Command Competency

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

How should a CO/OIC be judged on his/her competency? And,
who should make the decision as to the competency of a CO/OIC?

I’ve known a few people that have had occasion to ponder these questions, myself included.

Do you ask…

1. How does the crew feel about them?

2. How well do they do on inspections?

3. How well do they accomplish their mission?

4. How well do they meet the expectations of their bosses?

Or, are there other considerations? How do you think command cadre should be judged, and by whom?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

OK, so you all don't like this topic or won't answer for other reasons. So, I'll at least state what I think should be happening.

I believe that a CO/OIC should be evaluated on his/her ability to complete their assigned missions. Period.

Crew morale, getting along with the boss, and inspections should take a distant back-seat in any discussion or decision concerning the effectiveness of our unit commanders. They are there to do a job. If that job is getting done, then mission accomplished, move on to another topic.

Most officers for which I've worked have kept me employed during times of professional uncertainty because they asked themselves one three-part question: Is he doing anything 1)illegal, 2)unethical, or 3)immoral? As long as the answers remained "no" and I was accomplishing the mission, then my position was secure.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis said...I believe that a CO/OIC should be evaluated on his/her ability to complete their assigned missions. Period.

Period? That's a pretty bold stetement. Completing the assigned mission is important, but you have to have a balance of the other things you mentioned (Crew morale, getting along with the boss, and inspections).

How about the CO/OINC that gets the mission accomplished, but in the process of completing it, runs his/her crew into the ground? Example...the CO/OINC that finishes a scheduled patrol and 2 days later volunteers for another patrol.

How about the CO/OINC that gets the mission accomplished but turns a blind eye to other things like hazing, allowing pornography onboard, underaged drinking?

I think you have to view some crew morale, you can always weed out the bitchers that just bitch for sake of bitching.

I think that doing well on inspections is part of your mission. You're being inspected on how well your crew performs their mission.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

I will agree that an OIC should be evaluated against his/her ability to get the mission accomplished. However, to get the job done, the OIC must rely on the crew that is actually performing the mission most of the time. The OIC has got to put the morale and training of those folks as a extremely high priority. I will always believe that a happy crew is a productive crew and when the crew performs well, the boss looks good and is evaluated accordingly. We can all probably cite examples of a crew not performing well and the CO/OIC being held completely accountable. Being accountable comes with the pin. As an OIC, I care what my boss thinks of me and strive to do the very best that I can, but more importantly to me is how my crew evaluates me. I see my boss a couple times a month and talk about that much on the phone. Is there a fair way for him to evaluate my competency as an OIC? I think if he sees my crew happy and productive and the job getting done, he can. If he sees low morale and sub-par mission performance, then he has to look at me first and find out what type of environment that I am fostering. Let us not forget the COMDT's watch words and how PEOPLE is right in the center :)

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Deane,

I have found that crew morale depends on too many variables to worry about it. As such, it certainly should not be a basis for command evaluation.

Getting along with the boss is more comfortable than the alternative, but it is sometimes counter-productive, if it affects your decision-making process. "How I look to my boss" should never enter into the mix. And, my boss should realize this and approach our relationship accordingly.

The only thing that inspections accomplish is proving to someone else that you have done your job (past tense). They do not in any way give you any help in accomplishing your job (present tense).

The OIC that "runs his crew into the ground," is no different than one that runs his equipment into the ground. Both will eventually fail to accomplish their assigned missions. However, its a subjective condition and I doubt that we'd agree on a definition of "running into the ground."

In regards to illegal activities, that is not pertinent to this discussion. You can't be in command and do those things. Period.

Steve,

I disagree that a happy crew is always a productive crew. I know a few Coasties that are happy because they do not have to be productive.

I would also argue that if my crew is happy with me all of the time, then I'm probably not making some of the tough decisions that will always make a crew unhappy.

I think that the best judge of performance is how your crew speak of you, after you depart.

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

Well said Dennis.

[OSCS Janet Ferritto]

Wow, I just registered today and already I have to respectfully differ with the last two posts to this thread.

I joined the Active Duty Coast Guard in February of 1978. From that time until my relad in December 1986 (just short of 9 years), I was attached to 6 different Coast Guard units. After leaving the active duty Coast Guard, I joined the Reserves and since then have been attached to 12 different Coast Guard units.

