Why are you Leaving?

[Pags]

Lots of misconceptions of the civilian world. Are there jobs where you can telework, set your own hours, or work in sweatpants? Sure. Are there still plenty of jobs where you work a set work day in appropriate work attire (perhaps the majority of jobs)? ABSOLUTELY. Are there civilian jobs that require you to work long hours, may call you back to work, or send you on travel for long periods of time? ABSOLUTELY! You have to go where the work is. You know what's a growth industry? Shale oil production. Shale oil fields are located in the middle of nowhere or at the edge of the world in Canada where there are no starbucks or gastropubs around. But there's huge potential for smart people to make lots of money in that industry but you'll be working weekends and overtime to make production goals.

Yep. I can tell you we research and market voraciously to millennials. Most of our workforce is also comprised of millennials and as such, there are strategies in place to recruit and retain them. Millennials are discussed at conferences in respect to how they interact with the world much more differently than any previous generation. The psychological and behavioral patterns associated with millennials, in general terms, are unlike those of any other generation. Folks who dismiss these differences as being derogatory do so at their own peril. And those that have to lead and manage millenials need to be aware of these differences as well.

I was waiting for the opportunity to post this, very germane:

 

[Spekkio]

Did you really just take the name we've given to label a certain generation and make it racist and/or sexist? Are you serious?

That depends on the context on which it is used. The word 'millenial' is not inherently derogatory, but if you're going to use it to claim that an entire generation of people need to be taught right from wrong or be treated like children, then that is on par with making racist or sexist comments.

I didn't overstate anything. I said that folks can move the same or even more in a civilian job and that most people don't realize this. Contrary to the military, these moves are usually not mandatory, but they tend to be closely tied to promotions and changing positions within the company. People need to be aware of this possibility, especially those that are getting out because they are tired of moving.

Sure, but it's much more rare than you initially claimed.

You are being naive...And then there's the real world. Not saying what you're referring to here doesn't happen, but it is definitely not the norm.

Both of these - being called in on sudden weekends or setting your own work hours -- are the extreme. The majority of private civilian jobs have relatively steady hours and don't call people at 0600 on Sat to expect them to be at work by 0700.

I keep shaking my head at this too. In two of my management and marketing classes discussing consumer segmentation, baby boomers, GEN X/GEN Y, millennials etc are well defined and discussed extensively. It is an aggregate term with a basic definition on time period born, social outlooks, buying patterns and spending ability. It's the same as if you make segmentation by saying someone is a VOLUNTEER, GATOR, or NOLE... etc... Psychologically humans are predisposed to categorize and associate. I think its reaching pretty damn far to say that millennial of baby boomer is a racist term and derogatory.

The line between baby boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y is not as well defined as you claim. People can't even agree where these generations start and end.

There is also a big difference between trying to analyze big picture market trends to sell a product to a particular demographic, and treating individuals a particular way due to stereotypes.

 

[Renegade One]

"We're just saying the same things that need to be said...again and again...with fierce conviction."
Attributed to Deke Slayton in the motion picture "The Right Stuff".

 

[ssnspoon]

Not butt hurt at all. Stereotyping an entire group of people leads to making policy like CAPT Jarrett's.

Here's a metric one would be wise to use: if you can't substitute the words black, hispanic, or women for millenials and stay out of hot water, then what you are saying is derogatory.

Actually, your reply is perfect, and I WOULD substitute BLACK and feel very comfortable!

My one problem with many (Blacks/Hispanics/Women) is that some (not all) are quick to assume that label is always intended as a derogatory connotation.

Just because a term CAN be used in a derogatory connotation, does not mean it IS. The biggest example is an obvious one we all have heard...a word I will never utter, being a white man, but can be acceptable by some in certain crowds. Same...should I take offense to a black man, talking to another person, pointing at me ad saying "it's that white guy over there" Nope, I don't.

 

[ssnspoon]

Just to give the rebuttal also...both funny and I am not trying to "degrade and entire generation by laughing at them or in any way making fun of them"

 

[EODDave]

I keep shaking my head at this too. In two of my management and marketing classes discussing consumer segmentation, baby boomers, GEN X/GEN Y, millennials etc are well defined and discussed extensively. It is an aggregate term with a basic definition on time period born, social outlooks, buying patterns and spending ability. It's the same as if you make segmentation by saying someone is a VOLUNTEER, GATOR, or NOLE... etc... Psychologically humans are predisposed to categorize and associate. I think its reaching pretty damn far to say that millennial of baby boomer is a racist term and derogatory.

Can't believe you put Tennessee first.

 

[Pags]

That depends on the context on which it is used. The word 'millenial' is not inherently derogatory, but if you're going to use it to claim that an entire generation of people need to be taught right from wrong or be treated like children, then that is on par with making racist or sexist comments.

Sure, but it's much more rare than you initially claimed.

Both of these - being called in on sudden weekends or setting your own work hours -- are the extreme. The majority of private civilian jobs have relatively steady hours and don't call people at 0600 on Sat to expect them to be at work by 0700.


The line between baby boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y is not as well defined as you claim. People can't even agree where these generations start and end.

There is also a big difference between trying to analyze big picture market trends to sell a product to a particular demographic, and treating individuals a particular way due to stereotypes.

