"Get rid of OCS...Having a degree does absolutely nothing to make you an effective manager."

[AllYourBass]

Hey all,

As a budding junior officer still working his way through API, I'd like to hear some input on a thought process that I've encountered more than a few times since commissioning. In an Internet post soliciting ideas for how sailors would improve the Navy, one person voiced their distaste for non-priors being able to commission via the Naval Academy and OCS.

Get rid of the Naval academy and OCS in their current form. EVERYBODY joins as enlisted. 100%. If you are young and prove you can excel, you get an appointment to the Naval Academy. Already have a degree? You have to prove you have some leadership and managerial ability, THEN you can put on those gold bars.

Fuck this STA-21 noise. It's stupid and a waste of time. Having a degree does absolutely nothing to make you an effective manager. Possibly at the O-5 to O-6 level I MIGHT be able to see it. I fail to see why an intelligent person with management and administrative talent needs a fucking English degree to lead people.

Let's put our real leaders in positions of power and we'll see how things pan out.

I'm sure we've all heard this debate a million times, but in the interest of being a good division officer one day, I'd like to know what this forum thinks about this view. It's not something I particularly want to "argue" for the sake of being right, but as a commissioned non-prior, I'd like to know the best way to alleviate that sort of negative vibe with a reasonable explanation. Why SHOULD I be allowed to lead you without prior Navy experience? What are the real pros/cons to the current system, and what are the pros/cons to the "everyone should have to enlist first" schema?

Here are the best pros I can come up with. I am assuming that anything I write below is a "gamble"—none of these traits guarantee a good officer:

1.) Direct commissioning incentivizes people with favorable skillsets/traits—such as real-world leadership and people experience—to bring their already-cultivating pool of talents to the Navy.
2.) The programs require a positive academic track record, which might correlate to a chance at better performance in the fleet.
3.) These programs attract self-motivated individuals who need to work hard and with intent just to get accepted.


tl;dr Why is the current system of commissioning non-priors to lead enlisted sailors a good/bad idea?

 

[Renegade One]

Hey all,…then a bunch more...

Interesting post. I wouldn't worry too much feeling the need to argue a particular position, or the need to "defend" your commission or commissioning source. If ever seriously queried by the troops, I think I'd just respond with: "Interesting…you may be right. You should write a "Nobody Asked Me, But…" article for Proceedings."

 

[robav8r]

There have been studies throughout the years that have looked at success rates amoung the various commissioning sources and whether being a prior, or not, made a significant difference. I don't believe there is ANY data suggesting priors vs non-priors make better or worse military leaders. If there was such data, you can bet BUPERS would be chasing those programs & policies. As for whether having a degree or not makes you a better "leader", I suppose we could argue that for a bit. But having the critical thinking skills that come along with your degree, not to mention some refined reading & writing abilities, certainly doesn't hurt the O3 and below crowd. Thoughts?

 

[Renegade One]

...having the critical thinking skills that come along with your degree, not to mention some refined reading & writing abilities, certainly doesn't hurt the O3 and below crowd.

Again, not sure I'd try to articulate that in front of my branch or division Es…many of whom already have degrees. I'd still say just don't go there beyond what I suggested earlier. This is not your hill to die on.

 

[AllYourBass]

Again, not sure I'd try to articulate that in front of my branch or division Es…many of whom already have degrees. I'd still say just don't go there beyond what I suggested earlier. This is not your hill to die on.

Yeah, I was muddy about my intentions. This isn't a conversation I'd ever have with an enlisted sailor. I don't think it's appropriate. It was more along the lines of, "If I was theoretically having this conversation and intended to answer the concerns, how would it go?"

 

[LFCFan]

I think that you don't have to have spent time in labor to be in management.

Also, correct me if I'm way off base here, but as one does things like staff tours and working on how the military is run as a large organization, the reading/writing/speaking/critical thinking skills become more relevant than when a JO running a division.

Why one prior enlisted would disagree with "mustangs only," Max Uhiarte, the author of comic strip "Terminal Lance:"

I've heard arguments that all officers should be "mustangs" if they want respect. I think this is kind of unfair, as the system lends itself to varying perspectives in the military. Officers are generally a kinder, gentler type due to their lack of enlistment. The dichotomy of lifestyles offers greater insight from different points of view."

 

[BusyBee604]

As a budding junior officer still working his way through API, I'd like to hear some input on a thought process that I've encountered more than a few times since commissioning. In an Internet post soliciting ideas for how sailors would improve the Navy, one person voiced their distaste for non-priors being able to commission via the Naval Academy and OCS.

