Generalists versus specialists: Our full-court press for full-time manning

A generalist is a person whose skills, interests or habits are unspecialized. Someone who knows something about everything, but isn't an expert in anything.

The Army National Guard's fulltime force is developing into a force of generalists. That is not to say each soldier does not have a specialized skill - on the contrary. But the men and women who run our armories and units are using those skills less and less as they try to plug the holes left by the dwindling number of full-time personnel.

They are working jobs for which they were not trained because the person who used to perform those tasks is no longer around, a victim of military downsizing.

As a result, the job they were trained to do suffers. All too often today, full-time personnel are juggling so many varied tasks that they are hard-pressed to do any one thing very well.

At the individual level, there is a feeling of mediocrity and burnout. At the unit level, the problems are even more serious: readiness suffers.

The NGAUS has recognized this as a critical issue to spotlight as the defense budget winds its way through Congress. The legislative staff has started taking the message to Capitol Hill.

The number of active Guard and Reserve personnel who perform administrative duties began dropping significantly after 1991 when it hit its peak of 26,199 across the country. In 1999, the number continued to decrease to 21,986. If the trend continues, by 2003, there would be only 21,807 AGR members.

The number of military technicians, who maintain equipment, is just as bleak. In 1991, there were 28,521; this year there are 23,283.

Maj. Gen E. Gordon Stump, President, NGAUS

By 2003, there would be 23,101 if the downward spiral continues.

To correct the problem, we need a bare minimum of 23,500 AGRs and 25,500 technicians in 2000. In reality, we need almost double that: 41,126 AGRs and 43,488 technicians. That is how many it would take to meet Army readiness standards and complete all the other day-to-day work we have. For example: making sure everyone gets paid on time; keeping retirement points current; writing orders for schools; repairing vehicles; ordering supplies; writing unit status reports. To stay afloat, the first step is to reach the 23,500 and 25,000 marks. You will find a complete analysis of the full-time manning issue later in this magazine.

The men and women who do these jobs now are stressed doing the work of two people. It is sometimes difficult to be patient if you are the one waiting for orders or a paycheck. But they are doing the best they can with the time and resources they have.

We must get our full-time force on the road to recovery. In 2000, it would cost an additional $184.6 million to buy the 3,000 technicians and 1,693 AGRs not currently in the Defense Department's request to Congress.

What we are talking about is a tiny fraction of a percent of the current Pentagon proposal of more than $260 billion.

That small number spread across the Army Guard would mean not only helping its men and women do their daily jobs, it would also assist the Total Army.

If the Army Guard is able to work more efficiently the Army only stands to benefit.

We all have a stake in this. You can help by calling or writing your congressman. We have a sample letter in the Members Only area of the NGAUS web site at www.ngaus.org that you can e-mail to Washington. Ask your senators and representatives for support.

Copyright National Guard Association of the United States Mar 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved