Life spans and species, and time-in-grade in 24th-cen. Starfleet

[Nerys Ghemor]

One thing I have always wondered about Starfleet: in a real military, there is typically a certain time in grade that you must spend before you can receive a promotion (not counting battlefield promotions). Even a below-the-zone promotion typically cannot occur before a certain point. Also, after a certain number of times one is passed over for promotion, as I understand it, they are discharged from the service.

There have been some instances in Starfleet, particularly with what seem like some elderly admirals (Jameson before his treatments) and captains older than I think would remain on active duty (Picard) that made me wonder if, in Starfleet, the average time-in-grade for each rank has been extended by the 24th century. Does one have to be older, to make the rank of captain under all but the most unusual of circumstances, than in modern day? (Or even the TOS era, for that matter.)

And while it was an alternate timeline courtesy of Q and therefore any information is suspect, does Picard as the perpetual junior officer in "Tapestry" suggest the automatic discharge after being passed over enough times doesn't exist? (I'm not counting the situation on VOY; they at least have the excuse of not being in touch with Starfleet.) Perhaps Lieutenant Barclay offers more solid evidence that no such limit exists?

Adding to that...what about the fact that some species live so much longer than humans, such as Vulcans, Klingons, and El-Aurians? Is the required time-in-grade different for each species or must all species conform to the typical timeline of the shorter-lived ones, and then have to find a different career? (Spock might be evidence, but I'm not sure, given that Tuvok seems to suggest otherwise.)

Anyone, especially the military types here, care to speak on this?

 

[Skywalker]

I would imagine time-in-grade is based simply on whatever standard year the Federation uses. Basing it on different species' various lifespans would be too chaotic.

As for Picard remaining a Lieutenant JG for so long, I'm not really sure about that one. It's possible that Starfleet's rules regarding such things are more relaxed, though in reality we should keep in mind that the writers in the TNG era never really had a solid grasp of military protocol or traditions.

 

[Pavonis]

I'd imagine that there would have to be an adjusted career path for everyone. Humans are living longer in the 24th Century, and they're surrounded by other species with longer lifespans. Why have Vulcans conform to Human career norms? I suppose you could normalize the time-in-grade across species by making comparisons to lifespan statistics for the various species. A Vulcan could remain a lieutenant for 50 years, in that case. Of course, then Data would be a problem, as he had no known ultimate lifespan, and there'd be no way to judge his time-in-grade against a lifespan. I suppose there's always an exception to the rule, though.

Anyway, as I understand it, in the modern military, it's "up or out" to make room for the incoming junior officers. If there's no upper echelon that's moving on regularly, if the generals and admirals are just sitting at the top until they die, then where will the junior officers go? What kind of career advancement would they face? None at all.

In the 24th Century, though, it appears that Starfleet may be ever expanding, allowing room for advancement of the junior officers without the need for pushing out older officers. People like Riker, who stay in one position for 15 years, aren't impeding the advancement of other officers, such as Sisko (who made captain before Riker did, though Riker was a commander when Sisko was still likely a lieutenant), because there are always new ships and stations and colonies for new officers to be placed.

 

[ngc7293]

<snip> It's possible that Starfleet's rules regarding such things are more relaxed, though in reality we should keep in mind that the writers in the TNG era never really had a solid grasp of military protocol or traditions.

Have to remember that there are races in Star Fleet that are longer lived than humans. Remember in Voyager how Tuvok told about his earlier years. A human doing 60+ years of service should retire, but because there are Vulcans and other races in service, the rules have to change.
One thing, humans live longer in the Trek universe than they do now. McCoy lived to 200. That has to change the rules for everyone.

 

[Sci]

Anyway, as I understand it, in the modern military, it's "up or out" to make room for the incoming junior officers. If there's no upper echelon that's moving on regularly, if the generals and admirals are just sitting at the top until they die, then where will the junior officers go? What kind of career advancement would they face? None at all.

In the 24th Century, though, it appears that Starfleet may be ever expanding, allowing room for advancement of the junior officers without the need for pushing out older officers. People like Riker, who stay in one position for 15 years, aren't impeding the advancement of other officers, such as Sisko (who made captain before Riker did, though Riker was a commander when Sisko was still likely a lieutenant), because there are always new ships and stations and colonies for new officers to be placed.