First, I disagree with the statement you used as a thread title for this thread. Although a fair percentage of Naval Officers are prior enlisted, commissioned through various programs, and perform admirably in the fleet, I see no reason that an Officer should HAVE to serve time as enlisted prior to commissioning. The commissioning sources we have now (USNA, OCS, ROTC, and accessioning programs for enlisted), produce fine Officers both Leaders & Managers (and Warriors to boot), and have worked well in peace and war (declared/undeclared, total/irregular), for many decades!

There is always a minority of voices calling out change this... change that. Sometimes it makes sense but too often, a system that is not broken... IS FIXED anyway, often with disastrous results (re: the latest Navy uniform debacle). In short; change is inevitable, but that does not mean it's inevitably for the good! Just my opinion, others may vary.

This post is by a Prior, and I have approved it!
BzB

 

[AllYourBass]

First, I disagree with the statement you used as a thread title for this thread. Although a fair percentage of Naval Officers are prior enlisted, commissioned through various programs, and perform admirably in the fleet, I see no reason that an Officer should HAVE to serve time as enlisted prior to commissioning. The commissioning sources we have now (USNA, OCS, ROTC, and accessioning programs for enlisted), produce fine Officers both Leaders & Managers (and Warriors to boot), and have worked well in peace and war (declared/undeclared, total/irregular), for many decades!

There is always a minority of voices calling out change this... change that. Sometimes it makes sense but too often, a system that is not broken... IS FIXED anyway, often with disastrous results (re: the latest Navy uniform debacle). In short; change is inevitable, but that does not mean it's inevitably for the good! Just my opinion, others may vary.

This post is by a Prior, and I have approved it!
BzB

Always appreciate the insight, BzB! And the thread title was just a snippet of the quote in my original post. It seemed to sum up the conversation topic well enough

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Yeah, I was muddy about my intentions. This isn't a conversation I'd ever have with an enlisted sailor. I don't think it's appropriate. It was more along the lines of, "If I was theoretically having this conversation and intended to answer the concerns, how would it go?"

I have seen a couple officers have this discussion with enlisted, in general the answer was if you get officers from a variety of commissioning sources it provides a diverse group of leaders and knowledge that allows people to learn from each other.

On the personal side I have worked with officers from every commissioning source over my career, there are good and "bad" ones from each source, however I will say that some of the best JO's I worked with were prior and some of the worst were prior, the ones that were the worst generally had the attitude of "I am an officer now you have to do what I tell you", the best ones I feel were the best because they were able to relate better to the enlisted faster then ones that were not prior enlisted, however to me it seems as they get higher up it all evens out.

 

[robav8r]

Again, not sure I'd try to articulate that in front of my branch or division Es…many of whom already have degrees.

Why? My comments certainly apply to ANYONE you find your self "leading" even the E5 LPO with a degree trying to motivate his work shift for the day. A college degree gives you skills that are useful and applicable to any leadership situation, that was my only point.

This isn't a conversation I'd ever have with an enlisted sailor.

Again, why? You would be amazed at what you might hear from your enlisted Sailors - with or without a degree.

 

[BackOrdered]

Another POV. Why should the taxpayer and the elected elite have reason to trust billions of dollars to an Officer Corps made 100% out of tribal knowledge and word of mouth understanding of consequential and actionable info that costs treasure and lives? Sea stories, gouge and even "but I read the instruction" goes only so far. As heard millions times by any seasoned Officer, "They want to see it (in this case your intellectual credibility) on paper." Thus, Degrees.

 

[BigBadBoJenkins]

A degree guarantees a certain level of writing ability.

 

[Renegade One]

A degree guarantees a certain level of writing ability.

Seriously? That's it...in YHO? The ability to cogently push a noun against a verb?

IMHO…there's more to it than that. Hard for us in the great unwashed minions to better define/defend it, but the Navy seems to have adopted a similar opinion…for many decades. Just spit-balling here, but there may be something to it. Better to go and ask those in the OC recruiting process.

 

[BigBadBoJenkins]

Seriously? That's it...in YHO? The ability to cogently push a noun against a verb?

IMHO…there's more to it than that. Hard for us in the great unwashed minions to better define/defend it, but the Navy seems to have adopted a similar opinion. Better to go and ask those in the process.

That's not the entirety of my answer. I just didn't feel like typing it all out.

 

[Renegade One]

That's not the entirety of my answer. I just didn't feel like typing it all out.

Fair enough. Thanks. I humbly withdraw whatever barbs you may have felt. We both know there's more to it than that.