Posted on Apr 14, 2015
What are your thoughts on Anna Granville's (a Navy officer) reasons for resigning?
85.2K
310
163
8
8
0
NOTE: The photo of the Naval Officer attached to the original taskandpurpose blog post is not a photograph of the author of the taskandpurpose blog post, as is noted on the photo at taskandpurpose. This has been brought to my attention by a colleague of the officer in the photo, who is currently serving. I can't seem to get RallyPoint to remove the photo except by removing the URL to the blog, so I'm removing the URL. The photo does not add anything to this discussion, so I'm removing it.
This young Navy officer's reasons for resigning seem applicable across the Services.
1. Promotions are based more on “hitting the wickets” than exemplary performance.
2. Unsustainable strain on your personal relationships.
3. The military is a homogeneous, anti-intellectual organization.
4. Ownership of self.
On point 3, she writes: "When I was a week into my first deployment, I was preparing my slides for a watch turnover brief as the assistant chiefs of staff all filed in. A fellow junior officer, whose watch station was adjacent to mine, muttered, “Man, the Navy has a never-ending supply of middle-aged white men.” And she was absolutely right. The majority of senior military leaders are white, Christian, conservative men with engineering degrees from a service academy, masters’ degrees from a war college, who grew up middle-class or privileged and whose wives do not have a career outside the home. There is nothing wrong with any of this — indeed, this is probably the profile of most executives in America. But this also means there’s a lack of diversity of ideas, a resistance to alternative ways of thinking, and the lethality of group think."
How do those she describes here (senior officers) respond? Is Service homogeneity a problem, and does it create a "lethality of group think" and a "resistance to alternate ways of thinking"?
You can find the article at taskandpurpose; it is titled "4 Reasons I Am Resigning My Commission As A Naval Officer."
http://taskandpurpose.com
This young Navy officer's reasons for resigning seem applicable across the Services.
1. Promotions are based more on “hitting the wickets” than exemplary performance.
2. Unsustainable strain on your personal relationships.
3. The military is a homogeneous, anti-intellectual organization.
4. Ownership of self.
On point 3, she writes: "When I was a week into my first deployment, I was preparing my slides for a watch turnover brief as the assistant chiefs of staff all filed in. A fellow junior officer, whose watch station was adjacent to mine, muttered, “Man, the Navy has a never-ending supply of middle-aged white men.” And she was absolutely right. The majority of senior military leaders are white, Christian, conservative men with engineering degrees from a service academy, masters’ degrees from a war college, who grew up middle-class or privileged and whose wives do not have a career outside the home. There is nothing wrong with any of this — indeed, this is probably the profile of most executives in America. But this also means there’s a lack of diversity of ideas, a resistance to alternative ways of thinking, and the lethality of group think."
How do those she describes here (senior officers) respond? Is Service homogeneity a problem, and does it create a "lethality of group think" and a "resistance to alternate ways of thinking"?
You can find the article at taskandpurpose; it is titled "4 Reasons I Am Resigning My Commission As A Naval Officer."
http://taskandpurpose.com
Culture
Commission
Officers
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 53
24
24
0
LCDR (Join to see), I only hope that in the future this young officer doesn't look back on the way she handled her departure from the Navy and wished she'd handled it in a more discreet way. This action has "regret" written all over it.
MAJ (Join to see), I guess your discussion got rolled up with another? Last I saw, I thought this was LCDR (Join to see)'s discussion thread!
MAJ (Join to see), I guess your discussion got rolled up with another? Last I saw, I thought this was LCDR (Join to see)'s discussion thread!
(24)
(0)
MCPO Jim Weatherford
Last i checked it was a volunteer service. If you came in looking for an attaboy for doing the job you took an oath to do, then you did everyone a favor. I guess to make us more homogenous we should advance people based on age and looks. Forget talent and the ability to lead.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Stephen C. Though I agree on principle that one should not "air dirty laundry," I think that that perhaps there is a need to be vocal about the need to make changes.
That said... 85% of the service is male. 75% are non-minority races (White or White-Hispanic). So of course, statistically the VAST MAJORITY of mid to senior officers will be White-Males.
That said... 85% of the service is male. 75% are non-minority races (White or White-Hispanic). So of course, statistically the VAST MAJORITY of mid to senior officers will be White-Males.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I don't argue the "airing of dirty laundry" nor do I dispute the statistics that appear to get at the root of her concerns. I simply speculate that someday she'll regret the way she carried it out. Sheer speculation.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Stephen C. Absolutely! Freedom of Speech does not imply Freedom FROM Consequence.
(1)
(0)
19
19
0
What I find a bit amusing is if she expects corporate America to be any different, she is in for a rude awakening. The grass is not greener and the civilian world (and particularly corporate Amercia) has it own share of "-isms" that would rival anything you find in the military.
