A SWO Nuke is still a SWO. And it's not like Naval Reactors has any intention on changing anytime soon.kingeryc said:
-
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
Failure of Leadership..
- Thread starter Mumbles
- Start date
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I actually think ADM Richardson does want to make some changes, but institutional inertia from the way we've done business for decades will prevent it.
Sub King
Member
I'm quite positive Rickover's ways, although slightly diluted from his day are still alive and well. I was more commenting that being both a SWO and a Nuke could possibly make someone very jaded. I've had a few buddies go surface nuke and most have been less than excited about their careers after a couple of years.
For the last YG at MSR, rumor is even with the 10K/yr SWO bonus + 30K/year Nuke copay they're having trouble (in this economy no less) making required retention numbers by over 50%.
Sub King
Member
In reality what we should be focusing on this paper, if you'll call it that, is that there is a fundamental problem and paradigm shift in the way that a JO soon to possibly be DH thinks in how BIG Navy recognizes how career progressions and leadership challenges are faced vice making a difference actually accounted for. I can't talk like I've been a Department Head, but I've been a JO and it's hard to argue this guys frustration no matter what field of military you're from. What's more important is that he/she (as to be politically correct) has a point and its been for a long time coming. I don't look at this paper and see the fallacies, I see someone who doesn't see the complete answer but more is worried for the future consequences of said action of our status quo. It would be great if this paper dispelled our bureaucracy and problems at hand, but the truth is that the answer is just too complex to answer in one paper! Just because someone doesn't provide you with the answers to fix an incredibly diverse and intricate problem, doesn't mean they don't have a full understanding of the problems that are awaiting. I think that no matter how macroscopically this paper was written, it encompasses a huge issue that future leaders will face for years to come. Sequestration or not. I'm totally talking out of my ass, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of the thoroughfare on this website is ventured by new soon to be or would like to be Naval aviators. For you old guys out there that have a ton of experience, don't poke the holes, provide your suggestion to wade/forge through this leadership challenge.
He may be right. Actually he IS right. I just don't know why he went to the trouble of writing an article that just states an already well-known problem without even trying to propose anything resembling a solution.
Welcome to the club. "The list is long, but distinguished." ~LTJG Nick Bradshaw
Um, how about "Wade/forge through this leadership challenge."?
A lot of us "old guys" (I'm specifically talking about those of us on the retired list) no longer have the juice to make change…the best change comes from within…and only those who stick around inside the fence lines/lifelines/flight lines can make it happen. For those many on AW who have elected to do that…I think I'm confident that they're reading/listening and filing all of what's being said away in their mental Rolodexes for when their turn comes to effect change at their level…and from within.
That's the group I'm rooting for.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Only of the major challenges is that by the time someone can make a change, they are so indoctrinated into the culture that they can't imagine a different way, and are not inclined to listen to guys with 1-4 yrs of experience.
A small example of this is some enlisted guys on liberty ran into some SWOs in a foreign port. The SWO wanted to know who was the "man in charge" of the liberty group. Yea, we don't do that sorta thing, so when she got some confused looks, she freaked out and wanted to escort them back to the boat. They ran into one of our officers on the way who got her to go away. The group wasn't in any danger or doing anything wrong... she was just being cautious, but the way she was taught from the beginning led her to believe that the group was in real danger because a bunch of E5/E6s trusted to operate a reactor didn't designate a MIC on liberty. Now try to convince her XO/CO that you don't need a MIC for every liberty group and you'd get a look like "are you stupid?"
This is a small example but there are plenty of policies that don't actually add value for the time spent on them (many of the electrical safety requirements for one example, or simple PMS that requires tagouts when there is no real risk of personnel or equipment damage that doubles the manhours required to complete it, the majority of submarine force protection requirements in port), yet they persist because somewhere along the line senior leadership "buys in" on it, which then makes it integral to safe operations. But I don't think the world will commandeer SSNs if my topside watch wasn't lugging around an MCU2P or I didn't man 3 people topside to watch one brow. I also don't think Sailors will start importing Mexican workers en masse if we stopped doing our annual trafficking in persons GMT.
