ADM Stavridis writes

[revan1013]

I know people who are, for lack of better terms, as ensigns or second lieutenants, near-experts on vague topics like Naval Rearmament in the 1930s or have tons of experience in running businesses or managing large organizations, who although they'd have almost no sea-time or street-cred in the military, know far better than some more senior officers about the history and details of such topics. Would they still be ridiculed in ready rooms and among their peers for having written an article since they have almost no operational experience? I would hope not.

In college it is encouraged to take on topics bigger than yourself. In many professional careers, if you can improve something, and have a clear, well-articulated way of doing so, it's a good thing. I wonder why the climate is such that juniors are looked-down upon for trying to tackle larger topics by their peers. Maybe that's why some people don't stick around past their initial commitments.

A successful organization needs bright minds to keep pushing it forward. I hope that's not the case. If the climate doesn't encourage intellectualism or attempts at critical thinking for reform, then there's a problem. But I have no street-cred or experience on the matter personally in the Navy yet.

 

[squorch2]

First, have you seen this happen first hand?

Sure did - and saw it happen to more than one JO.

Second, what CO is interested in molding JOs after his own image

Read a little bit closer - my assertion wasn't "molding" so much as it is selecting those who are most like them. And yeah, 129 has it on the nose - it's hubris.

 

[wink]

Sure did - and saw it happen to more than one JO.

I am seriously interested in this because it is a shame. Can you give me examples of what was said or written about, the forum and how they were punished for participating in shaping the future of their Navy?

Read a little bit closer - my assertion wasn't "molding" so much as it is selecting those who are most like them. And yeah, 129 has it on the nose - it's hubris.

Sorry I mis-characterized. I still stand by my comment. Selecting those like them, favoring those like them, molding those like them. I still don't see it. Hard to believe it happens since a JO has so many years to develop and change before a CO crosses paths with him again or the JO is in any sort of command position. If you and paddles have seen this, so sorry. I only retired 4 years ago. I never saw that, so I can only hope your experience are the minority. I am sure you can look forward to better in that regard. Something like that could not have changed so much in just 4 years.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I still don't see it. Hard to believe it happens since a JO has so many years to develop and change before a CO crosses paths with him again or the JO is in any sort of command position. If you and paddles have seen this, so sorry. I only retired 4 years ago. I never saw that, so I can only hope your experience are the minority. I am sure you can look forward to better in that regard. Something like that could not have changed so much in just 4 years.

I would like to have served in your squadrons - sounds like a veritable land of milk and honey. Its no mystery that CO's see squadron members who remind them of themselves and tend to rank and evaluate them favorably. After all, seeing someone that reminds you of yourself get promoted/selected/screened is an affirmation of your own career path and choices. Somewhat different with some carry over: Why hasn't our broken fitrep system been fixed? Because it would take an admission by those at the top that the methods that got them there are flawed.

 

[squorch2]

I can only hope your experience are the minority.

Me too.

 

[The Chief]

.... Hard to believe it happens since a JO has so many years to develop and change before a CO crosses paths with him ... .

Interesting. While a bit differrent, I had several mentors, specifically an O-6 and O-8 that followed me through my 18 years even though we seldom met face to face. Looked out for me when I got into deep dudu, promoted me hastily, ensured desired assignments (albeit most hardship) and etc. The informal network is alive and well, I bet more so today than in the dark ages.

As far as retribution, I think it did existed, in so many ways, back then. A friend, Captain Bob Mumford wrote an article for Proceeding during the Zumwalt era. Entitled "Get off my Back - Sir" it was critical of the micro-management from above. While he did make O-6 when scheduled, I think it fair to say that ended his career. A fine Sea Captain if there ever was one. Just my .02 cents worth.

What is he doing now? http://www.naturalimgs.com/index.html

From my vantage point the current FITREP system is broke, having said that I would be hard pressed to make any improvements. I think the informal network fills some gaps, fairly or unfairly.

 

[wink]

I would like to have served in your squadrons - sounds like a veritable land of milk and honey.

It was! Things were a lot better then. Well, atleast from the way you discribe things now. We flew 30+ hours a month, didn't have to wear reflective belts to go for a run, or have liberty buddies. We didn't have a PT uniform issued, or have to submit a chit to do something adventurous like hang gliding or sky diving. We used call signs, painted them on our aircraft, wore whatever patches we wanted on our fight jackets, rarely had standardized flight suits. We drank like fish in the clubs (those were establishments on base where officers went to have fun and promote camaraderie), bought lap dances for our seniors, and got breaks from gate guards. Smokers smoked, dippers dipped. Coffee drinkers drank Navy brew, not Starbucks. Everything you ever heard about the PI was true. Apparently JOs had it better then, and our seniors (me later) were not under the kind of pressure that necessitated the nannying you see today. And I still thought the guys that came before me had it better and I should do my best to preserve what I could of the good 'ol days...Oh wait, you were being sarcastic? Never mind then.

Its no mystery that CO's see squadron members who remind them of themselves and tend to rank and evaluate them favorably. After all, seeing someone that reminds you of yourself get promoted/selected/screened is an affirmation of your own career path and choices. Somewhat different with some carry over: Why hasn't our broken fitrep system been fixed? Because it would take an admission by those at the top that the methods that got them there are flawed.

Funny, when I wrote JO's fitreps I looked for and rewarded guys smarter then me, not like me, or the C.O., guys I thought could do the job better, and hoped they would stay in and do so. And for the record, in my time we bitched about the fitrep system too. Guess what, they did "fix" it. The current system is what we got. So from an old guy's point of view the "broken " system was fixed. Your broken system was my improvement. Your system hasn't been broken long enough to warrant fixing.

