Changing the British Army’s Pay System — A Revolutionary Approach?
Part two
An Army that is “better matched to current and future threats, but which also values you”[1]. That is its People Vision, yet research[2] suggests the Army’s pay system, which focuses on rewarding people predominantly for their leadership and management ability rather than their broader knowledge, experience, skills and behaviour (KSE-B) means this is difficult to achieve.
In this two-series blog, different reward approaches are being considered that would better recognise this KSE-B and allow the Army to overcome some of the strategic, operational and tactical challenges created by the current rank-pay system. The first blog looked at an evolutionary approach, in which a suite of reward options could be offered to employees. This blog, however, will consider a more revolutionary way, one that is intrinsically linked to the Army Talent Framework (ATF), a new competency framework being implemented in 2022.
The ATF was created so that individuals could better understand the KSE-B they have and need; that individual’s KSE-B could be better matched to roles; and that the Army be better able to manage their capabilities and adjust their workforce to the ever-evolving needs of modern warfare[3]. Whilst it does not have reward as its focus, it does provide an opportunity to move to a more competency-based pay system, decoupling rank from pay to resolve the challenges mentioned in the first blog. An attempt to decouple was first proposed following the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015, however, it was eventually dropped in favour of the current system, being considered too complex and therefore, costly, to design and implement. This was before the conception of the ATF, however, and the framework now offers an opportunity to revisit the premise.
The new proposal would not disregard leadership and management in entirety. Indeed, these are testable and valuable skills in themselves. What it would do, however, is also reward capability KSE-B based on the level of achievement set by the ATF. This offers the chance to assess individuals against role determined KSE-B, for up to seven levels right from the start of someone’s career and as shown in the figure below, values both horizontal and vertical elements equally. Those demonstrating the highest in leadership and capability competence, such as a medical consultant, are rewarded the most but are also the rarest. For those trades that commit to a flatter structure, perhaps because it better supports innovation or helps build deep specialism, the approach ensures individuals are offered realistic achievements as motivation, and rewarded for their effort, which they are not currently because reward is predominantly focused on vertical rank progression only.
The above offers a demonstration of how the reward allocation could be spread[4]. This could be altered depending on the trade to better reflect market rates and strategic value. It could also include 2* Generals and above if deemed appropriate. The pay bands would consist of increments, as ranks are now, allowing people to continually increase in pay for time served and this would be stretched over several ranks and levels. In a significant change to now, however, the pay system would be focused on the person, rather than the role or trade as is currently the case. In a fair and transparent way, this would support both the employment sectors drive for employee-centric reward packages as well as enabling the filling of less lucrative posts.
The current job evaluation process, which sets supplement pay for soldiers, would be less important but still be needed to help set pay band values. The current six elements[5] on which it makes its assessment are still valid but may be recognised in different ways. Unpleasant ‘working conditions’, for example, could be covered using the separate allowance system, whilst the ‘complexity and mental challenge of the job’ would need to be assessed against the individual’s ability to achieve this rather than against the role itself. This could be done using the KSE-B assessment being designed as part of the ATF. The assessment process for both vertical and horizontal progression would encapsulate performance and potential and thus negate the concerns over solely performance-based systems outlined in the first blog.
There is the potential that individuals could drop down in pay if they were unable to meet the capability level assessment requirements, perhaps because they had spent too long out of role and had suffered skill fade[6]. This would encourage individuals to remain in lane, building more specialist capability as they do, but the system would still allow individual’s the choice over which career path they wished to take, having been well informed of the reward benefits and disbenefits. There may still be the case where individuals are forced out of lane to meet the needs of the service, but this should be short lived and by exception[7], with regulations in place to prevent undue loss to the employee which would have a demotivating effect.
One criticism of the above could be that it focuses on pay rather than a ‘total reward’ offering which is deemed the best way to motivate workforces[8]. However, the Army does already provide a significant total reward package as part of its generic offer and whilst not personalised like the evolutionary approach proposes, a total reward effect would still occur, albeit, not quite as good as Google! By focusing the above system just on pay, it means that everyone has full access to professional development opportunities. When surveyed as part of the research, this was a key desire for both those considering themselves to have general skills as well as those that considered themselves to be more specialists. Most respondents were also keen not to treat generalists and specialists differently when it came to promotion and the awarding of rank. Whilst this will be determined by the availability of roles and the subsequent ability to gain KSE-B to advance, the proposed system does not apply an artificial barrier to vertical or horizontal progression.
The one huge challenge with this proposal, however, is the fact that pay matters are not driven by single Services but by Defence, with pay being a tri-Service matter. Whilst Defence level competency profiles are being created to allow skills to be employed across all three Services, within Strategic Command and the MOD, a more regulated Defence wide competency framework akin to the ATF would be needed to ensure pay fairness. This is not insurmountable but would require significant effort and time to implement.
If this can be achieved, which proposal is better — an evolutionary approach or one that is revolutionary? Both options support a more horizontal structure and help force a shift in military culture to one that is more inclusive and open to ideas. Both also place the Army’s people at its heart and looks to rectify the structural challenges faced by the pay-rank system. However, Brown argues that “competence-related pay is particularly appropriate in organisations where it is recognised that employee skills and behaviours are key to competitive success”[9]. If that is not a description of today’s Army, then what is? It’s time to bring on a pay revolution.
[1] United Kingdom (UK). Ministry of Defence (MOD). Our Finest Asset: What it Means to Serve in the 21st Century. (London: MOD, 2021): 14. Our_Finest_Asset (accessed September 12, 2021).
[2] Conducted by the author of this blog.
[3] Interview with member of Programme CASTLE, July 2021.
[4] Also, how it would be accountable and therefore, affordable.
[5] UK. MOD. Pay 16 — The Armed Forces Pay Model (Pay 16). (London: MOD, 2016): 26, NEM-Pay16_Booklet (accessed March 25, 2021).
[6] Armstrong warns regular assessments are required to ensure individuals are not being “paid for competencies they rarely, if ever, use”. Michael Armstrong, Employee Reward. 2nd ed. (London: CIPD, 1999), 305.
[7] The purpose of the ATF is to ensure a better person-job fit, something which is deemed essential if the employee-employer psychological contract is to be met. For more see Gregory Moorhead and Ricky Griffin, Organisational Behaviour: Managing People and Organisations, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1995), 53.
[8] For the best of these see Pavel Krapivin, “How Google’s Strategy for Happy Employees Boosts Its Bottom Line”, Forbes, (2018). How-googles-strategy-for-happy-employees-boosts-its-bottom-line (accessed August 11, 2021)
[9] Duncan Brown in Armstrong, Employee Reward, 307.
Lieutenant Colonel Sarah Ballantyne is a Royal Military Police officer with a background in personnel policy. Her last staff role, which inspired this work, was in Programme CASTLE, the Army’s people transformation programme.
This BLOG is an academic study conducted as part of the KCL Master by Research programme on the Advanced Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. The views expressed are those of the author; they do not constitute the opinion of, or a representation by the British Army or the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.
