O4 List

[robav8r]

It would be interesting to study the actualy correlation between people's overall attitude towards their various COs through their careers and how that affects whether these people then go on to become COs themselves.

Exactly. I had some horrendous OIC's when I was in HSL, but I have never really had a "bad" CO in my HSL, VS, P-3, CVN, and shore commands. I have heard all the stories and wondered how my life would be a "living hell" if I had to endure that kind of negative leadership. I'm very lucky - I have had the opportunity to serve under leaders who were always (at least it seemed to me at the time) motivated by making "their" squadron/command better through the development of their people.

 

[HAL Pilot]

There seem to be two themes here. One being the idea of "selling your soul" by taking lots of hard jobs and thus sacrificing personal QOL, family time, etc. I get that part. The other "selling your soul" part seems to be that some people have had a lot of bad experiences with poor front office leadership/personalities/etc. I guess I don't understand why this would make anyone less inclined to pursue being a CO. It seems like, in some people's minds, since some are bad, anyone would have to become just as bad to do the job. I think there's a logical disconnect with this kind of thinking.

It's also interesting (and telling) to see how people's personal experiences with good and bad COs has influenced whether they have an optimistic or pessimistic view of COs in general. It would be interesting to study the actualy correlation between people's overall attitude towards their various COs through their careers and how that affects whether these people then go on to become COs themselves.

There is the euphemistic "sell your soul" where you give up family life, QOL etc. to advance and there is the no shit "sell your soul" where you give up self-thought and/or integrity to advance.

The first is a personal choice by the officer and probably a requirement for obtaining command. If this is your thing, great. Just respect that others aren't willing to pay the price (and I think you do accept this Brett). The problem comes when the CO thinks that everyone should live the (lack of) life he did.

The second is all to familiar unfortunately. I understand the CO must follow orders just like the rest of us, but he more than any of us should be questioning the necessity of orders that adversely affect the QOL of his subordinates. Blindly following Big Navy's philosophy without question is bad leadership. There are far too many that advance by being politically correct yes-man than there are those that advance through leadership and prossionalism. Add in those who haven't seen a back they wouldn't climb over to reach the top and you have way too many COs who really are soul-less. My CVN CO (the best officer and CO I ever saw or seved under) used to joke during those late night bridge watches that some of his officers were not only asking him to bend over so they could kiss his ass easier but were also asking him to spread his cheeks so they could get a little tongue in.

 

[Brett327]

Yuck.

 

[KBayDog]

But I'm curious at what point in your career(s) - [not just you KB], doing hard sea duty, overseas duty, (your favorite corner of hell job) became "shit" jobs which made the sacrifices to your family untenable. Did you join the service with this attitude or did it evolve over time from your own, personal experiences.

I did not join with this attitude - I enlisted as a 17-year old kid full of piss and vinegar. I guess, not unlike many at that age, I was a kool-aid drinker. I had a very successful time in my enlisted days. Meritorious promotion to Sergeant, MECEP, etc. Even though I would have gone anywhere the Corps directed of me, I chose the officer route for two reasons: 1. I loved the Marine Corps way of life, loved leading Marines, etc. (I was single, and it was peacetime), and 2. I wanted to fly choppers.

I guess as I got older, wiser, and went the route of starting a family, my priorities shifted. I don't think there's anything abnormal about that. The sacrifices that it takes to be considered for O-5 skipper (and beyond) do not align with those priorities. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Being a CO is not for everyone. However, in today's military, I realize that such an attitude (and its associated duty assignments) is not what promotion/command screening boards want to see, and will mean an early end to your career.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everyone can/should be a CO: "The world needs ditch diggers, too."

 

[robav8r]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everyone can/should be a CO: "The world needs ditch diggers, too."

Yep, I get it and concur. I think Naval Aviation has done a poor job of embracing the talent and contributions of those that just want to be a "technical expert" in their respective career fields/platforms. I have met officers from other countries (Canada, UK, Aus, Nor) that seem to have better opportunity for those that just want to fly. Some of the best ASW aircrews I have ever seen were Canadian, CP-140 Aurora crews who would routinely "spank" US crews in ASW exercises. Why? Because they stayed together and flew together - ALL THE TIME. I understand the US Navy's philosophy of "up or out", and I understand my responsibility to either play within that system or punch out. I certainly don't have all the answers, but offering someone to stay a permanent O3/O4 as long as they perform (fly, teach, deploy) seems like a logical way to capitalize on that individuals skill set.

