Command Sgt. Maj. Matthew J. Reed, U.S. Army
Alt text: Sgt. 1st Class Herbert B. Hales, an army uniform specialist, meticulously checks the uniform of Spc. Shalese Willis prior to her appearance before the 642nd Regional Support Group promotion board, emphasizing the importance of military standards and NCO evaluation.
“The greatest value of a picture is when it forces us to notice what we never expected to see.”
—John Tukey, mathematician
In the U.S. Army, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) are widely regarded as the cornerstone of the force. They are not only masters of their technical skills but also serve as leaders, mentors, and seasoned professionals in warfighting. Entrusted to operate with initiative and within the commander’s intent, they are expected to proactively identify and resolve challenges. They are often described as the indispensable backbone, possessing comprehensive knowledge and capabilities. However, the Army’s current evaluation system, specifically the Order of Merit List (OML), paradoxically labels a significant portion of these vital NCOs as below average each year. This article delves into understanding What Does Oml Mean in this context and explores potential improvements to the system.
The all-volunteer nature of the U.S. Army necessitates a robust system for both recruitment and retention. The risk of alienating highly capable NCOs, by consistently categorizing them as subpar despite positive performance evaluations, is a critical concern. This situation arose following the 2019 overhaul of the enlisted centralized board program, which combined a forced distribution model with insufficient feedback. To effectively compete for talent and maintain a high-quality force, the Army must refine the feedback mechanisms associated with talent evaluation boards. This includes providing clearer insights, using data visualization for context, and offering personalized feedback to NCOs. Such a shift is essential to enhance organizational performance and avoid the detrimental long-term effects of the current system.
Decoding the Current OML System: What Does OML Mean?
What does OML mean? OML stands for Order of Merit List. In the U.S. Army, the OML is a ranked list of noncommissioned officers within a specific grade and military occupational specialty (MOS). This ranking is generated quarterly by a centralized board of senior officers and sergeants major. These boards convene to evaluate the records of every NCO in a designated grade, with each quarter dedicated to a different grade. For example, sergeants first class (E-7) are reviewed in October, staff sergeants (E-6) in January, master sergeants (E-8) in April, and sergeants major (E-9) in August. These boards are further divided into panels based on MOS, ensuring expertise in evaluating each NCO’s specific career field. Figure 1 illustrates the composition of a typical staff sergeant talent evaluation board.
Alt text: Diagram illustrating the composition of a Staff Sergeant Talent Evaluation Board, showing panels divided by military occupational specialty (MOS) and comprising of sergeants major and lieutenant colonels or colonels, highlighting the structured approach to NCO evaluation.
Figure 1. Composition of the Staff Sergeant Talent Evaluation Board
(Figure from “Centralized NCO Evaluation Board Process,” slide 9)
Over approximately thirty days, each talent evaluation board meticulously examines the records of thousands of NCOs. This review encompasses awards, military education, civilian schooling, assignment history, and typically the last five performance evaluations, covering up to five years of performance. The board’s assessment determines promotion potential, selection for advanced professional military education, and screening for potential separation due to substandard performance. Panel members accomplish this rigorous task with an average file review time of just three to five minutes per NCO.
To standardize the scoring process, panel members use a combination of performance indicators outlined in Army regulations, specific guidance from branch proponents and senior Army leadership, and their own professional expertise. Files are assigned scores ranging from 1 to 6, with the option to add pluses or minuses for nuances not captured by the numeric score. These individual panel scores are then aggregated to produce a total board score. Based on these scores, NCOs are categorized into three groups: Most Qualified, Fully Qualified, and Not Fully Qualified. Most Qualified NCOs typically achieve an average board score of 5.5 or higher, while Not Fully Qualified NCOs generally score 2.99 or less. The Fully Qualified category encompasses NCOs with scores between 3.0 and 5.49.
Following the board’s evaluations, Human Resources Command generates the Order of Merit List. This list ranks NCOs from 1 to N within their MOS based on their total board scores, essentially creating a forced distribution. For instance, if there are 2,400 infantry sergeants first class, they are ranked from 1 to 2,400. In cases of identical board scores, tiebreakers are applied based on seniority: time in grade, basic active service date, and finally date of birth. Using the infantry sergeant first class example, an NCO ranked 1,201 or lower would be considered below average within this OML system.
While mathematically accurate, labeling an NCO as “below average” based on OML can be misleading, especially within a highly competent and professional force. Ranking 1,201 out of 2,400 can be interpreted very differently depending on the context, which is precisely the problem with the Army’s current OML feedback. The Army publishes OML numbers on the Army Career Tracker website without any accompanying context or explanation. Figure 2 shows the limited information provided to NCOs.