(19)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
LTC Paul Labrador This was exactly what I was thinking. She is in for a nasty surprise and a wild ride.
To quote the Joker, "wait until she gets a load of me!"
To quote the Joker, "wait until she gets a load of me!"
(1)
(0)
SSG Christopher Parrish
I believe it can be worse in certain situations. At least in the military you know what is expected of you and you have pretty well defined tasks, conditions, and standards.
In the civilian business place there are many times where you have a goal or task and you are not only competing against that task but others who want your job/role and are not as professional and honorable as the military tends to be.
In the civilian business place there are many times where you have a goal or task and you are not only competing against that task but others who want your job/role and are not as professional and honorable as the military tends to be.
(2)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SSG Christopher Parrish I spent my last 15 years in Intel... The "well defined tasks, conditions, and standards" can become not so well defined in a heartbeat ... And one of the weakest links in "the honor of the service."
(0)
(0)
SSgt Rick D
I found her story all too reminiscent of a lot of the negative comments about the military I heard during my 8 years in service. Like her, I decided to leave the military, thinking that the grass would be greener in life outside of the military. I left the military to complete college and to work in corporate America. Fast forward 7 years, I actually see my parents and many friends less now, because of the expensive costs to travel and limited time off from work.
While I enjoy my current job in the financial industry, the brutal reality is that the pay and benefits are typically lower than military pay and benefits, travel opportunities are not common for most people, and the work is not nearly as exciting as being in the military. Also, I learned it is fairly common for people to lose jobs, get pay cuts, or just not move up at a company. There is no guarantee for a pay increase or promotion, even if you are performing well in you job. Even worse, the company you work for may just go out of business. While I enjoy my freedom, I find that I spend most of my time working now to make enough money to survive, which significantly limits my free time. Looking back on my time in the military, I feel that my training, education, travel, and other opportunities were undoubtedly the best that I have had so far in my adult working life. And even better, all of this was paid for by the military.
I agree that there is a perception that the military is a homogeneous, anti-intellectual organization. It is true that the military is very structured and set with policy, standards and traditions. However, I do not think that most companies in the private sector are necessarily much different. Each company I have worked at has had their own set of policies, standards and unique culture. From my experience, it's not like most people join an organization and have intellectual conversations and propose ideas on a regular basis that are going to reshape the organization. Usually, people that do not like the company just leave and go elsewhere---if they can find another equivalent or better job.
I agree with her point about it being difficult to maintain relationships due to the military deployments and time away from family and friends. In that regard, I find life outside the military to be much more suitable for living and staying in the same area for a long amount of time. The military has it's pros and cons, but overall I would still recommend serving in the military to anyone that wants to get free education, training, travel, and unique experiences, and the benefits are nice too!
While I enjoy my current job in the financial industry, the brutal reality is that the pay and benefits are typically lower than military pay and benefits, travel opportunities are not common for most people, and the work is not nearly as exciting as being in the military. Also, I learned it is fairly common for people to lose jobs, get pay cuts, or just not move up at a company. There is no guarantee for a pay increase or promotion, even if you are performing well in you job. Even worse, the company you work for may just go out of business. While I enjoy my freedom, I find that I spend most of my time working now to make enough money to survive, which significantly limits my free time. Looking back on my time in the military, I feel that my training, education, travel, and other opportunities were undoubtedly the best that I have had so far in my adult working life. And even better, all of this was paid for by the military.
I agree that there is a perception that the military is a homogeneous, anti-intellectual organization. It is true that the military is very structured and set with policy, standards and traditions. However, I do not think that most companies in the private sector are necessarily much different. Each company I have worked at has had their own set of policies, standards and unique culture. From my experience, it's not like most people join an organization and have intellectual conversations and propose ideas on a regular basis that are going to reshape the organization. Usually, people that do not like the company just leave and go elsewhere---if they can find another equivalent or better job.
I agree with her point about it being difficult to maintain relationships due to the military deployments and time away from family and friends. In that regard, I find life outside the military to be much more suitable for living and staying in the same area for a long amount of time. The military has it's pros and cons, but overall I would still recommend serving in the military to anyone that wants to get free education, training, travel, and unique experiences, and the benefits are nice too!
(0)
(0)
17
17
0
In a word, this is lame.
1. Promotions - Unless you are setting the world on fire in some way there is likely a lot you have to learn as a JMO (hitting the wickets). She sounds like a lot of the mid 20's crowd that show up in corporate America and think they should be running the place in a few years. She will have an agonizing reappraisal coming up should she ever work in corporate America. My guess is she will end up in a government job somewhere.
2. Strain on your relationships - I hope that wasn't a surprise. She signed up for duty in the US Navy. They operate on these big things called ships, all over the world. You should expect to be gone, a lot. If you are trying to date anyone it will be a strain due to deployments. If you are trying to date another JMO you need your head examined. You will both likely go different directions. And those lucky white men that have a wife and kids at home, they just have it made in the shade being gone for a year at a time.
