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.
For most of the decade 1965 to 1975, Americans seemed to be taking the advice of that Victorian voluptuary, Oscar Wilde, who argued that "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.”
In the upheaval that ensued, many of the nation’s young and not-so-young claimed to have found a new identity. But some things were lost too—or at least misplaced. One of them was Leadership.
The military by its unique nature has always been separated from society by a regime of discipline which demands obedience, loyalty, and dedication. The motto of the U. S. Military Academy expresses it well: "Duty, Honor, Country.”
Our civilian soldiers, from the Minutemen to our current weekend warriors, have consistently accepted the proposition that while in the military, you played by these rules. Yet, during the past decade, faced with a dynamic society in foment, our top leaders effectively sullied the mantle of leadership by ignoring the tried and true military principles and by attempting to buy youth off with beards and beer in the barracks.
The Navy must honestly define its leadership deficiencies and spare no effort to remedy the cause instead of treating only the manifested symptoms, three of the most common of which are:
► Insufficient recruiting appeal to induct those high quality young men the Navy needs for an all-volunteer force;
► Acute retention problems which drain our training budget and severely perturbate the stability of highly trained technicians needed to man sophisticated units;
► Degradation of Fleet readiness.
Perhaps there is only one cure for our recruiting, retention, and readiness ailments and that is the kind of leadership which prompted a 27-year-old Army major (who died in a helicopter crash in Vietnam) to write his own obituary and in it say "and yet, I deny that I died for anything—not my country, not my Army, not my fellowman, none of these things. I lived for these things and the manner in which I chose to do it involved the very real chance that I would die in the execution of my duties.” John Alexander Hottell closed by writing, "I never knew what it is to be too old or too tired to do anything. I lived a full life in the Army, and it has exacted the price. It is only just.”
A bullet cut down this young officer long before he had reached his prime but his legacy of devotion and dedication remain an inspiration to leaders or would-be leaders.
Query the human relations council of a large ship or station as to what’s wrong with the Navy. "Breakdown of middle management” is certain to be one of the explanations offered.
But, to most of us, "middle” doesn’t mean middle at all, it means "lower.” For example, if you ask a group of CPOs which is the group that is unwilling to accept responsibility and unable to motivate people, they’ll tell you: it’s the junior petty officers. Ask the junior officers and they’ll say it’s the CPOs. The senior officers are convinced it’s the junior officers. Ask the Congress and the people and they’ll say. . . .
Perhaps we ought to think hard for just a minute about the meaning of this "responsibility” that so many seem to be so unwilling to accept.
Admiral Richard H. Jackson was a leader who was willing to accept responsibility. Not selected for commissioning after finishing the Naval Academy in 1887 and completing the then required two years service as a passed midshipman in the USS Boston and USS Trenton, Jackson entered Virginia Medical College and earned his degree. In the meantime, in recognition of his gallant service when the Trenton foundered in a hurricane off Samoa in 1889, Congress passed special legislation to commission him an ensign. Thus Jackson became the only officer commissioned through a special act of Congress. Long after his retirement, the salty officer recalled: "I picked the Navy because I wanted to be my own boss. I’ve never regretted that decision.”
Several years ago, a survey was conducted among young field grade officers at the Naval War College regarding the impact of responsibility in a young officer’s decision to make the Navy a career. Of these officers with 10-15 years service, 70% felt that the responsibility borne by a naval officer was significantly greater than that of his civilian counterpart. Wrote one young officer in the remarks section of the survey; "Responsibility in its purest sense, is the only inducement a service career can offer a youth which cannot be found in civilian life in more abundance. Men choose service careers as a measure of testing themselves against a known standard more valued than money.'’’’
Of those queried, 92% indicated that the responsibility with which they had been charged had inspired and increased their desire for more.