Solution? Dunno. How do you make someone with years of experience and a successful career within the system open to change the way we do business? "It worked then and works now, why fix what isn't broken" is the most likely answer. It's not their time being wasted by the red tape, but it is their job on the line if something bad happens from getting rid of requirements.
A small example of this is some enlisted guys on liberty ran into some SWOs in a foreign port. The SWO wanted to know who was the "man in charge" of the liberty group. Yea, we don't do that sorta thing, so when she got some confused looks, she freaked out and wanted to escort them back to the boat. They ran into one of our officers on the way who got her to go away. The group wasn't in any danger or doing anything wrong... she was just being cautious, but the way she was taught from the beginning led her to believe that the group was in real danger because a bunch of E5/E6s trusted to operate a reactor didn't designate a MIC on liberty. Now try to convince her XO/CO that you don't need a MIC for every liberty group and you'd get a look like "are you stupid?"
This is a small example but there are plenty of policies that don't actually add value for the time spent on them (many of the electrical safety requirements for one example, or simple PMS that requires tagouts when there is no real risk of personnel or equipment damage that doubles the manhours required to complete it, the majority of submarine force protection requirements in port), yet they persist because somewhere along the line senior leadership "buys in" on it, which then makes it integral to safe operations. But I don't think the world will commandeer SSNs if my topside watch wasn't lugging around an MCU2P or I didn't man 3 people topside to watch one brow. I also don't think Sailors will start importing Mexican workers en masse if we stopped doing our annual trafficking in persons GMT.
Solution? Dunno. How do you make someone with years of experience and a successful career within the system open to change the way we do business? "It worked then and works now, why fix what isn't broken" is the most likely answer. It's not their time being wasted by the red tape, but it is their job on the line if something bad happens from getting rid of requirements.
Well, I just think you're wrong. But I'm not walking any miles in your shoes. Actually, I walked those many miles in MY shoes...
Yes. Entirely too small to have any statistical significance. Am I supposed to "hate" the obviously female SWO because she was trying to enforce what I assume she thought the liberty requirements were at the time? Even if she was "being cautious…the way she was taught"? I'm just not going there…sounds like she was trying to do her job in an admittedly "gray environment".
Yeah, fuck all that underlined shit…probably means little or nothing. The fact that you don't know is VERY clear. If that was your point…WINNER…WINNER…Chicken Dinner! Maybe…just maybe…it's because those who DO KNOW are are also RESPONSIBLE for outcomes. Huge difference between you and them.
Not true. I accidentally forgot do my TIP training and ended up with a fully operational tabacco factory and rum distillery, financed off the profits of the sex trade, overnight! You gotta watch out for that stuff, man.
His anecdotes are one of the many examples of just how far we've gone since we placed special trust and confidence in our sailors and junior officers. We trust guys to operate reactors, drop bombs, employ machine guns, use the ROE to make life and death decisions for months at a time, but we don't trust them to go on liberty, take a road trip, or have a few drinks on a Tuesday.
Why?
Because we are too fucking heavy at the top, and no O6 is going to let an SDO make a decision that might get his O7 boss's panties in a wad, which might end his career before he gets to hang a flag with a star off it in front of comcincofficesupplyphibrongrp7's admin building.
How do we have more admirals and generals now, when technology keeps us more connected than ever before, than we did in WW2, a war we won soundly? Maybe when you give some young guys enough bullets, beans, and authority to make a decision, some risky shit that needs to get done happens.