3. Homogeneous and anti-intellectual - Of course it is. She might want to recall this is an all volunteer force. If there are not enough non white, non Christian men in it (BTW, those remarks could be considered racist or misandry), they should sign up. The anti-intellectual statement is the hallmark of the millienial whiner. Always the smartest person in the room. She is the real intellectual, they just need to listen to her more. They must not know that she was given a trophy every season for soccer/band/softball/etc.
4. Ownership of self: The military requires you to give up a lot of yourself for the greater good of the nation. If yoiu cannot deal with that reality it is time to move on. She seems to have made that realization and rather than leave quietly, she wanted to take a few shots.
I'm glad she is leaving, she would have been unhappy and would have made those around her unhappy. It is not for everyone, fair wind and following seas.
1. Promotions - Unless you are setting the world on fire in some way there is likely a lot you have to learn as a JMO (hitting the wickets). She sounds like a lot of the mid 20's crowd that show up in corporate America and think they should be running the place in a few years. She will have an agonizing reappraisal coming up should she ever work in corporate America. My guess is she will end up in a government job somewhere.
2. Strain on your relationships - I hope that wasn't a surprise. She signed up for duty in the US Navy. They operate on these big things called ships, all over the world. You should expect to be gone, a lot. If you are trying to date anyone it will be a strain due to deployments. If you are trying to date another JMO you need your head examined. You will both likely go different directions. And those lucky white men that have a wife and kids at home, they just have it made in the shade being gone for a year at a time.
3. Homogeneous and anti-intellectual - Of course it is. She might want to recall this is an all volunteer force. If there are not enough non white, non Christian men in it (BTW, those remarks could be considered racist or misandry), they should sign up. The anti-intellectual statement is the hallmark of the millienial whiner. Always the smartest person in the room. She is the real intellectual, they just need to listen to her more. They must not know that she was given a trophy every season for soccer/band/softball/etc.
4. Ownership of self: The military requires you to give up a lot of yourself for the greater good of the nation. If yoiu cannot deal with that reality it is time to move on. She seems to have made that realization and rather than leave quietly, she wanted to take a few shots.
I'm glad she is leaving, she would have been unhappy and would have made those around her unhappy. It is not for everyone, fair wind and following seas.
(17)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
@ 1LT L S I was post Vietnam, the pattern I was wearing is the woodland camoflauge pattern. That one came out right after the poplin in the late 70's/early 80's. We started using it in the Marine Corps about then. The Army had been using it for a while.
I never knew anyone like Elias (Dafoe). I knew a lot of Barnes' though. Not to say that they would have done some of the things Barnes did in the movie but of that mindset. It was a very different time. Lot's of Vietnam Vets in the ranks, not all of them well settled and some of them not pleased with the way they had been treated and rightfully so.
I never knew anyone like Elias (Dafoe). I knew a lot of Barnes' though. Not to say that they would have done some of the things Barnes did in the movie but of that mindset. It was a very different time. Lot's of Vietnam Vets in the ranks, not all of them well settled and some of them not pleased with the way they had been treated and rightfully so.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
First of all, I am no "Joe Navy," but I do have a few issues with her article. The following is from my perspective as a Post-DH card carrying 1110/SWO.
Let's start with this statement:
"There are four major, tangible, common reasons I am resigning that I did not include in the letter."
Why not? This was her opportunity to tell the Navy exactly why she has decided to resign.
Reason 1: Hitting the Wickets.
The wickets are there to ensure that officers progress in their core competencies, such as OOD U/W, Warfare Qualification, EOOW and TAO. As SWOs the only job we are training for is to eventually become a Commanding Officer of a warship. I had great tours as an Engineering Division Officer and 1st Lieutenant and would have been happy if they were longer tours, but I had to learn and move on. If an officer can't obtain one of these "wickets" then they probably aren't going to cut it further on down the road. Are these "wickets" difficult to obtain? Some harder than others, but they are a good place for the Navy to start thinning the flock.
In regards to the part of about brand new LTs competing with LTs serving as Department Heads. They are going to get rated lower....because they aren't carrying the load as a Department Head. Regardless, second tour DivOs leaving their ships as LTs, should be rewarded with a 1 of 1 EP.
Reason 2: Strain on your personal relationships
The Navy isn't any different from any of the other services. This is part of the sacrifice that we and our families freely take on to serve our nation.
Reason 3: The military is a homogeneous, anti-intellectual organization
Officers of color and women of all colors have thrived in the Navy over the course of the last 20 years. At one time I found myself working of a female Captain, who was taking orders from a female two star Admiral, both who were exceptional Officers and Leaders. Female SWOs are thriving in our community commanding on all levels, to include LT Commands, and still being able to raise a family. It takes a lot more work, but aren't all worthwhile things in life.
