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.
The success or failure of each change depends ... on the energy and personal resourcefulness of the division officer.
Change, an important and unavoidable aspect of military life, is a significant leadership challenge for junior officers. Many types of change affect the modem naval service. As technology grows, old weapons are replaced by newer, and often more complex, weapon systems. As the world political situation changes, high-ranking naval and political leaders must develop new strategies and battle Plans to meet new threats. However, these are not the types of change that will confront the junior officer on a daily basis. Rather, the primary concern of junior naval officers should be with the shipboard- and unit-level policy changes that will affect the welfare of their people, the enlisted personnel whose lives have been entrusted to their care. What changes will have the greatest impact on a division’s morale and performance?
The use of a brief scenario should be helpful in defining the challenge. Consider a young division officer, an ensign, °n board the USS Pennsylvania (CGN- 34) during his first sea tour. This ensign has only been on board for three months before the ship undergoes a change of command. The captain is retiring, and his rcplacement, a much younger man, is mmored to be a hard-charger, intent on whipping the Pennsylvania back into being the finest cruiser in the fleet.” The new captain immediately calls the entire crew to a meeting on the fantail and out- lnes his new shipboard policies. He says e is dissatisfied with the appearance of 0,h the men and the ship. Therefore, he will conduct frequent, unannounced inspections. He also mentions changes in the training program, personnel qualifications, and the preventive maintenance program, all long overdue.
The young ensign, who thought he already had more work than he could handle, soon begins to realize what is expected of him. As the department heads begin developing new plans, these plans are already being translated into extravagant visions of extra work and lost liberty by the enlisted crew. The ensign sees the morale of his division drop significantly, and he soon realizes that his biggest job will not be the extra reports and paperwork, but the leadership challenge of getting his men to adjust quickly and smoothly to the new captain. Somehow, he must learn to instill positive attitudes in his men toward the impending change.1
Much has been written about adjustment to change, and all leaders should try to understand why change often produces negative reactions in people. In general, change produces stress. Many psychological tests assign point values to major life events, then sum these values to assign an overall stress factor to an individual. Common high-stress events include prolonged separation from a spouse, changes in type of work or responsibilities at work, and changes in residence, living conditions, eating and sleeping habits, social activities, and work hours. Clearly then, military life is inherently stressful. And when of administrative or policy changes are loaded on an already unsettled way of life, junior officers can naturally expect the stress levels of their people to increase.2
A second psychological by-product of change is anxiety—strong concerns or doubts that produce tension and uncertainty. Anxiety is heightened by a lack of control (or perceived lack of control) over one’s environment.
When sailors are taught to do something one way and then later are ordered to use a different procedure because the first way is wrong, they will likely become confused and begin to lose faith in their leaders. If this situation worsens and the junior officers fail to take time to explain the reasons behind the changes, the crew will probably begin to experience anxiety. They might feel that such changes are unnecessary, that they are captive to the whims of the ship’s officers, and that they are losing control of their own lives. Change with the highest personal impact (for example, regulations governing conduct and personal appearance) has the greatest potential to produce anxiety.3 The junior officer must always combat such stress to maintain the morale and performance level of the unit.
From the psychologist’s findings on stress and anxiety, it may be easy to conclude that change in itself is bad. However, this is not the case in most instances. In the hypothetical case of the Pennsylvania, the officers (and, therefore, the crew) may have become somewhat complacent in their duties and the condition of the ship may have started to deteriorate under the outgoing captain. If this indeed was the case that greeted the new commanding officer, then it became his inescapable duty to take action. Furthermore, it became the subsequent responsibility of the junior officers to see that the captain’s orders and new policies were followed. In transmitting orders to the enlisted personnel in their divisions.
Pro
•feedings / February 1987
71
Resistance to change is often a by-product of ignorance, and officers at all levels should place high priority on getting the word out.
junior officers must do more than just repeat those orders and stand back, expecting changes to take place automatically. They need to convince their people that the new tasking is both workable and worth the effort to put into action. They must strive to foster a positive attitude and to gain support for the new change in their respective divisions.
The junior officer thus becomes the key to whether change will take effect without producing too much emotional upheaval within the crew, or—conversely—whether a negative crew reaction will cause a drop in unit morale. The success or failure of each change depends, to a great extent, on the energy and personal resourcefulness of the division officer.
