Of course they aren’t.  Besides our own individual experiences and those of peers, superiors, and subordinates, the numbers overwhelmingly agree.  44% of active duty servicemembers have children.  Breaking it down by rank shows that the more senior the member, the more likely they are to have children.  Over 80% of field grade officers and midgrade to senior enlisted in the Marine Corps have children—and by children, the report only includes those under age 21 or enrolled as a student, explaining slightly lower numbers at the top ranks.  The Navy looks similar (from DoD’s 2010 Demographics Report).

This really just tells us that the more senior you are, the more likely you are to have kids.  Common sense.  So what’s the point here?

As many of us know, military life requires a unique commitment from both the servicemember and the family.  Time was, the family norm for society as a whole and the military in particular included a male breadwinner and a wife/mother at home with the kids.  Due to the demands of a military career and the military lifestyle, this was a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It’s simply harder for a spouse to finish an education and find stable, well-paying work if you move every few years.  It’s also harder to get child care outside of the home to enable employment if you move often.

However, over the past few decades, America has changed, and so have American families.  Women and men are more educated, with women comprising approximately 55% of college graduates each year, and women work outside of the home in ever-increasing numbers.  By 2000, only one in five marriages featured a male breadwinner with a wife at home.  Even in families with new babies, more than half of the mothers were back at work inside of a year.  The vast majority of mothers work outside of the home (from the Hoover Institution’s July 2004 “The Changing American Family” by Herbert Klein).

What does that tell us?

We know the dedication and demands required by a military career, especially in the higher ranks, tougher/more rewarding jobs, and command.  To succeed and excel, servicemembers with children need a supportive family: a spouse who can sacrifice to do the majority of the child-rearing, to move when needed, to single-parent when called to.

But families have changed.  Military spouses have too: only 45% of officer spouses and 32% of enlisted spouses are unemployed and not looking for work (DoD 2010 Demographics Report).  Single parents are increasing among active duty members just as they are in society.

Women are entering the military in greater numbers, and dual-military marriages are more common.  The percentage of women in the military is increasing, and will only continue to rise.

And, ironically, women generally hit the most common childbearing years right as they approach the middle ranks, or as their husbands approach those same ranks (and wives have their own careers to maintain).

Fewer stay-at-home-moms +  more career-oriented mothers +  more educated members/spouses + everybody having kids later + increased demand on fathers despite military obligations + demands of ten years of war on families + no change in policy = more people leaving active duty in the middle ranks due to family obligations

Do we have to do anything to attract these people/families?  Of course not.  The military could keep on its present course, because there will always be a pool of individuals who fit the traditional mold of the single breadwinner with supportive spouse and kids.  But  American society and national trends show that this pool will be ever-shrinking.  What will this pool look like in another 10 years?  20?  Limiting ourselves to a shrinking group of people will severely limit the quality of those who join us and who fill our senior ranks.

There are solutions out there.  I’ve mentioned sabbaticals and continue to believe the idea is solid.  The current DoD sabbatical program (see the Army Times’ 17 April article for a brief synopsis) has its limits.  So far, only the Navy has used it, and it expires in 2015.  I like that it limits entrance to the program to 80 members a year, because that might discourage abuse and encourage only those with a real desire to use it.  I only found out about such a plan two months ago, which makes me wonder how many others are ignorant of its existence.  And I haven’t seen any early assessments of its success.  Curious why 2015 is the end-date, too.

What was really interesting, though, was the fifth paragraph in the article, which highlighted that DoD officials were planning to expand the program, which “would give ‘greater flexibility to test and evaluate alternative career retention options in specialties and skills in which monetary incentives alone have not produced required long-term retention results’.”

It’s not about money.  You can’t pay most people enough to sacrifice their families, which is how it should be.  It’s about attracting and keeping those who want to serve and to continue to serve in some capacity.  For the next post, on one hand we have active duty, and on the other we have leaving the service/going on sabbatical.  Is there no room for a middle ground?  Perhaps there should be.




