I have been the DCG for LD&E and Deputy Commandant for CGSC for 50+ days and am ready to jump feet first into the CAC blogosphere. I would like to get your thoughts on Length of Command.
There has been much debate recently in leadership circles about changing the length of Battalion and Brigade commands from 24 months to 36 months.
Currently, commanders are averaging 31 months in command, so adding another five months might not seem like a stretch. Taking this action would better align units and personnel with the ARFORGEN cycle in order to provide units with continuity of command. But there are obvious other impacts such a decision would make, to include fewer opportunities for commands and senior Army leaders with command experience.
Whose needs should be considered? The Army? The Soldiers/Unit? The individual?
I am interested in your thoughts on this important issue, casting the net wide here for input as we continue the dialogue before any decisions are rendered. Feel free to comment, I want to hear from all angles of the issue: past, present and future commanders as well as staff and support personnel who have weathered these transitions time and again.
2 Comments on "24-Month Commands? Enough?"
Sir,
Increasing the command tenure to 36-months would provide little advantage to the system if the current average time in command is 31 months. Both brigade and battalion commands, from my perspective, are extremely taxing positions and require an individual who can juggle all aspects of the preverbal three-legged stool. This question is easiest answered by taking existing Army applications and applying them appropriately. The new modular Army and the ARFORGEN process challenges the move and any change should be looked at from a METT-TC perspective.
There is a lot of discussion on this blog about continuity of command, showing support for the proposed additional year of command. It is understandable that commanders want to take their Soldiers to battle and an increase to tenure would certainly favor such a desire. One of the issues is modularity. No longer are we taking our “peace time” units to battle. Most units don’t even meet their assigned units until they arrive in theater. Speaking from a battalion S3 perspective, I deployed with my battalion in 2009. When we deployed we took one of our seven assigned CONUS units. Several units were attached to our command upon arrival in theater. None of the units we received had trained with us, knew our battle drills, understood our battle rhythm, or the dynamics of our command culture. Continuity of command was mute since we had to “indoctrinate” each unit. In addition, since we overlap FY’s, none of our attached units were on the same ARFORGEN cycle. This added another layer to the issue because as those units rotated out, new ones rotated in.
The next factor is the ARFORGEN model. Active duty units are on a three year model and the Reserve and National Guard are on a five year cycle. The argument made is valid since commanders would be able to train, deploying and reset a unit if they had 36-month command tenure. This is correct for the AC, but not for the RC or NG whom represent a sizable portion of rotational units and the total force.
Exercising the Army method of METT-TC seems to be a feasible approach to answer this question. If there is an operational/mission need for a commander to be extended past the current 24-month tenure then he/she should have the option to submit a written request to their senior rater for approval. This process would require a recommendation from the requesting officer’s rater as well and should include a current Multisource Assessment and Feedback report of the leader.
I support the other officers who see a shrinking opportunity for command at the next level if tenures are increased to 36-months. Not only would the opportunity decrease, but there would also be a smaller pool of command seasoned officers available to act as mentors to junior field grade officers. And as you stated sir, there would be a decreased amount of senior Army leaders with command experience.
As professionals we serve our Country for various reasons, none of which should be self-serving. This is not a question of the individual since most commanders are getting 31-months of command on average and this is not a question of the unit for the same reason. As mentioned above, continuity of command is applicable only if one is taking a preponderance of units already familiar with their command procedures. Applying the METT-TC approach to the situation will let leaders make the choice about extending leaders based on mission requirements and leader performance, not by policy.
V/R
MAJ McKiernan
August 27, 2010 3:24 PM Dwayne Wagner said:
Sir, if the standard command tour is 24 months and we are now averaging 31 months, this probably means that senior leaders are considering what is best for their mission and our soldiers and then making the best decision for the situation. These subjective decisions cause some officers to command for 21 months or so while others may command up to 36 months or longer. This may be the best we can do based on the OPTEMPO.
I believe that changing the command tour to 36 months will result in officers commanding between 32 and 42 months because of our cultural tendency is to leave officers in command if deployed or facing immediate deployment. I do not believe that we would adhere to a 36 command length standard, just like we cannot adhere to a 24 month command standard.
