Navy leadership training (Accession and beyond)

[squorch2]

Leadership training at my ROTC unit consisted of two semesters of "leadership" classes - one sophomore year and one senior year - along with whatever leadership billet you may have found yourself in. For those people who didn't buy into ROTC as a lifestyle or alternative to the greek system, it was easy to get through the program having never been much more than a squad leader. In any case, there was some training, but it was mostly akin to stumbling down a dark hallway.

Post-commissioning, I attended BOLTC just after the completion of API and promptly forgot it all. The content of the course may have been good, but the timing was atrocious.

 

[helolumpy]

Having gone through some Navy leadership theory just reinforces what Napoleon said about training an Admial (and therefore Navy Officers):

An admiral commanding a fleet and a general commanding an army are men who need different qualities. One is born with the qualities proper to command an army, while the necessary qualities to command a fleet are acquired only by experience. The art of war on land is an art of genius, of inspiration. On the sea everything is definite and a matter of experience. The admiral needs only one science, navigation. The general needs all or a talent equal to all, that of profiting by all experience and all knowledge. An admiral needs to divine nothing; he knows where his enemy is and he knows his strength. A general never knows anything with certainty, never sees his enemy clearly and never knows positively where he is.

Napoleon's Maxim #115

 

[Recovering LSO]

while the necessary qualities to command a fleet are acquired only by experience.

This.

The more I read from senior leadership about the need for ever increasing leadership training makes me wonder if they aren't admitting failure? I truly believe that some people have an innate ability to lead others. My experiences as a ROTC dude are similar to those that have already been posted, but at almost each stop I was forced to stop and ask if this is so important why am I being taught this by LT on non-competitive shore duty orders (BOLTC)? The best education I've received has been from seniors who walked me through their thought processes and viewed themselves as servant leaders who's job was as much teaching as leading. That classroom has been in the cockpit, the ready room, the I-Bar, a liberty boat, a golf course, etc - but never in a class room.

My two cents is that effective leadership is an art and some people just can't "paint" - putting them through more training seems to just produce micromanagers who approach their jobs with a "how not to screw up checklist".

 

[phrogpilot73]

My two cents is that effective leadership is an art and some people just can't "paint" - putting them through more training seems to just produce micromanagers who approach their jobs with a "how not to screw up checklist".

I agree with most of what you've said, up until this. And I even agree to a point with this statement. However, I don't think leadership training produces micromanagers. I think leadership training EMPOWERS micromanagers. True leaders are the ones that are sitting in the back of the classroom rolling their eyes as to why their time is being wasted. Micromanagers are taking notes. Those same individuals appear to "care" to their seniors, so they get promoted. It's a cycle that will never end in this day and age - because the fucked up leaders won't get killed in combat like they used to.

 

[BigIron]

I think OTJ leadership varies greatly in quality. I think a little "how-to" leadership training would be beneficial for all. We have the Navy Leadership Competency Model (NLCM), but is just knowing what to do good enough?

The leadership quality spread varies greatly. And these are just the ones held accountable for their actions.

 

[kmac]

I think the doctrine of the Navy influences a lot of the emphasis on training. Unlike the Army or Air Force (or Marine Corps), the Navy places a lot of emphasis on what used to be called "initiative of the subordinate." The Air Force is probably the exact opposite with their "centralized control, decentralized execution." For that reason (IMHO) the AF has dedicated schools for the O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5... I understand that they're finally changing the O-2/O-3 courses to be singular lasting 8 weeks. Those schools all take place here at Maxwell. Not only that, but they have doctrine in a variety of pubs, including one dedicated to leadership (AFDD 1-1). The Navy, on the other hand, has 1 doctrine pub (NDP-1). Like others have said, words on a publication can't exactly take the place of experience and personal attributes.

Thoughts?

 

[z3n]

Echo everything phrogpilot said about USNA.

In addition to the formal courses: Naval Leadership and the practicum course, leadership is also taught through the ethic program as well. My experience wasn't that the ethics courses taught ethics, but more armed Midshipmen with the tools and knowledge needed to ask the right questions and examine the facts needed to make ethical decisions.