Reason 4: Ownership of self.
For this reason I commend LT Granville. Leaving the security of the Navy, any branch for that matter, is a huge step and for this reason alone she is resigning for the right reason. If your heart isn't in it then you should leave. I am sure that all of us who have been around a few years have seen a number of folks who have overstayed their productivity. So I say bravo to her for making this very difficult decision and wish her well in next career.
LCDR (Join to see) , thanks for posting this Shipmate.
Let's start with this statement:
"There are four major, tangible, common reasons I am resigning that I did not include in the letter."
Why not? This was her opportunity to tell the Navy exactly why she has decided to resign.
Reason 1: Hitting the Wickets.
The wickets are there to ensure that officers progress in their core competencies, such as OOD U/W, Warfare Qualification, EOOW and TAO. As SWOs the only job we are training for is to eventually become a Commanding Officer of a warship. I had great tours as an Engineering Division Officer and 1st Lieutenant and would have been happy if they were longer tours, but I had to learn and move on. If an officer can't obtain one of these "wickets" then they probably aren't going to cut it further on down the road. Are these "wickets" difficult to obtain? Some harder than others, but they are a good place for the Navy to start thinning the flock.
In regards to the part of about brand new LTs competing with LTs serving as Department Heads. They are going to get rated lower....because they aren't carrying the load as a Department Head. Regardless, second tour DivOs leaving their ships as LTs, should be rewarded with a 1 of 1 EP.
Reason 2: Strain on your personal relationships
The Navy isn't any different from any of the other services. This is part of the sacrifice that we and our families freely take on to serve our nation.
Reason 3: The military is a homogeneous, anti-intellectual organization
Officers of color and women of all colors have thrived in the Navy over the course of the last 20 years. At one time I found myself working of a female Captain, who was taking orders from a female two star Admiral, both who were exceptional Officers and Leaders. Female SWOs are thriving in our community commanding on all levels, to include LT Commands, and still being able to raise a family. It takes a lot more work, but aren't all worthwhile things in life.
Reason 4: Ownership of self.
For this reason I commend LT Granville. Leaving the security of the Navy, any branch for that matter, is a huge step and for this reason alone she is resigning for the right reason. If your heart isn't in it then you should leave. I am sure that all of us who have been around a few years have seen a number of folks who have overstayed their productivity. So I say bravo to her for making this very difficult decision and wish her well in next career.
LCDR (Join to see) , thanks for posting this Shipmate.
(13)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LCDR Jamie Galus I wondered the same thing--why didn't she put these points in her official resignation? Now, I don't understand all the Navy lingo you use about evaluations and ratings, but I see the same thing in the Army: ie, one's evaluation is not in any way generally related to one's performance. Rather, it is almost entirely about timing. One could have the performance of a lifetime in a rating period, but if that is the first rating period with a new rater or senior rater, there's very little chance that the evaluation will be a "top block"....and if one's peer(s) are up for promotion, no matter how much one out-performs one's peers, again, there's no way a junior officer of the same rank will get a better evaluation.
You address the author's point on a lack of diversity (which I also found to be inaccurate), but not the anti-intellectual part. Thoughts on that? From my perch, the author is spot on--the military is "anti-intellectual."
I appreciate your comment on Reason 4. Many of the posts on this thread are quite negative about this point, and its not necessarily negative, for the author or the Navy, that she resigned.
You address the author's point on a lack of diversity (which I also found to be inaccurate), but not the anti-intellectual part. Thoughts on that? From my perch, the author is spot on--the military is "anti-intellectual."
I appreciate your comment on Reason 4. Many of the posts on this thread are quite negative about this point, and its not necessarily negative, for the author or the Navy, that she resigned.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Jamie Galus
MAJ (Join to see) I will have to disagree with the author on this point as well. It is a given that there are a number of things in the Navy that we do where we must adhere to strict procedural compliance, normally in the operation of equipment and weapons. Yet just on my most recent deployment, I found myself having to deal with situations that we had not trained for and did not have preplanned SOPs for. The ship (SMEs, Department Heads, XO and CO along with our embarked forces) had to think outside of the box to figure out ways to accomplish our assigned tasks. The "old man" never said, "This is the way it is done," instead he (being two different COs during the deployment) said, "Ok folks, how are we going to do it?"
Additionally, as a Department Head, I afforded my Officers the same flexibility that I was given as an Ensign when accomplishing tasks. I did not have the time nor the patience to provide Officers with detailed plans of how their divisions were to operate on a day to day basis. Some Officers are better at this than others of course.