The selection and assignment of commanders should benefit the mission, our soldiers, and the individual officer, in that order. I trust the senior leader in the field to decide which commanders need to be extended to best accomplish the mission and lead soldiers. If extension decisions result in some LTCs or COLs not commanding, so be it. We can select the next crop of Brigade Commanders or Brigadier Generals from the pool of officers we have.
The alternative is to adhere to a strict 24 month command tour policy without consideration to the needs of the mission, the command, or the soldiers. This approach takes care of the officer and creates a bigger pool of command experienced officers, but at what cost to the mission and the soldiers who need continuity in leadership?
Last, I have not reviewed command demographics. But, I sense that the officers we select today for command, probably cycle from being deployed as a BN XO or S3 (or equivalent), selection for LTC and Battalion Command, and within 12-18 months is back in theater as a Commander. This officer serves in Iraq or Afghanistan for 12-15 months, brings the Battalion back home, and then attends the War College for a year before being selected for Brigade Command, where the cycle may start again. I am sure we will hear from some serving Colonels who were deployed three times in a 5-6 year window: Battalion XO or S3, Battalion Commander, and Brigade Commander. A 24 month command policy that is enforced helps to prevent burnout with these “stallions.”
My comments are biased as I have participated in the command slating process as the MP Field Grade Assignment Officer and later as the Functional Area Branch Chief. However, I never had to contend with command slating with a force that was in perpetual motion to support wars on two fronts. I can only imagine the difficulty in command selection, slating, and assignment in today’s operational environment.
September 14, 2010 8:17 AM william.sutton said:
Sir, you pose an interesting question. I feel that Dewayne Wagner is absolutely correct in his believe that extending the current command tours from 24 months to 36 months will only result in 36+ month command tours. If we can’t adhere to the current 24 month command tours why should we believe that we will be able to adhere to 36 months? While this may seem like the right thing to do in today’s high OPTEMPO environment with 12 to 15 month deployments to ensure continuity is 36 months the right command tour length for the future if/when the OPTEMPO slows and units have greater dwell time?
While the needs of the Army, our Soldiers and the unit will always come first I believe that extending the command tours to 36 months may result in the loss of some great leaders. One can make the assumption that an increase in command length will result in fewer opportunities for Soldiers to command at the Battalion and Brigade level. Added to the already limited command opportunities that exist for some branches, as a result of modularity, I can foresee a further exodus of some great Army leaders. So it may be better to consider whether a 36 month command tour is right for all branches or a select few.
September 14, 2010 3:59 PM Scott Rowe said:
Sir,
As an Air Force officer, this issue resonates with me. Command tours in the Air Force are slated for 24 months. In my three tours with operational squadrons, I have yet to have a commander last for 24 months. This is primarily driven by the need to give rising stars the opportunity to lead in an environment of reduced command opportunities. When I joined the air-to-air community seven years ago, there were 17 operational squadrons. Today, there are 10.
I believe this rotation cycle addresses the needs of the Air Force and the individual while ignoring the needs of the unit. From my perspective, it takes commanders about 12 months to figure out command, get their vision implemented, and get their squadron running the way they envisioned. As soon as the squadron is operating at a high level, the commanders are rotated, forcing the squadron to start over again in a never-ending cycle. This cycle seems to promote an attitude of commander conformity vice making long-term organizational change. Many of my former commanders lamented this cycle because they felt they were only able to scratch the surface of the art of leadership before being forced to give up the squadron.
I understand the need to take care of individuals and the resulting long-term health of the Air Force, but I believe there is a better way. The Air Force can address this problem by increasing the institution’s value on other command opportunities such as those available in our training command. Understandably, operational squadrons across all domains are considered the most prestigious, but I believe reduced command opportunities require a paradigm change. The only other option is to not provide command opportunities for deserving candidates. This course of action will unnecessarily limit the talent pool for very capable individuals.
Maj Scott Rowe
September 15, 2010 10:41 PM JohnOakley said:
I believe that there should be a maximum time in Command vice a minimum time. 36 months should be the maximum time allowed. More than that is too strenuous and less than the current 24 months isn’t enough time to learn. It is important to consider changes such as these as these ideas trickle down into the National Guard and Army Reserve. Capping NG or USAR at 24 months would be detrimental to the units and the leaders. An example of the trickle down effect is the reduction of time in grade for junior officer promotions. This is already having an negative effect resulting in leaders without the essential skills necessary to be successful commanders and staff officers.
