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.
Finding the best-qualified, available officer to match an empty billet can be puzzling. A lot of little details are involved, which may be why they call the people who do this work detailers—among other names. Our author, a former “peddler” himself, advises his fellow officers on how to achieve the best fit.
S° this officer calls his detailer, see, and he screams at e Poor fellow: “I just got my orders. You’re sending me
an aircraft carrier in Norfolk. Listen, you (expletive ,, eted), if there’s one place on God’s Green Earth I don’t
^ant rfiuSl
{o go, it’s Norfolk—and if there’s one ship type I e to serve in, it’s a bird farm!” f f toiler: ‘‘This is terrible. I never send a guy where he U !’ doesn’t want to go unless there’s no other way, and
ljPn ! always talk to him first and usually his skipper, too. ffn8 on a minute so '
lj 11 and try to figure out now i screwea tms one up.
‘8 on a minute so 1 can dig out your duty preference l, (l and try to figure out how I screwed this one up. .. . wait a minute. I’ve got your preference card here,
and
the
y°u list Norfolk as your most preferred homeport. And cj)rrier as your first choice of ship. What’s going on?” ate officer: ‘‘Well, of course I put them at the top of
list-
-you guys never give a fellow his first choice.”
The assignment process—detailing—ranks only behind pay in an officer’s listing of importance in his cl Personal dealings with the Navy, yet nothing is as See ^ whh misunderstanding and distrust. The system pie^s transparently simple, but is really hopelessly com- Vea - nothing is static. This year’s sure thing is next Systs ktun dope. Still, though, a fundamental assignment if does operate. And an officer needs to understand it ls to understand and direct his career.
T’h
con*. ^ystem: The officer assignment system constantly \ -r ,h|res to satisfy three goals:
\ Th6 neec*s °f the Navy i career needs of the individual
e Personal desires of the individual
Paramount of these are the needs of the Navy. Tensions in the detailing process usually stem from either a tussle between Navy needs and the two personal elements or from an inability to mutually satisfy both personal and career needs in the same assignment. These tensions are built in, and the detailer can no more dispel them than can the individual himself.
Detailers attempt to make a match between a list of individuals available for assignment during a specific period and a list of billets requiring fill during the same time. The list of billets is what the detailer sees as “the needs of the Navy.” Operating with a sound knowledge of career considerations, the detailer aims to give each person what that person wants and needs.
Simultaneously, the detailer is also aiming for the best fit for all the people against all the jobs, a process not equivalent to giving each person his first choice. This is a complex business in itself and much more so when specific billet requirements and individuals’ various qualifications are considered, as they must be.
To make it more difficult, let’s add budget constraints, operating schedules, tour-length rules, subspecialty utilization requirements, and a myriad of other disjointed mandates that pertain to assignments. Spice this with an occasional dash of congressional interest, and cook it all on a fire heated by the senior officers of the Navy, some of whom may be very distant from the big picture in manning but who are nonetheless insistent on solving their problems first. The orders that end up on the plate may not always be what the constituent or his detailer desired, but the Navy’s needs more than likely have been well met in the assignment.
well
The overall count of billets and people stays
are
very
Two points result from this concoction. First, the surprising thing is not that an occasional set of orders really doesn’t suit the individual, but that most orders do. Second, the detailer, though he will play lightning rod for his disgruntled officer, may have had very little say in how it all turned out.
The detailer is the sole player whose primary aim in the process is satisfaction of the individual. His customer is the individual officer, and he fights hammer and tong to satisfy that person and his career. If he does so, thank him. If he can’t, listen to his reasons and believe them.
Detailers come from the Navy’s mainstream, handpicked for two-years service to fellow members of their home community. The odds are good that an individual’s detailer is sensitive to the personal issues because he’s been there himself. He has shifted locations, deployed, sold houses, and left his family for long periods. He’s driven across country and worried about pregnancies, kids in school, and a working wife. Some jobs, some ports, and some opportunities he would prefer to others. There are things he would like to do but can’t, places he’d like to be stationed but probably won’t.
