I achieved a major life milestone the other day: I completed 20 years with the same cell phone provider. What a feat! When I casually mentioned this to some colleagues, the response was interesting. “You should call and threaten to change providers!” one said. “I bet they’d give you a great perk or discount.” Another person chimed in, “Yeah, I have been with my bank for so long that they’ve bent over backward to keep me. It’s great.”

The feedback was intriguing enough that I decided to try it. Sure enough, the service provider quickly matched a competitor’s offer, and they were happy to do so. The bottom line is that it feels good to be valued and appreciated for being a longtime customer, and it’s even better to have that loyalty incentivized.

This experience makes it concerning to watch experienced senior talent depart the Army without any attempt to incentivize them to stay. While the Army has a robust talent management and retention system, it focuses almost exclusively on junior enlisted Soldiers.

The “next man up” philosophy is baked into our culture. There is quintessential scene of this from “We Were Soldiers” that shows LTC Hal Moore (played by Mel Gibson) ‘killing’ a platoon leader and a platoon sergeant to stress the point that you learn the job of the person above you and teach your job to the person below you. But contrast the ease of replacing a platoon leader or platoon sergeant with that of a battalion commander or a command sergeant major. The pyramid gets tight at the top, and it’s not as easy to say, “next man up.”

Therefore, it seems counterintuitive that there is no organized structure beyond informal mentorship to retain senior top talent. When a Command Sergeant Major or Sergeant Major is on the fence about retiring, or a Master Sergeant is trying to decide if they want to go to the Sergeants Major Academy, it is a missed opportunity to have no tools to encourage retention. And while there is always someone who can be the “next man up,” should we be satisfied with equating the #1 person on the Order of Merit List with the #100 person?

Share

A potential solution need not be excessive. If we as an institution are willing to spend $10,000 on a retention bonus for a highly skilled private, we ought to be at least as willing to spend $10,000 to ensure the most highly-rated E-8s and E-9s to remain in service. Love of country and service is powerful, but the incentives to leave are often significant. We cannot assume that a sense of duty will always supersede all financial, family, and aspirational opportunities on the outside.

I was satisfied with my cell phone provider, but a free phone from a competitor was tempting. Now I have a free phone, and I didn’t have to change a thing. Maybe the Army can take a lesson from my cell phone provider.

In the spirit of discourse, I have added voting buttons to this piece. Let us know what you think!

Harding Project Substack

What Army Retention Could Learn From AT&T