Outside of the lifelines of the ship, I can't see how anyone can accuse the Navy of being anti-intellectual. For Surface Warrior Officers in between sea tours we are given more than ample opportunities to attend the Naval Postgraduate School, Service War Colleges and Public/Private Universities. Two examples of Scholar Sailors are VADM Stockdale, who went on to serve as an Epictetus Scholar at the Hover Institute at Stanford and ADM Stavridis who obtained his Ph.D prior to his Commander Command Tour. Outside of these men, anyone can pick up a current copy of the US Naval Institute's Magazine "Proceedings" to see a wide variety of articles written by Sailors from all over the fleet.
Again, I don't consider myself to be the stereotypical "military leader who is a white, Christian, conservative man with an engineering degree from a service academy, masters’ degrees from a war college, who grew up middle-class or privileged and whose wife do not have a career outside the home," but I do feel that based on her, what some would consider limited, experience her view is a bit skewed. Hopefully, once she leaves active duty for a bit she will have to ability to look back on her time in the Navy with a degree of accomplishment and pride.
Edited for my anti-intellectual grammar.
Additionally, as a Department Head, I afforded my Officers the same flexibility that I was given as an Ensign when accomplishing tasks. I did not have the time nor the patience to provide Officers with detailed plans of how their divisions were to operate on a day to day basis. Some Officers are better at this than others of course.
Outside of the lifelines of the ship, I can't see how anyone can accuse the Navy of being anti-intellectual. For Surface Warrior Officers in between sea tours we are given more than ample opportunities to attend the Naval Postgraduate School, Service War Colleges and Public/Private Universities. Two examples of Scholar Sailors are VADM Stockdale, who went on to serve as an Epictetus Scholar at the Hover Institute at Stanford and ADM Stavridis who obtained his Ph.D prior to his Commander Command Tour. Outside of these men, anyone can pick up a current copy of the US Naval Institute's Magazine "Proceedings" to see a wide variety of articles written by Sailors from all over the fleet.
Again, I don't consider myself to be the stereotypical "military leader who is a white, Christian, conservative man with an engineering degree from a service academy, masters’ degrees from a war college, who grew up middle-class or privileged and whose wife do not have a career outside the home," but I do feel that based on her, what some would consider limited, experience her view is a bit skewed. Hopefully, once she leaves active duty for a bit she will have to ability to look back on her time in the Navy with a degree of accomplishment and pride.
Edited for my anti-intellectual grammar.
(3)
(0)
CDR Terry Boles
Agreed, great post! I too believe if you are not a good fit it’s time to move on and quite possibly she wasn’t a good fit for the military model. Not all are and it’s better to recognize this early on than much later and decide to walk away at 10-12 years of service. I also wonder just how much she applied herself as we know a military career requires sacrifice and quite possibly she wasn’t willing to make the sacrifices we make over a career. Too bad she slammed the Navy, rather than looking inward and being honest to herself.
(2)
(0)
LT Charles Baird
MAJ Jeff Yager you state: "...and if one's peer(s) are up for promotion, no matter how much one out-performs one's peers, again, there's no way a junior officer of the same rank will get a better evaluation."
This may be part of the problem. Why is it that if a junior officer who out performs their peers of the same rank who are coming up for promotion doesn't get the better evaluation?
I personally don't agree with this concept; if there is a LT junior to me and they outperform me they deserve to get the better evaluation; and shame on me for not performing better. If we keep giving the officers of a rank that are closer to promotion better evaluations just because they are closer to promotion all we do is perpetuate the "entitlement" attitude that 99% of America has.
Just my two cents.
This may be part of the problem. Why is it that if a junior officer who out performs their peers of the same rank who are coming up for promotion doesn't get the better evaluation?
I personally don't agree with this concept; if there is a LT junior to me and they outperform me they deserve to get the better evaluation; and shame on me for not performing better. If we keep giving the officers of a rank that are closer to promotion better evaluations just because they are closer to promotion all we do is perpetuate the "entitlement" attitude that 99% of America has.
Just my two cents.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
The anti-intellectualism was spot on though... Definitely not an environment for critical thinkers..
(11)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
With respect to those who disparage the use of the IQ test as a reliable method of determining raw intelligence, the IQ test is a solid measurement for ascertaining the basic cognitive capacity of an individual. Nevertheless, careful cultivation of the intellect and a driven temperament are still necessary in order to attain true excellence. It is similar to the role that a high VO2 Max plays in the sport of long distance running. It indicates baseline talent, but other factors are equally important for attaining outstanding success (such as excellent running economy).
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Lieutenant; IQ measures "ability to learn" it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about "ability to use what you have learned" or "ability to operate on less than full information".
I'll take someone who is a bit slow on the uptake but who can use what they know effectively and/or can improvise successfully over someone who can learn anything and can't do diddley squat with what they know any day of the week.
It's much the same as the difference between "job skills" and "work skills". Someone with really good "job skills" who has no "work skills" is almost always going to be semi-useless while someone with really good "work skills" can always be taught "job skills" and be an outstanding performer.
I'll take someone who is a bit slow on the uptake but who can use what they know effectively and/or can improvise successfully over someone who can learn anything and can't do diddley squat with what they know any day of the week.
