Manpower and Personnel Needs for a Transformed Naval Force

Committee on Manpower and Personnel Needs for a Transformed Naval Force

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on Manpower and Personnel Needs for a Transformed Naval Force Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-05-G-0288, DO #10 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-11265-9 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-11265-6 Copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Acad- emies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www. nap.edu. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibil- ity given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scien- tific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL NEEDS FOR A TRANSFORMED NAVAL FORCE JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Solvang, California, Co-chair CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Co-chair BETH J. ASCH, RAND Corporation JAMES N. BARON, Yale University OWEN R. COTE JR., Massachusetts Institute of Technology LEE F. GUNN, The CNA Corporation JAMES L. HERDT, Chelsea, Alabama BARRY M. HOROWITZ, University of Virginia LEON A. JOHNSON, United Parcel Service JOHN B. MOONEY JR., Austin, Texas JUDITH H. MOPSIK, Abt Associates, Incorporated JOHN E. RHODES, Balboa, California NANCY T. TIPPINS, Valtera Corporation JAMES L. WOLBARSHT, DEFCON, Incorporated Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Study Director RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Senior Program Officer (as of July 10, 2007) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SEKOU O. JACKSON, Senior Project Assistant (as of December 29, 2006) SIDNEY G. REED JR., Consultant 

OCR for page R1
NAVAL STuDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Livermore, California, Vice Chair ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies LEE HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services BARRY M. HOROWITZ, University of Virginia JAMES D. HULL, Annapolis, Maryland JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS JR., Gainesville, Virginia EDWARD H. KAPLAN, Yale University CATHERINE M. KELLEHER, University of Maryland and Brown University JERRY A. KRILL, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Textron Systems L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Solvang, California GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia J. PAUL REASON, Washington, D.C. JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Exponent JAMES WARD, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, Gaithersburg, Maryland Nay Liaison Representaties RDML DAN W. DAVENPORT, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through July 25, 2007) RDML WILLIAM R. BURKE, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of September 26, 2007) RADM WILLIAM E. LANDAY III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Opera- tions, N091 Marine Corps Liaison Representatie LTGEN JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Com- bat Development Command i

OCR for page R1
Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Senior Program Officer (as of July 10, 2007) BILLY M. WILLIAMS, Senior Program Officer (as of August 18, 2007) EUGENE J. CHOI, Program Officer (through May 18, 2007) IAN M. CAMERON, Associate Program Officer (through May 21, 2007) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SEKOU O. JACKSON, Senior Program Assistant (as of December 29, 2006) ii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface In December 2005 the Naval Studies Board was briefed by several repre- sentatives from the Navy and the Marine Corps, including the Chief of Naval Operations. The discussions during these briefings, which highlighted the pressing manpower and personnel needs of the naval forces in general, were the genesis of the present study on manpower and personnel needs for a transformed naval force. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Department of Defense (DOD) committed itself to actively transforming the nation’s armed forces to meet the military challenges of the future, emphasizing speed and flexibility as well as interoperability among service, joint, and coalition forces. One approach to achieving these goals was by leveraging advances in science and technology. With the onset of the global war on terror, the urgency of that commitment has been accentuated.1 New technologies and innovations are integral to today’s military actions, and associated changes have rippled through all aspects of operations, highlighting the need for changes in policies related to military personnel. The 1The National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Naval Studies Board recently conducted a study on the role of naval forces in the global war on terror (see NRC, 2007, The Role of Naal Forces in the Global War on Terror: Abbreiated Version, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.). Background information pertaining to the origins of the term “GWOT” can be found in national leadership documents, including (i) The White House, 2006, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Wash- ington, D.C., March, p. 12; (ii) Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2006, National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., February 1, p. 3; and (iii) Secretary of Defense, 2006, Quadrennial Defense Reiew Report, Department of Defense, Wash- ington, D.C., February 6. The NRC Committee on Manpower and Personnel Needs for a Transformed Naval Force saw its charter as being neither to endorse nor to replace the term “GWOT.” ix

