Reinvent Rotation Rule

he Defense Department's five-year rotation policy for overseas employees could use a little reinventing. This rule is over 32 years old. While it was a good idea at one time, technology has erased the need and, for the most part, the usefulness of the original policy.

Under the total force concept, success at an overseas command is directly tied to an experienced and knowledgeable civilian staff. This experience comes from years of training and growth in positions of increased scope and responsibility. Stability in any organization is a key element, as are vitality and experience. The five-year rule, as written, strips this asset from overseas commands.

Increasingly, military manpower is being augmented by the Army Reserve and the National Guard, thereby placing an even greater premium on an experienced and stable civilian workforce. This workforce provides the continuity in both rear and forward areas of operations.

Every year the operational budget for DoD comes under fire, and units and organizations are expected to do more with less. But DoD continues to force a wasteful and nonproductive policy on the overseas commands. If one-fifth of the 25,800 civilians rotate every year from Europe, at a cost of $10,000 each, that's $51.6 million a year. Add the cost of the replacement employees, and the annual drain on the DoD budget is $103.2 million. Now that's a chunk of change.

The short-term employment sought by the majority of military spouses overseas, is, for the most part, in entry-level positions. But most of the employees affected by the policy are not in entry-level positions. They are career civil service employees with years of experience and training.

Unstable Workforce

When you factor in short-term employees and the career civil service employees' rotation schedule, the overseas workforce, in fact, has a turnover rate of almost 70 percent every three years. That is not a dynamic workforce. It is an unstable one. At no key position will you have the long-term stability that every good and vibrant organization needs. What the overseas commands lose is what all U.S. installations are allowed to have: the continuity provided by and expertise of long-term committed professionals who dedicate their skills to the command.

If the purpose of the policy is to give DoD civilians the career development opportunities and experience of working in other commands, why is it not being expanded to incorporate the entire United States? We don't force folks to leave Washington after five years because they might stagnate, but we will force them to leave overseas commands for this reason.

Certainly, an employee working for the Army Materiel Command position in Orlando, Fla., could benefit professionally and receive equally "incomparable experience" supporting real-world missions by taking a position with the Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Benning, Ga., or at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The policy makes an overseas command a training ground that civilians are to pass through without the continuity allowed and expected elsewhere. Overseas commands essentially become an unstable training command for civilians and military members.

In any employment situation there is always a risk. But in the absence of any evidence that long-term overseas employment has hurt performance, career advancement or mission accomplishment, and with the lack of genuine compelling justification, enforcement of the "five-year rule" should be seen as a waste of funds and employee time.

All that said, there are some career fields and positions to which a five-year rotation policy should apply-for example, Senior Executive Service employees who make or are in a position to influence policy (who are exempt from the current policy), or who are in a career field that is very dynamic (i.e., the medical service). But we should target the position or career fields, not the employees, as "rotation positions."

Flawed Reasoning

Given overseas missions of the last eight years, such as Operations Desert Storm, Provide Comfort and Joint Guard, a stable overseas workforce seems absolutely paramount. None of these missions was possible without knowledgeable and experienced long-term employees. The European Command has had increasing demands placed upon it for quick-reaction response to real-world crises, operations other than war and the Partnership for Peace program. Enforcement of the DoD policy will reduce the capability of European Command leaders to carry out these missions.

The rationale for tour rotation is flawed. The bottom line: Change the policy. Give overseas commanders the flexibility to stay on beyond five years by setting grade, job and experience criteria that are reasonable to support the mission, and provide long-term stability and leadership for the overseas commands.

Tom Russell is a quality assurance supervisor with the Army's V Corps headquarters in Germany.