Monthly Mandatory Chiefs Mess Training in the Navy Are we Next?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I saw this in the Navy Times June 19th Edition

Thoughts?

Pushing the khaki pipeline
Changes in coursework aim to prepare chiefs earlier on for their expanding duties

By Mark D. Faram
Times staff writer


Big changes are in store for all Navy chiefs, beginning in just a few weeks.

For starters, new chief petty officers’ transition training has been overhauled for the first time in nearly 15 years. All existing coursework has been rewritten, interactive training models have been instituted, and formal classroom requirements are in place. The goal: Train confident, capable chiefs faster and better than ever before by preparing them for the myriad duties and responsibilities they’ll encounter sooner in the training pipeline. In addition, new coursework reflects today’s diverse leadership challenges.

The first changes will take place with this summer’s chief selects. More changes are expected in the months to come.


In addition, training inside existing chiefs’ messes will expand, with mandated monthly training for everyone wearing anchors.

“Let’s face it, the Navy isn’t getting any larger, and there’s more and more being asked of our chiefs, and we need to provide these leaders the necessary tools,” said Force Master Chief (SS/SW/AW/PJ) Michael McCalip, the senior enlisted sailor for the Navy’s manpower, training and education commands who was charged by Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (SS/AW) Terry Scott to begin this overhaul nearly three years ago.

“We’ve got master chiefs at the [Naval] War College, we’re expanding the enrollment at Senior Enlisted Academy by requiring all senior chiefs to complete the course, and now we’re going to expand continuing education in our messes, as well,” McCalip said.

The result is the first major upgrade to how both new and existing chiefs are trained in nearly 15 years — an overhaul that resulted in changes to 80 or 90 percent of their existing coursework, according to Command Master Chief (SW/AW) David Orso, the senior enlisted sailor at the Little Creek, Va.-based Center for Naval Leadership. Orso is in charge of developing the training.

Emphasis on role-playing

By July 15, new course materials to be taught to this year’s newly selected chiefs will be shipped to every command in the Navy.

Like today, the newly minted chiefs will get three solid days of classroom training. But similarities to the old chief petty officer indoctrination course will stop there, Orso said.

“This is a total rewrite,” he said. “Much of what was taught before was what I call programmatic in nature. We were just putting out information for them to absorb.”

In its place, role-playing and other interactive training will take center stage. In addition, unnecessary or outdated training has been culled from the list.

For example, he said, topics like uniform standards and division leadership techniques are now taught earlier in a sailor’s career, so all prospective chiefs should have already mastered them before they are selected, Orso said. Those outmoded topics were taken out.

“We don’t need to tell them how to be leaders because that’s a primary criteria for selection to chief,” Orso said. “What we need to do is give them the tools and awareness to be successful at the next level of leadership.”

To that end, the initial, intensive three-day training will focus on the “core competencies” of a Navy chief — leading, developing, communicating and supporting, he said.

“We believe this will have an immediate impact,” he said. When the chiefs are pinned Sept. 16, he added, it will enable them to confidently act as chiefs “on the 17th.”

Orso said the course will include specific “situational training,” something that’s not currently done.

Such training will provide them with the ability and confidence to take charge of sailors.

“This course is interactive and progressive in nature, meaning each successive part builds on what has been covered before,” he said.

Commands will appoint a training facilitator, a position Orso said is critical.

What’s needed, he said, isn’t a traditional Navy instructor. Instead, he wants experienced chiefs to be “facilitators” — someone who doesn’t dominate the discussion, but rather, will be able to monitor the group’s dynamics and find ways to pull all the participants into the discussions.

“I can’t stress how important this is,” he said. “To be really effective and for our prospective chiefs to get the most out of the course, it’s extremely important the facilitator be a dynamic individual, who is just as good a listener as a leader and, most of all, is able to stay with the group through the whole course.”

For the 2006 transition season, the selects will only participate in the single three-day course. But more changes and requirements are on the way, officials say, including additional courses that will be taught during the entire transition season.

A mess of more training

Training won’t stop when the anchors are pinned on, either.

Orso said the second phase of this new training plan will impact everyone currently in a chiefs’ mess.

“Chiefs’ Mess Training” will include monthly mandatory training, similar to the general military training currently required for junior enlisted sailors.

Starting in September, chiefs’ messes will receive monthly training topics that they’ll be required to complete as a collective mess. There are 10 topics in all.

