• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

You should bring a couple of hundred colleagues to one of these conferences about 'Transforming the Public Service' and get the juices flowing:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/conf/public-hr/default.aspx

The reply to conference titles like this should, of course, be: 'into what?'
 
Cutting staff is attractive if you can eliminate an entire organization.Cutting staff spaces is somewhat counterproductive.In the case of the US Northern Command if you cut the headquarters entirely you could achieve some cost savings.The supporting commands could remain but command could be shifted to another existing headquarters.I argue that in this day and age with real time communications,this would be alot easier than 40 years ago.
                                                                                             
http://www.northcom.mil/
 
Various and assorted parties go on and on ad nauseum about "HQ bloat" and improving the "tooth to tail" ratio.  However, what is often neglected is that none of this "bloat" has been put in place by accident, nor has it just materialized out of some void.  I will never say that there is no room to rationalize and redistribute HQ functions in order to make things more efficient and cost effective, but I will never agree that wholesale cuts across the board are the best way to do this.  Another common complaint throughout this forum is the amount of time it takes to get things processed by HQs.  Do folks not see the disconnect here?  If you hack and slash the personnel in HQs, you also reduce the service levels of the output coming out of those HQs.  Furthermore, I find it laughable that the government has mandated cuts at these levels when in many cases, the increased bureaucratic BS that has been mandated by this same government (e.g. Ministerial approval for routine cocktail parties) are a direct cause of much of the "bloat" (i.e. all the staff functionaries required to ensure that all the nonsensical T's are crossed and I's dotted).
 
Pusser said:
Another common complaint throughout this forum is the amount of time it takes to get things processed by HQs.  Do folks not see the disconnect here?  If you hack and slash the personnel in HQs, you also reduce the service levels of the output coming out of those HQs. 
Click to expand...
Or, if you eliminate a layer of HQ in its entirety, then you speed the process as there is one less link in the chain to handle, sit-on, process (or mailbox), and send on its way. 

We have QR&O, CFAO, DAODs, etc that put the power to make decisions or to give recommendations direct to the appropriate authority in Ottawa, so let's allow CO's to get on with the lion's share of commanding their units and remove the fingers of intermediate layers of staffs.
 
Pusser said:
Various and assorted parties go on and on ad nauseum about "HQ bloat" and improving the "tooth to tail" ratio.  However, what is often neglected is that none of this "bloat" has been put in place by accident, nor has it just materialized out of some void.  I will never say that there is no room to rationalize and redistribute HQ functions in order to make things more efficient and cost effective, but I will never agree that wholesale cuts across the board are the best way to do this.  Another common complaint throughout this forum is the amount of time it takes to get things processed by HQs.  Do folks not see the disconnect here?  If you hack and slash the personnel in HQs, you also reduce the service levels of the output coming out of those HQs.  Furthermore, I find it laughable that the government has mandated cuts at these levels when in many cases, the increased bureaucratic BS that has been mandated by this same government (e.g. Ministerial approval for routine cocktail parties) are a direct cause of much of the "bloat" (i.e. all the staff functionaries required to ensure that all the nonsensical T's are crossed and I's dotted).
Click to expand...

So you are sdvocating that we put in place more HQ?

For the size of our forces, we are entirely to heavy on HQ, HQers, and all the baggage that goes with it.

How ironic you use a cocktail party as an example as something HQs struggle to get approval for.  For those of us in operational units trying to complete the military missions, let me say HQ types facing reduced numbers of cocktail parties have our heart-fuckin-felt sympathies.

But, with a reduced social calendar, maybe these folks will have more time to "work", thus reducing their "processing times".

::)
 
Pusser said:
Various and assorted parties go on and on ad nauseum about "HQ bloat" and improving the "tooth to tail" ratio.  However, what is often neglected is that none of this "bloat" has been put in place by accident, nor has it just materialized out of some void.  I will never say that there is no room to rationalize and redistribute HQ functions in order to make things more efficient and cost effective, but I will never agree that wholesale cuts across the board are the best way to do this.  Another common complaint throughout this forum is the amount of time it takes to get things processed by HQs.  Do folks not see the disconnect here?  If you hack and slash the personnel in HQs, you also reduce the service levels of the output coming out of those HQs.  Furthermore, I find it laughable that the government has mandated cuts at these levels when in many cases, the increased bureaucratic BS that has been mandated by this same government (e.g. Ministerial approval for routine cocktail parties) are a direct cause of much of the "bloat" (i.e. all the staff functionaries required to ensure that all the nonsensical T's are crossed and I's dotted).
Click to expand...