IMHO, USNA (and all of the rest of the Academies) are "leadership laboratories", where Midshipmen and Cadets are thrust into leadership positions with experienced officers and senior enlisted observing, evaluating and instructing. You'll see this in everything from everyday academy life to summer training. The two formal leadership instruction experiences that proved the most valuable for me were Leatherneck (even though I ended up not wanting to be a Marine) and CSNTS (sailing cruise where I was dual hatted as essentially the "XO" of the sailboat and the entire "squadron" of 4 boats... responsible for navigation, OPTAR funds and most of the admin stuff that goes with getting 4 sailboats in and out of a marina).

Following Plebe summer, there is almost no time during the 4 years at USNA where you won't be expected to take charge and lead a group of your peers through some evolution, whether it is something as simple as cleaning your company spaces as a plebe or leading your company, battalion or brigade as a Firstie. And at every point, you've got people watching and at the correct times, providing instruction or suggestions that may or may not help, with the focus being on "Small Unit Leadership" (a huge buzzword and USNA).

All in all, I'd say that the whole 4 years at USNA proved to be a "formal leadership" course.

Again, just my humble opinion.

Phrog and Bubba, again you hit the nail on the head. Echo all.

 

[phrogdriver]

I think the doctrine of the Navy influences a lot of the emphasis on training. Unlike the Army or Air Force (or Marine Corps), the Navy places a lot of emphasis on what used to be called "initiative of the subordinate."

I don't think the Navy is unique in this regard any more than the other services, especially the Marine Corps.

 

[kmac]

phrogdriver, I disagree. Whereas the MC and the Navy share the same doctrine (NDP-1), I think the addition of manuals that are service-wide mean that there is less individual initiative (as it relates to the commander's intent). In that regard, I'd say it's closer to the Army. The MC definitely does place responsibility at lower levels though. We can probably all agree that the AF is the opposite: they epitomize centralized command/control.

 

[KBayDog]

phrogdriver, I disagree. Whereas the MC and the Navy share the same doctrine (NDP-1), I think the addition of manuals that are service-wide mean that there is less individual initiative (as it relates to the commander's intent). In that regard, I'd say it's closer to the Army.

I agree.

While I have no evidence that this is the case, my observations lead me to suspect that the loss of individual initiative in favor of a more centralized control WRT commander's intent is a direct result of technology. The military bureaucracy (administrative and operational) is still there - it always will be. However, with "instant" communications these days, combined with the ability for leaders to communicate via VTC, observe operations real-time, etc., there seems to be a push for a more centralized command and control, even in the Corps.

 

[phrogdriver]

phrogdriver, I disagree. Whereas the MC and the Navy share the same doctrine (NDP-1), I think the addition of manuals that are service-wide mean that there is less individual initiative (as it relates to the commander's intent). In that regard, I'd say it's closer to the Army. The MC definitely does place responsibility at lower levels though. We can probably all agree that the AF is the opposite: they epitomize centralized command/control.

With the exception of whatever the hot-button du jour is, I'd say the Marine Corps is very decentralized, at least on the end-user level. Fairly major tasks are given to junior leaders, especially in combat, and they are trusted to execute. I think the Marine Corps is better at this than any other service.

Now, as far as the discretion given at higher levels, the Navy historically (as navies have done for hundreds of years) gives wide latitude to ship's COs. He is master of his castle, especially at sea, probably more than an equivalent leader of a ground unit in the Marine Corps or Army.

The USAF gets a lot of hate on this board. However, having had some pseudo-joint experience with them, it varies widely by community. There are always the jibes about how a captain does an E-4's job over there, but their SpecOps guys seem to get quite a bit of rope to hang themselves with.

 

[kmac]

I don't think we can equate SpecOps with anything conventional. They seem to do their own thing (on purpose, and for good reason) compared to the service as a whole. Also, I'm not knocking the MC in any way. They share the same doctrine as the Navy. Perhaps we are looking at different parts of the same situation.

 

[phrogdriver]

Those are the USAF guys I've gotten to work with the most. They were awesome, so whenever someone smacks on the AF, I reference them as a counterargument. They can't be the only ones.