CO of USS Theodore Roosevelt makes quite the statement.

[Hair Warrior]

Yeah, but only one of them was 100% there with 100% of the responsibility.

Acknowledged. But as Jocko says, play the game.

Something CAPT Crozier did or didn't do got him relieved (rightly or wrongly). If CAPT Crozier had done things a little differently, he might still be 100% there and in a position to care for his crew going forward.

 

[robav8r]

Acknowledged. But as Jocko says, play the game.

Something CAPT Crozier did or didn't do got him relieved (rightly or wrongly). If CAPT Crozier had done things a little differently, he might still be 100% there and in a position to care for his crew going forward.

Dude - stop.

 

[IRfly]

Acknowledged. But as Jocko says, play the game.

Something CAPT Crozier did or didn't do got him relieved (rightly or wrongly). If CAPT Crozier had done things a little differently, he might still be 100% there and in a position to care for his crew going forward.

This is asinine. "Playing the game" is a luxury of petty bitchiness that is affordable only when there are not lives on the line.

 

[Brett327]

I liked it better when @Hair Warrior was on an indefinite hiatus from AW, though I must admit that the completely ridiculous assertions and hare-brained ideas are entertaining... in the way that watching a train wreck is entertaining. Kinda make you wonder who is on the receiving end of this stuff while he's working his day job. I hope it's no one important.

 

[ABMD]

Acknowledged. But as Jocko says, play the game.

Something CAPT Crozier did or didn't do got him relieved (rightly or wrongly). If CAPT Crozier had done things a little differently, he might still be 100% there and in a position to care for his crew going forward.

I was wondering where you went.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Could CAPT Crozier have achieved his goal of getting attention and help for his crew, while also not getting fired?

 

[picklesuit]

Yes

 

[IRfly]

Could CAPT Crozier have achieved his goal of getting attention and help for his crew, while also not getting fired?

Again, asinine question. The firing didn't depend on him. He did was he believed he needed to do and (this is the part that really makes him shine as a leader) did not make keeping his job his priority.

 

[Spekkio]

Old man yells at cloud.

here’s the article summed up “god damned millennials and their lack of discipline”

Yea, you missed the point. There are several notable military leaders who were not well-liked by either their subordinate officers or enlisted men.

Some people can be both. Many can't. So what's more important?

yea I read it. It justified the response I gave it.
He’s making a lot of assumptions, doesn’t know the full truth, and is over inflating his own importance and how great of a leader he thinks he was.

If you're going to automatically disregard everything written by a retired O6 because it has undertones of inflated self-importance, you're throwing out a lot of babies with that bathwater.

 

[nittany03]

Some people can be both. Many can't. So what's more important?

Like many things in life . . . "it depends." This is not a dichotomy. I'd also take issue with the idea that "many" can't be at least respected by their people, if not completely liked or loved. Making the mission happen on the backs of one's Sailors is unethical and unacceptable. Period, dot, full stop.

And a reporting senior of that kind of person has a responsibility to a) set expectations that that sort of thing isn't acceptable, b) counsel people he/she sees doing that, and c) cull that kind of individual from future positions of leadership if they won't learn.

 

[wink]

Making the mission happen on the backs of one's Sailors is unethical and unacceptable. Period, dot, full stop

Please clarify what you mean here. Certainly, the mission does not happen without sailors. And often their contributions, in terms of sweat, and blood are significantly greater than their leaders. What have I missed about the context of this comment?

 

[nittany03]

Please clarify what you mean here. Certainly, the mission does not happen without sailors. And often their contributions, in terms of sweat, and blood are significantly greater than their leaders. What have I missed about the context of this comment?

Here's my logic train. Ultimately, in combat, sure, all bets are off. Kill the enemy, don't get killed. Accomplish the mission. All else, as the Baron said, is rubbish.

Outside that, our Sailors are a resource. We've got them for a fixed amount of time, and then they can decide to re-enlist or say "FTN, I'm done." Sure, some that leave are "addition by subtraction." A lot aren't. A lot are smart people we want to keep, and we as an institution should be doing our damnedest to be desirable to those types of people no matter what the economy. I'm not talking selling out. No one joined the Navy to be Jeff Bezos rich. But there is a moral and emotional itch that a lot of us scratched by signing up to be part of something greater than ourselves. To defend those who can't defend themselves. We didn't want to spend our 20s and 30s in a cube farm working for The Man.

But we get in, and our experiences are shaped by the leadership we have to serve under. Some people are transactional, and want to do their time, get out, use the GI Bill, and live their lives. Totally cool, and no shame in that. I mean it. But how many folks joined because they'd wanted to be an aviator (or a shoe, or a nuc, or an enlisted dude) since they were kids, get parked under some toxic asshole, and then we drive them out of the service?

When I read "many folks can't be both," I read an undercurrent of "do whatever it takes to get the job done. If in doubt, ride your people, because they can suck it up." I'm not saying @Spekkio meant that, I'm saying that's what I read into it. Maybe I just ran across a couple asshole golden children too many on active duty, and it skews my perception (not that all golden children are assholes). I don't know. But when you ask "what is more important," there's an implied dichotomy of "you have to pick one or the other if you can't do both." And also an implication that "if you have to pick one, pick getting the mission done and be hated for it."

I'd submit a counterargument. Not every individual person is going to like you; that's just part of being human. But as a CO, DH, LCPO, or whatever, if you are not at least respected by the balance of your people, you failed. I don't care if you got the job done. I don't care if your ISIC gave you an EP. I don't care how many stars you put on. You're in over your head, you're a detriment to the service, and you should leave. I'd submit that "many can't do that" is false. Not everyone will be loved. We don't all have the charisma and savvy to do that. But the minimum for a Navy leader is to treat your people decently. Even if it means you don't get that next rank. People are not a means to an end unless missiles are flying, or there's fire or flooding. People are an end in and of themselves.

