Why are you Leaving?

[Spekkio]

That is a pretty sound statement wrt racial minorities, but not women. In modern times at least there have always been a greater percentage of women in the population. Lately there is a greater number of women with college degrees. However, there are more than enough males with college degrees to fill out the officer ranks. As to the fact that some politicians, the university academy and left leaning gender hustlers make waves about sexism because of raw representative numbers, so what. The military needs to grow a spine and educate the public, congress, whoever. Changes have been made to provide the opportunity. I can not fathom a military that can guarantee a thriving career for every spouse that wants it, let alone the typical mommy track for female members, and still be a creditable fighting force.

Your post goes back to the age-old question of defining retention goals by having enough bodies to fill billets or having enough selectivity to ensure you get a properly qualified person to fill billets.

As for 'educating the public,' how well did that work out for Mitt Romney and his 42% comment? (in fairness, he probably should have included the words 'federal income' in front of 'taxes' and also stipulated that he was excluding SS and Medicare because Congress thinks that legally mandated payments into a government fund can be called 'insurance,' but I digress...).

 

[Spekkio]

I agree with the responses to "Anna" in that just because it didn't work out for you, then that doesn't mean the military is broken. However, let's assume that "Anna" is in the top tier of skill and ability, then how do we keep her and others like her. I have a very good friend of mine who left the Navy about 18 months ago. He is a very smart and capable individual, awesome pilot and ASW tactician. He is attending an Ivy league business school and is going to do great things for whomever he works for when he graduates this year. He was very frustrated with the system, and mentioned some of the things that "Anna" did in his resignation letter, although he was a bit more eloquent, made less sweeping generalizations, and concluded finally that Naval service was no longer for him. But he is exactly the kind of guy the Navy needs, even if it doesn't want him. So while we don't owe it to anyone to make the Navy more accommodating for their sakes, I believe we do owe it to the American people to do our best to retain those that will contribute the most to our national defense, which may mean making the Navy more accommodating through various ways. I know CNP is working that issue right now, so we will see how much traction it gets before he turns over, and if there is any appetite for it in his successor.

Eh, I don't think that the Navy necessarily needs Ivy League graduates. Executing tactical and operational doctrine takes experience, not necessarily a mind suited for rocket science or being a top entrepreneur. In fact, if we're ever in a position where we need the top X% of intelligence to function, where X is a small number, then we're in trouble as an organization.

The sour grapes about promotion seems to arise more from the fact that people LT "Anna" deemed incompetent were promoted than the fact that LT "Anna" had to wait a whole 4-5 years to be reviewed for O-4.

 

[e6bflyer]

As Villanelle so aptly stated above, there is zero we can do at this point to further our minority and woman folk recruiting. All that Diversity, Inc does at this point is create undertones of racism and sexism because now everyone is wondering if super awesome black lady admiral is there because she is super awesome or because she is a black lady. It does everyone, especially the diverse crowd, a huge disservice. There was a place and time for the diversity movement, but it has passed. Any racial or gender bias has been stomped out of the Navy to the point where it is now the culture to accept. Job done. Stop funding it. No amount of Asian/Pacific islander dance shows in the hangar bay are going to increase in any real numbers the amount of those groups or any others.

They are either going to self select into the Navy or they aren't. It is going to be based on what the Navy can offer them that appeals to them. Anything else is bullshit and just feeds the self licking ice cream cone of diversity.

Look at the young folks enlisting today. When I enlisted, black and white folks dating each other was almost unheard of outside of bigger northeast or California cities. Hell, my high school had a black and white homecoming king and queen. Now it isn't even a thought in the back of anyone's mind, as it shouldn't be. As American culture goes, so the Navy follows. It just takes 20 years or so for the Navy to figure it out.

 

[LFCFan]

Hell, my high school had a black and white homecoming king and queen.

Not to change the subject, but I'm not clear on this. Are you saying that your high school had a king who was a different race to the queen, and that was a huge deal, or are you saying (what I think you're saying) that you guys actually had two of each?

 

[Recovering LSO]

The sour grapes about promotion seems to arise more from the fact that people LT "Anna" deemed incompetent were promoted than the fact that LT "Anna" had to wait a whole 4-5 years to be reviewed for O-4.

....in a RL community where the promotion rate is incredibly high.

 

[e6bflyer]

Not to change the subject, but I'm not clear on this. Are you saying that your high school had a king who was a different race to the queen, and that was a huge deal, or are you saying (what I think you're saying) that you guys actually had two of each?

Two of each.
Unbelievable in this day and age, but it was the norm in central Florida (grew up in a small town between Orlando and Daytona) in 1991. I think the practice came to an end soon thereafter. At least I hope. Looking back, I can't fucking believe it was an accepted practice, but it had been for decades.
The N word, while not an acceptable part of my vocabulary due to my mom and dad teaching me differently from a very young age, was regularly heard at my high school and even (especially) in "polite society". Not something I am proud of, but that was the reality in that part of the country at that time. We have come a long way since then. Thank God.