I understand that just because I have been a member of 18 Coast Guard units in 26 years does not give me license to believe that I know it all, or that I have all the answers but my experiences have led me to believe very different things about leadership than what your experiences have led you to believe.

Every unit that I have been attached to in the Coast Guard "got the mission accomplished" as most Coast Guard units do and have always done. I guess you can say that is positive news for the Coast Guard and many do measure leadership competency solely based upon whether or not the job is being done. I believe we should increase the parameters of our measurement.

When I was a SARM, SNRM, PO3 and PO2, the leadership that was over me was not concerned about the morale of the crew. I was not happy with the working environment, the watches were long, the commcen was loud and I worked alot of holidays, but being the kind of person that typically joins the Coast Guard, I saluted smartly and did my job. All of the Coasties that I was stationed with during these years seemed to be biding their time and trying to stay out of trouble. Perhaps some of you out there know what that looks like. People report in, perhaps they are gung-ho, but that generally does not last long because they evitably becamed disillusioned and sank into what everyone else was doing -- refraining from going above and beyond the call. However, the mission was always accomplished, the higher ups got promoted and the best the Coast Guard had got out after 1 maybe 2 hitches.

I stayed in to gain an opportunity to exercise my own leadership style. I intuitively believed a leader could make the best out of every person and every mission. A style that would elevate rather than just check a box.

I got my chance before I even made 1st class. Because of transfers and shortages was put in a position, as was many before me, of becoming the supervisor over people who had, just a minute ago, had been my peers.

Not only did I have to objectively evaluate my friends, a couple of which who were great people but lousy radiomen, I was dealing with 4 SNRMs who had just arrived fresh out of "A" School, and -- it was the early 80's and my unit was selected to become the test bed for Racal Milgo, the first Coast Guard data comms. Naturally, at this point, I had no LAMS training so I had two styles to choose from - the at the time notorious "do it because I said so, I ain't no babysitter and leave your troubles at home" leadership style or something that was my own.

I put my own style into play and changed the face of the mission from merely "accomplished" to "exemplary" and I did it while actually tightening up on the crew and expecting more out of them that had been expected before.

I did not just want a happy crew, you are right, happy crews with no discipline are an accident waiting to happen. I believe in running a "very tight ship". I expect above and beyond but I also know that you have to put gas in the car to make it go. My first action as a new supervisor was to enhance the quality of the training that the crew was getting and solicited their help in doing so. I rewrote the SOP, with their help, with very clear guidelines and references for where to get help with questions about their job.

I counseled each one of the 10 RMs under me about what my expectations were and exactly how they could work harder and receive higher marks. I studied with them, on my own time, for service wides and wrote and checked sample swe exams. I spoke clearly about the history of the Coast Guard as well as our unit (one of the RMs I was a supervisor for handled the case involving the sinking of the CGC Cuyahoa) in order to instill a sense of pride. I left interesting Sar case studies lying around for the midwatches to read.

I was very careful to explain to them that I was a stickler for details and I took the time to systematically demonstrate how I expected the watch to be run, logged and checked and rechecked. I made it clear that although my new position was awkward for me, I intended to behave like a supervisor and there were changes coming, good changes. I expected their uniforms, military bearing and behavior to be beyond reproach at all times. I held my own personnel inspections and material inspections.

What I also did was speak to them in a respectful manner and asked them more than I told them.

I worked hard, putting in lots of overtime to learn how to be successful in replacing every junky piece of furniture, equipment, system and procedure that had, for years, made the job more difficult for all of us.

I worked with one of the RMs, who was consistently performing below standard, to help him get up to snuff. After measuring performance for a fair amount of time, I had to take responsibility and start the admin to get his designator taken away because, especially when it came to the radios, there were people lives at stake and he was not cut out for that kind of responsiblity.

I was hard on them but while I was coming down on their so-so, just get the job done performance, I was also, by my actions alone, showed an interest in them as human beings.

