Leadership Forum: Junior Officers Today: The Moderating Force

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.

SECOND

HONORABLE MENTION

Junior Officers Today: The Moderating Force

In recent years, the naval service has emphasized such management tools as equal opportunity, command affirma­tive action plans, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, and training work­shops that promote leadership skills and the rights and responsibilities of service personnel. Certainly the Navy has maintained a close parallel with many civilian corporate and federal programs for encouraging human ini­tiative and equality as a means to in­crease productivity and job satisfac­tion. Since policies conceived at the top, for the benefit of the majority of the Navy population, must be carried out by those in the middle of the chain, the responsibility for making these newest management tools work falls upon the group known as “mid­dle management”—senior enlisted personnel and junior officers.

Junior officers find themselves at the pulse of the middle management category, an ideal position for proving their leadership by testing these new concepts and providing feedback of their effectiveness. If we, as junior of­ficers, are the yet-to-be-proven group, we too are the “moderating force.” We have influence over the minds and hearts of the men and women who must be reached if the ideals of mod­ern leadership passed down to us are to succeed. We have the powerful and sometimes simple controls to make the Navy a great deal better, or much worse, for our people. We are the faith healers or the faith destroyers of the Navy today. I intend to prove that the junior officers are the leaders with the most influence on command reten­tion and personal development of people. In doing so, it is important to examine the criteria for perceiving ourselves as leaders and to speculate what causes others to judge us accord­ingly.

There can be no doubt that the primary obligation of the division offi­cer, a position in which most junior officers find themselves, is to supervise his or her people. We will assume that the missions of our divisions cannot be accomplished without motivated per­sonnel. Thus, we are concerned with helping our people become more satis­fied, more dedicated towards fulfilling the job. The term “helping” causes us

to relate to the care-giving professions, Mainly teachers and counselors. In truth, as leaders of men and women in today’s Navy, we invariably become counselors. This is apparent if we re­view the components of our naval serv- ^,ce> or for that matter, any large cor­poration.

in her book Peoplemaking, Virginia Satir identifies self-worth, communi­cation, a system, and rules as the “in­gredients” that make up a family. She states that behavior within the family involves continuous meshing of these factors. To expand upon this idea, the Navy itself being a very complex fam­ily, we may ascertain that leadership too is a form of‘'peoplemaking.” A di­vision officer does not need to be a psychologist, but must view one of his primary functions to be that of a coun­selor. And, without some experience and knowledge in the field of human behavior, without a sense of self­esteem, and without the ability to communicate on a wide variety of levels, he is at a loss to gain the confi­dence of his people. An officer’s skills acquired through formal education, on-the-job-training, and professional expertise are rarely the singular cause °f his success as a leader. Rather, a concern for the welfare of others and a solid belief in the worth of all people ^set him apart.

While Satir wrote her book to in­fluence family growth and behavioral change, we can readily understand chat, like a family, the development of ^a strong, motivated naval command can be enhanced or damaged by use or misuse of the same four factors cited. The Navy is a composite of Satir’s family system. We see it everywhere: ^che paternalism of commanding offi­cers, the concept of taking care of our °wn, our disciplinary procedures, and °ur self-sufficient mini-cities of chapels, exchanges, and housing. We Coo are faced with the task of interact­^Ing with human needs and human Weaknesses of our people and the necessity of working together.

Satir amplifies that every aspect of che family is “changeable and correct­able.” Who then acts as a catalyst to Promote change within the naval community? Certainly the junior offi­cer has the most opportunity in day- to-day contact with our people; it is imperative that we learn firsthand their needs and problems. The image we project to them must not become tainted by our personal anxieties. Complaints we personally harbor about lack of money, parts, and man­power must not become the criticisms of our people. These areas confuse young enlisted personnel, especially those who are looking for answers. Our own fears and problems must be well hidden by unfailing pride and loyalty to our profession.

In understanding our roles, we must keep in mind that young people, especially those who have experienced poor relationships with parents and teachers, view the junior officer as a potentially threatening authority fig­ure. It is initially difficult in some cases to break through the barriers of rank, authority roles, and in the case of women, sex-stereotyping, to encourage free and open communi­cations. Older enlisted personnel may question the inexperience of the officer and, unintentionally or otherwise, test the JO in an effort to discover what kind of leader and human being he or she is. The junior officer rank itself presupposes a stereotype. It is impor­tant, as an officer, to maintain the dif­ferential of rank, but austerity should be alleviated with every interpersonal situation.

Dr. Thomas Gordon, author of Leadership Effectiveness Training, has demonstrated some veritable leader­ship tools through his research as a consultant to large production plants. He believes that “effective leaders act very much like group members, and effective group members act like group leaders.” This relatively simple concept can generate many conflicts for junior officers. We are indoctri­nated into the ideas of non­fraternization and authority, yet our performance as leaders is graded not only by our seniors but by our people as well. Our people must know that, as group leaders, we expect them to be hard-working, reliable, and enthusias­tic. It is important, as Gordon points out, that we become group members in order that our ideas and plans will be more readily accepted; there will be more opportunity for suggestions and

feedback from the troops. As junior officers we do not rate the unquestion­ing power of our commanding officers; our orders and directions may occa­sionally meet with criticism or rejec­tion. At the same time, the new ensign or lieutenant junior grade is not as technically experienced as perhaps his leading chief or hard- charging second class. As a team member, however, the junior officer will become more welcome and will be afforded the opportunity to learn, which should be another significant objective in leadership at this time.