 

[JEFE]

I actually think the #1 reason to leave would be NMCI.

 

[Recovering LSO]

This Task & Purpose article doesn't seem to be getting the same level of traction as others (maybe due to lack of self-promotion), but it's a mighty good read, and relevant to the thread; specifically the last several pages about "Anna."

 

[Renegade One]

This Task & Purpose article ... a mighty good read, and relevant to the thread; specifically the last several pages about "Anna."

Concur. Thanks for the vector.

 

[JEFE]

If Ensign Nimitz ran his ship aground today, would he have a career? Also I'm not a SWO, but I have the impression that a JO would never get enough rope to fail like that these days, and as such would not be able to feel like they've achieved or learned anything until at least at senior LT/DH level.

 

[Recovering LSO]

"There has got to be a better analytic tool than simply waiting for the departing talent to tell us how talented they are…"

Reading Joe's piece on IDKATS made me recall one of the best things I've seen written on this topic by a one-time AW contributor:

"Is the military retaining the right people, though? Are those who remain in just the bureaucratic stooges who just couldn’t make it on the outside? Most of the recent junior officer “drop the mic” essays have a subtext of, “The losers running this shit show don’t recognize the stone cold awesomeness I’m bringing to the table.” Setting the narcissism aside, is this a real thing?"

"Every person left as wreckage on the career wayside will claim that he or she is an iconoclastic rebel, who told truth to power and was stickin’ it to the man, man. In reality, a lot of people who claim that their talents are neglected are just assholes, not unrecognized geniuses. Knowing the difference is difficult. Every crank military officer thinks he’s the next John Boyd. Most are just insufferable jerkoffs."

 

[Flash]

"There has got to be a better analytic tool than simply waiting for the departing talent to tell us how talented they are…"

Reading Joe's piece on IDKATS made me recall one of the best things I've seen written on this topic by a one-time AW contributor...

A good point some of the commenters on Mr. Forsling's piece make is that this isn't all that new, it came up in the 90's when I first got in and was a big deal in the mid-to-late 70's when the Vietnam drawdown was at its height. The USAF's famous 'I quit' letter is on its 4th or 5th installment right now, ironically the 'original' one from 1978 was written by a guy who later retired as a General. The big difference now? A much wider audience with the internets.

 

[Spekkio]

From Mr. Forsling's piece: "Then what is needed is an analysis of all officers, from the CNO on down, and see which part of the talent sandwich we’re truly promoting from."

Well, the CNO has quite an impressive resume of succesful, high visibility assignments. He also happens to have 3 Master's degrees, one of which from MIT. You can probably put him into the top 10% category. Ditto for the CNP, and when you listen to the CNP speak on issues he certainly strikes me as the kind of man who 'gets it.' You can safely put him in the top 10% category, too.

I suppose 20+ years is too long for some people to climb to the top. I think that's a lofty expectation perpetuated by the modern tech boom. Yes, there are a small percentage of people who are that talented, but the vast majority of successful people spend decades working very long hours in their career fields. They also don't write scathing letters for not being recognized as the next Admiral Nimitz on their way out of the door after 5-8 years of service.

 

[Spekkio]

A good point some of the commenters on Mr. Forsling's piece make is that this isn't all that new, it came up in the 90's when I first got in and was a big deal in the mid-to-late 70's when the Vietnam drawdown was at its height. The USAF's famous 'I quit' letter is on its 4th or 5th installment right now, ironically the 'original' one from 1978 was written by a guy who later retired as a General. The big difference now? A much wider audience with the internets.

Mr. Forsling also linked to another piece he wrote about nixing longevity pay in favor of performance or assignment based pay, and I found myself thinking that the military has many of those policies in place already. A hard charger is likely to draw more competitive assignments and screen for promotion, leading to more money. Enlisted hot runners can be promoted by their CO, leading to more pay and responsibility commensurate with performance. Yes, a 10 year E-6 performing duties as an LPO will be paid less than the 18 year E-6 who is waiting until retirement, but that hard charger will make Chief (and possibly higher) and be rewarded with more career earnings.

I recall an MM1 about to be separated from PFA failures opining about how working hard is never rewarded. A 14 year YNCS, now serving as a COB, quickly told him why he was AFU for thinking that.

This is probably more of an issue on the Officer end with DOPMA dictating when people can screen the next milestone regardless of performance or duty history, and very limited jobs that offer spot promotions.

 

[Zanklin]

[QUOTE="Every person left as wreckage on the career wayside will claim that he or she is an iconoclastic rebel, who told truth to power and was stickin’ it to the man, man. In reality, a lot of people who claim that their talents are neglected are just assholes, not unrecognized geniuses. Knowing the difference is difficult. Every crank military officer thinks he’s the next John Boyd. Most are just insufferable jerkoffs."[/QUOTE]

I heard John Boyd was an insufferable jerkoff as well.