‘We’re still developing the training now,” Orso said. “It’s designed for chief petty officers, and it will be appropriate to their roles and leadership and should be developmental in nature, to help our chiefs perform better and improve the chief’s ability to affect mission accomplishment in the command.”

Exactly how and when the monthly training will be delivered will be left up to the individual command master chiefs and what is best for their individual messes, Orso said.

“It’s also important that the CMCs get involved with this and lend their knowledge and experience to the process,” Orso said.

The training will focus on “Big Navy” issues and target areas where chief petty officers can have a specific, significant impact, he said.

Just as with the new chiefs’ training, these courses will be updated annually, McCalip said.

“We fully intend to refresh all the modules annually, and we should also work to develop new topics and be able to remove and re-prioritize the content as necessary,” he said.

In fact, Orso said, the current class at the Senior Enlisted Academy in Newport, R.I., is expected to come up with the recommended topics for the 10 CMT courses to be offered this year, as well as next year’s 12 topics.

“This means we will be able to change the training content dynamically in order to have the most impact in the chief’s ranks,” McCalip said. “For example, if sailor conduct becomes an issue, we can develop a course and concentrate on it as a mess, and the same goes for family issues, and the list goes on.”

McCalip also envisions command-specific training.

“Some areas may have liberty issues that need to be addressed or have cultural issues that chiefs need to be aware of in order to properly manage their sailors,” McCalip said. “This approach lets us react to needs like that in a very quick way.”

But one thing’s for sure, Orso said: The process won’t be done in a vacuum and just handed down from on high.

“Our partner in all this is, and will continue to be, the fleet,” Orso said. “We want to seek out just what the touchstone issues are on the deckplates and use these courses to help deliver solutions as fast as possible.”

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Wow,

My input -

1. The Navy with a new CNO has really been pushing & increasing [reactivating] the roles & responsibilities expected of the Chiefs Corps. And that is a hugh great move. How much bigger and more direct can a headline get "CHIEFS NEED TO RUN THE NAVY."

2. I hope our Coast Guard Command realizes our Chiefs Corps can use a kick-in-the-ass & considers same measures.

3. MCPOCG - phone check...

[MKCS Mark Cummings]

So let me get this straight, you guys want the Coast Guard to run like the Navy?! Isn't that like asking a Marine to act like a sailor? I believe that we need to tailor our outfit for the Coast Guard way, not the Navy way. If you want Navy, Go Navy. But, if your like me and had a father who was Navy you wouldn't want anything the Navy way. We are the Coast Guard we have and will always be an outfit that does things outside the box. We're able to move faster, most times better than any of the other services.

And cutting down the Chief Mess by wanting them to act more like a Navy Mess is just plain insulting. :mad:

[BMCS Burt Ford]

From my point of view, CG Chiefs are already doing it!

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

As a former ST I can definately roger up and say we do not want to follow in the Navy's footseps. Unless of course it's to get 77 funds :rolleyes:

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

That's the problem with email discussions, it's hard to get your true meaning across, or easier for others to not get the meaning.

I don't agree with everything the Navy will be doing to revise their Chiefs Mess. It's well known fact CG Chiefs already keep everything on an even keel and most any Coast Guard Chief has more deligation authority and responsibilities than Navy Chiefs. It's always been that way and always will.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

The proof is in the pudding.

While this may work for the Navy, I have doubts on the execution of a like program in the CG.

Imagine the interactive training ... CPO [OiC] sits in front of the mirror trying to trip up and train CPO [reflected image]. Not going to happen in this lifetime. :) j/k

How would the CG implement such a thing? The Sector call all the OIC's in for a one day or two day session? That would work till funding ran out. Not every unit is within a day's drive of their ADCON, assuming this is an administrative function.

I guess I'd have to see more details.

The CG has always pushed responsibility down as far as it can possibly go. That's why CG PO2s attend Navy leadership courses designed for Navy PO1s.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I'm not suggesting that NAVY CPOs are/are not better than CG CPOs -- I think that there might be merit in some of the things they (CNO/MCPON) are trying to do.

What is wrong with looking at other people's ideas and adopting some of the concepts to our own way of doing things?

We have debated some of these similar topics comparing USN-to-USCG CPOs before.

FACT:
1. They have a different Advancement System to E7,8,9 -- is it better, I don't know? Could we learn from some of it, absolutely!

