Retention vs Recruiting

[jollyjacktar]

All government jobs, and many private sector/ unionized jobs, are having the same issue.

It seems that those darned millennials just don't see much value in the 'Golden Handcuffs' (while they treat you like cr&p for 25 years) anymore.

Not like we were.

 

[mariomike]

All government jobs, and many private sector/ unionized jobs, are having the same issue.

Why is that? 35 years at a 2 per cent accrual rate gets you a 70 per cent pension with full benefits.

( 30 years with the 2.33 per cent accrual rate. )

May seem like a long haul, but "time flies when you're having fun." 

 

[Mediman14]

May seem like a long haul, but "time flies when you're having fun." 
[/quote]

Fun? Ok.

 

[mariomike]

Fun? Ok.

I was replying to the highlighted part. Personal enjoyment may vary.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Why is that? 35 years at a 2 per cent accrual rate gets you a 70 per cent pension with full benefits.

( 30 years with the 2.33 per cent accrual rate. )

May seem like a long haul, but "time flies when you're having fun." 

Depending upon how old one is when they join, they may or may not be able to reach 35 years.  Regardless of what age you join, there isn't always much fun to be had at the bottom of the food chain.  And thus a part reason for kids running for the exits. 

I won't speak for the other two flavours, but there has been a downward spiral on the fun meter in the navy since l remustered in the 90's.  Increasingly the last few years the pace has quickened and l have had it described as a death by a thousand cuts. 

This also seems to be the feedback I've heard from all three groups, OR/C&PO/WR.  Of course there are those who would disagree as they still have fuel reading in the fun meter but again, I'm hearing increasing numbers of folks who's tanks are running dry.

Add in the manning changes that are being brought in to the detriment of moral in some trades and you now have a three fold increase in releases by legacy trades. 

On a lighter note, the letters being sent to my legacy trade retirees by a certain someone is causing gales of merriment at the appeal to return to the RCN and the new reality.

 

[mariomike]

Like I said, "Personal enjoyment may vary."

My sister, and her husband, both stayed in for the whole ride. But, they were in their teens when they joined, and everyone is different.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Some interesting comments in this thread but I think we are conflating a number of different issues that aren't necessarily interrelated.

The first problem I see with the retention issue is we haven't structured our force properly to necessarily do what we want or need it to do.  What do I mean when I say this?

Well a big issue is do we want an Armed Forces that is optimized for mobilization or expeditionary operations?  As is Canadian tradition, we try and do it all and end up doing a mediocre job institutionally as a result.

The Army talks a big game about expeditionary operations but is poorly optimized for it.  Our regular units are all undermanned in that they aren't kept at actual fighting strength and they don't have the required numbers of equipment and vehicles to even properly equip the manpower they do have. 

We then have a very large Reserve Force with 100+ units spread all across the country that all have associated infrastructure, personnel and resources costs associated with them that are even more poorly equipped than the Regular Force.  The immediate operational value of the Reserves for expeditionary operations is pretty much zero as they have no actual equipment and can only provide individual augmentation in ones and twos for any operation we do conduct.  Ditto the Navy with their 20+ stone frigates in bastions of Maritime Activity like Regina, Saskatchewan. 

All this to say, we spend enormous amounts of money and resources simply trying to administer and manage this gigantic organization of people with very little output to show for it at the end of the day.  We also have stupid policies like "25% of personnel serving on named operations must be Reservists" when we have thousands of Regular Force members sitting around in Garrisons twiddling their thumbs for years at a time in some cases. 

We can either be a mobilization force or an expeditionary force, we don't have the money or need to be both.  The CAF needs to pick one and get rid of the rest. 

Either way, I think we could cut the Army by a significant margin (The Regular Navy and Air Force should remain as is) and see no loss in actual capability output.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some interesting comments in this thread but ...

The Army talks a big game about expeditionary operations but is poorly optimized for it.  Our regular units are all undermanned in that they aren't kept at actual fighting strength and they don't have the required numbers of equipment and vehicles to even properly equip the manpower they do have. 
...