Posted by Jeannette Haynie in Marine Corps, Navy

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • F/A-18 2 C-40

    Rick,
    That paper does not involve any real research into the issue. It is just a paper written with conjecture that forcing officers to leave the service on forced leaves of absence would make for a better officer corps. He does not actually back this up with any research. He floats a theory about a career path that has never existed. He even notes that it would not work for certain fields that involve highly technical knowledge. That will probably take aviators and nukes out of the equation. Do you want to ‘fess up that your job could be done by somebody that could have been away from it for as many as 6+ years (disassociated tour followed by a leave of absence could easily put you in that range). Or do we now need to build in retraining?

    How would this improve retention? The only people this would attract are people that want job and career uncertainty every few years. I do not believe I would find a job that paid me as well as my current officer pay offers if I showed up and asked them to hire me for a couple of years. But, as soon as you train me and get me up to speed, I’m going to ask to leave.

    This would actually work against what the original poster desired. Now, she and her husband are on this crazy hole-ridden military career (not to mention she is a pilot and wouldn’t qualify anyway). Do they want their leaves of absence to be lined up or offsetting? Do they both really want the uncertainty of becoming unemployed at the exact same time as they plan to have a family?

    I do understand that forcing everybody to do the same leaves of absence is the only way to ensure that taking a leave is not viewed in a negative light. It also is the only way that the military can plan ahead for the manning shortfalls that are inherent with the absences. But, it applies a massive sledgehammer to fix a problem that does not seem to be truly affecting the majority of the fleet. Would it really have any retention savings? It seems to me it would likely drive down recruiting. You might retain most of what you recruit, but will you really be able to fill all the seats. You will also need more bodies since at any given time and large percentage of them will not be in the military.

    Still not any valid research to back up this idea. A bunch of articles saying that it has had marginal returns in some private sector jobs. No tie-in to the military. No evidence that we will get more for our limited defense dollars.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Rick, you have got to be kidding. There are so many logical flaws with your argument that it defies analysis in a meaningful way.

  • Sperrwaffe

    Well, I must admit I have been reading the last posts sometimes with amazement and sometimes disbelief about some ways the discussion went.

    Why is that so?
    With the first post Jeannette entered the ring I thought: “Wow, cool, now something to exchange views about and learn something. Maybe also from each other.”
    Thats why I also made my comment from the first place. But the last days I was just sitting and wondering. No chance to skip in or to get into it. Seems that outsiders are currently not welcome in this inner circle, eh? ;)
    Well thank you very much coach. Not this time.

    The way I see it is that you, meine werten Kameraden, are currently swivelling around the pillars of principal dislike and like. A discourse to a certain point but I am missing the “evolution”. There are of course the issues about “fighting teams” and the “rear echelon” basically speaking. For a core “fighting team” it is of course crucial to loose a team member. But this happens all the time. And somehow personnel planning is able to cope with it.
    Just one side of the coin I know, but anyhow.
    What I want to point to, is the fact that a lot of planning can reduce the side effects of: sabbaticals, medical issues, or simply the loss of a team member. Even if this happens without warning.
    Question: What are the planned reserve posts (active billets) normally for? Maybe you can enlarge my insight into these US processes? Can these be integrated into the planning process? I don’t have a clue? I am just asking. I know mine, but not yours.

    Which brings me back to parenthood. Well, how long does it take until the baby is there? 9months of existing planning time. During that time becoming parents change their approach to a lot of stuff. Sabbaticals and other decisions don’t happen from one second to another.

    Life is what happens while you are making plans.