Detailers are paid to listen and paid to care. They do. They recognize that some persons require a bit more help than others, and they try to give that extra help. There is an end, however, a limit where constituent demands are past the point of caring. The captain who told his detailer (true story) that reassignment out of the Washington, D.C., area was out of the question because it would break up his car pool helped neither himself nor the Navy. Too bad things sometimes go this way. But detailers have many customers, and they’ll naturally try to help more those officers who state their desires reasonably, listen to advice, and keep the dialogue friendly and professional.
Detailers deal with individuals. A second breed of personnel person is the placement officer, whose customer is the command. Just as detailers strive to get their people the right jobs, so placement officers aim to get their commands the right people. The list of billets from which the detailer works is generated by placement officers, who will carefully list the specific requirements of the various jobs and ensure that candidates offered by the detailers satisfy the specifications. Most of the heat applied to the manning process from outside is felt by the placement officer, and most of the turndowns of nominations occur at this level.
The placement officer is the heavy in the business. He is not autonomous, however. He has rules and policies that govern his work, and he receives much “guidance” on manning priorities. The successful placement officer also understands that he can’t get what isn’t there. In a Navy with some shortages, as we have now, a job may go empty if the placement officer insists on a nominee with exactly the correct stock number rather than accepting a pretty good, available fit.
Most commands operate at the billet level—if this person leaves, we need a relief just like him. But some are more flexible and can accommodate a range of people through internal shifts, organization changes, and training. The placement officer is the broker in all this, ensuring that the flexibility demanded by the real world is accepted by the system.
In one matter, though, inflexibility must be the rule- Everybody must fill a real billet, and every billet should have a body in it. Keeping the overall count of bodies an billets matched is a very complex business involving Congress, budgets, public law, many Navy agencies, and a goodly amount of guesswork. The end of all this is a large sign over the door of the Navy’s Distribution Director- “No Billet—No Body.” matched, but the Navy now suffers from a structural mismatch between grade levels. There is an excess of very junior officers and a shortage in the middle grades. Unfortunately, the Navy cannot simply hire more commanders and lieutenant commanders off the street, nor can it Pr°' mote more junior officers to these ranks, either, if tae promotion system is to retain its integrity. It can only commission ensigns and then hope it bought the right numbef to match projections of both retention and billet growth 1° the future years when these accessions have arrived a mid-grades. If the guess is wrong, we end up short or long- The Officer Manning Plan (OMP) is the invention m handle the shortage. The large numbers of junior off'ce are at sea earning initial warfare qualifications. The scat city of mid-grade officers is accounted for in OMP * deliberately gapping 2,900 billets Navy-wide, the exac billets carefully specified by the major manpower clam1^ ants. The situation is routinely adjusted, but it will not well for many years. Adding more billets does nothing solve the problem of a shortage of bodies. (The gaps ashore. The fleet is fully manned.)
Thus, where an individual can be assigned is tightly constrained by the billet structure. Not only wilU absence of a billet prevent an assignment, but an indivj ^ al’s specific job qualifications may narrow his job choic to those few that demand his expertise. This is an esp dally active matter for persons having advanced degre gained through Navy programs. Except for career-ncj-'^ sary operational assignments, officers with subspecian’ can expect strong pressure toward jobs that require 1 knowledge. This creates yet another tension in the m^ ning system, between assignment based on warfare sp cialty (e.g., surface line) and those based on subspecim r The question of quality adds more complexity- have quality, and people naturally strive for the better J0^ People, too, have quality, as identified by their reports, service reputations, promotion status, and by m ^ success or failure through the various screening gateS y their careers. Placement officers, the commands • place for, and the senior officers in charge of these ac 1 ties all aim at getting top-quality officers. . j-
Unfortunately, the demand for the highest quality e ways exceeds the supply. This is yet another tussle. ,t that usually involves pachydermatous officers. They “ j fight with each other, though. They fight with a per^^eS system that has neither the number of loaves and >|!’ demanded of it, nor any miracles.
Timing is the last element in the assignment sys‘ 3 Timing is everything. The individual’s availability 1
kTl°NS BY ERIC SMITH
(Pd ^ *s rouShly estimated by his projected rotation date . but what truly determines when he can go is the
tim
can
lIng of his relief’s arrival. At the other end, what job he
go to is very much a function of the timing in that
billet
^cre but rather at another job whose timing fits.
