Economy not key—other factor outweighs

The most frequently cited factor affecting military recruiting is the strength of the U.S. job market. Indeed, the joint force is subject to the laws of labor supply and demand just like any other large organization. Yet, some of our deepest challenges are chronic, indicating that the strength of the economy may be less critical than commonly thought. For example, the Marine Corps has struggled—in good economic times and bad—to produce and retain an adequate number of pilots, even for the newest, most modern aircraft. These struggles have persisted despite ever-increasing bonuses—further evidence that the decision to join or separate is not purely economic. The Air Force has faced similar difficulties, but on a much larger scale. [image omitted] Many occupational specialties—across all the services—have been critically short for years. The protracted nature of our recruiting challenges suggests the economy alone cannot be blamed. Nor should it be. Military leaders should (and do) welcome a robust U.S. economy; they should not (and do not) hope for an economic downturn to boost recruiting. Neither do they aspire to serve as a repository for those displaced from the labor market who lack a sincere desire to serve and are simply seeking a living wage and benefits. Other factors exacerbating military recruiting challenges are long-standing trends, familiar to many. These principally include the declining number of young Americans who are eligible for service as a result of drug use, obesity, criminal records, or other physical and mental health problems, and a waning interest in military service. The inability of many young Americans to meet basic military eligibility standards is a national problem beyond the scope of this article. Military leaders have few levers to pull to increase the number of Americans eligible for service, and the biggest and most immediate lever—lowering standards—is not one military leaders or most Americans want. To effect enduring change requires understanding and addressing the declining propensity to serve. Several factors are at play. One is familiarity. A growing percentage of those serving in uniform have a close relative who also served (or is currently serving). In other words, those who are most familiar with the military are most likely to enlist. While the military will continue to attract those who are acquainted with the military and its lifestyle, we must do more to reach those who are unfamiliar. Failing to do so risks reinforcing an increasingly closed system and its related pathologies. Shifting demographics also play a role. There is evidence that the existing narrative of military service, one that appealed to earlier generations, does not resonate in the same ways with Gen Z. In addition, increasing fragmentation of the media ecosystem means recruiters’ marketing efforts have more difficulty breaking through the noise to reach and motivate the intended audience. In years past, the military could increase spending on marketing and be fairly confident of receiving predictable returns on those investments. The assumptions underlying that predictability, however, are changing. Simply increasing the advertising budget to amplify existing narratives is unlikely to be effective in the future. The services need new narratives and new vehicles for communicating those narratives. Looking at the uncertain impact of traditional advertising may offer a broader lesson: The military cannot rely on yesterday’s solutions to solve today’s or tomorrow’s problems, as similar as they may seem. There are also structural factors that exacerbate recruiting challenges. For example, the services are asking individuals from Gen X (commanding generals and recruiting district commanding officers [COs]) to develop recruiting plans and strategies that individuals from Gen Y (recruiting station COs and recruiters) will implement to attract individuals from Gen Z.1 Generational gaps have always existed within the AVF, but the current pace of social change amplifies these differences. All three groups process information differently, place differing value on the same set of incentives, and have different expectations regarding how great a voice the individual recruit will have in the process. Structure influences behavior, yet the impact of generational gaps among these three groups—commanders, recruiters, and the recruited—has not been investigated. It needs to be. Accurately diagnosing the challenges we face also requires examining factors not previously analyzed, including contemporary social developments that may impact the military-eligible population. For example, the social turmoil caused by the pandemic immediately impacted recruiting for every service. But the long-term, downstream effects of the pandemic are unclear. • Will certain cohorts of today’s children have reduced capacity to serve when they become young adults, because of physical limitations brought on by exposure to the virus? • Will they be prepared academically, given the significant educational disruptions? • Will their trust in institutions falter based on their perceptions of institutional weaknesses during the pandemic? While the mental, physical, and psychological effects of the pandemic will take years to understand, they may be manifesting in the military-eligible population today, and the joint force cannot wait years to act. It must find ways to meet these youth where they are, without lowering standards. Public Trust and Confidence Of all the factors affecting young Americans’ propensity to serve, the most alarming is the steady decline of public trust and confidence in the military. According to Gallup’s most recent Honesty and Ethics Survey, Americans’ confidence in military officers has declined to its lowest level since the survey began in 2001. Further, in just the past five years, ten percent fewer Americans believe military officers possess “high ethics.”2Why? Based on my observations and interactions with a broad swath of citizens, I believe there are several reasons, including: • The character of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan • A growing perception of the politicization of the military and senior military leaders • Reports of widespread sexual harassment and assault in the ranks • A series of preventable mishaps across all the services that suggest a measure of professional incompetence • Scandals and examples of poor leadership across the joint force