Strategy shapes structure, and our new fearless leader needs to move us from a 'structuralist' to a 'reconstructivist' approach (there, you've had your ration of jargon today  ;D)

https://hbr.org/2009/09/how-strategy-shapes-structure

In our case, I know that our Bde HQ - for all the dissing we do - keeps us from running off a variety of cliffs largely because the majority of the units are not all that competent at staying out of trouble. They help us address some significant leadership, capacity and corporate competency deficits .... but don't ever quote me on that
 
Routine cocktail parties? Perhaps if the RCN's efforts were geared towards ship replacements instead of drinks on the aft deck we wouldn't have no afloat support capability.


With a dozen Halifax class frigates, one clapped out destroyer, twelve MCDVs and four submarines, does the RCN need the number of admirals it has?  The number of formations it has?  At first blush, if everything were to be put to sea under a single commander, it looks like a nice collection for a single Commodore.

Similarly, a three Brigade Regular Force Army sounds a lot like a Division, commanded by a Major-General.  How many pilots do we need for the nubmer of aricraft we operate - and why do we pay a premium to pilots when they aren't flying?  There are plenty of places to compress and reduce within the ECSes, before we even start asking: An Intelligence Command?  Really?  Isn't the Provost Marshall the security officer - why is there another person in that position?  And so on down the line.

Mind you, fewer officers might reduce the turnout at the cocktail parties...
 
For having 5 army divisions, two air force divisions and two fleets you would think the CAF was 200x its actual size. Though it seems we have the officers to support that many formations, not the troops or equipment
 
You may aswell lump CADTC in to give the Army a total of 6 "divisions."
 
Pusser said:
Various and assorted parties go on and on ad nauseum about "HQ bloat" and improving the "tooth to tail" ratio.  However, what is often neglected is that none of this "bloat" has been put in place by accident, nor has it just materialized out of some void.  I will never say that there is no room to rationalize and redistribute HQ functions in order to make things more efficient and cost effective, but I will never agree that wholesale cuts across the board are the best way to do this.  Another common complaint throughout this forum is the amount of time it takes to get things processed by HQs.  Do folks not see the disconnect here?  If you hack and slash the personnel in HQs, you also reduce the service levels of the output coming out of those HQs.  Furthermore, I find it laughable that the government has mandated cuts at these levels when in many cases, the increased bureaucratic BS that has been mandated by this same government (e.g. Ministerial approval for routine cocktail parties) are a direct cause of much of the "bloat" (i.e. all the staff functionaries required to ensure that all the nonsensical T's are crossed and I's dotted).
Click to expand...

I will disagree with you about the size of headquarters slowing down the decision making process. The reality is since each part of the HQ needs to justify its position or be justified (i.e. why do you have this in your organization), everyone *must* weigh in on any decision. This leads to long and convoluted staff meetings, gigantic PowerPoint slide decks, email chains ten pages long and all the other horrors we so often see and hear about (trust me; I was a minor staff weenie at a Brigade HQ for a while). The net effect of that is to create an OODA loop the size of a ferris wheel (or as another preceptive person described it, a Ptolemaic system of nested wheels) where everything is slowed down. The quality of decision making isn't proportional to the number of people being thrown at the problems (one only has to look at procurement or project management to understand this), as the saying goes, you don't make a baby in one month by assigning nine women to the problem...

I cannot disagree with you that there are external factors as well; jumping through hoops of fire to put on a cocktail party is hardly the best use of resources (looking at it from either direction), and the amount of "external" paperwork has grown geometrically in the last decade or so; which also causes no end of issues.

Still, we don't need these vast HQ's to manage cocktail parties, and scaling them down to reflect the true scale and scope of the CF will make the actual HQ organizations both more efficient internally (small, fast OODA loops) and tactically viable as well (when 1 CAN DIV deploys right now they have a total manning of about 450; close to the size of an entire Infantry battalion packed into a relatively small space. One incoming AA/AD strike by a ballistic or cruise missile will take out a significant amount of manpower and resources (tentage, IT equipment, generators, vehicles etc.), and is big enough to make it a worthwhile target.)
 
Thucydides said:
Still, we don't need these vast HQ's to manage cocktail parties, and scaling them down to reflect the true scale and scope of the CF will make the actual HQ organizations both more efficient internally (small, fast OODA loops) and tactically viable as well (when 1 CAN DIV deploys right now they have a total manning of about 450; close to the size of an entire Infantry battalion packed into a relatively small space. One incoming AA/AD strike by a ballistic or cruise missile will take out a significant amount of manpower and resources (tentage, IT equipment, generators, vehicles etc.), and is big enough to make it a worthwhile target.)
Click to expand...

If the enemy knew anything about the CF they'd know it would do more good then harm to take out that much excess HQ elements.....just sayin. On the serious size there is no reason a HQ element should be larger then the sub units it commands.
 
I am of the view that your HQ doesn't grow because you are busy - you are busy because you let your HQ grow....
 
To be completely fair to the RCN- the cocktail party thing in foreign ports are largely imposed upon them by DFAIT.

Unfortunately, The RCN ends up doing their paper work for them.... ::)
 
Eye In The Sky said:
So you are sdvocating that we put in place more HQ?