Jim Dan Hill wrote of the Civil War naval officer, "Once there was a wide sheet of water between him and his Navy Department, (he) was . . . pretty much law unto himself and was likely to remain so until he ceased getting satisfactory results.” Purely a 19th century philosophy you say? Consider, then, the Flying Arrow incident in 1949. "See to the best interest of the King,” may not appear to be directive enough to handle an international incident, but to the British corvette captain on the Hong Kong Station, it was all the direction he required to exercise leadership and assume the responsibility for his nation’s best interest. But today we are told that technology is too complicated, society is too complex for the outcome of a crisis situation to be trusted to the man on the scene. On the contrary, leadership and initiative are too precious to stifle with rudder commands from some distant command center safely insulated from the ultimate price of miscalculation or misinterpretation.
When Nelson sent the deathless signal to the British fleet off Trafalgar, "England expects every man will do his duty,” he was saying simply, you are responsible for your nation’s welfare. The guidance which flowed from our seat of government to the ships during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crises may have marked a turning point in the amount of trust, confidence, and responsibility extended to the commanding officer of a Navy man-of-war. Having sowed the wind, we are now reaping the whirlwind: some officers no longer seek the mantle of command. Perhaps they are unwilling to bear the burden of responsibility stripped of the authority which command once carried—or perhaps they believe that our society no longer holds in high esteem those who are willing to assume great responsibility.
The second prime factor in the synthesis of leadership is simply the art of motivating people to do what you know needs to be done. Just as voluntarily accepting responsibility is not easy, motivating people to do your bidding or follow your example is never without its price in self-discipline and effort. Let’s examine a few leadership qualities which motivate followers.
In John Paul Jones’ time, a gentleman was not only well educated, he was well-bred—meaning, he embodied those qualities which caused men to follow him regardless of the odds because his followers believed that their safest course of action lay in committing their future—their very lives—to such a leader. Note the term—leader, not manager.
Our current generation of young blue jackets—with or without gold on their sleeves—are a new breed who question what their leaders order. This strange phenomenon has upset the status quo. The old school says, "They must obey me without question;” the new school says "these kids are much smarter than those of 20 or 30 years ago, so I’ll take the time to patiently explain what I am doing and win their support.” The first group is in error because society will no longer support the type of authoritarian rule which prevailed prior to and during World War II; the second group will never be effective because of the diversity of backgrounds from which our Navy men are drawn.
Today, a leader needs the timeless motivational qualities of leadership, or he will never taste success. What are some of these qualities?
First, there is self-discipline. We must learn to say no to ourselves when we are tempted to overindulge in food, drink, or in anything. "Everything in moderation” is good advice that applies as much to the fatties of the world as it does to the physical fitness nuts. This "do-it-yourself” discipline is the kind that steels tnen under fire and causes them to stand and fight rather than cut and run.
Patience is another requirement of effective leadership. Society places such a premium on time that we are often impatient with subordinates—and even with seniors—who do not grasp what we say as quickly as we would like. We overlook an alternative explanation which may be that we failed to reasonably communicate. Impatience, once evinced, often causes juniors to signal understanding when, in fact, they understand neither ' the requirement” nor the minimum acceptable standard of performance.
Loyalty is a much misunderstood principle of our times. Is loyalty blindly carrying out the orders of superiors—orders which, by virtue of experience and knowledge, we have good reason to doubt—or do we have an obligation to question a superior in such an instance and make certain that he knows, and understands, our reservations? Nuremberg and, more recently. My Lai, support the latter definition.
Humility need not imply lack of pride in our organization or our own accomplishments. Rather, it is the recognition and acceptance of the fact that none of us is infallible. It is the ability to keep in perspective our own input to the whole, whether it be the Navy or society. It is the ability to accept at face value the contribution of others and our mutual interdependence on one another if we are to excel and, in certain instances, if we are even to survive.
Understanding incorporates compassion and concern and accepts the fact that individuals do not have equal abilities or totally predictable personalities. It is the cement of human relations. Understanding requires that we get to know our people and is epitomized in the division officer’s notebook—standard equipment in an officer’s bag at one time, and now experiencing a revival of sorts. It recognizes that people are entities with aspirations, fears, and desires. Of all the qualities discussed, perhaps this is the most neglected. We tend too often to cast everyone in the same mold, refusing to accept the fact that we don’t all have the same motivations—that a man’s personal problems and biases are often the greatest influence on his performance of duty. Recognition of this principle equips us to deal with each man and determine exactly his touchstone of motivation, and thus cause him to produce beyond what might reasonably have been expected.