^hen all these relief chains are . linked together, the sult is a complex tangle requiring continual adjustment compromise by commands and constituents alike. £Uch of the day’s work in the Naval Military Personnel uimand is tied up in resolution of timing issues, each ® °f which affects two individuals directly and many 'bcrs peripherally.
/'nd, of course, everyone wants to move in the summer °nths and with 30 days leave. The commands push for Minium turnover time. The 30 days leave is tough to Pie by; the desired 10 days of turnover doesn’t always qvUr- Some officers have to move during the school year. 1^Crad’ timing means more in the assignment process n ls generally recognized. In many ways, timing drives
If a job is filled, our hero is not going to end up
the
Problem.
Tf
Sy ad this seems disjointed and chaotic, if the manning sucem seems to be a churning nonsystem with no hope of ninCcss’ then I have made my point. Nothing in the man- S^stem's easy, including getting every officer ex- y what he wants.
eXn Ut astern runs more smoothly than a person might t)1(| Cct- For one thing, there is a system, a time-proven *bat ^ sm lbat handles the strains, a traditional procedure tert). reaks the process into manageable chunks. This sys- ordls smooth flowing and internally consistent. Good rec- 'vhi ifre *cePt’ and routine work is done routinely. That \vrjt- can be automated, is. Data processing and order bej'nS is getting better, and exciting new methods are .j§ debugged and prepared for full-scale use. finee Practitioners of the system are top-notch. Just as a Witharts dealer might be expected to have a home filled bps ^°°d art, so the office that runs the Navy’s people ess selects good people for itself. In this lies the basic
strength of the manning system—if the system cannot be perfected (and this one never can), then man it with talented, energetic officers who promise greatest success in solving the tough problems.
The toughest problem is one of allocation, of distributing the people resource of the Navy properly for the organization and equitably for the individual. This must be done within a bureaucratic superstructure of rules and requirements that do not always connect.
Detailers you know, and I’ve introduced you to the placement officer, but many more toil in the vineyard. There are policy people, community managers, budget persons, billet writers, and computer mavens. The requirements and policy people operate for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower, Personnel, and Training (OP-01). The operation and execution people, including assignments, serve the Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command. Together, these two organizations form “The Bureau,” working for the Chief of Naval Personnel, which is OP-Ol’s other hat.
The detailer is the point man for this great troop. An individual must be straightforward with him, patient with the process, and flexible in his desires in order to receive best service.
The Individual: “Know thyself,” said the Greek sages. No better advice could be given an officer approaching career decisions. If the individual is to serve himself well and make intelligent inputs, he must possess an objectively sound sense of who he is, what he wants in the Navy, and where he stands in his career.
To know thyself is a tough order for any individual, but it is a matter of personal responsibility in the assignment process. The detailer assesses an individual’s background, talent, personality, and potential to know where in the list of available jobs the individual best fits. The individual needs to join the detailer in this process.
Detailers quickly become capable in assessing their customers and matching them to billets. This is primarily because the detailer looks not only at the individual but also at all the other individuals who are contemporaries, and not only at the jobs the individual knows but all the jobs available. Add to this the detailer’s good knowledge of what makes for success, and it becomes obvious how detailers arrive at confident decisions.
If the individual would accept wholeheartedly the detailer’s judgments, self-assessment might be less necessary. But most people don’t like blunt truths from strangers, and the easiest way to discredit a message is to distrust the messenger. In spite of this, detailers know things that the individual officer should know also as he tries to map out his future:
► No two officers are alike. We know individuals have their own face, their own personality, their own social security number, yet we somehow believe that our own background and performance records look just like many others. Not so. And the detailing process fully considers this individuality. Many assignment decisions hinge on which person in a seemingly identical grouping is really the best suited for the open billet. The answer to “Why
can’t I get what he got?” is: “You are not him.”
► There’s no such thing as an “ideal career path.” Individuals seeking a sure pathway to success won’t find it because none exists. The individual should instead strive to conform to more broad career patterns—a succession of assignments showing increasing maturity in evermore challenging jobs both at sea and ashore.