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review notes that the U.S. military “must continue to adapt to different operating environments, develop new skills and rebalance its capabilities and people if it is to remain prepared for the new challenges of an uncertain future.”2 The former Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) emphasized the importance of transforming the naval forces to keep pace with progress, pointing out the need to “develop 21st Century leaders . . . through a transformed manpower, person- nel, training and education organization that better competes for the talent our country produces and creates the conditions in which the full potential of every man and woman serving our Navy can be achieved.”3 The former Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) echoed these sentiments by stating that the Marine Corps “will place renewed emphasis on [its] greatest asset—the individual marine—through improved training and education . . . [and] will continue to attract, recruit and retain the best of America’s youth.”4 As evidenced by the statements of the former CNO and the former CMC, changes in naval personnel practices are necessary in order for the men and women of the Navy and the Marine Corps to continue the process of transforma- tion. Attractive manpower compensation strategies are an essential element of the nation’s commitment to the men and women who serve in uniform and thus are crucial to Navy and Marine Corps success in recruiting, retaining, and motivat- ing sailors and marines. Yet the incentive structures created by today’s military compensation policies may hamper Navy and Marine Corps efforts to shape their forces to meet the demands of transformation, including network-centric operations. Military compensation policies also affect transformation in another way. In recent years, the costs of pay and benefits for uniformed personnel have risen dramatically. In the constrained fiscal environment of the future, continued rising personnel costs threaten to drain the Navy and Marine Corps of funding that is otherwise needed to modernize aging equipment, capitalize on emerging technolo- gies such as autonomous systems, and realize the potential of network-centric operations—all of which are essential elements of a transformed naval force. Recently, there have been several DOD efforts to examine personnel issues in the context of continuing transformation of U.S. military forces. For example, 2 Secretary of Defense (Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld). 2006. Quadrennial Defense Reiew Report, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. 3 Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN). 2005. “CNO Guidance for 2006: Meeting the Challenge of a New Era,” Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., October. “Man- power” refers to workforce requirements as defined by the knowledge, skills, and abilities that enable mission accomplishment. “Personnel” refers to the physical asset or resource that the naval services recruit, develop, and manage (shape) to support its identified workforce requirements. 4 Former Commandant of the Marine Corps (Gen Michael W. Hagee, USMC). 2006. 33rd CMC Updated Guidance: “The 21st Century Marine Corps: Creating Stability in an Unstable World,” Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE in 2004 the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASN[M&RA]) issued the Department of the Nay Human Capital Strategy5 aimed at developing a Department of the Navy human resources system that is high-performing, efficient, balanced, aligned, and effective, to achieve the goals for transformation articulated in the Naval Power 21 vision.6 In 2005, the ASN(M&RA) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Total Force Trans- formation (DASN[TFT]) formed a compensation team that drafted strategic goals and guiding principles for future Department of the Navy compensation policy. 7 And recently the Secretary of Defense tasked the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC) with identifying cost-effective approaches to military pay and benefits.8 The DACMC report developed a set of principles for the evaluation of proposed changes to the compensation structure and provided recommendations based on those principles. TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the former Chief of Naval Operations,9 a committee under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council reviewed the military manpower and personnel policies and studies currently underway in the Department of Defense and developed an implementation strat- egy for the Department of the Navy’s future military manpower and personnel needs. The specific tasks were as follows: • Review the high-priority future staffing needs of the Department of the Navy, taking into account future threats, emerging technologies, and transformational elements such as network-centric operations; • Review the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy mili- tary manpower and personnel policies and related studies, and summarize 5William A. Navas Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; LtGen Garry L. Parks, USMC, Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and VADM Gerald L. Hoewing, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel. 2004. Department of the Nay Human Capital Strategy, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., June 21. 6 Secretary of the Navy (Hon. Gordon England), Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Vern Clark, USN), and Commandant of the Marine Corps (Gen James L. Jones, USMC). 2002. Naal Power 21 . . . A Naal Vision, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., October. 7 In addition, the Center for Naval Analyses has provided the Navy with short-term and long-term recommendations for reforming the compensation of naval personnel. See Michael L. Hansen and Martha E. Koopman, 2005, Military Compensation Reform in the Department of the Nay, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Va., December. 8 Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (ADM Donald L. Pilling, USN [retired], chair). 2006. The Military Compensation System: Completing the Transition to an All-Volunteer Force, Arlington, Va., April 28. 9ADM M.G. Mullen, USN, CNO, letter dated June 29, 2006, to Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences.