Any person who has done a tour in the Pentagon in an enlisted or junior officer status must have come away wondering whether or not it was worthwhile. Senior officers put in interminable hours, often just waiting for the boss to go home, because the boss has failed to realize that, although stamina and endurance are necessary qualities in a naval officer, they are pertinent only to the extent necessary to achieve productive effort. No reasonable man objects to long hours when there is something to be accomplished, but insensitivity to the fact that our subordinates have other responsibilities and interests which require their attention — e.g., young and growing families—marks us as poor leaders. Conversely, when faced with a task which must be done in a period of time, it is a poor example we set when we throw a half or poorly done job in our safes and head for the 1737 8P bus for suburban Alexandria, knowing full well that such action will reflect poorly on our bosses.
Leadership requires that we try harder. As George Allen, coach of the Washington Redskins, wrote for Sports Illustrated, "If I’ve succeeded it’s simply because I outwork most people. Work is simply a synonym for effort, and as I tell my players, a hundred percent is not enough. The average American pictures himself as an extremely hard worker. Sociologists and psychologists have shown, however, that most persons are really operating on less than half power. In terms of effort, they may never get over 50% although they think of themselves as 90% producers. Therefore, to get 100%, you must aim for 110%. The world [and the Navy] belongs to those who aim for 110%.”
This leads to another hallmark of leadership, attention to detail. The old saw "There is never enough time to do the job right, but always time to do it over” is a profound indictment of our current way of doing business. It’s a simple matter of neglected quality control which can cause an otherwise worthy project to amount to naught.
Granted, rampant technology is here to stay, and so, too are all of the resultant administrative demands that have been made in the name of safety and efficiency. The Navy may even grow more complex. Thus men who aspire to lead must learn to organize their efforts. (At last count there were 17 first priority programs dictated to commanding officers afloat by higher authority.) This requires an understanding of what must be done, and how we best accomplish it with the time available. Our days cannot be ad hoc, but rather must be products of sober planning followed by quality effort. And we must demand this same approach from subordinates. To do less is to abrogate our title of leader.
Many years ago, as a young destroyer officer, I listened to a talk by ComCruDesPac, Rear Admiral Chester Woods. He urged us all to have a singleness of purpose which would permit us to excel in our efforts to be true professionals. The profundity of that admonition was not lost on me then and I look upon it now as a quality every' leader must possess. While we are in the Navy, whether for a two, three, or four year hitch, or for a career, it is essential that we put the Navy first in our vocational efforts. Moonlighting indulged in for other than financial necessity is intolerable. Insurance, real estate, selling or whatever, must be deferred until we can give those civilian careers our full
time and effort. Being a professional Navyman is a full-time challenge. We ought not shortchange the Navy by giving it less than our best effort.
Consistency is an important ingredient of leadership. We cannot run hot and cold without confusing our subordinates. This requires extra effort, granted; fatigue and frustration often color our perspective. However, if we expect to maintain standards of grooming, military’ respect, discipline, and performance, we must accept no less than the book standard from our people. We cannot afford any elite group from whom a lesser standard is accepted. This consistency must apply to the standards of performance we set for ourselves as well as those by which we judge others. If we demand a military haircut of subordinates because the book specifies it, then we must ensure that our own hair styles conform.
Finally, total honesty is a must for any leader—-honesty with one’s self and acceptance of nothing less from others. This honesty applies in our performance of duty and in our dealing with others. Unfortunately, the media daily display the callous disregard for basic integrity by many who have been given positions of great trust and responsibility. It becomes more difficult to remain honest in this environment, since it appears "everyone is doing it—why should I be different?” One faces that question squarely by remembering that he is responsible for only his actions, not for those of others.
