Joint staff officers often unprepared for new jobs.

Military officers assigned to newly-created "joint staff" jobs arrive with little or no training on how to function in a multi-service environment, asserts a study commissioned by the Defense Department.

Regional commands around the world, called "combatant commands," or COCOMs, report that joint staff officers at combined task forces and standing joint force headquarters "are either under-trained or completely untrained to conduct their jobs as members of joint staffs," said the report, which was produced by Thoughtlink, Inc., of Vienna, Va.

Officers interviewed for the report noted that, for the most part, they lack opportunities for joint staff training prior to receiving an assignment to a COCOM, the study said.

"Most arrive with little or no experience about the role of a staff officer, how to work with specific command and control systems, or what to expect if asked to perform as part of a joint task force," the report said. "They are likely to receive limited formal training upon their arrival--and even those military personnel who have previously served on a joint staff may be faced with new job requirements for which they are not fully trained."

Several Defense Department officials contacted by National Defense declined to comment on the study, claiming that they had not seen it or had time to analyze the findings.

A Pentagon spokesman argued that it is not realistic to expect joint staff officers to learn everything they need to know before taking over these jobs. "It would be difficult to artificially replicate the myriad of discrete skills needed to perform specific jobs in joint billets. These skills are learned on the job, under fire, in a swiftly evolving environment," the spokesman said in an e-mail response.

Joint staff officers do receive joint professional military education, which is intended to be general preparation for joint work and the international military environment, the spokesman explained. "As in other lines of work, specific tasks and procedures are specific to a particular office or assignment and learned in on-the-job training."

Col. Jeff Satterfield, joint training readiness and exercise division chief for headquarters, European Command, estimates that it takes two to three months--"but no more than six"--for a joint staff officer to learn his field. "That's pretty good, considering we don't grow up joint," he added.

Satterfield is a Marine Harrier pilot by trade. He never attended the Joint Forces Staff College, though earlier in his career, he said he was fortunate enough to participate in joint task force exercises and had some joint training at the Marine Command and Staff College. "I'm a decent Harrier pilot. I'm a fairly good administrator. But when it came to joint staff work, I had to do a lot of on-the-job training."

Satterfield gives rookie joint staff officers a week's orientation in headquarters procedures. He said the hardest part is teaching them operational procedures such as developing an operations plan.

One obstacle to formal joint staff training is the limited infrastructure. Though the individual services do pay some attention to training officers in "jointness", the only dedicated facility is the Joint Forces Staff College, which is part of the National Defense University. "The educational foundation isn't robust enough to reach out and touch as many officers as are necessary," said Erik Kjonnerod, deputy director of the National Strategic Gaming Center.

But education is important, if only to learn how to cooperate with other services. "You just can't take a pilot and put him in a JTF," said Kjonnerod, a former Army infantry officer who served on the joint staff. "We have people arrive who don't know much about their own service. An F-15 pilot probably hasn't had much to do with Air Force intelligence."

Current training tends toward extremes. Individuals are trained through classrooms and distance learning, while collective training, such as the "joint national training capability," relies on large, expensive events that use high-fidelity constructive simulations, said the Thoughtlink study. "There are relatively few or no training opportunities for individuals in interactive environments or small teams doing part-task training."

Another limitation is the lack of training simulations for joint staff training. The Thoughtlink study found that there are virtually no training simulations specifically designed for this task, though many existing sims could be adapted for such use.

Fixing joint staff officer training may be easier said than done. Kjonnerod suggested that one alternative--albeit organizationally unlikely--would be a cradle-to-grave education program for joint staff officers, similar to the systematic training that some Army officers receive throughout their careers. Another possibility is using computer simulations.

There is little sentiment for a replay of the now-defunct "joint simulation system," an ambitious federation of multi-service simulations that eventually collapsed under its own weight, noted the Thoughtlink report. The study considered the possibility of using alternative training methods such as computer war games, and recommended that the Defense Department undertake an experimental program to evaluate the effectiveness of using low-cost, easily learned technology. "For relatively little money, training content can be developed and used with existing alternative training methods to test the concepts."

Still, the biggest obstacle to joint training is that, at heart, the military is more a federation of sporadically cooperative services rather than a truly joint institution, the study said. Officers may be assigned to a joint staff, but in the end, it's the service they belong to that will determine their promotion prospects.

Kjonnerod recalls a Navy captain who, within two weeks of taking over a job on the joint staff, he was called up before a three-star admiral and told under no circumstances would he consider himself other than a Navy officer. After that warning, the captain would make sure he knew what the Navy's position was on a particular issue so he could support it at joint staff meetings.

"It was well known that for the longest time, the joint world didn't do much for you for service promotions," said Satterfield. But he believes the culture gradually has changed. A joint staff assignment is now considered desirable "because of what you bring back to your service."

Kjonnerod believes the younger generation of officers understands jointness, though older officers still see a world where if the Army wins, the Navy loses. "The younger guys have got it. The senior levels-two star and above is where it becomes a zero sum game."