    However, parents make decisions about how to raise their young and how they want to take care about each other also as wife and husband in the future.
    But as a member of the service they have the duty to tell their superiors about their ideas and approaches. In order to enable the superiors to start the planning process. So here we have some give and take I was relating to in my first answer some weeks ago.
    And then again there is the Reserve. In my country the assigned reserver billets often cover a lot of abscences, also from key personnel.
    So again, what happens when your company CO has to go on a 3 months education (parachuting course with German Paratrooper to give a stupid example)? Or what about the postgraduate or war college? Is that time of academical advancing lost? It is a certain way of broaden your skills. So is parenthood, at least for me it is. It is about gaining additional skills, which enhance your professional approach to everything.
    What I mean is that everytime the military is facing absentiisms and othere related personnel problems. But that belongs to daily life. Of course I understand what you URR and Grandpa are telling us. heavy workloads to cope with belonging to the ship. But isn’t most of the daily biased bureaucracy workload a principal problem of the system which has developed over the years? Maybe someone should start there? And not make this a problem of the soldiers who could do more without this bullshit on their backs?
    And on the other hand, just because you have a sabattical program just doesn’t mean that by date X 65% of the people are gone. Just a small percentage will use this opportunity. And when talking about members of the service it will be self confident, self aware and responsible people who will weigh the effects of their absentiism on their team very clearly. And they will take measures against it. Or at least I hope so, otherwise I have to make upe my mind about your services ;)
    And just one more, why must everybode have to make a super special highly sophisticated bullshit career? Everytime I have to think about MIB: “The best, of the best of the best…with honors…he’s just really excited and has no clue why we are here….”

    Well, maybe I am just missing a lot of points, but I wanted to get back to some basic questions which interest me.
    Oh, I almost forgot: Do officers and Chiefs in the US get paid that much that you can afford that one part stays at home? Wow…

    And now something to think about:
    Welcome to my country, where parents have the RIGHT to leave for 12 months, with 60% payment for that period. Either Mother or Father. Another 2 months might be added, if the two combine (first two months Mum then Dad takes over). And then you enter back into your last post. It’s called “Elternzeit” and it’s a Law from Social Security Statutes.
    And all personnel planners must cope with it. Even our military ones learned that one very fast.
    Just as an example to give you something in addittion to chew on.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Sperrwaffe,

    All other things being equal, you may have some workable ideas. However, there are some things that you should know. While you assert that a member of the armed services has a duty to tell their superiors about their ideas and approaches. In the US, it is in fact illegal to ask a female employee or potential employee if she is planning children. In fact, it is highly inadvisable to ask about family at all, for fear of being grounds for a law suit claiming discrimination if a promotion or raise is not forthcoming.

    Also, a 3 month parachute school is not a 3-year sabbatical. It is a course to increase some facet of combat or military skill. Ditto the academic pursuits, which are considered a change in duty station and are not pulled from “fleet” billets except on rare occasions.

    Finally, aside from others who are not getting the “good deal” working extra to fill the gaps of those who do, does the sabbatical make someone a better soldier or warrior? If not, what is the benefit to the service? And why should those who stayed and served, and did the extra work, have to compete with those who didn’t?

    Finally (finally), quoting German social security statutes as having “worked” when making comparisons to our military and shrinking defense budgets may not be a very convincing argument. :) I mean, it is better than Greece, but still.

  • RickWilmes

    URR,

    Am I kidding?  No.

    Logical flaws or contradictions?

    I plead guilty as charged to the latter.

    The questions and comparisons I raise may appear to be logical flaws but so did Socrates’ in Plato’s dialogs.

    Instead of making a broad sweeping generalization, will you specifically identify one of my logical flaws and name it?

  • Sperrwaffe

    URR
    :) :)
    Don’t worry, no comparison meant. Just to give an example what is an solution in other countries. Societies evolve…
    And believe me, we are facing the same fight about budgets. There is another reform of the Bundeswehr which from my point of view will end up in “doing more with less”. Or in other words: “Before the reform 10 people were doing 100 tasks. After the reform it will be 5 people doing 150 tasks.” Just what I meant with the hint to “daily biased bureaucracy workload”.

    I really accept your points. I knew they would come and I had them in my mind while I was writing my monolouge last evening.