I started an educational file on each, and taught them how to manuever their way to a degree. I handed them information about the CLEP exams and got them in touch with their ESOs, sometimes setting up the first meeting myself and standing by for them while they attended it. I brought in information about inexpensive things to do in the area and how to take advantage of family advocacy programs. I asked about their families and their backgrounds. I asked about their goals. I gave them tips on how to manage money as well as financial counseling.

I gave them projects and challenged them to be creative with them, to make the work spaces more streamlined and functional. I listened to their suggestions, and if at all possible, let them go with them and make them reality.

I learned how to write good page 7's as well as bad ones. I wrote letters of recognition.

The results from these efforts changed everything about that unit. Not only in the commcen, but the feedback my CO was getting from the boat commanders and station OINC's was unprecedented. We were rated by the district commcenter as the unit was the lowest error rate with regard to message traffic, we went to virtually no missed radio SAR calls, the commcenter never looked cleaner, the crew went from grumbling to designing in house training programs as well as the first-ever data comms training program to take as a roadshow to our small boat stations. The procedures for the message flow and quality control were designed and implemented by the crew. Remarkably, people were taking pride in what they did. The attrition rate dropped and the promotion rate rose.

If we want to talk morale, the crew began hanging around to chat after they had been relieved from the watch. We recognized birthdays and brought in food to those on watch. But this "high morale" was merely a byproduct of something much bigger. Their performance was not great because of high morale, their morale was high because of great performance.

We went from merely "mission accomplished" to "mission accomplished and then some" all the while I expected the moon from the crew and let them know that there is nothing they cannot accomplish, both personally and professionally.

I did these things for one reason. I felt it was my duty to enhance the way the mission was being accomplished and make the Coast Guard better. The style I chose was to do everything I could as a leader to better the people because I have found that when you better the people, you better the Coast Guard.

I was 21 years old when all of this was occurring, now I am almost 46 and never has this style failed me or those that I know that use it, even my friends who used the style while underway on big white ones. I received the Coast Guard Achievement Award for my efforts, which was a nice 2 points for the SWE, but more important than that for me was knowing that a leadership style can make all the difference in the world for the Coast Guard and its people.

Personally, I do not need a leadership model that is designed by someone else. It's simple really, if you really care about the Coast Guard, its missions its leadership, seniority and juniority, expect the most of people and let them know, by your actions, that you care about them as people. If people believe that you care and that you will provide for them the tools that they need to succeed, they will follow you anywhere, and if they follow you anywhere, their limits are within you ...

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Now there is a thumbs up! Well said Senior!

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Janet, I envy you. I have never been at a unit where I was able to draw the best out of "everyone." There was always one or two individuals that I was simply unable to reach. I concede that my own limitations were responsible for those failures and I regret not being able to find the right approach.

To this day, I'm not convinced that I've found an approach or leadership style that works in all situations. My peers and I generally fall short as often as we rise above. Even when I take a generality like "caring about my people," and try to apply it uniformily, the mission will often get in the way.

But, you didn't answer the original question. How do you judge a CO/OIC on their competency? Would you relieve one if all of those negative things you experienced early in your career were present, but the mission was still being accomplished?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Dennis, I think you almost hit the nail on the head. It should be based on mission accomplishment, but you get marked on how you perform as well as how your crew performs. If all that matters is the mission, OIC review boards would be simple. I think the key to judging the OIC is balance.

Can the crew accomplish the mission, the maintenance, the watches, training, fitness while still taking care of the family and keeping morale at an acceptable level?

If they can, the OIC must have had an influence in that ability. Whether they needed to be micro-managed and put on strict schedules to make time for everything, or if it is by recognizing the crews abilities and staying the hell out of the way except when needed.

I believe that the command goals can be met with the help of the crew or at the expense of the crew. If you start just looking at the accomplishments of the unit to judge an OIC you may as well start having OIC's write OER's...

[MKC Jo Ledbetter]

Original Question- How should a CO/OIC be judged on his/her competency? And, who should make the decision as to the competency of a CO/OIC?

#3 on the original post "How well do they accomplish their mission?"
gets my vote. After all, that is why we're here - to accomplish the mission. "The mission" is usually on the big sign or brow dodger when your walking from the car to work: Station Wherever, U.S.A., Aids To Navigation Team, WTGB, WMEC, WHEC, etc.

