Enlisted Essay Contest Winner, 3rd Prize
Most people usually are moved to write only when their feelings about a matter rise to a level approaching passion. No one ever asked to see a restaurant manager because his meal was fair to middling. Last year's 1st prize winner, James Murphy, put it in a particularly succinct fashion: "I tried to decide what made me mad, and that's how I wrote."1
On occasion, one is moved to a similar emotional pitch by a positive experience. In this instance, it is the evolving role of enlisted members. Over the past 20 or so years we continually have needed to become leaner and meaner, to do more with less. Expanding the role of enlisted personnel permits us to do just that, as well as to increase leadership capabilities in both the officer and enlisted communities, and to affirm by way of action that not only are we nafraid of significant change, but we welcome it and embrace the opportunities that come with it, as well.
Today, enlisted personnel are being trusted with assignments that just a short time in the past—no more than two or three years ago—were the exclusive province of officers. When the destroyer Cole (DDG-67) pulled out of Norfolk in 2000 with a watch team on the bridge composed entirely of enlisted sailors, it was front-page news. In 2004, though it is not a regular practice, it no longer is a headline grabber. Intelligence specialists are being employed as briefers, and not as mere automatons reading a script given to them. Signalmen first class are standing watches as officers of the deck while under way and as members of the officer of the deck rotation.2 Petty officers are engineering officers of the watch, and a new chief was tactical action officer in a combat v information center.3 Moreover, this manning took place in wartime, under way in the Persian I Gulf.
These enlisted personnel are performing—in the most critical situations—duties that carry tremendous authority and responsibility. They make decisions on which much depends—the safety of the ship, the success of the mission, and yes, lives.
Here is where the rubber hits the road: these occasions and milestones underline the fact that the talents necessary to fill these slots are not exclusive to the wardroom.
Posting enlisted personnel in responsible positions is not new. Doing so with such frequency and on such a widespread basis, is however.
What gave rise to this very real and increased reliance on enlisted personnel? It did not happen overnight, and no one person is responsible. It must have been brewing for some time. That being said, an audacious move away from the status quo demands abundant support from different quarters, or it will fizzle quickly. At the Naval Institute's annual meeting last year, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark, in response to a question regarding the degree to which the Navy is prepared to entertain controversial ideas, said: "It really gets to the heart of how an institution establishes an environment where creativeness and initiative are cherished. . . . There is a place for bold aggressive expression of thought . . . so bring your ideas. We want to hear them."
In the July 2003 Proceedings, Rear Admiral William Holland addressed Admiral Clark's remarks and the benefits of an atmosphere that encourages a free and unfettered exchange of ideas in the article "Dissent Is Not Disloyalty." "The Navy has been recognized as a service that tolerates dissent," Admiral Holland wrote, "and encourages its officers to represent their views openly and responsibly."
I am prepared to take Admiral Holland's word that since Rear Admiral Stephen Luce's time and the founding of the Naval War College the Navy has encourage its officers to "represent their views openly and responsibly."
And that is the point—it is officers, not enlisted members, who have been encouraged to share their ideas in the past. The Naval War College is not open to enlisted personnel, nor, outside of C school, is any other kind of higher education (not, at any rate, as a duty billet). We suffer from what former secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig pointedly characterized as the "psychology of conscription," a view that the enlisted are low-skilled cheap labor, readily replaceable, and driven to the Navy primarily by a lack of alternatives.4 And yet Admiral Clark's admonition to "bring your ideas" and his statement that the Navy needs "leaders who know what they believe in and know what they will do with the authority we give them" were directed to a petty officer.
Charging enlisted personnel with duties formerly reserved for officers is a truly courageous move, particularly in a culture that often rewards a lack of errors rather than a daring stroke. As an example, officers' promotions to lieutenant (junior grade) and lieutenant are automatic. An officer would have to do something utterly outrageous not to advance. This cannot help but discourage junior officers from making venturesome decisions. A gumptious move gone awry is the only way he can fail to advance. This is, to say the least, not an environment where the risk/reward system encourages innovation and the trying of new things. It instead encourages timidity, bringing to mind a saying of which our Dutch colleagues are fond: "A ship is safe in a harbor, but that is not why the ship was built."
We are, however, moving away from that, and at a great pace. Captain Dennis DuBard, commanding officer of the amphibious assault ship Peleliu (LHA-5), and Commander Mike Gilday, commanding officer of the destroyer Benfold (DDG-65), are skippers who put their enlisted sailors in positions of authority. "It's a great opportunity for some of the folks," said Captain DuBard. "They're getting out of their lane a little bit, but tapping their talent allows them to grow professionally and personally. You can't go wrong with that approach."5 And Commander Gilday commented that "you keep them busy, you give them more responsibility. There's nothing worse than seeing someone sidelined to do a certain job solely because of their paygrade and rate."6
This is what shows our stuff, why we are what we are. In the world's most powerful navy we have the ability to adapt and change and in no small degree redefine ourselves, and we can do it in the shortest of time spans. This fundamental change in the way enlisted members not only are perceived but also are called on to contribute is nothing short of astounding. This is especially true when one considers how ingrained in our collective consciousness the psychology of conscription is, how resistant to change our culture is, and the impact this change has on how we understand the Navy (and therefore ourselves). Implementation of these changes requires many in command to dampen a part of human nature, the instinctual desire to protect one's personal turf, and to exchange that urge for the long-term goal of building oneself by building the Navy as a whole. This is no small task, and it is more difficult in a Western culture as highly individualized as ours. It requires a tremendous amount of foresight and delay of gratification on the part of those at the upper levels of the command hierarchy, as well as a willingness to accept greater challenges and to see them as growth opportunities on the part of those at the lower levels. As soon as fragile egos above or lack of ambition below enter the equation, the whole thing will fall apart.
Our people, quite literally from the highest echelons of the Navy on down, have taken positive action and succeeded in doing what was beforehand unimaginable—we redefined ourselves in no small way. We have abandoned that which is secure and comfortable in favor of that which is bold and daring. Fundamental change on this order of magnitude is intimidating, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to continue to grow. I am positively bursting with pride to play some part in an organization that not only recognizes the need for such introspection and transformation, but also follows through and implements it, preferring the great unknown to staying on known, safe, and deadly waters.
1 Remarks made at the U.S. Naval Institute's 139th Annual Meeting and 13th Annapolis Seminar, Annapolis, MD, 2 April 2003.
2 The Navy Times, 1 July 2003.
3 The Navy Times, 7 July 2003.
4 The Waterline, 26 January 2001.
5 The Navy Times, 7 July 2003.
6 The Navy Times, 7 July 2003.
Petty Officer Miller is a reservist at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, where he is an analyst and briefing coordinator on an unmanned aerial vehicle project. His civilian occupation is as an intelligence analyst with a contractor assigned to the Transportation Security Administration.