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

[McG]

It seems to me that most of the reporting, and the analysis, has been incredibly shallow. A few commentators have noted that the use of contractors will be scaled back because of the change of roles in/withdrawal from Afghanistan. Not too many people have wondered if General Leslie has not taken aim at some of his favorite targets, the levithans of Startop. To my mind the only way savings in the numbers touted can be achieved is if a combination of the two is used along with judicious paring in other areas.

Amalgamation of .COMs, reduction (elimination) of superfluous intermediate HQs, reversing rank inflation, eliminating duplication of effort, streamlining processes (and reducing the pers in concert with this), and a number of other steps have been pointed to through the history of this thread. 

I have no doubt that LGen Leslie's $1B target can be achieved without lasting pain, and with an even larger resource bill freed for reinvestment within the actual working-end units of the CF (brigades, ships, wings and schools).

That was my thought when I saw the 1b figure on tv today. Leslie leaks the number (with or without the PMO's approval). Then when Harper slashes "only" $500 millions he still looks like a good guy for cutting only half of what even a military guy suggested.

I believe we have a bloated HQ structure - I believe there is a possibility that we could probably gain several dollars worth of improved effectiveness for each dollar of efficiency we save for the government up to the $1B target.  If I am right, then the government would not be doing us favours by falling short of the suggested cut.  However, the government could choose to make the full cut and then proudly boast of reinvesting half the savings back into greater operational capabilities for the CF.

 

[HCA123]

Has anyone actually seen the report posted anywhere on-line or is it just in the hands of select media outlets? I think it would be an interesting read - much better than reading highlights from CBC, Globe & Mail, etc.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Am I reading you right here ERC?  A contributing factor to the number of GOFOs is that our own civilian mandarins (and allied GOFOs) might get their noses bent out of shape if we sent a mere Sgt/Killick to brief them in?

Many years ago (early 1980s) I watched a position go from a civilian ENG 5, working for a LCol, to a director and then a director general (EX2) in less than six months - all based on the ranks and positions of the people in other departments and agencies with whom the incumbent was required to deal. I saw no concomitant increase in productivity - not from that individual and not from the half dozen new, extra people that every DG 'needs.' Another post (in NATO) was recommended, by the applicable staff in Ottawa, as a Col - it ended up being a MGen, again based on what 'allies' were doing. Don't even get me started on the UN and its agencies. If the job called for a village idiot we would send a GOFO ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... oh, wait, maybe that's not such a good example.  :facepalm:

 

[Old Sweat]

Amalgamation of .COMs, reduction (elimination) of superfluous intermediate HQs, reversing rank inflation, eliminating duplication of effort, streamlining processes (and reducing the pers in concert with this), and a number of other steps have been pointed to through the history of this thread. 

I was referring to the reporting in the media and the lack of well thought out comments by the punditry.

Again, the devil is in the details. How do you reduce a function to its appropriate rank level and influence when the rest of the government is over ranked, over staffed and over the canal?

In my opinion, a number of the inefficiencies that bedevil the CF are the result of decisions made at the time of integration and unification. Edward may remember when the pers world was centralized. In those early days privates and equivalent had PERs every six months, for reasons that escaped me then and have yet to expose themselves to my few remaining brain cells. In the same way, the individual training system was designed to avoid over-training (and don't ask me how we got back for training people two up) while providing meaningful career progression. In doing so, we clear cut acres and acres of forest to generate the paper to document each and every stage in detail. Again, in the early days the recruit schools taught the St John's Ambulance First Aid course as the giant minds reasoned that a service member was far more likely to twist an ankle or inhale noxious fumes or get burned than suffer a wound in combat. Therefore major efficiencies could be achieved.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Has anyone actually seen the report posted anywhere on-line or is it just in the hands of select media outlets? I think it would be an interesting read - much better than reading highlights from CBC, Globe & Mail, etc.

<pet peeve>
Funny how mainstream media generally* don't share information they've "obtained" unless they want readers/viewers to help do their homework (like here and here), isn't it?
</pet peeve>

* - There are a few exceptions, but few and far between (like here), even with information they've obtained via ATIP requests.