It's much the same as the difference between "job skills" and "work skills". Someone with really good "job skills" who has no "work skills" is almost always going to be semi-useless while someone with really good "work skills" can always be taught "job skills" and be an outstanding performer.
(5)
(0)
SPC Danny Cannon
@2LT Katherine Elifson , I agree with you. On every single point. However, I ask you to remember that not everyone shares your love of history. Some people believe that they are so important to the MAKING of history, they forget to study it. That is how mistakes are perpetuated, I'll bet you knew that already.
I understood that you were not calling him a Moron. You were simply stating that the comment was moronic. I am considered to be a reasonably intelligent person with a slightly higher than average IQ... but I still make idiotic statements on a regular basis. We're all do, but not everyone believes that they should be told such. I am happy to have a friend base that is not afraid to correct me or call me out. Goodness, if they didn't, how would I ever improve? If I kept the same line of thinking from the time I was 15 to the things I died, ick, what a horrible thought! So I applaud you for speaking up. I caution you, please realize that some people will not change. I urge you not to waste extra time on them. Let some one else have a go and you move on. You are a talent and a thinker. Do not let people who will not change slow you down.
You made incredibly insightful points that were intelligently worded and you received nothing but disdain. That's not your fault, ma'am.
Sometimes it is not those in the discussion you effect the most, but those watching silently from the sidelines.
I only spoke up so you would know that your words did not fall only on deaf ears and blind eyes. Others are watching.
Good bless and I wish you all well.
I understood that you were not calling him a Moron. You were simply stating that the comment was moronic. I am considered to be a reasonably intelligent person with a slightly higher than average IQ... but I still make idiotic statements on a regular basis. We're all do, but not everyone believes that they should be told such. I am happy to have a friend base that is not afraid to correct me or call me out. Goodness, if they didn't, how would I ever improve? If I kept the same line of thinking from the time I was 15 to the things I died, ick, what a horrible thought! So I applaud you for speaking up. I caution you, please realize that some people will not change. I urge you not to waste extra time on them. Let some one else have a go and you move on. You are a talent and a thinker. Do not let people who will not change slow you down.
You made incredibly insightful points that were intelligently worded and you received nothing but disdain. That's not your fault, ma'am.
Sometimes it is not those in the discussion you effect the most, but those watching silently from the sidelines.
I only spoke up so you would know that your words did not fall only on deaf ears and blind eyes. Others are watching.
Good bless and I wish you all well.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Michael Hasbun, your experiences are clearly different from my own (as are those of Anna Granville). I have found that while there are plenty of senior leaders in the military that resist change and squash critical thinking, these are not the majority. I have been encouraged to think critically, create innovated solutions to complex problems, and to empower my subordinates to do the same. I have been recognized and rewarded for these efforts, and I think that it reflects the attitude of teaching our Soldiers how to think, but not what to think.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
It seems that she feels she is quitting and trying to justify it to the reader. I cannot speak well for officers who never served enlisted time, but for Mustangs, we see the commission as a chance to change things we do not agree with or could do better. Unfortunately it takes time and seniority to be able to do that, which requires the willingness to play the game long enough to get to the point where you can change the rules. In short, I agree those problems exist to some extent in the Navy, but are only reasons to leave if a person singularly decides to leave.
(7)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Paul Labrador Sir: That is at once an interesting, important, and terrifying perspective. I suppose you're right, though: leveling the playing field, thus ensuring mediocrity, likely contributes to mission accomplishment. It would be great, though, if the system was different.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I don't see "leveling the playing field" (and I'm not necessarily sure that is the right way to describe it) as necessarily ensuring mediocrity. Toleration of mediocrity ensure mediocrity.
(0)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) It's a very fine line between ensuring mediocrity and ensuring AT LEAST mediocrity with the ability to move well beyond that, which is what I believe we are working with.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
First, I was a bit surprised it was so self-centered. I would think someone who has volunteered to serve would have, well, a little more service to offer.
Then, I was surprised she was surprised by deployments, and how they make your love-life difficult. Cheese with your whine?
But then, I am a middle-aged white guy, so by her definition, part of the problem. How rude of me to have been born that way.
Finally, I am pleased she is seeking to discover and "own" herself. Hippies and dreamers everywhere are rejoicing. Too harsh?
Then, I was surprised she was surprised by deployments, and how they make your love-life difficult. Cheese with your whine?
But then, I am a middle-aged white guy, so by her definition, part of the problem. How rude of me to have been born that way.
Finally, I am pleased she is seeking to discover and "own" herself. Hippies and dreamers everywhere are rejoicing. Too harsh?
(6)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir: Probably too harsh, yes. :) It would be interesting to survey the responses on this thread by middle-aged white guys to see how many of the responses by middle-aged white guys support the argument the author is making.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz, I'm right there with you. At no point does she really mention the merit of serving her country, or selfless service. It gives off an impression of "What can the Navy do for me/my career?"
