP had all left without being promoted (probably technically true) Nugee was Director of Manning (Army) in March 2009, Director General of Army Personnel in June 2012, Defence Services Secretary and Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) in March 2015, became Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (People) in June 2016 and is now Chief of Defence People.

Apart from a year out as CoS in Afghanistan in 2014 he's been deeming and implementing the concept for the past ten years.

His predecessor as Chief of Defence People was Andrew Gregory, who had previously also been Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (People) (then titled Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel and Training)) and also previously Director General Personnel - also hauled in front of the Defence Committee for failures in recruiting and retention (in 2008 ).

DG Personnel is specifically "in charge of both setting personnel policies and ensuring on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief the delivery of those policies across the Army."

The problem isn't posting on after two years, but it's down to total incompetence, denial, and absolute self-interest.
 
At last ..... back to hanging the guilty bar-stewards out to dry.

Unarguably, in the form of Nugee, he did deem the concept and implement it.

Despite the protestations to the Defence Council that those who "signed off" on the RPP had all left without being promoted (probably technically true) Nugee was Director of Manning (Army) in March 2009, Director General of Army Personnel in June 2012, Defence Services Secretary and Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) in March 2015, became Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (People) in June 2016 and is now Chief of Defence People.

Apart from a year out as CoS in Afghanistan in 2014 he's been deeming and implementing the concept for the past ten years.

His predecessor as Chief of Defence People was Andrew Gregory, who had previously also been Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (People) (then titled Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel and Training)) and also previously Director General Personnel - also hauled in front of the Defence Committee for failures in recruiting and retention (in 2008 ).

DG Personnel is specifically "in charge of both setting personnel policies and ensuring on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief the delivery of those policies across the Army."

The problem isn't posting on after two years, but it's down to total incompetence, denial, and absolute self-interest.
I think you’ll find the architects of RPP were Mark Mans, then Adjutant General and Dickie Davis who was Director Army Recruiting. The former retired to a non-exec directorship with Capita.

No matter; you perhaps sub-conciously hit the nail with your quote on DG Personnel’s responsibilities; setting and ensuring delivery of policy. He doesn’t actually execute.

The missing link is effective programme and project management. Something as complex as RRP needed an experienced, A-list PM with a track record of delivering similarly complex projects. That PM needed to be properly empowered and put in place from kick off to steady state.

You simply cannot implement big, complex projects effectively on a posting plot. Form the project team and keep it together until the project is finished.

To be clear, the project phase was start up to steady state. It’s now about operational management. The skill sets required are very different.
 
Last edited:
No matter; you perhaps sub-conciously hit the nail with your quote on DG Personnel’s responsibilities; setting and ensuring delivery of policy. He doesn’t actually execute.
So how do you differentiate between the two?

If you limit responsibility to those who "actually execute" then you're down to those manning the AFCOs and the terminals.
 
Not really (or remotely!) likely since promotion doesn't come every two years.

Far more likely, like four month and 6 month tours, someone just plucked a number out of thin air for all the wrong reasons (assuming there were reasons) and the Army's been stuck with it ever since however counter-productive it might be.
For a soldier to make RSM at 20 years service, promotion comes on an average interval of 3.3 years.

Given the reporting cycle, they will select out of a rank after one tour and two reports, even if they don’t actually promote every two years.

At some stage, they will almost certainly spend more than 3.3 years in a rank too, truncating time in a rank somewhere else.

The same is true of officers beyond Lt Col heading for the heights.
 
So how do you differentiate between the two?

If you limit responsibility to those who "actually execute" then you're down to those manning the AFCOs and the terminals.
From a doctrinal programme management perspective (and I’m no fan of doctrine) the VSO is the Sponsor. They’re responsible, amongst plenty of other things, for appointing an appropriate project manager and senior team.

And then the system breaks down. There are no competent PMs capable of delivering something like this. And, if they’re were, they’d be moved on in the interests of the service and, close second, the individual.
 
The missing link is effective programme and project management. Something as complex as RRP needed an experienced, A-list PM with a track record of delivering similarly complex projects. That PM needed to be properly empowered and put in place from kick off to steady state.
You mean someone like the Director General of Service Personnel Policy at the MoD?