    Concerning the “duty” I was referring to an honest exchange between the employer and employee. Might be even easier in the military because you have a certain trust for each other. I know legal issues are a topic and you should not pressure people the lay open their “plans”. And then again, Life is what happens while you are making plans.
    Maybe concerning this exchange there might be more problems with regard to society, legal and other issues. So, employment in the US is a field of distrust, competition and survival of the fittest, eh? :) I will not stop to tease you..;) ;)

    I look at these things a little bit more remote, or from above. Maybe too philisophical, but on the other hand change and development comes not from just saying “No, can’t do that, never have, never will”.

  • Byron

    SWMBO, I think it would be good to have Herr Sperrwaffe write an article ;)

  • UltimaRatioReg

    So now you are on a par with Socrates and Plato?

    I didn’t know. Welcome to the new antiquity, Rick.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Sperwaffe,

    I agree with Byron, write an article!

    The disagreement with the premise is from decades of making similar exceptions for certain self-defining groups, while those not in those groups got stuck with the extra work and longer hours, and still wound up competing on “an even field” for promotion and assignment. It has a certain inevitability to it. If that very issue cannot be addressed adequately up front, the rest matters very little.

    One is not absolutely certain that, if he jumps off a building, he will impact terra firma. But it is a pretty good bet. So when “can’t do that” is offered, the reasons are similar.

  • Sperrwaffe

    URR,

    Thank you for your last post. The middle part of it now makes it a lot more easier for me to understand your point. You are right, that’s the core issue which must be solved. No doubt.

    And thanks to you and Byron for your suggestion. I will have to think about it, while I am in Abu Dhabi for the next two weeks. Should be some time besides the task I have to coordinate to make up my mind about that.

  • Grandpa Bluewater

    Rick:

    When I start a sentence with the word “generally”, that means there are exceptions to the statement. Citing one exception does not invalidate the point. Do try to learn to think a bit more logically.

    Grant was trained at West Point and experienced due to his participation in the war with Mexico. That put him head and shoulders above the inexperienced volunteers who made up the vast majority of the Union Army at the start of the war.

    He returned as a drill instructor to a volunteer outfit raised from scratch, and worked his way up by sustained superior performance, in instilling discipline in green volunteers, and by superb performance on the field of battle.

    He had previously resigned his commission – as in OUT, permanently gone. The reason he rose to the top is that he won, consistently, while many who stayed when he got out failed the only important test, combat. His genius was his ability to do what was required, NOT rpt NOT, politics.

    See also “If”, by Kipling.

  • Jeannette Haynie

    Good discussion, and I’m glad it generated so much interest. The debate could have been refined by a thorough reading of the actual CIPP order, since some of the comments addressed don’t actually apply to the limited program that the Navy is piloting and that I discussed in my post.

    Far from being half-baked, DoD has been commissioning research along these lines from at least 1996, and has also borrowed heavily from the extensive research done in the civilian sector since the late 70s. The Coast Guard also has a sabbatical program, and the Army has similarly been doing some heavy research into options more flexible than the rigid career path currently in place throughout the services. Like it or not, the interest in these options DoD-wide is increasing and practical.

    That being said, if we all agreed, there’d be no need for the USNI blog, so keep it coming.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Jeannette,

    The question then remains. Are we talking about something such as is in the CIPP order, or a program that might be available to the better than two of every five service members?

    I would also caution against “DoD-wide interest” as a measure of the value or negative impact of a program or policy. See: Manning, optimal. Also: Belts, reflective. For additional reading, try: Breathalyzers, workplace.

  • Jeannette Haynie

    DoD-wide interest, research, and pilot programs, and borrowing from civilian studies all show that this entire subject is taken seriously, as it should be, and that alternatives are being tested and measured. Take a look at the civilian sector closely, and into the personnel management policies of the top companies and professions. The trend since the 1970s has been toward more flexible career paths and mid-career alternatives, and while the military is well behind the civilian workforce in exploring these, I’m glad it’s finally happening.