Young people who have experienced fear of authority during adolescence will likely carry this trait into the service. Gordon states that every leader is faced with each group mem­ber’s “inner child of the past.” While it is near impossible to effect personal­ity changes in people, we can effect behavioral changes by avoiding situa­tions which enable the “authority fig­ure complex” to emerge. Open com­munication, close interest in the needs of individuals, and timely use of human goals programs will place the junior officer in the role of a leader- who-listens.

The division officer who succeeds in becoming a group member must also encourage leadership traits in others. In every group of non-rated personnel for instance, we find natural young leaders, those who demonstrate strong positive attitudes. These men and women should be counseled concern­ing their own influence upon their peers and be encouraged to act as ex­amples. Likewise, a second or third class petty officer must be taught to lead his juniors towards a sense of ‘That’s where I want to be someday.” Petty officers should be held morally responsible for their roles by display­ing initiative, caring, and avoiding compromising situations. The petty officer who supervises other men should be closely observed by the divi­sion officer to ensure that as a leader he is a proper model.

Complaints by young personnel about the chief or first class who runs the shop and whose leadership style creates unrest have no place if a division officer is in charge. While the chief or other senior enlisted man may

have technical control of the mission and direct contact with the people, the division officer must be accounta­ble for the welfare of his people. Chiefs and section leaders need to be made intensely aware of what is ex­pected of them in the enforcement of command regulations; however the division officer personally should in­doctrinate newly reporting individ­uals. Other supervisors may then periodically reinforce his views. With­out full orientation by the division of­ficer himself, failure to carry out policies can only be judged as a failure of the division officer. Dissatisfaction because a close-minded assistant clouds the human potential of the group should be dealt with directly by the division officer.

Another concern of the junior offi­cer should be job assignments. It sometimes helps to remember the frustration that has occurred in our own past employments or naval careers if we have ever been placed in posi­tions too menial or too boring. As­signing a good man to a good job is simple, but promoting opportunities that will give each man a chance to test his maturity requires brainstorm­ing of the highest level. Fleet readi­ness comes first and personnel who are not self-motivated at grasping priorities, and even some who are, may pull away in hesitancy. Without strong guidance from junior officers who are concerned with their fears about sea duty, separation from fam­ily, and personal goals, the weak may sink into apathy before the ship sails. There are certainly those whom we can never assist, personnel afflicted with character disorders or deep-rooted immaturity who refuse the caring of even the most-gifted professionals. These cases must be reviewed well be­fore stressful events affect the entire division’s well-being. But other people emerge with problems because since entering the Navy they have been seeking light without finding any.

Norman Vincent Peale, in The Power of Positive Thinking, indicates that a successful man must adopt an attitude of “I don't believe in defeat.” In today’s troubled society, we have all become familiar with what Peale

calls “the Obstacle Man.” In our Navy today this type of person is charac­terized by what educators refer to as “the drop-out syndrome.” He is the young 18- or 19-year old on his first enlistment who seeks every means to obtain a discharge as the only solution to his problems, whether they be fi­nancial, marital, drug-related, or loneliness. Whatever his difficulty, he cannot overcome a single obstacle without tripping into self-defeat. In leadership situations, as junior offi­cers, we are a near-peer group to many of our enlisted personnel; it is our re­sponsibility to adopt an image of I won’t accept defeat.”

The best way to avoid defeat in our jobs, and to set this example for others, is threefold. First, we must pre-plan: (a) know the pitfalls that may be encountered in each task, and (b) encourage pre-planning in others. Second, we must keep our people in­formed. And third, we must maintain a strong outward sense of equilibrium. Admiral Fran McKee remarked last year that as the first woman to achieve line officer flag rank, two mainstays of her professional growth were flexibil­ity and a sense of humor. Perhaps women even more than men in the service have found that humor is not just a good personal trait, but a viable asset in getting along with people. It is certainly necessary in reducing stress and in encouraging communication.

We must also realize that many people in the Navy under the age of 25, and many older, have not learned how to make decisions or where to seek resources that can assist them in finding personal independence. One of the most frequent comments I hear from young men who are unhappy with Navy life is, to the effect:               I

don’t have any freedom in the serv­ice. . . As officers, we know this is not true; there are often many alterna­tives and challenges for creativity and education in the Navy. But for those people who have never been designers of their own lives, the military be­comes another fence to enclose their dreams.

