Posted on Feb 26, 2020
Op-ed: An open letter to all commanding officers
3.12K
6
3
1
1
0
This is a great op-ed piece in the Navy Times that makes some some valid points, but feels as though it is still missing information. For instance, the author, Patrick Fisher, states that "The processes used to gauge and track feedback from junior sailors require fixing." I want to agree with this statement, but first must ask what feedback is he referring to? Fisher goes on to say that this feedback from junior sailors is "bottlenecked by senior sailors," which disallows commanding officers from making "cogent and timely personnel and policy decisions."
What is an example of the feedback he is referring to that a CO would be interested in, or even privy to? When commands are looking for specific feedback from junior sailors, they will hold a command climate survey, for instance. Yes, it is true that paperwork (such as requests for special liberty or even leave, despite most often being done digitally these days) often gets held up in a bottleneck of somebody in the chain not addressing it. They may sit on it too long for it to ultimately get approved, which denies the sailor the opportunity requested in the first place without ever haven given them a fair chance at it (this can and does happen even when a sailor makes a request well in advance, so as to avoid this very fate). These, however, are not examples of feedback that would be on a CO's radar. So before I can wholeheartedly agree or disagree with Fisher on this point, I'd like to know more about what he is referring to specifically.
On top of that, he recommends a Command Innovation Committee (CIC), which sounds great in theory (ooh...another committee...so official!), but would just be one more thing to take attention and focus away from the jobs sailors are supposed to be doing. It's just another collateral duty, which is the death of the subject matter expert (a dying breed). Sure, a First Class or a Chief is considered a subject matter expert, but I've met few who actually fit that bill. Adding ANOTHER collateral duty to take their attention away from their actual jobs is not the answer.
I feel more conviction regarding Fishers second insight: too much time on paperwork, not enough time training. This is critical...the level of knowledge today's sailors have seems to be much lower than that of yesterday's sailors. Technician's often don't even know how to troubleshoot...instead, they call in contractors or tech assist. To troubleshoot! The First Class or Chief doesn't train them and they shouldn't be responsible to train themselves (and are bitter because they are told to "figure it out"). Why aren't they being trained? Likely because they don't know how to do their jobs either, so can't train what they don't know. Why don't they know? Because they've been chasing the advancement trophy which places much more emphasis on collateral duties than it does actually knowing your own job. There are some people in leadership positions who are never in their office for work because they are so scattered with all their collateral duties. And that is seen as a positive thing! That is praised! Kudos to that sailor for getting face time with the senior leadership! The CO knows his/her name...s/he's going places! Nevermind that they don't know how to do their job...and therefore can't train their junior sailors...their EVAL has so many titles on it that you'd think they should run for office.
Not only is the excess of collateral duties taking a sailor further and further away from his/her job, but they're not even performing those collateral duties well! How can they when they have seven different titles? How can anybody be great at what they do when they do twelve different things? Where is the focus? Where is the attention? There isn't any. So not only do sailors not know their jobs, they don't even know their collateral duties that are the key to getting them advanced, but advancement they do take.
The culture in the Navy teaches us to value advancement over understanding. It teaches us to chase the next pay grade because if we don't, we are seen as not worthy. If we don't have a plate full of collateral duties, then what are we good for? Oh, you just do your job? Well, you're never going to make Chief that way!
I would love to discuss this topic in more depth, and feel I can make a more thoughtful argument. As it stands, this is straight from the heart, so could surely use an edit. I best share the link now before I ramble. I would love to hear your feedback!
What is an example of the feedback he is referring to that a CO would be interested in, or even privy to? When commands are looking for specific feedback from junior sailors, they will hold a command climate survey, for instance. Yes, it is true that paperwork (such as requests for special liberty or even leave, despite most often being done digitally these days) often gets held up in a bottleneck of somebody in the chain not addressing it. They may sit on it too long for it to ultimately get approved, which denies the sailor the opportunity requested in the first place without ever haven given them a fair chance at it (this can and does happen even when a sailor makes a request well in advance, so as to avoid this very fate). These, however, are not examples of feedback that would be on a CO's radar. So before I can wholeheartedly agree or disagree with Fisher on this point, I'd like to know more about what he is referring to specifically.
On top of that, he recommends a Command Innovation Committee (CIC), which sounds great in theory (ooh...another committee...so official!), but would just be one more thing to take attention and focus away from the jobs sailors are supposed to be doing. It's just another collateral duty, which is the death of the subject matter expert (a dying breed). Sure, a First Class or a Chief is considered a subject matter expert, but I've met few who actually fit that bill. Adding ANOTHER collateral duty to take their attention away from their actual jobs is not the answer.