 

[Kirkhill]

Many years ago (early 1980s) I watched a position go from a civilian ENG 5, working for a LCol, to a director and then a director general (EX2) in less than six months - all based on the ranks and positions of the people in other departments and agencies with whom the incumbent was required to deal. I saw no concomitant increase in productivity - not from that individual and not from the half dozen new, extra people that every DG 'needs.' Another post (in NATO) was recommended, by the applicable staff in Ottawa, as a Col - it ended up being a MGen, again based on what 'allies' were doing. Don't even get me started on the UN and its agencies. If the job called for a village idiot we would send a GOFO ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... oh, wait, maybe that's not such a good example.  :facepalm:

I think you have the answer before you Argyll.  Every year there is a "Wild Card" appointment.  The person who does not meet any other criteria for promotion gets tasked as Lt-Gen IC Everything.  His function is to escort SMEs (Fd Offrs, Sr NCOS and the occasional Civvy) before various dignitaries and let them do the talking......... 

I detect a problem.  Isn't that the way the system works already? 

So how many business card presenters does the CF/DND need?

 

[Dissident]

Although the 'all things Harper = evil' crowd would respond with, "even the military says they could 'do without' $1B, but Harper the war-monger only cut $500M...taking food from the mouths of starving Toronto NDP-voters...."

While I am far from being that cagey of a political commentator, I would venture that nothing will ever please the Harper=Evil crowd. Duh.

The rest of us, from right of center to full right want a smaller gov and will appreciate that DND should tighten its belt along with the other department. Harper will only been seen as doing what must be done. I, for one, will not fault him for it, especially if it is targeted at streamlining the HQ/bureaucracy.

 

[Journeyman]

While I am far from being that cagey of a political commentator....

I assure you that I was merely pointing out the opposite side of that coin.

I would be ecstatic if both sides of this inevitable debate would simply spell out, and justify, its arguments.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think you have the answer before you Argyll.  Every year there is a "Wild Card" appointment.  The person who does not meet any other criteria for promotion gets tasked as Lt-Gen IC Everything.  His function is to escort SMEs (Fd Offrs, Sr NCOS and the occasional Civvy) before various dignitaries and let them do the talking......... 

I detect a problem.  Isn't that the way the system works already? 

So how many business card presenters does the CF/DND need?

I have never noticed this.  Who is the Wild Card appointment in the CF right now?  How many (and which) of our current GOFO's are currently merely "business card presenters"?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Old, anecdotal 'evidence:' many years ago (1990s) a very senior CSS officer (the really smart guy, not the one who commanded the Army) told me a story that went something like this - "Every couple of years there is a newly minted one star about whom everyone says, "How in hell did he get on the list?" We all shake our heads and say, "oh well, maybe merit boards do have a sense of humour after all." We are then further surprised when about half of those guys become very good flag/general officers - proving that the 'senior management' in the CF may not be so dumb after all. We are even more surprised when some of the ones we don't think are any good are promoted even further - proving that 'senior management' is looking for something we cannot see." He then reminded me that both he and I had worked for one of the most intensely disliked senior officers in the system and, he suggested, "we both like and admire him. We know he's smart, fair and, usually, right - even, maybe especially, when he is going against the prevailing wisdom." Of course he was right - there are things that go on in executive circles that are invisible or misunderstood by we mere mortals and some people have skills and knowledge that have not been apparent to most of their peers and subordinates.

Does that mean that 'senior management' doesn't make mistakes? that some GOFOs are little more than "business card presenters?" No. But the vast majority of GOFOs, in my personal experience, are smart, hard working, ambitious and sincerely interested in doing what's right for the CF and the country - and yes, there are certainly exceptions.

But that does not mean that:

1. The CF's officer corps is badly over ranked below LCdr/Maj and above Capt/Col - we have used rank to address compensation issues rather than redoing the CF/public service benchmarks (so that e.g. directors are Cdrs/LCols (EX1=Cdr/LCol)) and paying 2Lts and Lts what they're worth; or

2. The CF spends far too much time trying to avoid either embarrassing the minister (the embarrassment being defined by twenty-something political staffers in his/her office) and/or embarrassing senior officers. It is was a cottage industry in NDHQ - delaying important decisions while the "message" was massaged to suit this, that or the other agenda.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have never noticed this.  Who is the Wild Card appointment in the CF right now?  How many (and which) of our current GOFO's are currently merely "business card presenters"?

