Creating a better Officer Corps

[Uncle Fester]

I think the goal of an "objective" rating system is part of the problem; trying to quanitify something like leadership/management performance in terms of objective numbers is futile. Why should you even try to be "objective"? What's wrong with subjective reporting? Presumably the Navy puts guys in command because they trust their judgement and leadership abilities, so therefore we should trust their subjective evaluations of the officers under their command. Under the current system, a CO has his/her hands tied.

We have to resort to "code words" and "red flags," and insist on hard numbers ("The PCs in LT Joebags' division safely launched X sorties," "4 of 5 PO2s in LT Joebags division earned their EAWS") that most likely don't have anything to do with real promotion potential or evaluation of their performance.

The one thing the current fitrep system does not do is report on an officer's fitness.

 

[bert]

Great post. It is insanely frustrating to be an ambitious person as a naval officer. There really aren't any good answers but if you want a work-hard-be-compensated transaction then it's not the place.

But if you want a "work hard in the things you are told to work hard on and be compensated" place then it does fine.

A lot of what people are complaining about in here makes no sense to me (and I'm a guy who stepped off the tracks after 11 years and did my own thing). If you have your dream of weeding out all the below average people as soon as possible (surprise: 50% of you are below average!), then you will immediately progress to the blue-on-blue of all your "top players" competing against each other. Unless of course, you don't want people under the same reporting senior to be forced to compete against each other? Or maybe you want the people who survive the first cut to be on easy street forever? The same concept applies to people complaining about trait scores and averages. As pointless as some parts of our FITREP system are, the fact that reporting seniors are held accountable for their trait averages and can't just call everybody 5.0 is one of the few parts that genuinely work (assuming the RS is smart enough to understand that from the beginning and doesn't shoot people in the head out of ignorance/stupidity...).

Overall, I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly some of you are looking for. While I have met O-5s who were unprepared to command squadrons, I've never met an O-3 who was actually ready (though I met a lot who thought they were). The most-unhappy campers I ran across in 20 years were the guys who kept getting told "You're doing great, keep it up!" in their FITREP debriefs, while their trait score vs. RS average and ranking were clearly pack or pack-minus. The problem isn't that the FITREP system doesn't serve to identify who the Navy wants to promote and who the Navy wants to select for its good deals* - the system does that just fine. The problem is that people either aren't taught or won't believe the gouge on what their FITREPs and billet choices actually mean. That is what creates the unhappiness when people who think they are doing great discover that the Navy has already judged them wanting.

TL/DNR: The Navy doesn't care about your ambitions or what you think adequate compensation is. But if you think the Navy's rewards for ambitions are just fine, then you can earn them by following the path the Navy tells you to.


* Whether or not the golden path is a good deal is a different discussion. YMMV.

 

[bert]

I think the goal of an "objective" rating system is part of the problem; trying to quanitify something like leadership/management performance in terms of objective numbers is futile. Why should you even try to be "objective"? What's wrong with subjective reporting? Presumably the Navy puts guys in command because they trust their judgement and leadership abilities, so therefore we should trust their subjective evaluations of the officers under their command. Under the current system, a CO has his/her hands tied.

We have to resort to "code words" and "red flags," and insist on hard numbers ("The PCs in LT Joebags' division safely launched X sorties," "4 of 5 PO2s in LT Joebags division earned their EAWS") that most likely don't have anything to do with real promotion potential or evaluation of their performance.

The one thing the current fitrep system does not do is report on an officer's fitness.

That isn't what the Navy uses it for. The Navy uses FITREPs to determine if you are ready for the next promotion or job, not the current one.

 

[LET73]

That isn't what the Navy uses it for. The Navy uses FITREPs to determine if you are ready for the next promotion or job, not the current one.

Sure, but a FITREP doesn't really tell anyone whether you're more ready for that next job than LT Joebags is, even though promotion boards use them that way.

 

[Pags]

That isn't what the Navy uses it for. The Navy uses FITREPs to determine if you are ready for the next promotion or job, not the current one.

As it was best explained to me: it's not a report card.

Sure, but a FITREP doesn't really tell anyone whether you're more ready for that next job than LT Joebags is, even though promotion boards use them that way.

It does if you know how to read it.

 

[LET73]

It does if you know how to read it.

Well, yes and no. It also matters if you/your CO knows how to write it, and it matters if you're being ranked against other smart LTs (whose FITREPs the board might never see next to yours), or not-so-smart LTs (whose FITREPs the board might never see next to yours). I'm not saying it's a terrible system--like I said above, if there were an easy fix, someone would have found it--but it's not objective.

 

[Pags]

Well, yes and no. It also matters if you/your CO knows how to write it, and it matters if you're being ranked against other smart LTs (whose FITREPs the board might never see next to yours), or not-so-smart LTs (whose FITREPs the board might never see next to yours). I'm not saying it's a terrible system--like I said above, if there were an easy fix, someone would have found it--but it's not objective.

It'd be very hard to write was is effectively a judgement call by the RS on the service member in an objective manner. As I said, it's not a report card that merely says how good your historical performance was. It's a report wherein your RS extrapolates your current performance to determine if you're ready for the next rank and then "sells" you to the board. At some point, you want some subjectivity in there so the RS can have some latitude to measure the intangibles like personality, maturity, etc.

 

[LFCFan]

Ensign question: what differences exist between how communities or entire classes of officers (URL vs RL) read, write, and interpret FITREPs, and how does that impact the discussion?

 

[Gatordev]

Ensign question: what differences exist between how communities or entire classes of officers (URL vs RL) read, write, and interpret FITREPs, and how does that impact the discussion?

