Before going farther, please read this article:
https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/somethings-wrong-surface-fleet-arent-talking/
We have deeper problems. We have a promotion system that rewards “good paper” and career-enhancing tours. The system lends itself to career preservation and a general reluctance to relay bad news up the chain of command, particularly if mission capability is adversely impacted. I served a DH tour in a ship that was preparing for INSURV and the CO was either getting bad news and withholding it or he was being fed incorrect information from down the chain and feeding said bad information up his chain of command. CNSL visits were not very pleasant as a result. I’ve seen this happen at lower levels because a JO doesn’t want to get yelled at or they’re afraid of getting bad paper.
Our system of selecting officers for promotion or command is archaic and rooted in comparisons of performance records. We consider good paper as an indicator of "sustained superior performance at sea." What it often actually represents are officers who actually perform well, officers who don't perform well but whose COs are beholden to indicators that they develop subordinates, or COs who don't care and will write bad paper on virtually all of their officers.
This archaic system encourages officers to flat-out lie about material and mission readiness. Who, in their right mind, would relish telling their CO that the ship can't perform a mission or even get underway? Any officer who would tell their CO that the ship is welded to the pier would risk grave career damage. And any CO who would tell their Commodore or Type Commander, "Sorry, Sir, but I can't safely get my ship underway to conduct the mission because of _____________." also risks grave career damage.
We pride ourselves on this "can-do" attitude and "top-down" leadership. Both are farces. We say we can do because we lack the guts to tell our bosses that we can't. We get limited funding. We consistently fail to man our ships to ROC/POE and Manpower Document requirements. We don't get adequately funded for maintenance. And yet, we foolishly pride ourselves on our ability to execute, even if we technically or safely cannot..
As one of my Chiefs (now retired) told me via FB, it is "amazing to me how these paper leaders were getting promoted and the effective great leaders got looked over." The good Chief makes it clear that this flawed and archaic promotion system has left good Officer and Chief talent on the table.
Until we change the mechanisms we have in place to select Officers for promotion or command, I expect some people will still misrepresent their readiness and capabilities. What happens when the lies get pushed up? Chief lies to DH. DH pushes bad gouge up or outright lies to avoid the next ass-chewing or possible career damage. Or CO is briefing all green and then can’t get underway like that CG after the Haiti earthquake.
The existing systems merely motivate our up-and-coming Officers to act in the interest of their FITREP vice mission accomplishment. Additionally, our promotion system punishes risk and rewards careerism. I know more than one Officer who suffered career damage because they happened to serve under now-retired Captain Holly Graf. I’ve never observed a board but I doubt being a survivor of toxic leadership is ever discussed or considered when putting affected records against the rest of the records. Regardless, board proceedings, by law, are never discussed so I have no way of knowing.
And since we reward careerism and punish risk, I feel that if we suddenly found ourselves in WW III, we would surely perform as abysmally as we did during much of 1942.
.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/somethings-wrong-surface-fleet-arent-talking/
We have deeper problems. We have a promotion system that rewards “good paper” and career-enhancing tours. The system lends itself to career preservation and a general reluctance to relay bad news up the chain of command, particularly if mission capability is adversely impacted. I served a DH tour in a ship that was preparing for INSURV and the CO was either getting bad news and withholding it or he was being fed incorrect information from down the chain and feeding said bad information up his chain of command. CNSL visits were not very pleasant as a result. I’ve seen this happen at lower levels because a JO doesn’t want to get yelled at or they’re afraid of getting bad paper.
Our system of selecting officers for promotion or command is archaic and rooted in comparisons of performance records. We consider good paper as an indicator of "sustained superior performance at sea." What it often actually represents are officers who actually perform well, officers who don't perform well but whose COs are beholden to indicators that they develop subordinates, or COs who don't care and will write bad paper on virtually all of their officers.
This archaic system encourages officers to flat-out lie about material and mission readiness. Who, in their right mind, would relish telling their CO that the ship can't perform a mission or even get underway? Any officer who would tell their CO that the ship is welded to the pier would risk grave career damage. And any CO who would tell their Commodore or Type Commander, "Sorry, Sir, but I can't safely get my ship underway to conduct the mission because of _____________." also risks grave career damage.
We pride ourselves on this "can-do" attitude and "top-down" leadership. Both are farces. We say we can do because we lack the guts to tell our bosses that we can't. We get limited funding. We consistently fail to man our ships to ROC/POE and Manpower Document requirements. We don't get adequately funded for maintenance. And yet, we foolishly pride ourselves on our ability to execute, even if we technically or safely cannot..
As one of my Chiefs (now retired) told me via FB, it is "amazing to me how these paper leaders were getting promoted and the effective great leaders got looked over." The good Chief makes it clear that this flawed and archaic promotion system has left good Officer and Chief talent on the table.
Until we change the mechanisms we have in place to select Officers for promotion or command, I expect some people will still misrepresent their readiness and capabilities. What happens when the lies get pushed up? Chief lies to DH. DH pushes bad gouge up or outright lies to avoid the next ass-chewing or possible career damage. Or CO is briefing all green and then can’t get underway like that CG after the Haiti earthquake.
The existing systems merely motivate our up-and-coming Officers to act in the interest of their FITREP vice mission accomplishment. Additionally, our promotion system punishes risk and rewards careerism. I know more than one Officer who suffered career damage because they happened to serve under now-retired Captain Holly Graf. I’ve never observed a board but I doubt being a survivor of toxic leadership is ever discussed or considered when putting affected records against the rest of the records. Regardless, board proceedings, by law, are never discussed so I have no way of knowing.
And since we reward careerism and punish risk, I feel that if we suddenly found ourselves in WW III, we would surely perform as abysmally as we did during much of 1942.
.
Comments
Post a Comment