A SWO Nuke is still a SWO. And it's not like Naval Reactors has any intention on changing anytime soon.kingeryc said:SWO? Maybe. Frustrated SWO NUKE who's tired of all the nuclear administrative BS. I'm probably wrong, but that's my guess.
A SWO Nuke is still a SWO. And it's not like Naval Reactors has any intention on changing anytime soon.kingeryc said:SWO? Maybe. Frustrated SWO NUKE who's tired of all the nuclear administrative BS. I'm probably wrong, but that's my guess.
I actually think ADM Richardson does want to make some changes, but institutional inertia from the way we've done business for decades will prevent it.A SWO Nuke is still a SWO. And it's not like Naval Reactors has any intention on changing anytime soon.
A SWO Nuke is still a SWO. And it's not like Naval Reactors has any intention on changing anytime soon.
I'm quite positive Rickover's ways, although slightly diluted from his day are still alive and well. I was more commenting that being both a SWO and a Nuke could possibly make someone very jaded. I've had a few buddies go surface nuke and most have been less than excited about their careers after a couple of years.
I'm totally talking out of my ass...
For you old guys out there that have a ton of experience, don't poke the holes, provide your suggestion to wade/forge through this leadership challenge.
[One} of the major challenges is that by the time someone can make a change, they are so indoctrinated into the culture that they can't imagine a different way, and are not inclined to listen to guys with 1-4 yrs of experience.
Yes. Entirely too small to have any statistical significance. Am I supposed to "hate" the obviously female SWO because she was trying to enforce what I assume she thought the liberty requirements were at the time? Even if she was "being cautious…the way she was taught"? I'm just not going there…sounds like she was trying to do her job in an admittedly "gray environment".A small example of this is some enlisted guys on liberty ran into some SWOs in a foreign port. The SWO wanted to know who was the "man in charge" of the liberty group. Yea, we don't do that sorta thing, so when she got some confused looks, she freaked out and wanted to escort them back to the boat. They ran into one of our officers on the way who got her to go away. The group wasn't in any danger or doing anything wrong... she was just being cautious, but the way she was taught from the beginning led her to believe that the group was in real danger because a bunch of E5/E6s trusted to operate a reactor didn't designate a MIC on liberty. Now try to convince her XO/CO that you don't need a MIC for every liberty group and you'd get a look like "are you stupid?"
This is a small example...
...there are plenty of policies that don't actually add value for the time spent on them (many of the electrical safety requirements for one example, or simple PMS that requires tagouts when there is no real risk of personnel or equipment damage that doubles the manhours required to complete it, the majority of submarine force protection requirements in port), yet they persist because somewhere along the line senior leadership "buys in" on it, which then makes it integral to safe operations. But I don't think the world will commandeer SSNs if my topside watch wasn't lugging around an MCU2P or I didn't man 3 people topside to watch one brow. I also don't think Sailors will start importing Mexican workers en masse if we stopped doing our annual trafficking in persons GMT.
Solution? Dunno.
Wel, I just think you're wrong. But I'm not walking any miles in your shoes.
Yes. Entirely too small to have any statistical significance. Am I supposed to "hate" the obviously female SWO because she was trying to enforce what I assume she thought the liberty requirements were at the time? I'm just not going there...
The fact that you don't know is VERY clear. If that was your point…WINNER!
I agree, but restating or exagerating the problem doesn't fix the problem either. To have influence, you need to be able to make yourself heard and understood by the right people. To be heard and understood, you need to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. Now, a person's level of influence will be magnified greatly if they can communicate clearly and effectively both orally and in writing. But as it is, some people are simply better at presenting their side orally than they are in written form and vice versa. Being good in only one of these forms of communication does not mean you cannot wield a certain level of influence. That said, there are also many other variables that play into the influence piece that I'm not going to go into because we're only talking about communication right now. The article this person wrote is shit, IMHO. This does not mean this person is evil or a bad officer or doesn't have a grasp of the problem(s). It simply means he failed at communicating his ideas clearly and effectively.kingeryc said:Just because someone doesn't provide you with the answers to fix an incredibly diverse and intricate problem, doesn't mean they don't have a full understanding of the problems that are awaiting.
You've got it all wrong. Our job (old and young alike) IS to poke holes and find the incongruencies of solutions presented. If you don't learn this skill now, you are going to get hammered later in your career.kingeryc said:For you old guys out there that have a ton of experience, don't poke the holes, provide your suggestion to wade/forge through this leadership challenge.
I haven't seen a suggestion from you other than shut up and color, and more of the same is what got us in this fucking mess.
1. No one promised you a rose garden. You joined the organization you joined…eyes wide open, I hope. There is a certain amount of "suck it up, listen and learn, and go with the flow" that comes with any similar organization…military, industry, fucking "Jack-In-The-Box" for all I know. You will be offered "world-class training" to do a "life-altering job"…WARNING: There is a certain amount of "shutting up and coloring" involved…early on.