So, in the end we're talking about female uniforms - for women? Oh the indignity....
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
Pretty interesting article, at least for a current civilian. Curious to see what you guys think:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ries-halt-brain-drain/413965/?utm_source=SFFB
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ries-halt-brain-drain/413965/?utm_source=SFFB
As much as I'm interested in reading stories like these, there comes a time when people have to realize that their personal goals may not mesh well with the military.
I knew Katie at the Academy, didn't know her well, but she was pretty sharp. However, just because she was slinging rockets and guns in a Cobra doesn't mean she's the next Commandant. As I get older in the Navy I realize that you have to use the system to your benefit but not always do the two mesh well. In her case, it sounds like she couldn't make the Corps fit what she wanted in life. That's the military.
In the end, I'm continually amazed that every opinion piece lambasts the fact that the subject was getting out because they are so bright and the military couldn't adjust to handle them. Guess what, there are a lot of other really bright people in the military that are staying in and handling it just fine.
Not exactly what I got from this particular piece. I just think it's highlighting the fact that the system could be due for a change. I honestly think a lot of professional military education is very vanilla with dry content and even poorer execution (specifically in the Marines) and has a one sized fits all "cookie cutter" flavor to most of it. We talk about it being extremely important but fund the least amount of opportunities for dedicated resident programs of all the services, and the good ones potentially have some negative career impacts. There are some good ideas put out there but how exactly they fit into a structure designed into developing senior leaders for large enterprise management and major command remains to be found.
I like the illustration of the point that the military has a lot of educational opportunities but often fails to find a follow-on use for that education. That's something that could be improved without even overhauling the current personnel system (which I agree needs to happen.)
I don't take the "brain drain" argument as a personal affront as some have seemed to. I would hate to find myself serving with imbeciles in a few years because all the smarter folks jumped ship. That would be the sign of an extremely unhealthy military.
I don't take the "brain drain" argument as a personal affront as some have seemed to. I would hate to find myself serving with imbeciles in a few years because all the smarter folks jumped ship. That would be the sign of an extremely unhealthy military.
Last edited:
Yes and no. The examples I have seen highlighted certainly do make you wonder, like the Army officer in the article, but at the same time I have seen scores of folks take advantage of the military's education opportunities and the military getting benefit out of it. Those examples don't make good press though.
I liked the recommendations that were the end of the article from the DoD initiative and think they could be workable for most of the military but I thought the two officers held up as examples of the flaws in the military's promotion system were not very good ones. The Marine seems to have ambition far beyond the Marines Corps, nothing wrong with that at all but I don't think it is the Marines' fault for not being able to fulfill those broad ambitions.
The Army officer I find even more fault with as an example, he is definitely a special case but I am not sure what the Army could have done differently with him at the stage he was at in his career. Ironically the Army is one service that has career tracks set up to utilize folks just like him, where officers stay in their original branch but sub-specialize in another field where they utilize their specific skills in subsequent tours and can get promoted with their peers up to O-6 even without having to command. That track only starts at the 8-12 year mark though from what I know. Had he stuck it out a few more years FAO would have been a viable and regarding carer path that would have likely utilized his graduate education quite well. FAO's have been around a long time in the Army and they seem to do fine as a career field
I do give a lot of credit to the Army though in making sure that they take folks at the 8-12 year level, I think it is critical to earn your stripes as a JO in a core branch in the Army before you move on to more specialized fields to ensure you have credibility with your peers and the right base of knowledge to be productive officer in the Army. There are plenty of other agencies that don't wear uniforms where he could serve and specialize in what he wants to do without having to play Army, everything from the State Department to a myriad of three-letter agencies that would gladly snatch someone with his experience up.
So a decent article highlighting an issue but not as big as one as I think it is portrayed to be and with a pair of not so great examples.
Fair comment, Flash. Perhaps in that Army officer's case it was more an issue of mentorship, i.e. "Hey bud, work hard as a JO, and we'll get you into a job where you can use that Chinese background."
As you said, some things get distorted in the telling of the story.
As you said, some things get distorted in the telling of the story.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The premise of the argument is that changed need to be made in order to 'retain the best and the brightest.' Unfortunately, the article misses the point of why the military wants to retain people. Retaining the brightest talent doesn't mean keeping someone around on O-4/O-5 pay to pursue a specialty job, it means retaining the people best suited to be operational commanders in the event of a war.
So while the suggestion to expand graduate and specialty jobs might keep around someone who might otherwise find a lucrative career elsewhere, it still falls short of keeping that person current in a warfare specialty. It would also add a lot of bloat to the military personnel system/budget that the article certainly doesn't prove is necessary for the military to perform its missions.
I'd agree that that's the Navy's promotion model to date. The argument is that maybe that model is in need of an overhaul.
We don't have a thousand-ship fleet of WWII, or even the big Lehman '80's Navy. Having a construct that only selects and promotes warfare-specific commanders is arguably outdated and wasteful. Yeah, I agree, a lot of the "I quit!" blogs/Open letters are millennial wanking about not being told constantly how valued and special they are. However, we do spend a shitload of money on technical training and graduate education - too much, I would argue, not to try to get a better return on that investment. I see it as just being better stewards of the tax dollars.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
As someone who was able to take advantage of one of those programs, I agree. It really doesn't make sense to me that they would send post DIVOs to get a graduate education and never assign them to a billet to use that education unless their warfare community decides that it doesn't want them several years from graduation. However, since JOs attending these programs still have their primary designator, they have to ultimately continue to support that community. In my case, the Navy is paying me to be an 1120, and not to be an analyst for an N-code in the Pentagon.