There is no Wild Card appointment right now that I know of.  I proposed, tongue-in-cheek, that there should be.
The working supposition was that many SMEs are buried in the ranks of the CF and that their institutional knowledge often only makes it to the head table through layers of intermediaries who only understand 80% of what they are told by the SMEs.  (80% is a number remembered from a conversation with some one who specialized in education).  Sgt SME tells Capt who tells Lt Col who tells Brigadier who tells LGen.  LGen, through no fault of his own, now understands 80% of 80% of 80% of 80% or 41% of what the Sgt tells the Capt.    Now the LGen briefs in the ADM or the Allied LGen who proceeds to understand 80% of what the LGen told them or 32% of what the Sgt SME told the Capt. 

A question is asked.

The Comms link is reversed.

The Sgt SME understands 32% of the ADM's question.  And says "Eh?" before responding with a nonsensical and confusing answer to a nonsensical and confusing question.

The matter under review dies.

How much simpler would it have been to walk Sgt SME up the hill and have her talk directly to the ADM / Allied LGen?

As to the number of "Business Card Presenters"  I note that when watching parliamentary and Senate committees that, on occasion, the person being quizzed (and arguably the smarter ones) will defer to SMEs that they have brought along to accompany them.

If there is an issue of rank equivalency then surely that can be dealt with by having a suitably ranked individual perform the introductions and let the SMEs (who need not be high ranking) answer, advise and counsel.

As to the question of the current numbers of "Business Card Presenters":  How many departmental heads bury their SMEs and take credit for the ideas that their departments generate - beyond the salutary "It was a team effort" when they pick up their medal?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The working supposition was that many SMEs are buried in the ranks of the CF and that their institutional knowledge often only makes it to the head table through layers of intermediaries who only understand 80% of what they are told by the SMEs.  (80% is a number remembered from a conversation with some one who specialized in education).  Sgt SME tells Capt who tells Lt Col who tells Brigadier who tells LGen.  LGen, through no fault of his own, now understands 80% of 80% of 80% of 80% or 41% of what the Sgt tells the Capt.    Now the LGen briefs in the ADM or the Allied LGen who proceeds to understand 80% of what the LGen told them or 32% of what the Sgt SME told the Capt. 

SME's are great - I used to be one.  However, there are limitations. 

The trouble is that there is a distinct difference between a specialist and a generalist (or an SME and a General if you will).  A specialist knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.  A generalist knows less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.  As such, they need each other. 

The SME will have very little knowledge of anything beyond his specific sphere, and so his knowledge lacks context, and does not (and cannot) account for the interplay between his specific piece of detailed information and that of all the other SMEs.  That is why we need generalists - and Generals are supposed to be exactly that.  The most dangerous generals that I have encountered are those that cleave too closely to the things they learned as SMEs....

Having the Sgt brief the ADM / Allied LGen (why you chose those two as the pinnacle of the information flow in the CF is completely beyond me - I assume you mean "The Dude Whats in Charge and Can Make the Decision) would, in my not very humble opinion, be extremely counter-productive.  It would further entrench stove-pipes, lead to increased rice-bowling, and would ensure that we proceeded on multiple paths without ever conducting any synthesis.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is starting to make my head hurt. :stars:

It seems (to me, anyhow) that we've gone from argeeing that there is bloat. To saying we should get rid of X% across the board, both civvie and military. To going into specific offices and saying "This person has to go".

Way too far into the weeds for our load station, IMHO.

However, that's just from an old MWO's outlook. APS (aluminum pot syndrome) and all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As and aside, and to make matters worse or some readers: in the Canadian bureaucracy the director is supposed to be the pinnacle of expertize in a specific subject area; directors are both experts and managers - directors general and above are expected to be, more and more, generalists and managers. Thus, in most non-technical departments, directors are EXs while in the more technical ones the directors will often be ENG-6s and equivalents (usually because they make more money than EX-1s) but director is the level of responsibility where technical expertize collides with departmental management. This is why I advocate for Cdr/LCol to be the most common rank for directors in NDHQ (although, if I had my way we would not use civil service titles in the defence staff): Cdr/LCol is our major unit command rank - the time when an officer gains 'full authority' which is the equivalent to the status of a civil service director. This would involve a wholesale review of military pay, for officers and other ranks.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

Having the Sgt brief the ADM / Allied LGen (why you chose those two as the pinnacle of the information flow in the CF is completely beyond me .....