For the size of our forces, we are entirely to heavy on HQ, HQers, and all the baggage that goes with it.

How ironic you use a cocktail party as an example as something HQs struggle to get approval for.  For those of us in operational units trying to complete the military missions, let me say HQ types facing reduced numbers of cocktail parties have our heart-******-felt sympathies.

But, with a reduced social calendar, maybe these folks will have more time to "work", thus reducing their "processing times".

::)
Click to expand...

Not at all, but we do need to "right-size" them and that does not necessarily mean reducing them across the board.  I would tend to agree that there are too many HQs, but it is also important to remember that Canada is a huge country and in some cases an additional HQ is warranted, not because of the numbers of personnel or the amount of equipment involved, but rather because of the geography.  Perhaps the amount of naval assets in Canada's arsenal don't warrant two rear-admiral formation commanders, but the 5000 km of rocks, sand and grass between them does.

I would also agree that there are sometimes too many individuals in the chain who have to have their input before a decision is made.  We don't necessarily need more officers in HQs (especially senior ones), but I think a few more worker bees would actually improve things.  We have too many situations where some functions simply cease to progress whenever someone gets sick, takes a course or goes on leave.

Never underestimate the value of a good cocktail party and I'm talking about the ones put on by operational units, not HQs.  A lot of business gets done at those things, not to mention the fact that they are often a diplomatic requirement imposed on the CF by outside sources.  However, they shouldn't require the same amount of planning, preparation and bureaucratic BS as the Op OVERLORD.
 
This is an excerpt from an actual email I received, which goes on in nauseating detail down to to what fonts I am allowed to use on a signature block. If there are people who have the time and energy to carry out tasks like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert, then there are clearly far too many people inhabiting the food chain:

To All:  On 1 Apr 15, a DWAN wide msg was issued with regards to the pending role out of a new email system and the requirement to conform to the Treasury Board directive on signature blocks. At the bottom of this email is a copy of that instruction for reference. There have been a number of questions generated from across the formation with regards to personalization or modification of the format. The short answer is no, modifications are not allowed. Detailed below is clarification of the email signature block requirement.

1.  Corps or affiliations are not authorized;

2.  Post nominals from the Canadian Honours system are authorized, but things like PMP, MCSE, etc. that are industry certifications are not authorized;

3.  Quotes are not authorized;

4.  Cellular numbers provided on government-approved devices can be included as a secondary telephone number and identified by the abbreviation "Cel:" in English or "Tél. cell. : "in French and separated by a ‟/”;

5.  Customizing signature blocks (e.g. font change, type size) is not permitted;

6.  Email signatures must be applied to all emails sent, including replies;

7.  The following requirements apply to the presentation:
a.  Sans-serif font style, such as Verdana, Calibri or Arial.  Sans-serif is a category of typefaces that do not use serifs, small lines at the ends of characters.  Popular sans-serif fonts include Verdana, Calibri, Ariel, Helvetica, Avant Gard and Geneva.  Serif fonts include Times New Roman, Courier, New Century Schoolbook and Palatino, are not authorized.  It is up to individuals to ensure they are using a sans-serif font if not choosing any of the types outlined above.

8. Etc
Click to expand...
 
Thucydides said:
This is an excerpt from an actual email I received, which goes on in nauseating detail down to to what fonts I am allowed to use on a signature block. If there are people who have the time and energy to carry out tasks like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert, then there are clearly far too many people inhabiting the food chain:
Click to expand...
That is from external to DND.  It is TB's excess capacity and not ours that is on display.
 
Thucydides said:
This is an excerpt from an actual email I received, which goes on in nauseating detail down to to what fonts I am allowed to use on a signature block. If there are people who have the time and energy to carry out tasks like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert, then there are clearly far too many people inhabiting the food chain:
Click to expand...

Somebody in your org is reading something that isn't there.  For example, post-nominals are not mentioned in the policy and would therefore be forbidden.

For anyone interested, or anyone in need of a sleep aid, the whole nauseatingly verbose policy can be found at http://tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=27600.  See Appendix E for the the policy on signature blocks.

And yes, if TB has people who have so little to do that they can come up with this noise, they can send a few people over to DND - my section is down two positions and I'm getting a little tired of three people trying to do the work of five.
 
DND's example was non-compliant.  The TBS policy is that the font is in all black.  The example's e-mail address was blue, not the policy-compliant black.

Was DND deliberately directing a non-compliant signature block?  ???


 
It must be silly season again.  Besides this sig block email has anyone else noted that many websites are now blocked by Share Services?  I found that about half the links I clicked on today from CTV.CA or even CNN.COM were blocked as being some sort of inappropriate.  I tried to access one article on ISIS and the block message said that the article contained inflammatory speech or content.  I guess the news is too harsh for our military sensitivities. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top