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.
quality in both officer and enl^f
vve
recruiting. These acquisitions lurt^ .
The “new breed” of sailor and Marine may be educationally and technically more capable than their counterparts in years past, but so too is the challenge greater for the leaders who must aggressively draw out the “quality” from the quality force.
Quality is the word most commonly associated with the all-volunteer force and recruiting. Through a combination of increased expertise, hard work, difficult economic circumstances, and altered attitudes toward military service, recruiters have brought about a radical transformation in the composition of today’s U. S. Navy and Marine Corps. The horror stories of early post-draft accessions have been replaced by glowing statistical pictures of ranks filled with intelligent high school graduates.
In a recent interview, Lieutenant Gen
eral W. R. Maloney, the Marine Corp Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpovv'e noted: t
“I am pleased to be able to report t the state of our manpower is excel ^ and without precedent in our 209'Y { history. I believe that this is the rn combat-ready force we have ever in peacetime. . . . This year we new records (as we did last yeafi, improve the high quality force . - have been bringing into the Ma
,9»-5
s there has been a steady decrease in .■ 1 actions and administrative separa- °ns f0r , H
disciplinary reasons.
Hov
Corps over the past few years.”1
to his annual address to the U. S. aval Institute in 1984, Chief of Naval ^rations Admiral James D. Watkins c°mrnented:
Today, our experience level is up, nearly doubled in the career force over toe last four years. First-term reten- tlQn is up over 60%; we’ve never seen anything like it. Spirit and morale are soaring; ... we are extremely proud °f our Navy and Marine Corps people today. ’ ’2
The increase in the quality of our If k 6<^ forces has been felt only recently, has taken time for the high quality ac- ssions to move through the training 'Pelines and take their places in the op- ating forces; this group is just now lr°Vlng into positions of responsibility i m which they can exercise a greater toence on events. Likewise, it has |/Ken time for substandard performers to toentified and weeded out. The ques- n facing us now is: Are we prepared as ^ 'tors to get the most out of our “new tod” of sailor and marine?
I ,n toe surface, it would appear that atong the quality force would be easier j i 'ess painful than directing what ex- ed before. Because of the increased ental skills, less time is needed to teach tut °as'c sh'hs; concepts could be substi- pfec> for simple repetition, and training jc°8rams could focus on advanced tope S' to the operational sphere, one should toct to see greater initiative with less ^torvision required in routine tasks, -to more responsible individuals, we arv ^ ant'ciPate a reduction in disciplin- * problems. Indeed, in the past few
• rs thPro Lnp kaan o pfrvn/Ii r ir%
,egal
QWcver, appearances can be deceiv- sdo ^^'to exercising the leadership re- S| fsibilities of basic training, supervi- l ’ and enforcement of discipline may 'tv f ^ec°me easier with the higher qual- ta ,0rce, performing the more important Vei °f challenging, motivating, and della^111® a commitment in our personnel err htoome more difficult. Today’s re- atid Comes from a unique background life ”as greater expectations of military v; 1 they currently function, the ser- s are not prepared to meet those ex- frQ at>ons. If we are to derive full benefit y^111 the enlistment of the quality force, b 'tos, develop an awareness of the ton ®rounc* and expectations of our per- tiQ e* and adapt our programs and opera* to challenge their capabilities.
"e majority of today’s enlistees have
higher intelligence than their predecessors—as determined by standardized testing—and are high school graduates. Today’s young people are exposed to more technical knowledge at a much earlier age than any other generation, growing up with television, electronics, and home computers. They are well-equipped to cope with the technological sophistication of modem equipment and operations. At the same time, they have the capacity to rapidly outgrow the training and operational routines in most military organizations. Without a creative program to develop their capabilities, tedium can foster dissatisfaction and result in mediocre performance.
Unfortunately, today’s youth is much less familiar with authority, regulation, and discipline. Institutions responsible for the introduction and development of such concepts have broken down. Families, schools, and society as a whole have been unable or unwilling to provide a structure which would foster the development of group rather than individual values. Individuals entering the military now are less willing to accept authority and regulations. While they are not going to willfully disobey orders, they will probably want to understand the reasons behind the actions of their superiors before they give their best efforts.