Which means that they can never be properly or, even, adequately trained for combat operations, which means that our whole force generation / force employment model is a sad, silly farce that just creates jobs (welfare, in a way) for admirals and generals, because we don't 'generate' useful forces.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The immediate operational value of the Reserves for expeditionary operations is pretty much zero as they have no actual equipment and can only provide individual augmentation in ones and twos for any operation we do conduct.  Ditto the Navy with their 20+ stone frigates in bastions of Maritime Activity like Regina, Saskatchewan. 

I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by HB in his last post.

I just wish to particularize a few naval point, if I may.

First, the naval reserves actually have a lot of the equipment for "expeditionary" if in that you include support of civilian authorities. Witness the Winnipeg floods around the turn of the millennium. About 75% of the deployed boat assets came from the NAVRES, and nearly 45% of personnel to operate also.

But it remains true that the naval reserves, just like the militia, remains organized on model based in World War era's view of augmentation and with a primary purpose of "being visible" in their community.

Well, they are not anymore. Who in Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto even knows anything about the activities of Naval reserve Divisions located there?

The year I left the reserves to go on SRR, I had put up a paper on what I felt was the necessary re-organization of NAVRES to fulfill the upcoming role of manning the MCDV's. These were much more sophisticated vessels than the old Gate Vessels, and thus, more advanced training, individual and team, would be required, and extensive use of simulators would be required. For me, any time a reservist spent doing "admin" nights stuff was a waste of training time, as even the higher ranks needed to keep their training up.

So I proposed disposing of all the NAVRES units and to create five Regional Reserve Training Centers (Halifax for the Atlantic provinces, Esquimalt in the West, and then Quebec City for Quebec (already half built as NAVRES HQ and CFFS Qc, then Hamilton for Ontario (kick the Army out of the base at water's edge - it used to belong to the Navy before unification) and then either the Peg or Calgary for the prairies) These training centre would concentrate the regular forces resources currently assigned to support reserve units and they would be the ones doing all of the support administration for reservists for their region and providing the instructors/standards. The reservists would do their basic at St- Jean, like everybody else, and after passing basic, would be contacted by their Training Centre for further administration of their career. All reservist from the given region would basically receive, once a year, a schedule telling him or her which week-end (one every month) to report to the training centre and what training he/she would do on that week-end, and then, when he/she would be expected to report for two weeks full training. Any other assignment would also be coordinated by those centre.

It's basically the US system. This way, you pool and make the Reg force support more efficient, the Training centres would concentrate and use efficiently the expensive training simulators required, and make it possible to dispose of most NAVRES units.

I don't know what happened to this paper (other than the C.O. sent it up to Quebec with a less than enthusiastic cover letter - then I retired before learning of the results, though it's obvious by now it wasn't implemented.  ;D 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think Singapore has that, where there's a parallel "tech expert" rank structure to the military ranks.  Seems to be working for them. 

I've never heard of the Aussies having separate streams though when I was working with them, but that may have changed recently.

Also worth a mention; the RAF "Professional Aircrew" stream.  I'd sign up on something like that to stay flying, but staying flying your whole career = lower pension amount on retirement.  Career aircrew could form the core of a fleet or Sqn's corporate knowledge of air ops, but we insist on doing things the opposite, always in detriment to the operational sqn's.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Next, we front-end load too much training.  After basic training, they should only get enough environmental training to make them useful in a Navy, Army or Air Force unit.  This need not and in fact, should not be trade training. When they get to their first units, they should be given the opportunity to help and observe a variety of different areas (everybody can use a few extra hands to help with the mundane tasks).  After awhile, both the member and the CAF will have a better idea of the individuals aptitudes and desires.  Then, they can be selected for trade training.

This would not work for all trades;  some trades like mine take a fairly significant amount of time to get someone up to snuff AFTER initial trades training.  If we delayed it any longer, people would be coming off their "type" course and basically be able to release after a 5 year VIE.

All in all, we should recruit more, but actually retain less.  Only the best and most willing should be retained.  If folks realize that retention is competitive, they may up their game or move on.  It should be that only the Sgts-CWOs and Majs-Gens would be career men/women.  Everyone else would do a few years and get out.  This keeps fresh blood coming into the organization, yet retains the experience at levels where it's truly needed.  It would also likely mean that more Canadians would have a chance to serve in the armed forces and that has to be good thing.

