Putting the ‘right people in the right jobs at the right time’ is a phrase that has been used for decades in human resources management and strategic workforce planning. But what does it actually mean? Why is it important? And what do psychologists have to do with it?

The ‘right person, right job, right time’ paradigm refers to the crucial practice of strategically placing individuals with the appropriate knowledge, skills, attributes, and characteristics into specific roles within an organisation (Bernstein, 2015). Research has shown that when individuals possess the right skills, knowledge, and qualifications for their roles, they are more likely to be satisfied and engaged in their workplace, perform better, and organisations experience lower turnover rates (Chavadi, et al., 2023; Bhat, 2014).

When people think about ‘right person, right job, right time’, they normally think of career management. So, what do psychologists have to do with it? When applied, psychological principles, research, and measures can improve the odds of placing ‘the right person in the right job at the right time’ and provide a more objective framework for doing so (Bernstein, 2015). This article outlines the ways in which this is pertinent in the Australian Army context. 

Putting the right people in the right jobs – the role of psychologists 

All individuals enlisting or appointing in the Australian Army undergo a psychological suitability assessment at Defence Force Recruiting conducted by trained civilian psychologists. In-service members that are seeking to transfer to ‘high risk’ roles and environments (e.g., aviation, special forces, and intelligence), commission via various pathways (GSO, SSO, and ASWOCS), or posting into certain roles (e.g., remote location) are assessed by military psychologists. In these contexts, psychologists assess the degree of ‘fit’ between the individual (including their knowledge, skills, attributes, and characteristics) and the environment (inclusive of job-specific demands as well as wider organisational or cultural factors) they are seeking to enter. The overall intent is to screen for psychological risk factors and to provide an assessment as to whether or not the individual can adjust appropriately to the demands of the role and/or environment.

Army psychologists also play a vital role in the selection board process utilised for all Army Officer entrants and those entering through the Overseas Lateral Recruitment Scheme. Psychologists maintain technical oversight of this process. They help to ensure that the standardisation, validity, and reliability of the process is maintained. Psychologists also participate in the board process providing a further opportunity to assess for the required knowledge, skills, attributes, and characteristics required of successful Army Officers and screen for psychological risk factors.

In the context of career progression, psychologists in the Australian Army play a key role in the Career Management Board (CMB) process, which selects senior soldiers and Army Officers for progression to the next rank. The role of the psychologist is to maintain the integrity of the CMB, through standardisation processes, evidence-based selection criteria, and mitigation of bias through training, education, and in situ feedback and advice to the CMB voting members and chair. This ensures the processes are fair, defensible, and ultimately contributes to making sure the right people are chosen for progression.

A critical prerequisite to all selection activities conducted in the Defence environment is proper job analysis. Job analysis refers to the systematic process of gathering, documenting, and analysing information about the content, context, and requirements of a job (Sackett, et al., 2013). Without proper job analysis, it would not be possible to identify the characteristics required to be successful in a particular job – and identify people with those characteristics. 

Future directions to better leverage this capability 

These tasks conducted by psychologists strengthen military capability by ensuring selection of the right people for the right jobs is based on evidence-based criteria, and standardised and defensible selection practices. However, there are opportunities to further leverage this capability to optimise organisational outcomes. An area to which this applies is in both developing and determining effective leaders. Whilst the concepts discussed below are similar to those outlined in A Leaky Sieve: Retention in the ADF and What the Australian Army can learn from the US Army Battalion Commander Assessment Program, an emphasis is placed here on the role of psychologists.

There are lessons to be learnt from observing the ways in which psychologists and psychological measures are utilised more extensively in civilian companies and in foreign militaries. Countless studies across multiple industries have identified effective leadership as a key factor contributing to culture, wellbeing, effectiveness, productivity, and organisational success (Samad et al., 2023). In relation to military personnel, a recent study demonstrated that battalion commanders had a statistically significant effect on their lieutenants’ intentions to remain in the US Army (Spain et al., 2021). Similar results have been found in the Royal Danish Army (Troels, 2018) and the impact of constructive leadership and deconstructive leadership on trust in supervisors, work atmosphere, emotional exhaustion, and propensity to leave has been examined in a study of military personnel from Estonia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (Maria et al., 2016).

The approaches taken by top companies across the world to developing and determining high potential leaders are varied. It is increasingly being recognised that past performance is not always indicative of future success or leadership potential [js1] (Church et al., 2015; Janson & Rawlings, 2022). The skills and competencies that were effective in previous roles may not necessarily translate to those needed in high-level leadership roles. For example, while previous roles might have focused on short-term targets or operational efficiency, higher-level leadership positions often demand a focus on long-term strategic goals. For this reason, more and more companies are moving towards the inclusion of objective assessment methods (such as personality testing, cognitive testing, leadership competence, learning agility) in addition to assessing past performance with a 2015 study indicating that 80% of companies utilise these assessments in developing and/or determining their leaders (Church et al., 2015).

The US Army has recently developed a program to more objectively select their commanding officers (Battalion Commander Assessment Program) which incorporates observations of a psychologist, cognitive assessments, and psychometric testing, among other factors (see Psychologists help mitigate bias in Army leader selection program for a full overview of how psychologists contributed to the development of this program). A key benefit of the program for candidates is the insights that can be provided by psychologists / psychometric measures regarding their characteristics and abilities (Denton, 2021).

