After Captain Kevin Eyer delivered some tough criticism with "Reviving the Chiefs' Mess" in the January Proceedings, readers may have anticipated a rebuttal here. Considering the somewhat biting title and a wardroom byline, that's a reasonable expectation.
Disproving his thesis requires valid counterpoints; sadly, Captain Eyer's article leaves little room for any. In fact, a common response is, "it's about time." This isn't a review of his essay but serves to explain at least one problem at the root of the symptoms he described.
Criticism and counter-arguments about the Mess should be addressed. At the same time, chief petty officers need to honestly examine and discuss our performance. Even if one disagrees with Captain Eyer's assessment, the Mess can always improve.
Without question, chief petty officers' performance is their responsibility. Chiefs must set the tone for the command and establish challenging yet achievable standards for their Sailors, while being the example for juniors and seniors alike. That said, there are other issues not fully within the chiefs' control that must be addressed; one of these is the exercise of authority.
Great responsibility and authority are placed in petty officers and non-commissioned officers. In the Marine Corps, rarely will a junior Marine question the authority of an NCO, including a corporal, the first NCO rank. Whether out of respect for authority or fear of punishment, Marines follow unquestionably because their leaders and combat ethos demand it. Junior Sailors, on the other hand, seem less respectful of petty officers third class and others above them, even though they possess the same authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The difference, therefore, is not in legal authority, but the execution thereof.
Part of the blame rests with junior petty officers themselves. Some are not fully aware of their disciplinary power. Many are, but they are uncomfortable exercising it. To be fair, it can be uncomfortable, especially at first or if not done regularly. In other cases, leaders place unnecessary limitations on this authority, usually for fear it will be misapplied and bring seniors' own leadership into question.
Limiting authority leads to its deterioration that eventually extends to all ranks. As junior petty officers advance, these traits follow them and creep up the chain of command. Eventually, juniors only recognize the authority of higher and higher ranking grades, or worse yet, only in the wardroom. Concurrently, as less and less authority is exhibited, performance and leadership decline, and seniors are convinced to limit authority even further.
This mindset has gradually worked its way into all areas of the Navy, and some Sailors less experienced in exercising authority and less trusted by superiors later become chiefs. The result? The same thinking often resides in the Mess. It is a place to debate ideas and reach decisions, and decisions made and orders given still need to be observed. However, it's not uncommon for a chief to receive an order or hear a leadership decision and question where it originated, unsatisfied that it might have come from someone just a rank or two senior, or of equal rank but with positional authority.
This erosion of authority doesn't explain all the ills exposed by Captain Eyer, but it's certainly a symptom. Neither is it an excuse for chiefs failing to properly fulfill their duties. In many ways, chiefs have given away their authority through action and inaction. It is incumbent on them to seize the authority that has been earned for nearly 117 years; authority that is rightfully theirs. They must also improve the empowerment of junior petty officers, and commanders must demand and sanction the same. Legal authorities and disciplinary techniques need to be fully trained; the current Petty Officer Indoctrination, completed prior to assuming the rank of petty officer third class, should be strengthened in this area. Sailors who exercise these authorities should be recognized for doing so properly and appropriately. Those who fail in this area, when it is clearly needed, must be held accountable.
Failure to exercise one's authority is worse than making a mistake while doing so. Leadership, and the exercise of legal authority, must be expected and permitted at each level where it is legally established.