Opposite side of the coin;  how many people would decide to not join because there was a sense that they couldn't make a career out of the military?  Corporate knowledge exists lower than the Sgt and/or Maj level.  I'd rather keep the MCpls, Cpls, and Capts with years and years of experience and knowledge over the "more Canadians would have the chance to serve" aspect.  I don't see that as a benefit as a standalone side effect of kicking people out because they won't ever make it to MWO or LCol.

 

[MAJONES]

I'm of the opinion we retain too many of the wrong people simply because the right people have other/better options and that's where we need to improve...

Spot on.  It leads to a viscous circle; Junior members get annoyed with lack-lustre mid-level to senior leadership.  The most talented of our junior members have better options outside the CF so they pull the pin before they get promoted thus leaving less talent to promote into mid level leadership.  Mid level leadership does not improve, (or even deteriorates).  The same cycle occurs for the jump from mid-level leadership to senior leadership.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My idea is that I wouldn't give them any specific trade training in that first three years.  Admittedly, I'm not sure how or even if it would work for the Air Force, but I'm fairly confident, we could usefully employ personnel in the both the Army and Navy for three years without a great deal of trade training.  As it is, we currently recruit a sailor who can spend upwards of a year on training before he even sees his first ship.  Once at sea, although he will get a fair bit of time working in his trade, he will also spend a lot of time on general shipboard duties that anyone can do and have to be done (cleaning stations, watch on deck, scullery, laundry, etc).  Why spend a lot of time in training someone for a job they will only get to do for part of the time?

I envision a system where people are recruited for a three year term.  They are given basic military and environmental training and then employed on general duties for the duration of their three years with only minimal follow-on training.  In that three years, they would get exposure to all aspects of service life in their respective environments, which in the case of the Navy would include spending time with all departments on board (e.g. spend a few months/weeks helping the stokers clean engines, general duties in the galley, etc.).  The idea would be for them to get good exposure to everything that goes on onboard a ship.  They would also spend some time ashore helping (and learning about) supporting ships.  Add in to all of this would be time spent on "public duties" (e.g. ceremonial guards - instead of hitting up units to provide).  The idea is that at the end of the three years, they've had a chance to look at us and we've had a chance to look at them in order for everyone to make better and more informed choices about what trade they wish to pursue.  I'm sure we could do something similar for the Army in the sense that everyone could spend a few months in each of the combat arms as well as a service battalion, etc.

Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.

Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...

 

[Remius]

Sorry, I don't believe we have a big enough force to allow people to go on a 3 year GD program.  I also think you'd find that a lot of people walking into recruiting centers might rethink the CAF as a career if they were told "oh, know, you won't be a Naval Electronics Technician until after 3 years minimum of scrubbing pots and doing cleaning stations.

Not sure where you are posted, but it strikes me that it may have been a while since you've been at a line unit and lead the new generation of young people coming into the CAF...

Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.

 

[Swingline1984]

Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.

+1

Read the ACISS thread if you want a real life example of what deleting all sense of purpose can do to an occupation.

 

[Quirky]

Agreed.  People want to get into the thick of it, they want to deploy and they want to have a purpose with meaning.  Sucking the life out of them for three years won't help.

I believe after those three years there would be some sort of incentive - paid for secondary education or a signing bonus if you decide to continue with the CF. The whole point is to get people into the CF in the first place.

At our current system it just takes too long to do anything. Recruiting wait times - a disaster (I applied while still in high school June 2013 and out of the blue got an offer in Sept 2014). On the air tech side of things we need to do away with QL3s completely, integrate common core aspects into on-fleet courses. Why am I being taught how to pull blades off a helicopter if I'm going into the fighter world? It's a waste of time and the civilian world doesn't recognise our QL3s as AME training anymore anyway. The posting system needs to change too, I should know where my first posting is before basic training. After St. Jean send me directly to my unit where I can feel useful right away. This way people can be evaluated on simple tasks, only then should we be offering them contract extensions past the three years. You accept? Good, you are sent on your fleet training and off you go. You deny? Good, here is $x for post secondary education but you are on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CF for three years. 