September 16, 2010 8:17 AM MAJ John Woo said:
Sir,
The discussion of changing the length of command should address the purpose and desired end state. If the purpose is to align command time with the ARFORGEN cycle with the end state of having more effective, cohesive units for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then it makes sense. If the end state, however, is focused more on the long term in developing senior Army leadership, then longer command times do not necessarily contribute.
As you have addressed, there would be less opportunities for command. Specifically, 1/3 less. With a possible drawdown on the horizon, in terms of absolute numbers, there would be even less. In an Army that is commander-centric, loss of experienced officers in the upper ranks would inevitably have rippling effects throughout the military. There may very well be potential Grants and Pattons that slip through the cracks in an attempt to provide a little more continuity for commanders and units. It is certainly doubtful that an extra year of command enhances the leadership level of those who already possess the skills and talents to receive command. The value added, as far as leadership experience, would be little.
Additionally, the ARFORGEN cycle, which is relatively new, would matter less if there were no deployments on the horizon. Requirements in Iraq are waning. The President and SECDEF have said we will begin a conditions-based withdrawal from Afghanistan beginning in July of 2011. When we become a cyclic peace-time army, the force generation cycle is likely to change again.
Furthermore, the hallmark of great leaders is their ability to develop sustaining, competent organizations capable of mission accomplishment without their presence. We may be underestimating our commanders’ abilities in leaving great units for their successors and those successors’ abilities in providing continuity and stability. When a new commander comes in during an ARFORGEN cycle should matter little.
The policy for command lengths should remain at 24-months. As it has been practiced recently with an average of 31-month commands, there is certainly room for flexibility as the situation dictates. The decision to maintain 24-month commands and provide more opportunities addresses the needs of both the individuals and the Army.
September 16, 2010 12:37 PM MAJ B. Jones said:
Sir,
Extending command tours to 36 months, in a perfect world, would be nice and would give commanders the time they actually need to create a “perfect” command climate, battle rhythm, and, ultimately, effect lasting change. It seems that commanders start to “get it right” around the 20 month mark then spend the next four months preparing for a change of command/PCS. This cycle, too, disrupts the staff and Soldiers of the command as anxiety builds for “change of command prep” and preparing for the arrival of the “new boss”. Providing more time in command would allow commanders, staff and Soldiers to maintain a longer “steady-state” of operations in order to strive for excellence.
However, the ability to leave officers in a command billet for 36 months could lead to a back-log of future command slating for subsequent year groups waiting in the command queue. Or, even worse, limit the amount of actual commands given out each year; leaving future officers to look forward to being a “staff guy” their whole career.
I would say this question boils down to equality of command slots among all officers. Being able to give all officers a chance at command and meeting the needs of the Army is more realistic by maintaining the normal 24 month command time opposed to 36 months.
September 16, 2010 1:01 PM travis said:
Sir, I feel that 24 months in command is enough. I commanded a company for 32 months and deployed that unit to Iraq; after 24 months I was burned out. Anything longer than 24 months, commanders get complacent and once you become complacent you lose the desire to come up with new ideas and Soldiers deserve to have a commander that is leaning forward in the foxhole. Besides, commanding is not only stressful at times but the long hours working causes problems at the home. If I could have done it all over again, I would have like to have changed command after my deployment.
September 16, 2010 5:00 PM ILEstudent10-003 said:
Sir,
Having discussed this issue in depth during the leadership coursework here at ILE, it seems that so much effort is afforded to organizational change without any forethought to the time constraints of the current 24-31 month standard command tour timeline. Although, it is an excellent goal to instruct field grade officers on methods to effect organizational change, so many variables ultimately constrain our ability to transform or optimize our commands.
Time constraints and continuity of command are certainly some of the major inhibiting factors that prevent the military from achieving greater efficiency as an organization. With such little time to transform an organization, and with such little effort to archive our mistakes and lessons learned, we are doomed to repeat these inefficiencies from command to command.
I believe by extending command tours to 36 months and making command assignments more competitive, the Army would not only increase the quality of commanders, but also provide the time for commanders to make a positive transformational impact on their units. I concur with Colonel (R) Wagner’s concern that the current OPTEMPO and longer proposed command times could have the potential to burn out even the best commanders and spiral into a toxic leadership environment. Conversely, the longer the Army provides competent and resilient leaders the opportunity to command, the greater the opportunity those commanders have to make a lasting and positive impact on the unit and its soldiers.
