In watching the testimony on the pilot crisis, I noted that the Marines do not rely on bonus payments to the same extent as other services. The Air Force has paid a $25K annual bonus for decades that they would like to increase to $35K. In contrast, the Marines haven't offered a bonus since 2011 and plan to offer a temporary, targeted bonus to address its pilot retention concerns.

I recently participated in a conversation about pilot retention during which I learned that a pilot who leaves the service after their initial service commitment and flies for the airlines will make $1.3 million more than if they stayed in the Air Force until 20 years and then began a flying career. I have not verified this number; but, clearly, the Air Force cannot pay pilots a $1.3 million bonus.

After the conversation, I re-read Dan Ariely's book Payoff in which he addresses the long-term effect that bonuses have on worker behavior.

“The bonus, however, would put a numerical value on something that wasn’t countable to begin with: your commitment”

It seems the Marines understood long ago that commitment was not something they were willing to sacrifice by offering extrinsic rewards. They would rather see those who lack commitment leave. Now that the Air Force has established a bonus, pilots have come to expect these payments. Even when the airlines have been in periods of decline, the Air Force has been unable to curtail bonuses. Why? Perhaps, they are in a predicament where they cannot restore intrinsic rewards that build commitment. If this is the case, how does an organization shift from the transactional relationships that bonuses foment and return to a reward mechanism that builds commitment?

Cultural Norms vs. Market Norms →

Getting back to commitment

Flight Hour Cost Data →