3 ms·

The problem there is that the US military usually has a very hard time evaluating actual effectiveness since it's not reasonable to start a war just to see how

The problem there is that the US military usually has a very hard time evaluating actual effectiveness since it's not reasonable to start a war just to see how your employees do. This means during prolonged periods of peacetime, a form of regulatory capture happens where the metrics used to evaluate promotion become decoupled from actual fitness of purpose.

davidroberts 14y ago
Metrics used to evaluate fitness being detached from the actual purpose of a position is not only a characteristic of the military. For example, since success in academics is usually the first requirement to even start in any position above the most menial, anyone who finds it difficult to toe the line and waste hours listening to someone drone on about a topic totally unrelated to their purpose in life, or enthusiastically embrace make-work homework assignments, will likely have a hard road, no matter how well qualified they might otherwise be.
bane 14y ago
well, I meant the military as an example, it's interesting that you bring up evaluation of fitness during peace vs. war time. One could argue that the U.S. military in particular has had a tremendous opportunity this last decade or so to conduct exactly the kind of wartime evaluation you're talking about. But I wonder if the evaluation metrics are optimized towards peace-time?
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  Not a military member or veteran myself, but am friendly with quite a few present and former officers. The culture they describe sounds extremely political. Almost like being a career military officer is equivalent to being a career politician. To some extent, there's a hint of academy politics as well: people who publish, get cited, etc., move more quickly than people who don't. To another extent, there's classic politics: people who schmooze within the Beltway, know how to play the media game, etc., get ahead quicker than others. In many respects, David Petraeus is the perfect embodiment of these political principles. He published, he politicked, he maximized his media exposure, and he hobnobbed within the right DC circles. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not he was as good a leader as many believe him to have been. But he was certainly a top-notch political operative. (Other government agencies, e.g., the CIA, have very similar internal political incentives. The game is almost the same. This may explain, in part, the fluidity between military leadership and Agency leadership).
r0s 14y ago
That sounds like a massive conflict of interest.

davidroberts 14y ago

Metrics used to evaluate fitness being detached from the actual purpose of a position is not only a characteristic of the military. For example, since success in academics is usually the first requirement to even start in any position above the most menial, anyone who finds it difficult to toe the line and waste hours listening to someone drone on about a topic totally unrelated to their purpose in life, or enthusiastically embrace make-work homework assignments, will likely have a hard road, no matter how well qualified they might otherwise be.

bane 14y ago

well, I meant the military as an example, it's interesting that you bring up evaluation of fitness during peace vs. war time. One could argue that the U.S. military in particular has had a tremendous opportunity this last decade or so to conduct exactly the kind of wartime evaluation you're talking about. But I wonder if the evaluation metrics are optimized towards peace-time?

jonnathanson 14y ago
Not a military member or veteran myself, but am friendly with quite a few present and former officers. The culture they describe sounds extremely political. Almost like being a career military officer is equivalent to being a career politician. To some extent, there's a hint of academy politics as well: people who publish, get cited, etc., move more quickly than people who don't. To another extent, there's classic politics: people who schmooze within the Beltway, know how to play the media game, etc., get ahead quicker than others. In many respects, David Petraeus is the perfect embodiment of these political principles. He published, he politicked, he maximized his media exposure, and he hobnobbed within the right DC circles. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not he was as good a leader as many believe him to have been. But he was certainly a top-notch political operative. (Other government agencies, e.g., the CIA, have very similar internal political incentives. The game is almost the same. This may explain, in part, the fluidity between military leadership and Agency leadership).

r0s 14y ago

That sounds like a massive conflict of interest.