The development of this program is said to have aligned to the observation made by General McConville: “We spend more time and more money selecting a private to be in Ranger regiment that we do selecting what I would argue is one of the most consequential leadership positions in the Army, our battalion commanders” (ATMT, 2019).

The same can be said about the Australian Army. Further, that the organisation expends more psychological resources on recruiting private soldiers, selecting our junior officers, determining the ‘right person’ for ‘high risk’ roles such as aviation, special forces, and intelligence, and on identifying personnel with the right personal attributes to effectively operate in a remote location. Investment in these areas is essential, yes – but so too is determining the right people to appoint in key leadership positions at various levels of the organisation.

It’s important to express that the US Army’s approach to selecting command appointments is not a ‘cut and copy’ solution that could be utilised in the Australian Army. Similarly, approaches taken by civilian industries would likely lack validity in a military setting given the distinct differences between a commander and a leader. The organisation needs to firstly work harder to understand the full effect of leadership on various factors specifically within the Australian Army context. Are there correlates between the traits of our leaders and retention rates within our units and subunits? On soldiers’ and officers’ perceived job satisfaction or wellbeing? Are there specific attributes and characteristics of our leaders that have positive impacts on our soldiers and officers? If so, how can the organisation better assess and select for this when appointing our most influential leaders?

The bottom line – although psychologists play a vital role in determining the right person for the right job across a number of important areas, they are currently absent from the room when our most vital appointments (sub-unit and unit commanders, brigade commanders, RSMs, CSM/SSMs) are selected. This is an area where AAPsych could add value and contribute to improved organisational outcomes.

Conclusion

The Defence Strategic Review called for “an innovative and bold approach to recruitment and retention” (Australian Government, 2023). With the Army’s move towards developing high performance optimisation initiatives and the emphasis placed on strategies to improve retention, the magnitude of effective leadership in creating and sustaining an environment that fosters high performance cannot be understated. A multidisciplinary approach to improving retention is certainly needed – but further leveraging the AAPsych capability in recruitment, selection, and appointment to our most critical leadership positions is an area that could strengthen our overall capability and enhance organisational outcomes.

References

Abrams, Z. (2021, March 01). Psychologists help mitigate bias in Army leader selection program. APA. Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/news-army-leader-selection#:~:text=The%20interview%20includes%20questions%20about,reduce%20bias%20during%20the%20interview

Army Talent Management Taskforce (ATMT). (2019, November 06). Army announces new battalion commander selection program. U.S. Army. Retrieved from: https://www.army.mil/article/229500/army_announces_new_battalion_commander_selection_program

Australian Government. (2023). National Defence: Defence strategic review. Retrieved from: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review 

Bernstein, D. (2015). Psychology: foundations and frontiers. Cengage Learning. 

Bhat, Z. H. (2014). Job matching: The key to performance. International Journal of Research in Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, 2, pp. 257-269. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279526238_Job_Matching_The_Key_to_Performance

Chavadi, C. A., Sirothiya, M., & Vishwanatha, M. R. (2022). Mediating role of job satisfaction on turnover intentions and job mismatch among millennial employees in Bengaluru. Business Perspectives and Research, 10, pp. 79-100. doi: 10.1177/2278533721994712

Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Ginther, N. M., & Levine, R. (2015). How are top companies designing and managing their high potential programs? A follow-up talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67, pp. 17-47. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000030

Denver, C. (2021, February 16). BCAP: The Battalion Commander Program. U.S. Army. Retrieved from: https://www.army.mil/article/243040/bcap_the_battalion_command_assessment_program#:~:text=BCAP%20also%20offers%20a%20unique,my%20true%20readiness%20for%20command

Finnane, J. (2022, November 04). A leaky sieve: Retention in the ADF. The Cove. Retrieved from: https://cove.army.gov.au/article/leaky-sieve-retention-adf

Janson, K., & Rawlings, M. (2022). Determining leadership potential. Taylor & Francis. 

Maria, F., Sofia, N., & Gerry, L. (2016). Leadership: Is bad stronger than good? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 37, pp. 690-710. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0191

Mostafa, P. (2022, December 12). What the Australian Army can learn from the US Army Battalion Commander Assessment Program. The Cove. Retrieved from: https://cove.army.gov.au/article/what-army-can-learn-from-us-army-battalion-commander

Samad, A., Ahmed, E., & Arora, N. (2023). Global leadership perspective on industry, society, and government in an era of uncertainty. IGI Global. 

Sackett, P. R., Walmsley, P. T., & Laczo, R. M. (2013). Job and work analysis. In N. W. Schmitt, S. Highhouse, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 61–81). John Wiley & Sons. 

Spain, E., Gautam, M., & Bates, A. (2021). The Battalion Commander Effect. Parameters, 51(3). doi: 10.5540/0031-1723.3083

Troels, H. (2018). Retention of junior officers in the Danish Army: the effect of motivation and leadership. [Master’s thesis, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College]. Retrieved from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1084367.pdf.