A significant difference in today’s recruits is their motivation for enlisting. While it is difficult to generalize about something as individual as a reason for enlistment, some common trends are known. Over the past 20 years, factors such as educational benefits, avoiding the draft, steady employment, job skills/ technical training, travel, and an opportunity to grow or mature have all been prime motivations. While these factors continue to exert influences in varying degrees, there are indications that new forces are at work.
A common thread among individuals enlisting today is that they are searching for something missing in their civilian lives. Some identify it as a lack of order or structure; they want the military to help them develop discipline and a sense of purpose. Others seek to escape the mundane routine of dead-end jobs and/or aimless personal lives; they are looking for a challenge to channel their energies.
Individuals enter the military expecting to find structure and challenges. Instead, they often encounter a mundane routine that is just as bad, if not worse, than the ones they left behind in civilian life. The transition from civilian to sailor or marine is difficult, but it undoubtedly stirs enthusiasm for further challenges. Our operational procedures are sometimes sorely lacking in such challenges. Follow-on training is based on rote memory and mastery learning, offering little incentive to excel. Daily schedules consist of a continuous cycle of clean-ups, routine maintenance, and repetition of basic tasks. Creativity and challenges that have been built into training programs and exercises are often filtered out by the time they are explained to the junior people of the section. In short, the military is failing to provide the structure, direction, and challenges its people are seeking.
There are many reasons for this; some are unavoidable. The recruiting service has, in a sense, sold a package that would be difficult to fulfill under any circumstances. It also takes time to develop and adapt training programs; it will take years before our schools will be able to take full advantage of the increased capabilities of our recruits. Finally, budgetary and safety constraints on operations and exercises will always restrict us. However, most of these constraints can be overcome by recognizing the increased capabilities of our personnel and cultivating those capabilities through aggressive leadership. It is in this area that we are falling short.
There are several reasons for the lack of aggressive leadership. The first is basic bureaucratic inertia. As an institution based upon tradition and conservative values, change comes slowly in the military. Many leaders are slow to react to evolving circumstances and reluctant to let go of traditional practices. They reason that what has worked well in the past will continue to do so in the future, failing to take into account the different capabilities of their personnel. As a result, the quality force may labor under antiquated programs and procedures.
Even if leaders realize the need to change, they may be hesitant to do so because of the risks involved. Any change carries with it the possibility of failure. If leaders have overestimated the capabilities of their personnel and they fall short on a task, it will reflect on their records. In the peacetime military, where the perception is that one mistake can be career threatening, many may be unwilling to take the risks associated with change.
Finally, there is the risk involved in “rocking the boat.” Units that are performing at a satisfactory level may perceive the aggressive leader as a threat. Developing a program that uses the capabilities of an organization’s personnel to their fullest involves challenging those personnel. Some may be unwilling or reluctant to meet the challenge. The aggressive leader risks alienating others by
each individual in the command. Whi[e the concern for the welfare of the leaders personnel has always been present, this
' 1
of
role will assume greater importance in d'c’
indi
vidualistic group of young people on asking them to make a personal comm'1 ment. Before an individual will make a commitment, he must receive assurance from the organization that his talents Wi be developed and used, his achievement* recognized, and his interests and we being considered.
Leaders play a pivotal role in dem°n strating the commitment of the orgaM^ tion to its people. How they convey
the
and
implementing his own program. Accepting such a risk involves moral courage and self-confidence, attributes which our present “risk-avoidance” atmosphere does not encourage.
We must overcome the tendencies toward inertia and risk-avoidance if we are going to fully use the abilities of our quality personnel. If we fail to develop programs which challenge their capabilities, we run the danger of endorsing mediocrity as the accepted standard. We will have gained little. In fact, individuals who are unmotivated or bored will be susceptible to the same type of problems we have experienced in the past— disciplinary infractions, poor attitudes, and drug and alcohol abuse. Personnel difficulties will increase and we will not be able to retain the truly exceptional individuals we need the most.