Exactly. Starfleet is much, much, much, much, much, much, much larger than any military force in history has ever been. The Federation Starfleet has to be large enough to protect over 150 Federation Member worlds and their territories, an unknown number of Federation colonies, over 8,000 light-years' worth of space, and maintain a large, long-term, long-range exploration program that functions far out beyond the Federation's borders. So there are far more opportunities for every position than there would be in real militaries.

Also: the Federation is a society that exists in a state of abundance; people do not constantly need to compete against one-another and "get ahead" (of whom?) in order to live with dignity, respect, and economic security. This is not a capitalist system. So the need for constant career advancement would be reduced; people wouldn't feel constant pressure to advance in order to retain respect, and Starfleet wouldn't constantly view its officers' worth only in terms of how far they advance.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I think it's ridiculous to suggest there would be no ambition in the 24th century. Prestige, power--heck, even picking up the opposite sex--are quite enough to make a person ambitious.

 

[Pavonis]

Of course ambition still exists in the 24th Century. Look at Lt. Commander Shelby - she was quite ambitious, and wanted Riker's position. But apparently Starfleet doesn't push it's less ambitious but still valuable officers out just to make room for the younger and more ambitious officers. It doesn't need to!

 

[Sci]

I think it's ridiculous to suggest there would be no ambition in the 24th century. Prestige, power--heck, even picking up the opposite sex--are quite enough to make a person ambitious.

I did not say that ambition wouldn't exist -- I said that society would not constantly be pressuring people to constantly move ahead to be valued, and that Starfleet would likely not regard officers who are content in their current status as being failures or bad. Sure, ambition would still exist -- but it would be more likely to come from within instead of pushed on people from without.

And hopefully Starfleet would have also learned to avoid the Peter Principle of promoting people until they reach their level of incompetence; knowing when to stop and when enough is enough is also a virtue.

 

[T'Girl]

Picard as the perpetual junior officer in "Tapestry"

Starfleet might have done away with the "peter principle." As a organization they let people find their niche in life. Riker found a balance between his personal ambitions and the needs of the fleet in which he choose to serve. He might have felt that his next promotion was secure, given his record, regardless of how much time he spent under Picard.

If Riker anticipated remaining in Starfleet for the majority of his life, fifteen years as a commander may not have been that unusual. Plenty of time to make Admiral.

")

 

[Caliburn24]

I've served in the US Army, and had a lifelong interest in history and military history in particular. And as a lifelong fan of all things Star Trek it pains me to admit that Starfleet's organizational structure is a horrible mess. And having worked at length on Army MTOEs(Modified Tables of Organization & Equipment) I know something about horrible organizational messes.

One thing I have always wondered about Starfleet: in a real military, there is typically a certain time in grade that you must spend before you can receive a promotion (not counting battlefield promotions). Even a below-the-zone promotion typically cannot occur before a certain point. Also, after a certain number of times one is passed over for promotion, as I understand it, they are discharged from the service.

The concept of time in grade promotions is a relatively recent one historically speaking, less than a hundred years old in most military services. It was brought about to centralize rank standards and prevent favoritism(in the old days unit/ship commanders could just promote who they wanted), and to generally create a more professional aura. It is also a profoundly stupid system that encourages all members to keep their heads down and just do their time. Don't rock the boat, don't take the initiative(except in carefully selected ways) or try new things. I would very much hope such a system is gone by the time Trek rolls around.

There have been some instances in Starfleet, particularly with what seem like some elderly admirals (Jameson before his treatments) and captains older than I think would remain on active duty (Picard) that made me wonder if, in Starfleet, the average time-in-grade for each rank has been extended by the 24th century. Does one have to be older, to make the rank of captain under all but the most unusual of circumstances, than in modern day? (Or even the TOS era, for that matter.)

The US Army recently changed its age limit, and is now allowing 42 year old people into the service as first term enlisted, meaning they can serve their 20 years and exit at 62. Part of this was due to wartime demand, but another factor is that modern medicine can keep you active longer these days. And that appears to be the case even more so in Trek. It would produce a glut of high ranking officers however, which would make for all sorts of problems.

Adding to that...what about the fact that some species live so much longer than humans, such as Vulcans, Klingons, and El-Aurians? Is the required time-in-grade different for each species or must all species conform to the typical timeline of the shorter-lived ones, and then have to find a different career? (Spock might be evidence, but I'm not sure, given that Tuvok seems to suggest otherwise.)

