This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
We’ve all poured our heart out to our boss, spouse, chaplain, or kid and asked, “Right?” only to be told, “I’m sorry, I wasn’t listening.” Nobody listens any more. But a few do read. If nobody seems to care what you think about anything, perhaps you ought to contribute to our “Nobody asked me, but . . .” column.
Maybe what you have been saying isn’t worth listening to. But, if it is, we may print it and pay you $60.00. If it isn’t, you’ll feel better for having gotten it off your chest.
how to be better leaders. We saw
issu^
never had before. Top management became a stronger team. It is diff'^ to put a dollar value on these bene
ult
fit5’
yfi
|V0
cost of having top management their offices for two days. Since
out
deP1
Human Realities and Myths (HRM)
The Navy’s human resource management (HRM) support system and its associated organizational effectiveness (OE) programs have received much criticism over the years, including some from me. However, I have seen what good OE specialists can do and how they compare with their Army and Air Force counterparts. The results are impressive, and they suggest new ways for the Navy to get more “bang” for its consulting bucks.
When I took command of the Defense Nuclear Agency’s Field Command (FCDNA) at Kirkland Air Force Base, New Mexico, a joint command with 0-5s and 0-6s from the Navy, Army, and Air Force in the top management group, I sought the counsel of the commanding officer of the OE Center, San Diego, California. He formed a consulting team representing the Army, Air Force, and Navy organizational effectiveness programs to work with my top staff members to assist in our transition and examine management practices in the minimum possible time. 1 emphasized to the OE center’s commanding officer that FCDNA was a healthy organization without major problems. My intent was to strengthen the command.
The result was an intensive two day seminar at a remote site. By the end of the second day, I was convinced that we had succeeded. The impressive re- 94
suits from the use of this joint service consulting team, working with a joint command, call for a few comments to help separate myth from reality.
► Professionalism: The consultants came armed with the latest and hottest techniques and theories. Much of the information they presented was developed by civilian academicians, but it was adapted to the unique needs of military leaders in a joint command and presented in familiar terms. The consultants were flexible in meeting our needs and highly disciplined, working with the participants from 0700 to 2330 the first day and from 0700 to the 1600 departure time the second.
► “Results’ ’ Oriented: Throughout the two days, the consultants kept our group’s attention and work focused on achieving the results for which we had aimed. The consulting team was quick to spot and stop digressions from the task and either gently or firmly guided us back to productive channels. The consultants even made presentations during meals to get the most value out of every minute.
► Joint Service “First": To my knowledge, this was the first time a joint service consulting team had been assembled to work with a joint command. This approach contributed significantly to the success of the project.
The consultants worked smoothly together, yet each used his individual military experience and consultant expertise to highlight key points and activities. Other joint commands can reap similar rewards, but there is no tasking for any of the service OE programs to cover joint commands. This alone deserves serious consideration.
► OE at Top Levels: I believe that OE activities have been focused too low. The potential for success of OE activities is a function of the consultants and the participants. With a given level of consultant expertise, success will vary directly with the knowledge, skill, and influence of the participants. Consequently, decisions to use OE services only at the unit level or below are narrow and short-sighted. We should be using these people at the highest lew els—flag levels—and insisting on 9ua ity services. It is easier to produce sllC cess at the working levels when top management has been strengthened; without this, strengthening lower leve is futile and perhaps even dangerous-
► OE True to its Name: “Organize' tional Effectiveness” specialists are true to their name. These people wa ’ talk, think, and produce results with clear focus on helping commands to
a better job. The command is looked through the eyes of an expert observe trained in processes and management practices and testing old assumption^ current assessments, and future plafS a degree no one within the command’ including the commander, can duphc without a limiting bias of some sod-
► Cost versus Benefit: FCDNA acco plished more in the two days spent , with this consulting team than we c have in six months of “business as usual.” We developed a clear consen sus of our purpose, our mission, °ur priorities, the concerns of our remote sites, and our major obstacles. We planned the ways and identified the resources for solving two of our m° significant problems. We learned a about management, power, organic j tional dynamics, strategic planning- ^ humorous and worthwhile videotape on conducting meetings and, strang ^ enough, “managing agreement.’ ^ we communicated on significant in a way the participants said they but it was worth much more than paid. The four consultants would ha collected their salaries no matter ^ ^ so the dollar cost amounted to the porary additional duty costs to brif^f the consultants and participants toge at a remote site and the opportunity ,
' ,aty
directors enthusiastically and comp® tently stepped in to manage the da> activities, the opportunity cost apP®
Proceedings / Deccnit>er
nhave been zero. (There is still some sa8ging fear expressed about just how bm°othly the command ran without us,
1 il °nly serves to reinforce what top
, anagers are paid for: “planning,” not doing.’')