OCR for page R1
xii PREFACE their key recommendations considering the potential benefits and risks of implementation; • Recommend to the Department of the Navy pilot studies, surveys, policy simulations, experiments, and other mechanisms that can suggest the likely cost, effectiveness, and unanticipated effects of implementing the aforementioned recommendations, and supplement the recommendations where needed (e.g., by exploring career paths, compensation, and so forth); • Provide strategies to the Department of the Navy for implementation of these recommendations amongst stakeholders, including any organizational consider- ations for eliminating barriers in the way of the implementation; and • Determine any new authorities required to implement recommendations as well as potential alternatives to the recommendations that might be made necessary due to impending changes outside the Department of the Navy (e.g., Congress’s action to relieve Army personnel stress by raising basic pay). THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH The committee10 first convened in October 2006 and held additional meetings and site visits over a period of 6 months, both to gather input from the relevant communities and then to discuss the committee’s findings and recommendations. Summarized agendas of the meetings are provided below.11 • October 3-4, 2006, in Washington, D.C. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Total Force Trans- formation, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), and CNA Corporation briefings on military manpower and personnel needs. • Noember 14-15, 2006, in Washington, D.C. Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation, Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation Committee, Congressional Budget Office, Navy Installations Command, and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations briefings on military compensation and Navy manpower and personnel needs. • December 12-13, 2006, in Norfolk, Virginia. U.S. Joint Forces Command, Fleet Forces Command, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Second Fleet, Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, and Naval Network Warfare Command briefings on manpower and personnel needs for a transformed naval force. • January 23-24, 2007, in Washington, D.C. Defense Human Capital Strat- egy Program Executive Officer, Naval Sea Systems Command, Defense Man- power Data Center, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Clemson University, RAND Corporation, Military Officers Association of America, National Military 10 Biographies of its members are provided in Appendix A. 11 Duringthe course of its study, the committee held some meetings in which it received (and dis- cussed) materials that are exempt from release under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b).

OCR for page R1
xiii PREFACE Family Association, and Fleet Reserve Association briefings on manpower and personnel needs for a transformed naval force, and on military compensation. • February 13-14, 2007, in Millington, Tennessee. Navy Personnel Com- mand, Navy Recruiting Command, Naval Education and Training Command, and Navy Manpower Analysis Center briefings on manpower and personnel needs for a transformed naval force. • March 19-23, 2007, in Irine, California. Committee deliberations and report drafting. The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additional infor- mation, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review necessary to produce an unclassified and unrestricted report.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Katharine B. Gebbie, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stanley A. Horowitz, Institute for Defense Analyses, Stephen J. Lukasik, Falls Church, Virginia, Daniel T. Oliver, VADM, USN (retired), Naval Postgraduate School, Henry P. Osman, LtGen, USMC (retired), Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, Irene C. Peden, University of Washington, Jeffrey F. Scott, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and John T. Warner, Clemson University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda- tions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Stephen Berry of the University of Chicago. x

OCR for page R1
xi ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accor- dance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 11 Today’s Policies Reflect Past Needs, 14 Future Opportunities and Challenges, 14 Manpower Concerns for Naval Forces, 16 The Way Ahead, 29 2 PEOPLE FOR THE FUTURE NAVAL FORCES 30 Future Threats, Emerging Technologies, and New Concepts of Operation, 30 Demographics, 42 Competition from the Private Sector, 48 3 SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 59 Summary of Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation Report, 60 Summary of Center for Naval Analyses Report, 66 Critique of Two Previous Manpower Studies, 71 Findings and Recommendations, 84 4 THE ROLE OF RESEARCH TOOLS IN IMPLEMENTING 88 CHANGE Role of Surveys, Simulations, Analysis of Administrative Records, Pilot Programs, and Experiments in Implementing Change, 89 xii

OCR for page R1
xiii CONTENTS Past Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Developed in Previous Military Manpower Experimentation, 95 Suggestions for Experimentation, 99 5 TRANSFORMING THE NAVAL FORCE: OBSTACLES AND 110 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION Stages of Organizational Change, 113 Obstacles to Change, 117 Mapping the Transformation Landscape: Matching the Obstacles to Reform Proposals, 120 Findings and Recommendations, 128 Concluding Statements, 133 APPENDIXES A Committee and Staff Biographies 137 B Details on Demographics 143 C Acronyms and Abbreviations 150