I was checking the
8th Army's list of policy letters the other day, and noticed that LTG Johnson's PL #39 (The Standardized Duty Day) had not been renewed by the current commander.
As a battalion staff officer, PL #39 was a paradigm of unattainable beauty -- something we all pined after yet could never achieve. It envisioned a standard work schedule of 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., "allowing 75 minutes for personal hygiene" after morning exercise.
"The rationale was a work of art, regrettable only for its pointlessness:
Soldiers should have a predictable schedule while in garrison, allowing them to make plans with family and associates during off-duty hours. Additionally, it benefits all members of this command to establish a standard start and end of the duty day, facilitating the planning and execution of administrative functions and removing any uncertainty concerning what time the command expects its personnel to be on-duty on any given day."
But it makes me wonder: how late can a commander expect someone to stay at work?
Alas, it was naught but an unenforceable pipe dream in the face of superseding demands. Given a choice between this schedule where we all get off at 5:00 and one where we actually get work done, commanders invariably chose the latter.
In my previous battalion, my predecessor in the S-4 was a single mother who had brought her grade-school daughter (command sponsored) to Korea. Should she have been expected to put in as many hours as anyone else?
As she had said to me once, "Until the Army starts approving mission command funds for baby-sitting, I'm leaving at 6:00." It might not have been the best "hooray for work!" attitude, but it reflected a reality that she had to live in. It didn't seem to hurt her evaluation -- she was ranked in the top 20 percent by her rater and senior rater.
By comparison, I was able to put in more hours than her, because my wife was able to watch the kids. So while I, as Operations Officer, was given the job of moving the battalion into the new building (something that could have been considered her job as the S-4), I had to keep that job even after taking over as S-4. I guarantee you I put in more hours than she did and got more work done as a result.
So is it fair to make someone stay late because they can, with no corresponding reward in their evaluation? On the other hand, is it fair to penalize someone because their family situation does not allow them to work excessive hours?
One could argue that single mothers should be denied command sponsorship in Korea, given the work demands everyone faces, but that rationale could apply to anyone. Why stop with single moms?
At least, as a company commander, I'll get the bonus of filling a "key developmental" slot. After one year, I can go out and do other, more interesting things than work in a logistics battalion. Strange as it may seem, filling the S-4 slot held no such promise, no matter how long I would have been there.
In the end, the truth is that we're all victims of a dumpy work environment that demands more than we can accomplish with a normal work schedule.
Until someone, somewhere, starts consciously dialing back the workload, I doubt these questions will ever be answered.
Alas, it was naught but an unenforceable pipe dream in the face of superseding demands. Given a choice between this schedule where we all get off at 5:00 and one where we actually get work done, commanders invariably chose the latter.
In my previous battalion, my predecessor in the S-4 was a single mother who had brought her grade-school daughter (command sponsored) to Korea. Should she have been expected to put in as many hours as anyone else?
As she had said to me once, "Until the Army starts approving mission command funds for baby-sitting, I'm leaving at 6:00." It might not have been the best "hooray for work!" attitude, but it reflected a reality that she had to live in. It didn't seem to hurt her evaluation -- she was ranked in the top 20 percent by her rater and senior rater.
By comparison, I was able to put in more hours than her, because my wife was able to watch the kids. So while I, as Operations Officer, was given the job of moving the battalion into the new building (something that could have been considered her job as the S-4), I had to keep that job even after taking over as S-4. I guarantee you I put in more hours than she did and got more work done as a result.
So is it fair to make someone stay late because they can, with no corresponding reward in their evaluation? On the other hand, is it fair to penalize someone because their family situation does not allow them to work excessive hours?
One could argue that single mothers should be denied command sponsorship in Korea, given the work demands everyone faces, but that rationale could apply to anyone. Why stop with single moms?
At least, as a company commander, I'll get the bonus of filling a "key developmental" slot. After one year, I can go out and do other, more interesting things than work in a logistics battalion. Strange as it may seem, filling the S-4 slot held no such promise, no matter how long I would have been there.
In the end, the truth is that we're all victims of a dumpy work environment that demands more than we can accomplish with a normal work schedule.
Until someone, somewhere, starts consciously dialing back the workload, I doubt these questions will ever be answered.
No comments:
Post a Comment