Me too.  Ranks, Appointments, Distinctions, Honorariums chosen at random .... Your assumption of my intent was correct.

And with that I will retire to my humble abode. 

 

[Good2Golf]

As and aside, and to make matters worse or some readers: in the Canadian bureaucracy the director is supposed to be the pinnacle of expertize in a specific subject area; directors are both experts and managers - directors general and above are expected to be, more and more, generalists and managers. Thus, in most non-technical departments, directors are EXs while in the more technical ones the directors will often be ENG-6s and equivalents (usually because they make more money than EX-1s) but director is the level of responsibility where technical expertize collides with departmental management. This is why I advocate for Cdr/LCol to be the most common rank for directors in NDHQ (although, if I had my way we would not use civil service titles in the defence staff): Cdr/LCol is our major unit command rank - the time when an officer gains 'full authority' which is the equivalent to the status of a civil service director. This would involve a wholesale review of military pay, for officers and other ranks.

Mr. Campbell, I would agree with you, given my experiences in NDHQ.  Colonels as directors often appeared that "little bit further" from the expertise, more towards the generalist...LCols were most often the "rubber hits the road" folks...it was their signatures, along with the ECS and the ADM that were on project charter documentation, not the Colonel director or BGen DG.

Regards
G2G

 

[McG]

As and aside, and to make matters worse or some readers: in the Canadian bureaucracy the director is supposed to be the pinnacle of expertize in a specific subject area; directors are both experts and managers - directors general and above are expected to be, more and more, generalists and managers.    ... if I had my way we would not use civil service titles in the defence staff

I don't mind the PS titles - They are understood and clearly identify the incumbent is staff vice command.

As an alternative to rank-reducing all directors to Cdr/LCol, we could reduce several of the directors to lieutenant director (and with that the rank of Cdr/LCol).  Concurrently, some director-generals may be reduced to directors and various higher entities may also be downgraded to being DGs.  I suppose it is a semantics game, but the goal would be be break & realign the civilian-military rank equivalency in favour of reversing rank inflation.

 

[Monsoon]

I don't mind the PS titles - They are understood and clearly identify the incumbent is staff vice command.

As an alternative to rank-reducing all directors to Cdr/LCol, we could reduce several of the directors to lieutenant director (and with that the rank of Cdr/LCol).  Concurrently, some director-generals may be reduced to directors and various higher entities may also be downgraded to being DGs.  I suppose it is a semantics game, but the goal would be be break & realign the civilian-military rank equivalency in favour of reversing rank inflation.

The problem there is that you end up running into the old "as a Deputy Director I have to go up against full Directors in other departments doing the same job" issue; also, is it reasonable that someone with a comparable level of responsibility in, say, Fisheries & Oceans, has a higher PS rank and pay than a similar position in the (much larger) DND? I think ERC's suggestion of revising the PS/military rank equivalence chart is the most sensible solution (I have a cousin in the PS with 10 years experience who's an EX1; it takes about twice as long for the CF to make a Cdr/LCol). However, since doing this involves essentially revising upwards the pay for pretty well all senior CF members, it ain't gonna happen IMHO.

 

[blacktriangle]

To the powers that be,

I'll speak for the lowly Jr NCM's for a second...at least those I know.

Change whatever you want, we won't notice and things will still appear screwed up to us! Just don't mess with our pay.  Unless you are going to make it go up  :nod: (Just kidding TB, it's fine where it is...just don't drop it!)

Thanks!

 

[OldSolduer]

To the powers that be,

I'll speak for the lowly Jr NCM's for a second...at least those I know.

Change whatever you want, we won't notice and things will still appear screwed up to us! Just don't mess with our pay.  Unless you are going to make it go up  :nod: (Just kidding TB, it's fine where it is...just don't drop it!)

Thanks!

I second that.

When questioned on a Bde Comd's inspection as to how much an 84 MM Karl G weighed, the Cpl stated: "WTF do care sir? You'll never have to carry it...."