Your people (or most of them) will understand the difference between "good person stuck in a bad situation" and "asshole who just cares about looking good to his boss." There's "yeah, we were in some shit times, and CO/XO/DH/Divo/Chief made some tough calls, but he had our backs. Not the most personable guy, but he looked out for us." And there's "I'm getting out, because leadership doesn't care about me. I wanted to be an officer (or a Chief), but now that I've seen behind the curtain, screw that. Bunch of politicians." You'll get both from the same situation with different leaders.

Edit: A wise man once observed that you can gain the world, and still lose your soul . . .

 

[wink]

Here's my logic train. Ultimately, in combat, sure, all bets are off. Kill the enemy, don't get killed. Accomplish the mission. All else, as the Baron said, is rubbish.

Outside that, our Sailors are a resource. We've got them for a fixed amount of time, and then they can decide to re-enlist or say "FTN, I'm done." Sure, some that leave are "addition by subtraction." A lot aren't. A lot are smart people we want to keep, and we as an institution should be doing our damnedest to be desirable to those types of people no matter what the economy. I'm not talking selling out. No one joined the Navy to be Jeff Bezos rich. But there is a moral and emotional itch that a lot of us scratched by signing up to be part of something greater than ourselves. To defend those who can't defend themselves. We didn't want to spend our 20s and 30s in a cube farm working for The Man.

But we get in, and our experiences are shaped by the leadership we have to serve under. Some people are transactional, and want to do their time, get out, use the GI Bill, and live their lives. Totally cool, and no shame in that. I mean it. But how many folks joined because they'd wanted to be an aviator (or a shoe, or a nuc, or an enlisted dude) since they were kids, get parked under some toxic asshole, and then we drive them out of the service?

When I read "many folks can't be both," I read an undercurrent of "do whatever it takes to get the job done. If in doubt, ride your people, because they can suck it up." I'm not saying @Spekkio meant that, I'm saying that's what I read into it. Maybe I just ran across a couple asshole golden children too many on active duty, and it skews my perception (not that all golden children are assholes). I don't know. But when you ask "what is more important," there's an implied dichotomy of "you have to pick one or the other if you can't do both." And also an implication that "if you have to pick one, pick getting the mission done and be hated for it."

I'd submit a counterargument. Not every individual person is going to like you; that's just part of being human. But as a CO, DH, LCPO, or whatever, if you are not at least respected by the balance of your people, you failed. I don't care if you got the job done. I don't care if your ISIC gave you an EP. I don't care how many stars you put on. You're in over your head, you're a detriment to the service, and you should leave. I'd submit that "many can't do that" is false. Not everyone will be loved. We don't all have the charisma and savvy to do that. But the minimum for a Navy leader is to treat your people decently. Even if it means you don't get that next rank. People are not a means to an end unless missiles are flying. People are an end in and of themselves.

Your people (or most of them) will understand the difference between "good person stuck in a bad situation" and "asshole who just cares about looking good to his boss." There's "yeah, we were in some shit times, and CO/XO/DH/Divo/Chief made some tough calls, but he had our backs. Not the most personable guy, but he looked out for us." And there's "I'm getting out, because leadership doesn't care about me. I wanted to be an officer (or a Chief), but now that I've seen behind the curtain, screw that. Bunch of politicians." You'll get both from the same situation with different leaders.

Edit: A wise man once observed that you can gain the world, and still lose your soul . . .

Humm. OK. I think I get your larger point. Do the tax payers not expect performance? Are they to accept a leader who compromises mission just to buy "respect"? Or do they still not get a return on their tax dollar if a leader makes mission, but is hated for his abrasive style? When does Joe Civilian care if a LT is respected by his sailors? They want the planes flying, tanks rolling and ships getting underway. Not saying running over your people is preferable. Those people who can not manage anything but, should be removed. BUT, as long as they are in that position of authority, I think America will look to them for mission success, not a resume bullet on the leadership award they won. Ugly. But those people are out there, and rather than a double fail, I prefer the job gets done until we can boot them.

 

[nittany03]

Not saying running over your people is preferable. Those people who can not manage anything but, should be removed. BUT, as long as they are in that position of authority, I think America will look to them for mission success, not a resume bullet on the leadership award they won. Ugly. But those people are out there, and rather than a double fail, I prefer the job gets done until we can boot them.

Yeah, I'm not arguing for a softie or pushover as any kind of model. But like you said, if you can't manage anything but, you're not qualified for your job and need to go. But the trouble is, what's the knock-on effect? How many future good Master Chiefs leave as Second Classes, or good COs leave as LTs, as collateral damage to those types of folks? That was my main point.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Humm. OK. I think I get your larger point. Do the tax payers not expect performance? Are they to accept a leader who compromises mission just to buy "respect"? Or do they still not get a return on their tax dollar if a leader makes mission, but is hated for his abrasive style? When does Joe Civilian care if a LT is respected by his sailors? They want the planes flying, tanks rolling and ships getting underway. Not saying running over your people is preferable. Those people who can not manage anything but, should be removed. BUT, as long as they are in that position of authority, I think America will look to them for mission success, not a resume bullet on the leadership award they won. Ugly. But those people are out there, and rather than a double fail, I prefer the job gets done until we can boot them.

Is "Naval Aviator Forum" synonymous with what was "Private Naval Aviators"? Trying to execute core value clearing turn here before I comment.