I feel more conviction regarding Fishers second insight: too much time on paperwork, not enough time training. This is critical...the level of knowledge today's sailors have seems to be much lower than that of yesterday's sailors. Technician's often don't even know how to troubleshoot...instead, they call in contractors or tech assist. To troubleshoot! The First Class or Chief doesn't train them and they shouldn't be responsible to train themselves (and are bitter because they are told to "figure it out"). Why aren't they being trained? Likely because they don't know how to do their jobs either, so can't train what they don't know. Why don't they know? Because they've been chasing the advancement trophy which places much more emphasis on collateral duties than it does actually knowing your own job. There are some people in leadership positions who are never in their office for work because they are so scattered with all their collateral duties. And that is seen as a positive thing! That is praised! Kudos to that sailor for getting face time with the senior leadership! The CO knows his/her name...s/he's going places! Nevermind that they don't know how to do their job...and therefore can't train their junior sailors...their EVAL has so many titles on it that you'd think they should run for office.
Not only is the excess of collateral duties taking a sailor further and further away from his/her job, but they're not even performing those collateral duties well! How can they when they have seven different titles? How can anybody be great at what they do when they do twelve different things? Where is the focus? Where is the attention? There isn't any. So not only do sailors not know their jobs, they don't even know their collateral duties that are the key to getting them advanced, but advancement they do take.
The culture in the Navy teaches us to value advancement over understanding. It teaches us to chase the next pay grade because if we don't, we are seen as not worthy. If we don't have a plate full of collateral duties, then what are we good for? Oh, you just do your job? Well, you're never going to make Chief that way!
I would love to discuss this topic in more depth, and feel I can make a more thoughtful argument. As it stands, this is straight from the heart, so could surely use an edit. I best share the link now before I ramble. I would love to hear your feedback!
Op-ed: An open letter to all commanding officers
Posted from navytimes.com
Sailors
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
Well, I generally agree with your position; "feedback" from the Blueshirts is very valuable...but how intermediate-level seniors in the chain of command curate that information is subjective. I also agree that operational training being sacrificed for administrative tasks could be a serious issue.
However...I could be a bit more "blunt".
Personally, I think we need to get back to basics; both at the deck-plate, and bridge level. We are not a corporation; we're a fighting force. We do not "manage" a "work force"...we lead, and are combatant Sailors. Our homes are steel vessels that cross dangerous seas in good weather and bad, during peace...and war. No one's going to deny that the life of a junior Sailor at sea is hard. No empathetic leader is going to deny that a good commander does what they can to ensure those hardships are not endured in vain. What we cannot do is accommodate everyone's individual needs or point of view on every issue under the sun. Likewise, we need to return to that "special trust and confidence" that's supposed to mean a CO and their subordinate leaders are capable of leading without every accountant, lawyer, and politician holding their hand. COs cannot implement change if they're empowered only to fulfill the mandates of much senior persons ashore. If those mandates include making things "look good" on paper, as opposed to making them "good"...we have bigger problems.
However...I could be a bit more "blunt".
Personally, I think we need to get back to basics; both at the deck-plate, and bridge level. We are not a corporation; we're a fighting force. We do not "manage" a "work force"...we lead, and are combatant Sailors. Our homes are steel vessels that cross dangerous seas in good weather and bad, during peace...and war. No one's going to deny that the life of a junior Sailor at sea is hard. No empathetic leader is going to deny that a good commander does what they can to ensure those hardships are not endured in vain. What we cannot do is accommodate everyone's individual needs or point of view on every issue under the sun. Likewise, we need to return to that "special trust and confidence" that's supposed to mean a CO and their subordinate leaders are capable of leading without every accountant, lawyer, and politician holding their hand. COs cannot implement change if they're empowered only to fulfill the mandates of much senior persons ashore. If those mandates include making things "look good" on paper, as opposed to making them "good"...we have bigger problems.
(0)
(0)
LTJG Stephanie Thompson
LCDR Joshua Gillespie I've read through your post twice now, and will read it at least one more time before I submit this comment, but I really want to reply to your response. I just want to be sure I am understanding the point(s) you are making.
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say we "need to get back to basics." What are the basics? Are you referencing a time when sailors simply did what they were told, no questions asked, respecting (at least publicly) the person in charge giving the order? Or are you referring to "the basics" being training in general?
It's true, the Navy is a fighting force. But...we are also a work force. The majority of a sailor's life is working...not fighting. Is the work in preparation for a fight? Theoretically, yes. This is why training is so very important...but not just any training. Effective training. Training that shows results, that can be used and used again, that gets people taking action, not falling asleep at their computer.
I certainly agree that COs are generally capable of leading "without every accountant, lawyer, and politician holding their hand," and indeed ought to be capable of as much. By virtue of their position, they should be able to confidently make decisions that affect others lives, whether for better or worse, and take responsibility for those decisions no matter the outcome. That's a hefty weight to put on a person's shoulders. It is also why their subordinate leaders are so important to them (positionally speaking). A CO should not have to make every decision. They should focus on big picture decisions, and should not have to concern themselves with whether people are routing paperwork properly. CO's do have to worry about this from time to time, and it is a massive waste of their energy. That type of concern should be handled at much lower levels.
