It is no secret the surface warfare community has manning, training, and equipment challenges. Surface warfare officers (SWOs) are both overworked and undertasked, lacking in guidance but micromanaged, plagued by a zero-fault mentality and yet often failing. The Navy has taken some steps to address these issues: The SWO career path now has more qualitative assessments, better schools, and more underway time. Each successive year of newly commissioned SWOs will be more prepared to drive and fight warships than the last. But the root of the SWO community’s crisis is more personal than ship driving. It lies in the failings of leaders of all ranks and positions.
Unfortunately, 2021 saw several Navy leadership failures, including relief of the commanding officer of the USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98) for taking home a seized AK-47, a rear admiral for sexual harassment, and two other commanding officers for loss of confidence. Anyone who has had a bad boss knows they can make an already challenging job untenable. Leaders who abuse their positions of authority or their subordinates lack the necessary qualities to lead and rend the moral fabric of the Navy.
It is easy for the surface warfare community to wag a finger and clutch its pearls at the public failings that grace the front pages of Navy Times, but Uniform Code of Military Justice violations and grievous command climate problems are just the final explosion of a ticking time-bomb. It is in the day-to-day monotony at sea or in port, in one-on-one counseling and small-group settings, that leaders reveal—for good or bad—their work ethic, fitness for command, and care for their sailors or Marines. Good character, demonstrated in these daily interactions, needs to be the hallmark of all Navy and Marine Corps leaders.
The Navy’s measures to curtail poor behavior are inadequate. If a complaint is filed against an officer for toxic leadership, the offender often gets shuffled to a shore command to be either “remediated” or reassigned. A “career killer” billet only extends the time the offender can wear the uniform, until eventually he or she is passed over twice for promotion. The Navy needs to improve the way toxic leaders are identified and addressed.
I propose instituting subordinate feedback as part of the evaluation process and removing individuals who fail to meet the leadership traits the Navy has delineated in the annual fitness report (FitRep).
The current system for officers to periodically receive anonymous subordinate feedback is the 360 assessment, which gives an individual’s chain of command, subordinates, and peers an opportunity to evaluate his or her performance. A 2014 RAND Corporation study commissioned by the Secretary of Defense noted the usefulness of the 360 assessment as a self-improvement and coaching tool. While it recommended against using the existing program in promotion boards and performance evaluations, calling it too time consuming and cumbersome, it proposed “expanding the use of 360s in a way that is tailored to individual service needs and goals.”
For the surface warfare community, the existing 360 assessment is a voluntary, lengthy online survey. It often is completed only every few years, when an officer goes to the Surface Warfare Officers School for periodic pipeline-mandated courses, and unless a sufficient number of responses is received, the assessed individual will not get the results. A lack of responses might be the result of unfamiliarity with the 360 assessment or because it is only available online, which is not conducive to underway conditions. However, these issues are easily fixable with formatting changes and fleetwide 360 assessment familiarization training.
The 360 assessment should be significantly shorter and available either digitally, allowing anonymous submissions, or as a paper version to be turned into commanding officers. Fleetwide 360 training to familiarize all ranks with the system would help underscore the opportunity for individuals to honestly assess their peers and supervisors. Once streamlined, the tool could be used for performance evaluations and chief evals as well.
Good character, demonstrated in their daily interactions, needs to be the hallmark of all Navy and Marine Corps leaders.
For officers, the 360 assessment should be done in conjunction with the annual FitRep. The results would be read only by the commanding officers, who then could use the feedback to inform how they assess subordinates. They also could serve as a professional development tool when the results are debriefed. The FitRep cycle is in place to assess leadership, and subordinate feedback should be included in that assessment.
FitReps contain four performance trait blocks related to the general character of a naval officer. In the Command or Organizational Climate/Equal Opportunity block, to meet standards an officer must demonstrate positive leadership and appreciation for others and be a positive influence on command climate. Without professional knowledge, an officer cannot succeed as a SWO; similarly, if an individual cannot contribute positively to a command, he or she cannot succeed as a leader.
The “greatly exceeds standards” block for Military Bearing/Character reads, “Exemplifies Navy Core Values: Honor, Courage, Commitment.” As grandiose as those words are, the daily decisions to do the right thing are where it starts. Removing those who fail to demonstrate fidelity to the Navy core values early on would prevent them from acting unethically in ever-increasing positions of responsibility.
Falling short of Navy standards outlined on the FitRep suggests an individual is or will be a poor leader. To receive a mark of “below standards” for teamwork, for example, a person might create conflict, be unwilling to work with others, and not take direction well. It is safe to assume that individual would contribute to an unhealthy work environment. An officer’s subordinates and peers, who work closest with that person on a daily basis, will have the most knowledge of his or her ability to be a team player. Their feedback contributes to commanding officers’ understanding of the individuals they are assessing. A person deemed by his or her coworkers as unable to work in a team is not valuable to the SWO community.
The penultimate FitRep performance trait block contains the Navy’s most concrete definition of a good leader. To meet standards for leadership, the individual must be organized, a clear communicator, perform well under stress, and foster growth in subordinates. Failure to meet this bar is a sign of an ineffective leader. One of the most important lines is that an individual “performs well in stressful situations.” Leaders cannot succeed without mental toughness. The ability to handle both the routine and extraordinary challenges encountered in the surface community is what distinguishes them. Those who cannot should be considered for separation.
The Navy clearly defines on the FitRep its leadership expectations for officers. Were subordinate feedback integrated into the evaluation process, the FitRep would be a more accurate reflection of an officer’s leadership abilities. SWOs and those who work with them deserve the best the Navy can offer. If the surface warfare community wants the best warfighters, higher retention, and a morally upright force, it needs to weed out poor leaders as early in the pipeline as possible.
1. Jeff Schogol, “The Navy Has Fired 4 Commanding Officers So Far This Year,” Task and Purpose, 7 April 2021.
2. Chaitra M. Hardison et al., 360-Degree Assessments: Are They the Right Tool for the U.S. Military? (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015), xi.