Alt text: Screenshot of the Army Career Tracker displaying Order of Merit List (OML) results, showing only the OML number without context or feedback, illustrating the lack of information provided to NCOs regarding their ranking.
Figure 2. Order of Merit List Results as Displayed in Army Career Tracker
(Figure by author)
This lack of context and feedback leaves NCOs wondering how to interpret their ranking and, more importantly, how to improve. Does a single number accurately reflect an NCO’s performance and potential, and does it offer any actionable insights for professional development?
The Pitfalls of Forced Distribution in OML
Numbers, particularly in isolation, lack meaning. Consider a high-performing software development company where all developers are highly skilled, consistently exceed expectations, and are difficult to replace due to their specialized expertise. If this company were to rank its developers annually based on performance reviews and personnel files to determine promotions and development opportunities, the limitations of such a system would quickly become apparent. The developers are all highly competent, with minimal performance variance.
The Army, while not a software company, faces a similar dynamic. NCOs possess specialized skills that are challenging to replicate, requiring extensive training and experience. Like the software developers, they often share comparable skill sets, experience, and capabilities. Forced ranking systems like the OML might appear efficient for large organizations, but they are inherently flawed for assessing long-term potential in such environments.
A primary drawback of forced distribution systems is their tendency to foster individualism over teamwork. Employees in forced ranking environments often prioritize outperforming peers to secure higher rankings, potentially undermining collaborative efforts toward organizational goals. These systems can also stifle creativity and diverse thinking, as individuals may hesitate to challenge established norms for fear of negative performance ratings. However, the most significant issue with the Army’s OML system is its delivery of a ranking devoid of context, leaving NCOs without a clear understanding of performance standards or areas for improvement. Interestingly, many Fortune 500 companies have abandoned forced ranking systems due to these very shortcomings, highlighting the outdated nature of this approach.
Towards a More Meaningful OML Feedback System
To enhance the OML system and provide more valuable feedback, the Army should implement three key improvements. First, NCOs should receive their average board score in addition to their OML rank, promoting transparency and providing a direct measure of the board’s assessment. Second, the Army should contextualize OML results by visualizing the distribution of board scores relative to OML ranks. This would offer a clearer picture of an NCO’s standing among peers beyond just a numerical rank. Finally, personalized feedback from the evaluation panel would provide actionable insights for professional development. As General James McConville emphasized, the Army is engaged in a “war for talent.” Winning this war necessitates improvements to systems like OML to ensure clarity and fairness.
Providing Average Board Scores with Trend Analysis. Army NCOs, as elite warfighters, deserve to understand how their records are evaluated. Currently, the OML system offers only a rank. Displaying the average board score alongside the OML rank would provide immediate insight into the board’s overall assessment. Figure 3 illustrates how this could be integrated into Army Career Tracker.
Alt text: Mockup of the Army Career Tracker interface showing a suggested display of average board score alongside the OML rank, enhancing transparency and providing NCOs with a direct measure of their evaluation.
Figure 3. Suggested Display of Average Board Score in Army Career Tracker
(Figure by author)
Furthermore, tracking board scores over time would provide valuable trend data (Figure 4). As NCOs progress in their careers, accumulate performance evaluations, and attend professional development courses, understanding how these milestones influence their board scores relative to their peers, year after year, is crucial.
Alt text: Mockup of a graph displaying average board scores over time for an NCO, illustrating the trend of their evaluations across their career and providing a visual representation of professional growth and performance trajectory.
Figure 4. Suggested Display of Average Board Score over Time
(Figure by author)
Contextualizing OML Results through Data Visualization. Supplementing board scores and OML ranks with a visual distribution of scores relative to ranks would significantly enhance understanding. For example, knowing that an OML rank difference of 20 percent might correspond to a much smaller difference in board scores (e.g., OML 200 vs. 600 having minimal board score variance) provides crucial context. In the hypothetical scenario of 2,400 infantry sergeants first class, an OML of 1,320 is more meaningful when visualized within the broader distribution of scores.
Given the homogeneity of skills and experience among evaluated NCOs, the score distribution is unlikely to be a normal distribution. Instead, it is more likely to be negatively skewed, with a longer tail extending towards lower scores, indicating a concentration of NCOs at the higher end of the score spectrum. This reflects the reality that workplace performance often follows a power-law distribution rather than a normal distribution, with a majority of individuals performing at a high level. In the Army context, this suggests that many NCOs achieve similarly high board scores. Figure 5 visually represents this concept, which the Army should incorporate into its feedback.
Alt text: Mockup chart illustrating the distribution of total board scores relative to Order of Merit List (OML) results, depicting a negatively skewed distribution where a significant portion of NCOs cluster in the higher board score range, providing visual context to OML rankings.