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I'm saying spot on. We really need to shatter the group think mentality of the zero-defect mediocrity that has infected the DoD.
There is very rarely a challenge to the status quo that is taken seriously. We do not promote on an individuals ability to solve problems, but on their ability to follow orders. Which also makes for a convenient scapegoat when a senior is promoted beyond their level of competence...
We no longer support improvement (if we ever did), and continue to reinforce the bureaucracy. Leaders that make mistakes and learn are lost in the shuffle because of unsat fitreps to individuals without imagination.
There is very rarely a challenge to the status quo that is taken seriously. We do not promote on an individuals ability to solve problems, but on their ability to follow orders. Which also makes for a convenient scapegoat when a senior is promoted beyond their level of competence...
We no longer support improvement (if we ever did), and continue to reinforce the bureaucracy. Leaders that make mistakes and learn are lost in the shuffle because of unsat fitreps to individuals without imagination.
(6)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
That's funny I see a lot of group think in the civilian world, just take Climate Change. They are not delving into the observable and basing their models on that but preprogrammed hype and such edifying matter like statistics generated by political action groups.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SSgt (Join to see), can't deny that. There is a problem with mob mentality and the reason we built this nation as a Republic as opposed to a Democracy.
It is even further demonstrated in Corporate America. The way we allowed certain industries to become "too big to fail" because of American group think that "bigger is better".
We continue to succeed because of young innovators and those who are willing to risk, and as long as we can keep barriers to entry from springing up, so that innovation continues to rule the day, we will become great again. But the trend of group think and mob mentality that caters to mass media and it's propaganda is a fast track to mediocrity. We do not need, or even want, a nation of yes men.
It is even further demonstrated in Corporate America. The way we allowed certain industries to become "too big to fail" because of American group think that "bigger is better".
We continue to succeed because of young innovators and those who are willing to risk, and as long as we can keep barriers to entry from springing up, so that innovation continues to rule the day, we will become great again. But the trend of group think and mob mentality that caters to mass media and it's propaganda is a fast track to mediocrity. We do not need, or even want, a nation of yes men.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Well I am frustrated that we are having billionaires that soon will be trillionaires. I mean people are starving and dying and all those children have is a hot dog and a big gulp. And bother parties are privy to this and encourage it.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
SSgt (Join to see), did you see the spin on the CEO of Gravity Credit Cards based out of Seattle? The CEO cut his salary by $900,000 to increase the minimum wage paid by the company. A phased approach to make the lowest salary at the company $70,000 in the next 3 years. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gravity-payments-ceo-live-70000-worker-wage-thinks/story?id=30316052
Why CEO Thinks He'll Still Live Luxe Life on $70K Worker Wage
The CEO of a credit-card payments company in Seattle said executive pay is "out of whack," so he's cutting his own pay and creating a minimum salary for his workers.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
Smoke and fire.
Most good "JO's" I know are competing to go to special communities or special assignments or getting out.
Lots of smoke out there. Most J.O.'s getting out cite the lack of ability to control their own destiny and the incentives for mediocrity as a push factor.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/308346/
http://www.amazon.com/Bleeding-Talent-Military-Mismanages-Revolution/dp/ [login to see]
http://www.dodretention.org/
It doesn't seem like as an institution we have even the most basic statistics as to the quality of our separating members, NCOs, JOs or above. Are we tracking whether we're losing more from the top third, middle third or bottom third of the peer groups? Shouldn't we be? If we won't even frame the problem or do our "JIPOE" how can we hope to address a challenge?
Most good "JO's" I know are competing to go to special communities or special assignments or getting out.
Lots of smoke out there. Most J.O.'s getting out cite the lack of ability to control their own destiny and the incentives for mediocrity as a push factor.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/308346/
http://www.amazon.com/Bleeding-Talent-Military-Mismanages-Revolution/dp/ [login to see]
http://www.dodretention.org/
It doesn't seem like as an institution we have even the most basic statistics as to the quality of our separating members, NCOs, JOs or above. Are we tracking whether we're losing more from the top third, middle third or bottom third of the peer groups? Shouldn't we be? If we won't even frame the problem or do our "JIPOE" how can we hope to address a challenge?
Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving
Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.
(6)
(0)
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
COL Vincent Stoneking, great points. I would add that the "up or out" and generic career track mentality doesn't help either. Just because someone is good at one grade or position doesn't necessarily mean that they are good at a higher grade or position. I've know some amazing staff officers who suck at command. And in my field, amazing clinicians who I wouldn't trust to march around privates.
(6)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
LTC Paul Labrador
100% agreed. Line and Staff require markedly different skills and mindsets. I generally believe that Officers should have a taste of both early in their careers, but most should quickly single-track. I'll have to write more tonight when I'm not at risk of being late!
