CHAPTER 13

Promotion and Staffing

Without the right people, no organization can be very effective. Good leaders are a multiplier of effectiveness and efficiency—and poor leaders have exactly the opposite effect. Therefore, a single leader affects the performance of many others and the promotion of the right people and the staffing of an organization, especially its leadership positions, is of particular importance. Drucker called these “life and death decisions” and wrote in depth about them.

The individual most to be emulated according to Drucker was General George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the U.S. Army during World War II and later secretary of state. He greatly admired Marshall’s attention to detail, and his early identification (even before he rose to chief of staff) of up and comers along with their strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the most outstanding example of Marshall’s system of staffing was General, later President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Drucker also applauded Marshall’s willingness to sacrifice his own ambitions for the greater good, as when Marshall gave Eisenhower command of the greatest seaborne invasion in the history of the world while Marshall remained in his own less glamorous but high level staff position in Washington, which he felt was more important for winning the war. As noted in Chapter Twelve, though Drucker recognized its imperfections, he commended the attributes that made up the U.S. military’s system of promotion and staffing.

Before examining Drucker’s views on promotion and staffing, I need to distinguish between the two components of promotion and staffing, which are not necessarily synonymous. Promotion influences, but does not necessarily determine, who should be selected for an executive job, whereas staffing is the selection of an individual to fill a particular job vacancy. Both are crucial aspects of putting the right people in the right positions for success of the organization.

Promotion can be in rank, title, compensation, position, benefits, status, or privileges, but it may or may not involve an actual change of assignment to a particular position (staffing). Promotion in rank or title by itself may make an individual eligible for a more significant position, but does not guarantee it. I present a specific example of this later in the chapter.

In the military, different insignias of rank make the distinction between individuals obvious. However this isn’t only done in the military. Some companies require employees to wear security badges with different color schemes indicating progressively higher rank from line worker and basic professional through manager, senior manager, assistant director, director, vice president, and president. Mary Kay Cosmetics has a system of representing higher levels of achievement through items of clothing and what is worn on them, culminating in a complete outfit. Paintings of the women who have achieved the top levels, “in uniform,” are on display at headquarters in Dallas, Texas.¹

A Rational Promotion System

Peter argued strongly for a rational system of promotion. He recognized that undeserved promotion not only resulted in higher incidences of failure and mediocrity, it also tremendously de-motivated both those more deserving who were passed over and those who simply observed dysfunctional management promotion decisions. He cautioned against two common errors: promotion to get rid of someone performing poorly and failure to promote someone considered indispensable in a current position. Finally, he listed several characteristics of a rational system:

• Consideration of all eligibles, not just those highly visible

• Consideration of all functional backgrounds

• Normal promotion from within, but consideration of desirable outsiders²

The third characteristic applies more to staffing than promotion, but Drucker did not distinguish here between the two.

Drucker noted additional criteria for a rational promotion system, although he did not identify them as such. The first was that neither promotion nor staffing should be in the hands of a single individual. Yet in most companies, except at the highest levels of the organization, this is exactly what is done. Drucker’s argument was that there is no safeguard against bias, faulty, or arbitrary judgment, which a rational system of promotion should have.³ However it also helps to explain his interest in the military promotion system, which I explain in the following section.⁴

The Military Promotion System

Drucker thought that the systems used for promotion selection in the U.S. military, while not perfect, were the fairest and probably the best used by any large organization. As he said, “The Army trains and develops more leaders than do all other organizations together—and with a lower casualty rate.”⁵ If you compare the U.S. military’s system with Drucker’s criteria for a rational system, it is easy to see why he favored it.

While there are some differences among the U.S. military services, they are relatively minor. At most levels, promotion is based strictly on merit, that is, proven performance. Beginning at the junior noncommissioned officer ranks through the rank of major general, promotion boards meet and decide on who will be promoted. In most cases, the boards are very competitive and promote on a “best qualified” basis. For example, there usually are several thousand colonels vying for a handful of promotions to brigadier general, so the promotion rate may be something like 1 or 2 percent. At the junior noncommissioned officer and junior officer levels, promotion may be on a “fully qualified basis,” which means that all who have performed satisfactorily are considered qualified and promoted. Usually failure of an officer to win a promotion after several opportunities entails discharge from the military.

For the top two ranks, lieutenant general and general, and for the naval services vice admiral and admiral (those whose insignias of rank are three and four stars, respectively), there are no promotion boards. Candidates are nominated for specific jobs, and if selected are promoted to one of these two highest ranks. This is where promotion and staffing in the military are linked.