In Childhood and Society, Professor Erik Erikson states that self-identity in our society “seems to support an individual’s ego identity as long as

that person has choices.” In brief, whatever an individual’s situation, he must be free to choose his own direc­tion. In my opinion, this explains a major reason for many personnel prob­lems in the service today, especially among those who “want out” as well as those who abuse drugs and alcohol.

If a man’s identity in the Navy fits his general perception of himself, he s okay and will perform well. But if the choices are missing, paths that will improve his self-esteem, help him ad­vance, gain training and knowledge, and, most important, help him find out who he is, then his choices are zero, except those that reinforce tuning-out.

Erikson also believes that a man must believe that “the next step is up to him.” Service personnel must be­lieve that they have some participation in the decision-making processes that occur daily. Junior officers must as­sume responsibility for observing signs of non-choice in our people, mainly withdrawal from group unity. This is the primary characteristic of dis­satisfaction because an ideal work force is one in which its members strongly desire to be participants.

Leaders who identify problems early may substitute positive alternatives to the boredom, loneliness, and family difficulties which are often behind lack of job interest. Junior officers, not far grown out of the influence of peer pressure, should be acutely con­scious of peer group control upon our young people, how easily a newly- reporting sailor may be drawn under the magnetism of the group that smokes pot, drinks too much, or shirks duties. Without alternatives to building self-confidence through learning experiences, divisional coun­seling and group support, these darker avenues may seem alluring.

For some of our young people, the engulfing ties of the Navy world cut off former means of acquiring choices. The former competition of high school, cars, and clothes all but dis­appear on board ship. Uniformity, regulations, and lack of control over deployment schedules and family situ­ations ashore may cause unresolvable emotional anxiety. Older personnel, too, may be entrenched in marital crises, alcohol abuse, or financial dif-

Acuities. The naval service certainly does not intend to raise such concerns, but as leaders we have every obligation to dispel as many as are within our power. We must help our people and, for some, helping means doing it for them. It is always best, as a counselor or as a leader, to approach the personal needs of our people as factually as pos­sible. As a junior officer, I have learned to be loaded with facts. Some questions I consider worth asking one­self frequently are:

^ What are your people’s short-range and long-range goals? Are any eligible to change rates if they are unhappy with their present jobs? Do you get feed­back from career counselor interviews, from the individual’s viewpoint and the career counselor’s? y Are your personnel fully aware of the many educational programs available to ^!ncrease their chances of life success? Many young people enter the service to fulfill a sometimes long-lost educa­tional dream. Can we as leaders con­sistently plant seeds of awareness to ensure that they have the tools to ttiake the decision when they are ready?

^ Who deserves special recognition? We devote a great amount of time to the bad apples,” but are we quick to say thank you” for a job well done? Let­ters of appreciation, hometown news releases, and nominations for special awards should be initiated by the divi­sion officer at every opportunity.

^ How is the home life of your people? We have become increasingly aware that separation from family has a major negative impact upon retention. Yet, many shore-based personnel also seek divorce or choose to get out of the service as the only solutions to family difficulties. Are you familiar with local professional counselors, doctors, and chaplains who are available for in­terviews with troubled couples? Have you read recent CHAMPUS guidelines concerning services available to Navy families for marriage and child therapy? Do you follow up progress of personnel who are under the care of doctors, chaplains, and alcohol treat­ment personnel?

It is also important to me as a divi­sion officer to notice, on a daily basis, the significance of routine details in the morale of our people’s lives. The processing of request chits in a timely manner, scheduling visits to various training programs and service benefits schools, and acute attention to the watch bill assignments are tasks re­quiring considerable time, but which afford great stability in a division.

Junior officer leadership is a true dichotomy since we must assume re­sponsibility of the needs of our people in so many ways, especially those who are fresh out of the spoon-feeding ap­proach of boot camp. At the same time we must loosen the reins to guide them towards self-motivation in learning the values of sound judgment and personal goals. As junior officers, we are on the verge of a promising genesis of leadership development. Never before have young naval officers been faced with so many commit­ments in the area of personal concerns. The financial, marital, and emotional problems of society are mounting and our Navy family has not escaped.

Properly trained and led toward the human awareness our senior naval officers have aroused, we can nourish the hunger for personal dignity and communication within our military. This is the significant point of junior officer professionalism—that we lead our people in order that they may be­come creative, self-motivated individ­uals who encourage the same attitude when they reach our plane, as the “moderating force.”

Lieutenant Hiets graduated from Rosary Col­lege, River Forest, Illinois, in 1972 with a Bachelor of Arts in English and received her commission in 1973 from Women Officer Can­didate School, Newport, Rhode Island. After commissioning, she served as administrative as­sistant at Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, and at the Enlisted Personnel Distribution Office, San Diego. From August 1975 to August 1978 she was assigned as Director, Counseling and As­sistance Center and Alcohol Rehabilitation Drydock, Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, where she was awarded a Navy Achievement Medal for her work in the counseling and drug and al­cohol programs. She is presently completing work on her Master of Arts in Human Behavior from U.S. International University, San Diego. In September 1978, she reported for duty to Chief of Naval Education and Training, Pen­sacola, Florida.