 

[RCDtpr]

I believe after those three years there would be some sort of incentive - paid for secondary education or a signing bonus if you decide to continue with the CF. The whole point is to get people into the CF in the first place.

At our current system it just takes too long to do anything. Recruiting wait times - a disaster (I applied while still in high school June 2013 and out of the blue got an offer in Sept 2014). On the air tech side of things we need to do away with QL3s completely, integrate common core aspects into on-fleet courses. Why am I being taught how to pull blades off a helicopter if I'm going into the fighter world? It's a waste of time and the civilian world doesn't recognise our QL3s as AME training anymore anyway. The posting system needs to change too, I should know where my first posting is before basic training. After St. Jean send me directly to my unit where I can feel useful right away. This way people can be evaluated on simple tasks, only then should we be offering them contract extensions past the three years. You accept? Good, you are sent on your fleet training and off you go. You deny? Good, here is $x for post secondary education but you are on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CF for three years.

So you’re proposing the CAF invest money in someone to get them BMQ qualified, pay them for three years to do GD work, then pay for their education when they release even though at no point have they ever been trade qualified and therefore not really that useful in the grand scheme of things?  (Just because one may feel useful.....does not mean they are useful)

I don’t understand your “you’re on the hook for costs associated with keeping you in the CAF for the three years” comment.  Are you saying they would have to pay back their salary during that time thus rendering their last three years of work as having no compensation for them?

Sounds like a fiscal nightmare at best and would completely cripple certain (if not all) trades.  I joined because I wanted to go to Afghanistan.  If I had been told by recruiting “ok join, and in three years you may or may not get loaded onto your trades training to learn to how to do armoured stuff, and then a year or two after that you may get to go on tour” I can assure you I would have walked out of the recruiting office and I imagine most others would as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sounds like this recruiting and retention thing is mostly about the 'people stuff':

Life as a Private

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations. Who joins, why, and how satisfied are they with their decisions? This study's portrayal of the U.S. Army private could serve as an educational tool for a variety of important audiences, such as Army senior leadership, junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and prospective new recruits.

Key Findings

Soldiers Join the Army for Family, Institutional, and Occupational Reasons
• The importance of family is a recurring feature in the narratives of soldiers.
• Soldiers cite call to serve and perception of honor, but also thirst for adventure, benefits, and pay.

Many Soldiers Value the Opportunity to Become a Military Professional
• Most soldiers in the research sample acknowledged the unique benefits that they got from Army service.
• Despite generally favorable experiences overall, soldiers are frustrated by the bureaucratic characteristics of work in the Army.
• The information soldiers consume prior to joining their first unit may influence expectations about Army service; more accurate information than that derived from action movies might improve satisfaction with their real experience.

Soldiers Value Relationships with Other Soldiers as a Critical Feature of Army Life
• The critical importance of camaraderie and good small-unit leadership suggests avenues to enhance soldier recruitment and retention.

Most Soldiers Enjoy Positive Well-Being and Satisfying Social Lives
• Most soldiers in the research sample said that their leadership and peers were an important source of support.
• In fact, leadership and fellow soldiers were cited as the most important source of motivation, camaraderie, and overall social support.

Soldiers in the Sample Were Satisfied with Army Life
• A variety of factors affect soldiers' intent to reenlist, such as family concerns, injuries, promotions, civilian opportunities, and the likelihood of deploying to war. The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.

Recommendations
• Consider emphasizing occupational benefits and adding social bonds to the current Army Value Proposition (AVP).
• Highlight social bonds as part of reenlistment campaigns.
• Consider incentivizing first-term soldiers who successfully recruit from their friends and peer networks.
• Ensure recruiters provide accurate information about military occupational specialties.
• Improve the accuracy of information about Army life that new recruits receive.
• Following Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training and One-Station Unit Training, provide accurate information about installations and unit assignments.
• Maintain or expand recruitment programs that build parental support.
• Help leaders engage soldiers in relevant and educational tasks and otherwise use soldiers' time more effectively.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download

 

[RCDtpr]

Sounds like this recruiting and retention thing is mostly about the 'people stuff':

Life as a Private

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command asked RAND Arroyo Center to undertake research to improve its understanding of soldiers' motivations to join the Army, and how the reality of Army life matches up with expectations. Who joins, why, and how satisfied are they with their decisions? This study's portrayal of the U.S. Army private could serve as an educational tool for a variety of important audiences, such as Army senior leadership, junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and prospective new recruits.