Written Appraisals

Many companies require various types of evaluation or appraisal reports. Drucker’s problem with them was that they are rarely used for promotion.⁶ The main tool for promotion selection in the military is the evaluation report. While these reports vary somewhat among the services, and for officers versus enlisted ranks, they typically involve evaluation on a number of specific criteria. For example, the current Army form involves a written evaluation of an officer’s ability in communicating, decision making, motivating, planning, executing, assessing, developing, team building, and learning. Many service evaluations require specific examples of performance. They also ask for an overall evaluation of potential for promotion at that time and frequently some sort of ranking of where the individual rated stands compared with others of the same rank being evaluated.

Usually, the rater’s supervisor must add a personal endorsement and comments, especially an agreement or disagreement with the evaluation and the reasons for either reaction. If the evaluation is especially good or especially poor, the rater’s supervisor’s supervisor must also get into the act and add an endorsement. The evaluation is discussed with the individual rated before forwarding. Currently, at least one of the services requires quarterly counseling regarding progress made after the annual evaluation.

Over time, variations of this system have been tried. In an effort to control evaluation inflation, that is, a rater giving all subordinates a high rating, the Air Force at one point required raters to assign those rated a 1, 2, or 3 score, 1 being the highest. However, raters were severely restricted in the number of 1’s they could assign depending on the number of subordinates they rated. This procedure was discontinued because it was found to be unfair for many and counterproductive. For example, an elite all-volunteer unit might have all top people and all actually performing at a 1 level. Yet, if the group was small, few, if any, 1’s could be awarded. So a 2 or even a 3 evaluation awarded in such an organization might describe performance that could be awarded a 1 elsewhere.

Other variations are at the general officer level where a so called closed form is used, and, in some services, there is no formal evaluation counseling session. The rating is limited to a few short sentences—or even a single sentence—regarding the general’s performance, and the ratee may or may not see the report. At that level, you are working for the next higher ranking general anyway, and it is thought that after passing all the screens and achieving the rank of general officer, formal written feedback probably won’t do much to improve performance or change or improve any personal quirks or deficiencies. The rated general’s boss either likes or does not like the way the subordinate general is operating.

If a subordinate is performing poorly, the rater can take action to have the individual removed from the current position, in combat or in a critical noncombat role, immediately—even if the subordinate has done nothing illegal or immoral and has not violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (military law) in any way. Normally someone relieved of duties in this way will automatically receive a bad evaluation, and these are difficult, but not impossible, to recover from. Colin Powell describes how he made some mistakes and received a poor rating in one assignment as a brigadier general.⁷ Nevertheless, he went on to become a four star general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking offi cer in the U.S. military. In addition, a bad appraisal can be contested, and a board may agree and expunge it from the individual’s file. While infrequent, this does happen.

Getting Promoted

Not everyone is eligible for promotion to the next higher rank at every year’s promotion. This generally has to do with the amount of time in the rank held or total years of service, or both, and this may change depending on the needs of the service at that time. During the years between World Wars I and II, Eisenhower held the rank of major for sixteen years (1920 to 1936), not because he performed poorly, but rather because the U.S. Army shrank after its rapid growth during the First World War. At the time, Eisenhower didn’t have enough years of total service to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade, lieutenant colonel. While required time in grade varies by service, today a major (the Navy rank equivalent is lieutenant commander) is normally considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel (the navy rank of commander) at the sixteenth year of commissioned service, although a few may be selected for what is called a “below the zone” promotion a year or two earlier. Since Eisenhower was commissioned in 1915, based on the Army’s current needs, he would have been eligible for early promotion to lieutenant colonel in 1929 instead of 1936.

The first step in being promoted is meeting a promotion board. Even though all are trained and qualified for promotion, not all can be promoted. The number holding each rank in each service is limited by law. At the officer ranks (beginning with second lieutenant in the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and ensign in the Navy and Coast Guard), those failing to be promoted usually are given several attempts. Should they not succeed, they are usually required to leave the service. This policy is known as “up or out.” It helps to ensure a young force and the highest quality personnel at every level.

The number that can be promoted in any one year depends on need and the policies at the time. According to recent figures in the Army, the promotion rate to lieutenant colonel is about 70 percent of those eligible and meeting the board. This may vary by both time and service. I have seen promotion to the rank of major much lower than 40 percent, and to lieutenant colonel, lower yet in the Air Force at different times. It all depends on the situation and the number that can be promoted. It probably was even lower than these figures when Eisenhower was promoted to these ranks.

The higher the promotion, the more difficult it is to attain. Promotion to colonel is much more difficult, and to general tougher yet. A retired Air Force four star general once told forty newly promoted brigadier generals, of which I was one, lest we be too full of ourselves, “The Air Force could have reached into our pot of several thousand eligible colonels and pulled out forty other names at random, not yours. Can you imagine the effect on our ability to perform our mission successfully over the next five years? Most likely, none at all.” It was an accurate but sobering thought, which made us realize that while gaining promotion was something to be proud of, we had some highly qualified competitors and we were all replaceable.

The Promotion Board

The promotion board is made up of people more senior than those being considered for promotion and from various units throughout the particular service. The same individuals usually do not sit on successive boards.