► An officer must adhere to broad career patterns. Each community has its own “Yellow Brick Road” that says when an officer needs to be at certain stages in his career, how often he must return to sea, what wickets he must go through when. Missing these career gates can be fatal no matter how good an officer. The detailer will fight to keep the individual from shooting his foot.
► Going to sea is essential. The system has a genuine aversion to officers allergic to seawater.
► The system believes the commanding officer (CO). What a CO writes in an individual’s fitness report is what the Navy knows about his potential. Performance as described in fitness reports establishes an officer’s future. In this sense, officers really detail themselves.
► Good performance occurs in real time. It cannot be created later by pleading with reporting seniors, eloquent statements in the record, or litigation with the Board for Correction of Naval Records. An officer owes it to himself to try and fix bad tickets, but he also owes it to himself to recognize when he’s flogging a dead horse. There is a time when it is best to face the truth and get on with life.
► Performance is relative. Face it—fitness report writing is creative fiction. But the code is well understood by boards, if not by individuals. It is always possible to muck through a stack of records and sort out the individuals along a linear ranking of excellence. The primary tool in this ranking is relative performance as said in the fitness report. Individuals should pay far less attention to the words and the grades than they do and far more to where they compare with contemporaries. Being “Top 5%” might mean the individual is actually behind most of his rivals. The standard is relative, not absolute.
► Navy boards are the mechanism in which an individual’s relative potential is measured. Boards are brutally fair, fiercely objective, and ruthlessly accurate in deciding the important things in an officer’s career. The large patterns of what a person can do come from this board process, a mechanism which all who see it think serves the Navy well.
► Wrong jobs are dangerous. If an individual cannot get into a super job because either his background is wrong or his record not quite good enough, it’s not all bad. Persons who are ill-suited to specific assignments risk failure in them. Doing poorly in a good job is not a good thing.
► Becoming an expert in one area probably counts more than gaining general experience in several. Usually, either by accident or design, the individual finds himself becoming a subspecialist, if not formally, at least functionally. This can be a career strength; whereas shifting fields midcareer may put a person behind those people with longer tenure in the new field. Better to be a good something than a not-so-good everything.
► Warfare specialty cannot be ignored. Subspecialization is becoming increasingly important in our complex Navy, but the warrior part of our profession can never take second place. Currently, the warfare communities are the strongest sponsors. An officer must pay the piper—go t0 sea and do those things expected of his designator.
► There are no bad jobs. Do tours make the man? No. vice versa is true. No single assignment can ever do in a career; only poor performance can do that. The top-notch officer who takes an assignment in some sleepy hollo"' and turns the place around can do more for himself than an officer who turns in a routine performance in a job witha great address. Ranking one of 20 at some giant activity puts a diamond in an officer’s record forever.
► Some flaws are fatal. Fat is bad. Alcoholism turns go°^ officers into civilians. An affair with some cute enlisted person can stop a career dead in its tracks. A collision at sea will still ruin the day. Officers may not lie or steal- The officer who has been detached for cause, taken to mast, or reprimanded formally probably won’t promote- In all these things, the individual owes himself the digmN of honesty in his view of the future.
► Many flaws can be overcome. The system can be qo||L forgiving of past performance difficulties if the recent rec ord is good. Late bloomers are recognized, hard work 1!> rewarded, and loyal dedication accounted for property'
► An officer cannot loaf. The Navy is a meritocracy an fiercely competitive. The individual not willing to £° 110% in his profession gets short shrift in the assignmen process. Conversely, the system recognizes and rewar s especially arduous duty and credits those who have beel1 doing the hard jobs.
► The individual can help himself. He should start with
recent photograph in his service record, because persons Us>ng that record to make career decisions are invariably tumed off by an old photo. (“How fat is he? Does he still ”ave a beard?”) Add to this early warfare qualification, Salification for command, volunteer assignments, extra duties, educational achievements—all things that indicate ftis individual is a hard-working and dedicated officer who is a cut above his contemporaries. All these are things individual can do before he asks his detailer to give a'rn a leg up.