Without doing a search, guess which year this came up at the Defence Committee:

"I get the impression as an outside observer of the Ministry of Defence that many of these problems are because you have been living hand to mouth, or hand to boot for so many years, you have been under short term imperatives to cut spending, downsizing has been going on, you have abandoned recruitment drives, there has not been a continuity of recruitment policy, and these short term pressures are the real cause of the problems ..... Come on, you have a chance to blame it on the politicians!
..... You are saying that you will make the targets with the Army and Navy next year but you will only make them because you are downsizing at the same time ..."
 
rom a doctrinal programme management perspective (and I’m no fan of doctrine) the VSO is the Sponsor. They’re responsible, amongst plenty of other things, for appointing an appropriate project manager and senior team.
That's not answering the question, is it @Bob?
For a soldier to make RSM at 20 years service, promotion comes on an average interval of 3.3 years.

Given the reporting cycle, they will select out of a rank after one tour and two reports, even if they don’t actually promote every two years.

At some stage, they will almost certainly spend more than 3.3 years in a rank too, truncating time in a rank somewhere else.

The same is true of officers beyond Lt Col heading for the heights.
@Bob, that goes way beyond spinning the facts! It's also complete bollox! Very, very few ranks will be promoted just on the basis of "one tour and two reports" - the initial recommendation may be based on that, but their promotion certainly won't be except in a very few cases. Promotion to Brig, for example since you mention promotion beyond Lt Col, will be based at least as much if not more on performance as Lt Col than as Col.

The idea that two year tours, which I agree 100% are a poor and inflexible policy, is "a result of having too many ranks and having to jump the right hurdles to promote" is simply untrue - there's simply no link between the two and as usual your 'cause and effect' is baseless spin to support your theories.
 
You mean someone like the Director General of Service Personnel Policy at the MoD?

Without doing a search, guess which year this came up at the Defence Committee:

"I get the impression as an outside observer of the Ministry of Defence that many of these problems are because you have been living hand to mouth, or hand to boot for so many years, you have been under short term imperatives to cut spending, downsizing has been going on, you have abandoned recruitment drives, there has not been a continuity of recruitment policy, and these short term pressures are the real cause of the problems ..... Come on, you have a chance to blame it on the politicians!
..... You are saying that you will make the targets with the Army and Navy next year but you will only make them because you are downsizing at the same time ..."
No I don’t mean someone like Director General of Service Personnel Policy. He or she “directs” policy. He or she doesn’t have the skilllset to implement a complex, multi-disciplinary project. Which wouldn’t be a problem if the MoD employed people who do, but it doesn’t. Those of us who do develop those skills **** off to industry because we’re deliberately ceilinged and then not empowered because we don’t hold the rank.

That's not answering the question, is it @Bob?
@Bob, that goes way beyond spinning the facts! It's also complete bollox! Very, very few ranks will be promoted just on the basis of "one tour and two reports" - the initial recommendation may be based on that, but their promotion certainly won't be except in a very few cases. Promotion to Brig, for example since you mention promotion beyond Lt Col, will be based at least as much if not more on performance as Lt Col than as Col.

The idea that two year tours, which I agree 100% are a poor and inflexible policy, is "a result of having too many ranks and having to jump the right hurdles to promote" is simply untrue - there's simply no link between the two and as usual your 'cause and effect' is baseless spin to support your theories.
Irrespective of how far back the Board looks, the fact is that anyone on the track to the top moves very fast through jobs and they have to achieve two consecutive years of recommendations. Once that’s done,
move on irrespective of the needs of the job.

I was twice moved early from command appointments as soon as I’d earned my two recommendations to make way for someone who needed the opportunity.
 
@bobthebuilder Amongst your recent post I think you may have nailed it but across a number of posts and in fragmented form.

Director General of Service Personnel Policy “directs” policy - well I could "direct" Lloyds Bank but as I don't have the background, skills or knowledge to do so it would be a disaster. That is what we do with VSOs at the moment. The army officer career development delivers some reasonably competent military people some of whom can deliver formation command or staff duties in war. They do not have the background skills, or knowledge to manage or "direct policy" in all but a tiny percentage of the subject areas controlled by the MoD. Combine that with massive untamed ego and a "it was a big boy that ran away" culture and you end up with a manpower crisis, a crumbling defence estate, totally and utterly flawed procurement, poor kit, conditions of service and an upcoming £17 billion pound budget deficit.


Director General of Service Personnel Policy should be an individual identified as having potential for the role in their 20s who are then developed to take on that role as an expert. Too much of a cosy closed shop for rank amateurs at the moment.
 
