Navy Retention Survey Results are LIVE!

[nittany03]

I think that you're confusing the CLT with the inspection paradox; the former being the sample size needed to account for a reasonable standard error and the latter being the method of obtaining a sample that provides an unbiased estimate. You usually can't quantify bias. So while the Navy's survey might have a low standard error from the sample size, if it is centered on the wrong value for the estimates (ie biased because a disproportionate amount of disgruntled Sailors bothered to take the survey), it would still be wrong and no one will ever know how wrong it is.

Even the Gallup poll struggles with making sure that its estimates are unbiased. All sorts of weird existential factors affect bias in the estimate.

I'm pretty sure this is why they broke up the data demographically. You could have 5,000 Sailors take the survey, but if (for the sake of argument) only 50 of them are Master Chiefs, the statistical validity of the survey in regards to Master Chiefs will be significantly poorer than the overall sample. That's one of the ways people like Gallup reduce bias; tailoring the sample to the known demographic data of the US population. Because without knowing the results in your survey in advance, you don't know how many gruntled people to include to offset those who are disgruntled. What they're trying to find out is who is gruntled and who is not! So they (theoretically) would need to attempt to proportionally match the number of men, women, black people, white people, brown people, gay people, straight people, old people, young people, and so forth to some degree FOR EACH COMMUNITY. And be proportional with rank and designator too. Or determine and justify which of those variables don't matter and why.

But without either significant cooperation from Big Navy (this is an unofficial survey) or access to PII that an unofficial survey wouldn't get, I fail to see how they could feasibly have targeted groups to ensure that X black male heterosexual aviators between the ages of 25 and 35 gave the survey Y responses. Feasibly, you'd have to have self-reporting and trust that the guy behind the keyboard was a 27-year-old straight black man. And OBTW, if someone from a small population answered "no comment" or equivalent for a question (or refused to take the survey), that'd be another confounding variable, as you'd need to adjust the sample size, find another person, or have padded the population to account for that.

Point is, you can play this game all day. I only had to take a 100-level stat course for my major, and even I know eliminating bias is a bitch. Here, they gave us the raw data so other people can crunch their numbers and break out the statistical significance of sub-populations.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Point is, you can play this game all day.

THAT....in a nutshell, is exactly what I was trying to convey with my critique of the margin of error. The margin of error game can be played both ways and does nothing but distract everyone from the real problems. HENCE, my additional comment not to rely on it to convince senior leadership that there's a fucking problem and that it's not going to get better until someone with political capital and leadership cajones (i.e. someone who is willing to expend their political capital on someone other than themselves) stands up and takes this bull by the horns. You don't convince people to take action because the margin of error is low.

 

[PhrogLoop]

...You don't convince people to take action because the margin of error is low.

The 5,000 who responded are speaking for many more than 5,000. Even if those 5,000 only accurately represent Sailors and Officers inclined to leave the Navy (I'm not saying that is the case) that goes a long way to illustrate the real problems, as you say. I'm not giving up on this because some of you guys want to discount what these survey results are trying to communicate.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The 5,000 who responded are speaking for many more than 5,000. Even if those 5,000 only accurately represent Sailors and Officers inclined to leave the Navy (I'm not saying that is the case) that goes a long way to illustrate the real problems, as you say.

I know! I'm with you. You're preaching to the choir. I'm simply trying to get you to not get too hung up on the mathematics to support your case. The research and statistical methodology are important to give the study some semblance of integrity. But what we're ultimately dealing with here are issues that are rooted in people's emotions (happy, not happy, to stay in or to get out, etc.), and those emotions are very difficult to quantify.

I'm not giving up on this because some of you guys want to discount what these survey results are trying to communicate.

I hope you don't give up on this. But I also think you're hearing something that we aren't saying.

 

[PhrogLoop]

I know! I'm with you. You're preaching to the choir...I hope you don't give up on this.

Thanks. My frustration is definitely with leadership (including Major Command O-6's I've spoken with) who are spring-loaded to ignoring if not shitting on these results. I'm hoping against hope that some real good comes out of this effort.

 

[Spekkio]

Point is, you can play this game all day. I only had to take a 100-level stat course for my major, and even I know eliminating bias is a bitch. Here, they gave us the raw data so other people can crunch their numbers and break out the statistical significance of sub-populations.

All I was pointing out is that the standard deviation is associated with the estimate of the mean and says nothing about bias. Therefore, one cannot point at a 1.4% or whatever-it-is error and say 'see, these results are iron clad. That doesn't mean that they are garbage, either. They tell a better story when compared to other surveys and looking for changes outside of 3 standard deviations.

 

[robav8r]

This just breaking . . .
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83115

 

[lowflier03]

This just breaking . . .
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83115

Except that I don't see it making a big difference. Pers and the Airboss is acting like throwing a few dollars at O-5's will convince them to endure the pain train of post command Navy bullshit. This might work for a small increase in retention, but I'd guess that the real talent the Navy needs to retain will laugh at that amount (what $25k post taxes if they are lucky?) and walk away with retirement and whats left of their sanity.