MAJ D. Tangermann Jr.
ILE Student
Class:10-003
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
September 17, 2010 9:53 AM derrick.melton said:
Sir,
First, allow me to formally congratulate you on your promotion and new position. I hope that the command experience that I received while serving as one of your company and rear detachment commanders under the Ready First Combat Team and recent training at the Fort Gordon CGSC satellite campus can add to this discussion.
My first impression is that extending the command tours at the operational level to 36 months will allow the commander to set conditions to adequately assess the current command climate, develop the appropriate vision and implement policies to enhance the unit’s level of performance. Creating a positive environment that will allow subordinates to learn and take the initiative to accomplish many implied tasks associated with mission accomplishment takes time. Teaching, learning and mentoring were common characteristics that were displayed during my command tenure, however, as I learn more about leadership at the operational level, I see that it will take time to adequately implement and sustain those positive characteristics of creating a positive command environment conducive to mission accomplishment and solidarity between leaders, Soldiers, Families and civilians.
Creating the positive command environment would be, in my opinion, the principle argument to support extending the command tour to 36 months, but there are two major arguments against extending the tour, diminished command opportunities and the toxic command environment.
You have already mentioned the prospect of diminished command opportunities, so that issue is already on the table. But if the command tour is extended, I would recommend that equivalent level staff positions are weighed the same as those BN and BDE level commands. As a newly transitioned FA 53 officer, that consideration is paramount for promotion within functional areas.
If a unit has a toxic command environment, I do not think that there is any higher level commander who would want that situation to continue for three years. Perpetuating a toxic environment will have a serious detriment to overall mission accomplishment and will definitely impact the professional development of subordinates within the particular unit. Could you imagine the number of leaders leaving to other units thinking that the toxic environment that they left is what “right looks like”? The future impact can be mediated and corrected, but the current impact erodes mission accomplishment and therefore, if the command tour length is extended, higher level commanders should have the discretion to allow the “option” of having the BN or BDE level commander continue on to the 36th month tour limit based on performance.
It was a pleasure serving with you as part of the 501st Forward Support Battalion, Ready First Brigade Combat Team, and I wish you continued success.
MAJ Derrick Melton
September 19, 2010 8:38 PM christopher.budihas said:
Sir,
I had the opportunity in my last job to hear many discussions about this very subject amongst our senior Army leaders and this is not an easy decision. After listening to the advantages and disadvantages of a 36 vice 24-month command, it appears that there is no clear decision to which COA is precisely best for the Army. A 24-month option gives more LTC/COLs the opportunity to command and a larger pool of “post command” senior leaders for other important senior Army positions. On the other hand, a 36-month option gives a unit more continuity in the ARFORGEN cycle by keeping the same commander in place.
Therefore, in my opinion after nearly 9-years of war and holistically looking at the situation, the Army needs to make this decision based on the “health of our Army” for the long term good of the organization. The desires of the officer should come secondary, as who would not want to command longer? The Army and our Soldiers are resilient and regardless if a commander leads an organization for 24 or 36-months – no matter how GREAT the commander is – the unit will go to do good things with the next commander. Even though I believe that we should not put an “exact 24-months to the date policy” in effect, the Army should lean towards a 24-month term for command vice 36-months. Those that argue that a 36-month command in line with ARFORGEN cycle have a legitimate argument, but I see this COA as short-sided as our Army already has a number of challenges manpower wise as a result of an already 31-month average command tenure. A 24 vice 36-month tenure of command is not a “taking care of Soldiers” question in my mind (good commanders will take care of their Soldiers regardless of how much time they’re in command), it is a question of what is best for posturing our Army’s health to best continue our mission beyond 2015 to 2025. If I had to vote today based on what I have seen in the force and heard during conferences, it would be 24-month commands.
V/R, MAJ (P) Chris Budihas
September 20, 2010 11:13 AM JT Taylor said:
Sir,
I firmly believe that 36 month commands are not needed. I’ve learned through my ILE class at Fort Gordon that as an organizational leader, it is one thing to change the climate of an organization, it is another to change the culture. That being said, with the current optempo across the Army, the ability to influence the culture of an organization can be a never ending quest.