@Steve Wilkins , you using a term like millenials to refer to a group of people that Spekkio would be lumped in with is saying that Spekkio is the same as all the others and not a unique snowflake. I recommend you go back and watch the video I posted and try again, but this time be sure to point out how unique and insightful Spekkio is.

 

[webmaster]

Can't believe you put Tennessee first.

Well, we have beaten them 10 years in a row, have to throw them a bone.

 

[CommodoreMid]

You took my post the entirely wrong way.

The fact is that the military is an up-or-out system. It just is what it is. Everyone knows that (or should know that) going in. So if you don't aspire to be a CO at sea, there is little reason for you to stay past the point where your career stops being interesting to you. The Navy will eventually replace your job doing NFO things with another JO, and you'll be given a job somewhere until you retire or are separated if you don't make O-4. There are just things that aren't an option, like keeping an operational JO/DH job that you love from now until retirement.

I wasn't judging Ben4Prez negatively for not wanting to be a CO at sea. I responsed to him because his post had a tone of 'I could cure world hunger if I got out of the Navy' - maybe it's not the most realistic goal, but it was refreshing to see such optimism in someone who has been around a bit. No one is telling him 'fuck you' to his dreams and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I am also far removed from any position where I could effect or advise politicians on such policy. Command at sea is just generally where the Navy wants URL officers to go, and if that's not your cup of tea then there's not much use sticking around in an organization that wants to make you into one and will pass you over for promotion if you start taking jobs that are not on the proper track.

I think the system has its merits and its flaws. If you want to change that system, then get out of the Navy, run for President, and coerce Congress into changing the way officers are promoted.

Except the issue is the jobs that you keep doing the NFO thing can get shut out to you (i.e. DH) if you don't suck down the kool aide and say, sure being a shooter sounds awesome. There are skippers out there who penalize people if they don't want to do the golden path thing. Not saying I've had it happen to me, but why is it beat into our heads that if you want to do something "different" you should hold that card tightly until you absolutely have to show it? Because some skippers will pass you over and you'll be out of the flying thing well before you wanted.

 

[Brett327]

Some of you seem to be caught up in a Peter Pan mindset.

 

[wink]

But I'm just a 31 year old millenial so what do I know?

Well, you should know that stereotypes are just generalizations about a group of people. They can be positive, negative, or simply neutral. As long as they are a true and accurate generalizations then there is nothing inherently wrong with it. We simply can not function without making generalizations about large groups of people. It is not possible to come up with a policy, regulation or procedure that suites every single person. Knowing generalizations about the group you are dealing with helps craft an approach that works best for the majority of people in that group. Now, if you took a negative stereotype or generalization and applied it to a single individual or very small group when you had the knowledge, or could have the knowledge, that it isn't accurate for that person or persons it is wrong. Taking a positive stereotype and applying it to an individual that it does not apply to and you should know that, is equally wrong because it gives that person an unearned advantage. Goes both ways. The characteristics of the majority of the millennial generation are thoroughly researched and very well known. Many of us have observed it first hand in our work or families. It certainly has been exaggerated for humorous effect, but that doesn't make the stereotype itself invalid. There is truth in all good humor. If you are not the typical millennial, fine. There are exceptions to everything. That doesn't make the stereotype invalid. On the contrary, it validates it since a stereotype is a generalization. If a group were 100% homogeneous you would not have to generalize.

Command at sea is just generally where the Navy wants URL officers to go,....

Well what do you know, a generalization. So the stereotypical senior Navy officer has had command at sea? Never been to the pentagon I guess, or dozens of other Navy staffs, research organizations, labs, or educational organizations. Tons of O-5s and even O-6s making contributions in billets that require that rank.

 

[egardell]

Well, we have beaten them 10 years in a row, have to throw them a bone.

I just graduated from UT this summer... I honestly thought this would be the year. We just can't seem to get over the hump.

 

[TimeBomb]

One of the challenges that the promotion system faces is that the senior officers that are charged with selecting the next generation seem to apply a "mirror test" on the boards. The board members are all successful officers, as defined by the system. When viewing a record, I believe there is an appraisal of the record in light of the board member's record. If the member's record "looks like me", the thought seems to be that "I'm successful, his record looks like mine, therefore he should be successful as well, so press the 100 button".

What doesn't seem to be well institutionalized is how to assess the potential of those officers who "don't look like me". When combined with decreasing promotion and/or command opportunities, the end result is that a golden pathway develops, where all the "successful" people are travelling an increasingly well-worn career progression track. Those who stray from the path, and who may actually bring a novel perspective to leadership, are at higher risk of failing to select, or at best not afforded leadership opportunities. In my opinion, the challenge for the future will be coming up with a mechanism to fully engage those officers that "don't look like me" and utilize their abilities and experience.
R/

 

[jtdees]

What? Someone with a "type A" personality isn't good at understanding people who are different?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Getting back to ways to sweeten the deal to entice people to stay in: I know it'd require congressional action, but what if they made all deployed pay tax-free, not just deployments to certain zones? If you're away from home port long enough that you'd normally be eligible for Family Sep, make it tax-free time instead. And yes, for everyone, not just people with dependents. It'd be a significant chunk of pay, and it'd ease the sting of taking sea duty and unaccompanied tours a good bit.