Some of it depends on who is ranked against whom. For example, the Medical Corps is made up of different sub-sections, so it's important to the MC to have hospital experience. However, an AvPhys doesn't get that, but still goes to the same board (and aren't really represented at the board), so someone needs to make sure that gets briefed so it's not a killer when there's no hospital experience in the FITREP.

On the URL side, the various communities may have VERY different operational requirements, but at the end of the day, we're all supposed to be doing the same basic thing: continue our technical/tactical proficiency while taking care of people. Timelines and milestones may be different, but it's the same basic expectation.

Take SWOs and Aviators... A SWO may be put in charge of a division as an Ensign or Jaygee, but an Aviator probably won't get that opportunity until an O-3 (or senior O-2). But that's normal for each community, and that's briefed at the board before each FITREP/record comes up. What also gets briefed is what the board "should" be seeing at that particular point in time. For a SWO O-3, it should say he's done (or is doing) the DH thing. For an Aviator O-4, it should say he's done a major DH job. And then there's other little wickets like for many helo guys, he should have some sort of OIC gig written in there.

My point is that everyone looks for different things, but everyone knows (or should know) that it's important to write those specific things. I'm with bert... It might not be perfect, but once you figure out how to play the game in writing a FITREP (or an Eval), it's not that hard to maneuver in the system...assuming you want to play the game, which is obviously a different discussion. I think the problem comes in when people actually believe the entirety of their FITREP and think that one snapshot of their career sums up their awesomeness.

 

[wink]

As it was best explained to me: it's not a report card.


It does if you know how to read it.

My wife is an attorney who defends big money civil lawsuits frequently arriving out of a alleged wrongful death or serious injury. In order to boost the value of their claim the plaintiffs will try to make themselves or the decedent something more than he was. They will try to prove he was this great guy with no problems and a bright future that would have led to many promotions and high income. Somebody that is sympathetic and likely a future success. To do so they often trot out enlisted evals or fitreps from military service. You can imagine how misunderstood they are because of the way they are written (code words, damnable faint praise) and their true intent as a tool for promotion suitability. It has become my duty to analyze and brief attorneys on all military docs that come into the firm because a fitrep or eval simply does not translate into reality in most cases.

 

[Spekkio]

As far as ranking the traits, I always thought there should be more than 5 categories, which are effectively 3 categories unless the person is a complete dirtbag and you have a pile of counseling chits to prove it. You're basically ranking people by 'ok(3), good(4), excellent(5)' and when there's more than 3 people to rank it becomes difficult to reflect the entire spectrum of quality of work in just 3 different grades. I suppose that's what the writeup is for, but my impression is that boards just scan them to circle key words and tricky phrases and mostly pay attention to the 'ranked x of y.'

Uncle Fester, did the LT you reference ultimately screen for O-4? Because if so then the system 'worked', even though I can understand the frustration of not being immediately rewarded for hard-work and superior performance.

From reading the personal accounts, it seems like the biggest gripe not with the FITREP system itself, but with COs who say "you're doing great!" and then hand the guy a fitrep where his quality trait average is at or below the CO's average. That's more on the CO not being honest than the system itself.

Finally, does it REALLY matter if the fitrep uses code words of a straightforward 'this guy sucks' so long as there is a method for COs to communicate to the board that a guy should or shouldn't promote?

 

[wink]

Finally, does it REALLY matter if the fitrep uses code words of a straightforward 'this guy sucks' so long as there is a method for COs to communicate to the board that a guy should or shouldn't promote?

It is inarticulate and dishonest. It makes official Navy personnel documentation less than an accurate reflection of reality. It leaves those docs open to misrepresentation, and in the worse case, misunderstanding by the member himself.

 

[Gatordev]

It is inarticulate and dishonest. It makes official Navy personnel documentation less than an accurate reflection of reality. It leaves those docs open to misrepresentation, and in the worse case, misunderstanding by the member himself.

Very true. I'd rather be called a turd than "an effective means of reconstituting matter into the eco-system." Probably the single biggest complaint I have with the system.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Very true. I'd rather be called a turd than "an effective means of reconstituting matter into the eco-system." Probably the single biggest complaint I have with the system.

Valid. Truth in reporting matters - er, used to matter. Feelings matter a little more now.

The kid who won a trophy for finishing 8th in his soccer league is going to be one of your JOs.

 

[TimeBomb]

This is a fascinating discussion. As someone who worked in the "sausage factory", many of the concerns are valid. One huge problem I've seen is that reporting seniors are obligated to understand the system as it is, and not attempt to strike out on their own and attempt to unilaterally rewrite the rules. Their people will not benefit from their hubris. Secondly, as noted, every officer who aspires to command, or otherwise lead in the organization should make every attempt to get in as a recorder on a selection board, or even get a tour as a detailer. Only then can you really begin to appreciate the rules of engagement that govern selection boards, and how the FITREP system is utilized to select officers for promotion. It isn't a foolproof system, but when everyone is on the same page, it works pretty well overall. Most of the selects are qualified for promotion, and will do a decent job at the next higher level, and most of the non-selects aren't ready to advance to the next higher level of responsibility. Yes, it is difficult to identify and reward "superstars" under the constraints of the current system, but the comments section of the FITREP can be used to play up the accomplishments of the truly high performing JO, and get him noticed by the board. A good CO will have been to a couple boards in his run-up to command, and will understand how to get that high-performer into the board's consciousness.
The issue of "pay-for-performance" is also a great topic for discussion. How would the OP propose to objectively identify those who warrant higher pay given the variety of jobs that can be held at any given rank?
R/