    If the military wants to continue to attract and retain quality people, it needs to think outside the box, especially in light of established demographic trends. Again, I am reminded of a kid stomping his or her foot and shouting that there’s only one way to do things. Why the aversion to change? Not all change is bad, and as someone else posted earlier, anytime we sit back and think that we’ve got it all figured out and are doing the best we can, we should just get out.

    As to your first question above, as I said in my main post, I like the limited aspect of the CIPP for now, at least until we have more info on how it’s working and whether it’s accomplishing what DoD wants it to accomplish. Keep the program restricted and make the payback serious enough so we’ll only attract those who really, really want to make it work. Otherwise we risk abuse. Eventually I think DoD needs to move to a much more flexible way of structuring a career, but not tomorrow. We have to do it right, and do it smart.

    I also don’t think the sabbatical idea is perfect, for a number of reasons that we can get into later if needed. It’s a good option, but there are more out there. For later posts.

    And what, you don’t think those reflective belts look good? Especially on a whole platoon of Marines at once?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Again, I am reminded of a kid stomping his or her foot and shouting that there’s only one way to do things.”

    Again, I am reminded of senior leadership telling me such-and-such is a “good idea” irrespective of the horrendous outcomes, effect on morale, negative impact on mission and capabilities, or the inherent lack of equity of giving some people the good deal while the ones who don’t get it have the extra work to do. Once again, see: Optimal Manning, “do more with less”, deferred maintenance, “super-single” tires, workplace breathalyzers, “Cinderella liberty” during Fleet Week, blueberry suits, the M-16 rifle and M-60E3 machine gun, and the M9 pistol.

    There IS only one way to do things. Fairly. Exceptions made for race, religion, gender, sexual preference, married service members, etc., always ends up being inherently unfair. Going on thirty years of watching the increasing tempo of the Diversity kubuki dance. So pardon my skepticism.

    My question deserves and answer. Simply asserting that such an idea is inherently “good” or that the military needs to mimic civilian employment yet again is not an answer. It is anything but an answer.

  • Jeannette Haynie

    Asked and answered, repeatedly, throughout all of my posts.

    Fairness is great. My fair? Or yours? Or the 5,000 versions in between? Neither of us is unbiased in our appraisal of what policies are “fair” to attract and retain the best people, and to form the strongest military we can.

    Even better than fairness, though, is asking how to do the best by and for the services. What will shape the best Marine Corps in coming years, attract more quality people, and enable us to more effectively, efficiently, and thoroughly accomplish the mission?

    If you think the status quo is fair, and if you think the current policies and career paths are the best we can do as a military–both to create the best force for mission accomplishment and to attract and retain the best people–then you need to spend more time talking to junior personnel across the services.

    On your diversity note, the majority of the applicants/selectees for the CIPP have been/are male, and most of those selected have used the break to pursue higher schooling via the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The program is for anyone who meets the requirements in the order, and while having a baby is one way to use it, it is not nearly the most common way.

    This horse has left the gate. Next post forthcoming.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Apparently, it is YOUR fair. Which is not surprising.

    The questions I posited have never been addressed, let alone answered.

    Are you talking about a program with a small and competitive population such as the CIPP, or are you talking about expanding such either in concept or in current form to encompass those 44% you referred to? The failure of something very limited will have very limited effects on the services. The failure of something much larger would affect the services proportionately.

    And you managed to breeze by the part about those not selected doing the extra work for those who are, and why they should settle for having to compete with the ones who went and got their education or had their babies, while they were the ones who stayed and served. Marines know life isn’t fair. They get that. But when you institutionalize the unfairness, you damage the fabric of trust that they have in their Corps.

    Speak to more junior Marines? Methinks perhaps the lady should take her own advice. Except wander over to an infantry battalion, or an artillery or tank battalion. Lots of them there.

Subscribe

Get blog posts delivered to your inbox
* = required field

video title