 

[phrogdriver]

Why was the thread closed? Seems like a decent discussion.

 

[wink]

Why was the thread closed? Seems like a decent discussion.

It is a mystery. No one contacted me about it. It is now open for comment to all so inclined.

 

[helolumpy]

I wonder why the climate is such that juniors are looked-down upon for trying to tackle larger topics by their peers. Maybe that's why some people don't stick around past their initial commitments.

In my experience no one has ever "looked down" on another officer for writing an article for a professional journal. What 'seniors' get upset about is when a 'junior' launches an article that is basically venting about that particular persons hot-button topic. When someone picks out a windmill and decides to attack it, hate and discontent is soon sown.

If you publicly tell the Navy, that's it's messed up, you have to expect the Navy to take it badly. In that way, the Navy is like any other corporation. If you publicly blast your company, you'll have to expect bad things to happen.

If an officer writes an article that identifies a deficiency in the system and proposes a means to correct that deficiency, then most senior officers will applaud the junior for the initiative and trying to make the Navy better. Read JFQ or Proceedings for articles by Officers who are looking to make the military a better place (or in Proceedings case, sell the Navy some really expensive stuff...) and the articles are almost always in a professional manner and are accepted as a dialog among professionals.

But if you really think that JO's are leaving the Navy because they do not feel that have academic freedom to publish articles they feel are appropriate, then I think you are way off target.
Most of the folks who bailed from my generation listed (in no particular order) Quality of Life, Deployments, reluctance to do a Disassociated Sea Tours and the opportunity to get on with their lives as the major reasons to get out at the end of their commitment. Now with the IA/GSA guillotine hanging over everyone's head, I can only imagine that the IA/GSA is moving towards the top of the list as reason folks get out of the Navy. But a climate in which juniors are looked down upon for tackling larger topics is most likely not going to be on too many resignation letters being forwarded to NPC yesterday, today or tomorrow.

 

[Brett327]

This whole notion that has been put forward by some (Paddles, Bates) is a red herring. It's not as though there's this real or perceived threat looming over people's heads, nor is there fear of mockery by their peers - complete and utter BS. Most JOs (or DHs) are either too busy, too lazy or have nothing worthwhile to say. I have to say that I'll include myself in this group, but this topic and the good Admiral's career-long practice of self expression have inspired and motivated me to do otherwise. I hope others feel the same way.

Brett

 

[Recovering LSO]

This whole notion that has been put forward by some (Paddles, Bates) is a red herring. It's not as though there's this real or perceived threat looming over people's heads, nor is there fear of mockery by their peers - complete and utter BS. Most JOs (or DHs) are either too busy, too lazy or have nothing worthwhile to say. I have to say that I'll include myself in this group,
Brett

in the words of the all knowing Wink - you too have missed the point. I agree 100% with what you just wrote - most of of us are too apathetic (or pre-occupied) to devote the level of a attention towards the pub when compared to the admiral...

 

[Brett327]

in the words of the all knowing Wink - you too have missed the point. I agree 100% with what you just wrote - most of of us are too apathetic (or pre-occupied) to devote the level of a attention towards the pub when compared to the admiral...

Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

Brett

 

[phrogdriver]

Compared to the admiral, we all come up pretty short. We do what we can at our levels to be good leaders and good Marines/Sailors, but that's only affecting a few people. We all see things that we think are jacked up--witness every third thread on AW. Flag officers don't get real opinions even when they solicit ideas on their drive-bys. If you have a beef with the T&R, personnel policies, whatever, put pen to paper and at least those flag officers will know that there are other opinions out there. It has to be well reasoned and well written, not internet ranting, but it can help. A wise old staff sergeant once said,"Everyone says the Corps is all fucked up and that everything used to be better. What the fuck are you doing about it?"

 

[IRfly]

I'll jump back into the fray here after taking a few days to consider the topic. Here's my $.02...

First off, I think that things are/may be a little bit different--or at least are perceived to be so. Two main reasons. 1) Nowadays, there's so much feedback taken (surveys and such), especially during the training pipeline, that it just seems foreign to me that someone would publish an article like that. The first question that would come up--"Did you include it in your survey?" If not, then stand by...If so, then you've just possibly sandbagged the dude who might be trying to fix things. What I recognize, though, is that the system has likely changed because of such publications--now feedback is actively sought. 2) (This is the perception one) As an active-duty guy, I would be very hesitant to publish anything not lockstep toeing the company line. This is not because I 100% support the company line in my heart of hearts, but if someone in the media picked up on the much-discussed ENS article, I can see the headlines now...FOXNEWS: Obama fails to train Naval Officers. Worst American leader since Benedict Arnold? Human Rights Watch: Civilians dead because U.S. Navy can't shoot straight. A little hyperbolic, I know...A little.

Second, as I considered it for me personally, I reached much the same conclusion as Brett did. I haven't participated in stuff like this primarily because I'm personally just not engaged and invested enough in the success of my community to make the effort. I wrote my fair share of in-community stuff, to include tacreps and possibly a hazrep or two, and about two billion hours worth of purples. And all of those are a pain in the backside. I'd hate to take on a really big issue--if you're wrong, then you're flamed. If you're right, then that becomes your signature issue and you have to be prepared to seemingly endless defend and promote your position.

As far as ADM Stavridis, his writing is very impressive. His motivation, even moreso. I also find myself wondering if there wasn't something more I could do in the same vein to try to improve the Navy, so I guess that goes in the "inspirational" category as well, although I'm a tough guy so I don't use words like that.