100% agreed. Line and Staff require markedly different skills and mindsets. I generally believe that Officers should have a taste of both early in their careers, but most should quickly single-track. I'll have to write more tonight when I'm not at risk of being late!
(3)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Capt Richard I P. Well, a quick search of Rally Point confirms that I don't know how to search rally point effectively. Assuming I have some down time this weekend, I may pen a top level post with some of my thoughts.
A few of my repeated high points:
1. Personnel should be evaluated on a bell curve - not everyone (or most, or even half) can be rockstars. Most are going to be average, within 1 standard deviation from the mean.
2. Being average IS OK. (see #4)
3. Line and staff are different beasts. Officers should be exposed to both early in their careers, but most should single-track where their strengths lie.
4. The up or out promotion system is a BAD thing. We should separate people who perform poorly and promote those who demonstrate ability at the next higher level. I have no issue with a 20 year CPT, if that CPT does their job well. (Same for the 20 year SGT, but I naturally am focusing on Officers.) Not everybody needs to be type A to be useful to the organization.
5. The 28/30 year MRD needs to die in a fire. It is INSANE to tell an MAJ/LTC/COL at 49-50 years of age, with 28 years of experience, at the hight of their knowledge, experience, and understanding - in the PRIME of their working years that they have been here too long, that we are going to FLUSH all that institutional knowledge and insist that they 1) take a retirement and 2) go get another job, which will often be doing the same things, but as a civilian DA employee...
[Note: I have a bit of skin in the game for #5, but I would believe it even if I didn't...]
6. People should be assigned based primarily on the needs of the service, but with their abilities, interests, and desires a close second. If we want people to make a career, we need to not sh$t on their desires.
7. Mandatory moves every couple of years shouldn't be. "Homesteading" has some legitimate bad effects on the force, but it also has some legitimate good effects. I've known many people who retired because "I'm not going to X!!" Implied in this is support for an actual regimental system (not "affiliation", but an actual system as seen in the British and Canadian forces) with regiments having a given geographical footprint.
I would say that the above 7 points gore at least 3 of each and every reader's sacred oxen. And acknowledge that any single one of them would result in at least 10 years of turmoil throughout the force, if not more. However, I think it would move us to a much more robust force, with better leaders, and higher morale.
Then again, I've been wrong before.
A few of my repeated high points:
1. Personnel should be evaluated on a bell curve - not everyone (or most, or even half) can be rockstars. Most are going to be average, within 1 standard deviation from the mean.
2. Being average IS OK. (see #4)
3. Line and staff are different beasts. Officers should be exposed to both early in their careers, but most should single-track where their strengths lie.
4. The up or out promotion system is a BAD thing. We should separate people who perform poorly and promote those who demonstrate ability at the next higher level. I have no issue with a 20 year CPT, if that CPT does their job well. (Same for the 20 year SGT, but I naturally am focusing on Officers.) Not everybody needs to be type A to be useful to the organization.
5. The 28/30 year MRD needs to die in a fire. It is INSANE to tell an MAJ/LTC/COL at 49-50 years of age, with 28 years of experience, at the hight of their knowledge, experience, and understanding - in the PRIME of their working years that they have been here too long, that we are going to FLUSH all that institutional knowledge and insist that they 1) take a retirement and 2) go get another job, which will often be doing the same things, but as a civilian DA employee...
[Note: I have a bit of skin in the game for #5, but I would believe it even if I didn't...]
6. People should be assigned based primarily on the needs of the service, but with their abilities, interests, and desires a close second. If we want people to make a career, we need to not sh$t on their desires.
7. Mandatory moves every couple of years shouldn't be. "Homesteading" has some legitimate bad effects on the force, but it also has some legitimate good effects. I've known many people who retired because "I'm not going to X!!" Implied in this is support for an actual regimental system (not "affiliation", but an actual system as seen in the British and Canadian forces) with regiments having a given geographical footprint.
I would say that the above 7 points gore at least 3 of each and every reader's sacred oxen. And acknowledge that any single one of them would result in at least 10 years of turmoil throughout the force, if not more. However, I think it would move us to a much more robust force, with better leaders, and higher morale.
Then again, I've been wrong before.
(4)
(0)
5
5
0
In my 26 years I saw this. It's a shame that the senior personnel, officer and enlisted, would rather have a bunch of robots instead of sailors who are able to think out of the box individually as well as within a group. To be able to come up with ideas and present them is a plus, however I had seen so many get shot down because it did not fall along the norm. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the norm is a bad thing but the senior leadership must encourage the individual to think and be more creative and be able to do this without fear of being ridiculed or made inferior. My thoughts.
(5)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Concur Senior. Especially in my line of work, give me a sailor who can think outside the box any day over an automaton that can regurgitate what they learned in A School.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google