Key Findings

Soldiers Join the Army for Family, Institutional, and Occupational Reasons
• The importance of family is a recurring feature in the narratives of soldiers.
• Soldiers cite call to serve and perception of honor, but also thirst for adventure, benefits, and pay.

Many Soldiers Value the Opportunity to Become a Military Professional
• Most soldiers in the research sample acknowledged the unique benefits that they got from Army service.
• Despite generally favorable experiences overall, soldiers are frustrated by the bureaucratic characteristics of work in the Army.
• The information soldiers consume prior to joining their first unit may influence expectations about Army service; more accurate information than that derived from action movies might improve satisfaction with their real experience.

Soldiers Value Relationships with Other Soldiers as a Critical Feature of Army Life
• The critical importance of camaraderie and good small-unit leadership suggests avenues to enhance soldier recruitment and retention.

Most Soldiers Enjoy Positive Well-Being and Satisfying Social Lives
• Most soldiers in the research sample said that their leadership and peers were an important source of support.
• In fact, leadership and fellow soldiers were cited as the most important source of motivation, camaraderie, and overall social support.

Soldiers in the Sample Were Satisfied with Army Life
• A variety of factors affect soldiers' intent to reenlist, such as family concerns, injuries, promotions, civilian opportunities, and the likelihood of deploying to war. The majority of soldiers believed their Army service would help them find future work.

Recommendations
• Consider emphasizing occupational benefits and adding social bonds to the current Army Value Proposition (AVP).
• Highlight social bonds as part of reenlistment campaigns.
• Consider incentivizing first-term soldiers who successfully recruit from their friends and peer networks.
• Ensure recruiters provide accurate information about military occupational specialties.
• Improve the accuracy of information about Army life that new recruits receive.
• Following Basic Combat Training/Advanced Individual Training and One-Station Unit Training, provide accurate information about installations and unit assignments.
• Maintain or expand recruitment programs that build parental support.
• Help leaders engage soldiers in relevant and educational tasks and otherwise use soldiers' time more effectively.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2252.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail#download

I understand this is American, but I find it interesting their research indicates younger soldiers put an emphasis on comraderie and social aspects considering everytime I walk through shacks they are playing video games and not talking to each other.

 

[Pusser]

Either offer a very sweet post CAF college/university/trade school re-education deal which will make several years of demeaning stations worth while. 

Did you miss the part where I said exactly that? 

Some folks seem to think I'm recommending that we enroll people for three years to paint rocks.  Far from it.  I'm arguing that first and foremost, we need to train personnel to be sailors, soldiers and air people.  After that, they can be usefully employed doing real jobs that don't require a lot of specialized training AND be exposed to the more detailed tasks that will require that more specialized training.  The key to this is that folks need to be sent to front line units and deployed sooner, rather than later.  A sailor doesn't need to complete his QL3 WEng Tech course before he joins the scullery party of his first ship, so why not wait until he's spent some time at sea and had a chance to observe and help out in all the Departments on board before he selects a trade?  More experience makes for better choices. 

I'm not talking about make-work projects.  The jobs I envision these folks doing are jobs that need to be done and are being done by our most junior personnel.  I just don't see the point of spending thousands of dollars in training someone for a technical trade right at the beginning when a large part of their first three years are going to be spent on the mundane tasks anyway.  Furthermore, instead of training for trades that people chose based on recruiting pamphlets and videos, why not give folks a chance to actually work alongside people already in those trades in order to get a better feel for what they're getting themselves into?  By doing this, both the CAF and the individual will have a better opportunity to make more informed decisions. 

The mundane tasks need to be done anyway and the most junior people are going to do them.  Let's get a better bang for our training buck by delaying the more intense, difficult and expensive (i.e. trade) training until a point where we can all make better decisions.

You don't necessarily entice people to do something by making it easier.  Sometimes you do it by making it a challenge.  I would argue that you will get a better overall recruit by emphasizing how challenging it will be, rather than how comfortable.