Apart from a year out as CoS in Afghanistan in 2014 he's been deeming and implementing the concept for the past ten years.
Ten years in Personnel and suddenly develops skillset for operational CoS role? Thats like taking the head of a Travel Company and getting them to run a major engineering company for a short period.
So which one of the two military roles only requires an amateur?
 
No I don’t mean someone like Director General of Service Personnel Policy. He or she “directs” policy. He or she doesn’t have the skilllset to implement a complex, multi-disciplinary project. Which wouldn’t be a problem if the MoD employed people who do, but it doesn’t. Those of us who do develop those skills **** off to industry because we’re deliberately ceilinged and then not empowered because we don’t hold the rank.


Irrespective of how far back the Board looks, the fact is that anyone on the track to the top moves very fast through jobs and they have to achieve two consecutive years of recommendations. Once that’s done,
move on irrespective of the needs of the job.

I was twice moved early from command appointments as soon as I’d earned my two recommendations to make way for someone who needed the opportunity.
I see that in policing and it's not helpful. Get in, tear down your predecessors effort, make your mark and move on (not my words BTW, a Chief Constable at a conference I went to said it). For higher command (think Commander upwards) you want to collect the Triad, (One of: Organised Crime/Major Investigation/Sexual Offences), Counter Terrorism and Professional Standards. If you can bag a change program on the way even better.

Short term-ism is a societal problem and unless you're going to agressively move to an agile delivery model for everything you possibly can (and you can't for some things) then we're going to keep falling short of the things we could do.

Again, can't say anything about the military but from peoples descriptions here the themes are recognizable. Then again, if you didn't need to promote through 10 ranks to be recognized as doing a good job and growing your career maybe you wouldn't need to keep moving people on (see what I did there :cool:)

p.s. It was alluded to that the cops started moving people in an attempt to ensure that teams didn't become overly close in a way that bad behavior could flourish, see Operation Countryman
 
@bobthebuilder Amongst your recent post I think you may have nailed it but across a number of posts and in fragmented form.

Director General of Service Personnel Policy “directs” policy - well I could "direct" Lloyds Bank but as I don't have the background, skills or knowledge to do so it would be a disaster. That is what we do with VSOs at the moment. The army officer career development delivers some reasonably competent military people some of whom can deliver formation command or staff duties in war. They do not have the background skills, or knowledge to manage or "direct policy" in all but a tiny percentage of the subject areas controlled by the MoD. Combine that with massive untamed ego and a "it was a big boy that ran away" culture and you end up with a manpower crisis, a crumbling defence estate, totally and utterly flawed procurement, poor kit, conditions of service and an upcoming £17 billion pound budget deficit.


Director General of Service Personnel Policy should be an individual identified as having potential for the role in their 20s who are then developed to take on that role as an expert. Too much of a cosy closed shop for rank amateurs at the moment.
Agreed 100%, @21st, but Director General of Service Personnel Policy is actually a MoD CS job.
 
Ten years in Personnel and suddenly develops skillset for operational CoS role? Thats like taking the head of a Travel Company and getting them to run a major engineering company for a short period.
So which one of the two military roles only requires an amateur?
Agreed again, @21st. I pointed out Urch's lack of operational experience and was pointed to his time fighting a desk at Northwood!
 
No I don’t mean someone like Director General of Service Personnel Policy. He or she “directs” policy. He or she doesn’t have the skilllset to implement a complex, multi-disciplinary project. Which wouldn’t be a problem if the MoD employed people who do, but it doesn’t. Those of us who do develop those skills **** off to industry because we’re deliberately ceilinged and then not empowered because we don’t hold the rank.


Irrespective of how far back the Board looks, the fact is that anyone on the track to the top moves very fast through jobs and they have to achieve two consecutive years of recommendations. Once that’s done,
move on irrespective of the needs of the job.

I was twice moved early from command appointments as soon as I’d earned my two recommendations to make way for someone who needed the opportunity.
Yes, @Bob, but that's got nothing to do with why the Army has a two year tour system!
 
Again, can't say anything about the military ...
?????
Then again, if you didn't need to promote through 10 ranks to be recognized as doing a good job and growing your career maybe you wouldn't need to keep moving people on (see what I did there :cool:)
Yes. Showed that you can't say anything about the military.

If an officer's been promoted through 10 ranks they'd be a five *, and we only go up to four.

If an OR's been promoted through 10 ranks he'd be a Lt Col and wouldn't have much time left to grow anything before getting his bus pass.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top