The term morale is an oft-used, little-understood term to describe the level of motivation which will result in productive effort—our own and those who work for us. What promotes high morale and how does the leader stimulate high morale? Two aspects of morale will suffice to address this question—first, the ability to make the task you desire accomplished seem important and worthwhile. Few people appreciate investing their time and effort in something which appears unimportant or unnecessary. This is perhaps the root cause of the discontent now expressed in our assembly line industry. Workers complain of being unchallenged, bored with their jobs. Industry in this case has failed to communicate the vital importance of each action performed in, for example, the assembling of an automobile. On board ship, the leader has failed to convey the importance of properly preparing a surface before applying paint in order to prolong the period before it must be done again as well as to preserve the surface from deterioration or corrosion. Or, in the case of the technician, he has failed to emphasize the importance of sensors functioning at design effectiveness to insure maximum warning in time of crisis.
The second aspect of morale is expressed appreciation for effort and quality performance. Of all the rewards that a leader has at his disposal to enhance motivation, appreciation must rank at the top, because it costs us nothing, except thoughtfulness. A common misconception is that after a Navyman becomes career identified, i.e., becomes a lieutenant commander or senior petty officer, he no longer requires ''motivational stroking.” We fall into the rut of thinking that a chief or a commander no longer requires praise or recognition in order to keep him at his peak—and yet nothing makes either of these work harder than to know the boss recognizes and appreciates his efforts, and more important, publicly acknowledges his contributions.
Conversely, an obstacle to effective leadership is failure to recognize changes for the better when they do occur—and to adjust to these changes. The Navy efforts in the area of race relations is a case in point. Our UPWARD and Executive Seminars have had disappointing and oftentimes disastrous results because we spent too much time emphasizing the injustices of the past and failed to recognize the vast strides the Navy has made in assuring equal opportunity.
When our eagerness to redress inequities of the past becomes too dynamic, we discover we have created a racially reversed inequity which is equally onerous. To a person truly motivated to succeed, artificial barriers such as race or nationality have never proved insurmountable obstacles.
Cynicism is a definite bar to motivational leadership. This is best seen in a lack of faith either in mankind or in the system under which we work. It is not naive or old fashioned to believe in the basic worth of our shipmates or in the tried and true chain of command system under which the Navy has functioned effectively since man first began exploring the alien environment
which the sea represents. People and the chain of command are both doomed to failure when we cease believing in their worth. It is further important to remember that remarks which question the worth of certain Navy procedures or personalities are intimidating and can very often influence those at career crossroads. Recently, a gung ho career counselor remarked that many "first cruisers” who really desired to remain in the Navy felt such a wave of anti-Navy pressure from peers and leaders that they would take their discharge from the ships which had trained them to be a part of their organization, and reenlist elsewhere.
Is leadership, as described by the foregoing qualities, extinct in our Navy today? Definitely not. These principles can work for us as naval leaders in our current environment to solve the problems we now face.
Concomitantly, as we accept the high standards of responsiblity and practice motivational leadership qualities, we must require no less of our subordinates. Not to do so, is inconsistent with our goal of reviving Navy leadership.
The Navy’s prime problem today is good leadership.
The solution lies within each of us to develop these qualities.
The time to effect the solution is now!
Captain Collins, a 1949 graduate of Louisiana State University, was commissioned in 1952 from OCS. He commanded the LSS(L)-65. the Saline County (LST-1101), and the John A. Bole (DD-755). In addition, he served as Gunnery Officer in the Taconic (AGC-17), Operations Officer in the Henry W. Tucker (DDR-875) and XO in the Shield (DD-596). Shore duty included Fleet ASW School, San Diego: C&S Course, Naval War College; OP 095; and NS A. DaNang, RVN. He assumed command of DesRon Nine following two years duty as Chief of Staff and Aide to ComCruDesFlot Eleven CruDesGrp Three.
■------------------- —---------------------------------------------------------- Follow The Flag
BOne dark and blustery night in 1931, the 35,000-ton battleship, HMS Nelson, flagship of the
British Home Fleet, and her sister-ship, HMS Rodney let go their anchors in Cromarty Firth on the northeast coast of Scotland. In due course the following messages were exchanged- Nelson to Rodney: "Have parted my cable”
Rodney to Nelson: "So have I”
Nelson to Rodney: "Why”?
Rodney to Nelson: "Conforming to the motions of my senior officer.”
Captain J. S. Cowie, RN, (Retired).
(The Natal Institute will pay $25.00 for each anecdote published in the Proceedings.)