The pattern for enlisting in the military is to sign up in your 20’s, then, if you want to make a career of it, keep rising in the ranks until you retire after 20 or 30 years. The military only hires people, as it were, at entry level positions. But what if you could enlist when you are older? What if you could could come into the service with a rank commensurate with your experience and expertise? Renee J. Squier proposes this kind of “lateral enlistment.”
From Renee J. Squier, To keep up with 21st century threats, the military needs to modernize its hiring – The Washington Post:
If the United States were attacked again, the way it was at Pearl Harbor or on Sept. 11, would you step forward to serve in the military? If you’ve climbed any distance up the career ladder, the answer is probably no, because the military hires people almost exclusively at entry level, and signing up could severely diminish your pay and status.
But what does that mean for the defense of our nation?
The world is changing rapidly, with technology at the forefront. It once was possible to hire military personnel young and teach them to be experts in a single skill over a 20- to 30-year career. But today this approach isolates the military from society, limiting its expertise with cutting-edge technology and reducing the diversity of its thinking. . . .
The breakneck advance of technology is producing commensurate change in the threats we face. How can we keep up? The answer is to be just as innovative with our human resources strategy as we are with our weapons and tactics. We need new ways to recruit the best talent to defend our nation. The key is to modernize our core concept of an all-volunteer force to include lateral hiring. . . .
Suppose you could enlist at a rank reflecting your management experience or mastery of a valuable, high-level skill? And for a limited number of years? Would that make you more likely to answer the call to serve in an emergency? For large numbers of patriotic Americans, I think it would.
There are many advantages to this approach. Although boot camp or officer candidate school would still be required to acclimate enlistees to the unique culture of the military, lateral hiring would significantly reduce the time needed to “create” effective leaders. It would also ease budgetary pressures by enabling the United States to maintain a smaller standing military, since it would be much easier to rapidly increase numbers across all ranks in a crisis. There would still be career military members, but they would be fewer and less likely to have served continuously. Instead, they would move more freely between the military and private industry.
What would you think of that? I’d like to hear from those of you in the military. Would this ever be accepted? Do you see any problems with this practice, or do you think it’s a good idea?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In