\ Individuals often sell themselves short. They leave ser- 'Se or quit competing before the prizes are handed out. ‘he opera is not over until the fat lady sings. There is no risk-free pathway to the Navy’s rewards, but the odds ‘*v°r those inclined to stay in there and compete over nose who might have more potential but who back away rorr> competition and won’t stay the course unless it’s a SUre thing. The system looks out for competitors and sur- Vlvors. As the sign over the XO’s door said: “Potential is 'nieresting. Performance counts.”
.All these thoughts are the daily grist of the detailer’s JJ'll. The individual is his customer, but so too is the Navy. Since all personal desires and career needs can f!fVer satisfied, the detailer must have a tiebreaker. And aat tiebreaker is performance. Only one absolute rule 6Xlsts in detailing: “Good guys get good things.”
So, a young naval officer goes up to a grizzled old cap- in the Pentagon and asks him, “How do I get to the AO’s office?’’ The captain replies, “Performance, my s°n‘ performance.’’
This Navy version of an ancient joke says the most im- P°rtant thing that can be said about success in the Navy, ut for those of us not destined to be CNO, some exuded discussion might be useful. There are five steps an y hcer can follow to help achieve success in the Navy.
Starting with the valid assumption that those who best . ®et the true needs of the Navy will be the most success- ^ > understand the needs of the Navy.
Recognizing that you will be expected to demonstrate Perior performance in certain specific steps along the ^ay> understand your career path’s requirements.
^ Knowing that not everything will be open to you, un- ^rstand your realistic options.
Knowing that the various options will have good points (j a bad, with family considerations and other factors faring, understand your personal desires, nake career choices.
f ”eTe back to “know thyself.” In this, get help. Talk ankly With your commanding officer, with “sea . dies” you know from earlier tours, and with your de- Sl)Cr- But be careful with the answers. No certain path to l^Ccess exists. All depend on unpredictable future events. °^e is risk-free nor unaffected by luck.
‘,^nd no advice can answer the most basic question: s bat do you mean by success?” It is a matter of goal- 'bg, finally. The individual who sets realistic goals and SpRs hard to achieve them is well on his way to success; tai|ereas the officer who waits for the system (or his deer) to furnish answers may never arrive at success.
In defining success and setting goals, there is one goal that offers the best promise of personal satisfaction, yet people sometimes lose sight of it. That goal is to make the greatest personal contribution to the Navy. “How can I best serve the Navy?” is an excellent question to insert into the decision process.
Thus far, we’ve focused on theory. The reality of the assignment process is that an individual’s actual options are more limited than theory’s infinite set. The many determinants of the system, especially timing, serve up a fairly small set of opportunities at any given time. The practical question to the individual becomes, “Of those jobs available now, which one is best?” Figure out what you want to do; work like hell to get there; and always take the best job you can get.
The Detailer: Busy man, the detailer, with lots of customers and a packed schedule. How do you get him to best serve you?
► Don’t ask for the moon. Know what is in your reach for your seniority, background, career pattern, and performance and then set realistic expectations.
► Keep your duty preference card current. This basic detailing tool is absolutely essential, yet the assignment process often turns into a tea-leaf-reading drill using ancient preference cards out-of-date by two paygrades, three duty tours, and, sometimes, one spouse. Yes, your detailer can call you. Sometimes. But not if you’re deployed or underwater or otherwise not available. The cost to you may be a lost opportunity—a job that had to be filled immediately and you were not in the running because your detailer couldn’t divine your druthers. Added to this, with an out-of-date or totally unrealistic preference card, you have a greater chance of getting what is left over after the detailer has parceled out the other jobs to your friends and competitors who were more careful to say what they wanted.
► Stay in touch. The wise constituent never passes up an opportunity to see his detailer, talk to him, and maintain an open dialogue. It is important to have data on file, but the place you really want to have your situation known is in your detailer’s brain. Don’t overdo it, though. The fellow (true story) who called his detailer at home on Sunday, collect, to tell him something truly forgettable did not leave a super impression.
► Determine when your detailer will actually make your next assignment. Ask him. Each detailer has his own time window he works in. Before that time, conversations will be general. The detailer will be interested in your desires and ready to offer career suggestions and proposals. After the assignment is made, the mode shifts; the constituent must recognize that the detailer has made up his mind. You can still wiggle, but know that there is a saying in the business: “You want it bad, you get it bad.”