Promotion boards consider everything: past performance as demonstrated by written evaluation reports based mainly on demonstrated performance, types of experience, education (both degrees and professional military), awards and decorations, anything else positive and negative, and other things the promotion board might be instructed to give special weight to, such as combat duty.

No one, no matter how senior, not even the chief of staff of the service involved, can get a favorite officer promoted directly. This is considered “undue influence,” and everyone involved can get in serious trouble. I remember the commander of Strategic Air Command, a four star general bemoaning the fact that he knew some particular captain personally, and though he felt that this individual should be promoted to major, there was little he could do to except recommend him in his performance evaluation. Another four star general, an Air Force chief of staff, was questioned by the secretary of defense regarding the selection for promotion to major general of a particular general the secretary did not want promoted. “Why did you select him for promotion?” the secretary demanded. “Sir, it is not the chief’s promotion board. It is the Air Force’s promotion board and the Air Force selected him,” was the chief’s response.

The promotion board reviews the records of everyone eligible. The board members may do this in three committees of three, or a total of nine on the board. Each committee scores each candidate’s performance and record, say on a 1-7 basis, 7 being the highest, and compares scores on each candidate. If the score of a candidate by one committee differs by more than two points from another committee, that entire board discusses the candidate until consensus is reached. In my experience, a difference of more than two points is rare and affects only a very small percentage of the candidates reviewed. The board then ranks all candidates according to their numerical scores and further ranks them within the point scores achieved. Promotion decisions then depend on the number that can be made.

Officer selections might be screened further, especially at the general officer level, which, in accordance with the law, must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Senate is not a rubber stamp; it has blocked promotions for various reasons, as has the secretary of defense. Of course, the system is not perfect, and mistakes are sometimes made both in promotion and nonpromotion, but everything possible is done to ensure fairness. It is easy to see why Drucker liked the system, since it met his basic criterion of a rational promotion system very well.

Promotion, however, is not staffing. It merely makes a candidate eligible for a higher level position. It does not necessarily mean that an individual will be selected for a specific position. An Army battalion of eight hundred to a thousand individuals is typically commanded by an officer holding the rank of lieutenant colonel. However, the Army has far more lieutenant colonels than battalions, so many are not selected to command battalions. They do other jobs. Similarly an officer may be selected to command a battalion, yet for various reasons not promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. In the Band of Brothers TV series, based on the real history of Easy Company, 506th Parachute Regiment in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II, Major Dick Winters, former Easy Company commander and then battalion executive offi cer (second in command), is appointed to command the battalion. However, he remains a major and is not given the rank of lieutenant colonel while in this position as battalion commander.

Where Drucker Differed with the Military System

Drucker did differ significantly with the military system in one aspect, which had more to do more with staffing than promotion. The military, and many civilian organizations as well, use something known as “the whole man concept.” That is, everything about an individual is considered when promotion decisions are made. Drucker opposed using this concept for promotion because he knew that frequently great leaders also suffered from great faults or weaknesses. He stated that promoting based on the absence of faults as opposed to the ability to do the job led only to mediocrity.

Staffing Decisions

Drucker did not cling to old thoughts as his thinking developed. This can easily be seen in his thoughts on staffing. In a chapter titled “Staffing for Excellence” in his book People and Performance (published in 1977), he discusses three rules for effective staffing.⁸ However, by the time his updated version of The Effective Executive appeared in 2004, this list had grown to four rules:⁹

• Guard against “the impossible job.” Any job that has defeated two or three individuals who had proven themselves in their previous assignments must be redesigned.

• Make jobs demanding and big.

• Start with what an individual can do and not what the job requires. Thus, the need for appraisals. (This was the rule added in the ensuing twenty five years.)

• Finally, his primary rule: Staff for the single strength needed and be willing to put up with weakness.

He stated this fourth point repeatedly in his writings, and liked to cite the story of Grant, who had been cashiered out of the “old Army” prior to the Civil War because of his drinking and was said to have started drinking again during the war. Lincoln’s response to this news, “Find out his brand so I may send it to all my generals.”

Drucker suggested decision steps to help leaders in their staffing decisions. These too were increased from what he had taught in class ten years earlier:¹⁰

1. Think through the assignment so that you understand what needs to be done.

2. Look at a number of potentially qualified people.

3. Decide who can actually do the job best, ignoring irrelevant weaknesses.

4. Discuss each of the candidates with several people who have actually worked with them.

5. Make certain that the appointee understands the job.

Drucker on Promotion and Staffing

• Institute a rational promotion system, which includes all eligible for promotion.

• Don’t just issue appraisals, use them for promotion.

• Promote using a board, not the opinions of one person.

• Staff for the strength required for the job, not to avoid weaknesses that are not relevant to the job.

• Discuss candidates for a job with those they have worked with.

• Make certain that the appointee understands the job.