Thus the solution to poor ROI on grad education would be not sending O-3's to NPS/MIT/wherever, which is opposite of the suggested expanding of such programs to enhance retention. These programs would be reserved for O-4+ who laterally transferred out of their warfare communities, similar to what the Army does. Even still, there are a limited number of jobs that could support such a program.
As it stands right now, the Navy seems to send JOs to grad ed because that's when it would least impact most officers' careers. If they end up washing out from their primary community at some point, the Navy can still find a use for them with a subspecialty code. It's not the most optimal use of taxpayer dollars, but the more fiscally responsible alternative would make it worse for JOs seeking grad ed opportunities, not better.
For those who want to use foreign language skills or use a master's in engineering to work on the design of the next fighter, there are government organizations or government contracted companies that do these things...just not the Navy.
Last edited:
Lots of great points are being made in this thread. As always, it comes down to the priorities of the service, which this statment sums up nicely.
http://blog.usni.org/2015/11/06/this-is-sort-of-what-the-navys-human-personnel-map-looks-like
Good to see JO's writing, but a couple of thoughts on this particular piece:
1. Put the thesaurus down. Using a $5 word when a .05 word would work just as well (or better), and you come across as pretentious and out of touch. That doesn't mean that a strong vocabulary is something to be ashamed of; quite the contrary. But, when you read this you can't help but shout out "BINGO" as you've connected each of your staff-buzzwords.
2. The.Navy.Is. Not.A. Fortune 500. Business. Say it slowly, over and over again. Does this mean that there aren't some ideas out there that could be adopted (and adapted)? No. But stop with the first year business school student-ese. I don't think you're impressing the readers (as few as there are over at USNI these days) as much as you're impressing each other with what must seem like heady prose.
3. Lots of stuff to write about, and it's good to see folks doing it, but i'm curious if either of the authors have ever worked in Millington?
Good to see JO's writing, but a couple of thoughts on this particular piece:
1. Put the thesaurus down. Using a $5 word when a .05 word would work just as well (or better), and you come across as pretentious and out of touch. That doesn't mean that a strong vocabulary is something to be ashamed of; quite the contrary. But, when you read this you can't help but shout out "BINGO" as you've connected each of your staff-buzzwords.
2. The.Navy.Is. Not.A. Fortune 500. Business. Say it slowly, over and over again. Does this mean that there aren't some ideas out there that could be adopted (and adapted)? No. But stop with the first year business school student-ese. I don't think you're impressing the readers (as few as there are over at USNI these days) as much as you're impressing each other with what must seem like heady prose.
3. Lots of stuff to write about, and it's good to see folks doing it, but i'm curious if either of the authors have ever worked in Millington?
Last edited:
Or...the Navy manpower system just isn't too good about identifying desirable skills for billets, especially when the demand signal is only temporary.
I had a job that was billeted for an EOD O-4 with a Master's in Computer Science. I obviously am not EOD, and the extent of my Comp Sci knowledge then was 2 classes in undergrad.
What would have been ideal for the job would've been a SWO JO (or Surface EDO) with a Strike or FCO background, with grad ed in missile guidance, aero engineering, or radar/EW. This isn't just a wish list, the program actually worked issues related to each while I was there, and more trained manpower would have been useful.
But that's how it was before I got there, and how it still is years after I left.
Unless you're suggesting all the URL staff jobs that could benefit from graduate education should just go away, or be second tier jobs (and for the SWO community at least, those Pentagon N-code jobs are actually competitive billets), the Navy still "needs" some officers with AQDs. Just because it currently does a shitty job of matching skillset with records with billet doesn't mean you should throw out the skillsets.
Also, Marine JOs do go to grad school (NPS). They screen to identify who they think will succeed in the programs, tell them to go, and send them to payback tours at MARCORSYSCOM or the Pentagon. And the guys I met did not switch out of their MOS's, they were aviators, infantry, commos, etc.
Last edited:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Not at all suggesting that all those jobs should go away or become second-tier, just pointing out that they are limited and may be second tier in some communities. For example, the submarine force's need to man squadron and fleet staffs with served DH's trumps the need to put someone at N-87 crunching analysis. Moreover, making more billets just so someone can obtain a graduate education and go off track for a few years (or indefinitely) is at odds with being a better steward of taxpayer dollars.
Ultimately, if the Navy hired you to be a submariner, SWO, pilot, whatever, one shouldn't be too surprised that the Navy wants you to keep doing that job. I wonder how many people quit Apple and write long nasty letters about bleeding smart talent because the company wouldn't pay for them to attend grad school for agricultural sciences and subsequently work on making better fertilizer.
Most of the Marines at NPS with me were Logistics officers. The pilots/infantry guys were definitely 'off track' for going there, and probably destined to retire as Majors. By contrast, the Army designated its officers to the OR branch, which allowed them to continue to have promotion possibility as they are no longer competing with infantry/armor/whatever to promote.