► Don’t look for an R.S. V.P. on your orders. The detailer has done his best to satisfy his three goals in making your assignment. If you insist that he go farther in meeting your personal desires, he may do so, but not at the expense of meeting Navy needs. Instead, your career needs will probably give way. He’s gotten you the best job he could, with
the pressures—time for him to migrate to a different j° j the Bureau. Resenting the detailer’s power is proba natural. But he is on your side. He is working for you lt) manning system far too complex to ever deal with lf
consideration both to your wishes and to the requirements of your career.
► Stay flexible. This is a dynamic business, with constantly shifting requirements and many unexpected opportunities. The officer ready to react quickly can serve himself well.
► Decide whether you are in the Navy business or the real estate business. No one can accomplish a complete naval career in one location, yet officers continually fight this fact, growing sturdy taproots and creating unrealistic family expectations. Geographic stability is only one element of assignments and not the primary one. Don’t pin yourself down.
► Believe that your detailer wants happy customers. If he’s not talking favorably to you about your top choices, there is real reason. Either your timing is wrong, you are over- or underqualified for the job, your career needs require a different assignment, the location you want is popular, with more candidates than jobs, or Navy needs elsewhere must be met.
► Keep fences mended with your detailer. It is in your self-interest to do so. Some fellows try to take on their detailer, to wire brush him a bit. It’s like telling your wife she is ugly and snores a lot and then you wonder why you don’t get a goodnight kiss. If a legitimate misunderstanding occurs, try to address it directly with your detailer. If that doesn’t work, have your boss talk to his boss to straighten it out.
► Accept that your detailer cannot predict the future. Assignments made in good faith sometimes must be changed to meet an emergent Navy need. People get sick, fired’ diverted to other jobs, and suddenly there is a key billet empty that must be filled immediately. If you are the pec son chosen to solve the problem, pack your bags. Discuss your personal situation with your detailer so he can make adjustments that can ease the impact of this traumatie shift. But accept that the Navy’s needs do come first and that sometimes in this business the right thing to say |S’ “Aye aye, sir.”
By the way, there will never be a better time to discuss your follow-on assignment. If the system has to rip aI1 officer from somewhere and slam dunk him into a biHet’ he rates very special consideration his next time arountn Get a commitment on your next assignment in the form 0 a letter of intent and put that letter in a safety deposd box—it is as good as gold.
► Listen to your detailer. Not just the words you want to hear—“I’m going to send you to Hawaii”—but all the words—“or Omaha or Washington, D.C.” Selective Us' tening is like the common cold. It afflicts us all at one time or another and has no cure, but we can at least try t0 alleviate its symptoms. If your detailer thinks it is imp°r tant to advise you personally, listen to him.
► Recognize that your reasons for wanting one assign ment and not another are probably the same as everyone else’s. If the only people a detailer moved were those w didn’t own a house, have children in school, or prefer on location over another, he could quit work each week abo Tuesday. In treating you fairly, he must treat everyo11 else with equal fairness. He does not ask you to sacrifK more than others in a new assignment, but neither does ask for less. Tell your detailer what you want and why.b expect him to treat your case as he does his many °me ’ similar cases.
Detailers are far from perfect. They misjudge son1 matters, commit errors on others, and often wish t*1® could get their foresight tuned as well as their hindsig Sometimes a detailer gets cynical—time for him to leaV Sometimes a new detailer simply can’t do the job orta
bi
natural. But he is on your side. He is working for you lt]
the outside. Like it or not, the detailer runs the only g31!^ in town. The wise officer will try to work effectively his detailer, having first done some honest work on own to sort out his personal priorities. gi
The detailer’s job is a tough one. He simply can. j, please everybody and so finds himself questioned, c cized, and challenged regularly. The job can be great though, and offers tremendous personal satisfaction- greatest satisfaction results from quality detailing match-up of person and billet in such a waythat the b .s fit to the individual and to the Navy is maximum- 1,1 the detailer’s main aim. J
Commander Byron is currently Head, General Submarine signment Branch, Naval Military Personnel Command. He has several previous articles for Proceedings.