Figure 5. Distribution of Total Board Scores Relative to Order of Merit List Results
(Figure by author)
Visualizing data in this way provides essential context. A significant portion of the OML might fall within the upper range of board scores. Therefore, an OML rank that appears “below average” numerically might actually represent exceptional performance within a highly competitive group. This reframing is crucial for maintaining morale and encouraging talented NCOs to remain in service.
Personalized Feedback Mechanisms. The most impactful feedback would be personalized insights into how board members evaluated each NCO’s record against regulatory guidelines, board instructions, and evaluation philosophies. While the Army has expressed intent to move in this direction, current proposals to provide only “+” or “-” indicators based on leadership competencies are insufficient. More meaningful feedback grounded in specific performance indicators is needed.
Each MOS has unique performance indicators maintained by branch proponents. For example, infantry sergeants first class are typically expected to have earned the Ranger Tab and/or Bradley Master Gunner Badge, Expert Infantryman Badge, served as a platoon sergeant for twenty-four months, and completed a minimum of thirty college credit hours. High physical fitness scores are also a key expectation. While specific requirements vary across branches, panel members consider evaluations, assignments, military education, and other factors within personnel files.
Currently, NCOs receive no feedback related to these indicators. Using common criteria as a starting point, Figure 6 provides an example of numerically based personalized feedback. While this example is quantitative and generic, it demonstrates a framework for improvement. Ideally, NCOs should receive both quantitative ratings and qualitative comments from panel members.
Alt text: Mockup table showing suggested personalized feedback on key performance indicators, including metrics like Ranger Tab completion, Platoon Sergeant time, and college credits, illustrating a quantitative approach to providing targeted feedback to NCOs.
Figure 6. Suggested Personalized Feedback on Key Performance Indicators
(Figure by author)
Negative Consequences of the Current OML System. The Army releases OML results approximately two months after the board concludes. On release day, Army Career Tracker updates OML numbers without any visualization, feedback, or context. The numbers lack narrative and fail to explain the rationale behind the assigned rank. Consequently, half of the NCOs are informed they are “below average” without any constructive feedback or guidance for improvement. This has significant ramifications for promotions, professional military education opportunities, assignments, and overall morale.
One negative consequence is increased individualism. NCOs with lower OML rankings may become overly focused on their individual performance evaluations, striving for a better rank in subsequent years. This individualism can breed unhealthy hyper-competitiveness, where NCOs prioritize personal advancement over collaborative teamwork. “Spotlight Rangers” may emerge, emphasizing their achievements while detracting from team efforts. These behaviors, while understandable responses to a forced distribution system lacking context and feedback, are detrimental to a force that relies on collaboration and teamwork.
Furthermore, the Blended Retirement System (BRS) exacerbates these issues. The Army has lost its most significant incentive for long-term retention – traditional retirement benefits. While historically less than 20 percent of soldiers reached traditional retirement, initial term attrition skews this statistic, as those leaving early were unlikely to be repeatedly evaluated by talent boards. NCOs considering long careers now weigh OML results against their BRS Thrift Savings Plan accounts. While BRS offers advantages for many, it adds complexity to the interpretation of uncontextualized OML results.
Consider an NCO with eight years of service who consistently ranks in the 55th percentile on the OML. Without context, they may feel undervalued and question their future in the Army. The absence of feedback leaves them to interpret their OML rank in isolation. An OML of 1,320 out of 2,400 can easily lead to feelings of inadequacy, regardless of verbal reassurance from leaders. However, this NCO is actually performing in the upper third relative to their peers.
Anecdotal evidence suggests these concerns are widespread. NCOs are increasingly frustrated by the lack of transparency and context in OML results. Coupled with the portability offered by the BRS, many talented NCOs are choosing to transition to civilian careers where their skills are highly valued.
Conclusion: Recontextualizing OML for Talent Retention
Talent evaluation boards and the OML system were implemented to streamline personnel decisions and ensure merit-based promotions. However, the current system’s output lacks clarity and personalization. While forced distribution may appear efficient, its disadvantages, particularly the lack of context, negatively impact morale and organizational effectiveness. By providing average board scores, contextualizing results with data visualization, and implementing personalized feedback, the Army can transform how NCOs perceive and utilize OML results. In the ongoing “war for talent,” improving OML feedback is a critical step towards retaining highly qualified and experienced noncommissioned officers.
Notes
- Epigraph. John Tukey, Exploratory Data Analysis (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977).
Command Sgt. Maj. Matthew J. Reed leads a basic combat training battalion at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He spent his career as an infantryman leading and developing soldiers in light and airborne formations. He holds a BS in business, an MA in defense and security studies, and an MBA from University of North Carolina, Kenan-Flagler Business School.
July-August 2023