Many organizations now see the bulk of their personnel turnover just after deployment, and although some key leaders remain, the climate must be devoloped all over again. The culture I believe could best described as “well, we use to do it like this, but we had to change how we did it the last rotation.” The point being that having commanders in place for 36 months does will not lend itself to long term changes.
The 36 month concept would severely reduce the number of commands available and not in all instances produce a better unit due to the characteristics of each deployment. At the beginning of OEF/OIF, it was common to see changes of command in combat. Having served in the 101st and 82nd, I didn’t see a slip of unit effectiveness or any major issues.
As a former company commander in combat, I changed command in OIF. I feel as a leader, you always want your unit to have the capability to continue on without you at a moments notice. Therefore, 36 month commands in my humble opinion, are not needed and as a final thought, could limit the organization’s creativity from subordinate leaders.
V/R,
MAJ JT Taylor
ILE Fort Gordon 10-003
September 20, 2010 1:56 PM Charles.R.Ayers said:
Sir,
As a Soldier who had 28 months of company level command time, I would say the total length of command time needs to stay at 24 months. The 28 months of command I had was the most rewarding time I have had in the Army and some the memories from it were incredible. However the 28 months of command was the worst time in regards to spending time with my family. My wife had to pick up the slack that I had left at home, asking a spouse to do more than 24 months of running the family while the Soldier is in command is unfair to that spouse. As a commander you pick up a second family which is much larger and has some complex issues far more complex than dealing with your own children’s problems. Your Soldiers depend on you 24 hours a day, seven days a week and this takes away from your family and spouse. For life after the Army you want to have your family and spouse with you, not a guidon on the wall that shows you had 36 months of command.
The length of command should also stay at 24 months to keep units from getting stale and/or complacent. Units that keep the same commander get use to that commander and don’t think outside the box because they don’t have to. They already know what the commander wants because they know him or her too well. Switching out the commander gives the unit a burst of energy and refreshes things. Change in the Army can be a good thing.
v/r
MAJ Ayers
21D
September 21, 2010 8:03 AM James davis said:
Sir,
I have attached a document from my Chief of Army which contains some of the rational behind the Australian Army adopting 3 year command tenures. This is a recent initiative so we don’t yet have feedback on the effects. I caution readers that the Australian context is slight different to the US. First and foremost our OPTEMPO is generally lower than US Army. Although as a balance to this many of the functions held at BCT level in the US Army can be at Battalion level in the Australian Army. For example we only have one Intelligence Battalion, one MP Battalion, on ADA Battalion, one Tank Battalion etc so the Battalion commander wears a number of hats.
The document is uploaded to google docs so simply cut and paste the link into your browser to view. If you have problems accessing it please let me know.
Regards
Major Davis
10C
Australian Army
james.davis143@us.army.mil
September 22, 2010 1:28 PM gregory.keeton said:
Sir,
I do believe the option to serve in command for 36 months should rely on the individual. In my experience, witnessing 18 months of command, I have observed complacent and exhausted commanders. The commanders are typically stuck in dogmatic ideologies and don’t really provide the unit an opportunity to grow. The unit typically remains status quo focused and won’t always adapt to new TTPs. At 24 months, commanders have, in my opinion, reached the glass ceiling and very rarely have much more to offer other than continuity. At this point, is when the option for successful commanders should become a voluntary extension to 36 months, with their immediate supervisors support. Additionally, there is already stress on the commander during this time, but most importantly, his or her family suffer from the long hours and demands endured while commanding.
V/R
Major Keeton
SG 19A
gregory.keeton@us.army.mil
September 24, 2010 12:28 PM MAJ Kenneth D. Thompson said:
Sir,
Before I offer my opinion on whether twenty-four months in company, battalion, or brigade of command is enough, I will offer briefly my background in relation to this question. I had the distinct honor of commanding two units – Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Corps Material Management Center and the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison – both at Fort Hood, Texas for 22 and 25 months, respectively. I will answer this question from an Army perspective that, I believe, can be applied to command in Sister Services as well.
Twenty-four months of company, battalion, or brigade command should be the minimum duration. The risks (toxic command climates, burn-out, and decreased opportunities for officer development) do not out-weigh the benefits of continuity. Twenty-four months is just long enough for the officer to assess the unit, implement necessary improvements, lead his or her Soldiers on their primary mission(s) – training, preparing for deployment, deployment, civil HA/DR response, etc – and conduct a good transfer to the incoming commander. Mission requirements and careful consideration should be made prior to extending a commander’s tour to 36 months or longer.