If Starfleet still has an archaic time in grade system(I sincerely hope it doesn't) it would be unwise to vary it based on expected lifespan. Time in grade is not just about marking time. You are expected to attend certain schools and gain certain qualifications during your time at each rank. How old you are, what civilian skills you have, expected lifespan, those are irrelevant, only your time in service matters. Or at least that is how it might work if Starfleet were a purely military force.

But now let me add a couple points. I won't even touch the too many chiefs and not enough indians(IE all officers no enlisted) problem.

How long do you serve in Starfleet? In the real world military we talk day in and day out about how long we have left on our enlistments. We talk about going career(20 years). It is a very important concern to everyone serving.

So when you sign up for Starfleet, do you have to give them a time commitment? Or can you join and quit at your discretion? Real world military academies require you serve a certain number of years in the service post-graduation. Does Starfleet Academy work that way? As far as I can remember there has never been any mention of terms of enlistment in Trek.

And that is an extremely important factor in organizational structure. Military units function on something called life-cycles. Generally three years or so. You get your people, you slot them into positions that your Congressionally approved MTOE has designed for your unit, and they do their jobs for that life-cycle. And when that life-cycle is up they re-enlist or get out. You can't build a unit or a ship's crew without that sort of stability and predictable time tables.

So then we come to individual Starfleet officers. If you don't serve terms of enlistment, it must be more like a calling. And this seems more in-line with what we have seen onscreen. The vast majority of officers seem to expect to serve in Starfleet until they die or some distant retirement in the future at their discretion. This would produce such a glut of commanders, captains and flag officers hunting for a command, any command that the bickering and infighting inside Starfleet would be brutal.

 

[Pavonis]

This would produce such a glut of commanders, captains and flag officers hunting for a command, any command that the bickering and infighting inside Starfleet would be brutal.

There never seems to be shortage of commands, though. Even the smallest starships have captains (by rank) as their CO.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Yet that point could also explain "crazy admiral syndrome"...

 

[ngc7293]

There is also the point that the Federation is about 8000 light years across. That gives plenty of room for a large fleet of starships, starbases, platforms and other places that need some command structure (and Chiefs and Indians). Even if there isn't the structure that we are familiar with now, there is definitely room for people to spread out to. No wonder the hero ship is always the only ship in the region. With such a vast area it's hard to put a lot of ships everywhere!

 

[Caliburn24]

The size of Starfleet and scope of area it covers is largely irrelevant to this topic.

What matters is that to maintain any sort of institutional cohesion in Starfleet a ratio of less than 1-2% of all personnel can reach the rank of Captain and above.

Yet(from an admittedly skewed sample group) that is very much not the case. Take Kirk and company as an example...

Kirk-Admiral
Spock-Captain
McCoy-Admiral
Sulu-Captain
Scotty-Captain
Chekov-Admiral(maybe)
Uhura-Admiral(maybe)

You can't have that many high ranking officers running around. There are not enough positions for them. No matter how big Starfleet is it cannot support a ratio of command officers that high.

 

[Pavonis]

We don't really know how big Starfleet is, nor how many officers reach flag rank, or what the average term of service is. It's entirely possible Starfleet maintains no more than 1% of the officers at flag rank.

Also note that McCoy wasn't depicted as an admiral until the 24th century, after, what, 100 years of service? Sulu had his own ship as a captain, and we really don't know what happened to Chekov and Uhura. They may have retired as commanders.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The less you think that Starfleet does everything exactly like today's navies, the less of a problem it is. Starfleet doesn't seem to have issues with people staying at a certain rank or position for a very long time, especially if they're very good at their job. Those personnel who seem to advance rapidly through the ranks tend to be people with both the desire and ability to, IMO. For every person who may turn down a promotion (like Riker and Picard), there's probably no shortage of people who will take it instead.

 

[T'Girl]

The size of Starfleet and scope of area it covers is largely irrelevant to this topic.

But it would be relevant if Starfleet were endlessly growing. If the Federation were also growing, not just in membership, but in claimed territory that they had to hang onto.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The less you think that Starfleet does everything exactly like today's navies, the less of a problem it is.

This is very true for a lot of issues. There is a current of thought that won't accept anything less than Starfleet working exactly like the US Navy (just, you know, in space!) and the Federation (or at least, Earth) working exactly like the US.