Attitudes are more easily instilled by example than they are taught. Junior officers should always remember this. Their divisions will surely notice a positive attitude toward change, and be influenced by it. This is simply leadership by example.4
One way to foster such a positive attitude is to point out that change presents an opportunity for growth. Whenever people continue doing the same things in the same, comfortable ways, growth ceases. On the other hand, individuals who strive for perfection and seek bigger and more responsible jobs are growing
You’re never too old to quit blowing smoke.
No matter how long or how much you’ve smoked, it’s not too late to stop. Because the sooner you put down your last cigarette, the sooner your body will begin to return to its normal, healthy state.
American Heart Association
WE'RE FIGHTING FOR VOJR LIFE
and benefiting from change.5 This idea is at the heart of the military promotion system, and junior officers should ensure their people understand it. Opportunity for individual growth is one of the strongest positive aspects of military service.
Another way junior officers can prepare their units for change is to stress the importance of unit flexibility. By encouraging their people to share their knowledge and experience with each other (and even by informal training in areas outside their own job specialties), junior officers can generate enthusiasm and support for new ideas within the unit, and more openness to new ideas from the outside. The key is to keep everyone looking for better ways to do their jobs. It is natural for any group to fall into a routine, but by maintaining a flexible group attitude, a good leader can keep that routine from becoming a rut.
Many new policies fail to overcome the inertia that is created when people at the working level predict that the change will fail, and then set about to make their prophecy self-fulfilling. Since the effectiveness (and the fitness reports) of junior officers hinge on the performance—or noncompliance—of the people they lead, junior officers must learn ways to overcome such inertia. Junior officers can strengthen working relationships by showing active support for new ideas that come from within their own divisions. If leaders can get their people to take the initiative in planning and requesting necessary changes themselves, then the difficult persuasive part of their leadership task is already behind them. By supporting such self-generated changes, leaders show respect for the ideas of their subordinates and foster a climate of mutual respect. At the same time, they set the example by demonstrating the positive way constructive change should be received. The ability to recognize pride of authorship goes a long way.6
Resistance to change is often a byproduct of ignorance, and officers at all levels should place high priority on getting “the word” out. An example of this is a “Brigade Policy and Results” memorandum distributed by the U. S. Naval Academy’s commandant of midshipmen. This memorandum discussed in clear and straightforward language specific changes affecting the lives of midshipmen. It cited beneficial effects of the policy changes and, at the same time, conveyed an awareness of the personal hardships and adjustments initially caused by these changes. The key to this information-oriented approach is honest and unbiased evaluation of change, and the time and effort invested in preparing such newsletters will be repaid by the improved performance and morale of those who receive them.
Finally, junior officers should realize that apathy and ignorance are not the only factors that breed resistance to change. To many lower-ranking people who want the security and stability of a highly structured military life, any change in that way of life can be extremely threatening. Such a situation calls for the most straightforward sort of personal leadership to confront these fears before they spread. If overlooked, individual problems related to change might later affect the performance of the entire division.
An officer’s first priority will always be mission accomplishment, but far- thinking leaders will recognize the value of high morale and a positive attitude, and will strive to attain these, as well, while they lead their respective crews through their inevitable confrontations with change. With skillful attention to detail, they can make change work for the benefit of all hands.
'Gregg G. Gullickson and Richard D. Chenett, “Excellence in the Surface Navy,” Dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, 1984, p. 32.
2Abe Arkoff, Adjustment and Mental Health (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968), p. 110- 3Arkoff, pp. 116-118.
4H. R. Beech, Changing Man's Behavior (Baltimore. MD: Penquin Books, 1969), p. 220.
5Eastwood Atwater, The Psychology of Adjustment (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979), p. 7- 6George Spivack, Jerome J. Platt, and Myrna B. Shure, The Problem-Solving Approach to Adjustment (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976). p. 5.
’Stephen K. Chadwick, "Brigade Policy and Results,” Memorandum, U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, 1986, pp. 1-3.
Editor’s Note: Midshipman Hayden’s essay is the recipient of the U. S. Naval Academy's 1986 Draper Kauffman Leadership Award.
72
Proceedings / February 19^^