全球智库信息集成服务系统

Management of G/FO requirements across an enterprise the size and diversity of the Department of Defense is a complex and dynamic undertaking

A reliable methodology identifies whether or not G/FO positions meet combined criteria for a G/FO requirement

• There is considerable variation in how similar positions in different organizations were filled, and there are internal inconsistencies within single organizations.
• A number of G/FO positions did not meet any of the key criteria for a G/FO requirement.
• Of the 1,113 requirements reviewed, 615 positions meet G/FO requirement criteria, and 132 do not. Results were inconclusive for the remaining 366 positions, either because of conflicting findings or because a set of positions was deemed subject to policy decision.
• Of the 132 positions that did not meet the criteria, 35 positions were in position pyramids where the elimination would worsen the health of the position pyramid.
• Further investigation of the 132 positions that did not meet the combined criteria for a G/FO requirement is needed to determine why these positions need to be filled by a G/FO and whether alternatives might be used to fill the requirements.
• The 366 positions with inconclusive results are another area for departmental investigation.

Once positions are identified for possible downgrade, elimination, or conversion, it is prudent to evaluate the implications of the proposed decisions

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness asked RAND to conduct an independent study of general and flag officer (G/FO) requirements. The goals of this effort were to develop a methodology to assess active component G/FO requirements and authorizations; use the methodology to identify opportunities to eliminate, downgrade, or convert (to civilian) G/FO positions; assess the adequacy of existing statutes and policies to provide G/FOs to meet requirements; and recommend changes, if needed. With that in mind, the authors developed and employed a rigorous, adjustable, transparent, and repeatable analytic methodology to review G/FO positions. This included an examination of the functions performed by G/FOs within and across organizations; a position-by-position review in which all 1,113 G/FO requirements were evaluated against a defined set of criteria; the development and administration of a forced-choice exercise to identify priorities for how four- and three-star G/FOs should be used; and an evaluation of how positions affect development of G/FOs within functional areas. The combined results of these assessments were used to identify opportunities to eliminate or downgrade G/FO positions and assess implications of reductions. RAND's methodology offers the Department of Defense a more systematic and analytic foundation with which to justify its G/FO requirements.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Statutory Requirements and Legislative Management of General and Flag Officers

• Chapter Three

  Structure and Organization Analysis

• Chapter Four

  Position-by-Position Analysis

• Chapter Five

  Forced-Choice Exercise

• Chapter Six

  Position Pyramid Health

• Chapter Seven

  Putting the Pieces Together: Evaluating the Findings

• Chapter Eight

  Career Paths, Experiences, and the Military Career Model

• Chapter Nine

  Managing General and Flag Officers Beyond the Mandated Review

• Chapter Ten

  Policy and Management Recommendations

• Appendix A

  Data Collection Protocol

• Appendix B

  Command Chain Application

• Appendix C

  Statutes Governing General and Flag Officers

• Appendix D

  Detailed Findings from the Structure and Organizational Assessments

• Appendix E

  Pyramid Calculator