"We are in the world like men playing at tables, the chance is not in our own power, but to play it is."—Jeremy Taylor
Much has been written, and much more spoken, about the faults and virtues of the present system of selection. In common with all man-made systems it is probably far from perfect and constructive criticism should be encouraged and considered. However, in our intense and critical view of the system itself, are we not prone to overlook the fact that we should make the most of a situation that does exist and does affect every one of us?
By “make the most,” I do not refer to an effort on the part of each individual to prepare himself for selection competition. Such effort is proper, intelligent, and essential if one is sufficiently ambitious and interested in his profession to be of value to the service. That angle of the subject extends far enough to deserve its own consideration. This discussion treats of our attitude toward the fact that with the present system, or any system, only a handful of us in each class can complete our careers; that the cards are stacked against us, that most of us inevitably face a forced retirement of some sort. Our manner of facing it has much to do with our state of mind, health, and efficiency.
In a recent conversation with the charming and intelligent wife of a brother- officer, that lady unconsciously voiced the attitude of the service and its adherents. Speaking of a well-known and generally admired officer who had been retired following non-selection, she said, “What a terrible thing to see such fine men ruined by this miserable selection. If you were a djinn with power to stop it what would you do?”
My reply was to the effect that I had no idea how to stop it; that I doubted the ability of even magic power to fit twenty pegs in six holes; that all the subordinates required in any organization cannot possibly crowd into the relatively few positions of leadership, regardless of the method of filling those positions.
Of course she, and all the rest of us, know that. But in speaking of it in connection with our friends (and ourselves!) do we not all say, or think, the same thing as to “fine men ruined”?
I cannot believe that we are making the best of a situation, or properly facing a conclusion which appears to be almost as inevitable and natural as death itself, when we attach stigma to the great majority who are not the lucky pegs in the few holes.
It is true that we are a super-ambitious race and go out for 100 per cent in all pursuits. This country could not have achieved its place in the world and our Navy would not be worth our pride were that not so. The highest goals must remain the objects of our ambitions and we should not be entirely satisfied with less than success. But surely we wrong ourselves and the service by feeling that the large majority of our careers, because of retirement short of the ultimate, are failures.
There is a good deal more than our personal attitudes involved. We must remember that official action is our individual responsibility also. The all too prevalent feeling that “they should do something” is stupid and unworthy of professional leaders. We are all included in they.
An officer who has been “passed over” now appears to be classed in a specific and unenviable category as to duty and official status during the time he awaits his date of retirement as required by law. Doubtless this is unavoidable to a certain degree, as the tremendous task of assigning officers to duty is complicated by recognizing the interests of those with selection ahead of them. However, there are plenty of important and desirable billets which can be filled by those awaiting retirement without emphasizing their “passed over” status. Particular classification and assignment to less desirable duty certainly does not encourage the officers concerned, or their associates, to consider their position less than disastrous.
At the present time it is customary to relieve captains of their commands afloat when they are not selected. This policy is followed in order to permit others awaiting chances for command to achieve that distinction before they are considered by the board. The reason is logical and necessary, but would it not be better if all the captains possible were ordered relieved at the time they became eligible for selection, rather than detaching the losers after their fates were sealed? Would not, and will not, we as individuals feel less branded if by any means the official distinction between sheep and goats can be modified?
The large number of younger officers “passed over” in the lower grades presents a serious problem in morale which cannot but affect the efficiency of the fleet. Their feeling of failure, encouraged by consensus of opinion and official distinctions, will not produce the ambitious and interested performance of duty which has characterized our personnel. It is unreasonable to expect anything else and we must acknowledge the fact. In the case of these, particularly, a change in personal attitude will not alone suffice, though it will certainly help. The promise of several years more of job and pay before retirement is enforced will relieve their economic difficulties somewhat, but it will not spur them to the efficiency and interest required of them. They should either be permitted to retire at once and find hopeful channels in civil life or some hope should be left for them in the service.
It may be argued with some virtue that the competitive factor being introduced so early in a young officer’s career will stimulate his efforts as a midshipman and junior officer. On the other hand, it is believed that the uncertainty and the discouragement of those not selected and marking time until retirement must react unfavorably, causing many youngsters to regard their first commissions as jobs for the time being. The effect of such an attitude on service efficiency needs no comment. Relief can be achieved only by careful and earnest indoctrination in the importance and dignity of every phase of an officer’s career and in emphasizing the honorable estate and advantages of retirement at any stage.
What constitutes the position of a retired officer and what contribution does he make to the service? Being placed on the retired list should indicate an honorable record of active duty. The retired officer is still a member of the service, is still the recipient of official recognition and privileges, and is still subject to official responsibilities. In time of need he gets into uniform and takes his place in active service with the full authority of his commission. With such status he certainly should not be considered a failure or misfit, either by himself or his fellows.
It is suggested that officers who are retired for reasons other than physical disability or old age might well be classed as “in inactive duty status” rather than “on the retired list.” The former term better denotes their actual position in the service and use of it would remove some of the idea that their retirement consists of pensioning them for past services rendered. Every means of emphasizing the fact that this group of officers forms a definite and valuable part of our national defense is well worth while for the sake of service morale, our individual self-respect, and a better understanding on the part of the Congress and the citizens.
Previous reference has been made to the fact that all the subordinates in any organization cannot possibly fit into the relatively few positions of leadership. It is recognized that the service problem is not to be classed with “any organization” however. In civilian life subordinates vary radically in education, training, and ability, and in spite of characteristic American ambition they realize from the start that certain channels of advancement are only open to certain individuals. If advancement is denied, the employee makes the best of the niche into which he falls and probably finds there his life’s occupation in reasonable contentment and security. In the service we are all grist from the same mill and pass through the same grooves. The same opportunity for advancement is open to us all. But whatever the system of selection the fact remains that but few of the many called can be chosen, and the majority, though of the same origin, training, and caliber as the chosen few, must, at one stage or another, not stop in a particular niche but step out of the active groove entirely. Our problem is peculiarly our own.
This has been an attempt to draw a picture of the situation and to emphasize the importance of making the best of something we are actually facing. The selection system may or may not be improved; in any case it is, and will continue to be, impossible for all of us to reach the top of the ladder. If we do not try our best to gain that top; if incentive, ambition, and interest are weakened by our manner of accepting the inevitable; if the efficiency of the service is affected by our personal and official attitude toward retirement; then we certainly fail in our professional duty and cook our own goose as far as personal happiness is concerned.
AT THE ADMIRALTY we consider that much punishment is a proof that the Captain does not understand the true discipline of the service. You will succeed to the command of a well disciplined and orderly ship; you must endeavour to keep her so; an increase of punishment will convince us that you do not know how to manage a ship’s company. Moderation toward your men, good humour with your officers, and a command over yourself are the three essentials toward your being a respectable officer.—Croker Papers, vol. 1, p. 325.