 

[KBayDog]

...offering someone to stay a permanent O3/O4 as long as they perform (fly, teach, deploy) seems like a logical way to capitalize on that individuals skill set.

Concur. Such a move would not only allow the SMEs to continue to be SMEs, but allow those who really want to climb the ladder a better opportunity to do so. In fact, it could even allow for a more comprehensive command screening, as the "wheat" would be separated from the "chaff," and the boards could focus more on each candidate vice everyone in a particular year group (perhaps further weeding out some of the turds that slip through the cracks and inevitably make the cover of Navy Crimes...and cause us to have to spend our already limited training time on character lectures).

The pool of O-3/4 operators wouldn't have much of an effect on promotions (i.e., those who don't really want to climb the ladder wouldn't be 'unnecessarily' taking up promotion opportunities from those who do), but might help limit the number of annual accessions (saving untold millions of Washingtons). Oh yeah - the knowledge/experience base of those who stay in the trenches would be a force multiplier.

Anyone who doubts that such a program might work needs to look no further than the Army...or even our own WO/LDO programs.

Quite simply, one does not need to be a CO (or even aspire to be a CO) to be a good leader...nor does being a CO (in our current system) necessarily make one a good leader.

 

[MasterBates]

offering someone to stay a permanent O3/O4 as long as they perform (fly, teach, deploy) seems like a logical way to capitalize on that individuals skill set.

And there are many of us that would take just that. No reindeer games with timing, and FITREP 500 beyond being a solid performer. No pretending to like whatever obscure sport the CO loves (soccer? Meh) so you can get along.

I also think a revamped FITREP system that was more of an honest appraisal and less flowery BS, would cut down on the leadershipless backstabbers making it higher in the world. But since the people with the power to change the system made it under the current system with similar constraints, it's not going to happen unless it's directed from the outside, which in today's PC world, is also not happening.

Prime example. I write "performance appraisals" for people from laborers up to engineers. I can write "Operator-2 Y does not yet understand how to safely operate a triplex pump, but is learning. He needs to get more training on nitrogen pumping and well cementing before being eligible for Operator-3"

I didn't just wreck his career. He'll still likely be an Op-3 and then a Supervisor within a couple years.

Now imagine if you got a FITREP that stated "LT Y does not yet have a grasp on effectively leading a division, but has shown some initiative. He also needs to improve his landing grades before being eligible for CAPC"

You wrote something like that in a Navy FITREP, even though it would be TRUE for most first time DIVOs and noob 2Ps fresh out of the RAG, and you would kill their career.

 

[helolumpy]

I went and did the hard jobs (NATOPS, QAO, AOPS) and did well, and didn't fare any better in the long run than the guys who skated. Luck and timing were not there, even though my performance in the "Hard Jobs" was. (was a JG for AOPS and a good chunk of QAO round 1.. so it didn't help my LT FITREPS any).

MB, you swapped from HSL to VAW, at that point you left the path. You may have done the hard jobs, but assuming you did the transitionnin lieu of shore duty, that's a lot of NOB'd time while guys like me were getting competative FitReps from the RAG.

When you got to VAW, you may have been a senior JO on the ground, you were a nugget in the aircraft.
At the same time I was doing my disassociated sea tour getting my FitRep signed by a two-star.

When it came time for O-4, you didn't have the resume that the Navy looks for, so doing the tough job in a squadron doesn't rank with what I did to make O-4.

 

[robav8r]

Anyone who doubts that such a program might work needs to look no further than the Army...or even our own WO/LDO programs.

I think our "Flying Warrant Officer" program was an attempt to achieve the professional aviator career path without affecting the upward mobility and promotion opportunity of potential CO's. To date, it doesn't appear that the number of accessions or Fleet feedback has convinced big Navy to completely embrace the program.