Culture at a command starts at the top. The CO's approach, his/her personality, the things s/he does or does not share with the crew, they way in which s/he shares, the response to transgressions, etc., all influence the way everybody else goes about their day. Does the crew have confidence in the CO? DO they trust that s/he has their back? If not, then sailors are likely to go rogue, watching their own backs more than anybody else's, because that's the message, overt or not, that they receive from above.
It seems that there is quite an emphasis on making things look good on paper, rather than actually BE good. This is clear when you see all the people who advance without actually knowing how to do their own job. Knowledge and skill is not rewarded... the nicest uniform and the biggest smile are what is rewarded. There are plenty of charismatic sailors walking the deckplates that get high praise from senior ranking individuals, and when that person that everybody likes doesn't actually know how to do their job, this fact is conveniently swept aside. Junior sailors see this, too, and take note. If this is the feedback that Patrick Fisher was talking about in his op-ed, then it is indeed very important for senior leadership to take heed, to prevent the bottleneck of information and recognize - and address - the larger issue of what the Navy actually places value on (pretty words and titles in an EVAL), not what the Navy pays lip service to (knowledge and skill).
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say we "need to get back to basics." What are the basics? Are you referencing a time when sailors simply did what they were told, no questions asked, respecting (at least publicly) the person in charge giving the order? Or are you referring to "the basics" being training in general?
It's true, the Navy is a fighting force. But...we are also a work force. The majority of a sailor's life is working...not fighting. Is the work in preparation for a fight? Theoretically, yes. This is why training is so very important...but not just any training. Effective training. Training that shows results, that can be used and used again, that gets people taking action, not falling asleep at their computer.
I certainly agree that COs are generally capable of leading "without every accountant, lawyer, and politician holding their hand," and indeed ought to be capable of as much. By virtue of their position, they should be able to confidently make decisions that affect others lives, whether for better or worse, and take responsibility for those decisions no matter the outcome. That's a hefty weight to put on a person's shoulders. It is also why their subordinate leaders are so important to them (positionally speaking). A CO should not have to make every decision. They should focus on big picture decisions, and should not have to concern themselves with whether people are routing paperwork properly. CO's do have to worry about this from time to time, and it is a massive waste of their energy. That type of concern should be handled at much lower levels.
Culture at a command starts at the top. The CO's approach, his/her personality, the things s/he does or does not share with the crew, they way in which s/he shares, the response to transgressions, etc., all influence the way everybody else goes about their day. Does the crew have confidence in the CO? DO they trust that s/he has their back? If not, then sailors are likely to go rogue, watching their own backs more than anybody else's, because that's the message, overt or not, that they receive from above.
It seems that there is quite an emphasis on making things look good on paper, rather than actually BE good. This is clear when you see all the people who advance without actually knowing how to do their own job. Knowledge and skill is not rewarded... the nicest uniform and the biggest smile are what is rewarded. There are plenty of charismatic sailors walking the deckplates that get high praise from senior ranking individuals, and when that person that everybody likes doesn't actually know how to do their job, this fact is conveniently swept aside. Junior sailors see this, too, and take note. If this is the feedback that Patrick Fisher was talking about in his op-ed, then it is indeed very important for senior leadership to take heed, to prevent the bottleneck of information and recognize - and address - the larger issue of what the Navy actually places value on (pretty words and titles in an EVAL), not what the Navy pays lip service to (knowledge and skill).
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
LTJG Stephanie Thompson - Thank you for your response. By "basics", I mean doing what we're primarily there to do...operate warships at sea. Certainly there are myriad other factors that fit into the life of a well-trained, well-provided for, well-cared for crew...but reading through some of the materials and reviewing information regarding recent developments...my fear is that we're sacrificing critical skill sets and operationally successful models in the interest of results that favor only superficial concerns. For example; are we pushing too hard to get people "qualified" and promoted so we can meet unrealistic short-term expectations? Are we mismanaging the Fleet's manning requirements resulting in shorter careers for experienced Sailors? Are we over-tasking leaders, enlisted and commissioned alike, with objectives that do not serve to increase operational readiness? Do I think everything would be "fixed" by people just "doing as their told"...absolutely not; quite the opposite actually. However, I don't think we can move forward by asking for everyone's input either. We gain experience by being at sea; so I don't see any benefit in shortening deployment cycles, or reducing at-sea tours-suggestions I don't believe were specifically cited in the article, but that are commonly forwarded. Neither do I see any advantage in breaking down the centuries-old traditions of command at sea. In our profession, it's essential that people follow hierarchies. However, we do owe it to subordinate members to be the absolute best leaders we can be. In this point, we seem to see eye to eye, and share at least some of the same opinions regarding how we accomplish this. Leaders have to be "free" to make "minor" mistakes...that's how they learn. The "zero defect" mentality that's pervaded the Fleet for quite some time has (as you astutely point out) created a vacuum for actual competency.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google