We must focus on the background of our personnel and their motivations for enlisting to provide guidelines for leading the quality force. Examining these factors, three things become clear. First, we must change the emphasis in our leadership approach to match the capabilities of our personnel. Second, we must meet the expectations of our personnel and provide the structure and direction they are looking for. We must challenge them to use their capabilities to the fullest in the pursuit of meaningful goals. And third, we must convey the commitment of the organization to each individual in the quality force. Bluntly issuing orders and then closely supervising their execution may have been appropriate five years ago; today, that approach would probably produce resentment and half-hearted effort from subordinates and frustration in seniors. Instead, leaders should attempt to stimulate the mental abilities and initiative of their personnel, emphasizing their capacity as teachers and motivators rather than their roles as supervisors and disciplinarians.
Providing an understanding of the need to accomplish a particular task, its importance to the organization, and the principles which relate to that task initially may require much time and effort. However, the personnel will have a better appreciation for what has to be done and will be able to involve themselves more completely in the mission. A great deal can be accomplished through the commitment and initiative of individuals who understand. Less time will be spent issuing detailed instructions and supervising their execution.
Providing structure and direction involves three steps:
- Establishing goals for the organization
- Developing programs which will
achieve the organization’s goals ► Defining standards of performance required of personnel within the command and enforcing those standards
The goals of a unit become the focal point for its efforts. The goals established must meet several criteria. First, they should be directly related to a unit’s mission and should serve an identifiable purpose. The importance of an organization’s goals can be stressed by drawing the connection between those goals and combat readiness. All Navy and Marine units exist to defend the nation, and it is important to emphasize that purpose and relate a unit’s goals to it. Identification with national defense and combat readiness guarantees that a unit’s goals are meaningful. Second, they must present a challenge to the members of the organization and be attainable. A goal should demand a concerted effort on the part of each individual to ensure its accomplishment. Third, personnel within the organization should contribute to the formulation of the unit’s goals. Input from below draws upon the talents and experience of the entire command and helps ensure that each member has a personal interest in the accomplishment of those goals. And fourth, the goals must be known and understood throughout the organization.
Programs provide the practical means to attain a given objective. The leader must exercise the most creativity in program development. He must develop challenging ways of accomplishing a mission, attempting to use the intellect and initiative of his personnel to their fullest while still ensuring that the goals are met in a timely and efficient manner. Today’s sailor or marine should be given increasing responsibilities and be expected to meet those responsibilities.
While goals provide the general challenge for the unit, standards of performance are individual challenges. Leaders should establish clearly defined standards for guiding the efforts of their subordinates. The criteria for standards of performance are similar to those of goals: they must be meaningful, challenging, promulgated to all, and understood by each member.
Once established, the standards must be enforced. There must be a continuous process of evaluation and feedback so that individuals are aware of their progress. There should be no compromises in the performance standards. Those who cannot meet a challenge in peacetime could not stand up to the rigors of combat; there is no place for those individuals in the quality force.
The quality force will require that its leaders demonstrate a commitment to future. The increasing centralization administration, assignment, pay, an promotions has made it more difficult to provide personal attention to the pr0“ lems of each sailor or marine. At tn
same time, we are recruiting a more
policies and practices of the service command to their personnel will de,er mine to a great extent what they perceb to be the organization’s concern for them- Leaders must strive to represent the mtc^ ests of their people and demonstrate them through fair and compassion2 application of policies and regulad0 that the organization is indeed commits to their well-being.
The unprecedented quality of PerS°a nel currently entering the Navy and a ^ fine Corps offers an opportunity to signl^ icantly increase the capabilities a effectiveness of our forces. This °PPcTt0 nity will be lost if we are not prepared adapt our leadership techniques to me the requirements of the quality force- must critically examine training program and operating procedures that were esta lished for an earlier generation of sat 0 and marines, discarding what is inappm priate and altering the rest to suit the e^ hanced abilities of our newest person11®
Today’s enlistees require leaders that provides guidance, motivation, struction, and commitment from their ganization. We must challenge the a 1 ties of our sailors and marines, offer them an opportunity to demonstrate m1 ative, responsibility, and skills in the P suit of meaningful goals. Unless we sistently provide such a challenge- will fail to get the most from the quaeSt force and will be squandering our grea asset.