I also think a revamped FITREP system that was more of an honest appraisal and less flowery BS, would cut down on the leadershipless backstabbers making it higher in the world.

The new "Command Qualification" instruction is addressing this with 360 degree evaluations that has been touted in the SWO community. Time will tell if a more grounded FITREP system based on subordinate as well as superior evaluations will work. Something about institutional inertia comes to mind . . . .

 

[insanebikerboy]

I had three awesome skippers in a row in my last squadron (HS). All of them were awesome dudes and having gotten to know them and their career paths shows that it doesn't necessarily have to be the Suckistan jobs to make CO and they epitomized what good leaders are. What it also showed me is that you have to choose between jobs that take a ton of time away from your family, and the job satisfaction from those types of jobs could be pretty marginal.

For me personally, I don't mind being away from the family as much as long as my job is actually doing something truly meaningful. Maybe it's the HS/plane guard bitterness coming out in me but in my opinion suffering three or four sets of orders on the carrier in the slim chance of making CO doesn't pay off. I enjoy the Navy so I would rather choose something that is a enjoyable, fulfilling job and possibly make CO than not.

Remember, for every 1 qualified guy who makes CO, there are 1-2 who don't. Call it playing the odds but numbers are numbers. Also, in my mind, OP-T CO would actually be a pretty sweet deal.

 

[robav8r]

Also, in my mind, OP-T CO would actually be a pretty sweet deal.

I agree wholeheartedly !!!!!!

 

[bert]

HAL and KBay have covered most of this, but I will try to lay it out as I see it. Yes there are great guys who follow the golden path, get rewarded appropriately, and remain great guys. There are also great guys who get screwed along the way. And while in my experience the proportions aren't as bad as HAL has seen, there are also douches who get promoted far past their capabilities based on politics or even worse reasons.

Having said all that, there are all kinds of reasons to make somebody choose to step off the tracks (whether by getting out or choosing their own career path). Some people do it because they have goals that doesn't match what the Navy says they should be. Some will do it because they just don't like the Navy's goal for them even though they don't have a better one in mind. And some will get pushed off the tracks by their communities - whether early in their career or late - and not understand why. That can be for either real or perceived flaws, or just timing that is slightly off. Some people will face that honestly, and some will claim they jumped.

For some people, their Navy career is their self-defining characteristic. That may not make a lick of sense to me, but it isn't right or wrong, it's just different. I won't ever understand how somebody can base their sense of self on the judgements the Navy makes about them, but if it works for them they have no reason to care what I think.

TL/DR: automatically labeling guys who color inside the lines as tools is just as wrong as calling everybody who either fails to make CO or doesn't want to as non-hacking whiners. The key is having an honest understanding of your own desires and ability to achieve them. Don't sweat the "Needs of the Navy" in your career decisions process: the Navy always pays itself first. Each person has to figure out what will work for them.

 

[KBayDog]

TL/DR: automatically labeling guys who color inside the lions as tools...

Nice.

 

[MasterBates]

MB, you swapped from HSL to VAW, at that point you left the path. You may have done the hard jobs, but assuming you did the transitionnin lieu of shore duty, that's a lot of NOB'd time while guys like me were getting competative FitReps from the RAG.

When you got to VAW, you may have been a senior JO on the ground, you were a nugget in the aircraft.
At the same time I was doing my disassociated sea tour getting my FitRep signed by a two-star.

When it came time for O-4, you didn't have the resume that the Navy looks for, so doing the tough job in a squadron doesn't rank with what I did to make O-4.

True, but my HSL "Hard Jobs" were as a JG.. I left being a LT less than a year with one LT FITREP as DET MO for a Det that didn't end up deploying. I left with a MP, and was told I did because it was my first LT FITREP, and there were guys who had to show progression (line of BS I know).

Per the "Truth" at the time, I should have made LCDR, but knowingly was playing with fire for DH and beyond.

The VAW issues.. We'll just say that retreads were treated vastly different in my VAW squadron than another VAW squadron and a COD squadron. Luck of the draw. Being pulled up 2 groups didn't fucking help much either.

 

[Gatordev]

I think I've made a career out of not coloring inside the lions.