I agree with my classmate, MAJ Melton, regarding the dangers of toxic leadership. Perhaps senior leaders should conduct a thorough analysis of the unit prior to deciding to extend a commander’s tour beyond 24 months via command climate surveys, equal opportunity surveys, and analysis of misconduct statistics in order to access the climate’s toxicity level. A 36 month command tour should be a rare exception, not the apparent norm that we are moving toward. As several fellow majors have reiterated, command tours longer than 24 months also severely decreases the available commands for well-qualified officers at all levels.
Here is a model that depicts an “ideal” 24 month tour:
Conduct Change of Command (COC) (research unit’s mission, capabilities, and challenges, conduct inventories): 3-4 months prior through COC Ceremony day;
Assessment of Unit (session session, command climate survey, informal surveys, commander/1SG suggestion box, communication of command philosophy): first 3 months of command;
Implementation of Improvement measures, lead unit through main mission(s), mentor subordinates, train for next mission: month 3 through month 20;
Transition to Incoming Commander: month 21 through month 24.
V/r,
MAJ Kenneth D. Thompson
Class 11-01, Section 10B
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
September 25, 2010 8:39 PM bensonp said:
Sir,
I personally don’t think command tours should be extended to 36 months. I commanded for 18 months and though the experience was very satisfying and rewarding, I was totally burned out at the end. My family and personal life came second and third to command. I don’t see any overwhelming advantage to extending command tours to 36 months. Some officers feel that 18 to 24 months isn’t enough time to learn. Leadership doesn’t begin or end with commanding. Learning and growing takes place every day, whether you’re in command or not. I have worked alongside very bright and talented staff officers that have carried commanders.
There are also a second and third order effects with extending command tours to 36 months. How many would- be commanders are now unable to command, due to tour extension? What advantage would come from extending command tours? How and what effect does these extension have on a family?
I believe this is a good topic for discussion and it needs to be examined very closely. The majority of the opinions are from officers that commanded at company level. I can only imagine what a 36 month battalion or brigade command would be like.
Comments are solely the opinion of MAJ Portia Benson, US Army, a student currently attending CGSC ILE 10-003.
October 4, 2010 11:29 AM Gordon.Wilson said:
Sir,
I generally agree with Mr. Wagner. I believe that command times should be event driven, not time driven. With that said, I think the goal should be to shoot for 24 months, and extend commanders by exception based on the ARFORGEN/deployment cycle. Whose needs should be considered? The unit’s needs should be considered above all. While I think that a unit would be just fine if they changed command while deployed, I think that an extension may be warranted IF a unit is deployed. 24 months of command seems to be a sweet spot for our current officer advancement plan. I believe that we have A LOT of well qualified super stars that don’t get the opportunity command, because there are already so few opportunities. No, everyone does not need to command, but by increasing the command tour to 36 months, there will be even less opportunity for those that are well qualified. How would not being selected for command affect the selection rate for O-6? I would expect it to cause a slight rise in attrition, even at the O-4 level. For those that do not get an above center of mass on their first KD OER, they will not be competitive for battalion command. Have we also considered how long CSMs should stay in their positions? I would suggest that many of the concerns and issues that we have with commanders, we should have with our senior CSMs. Is that being addresses as well? This is a pretty interesting discussion. There are a lot of issues. I would love to hear what some former BN and BDE commanders have to say about this potential timeline change.
MAJ Gordon Wilson
CGSC ILE, Class 10-003, SG 31D, Fort Gordon, GA
February 1, 2011 4:10 PM william.hollar said:
Sir,
I believe there should only be one 36-month command, and that is at the brigade. No command should extend longer than 36-months because complacency could occur. The 36-month command would give the brigade commanders an opportunity to see his/her strategy through a complete ARFORGEN cycle. This length of command would also help stabilize the brigade during the ARFORGEN cycle.
