The U.S. Navy is the world’s most powerful fighting force. While there is no doubt that it dominates the seas, the underlying maintenance culture of the Navy threatens its ability to respond immediately and reliably. In addition, the Navy is beginning an expansion phase, bringing in new sailors and trying to retain the best existing talent. To do this effectively, it must revamp its rerating system to persuade individuals who otherwise would leave that there is a place for them if they “Stay Navy.”
Traditionally, when speaking about changing the Navy’s culture, people say the change must be made “from the deckplates up.” This jibes with the concept that “chiefs run the Navy”—they are the deckplate leaders, so any change to the Navy’s maintenance culture must begin with the chiefs’ mess.
Currently, chiefs ensure sailors operate in accordance with procedure—when business is being conducted in a visible manner. Otherwise, sailors simply are to “get the job done.” Sailors who ordinarily would never dream of violating procedure are, when under strict deadline, encouraged to gundeck maintenance, attempt repairs on equipment that should be repaired at a level higher than ships’ force, or told it is okay to skip the tagout process to ensure a repair action is performed immediately. These kinds of directives test the integrity of the junior enlisted being directed to perform and are in direct opposition to the Navy Core Values of honor, courage, and commitment.
These orders, while in violation of the culture the Navy expects sailors to develop on board ships, are a result of a commitment to a schedule that is passed down to the mess. To change the mess’s attitude that the mission must be accomplished, on schedule, at any cost, changes must be made to how strictly the ship must meet deadlines.
The mess would not give these orders without pressure from above. While changes to the maintenance culture must begin with the chiefs’ mess, they cannot be accomplished without changing our priorities. Ships go to sea despite desperately needed repairs to vital equipment because they are scheduled for an underway event and cannot miss it. These scheduled events, as well as scheduled assessments such as light-off assessments, inspections, and defense contract management agency events, force the chiefs’ mess to encourage behavior that they ordinarily would discourage.
Deckplate leaders have developed ways to ensure maintenance personnel know that they are being told to gundeck maintenance or repairs without receiving the word-for-word orders to do so. Until the safety of the ship and its crew are more important than meeting the deadline, this culture will continue to be perpetuated privately while publicly Navy leaders drills the importance of following instruction and maintaining integrity.
While sailors struggle to maintain a culture that reflects the public face of the Navy as a service dedicated to honor, courage, and commitment, new directives are being put in place to bring the Navy into a new phase of growth and retention. To adequately fulfill the role as the nation’s sea power, the Navy needs to expand the fleet not only in terms of vessels, but also in terms of sailors to man those vessels. This requires growth in the service, but more important, it requires retention of the most talented sailors so that key knowledge, values, and leadership skills continue to be passed along. Without subject matter experts, troubleshooting takes longer, qualifications hold less weight, and watch standers’ certainty falters when taking actions in a casualty. Without proven leaders to guide and mentor sailors, encouraging them to develop and improve themselves into professionals, sailors falter in their career paths.
I owe a great deal to such leaders. Without their gentle push to improve, I find myself beginning to stagnate; without the guidance on how to do so, I often fail to find the appropriate direction. And most important, these leaders are slowly teaching me to become a leader and an asset to other sailors.
Sadly, a large number of sailors with incredible potential become disillusioned by their career momentum and choose to leave the Navy. Sometimes they see greater opportunities outside the service; other times they are disappointed with the climate at their commands. What I see most frequently, however, are sailors who are not unhappy with service in the Navy—they regret their choice in rating and feel trapped, and feel that they cannot alter their career path without leaving it altogether. I cannot count the number of times my shipmates have said they should have better researched the work of their rating, and they would be happier if they could rerate to a job they now know—having observed others performing it firsthand—would better suit them.
The Navy does provide the ability to convert, both laterally or through C-Way conversion, but the process often is long, difficult, and fraught with setbacks and denials that discourage sailors. If the Navy could retain these sailors who have already acclimated to the service and convince them there is a chance for a career change ahead, it would be beneficial to retention.
The system could be altered to be more user-friendly for the modern sailor. Sailors who are unhappy in their rating—whether because they did not realize what it would be, because it is too easy and bores them, because it is too difficult and overstresses them—could place their names in a conversion “bank” of candidates, stating their year group, current rating, and the desired rating.
For instance, should a machinist's mate second class (MM2) and a logistics specialist second class (LS2) both prefer the other rating, the two would “match” if their year groups were the same, and they could be offered a rating “swap” in exchange for an obligatory service extension. This would ensure the ship to which they are billeted maintains its personnel for the same period of time or longer, that both sailors have the opportunity to change their career path, and that year-group populations remain static. As a result, the Navy would have retained two sailors who otherwise might have gotten out and whose talents may not have aligned with the jobs they were doing.
While this is no guaranteed solution, it is the type of effort required to increase retention—that is, an effort to improve job satisfaction for sailors and convince them to stay because they want to work in the Navy, rather than offering them increased pay and hoping their desire to be better off financially outweighs their desire to leave. The Navy must work toward continually improving the work environment in the service to ensure it is developing a professional, moral, capable workforce that does not lose its integrity under pressure and stays to develop its future members.
The Navy’s mission is critical, intense, demanding, and more rewarding than any opportunity in the civilian sector. The service needs a talented and capable workforce to accomplish that mission, because failure is not an option—but that does not mean allowing a culture of accomplishment no matter what it takes. With a well-manned force of appropriate professionals working at a high level of accomplishment and efficiency, the Navy does not have to cut corners to meet the mission. Sailors can maintain their honor, courage, and commitment to excellence.