I dont want my opinion to imply that the other factors are not important. They are. Especially since Morale/Welfare/Recreation, Tuition Assistance, etc. is already built into our budget. We as Chiefs should be convincing members to take advantage of these programs on their off time. They are great fringe benefits.

The bottom line remains that the tax payers are expecting us to accomplish #3 and considering that we are all tax payers, we should expect nothing less from the Coast Guard.

If we do not consistently accomplish the mission, we will see more and more private industry taking over many of our missions (already another thread). Boat US, SeaTow, Pile driver tug/barge co., local law enforcement (marine police), probably dont give a darn about Morale, ORM Models, they just get the job done.

Just one perspective from a Non-OIC.

Jo

[OSCS Janet Ferritto]

My first reponse was a reaction to an earlier statement that everything must take a "distant backseat" to mission accomplishment. I used my own experience as a RM2 because I believe leadership styles transcend rank or job title. You can take every point I made earlier about my own experience and insert it into a scenario involving CO/OINCS competency. Leadership is leadership. Evaluating a CO/OINC's competency cannot exclusively be a "mission accomplished" box to check on someone's OER accompanied by some fancy narrative.

If we check our Coast Guard history, 99.9% of the time Coast Guard units and facilities have accomplished and continue to accomplish their many missions. This is who we are. Mission accomplishment has never been an issue. If we make mission accomplishment the main thrust of judging what kind of job a leader is doing without simultaneously judging what they are doing to grow better Coast Guardsmen, then we set a low bar for ourselves.

Our leaders investments cannot only be in the CG missions. Our leaders investments must equally be made in building better CG people at every level so that we can continue our great legacy. A legacy that needs heroes who go beyond mission accomplishment.

Should COs and OINCs be relieved if they are not inspirational or are in charge of a unit with low morale, low promotion rates or high attrition rates be relieved? I say no, it's too expensive. However, if these same COs and OINCs are doing nothing measurably about the low morale, low promotion rates or high attrition rates they should certainly not be receiving marks past an overall rating of 4. If they are simply getting the job done, they are average at best and should be evaluated accordingly.

Also, as far as anyone envying my experiences, don't. I am too old to be naive. The example I used earlier included a reference about having to be instrumental in having a designator taken away from one of the RMs that worked under me. If I painted a picture of perfection, I did not mean to. I fast forwarded through alot to get to my final point. I will say, however, the style that I adopted 24 years ago has, by and large, been very successful for me.

Could I turn everyone around 180 degrees with this style? Of course not. All I can tell you is that I got great results anyway because we were a team that included the weak and the strong. For as long as a "4" on a rating scale of 1 - 7 is an acceptable mark, we will always have weak people. Its what we do with them that counts.

Some people view a weak person as someone to use as a bad example for the rest. I view a weak person as a challenge and I rarely give up on them because I believe my job is to do everything I can to turn them around. If I were queen, I would make the same is true for every Coast Guard person in a position of leadership, from a SN to an Admiral and every CO and OINC in between.

COs and OINCs are duty bound to understand the culture of their units and strive to not only lead but inspire. If they can't inspire, then they should show, by their actions, concern for their people. Every great leader that ever existed on the face of this planet, either inspired or showed concern for those that they lead. This greatness is not accomplish by merely getting the job done. It is about building relationships and trust so that people rise to become the best that they can be and therefore creating an organization that is the best than it can be.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Janet,

I don't have an evaluation form in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that morale, promotion rates, and attrition rates are not catagories to be evaluated (on an OER or an enlisted performance eval). If you base your evals on those things, you are attaching baggage to eval system that shouldn't be there and will bog that system down in your own agenda.

Expense should not be your major reason for not relieving someone. If they deserve to be relieved, expense be hanged.

I agree that every leader should lead and inspire. I think, though, that we disagree as to what should be inspired. I try to inspire a willingness to complete the mission. I interpreted your post to say that you try to inspire your subordinates to feel fulfilled. It has been my experience that those objectives are frequently at odds with each other. The job (in its various forms) is not always enjoyable no matter how we try to dress it up. If we focus on the individual instead of the mission, we will become an organization existing to support its people, rather than an organization existing to accomplish its mission. Our mission is our reason for being and has to be our first priority. As such, barring anything illegal, unethical, or immoral, mission accomplishment should be the only criteria for gauging the success of a CO/OIC.