JFK would have gone to mast, not for losing his PT boat, but because his decision to pull a sailor with his teeth impacted dental readiness and made him non deployable. The queep, overhead, bullshit, bureaucracy is a function of every O6 needing a fiefdom, and the pissing contests involved therein. You want to save the Navy? Start by cutting the top down to actual commanders, and unload the 20% just hanging on, inventing new bullshit reasons to justify their existence everyday. Why does TSC need an O5 in charge of it, when an O3/O4 with some juice from the commodore could do the same job for less, and be more tactically relevant.
I haven't seen a suggestion from you other than shut up and color, and more of the same is what got us in this fucking mess.
I agree, but restating or exagerating the problem doesn't fix the problem either. To have influence, you need to be able to make yourself heard and understood by the right people. To be heard and understood, you need to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. Now, a person's level of influence will be magnified greatly if they can communicate clearly and effectively both orally and in writing. But as it is, some people are simply better at presenting their side orally than they are in written form and vice versa. Being good in only one of these forms of communication does not mean you cannot wield a certain level of influence. That said, there are also many other variables that play into the influence piece that I'm not going to go into because we're only talking about communication right now. The article this person wrote is shit, IMHO. This does not mean this person is evil or a bad officer or doesn't have a grasp of the problem(s). It simply means he failed at communicating his ideas clearly and effectively.kingeryc said:
You've got it all wrong. Our job (old and young alike) IS to poke holes and find the incongruencies of solutions presented. If you don't learn this skill now, you are going to get hammered later in your career.kingeryc said:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
R1, respectfully, the tone of your response IS the problem. As you have experience getting the ears of those who can change policy, what will get their attention? What will get them to realize that treating a 20 something E5 like an adult or ridding the perception that an enlisted Sailor's time is not worth your attention IS important to the health of the Navy? Senior officers get paid the 6 figure salaries to figure this stuff out, not me. My solution is easy -- I can easily come up with a list of top 10 time sucking useless crap we should get rid of. But what I can't do is come up with a way to get people in your shoes with your attitude to say "very well" and sign a new policy. That's what's frustrating.
But hey, looking at fuses from 3 ft away totally warrants getting the COs permission, removing all metal, wearing a vader mask and thick rubber gloves, roping off the area, and changing into a special poopy suit. That TOTALLY keeps us safe.
But hey, looking at fuses from 3 ft away totally warrants getting the COs permission, removing all metal, wearing a vader mask and thick rubber gloves, roping off the area, and changing into a special poopy suit. That TOTALLY keeps us safe.
Then you have never actually paid attention. I can't help with that.
Let me try…one more FUCKING time: I'll type SLOWLY so some of you can keep up:
1. No one promised you a rose garden. You joined the organization you joined…eyes wide open, I hope. There is a certain amount of "suck it up, listen and learn, and go with the flow" that comes with any similar organization…military, industry, fucking "Jack-In-The-Box" for all I know. You will be offered "world-class training" to do a "life-altering job"…WARNING: There is a certain amount of "shutting up and coloring" involved…early on.
2. If you want to always make your reputation as the guy/gal who "leads from the front" as the "Bitcher and Whiner" in your Wardroom/Ready Room/Company Day Room…then GO BIG and don't hold back. Just know that there's an excise tax attached to that…and the tax must be paid. Plan accordingly…and don't bitch about that.
3. IF you want to make change…do it every time when and where you can. For officers, your span(s) of control will kinda go significantly upward every couple of years. More folks to lead and care for…broader organizational responsibilities…more opportunities to "influence" the mini-world you and your folks live in. You get the idea.
4. Don't kid yourself, however, that you're going to be asked to make significant change to National and/or Service responsibilities or policies anytime soon. You'll be well beyond retirement eligibility long before that comes. But it CAN…and DOES…come. But only for those who stay around…having dutifully "colored within the lines" for several years.
I have nothing to add or offer about the current rank structure or JFK's decision to send his PT-109 Sailor to the dentist.
Sorry…once again…that this sort of stuff takes place on the "Main Forum". Probably a better place for this...
Lemme guess…I just walked into a bikers' bar and told them how to maintain their bikes?
This.