Maybe we should be working on fixing the problem instead of throwing a few dollars at people and pretending there's nothing wrong....

 

[Recovering LSO]

This just breaking . . .
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=83115

Maybe we should be working on fixing the problem instead of throwing a few dollars at people and pretending there's nothing wrong....

See also:

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2014/07/loss-of-trust-and-confidence-goes-both.html
http://www.askskipper.com/2014/07/07/loyalty-goes-both-ways/

Because of YG shifts several years ago there are now A LOT of guys now wearing O-4, up for O-5 and ACSB in the next two years, whose timing works out such that they could retire at their outgoing change of command. Under this model they would be would be eligible to take the first of two $18k pre-tax payments in what probably turns out to be their 19th year. The only people I see taking this money are the ones who are committed to 26+ years of service because the purpose of the bonus is to hook you into going before the O-6 statutory and AMCS boards. Then they've got to stick around wearing eagles for at least three years for the high-three retirement math to work.

So is this a good deal for the dudes who are in it for the big win? Sure. Why wouldn't they take the money? At that point it's essentially free money. Kinda like the DH bonus traditionally was for competitive guys who knew they were staying in. There wasn't a decision to make, or it had already been made, and if the Nav wanted to give them some more money - great.

For the guys who are on the fence about staying around to play for O-6 (even knowing the select rate for post-command COs is very high), I just don't see this money being worth it. Instead you can make a clean break with your high three at O-5 in the bank at a relatively young age, straight out of the cockpit (i.e., current), with about twenty years of life left for the airlines - if they choose that route. For those guys, this amount of money just isn't anywhere near worth it.

Considering the relatively small number of people who make up the target set, it seems to me that the Nav could afford to offer A LOT more, thereby making the choice to leave after a command tour a lot more difficult.

This is a good first step, but just that.

 

[robav8r]

So is this a good deal for the dudes who are in it for the big win? . . . . . . . . . . Sure.

I think this is a great first step, and an acknowledgement that Naval Aviation has a problem brewing. I think the jury is still out on the health of the economy & job market for those that want to do something other than fly for the airlines. Like you said, for those that are current in the cockpit and ready for the "Show", this $18K x2 carrot will mean nothing.

 

[Gatordev]

1. The potential for an improving economy has increased job opportunities in the civilian sector for skilled O5 aviators. With this bonus we get a "two-fer," it will provide compensation for our most talented operators to continue their service as well as motivation for junior officers to pursue an aviation command career path.

Whoever wrote this is still not getting it, IMO. This is not motivation for JOs. It's a nice to have (like RLSO mentioned) if you get there and/or want to continue to serve and become a CO, but it's not what's going to keep people in.

As I've become more senior, it has allowed me to be able to have actual conversations with COs and PCOs (and former COs) rather than have the more traditional exchange you have being more junior. What I've found is that most guys, after finishing their DH tour and are interested in being a CO, do it because they have a competitive personality and want to continue to be a player (whatever that may mean) in the organization.

The problem the Navy has now is that the JOs are getting more and more beat down with deployment schedules and selection boards (however long these continue to be an issue) that money isn't going to be what motivates them to get to where they become like the people I mention above.

I fear I'm not communicating this well. I probably should have just quoted RLSO's post and then said "This."

 

[smoke_screen]

This is a good first step, but just that.

Well said and I think you nailed this in terms of how I would view it -- but I will also say that due to the overwhelming number of factors involved in actually getting out... location, kids, industry, economy, spouse, real estate, your education, on-and-on... sometimes the *smallest* thing can make the difference. Purely logically/in this vacuum, it makes little sense but the "and, if you call in the next 5 minutes, we'll throw in a 100 best recipes for your turbo juicer" I honestly believe applies. I swear people are almost looking for any excuse to make them feel better about a decision they realize makes little sense. This is based on conversations with peers... "just throw in the floor mats and we've got a deal" goes a helluva long way, or at least that's my observation,

 

[robav8r]

I will also say that due to the overwhelming number of factors involved in actually getting out... location, kids, industry, economy, spouse, real estate, your education, on-and-on... sometimes the *smallest* thing can make the difference.

This is a great point. I don't think the economy and attractiveness of being on the "other side of the fence" is nearly as enticing as some folks would have you believe - except for those 1310's who are truly marketable for the airlines and other, niche industies where folks have specialized training & experience. The real issue here, IMHO, is not the ACRB, but the incredible pressure O-FRP is/will have on the Fleet. The Navy has not done a good job of explaiing why a 10 month deployment (CVN-70) is necessary or relevant to our current strategy.

 

[1rotorhead]

IRT the bonus: most of my peers will be 18-19 when finishing command. This means an extra $5000 to $8000 per year to stay until 22. Not very enticing IMHO. My DH bonus was 4x as much for almost the same amount of time.

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

It is a trap.