[OSCS Janet Ferritto]

Dennis,

This is why face to face discussion is aways better than the written word.
I have always placed mission accomplishment as number 1 but, the question is, to what degree is it being accomplished? Does the crew have pride? Do they feel invested in? Do they want to go above and beyond the call of duty, or do they follow the SOP to the letter?

If you look back through what I have said, you will notice that I stated that the Coast Guard accomplishes its missions 99.9% of the time. Accomplishing the mission, as everyone agrees, is the top priority. In my first post, I stated that the mission was being accomplished when I arrived at that unit. The problem was that because no one was focusing on or cared about the people themselves, promotions were low, attrition was high and everyone hated to be there. So, even though the sar missions were being accomplished, personnel retention goals were not. Missions come in many packages and they are not all operational.

My point is that if the primary mission is being accomplished, than a leader should be focusing on the betterment of the crew so that the mission accomplishment can be enhanced. It is all about the mission and how well it is accomplished, not just that it is accomplished. It is important how the crew feels about accomplishing the mission because they are the ones that are going to go beyond just doing their jobs and take ownership to improve all aspects of accomplishing the mission.

Never have I said that it is more important to focus on the individual rather than the mission and never have I said that if the individual stands in the way of mission accomplishment, then we should sacrifice the mission. On the contrary, I mentioned that I had someone's designator removed because I felt he was standing in the way of mission accomplishment. I put that in there to make the point that I believe the mission comes before the individual.

Don't not confuse being "touchy-feely" with building better Coasties. There is a huge difference. Find anyone that has worked for me and they will tell you that I am tough. I expect the moon from them and that the mission always comes first. What I do, by focusing on the individuals while accomplishing the mission, brings forth superlative results.

By the way, the "too expensive" reference was tongue and cheek.

[BMC Mark Lewis]

How does the crew feel about them?

How well do they do on inspections?

How well do they accomplish their mission?

How well do they meet the expectations of their bosses?

All of these need to be condisered when evaluating a CO/OIC because these all are part of being an OIC. Now do not take this has meaning that the crew has to love you all the time.

The mission will not be accomplished without involving the other three.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Mark,
Would you relieve a CO/OIC that had any of this happen?

1. Frequent complaints to the CMC concerning his/her hardass approach.

2. Performs missions without flaw, but frequently performs below average on inspections and RFOs.

3. Doesn't like his/her CO and shows it.

And, I've known quite a few COs/OICs that have been lacking one or two of your criteria and still accomplished their missions quite well. Your wrong when you say mission accomplishment requires the other three.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Since membership is growing and I don't know if new members are taking the time to look past the first page for old threads let me try to breathe life back into this one.

Dennis,

1. I wouldn't look at relieving an OIC for the complains about being a hardass.
No one's complaints to the CMC involve someone being to nice to me.

2. If you're regularly scoring below average on inspections and RFOs you're not successfully completing all of your missions. The recommendation for relief would depend on what areas you continually fall short in. If you're falling short in money matters, re-certs, or PPE you can expect to start looking for new employment. That's not my take, it's the CG's.

3. Define shows it. If you are getting to the point of being publicly disrespectful, yeah, you're fired. Check your marks under responsiblity and loyalty. Two other things I didn't write. When you get to the point of not supporting command decisions or following command policy, yeah, I'd relieve you and get someone who would. And before you get all spun up, would you pull the quals of one of your crew who was outwardly disrepectful/resentful towards you ? Doesn't he undermine your authority ? Do you have the time to continually butt heads and still complete your mission ?

You also seem to make light of the importance of unit morale. Too many variables to worry about ? I like to think that I have a happy crew, maybe not all the time, but I've never seen them miserable. An unhappy crew will eventually fail to complete their missions. They will begin to fail so their failure is attributed to the command. You can get people to happily do undesireable things if its approached in the right manner. Yet another section in the marks.

As leaders, our missions are many and varied, and somethings to accomplish one, we fail at others. People who focus solely on their units primary mission, often fail their people. And who is going to complete the mission after you're gone, if you're not going to meet the needs of your people and retain the leaders of tomorrow ?