I believe battalion and company commands should remain at 24-months. This gives the CPT and the LTC ample time to gain the next rank and give other CPTs and LTCs an opportunity to command. COLs are not time dependent like CPTs and LTCs. Having a 29-month company command and deploying the company to Iraq, I know how difficult it can be on a family. I agree with MAJ Ayers. I believe there are more demands on a company commander than any other commander in the army. The reason is more face time. As a company commander, you have more interaction with your troops, and you have a closer bond with them than a battalion or brigade commander has with theirs. With that in mind, that is why it is more tiring than the other commands. Like, MAJ Ayers said, it is like another family, larger with sometimes-extraordinary issues.
The policy for command lengths should remain at 24-months for company and battalion commands. The brigade command should extend to no more than 36-months. There are situations where commands can extend for the company and battalion, but no command should extend longer than 36-months.
V/r
MAJ Hollar
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
February 18, 2011 8:05 AM Maj Francisco Hornsby said:
Sir,
In the Air Force, squadron command is 24 months (12 months for those in a deployed squadron); I believe this is the right amount of time both for the unit and the officer. First, the great thing about having a new commander every two years is that it brings new ideas to the unit. In order to improve processes and operations, there needs to be new ideas and programs. If you have the same commander in the seat for more than two years, there is a better chance that the unit will get in the same routine and remain stagnant. This ultimate will prevent the opportunity to bring on continuous improvements, which is necessary for a successful organization.
Second, command is a very taxing job and can take a toll on an officer. The longer the officer is in command, the more likely the chance of the officer burning out due to the continuous stress, long hours, time away from the family, etc. As soon as this happens, this can also lead to complacency where the commander just goes through the motions and commands just to get through the day.
v/r
Maj Hornsby
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
March 10, 2011 12:24 PM ned.june said:
Sir, as an Air Force officer, I believe the unit should be considered the top priority, then the individual when it comes to command tours. Command is not just about giving individuals the opportunity to lead. It’s about giving the commander ample time to develop and lead organizations effectively. To achieve this, I believe 36 month tours are warranted given the current ops tempo. I know this from personal experience. On the day of my change of command, my predecessor returned from a 6 month deployment. During my 2yr command tour, I too deployed for 6 months and trained one month prior to deployment. My successor left for training two weeks after our change of command then deployed for 6 months afterwards. Moreover, going into my second command after ILE, my predecessor has informed me that she just returned from a 6 month deployment and trained for 2 months prior. In both scenarios, the unit suffered and our opportunity to really gain command experience was significantly limited despite receiving command credit.
Although extending command tours may reduce command opportunities, this may in fact bolster the prestige of command as “top tier”, assuming the best of the best officers would ideally be selected. Furthermore, the majority of 2yr command tours are not actual two years of command as mentioned above. Again, command is not just about developing leaders and giving opportunities; it’s about developing effective organizations. I think we are coming up short in both areas.
V/R
Major June
March 17, 2011 12:34 PM alexmi.lugo said:
Sir, as I read the replies before I see that for the most part the consensus is that 24 moths in command is an adequate number. However, I do not believe that we should not be so concerned with a magic number of moths in command, it should be more aligned with the units ARFORGEN cycle. In the Aviation world 24 moth command work perfectly due to the high OPTEMPO, almost every CAB out there is on the 12 on 12 off cycle so having 24 moths commands allow commander to take the units over six months before the deployment just as the move from the reset cycle into the training cycle, through deployment and follow on reset. Finally Commanders should have enough time to train, deploy and reset the units before he has to change out of his command however many moths will that require.
V/R
MAJ Alexmi Lugo
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
April 5, 2011 7:45 PM MAJ Ronald Jones said:
Sir,
A 36 month command does coincide with the ARFORGEN cycle and it makes sense to be in command for the entire cycle. This provides the opportunity to take the unit through the entire cycle, minimizes disruption in the unit’s chain of command, and reinforces esprit de corps and unit pride. I would, however, argue that 36 months may be too long for the company level where the commander is constantly in contact with troops on a daily basis. Unless you are able to effectively distance yourself from the personal aspects of interacting with your troops, you inevitably become attached to your troops which can cloud your judgment. A literary example of this can be seen in 12 O’clock High where the commanding officers became too attached to their troops. This resulted in the mission being placed on the back burner behind the concern for the welfare of troops. I had 2 commands. Each were 22 months. I struggled with maintaining my mission focus towards the end of each tour due to an overwhelming desire to take care of my troops. Taking care of troops is not wrong but it is imperative to keep the mission first. Therefore, I think that 24 months at the company level is the right amount of command time.