2. They have a different CPO Indoctrination System (CCTI) -- is it better, I don't know? Could we learn from it, absolutely!

3. Navy Warrants are automatically shifted to the Wardroom, no ifs, and or buts about it. Is it better, I don't know? Could we learn from it, absolutely!

We have talked about juniority, hell some of us are products of it, some people could use the monthly training. Even with the CPO Academy, the idea of incorporating follow up training/leadership topics to support the goals and objectives of the Academy is not a bad thing. How many of you have met the personal goals you set for yourselves after you left the CPO Academy? How many even remember what they were? If we have a system whereby we can use the collective energy f the Mess to make us better CPOs, Leaders and Mentors, what is wrong with that?

I tend to like the idea of mandatory monthly CPO Training. Some here complain about the lack of participation in the local Mess. How do you propose to fix it? Why not have mandatory monthly sessions for training, IDP Review Boards, etc.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I had to chime in on this one, I think Steve hit it on the head.

Do I want to wear Khaki's? NO!

Do I think we could use something to prompt specific GMT type training within the mess instead of assuming we are already on the same page? YES.

Even in the small mess on my 210', we only discuss military issues that crop up do to problems, casualties etc. happening on board. Maybe if there was a list of topics (even if it was just E-PME stuff) it would definitely generate more discussion and possibly make us more cohesive as a group.

I think we could learn alot from their E-7 Indoc as well. For us initiation is by choice, but there are lessons there and elsewhere that a new Chief needs whether they are initiated or not. Most of it they probably already have, but it would be in our best interest to make sure. It's not like we havent had Civil Rights and 8-H training repeatedly. We are used to rehashing old things to make sure we remember. We could alter that and relearn things from a Chiefs perspective.

There have been many posts on this board regarding dwindling participation in the mess and the CCTI...

Ken

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

That's what I was initially trying to say. Should we mirror the Navy Chief way of business? Nope, but I do like the idea of the Navy publicly focasing on the Chiefs and saying to junior & senior personnel; "the Chiefs Mess is the backbone of the Navy and we intend to give them all the support & education they need to improve a stagnant mess."

When's the last time any of you remember reading anything headlined on the CG magazine or Navy times or anywhere saying ANYTHING about our Cheifs Corps as a whole and focused on the future with a plan in place?

[BMC Jim Bodenrader]

We have enough mandatory stuff to do already. I don't need/want to be told how to be a Chief. I get this from my experience, both successes and failures and don't want someone else deciding what is important to me. IMO, there needs to be a check and balance and I think you lose this when you start holding mandatory training with other people's agendas.

As far as the Chiefs being the backbone, I don't know....Up in Boston both at the ISC and Sector we have the same Chiefs show up to meetings. I understand people may not be able to make them all but there are a lot who enjoy the comfort and privileges of the Chiefs Mess but couldn't find it's location with Mapquest! Quite frankly, I wouldn't want some E7 gracing us with their presences only because it was mandatory, I say screw!

Bodie

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Steve writes: FACT:
1. They have a different Advancement System to E7,8,9 -- is it better, I don't know? Could we learn from some of it, absolutely!

2. They have a different CPO Indoctrination System (CCTI) -- is it better, I don't know? Could we learn from it, absolutely!

3. Navy Warrants are automatically shifted to the Wardroom, no ifs, and or buts about it. Is it better, I don't know? Could we learn from it, absolutely!

I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from the Navy's Advancement system, but that doesn't make it right for the Coast Guard.

http://www.tech-service.net/images/advancement.jpg

Looking at the CG's advancement system, the member has direct control over their performance in the Exam portion, the largest slice of the Advancement Game pie at 80 points. The member controls, by their behavior, the second largest portion of the advancement game pie, the EPEFs.

I view the CG's advancement system, once the member obtains the advancement recommendation from their command, as promoting knowledge first, then promoting experience. One only needs to look at the modified Z-score the CG uses to calculate the SWE points to illustrate that fact.

If someone's score doesn't clearly place them as an outstanding performer compared to the other exam takers, the other factors have a chance to make them slip way down the list.

There will be those who bring up the facts that no exams are giving at times. In those times, you have more open billets for that paygrade then people competing for those billets. Why should we waste everyone's time, from the course writer to the test taker and everyone in between, by forcing them to take a test when the CG intends to advance them all anyways.