cin the military are faced with ttplex challenges: more money and ateriel to manage, more to do, fewer I °Ple, bigger risks, more information, s awareness. No one person, staff, or military component has all the answers or even the best way of finding them. It only makes sense—money, time, and effort-saving sense—to use our own trained and competent professional consultants to help us overcome these challenges. The alternatives are either to hire similar (or inferior) expertise at a very high cost from outside the services or grow at a slower, unacceptable pace. If your local OE center can help you make a dynamic, positive change in your organization, can you afford to pass up this opportunity just because you believe in the OE myth instead of reality?
The commanding officers of OE centers around the world are eager to brief commanders on the new direction and methods of this important program. Put them in their place.
Nobody asked me either, but
y Captain S. J. Minturn, U. S. Marine Corps
affeine: Vise or Vice?
Many of us have experienced some
havty r°cky mornings- The reason may ^ e been the consumption of too p^ch alcohol the night before. I sus- han ’ however, that in many cases these S°ver-like symptoms are caused as •W1 by the body’s desire for caffeine, role 6 coffee mess Plays a prominent Prid ln °Ur sea service tradition. We ley6 0Urse*ves on our messes and are (awithout our coffee. Many young Mv °^tent‘mes n°t so young) people t|,e6 ®arned their seniors’ regard for Utility to manage effectively their V coffee messes. Yet coffee, our quitUre s most favored beverage, is de ® capable of causing a physical Pendency among its loyal users. periat s right, I did say physical de- ertcy. Though this may seem to be a strong statement, the danger is real.
Most of us start the morning with a good, hot, steaming cup of coffee. It has become a ritual of our culture. Throughout the workday we consume this “brew,” giving it to our guests and accepting it when we ourselves are visitors. Ultimately, we get used to this custom and feel something awry if the coffee ritual is not observed. This becomes the root of psychological dependence when the body comes to rely on the caffeine stimulant in coffee and rebels if it is not available in sufficient quantity to satisfy what is now a craving for this addictive substance.
The symptoms of caffeine reliance and the “morning after” are remarkably similar: irritability, dizziness, and headaches. We sometimes incorrectly place all the blame for the bad state in which we find ourselves in the morning on the festivities of the night before. I contend that because we normally sleep later the morning after, we deprive our bodies of its accustomed ration of caffeine.
Should you want to test my premise, do without caffeine until 1000. If several aspirin are required, it is obvious what is really needed. Or perhaps instruct your coffee mess petty officers or noncommissioned officers to use decaffeinated coffee for a day. If the amount of coffee consumed increases and the use of aspirin rises, it is reasonably safe to conclude that the members of your mess have become dependent upon caffeine.
In the high-threat environment in which we operate, our people must not be under the influence of any substance. So let’s close the non-decaffeinated coffee messes.
Nobody asked me either, but
By T •
^'eutenant Commander T. M. Oliver, U. S. Naval Reserve
M/ith
the proliferation of the many
OOD Underway Ribbon
^doPc " -------------- --------------- "‘“"x
^.‘•medals, ribbons, and other dis-
off) lsMng devices awarded to naval Ci* an exceptionally special spe- £vey aas been callously overlooked.
Navs'nce the first ship of the U. S.
§e ^ *be pier on her maiden voy- cers’ JUr>ior (and a horde of senior) offi- have thirsted after that short letter
which graces the service records of a distinguished line of seagoing officers.
As a young ensign, fresh from the cold winds of a Newport winter, my desires were simple. Aside from pretty girls, nothing excited me more than the expectation of gaining qualification as an officer of the deck (OOD), underway on my first ship. Good luck, hounding the senior watch officer, and a heavy deployment schedule helped me secure that letter on board a carrier, and all this before I put on my junior grade’s second stripe. I was justifiably proud knowing that Sixth Fleet was not crowded with ensign OODs, especially on board carriers. I was also proud and honestly a little apprehensive being left in charge on the bridge, invested with the captain s confidence (or some small portion of it).
I was a reservist with no real expec-
Si
e<tings / December 1984