I'd say keep the CG advancement system the way it is. I'll bet some Navy Chief's wished they had the CG advancement system.

While on the topic ... In PSCINST M1414.8C on page 6 where they talk about the members responsibilities, PSC talks of the required Time in Service as well as the required Time in Grade referencing CIM 1000.6 [series] Chapter 5.C. However, 5.C.14.a. Service requirements, talks only of Time in Grade. What are the Time in Service requirements for advancement?

For those who think people are advancing too fast, you have to change the TIG requirements to satisfy your complaint. Till then, when the member is recommended, they are ready to assume the next paygrade.

p.s. I'm sure we all can point to questionable recommendations, but remember, it wasn't your call to make. When it is your call, you'll make it, right or wrong.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

Does the Coast Guard need to be a clone of the Navy. Hell no!! But can we take the best of all that is out there from each of the services. Yes. I think the Coast Guard is finally getting better with leadership training, starting with Senior enlisted and mentoring (implementation of the IDP), the increased attendance in the LAMS road show for the junior enlisted and JO's, and of course the mandatory CPOA for those who want to compete for Senior Chief. The Coast Guard in that aspect of leadership training has been a couple of steps behind the other services. Maybe in the near future we will make it mandatory for those making E-5 to have attended the LAMS, the same for making it mandatory for JO's being auto-promoted to LTJG should and replacing their butter bars. As for the advancement process, it works for us but what has to be improved upon is the Eval portion. I have been talking to many fellow Chiefs in the Miami area and it seems that one, the area reserved for Recommended for Advancement has not been properly weighed on the individual merits of the member being marked. The feeling I get is that unless a member has a bunch of 3's and below or is just a complete s---bag the benefit of the doubt is being given to the member. In November 05, I only placed one out of five of my PO1's as Recommended. It made for some very long counseling sessions. The top two items of concern while I attended the Chiefs Academy was the issue of juniority, and the marking system. Since then some Alcoast have been sent out about those very issues. Supervisors, Marking and Approving Officials need to really place more weight on that one area for the evals. It would be nice if the PROGRESSING block could come back. The members take it personally and feel they are considered as very a poor performer no matter what the individual numbered marks area. On top of that, even though that block is not to be used administratively for job placement, how much weight does the detailer place when filling XPO or top leadership billets. So in that respect I can understand some of the points my guys have made. Should we just give them the benefit of the doubt. Again all my PO1's had decent marks, but still did not have the administrative, leadership and communication skills to go on and be recommended for Chief. But many have tried to tell me I am in the wrong. I would really love to hear a lot of comments from all angles. I am lucky to be able bounce my thoughts such as these from other fellow Chiefs, like BMCS Mark Mello, MKC Steve Santos and BMC Mike Winans. But would like to hear from other fellow Chiefs. Please sound off.

[MKCS Mark Cummings]

:mad: BMC G B, I was set up by that little 'ole progressing mark because the supervisor did not have the courage to consel or explain, when I asked for a review lo and behold a pge 7 appears unsigned in my PDR. No, I as a supervisor HATE that little 'ol cop out. Progressing, it still stops you from a SWE with little or no documentation.
You either have the fortitude to sit down with your people and consel between marks or you can ask for the cop out progressing block. I always believed that that was a lily livered approach to stopping a member from advancing. You mark your people according to their performance, if you don't think they're ready consel them and show them the proper way to get that recommendation.
I see alot of senior personnel who give a pass to the member that kisses the right amont of a$$ and then watch that same supervisor stick it to the go to guy, because he knows that the go to guy won't complain and knows that the job will alway be completed. We lose alot of great service mebers because we have senior personnel that will burn out a great performer, and then wonder why that member wants to leave the C.G., gee make you go... hmmmmm.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Progressing is a cop out. Progressing means that you're not ready for advancement. You don't have what it takes....yet. Not recommended does the same thing. You don't have what it takes....yet. Instead of bringing back the progressing mark, why not create a new one........"Not really sure." That way the Approving Official can keep all his friends and the person being marked can have no idea what to do next.
Gene, two things that I'd like to take exception to.
First the CG leads all other services in leadership training. The CG is the only service with Enlisted Commands. The CG still trains it's E-4s to be Coxswains. Other rates still are assigned independant duty. We lead the way in on the job training.
Second, there is no juniority in the CG. People are not being advanced prior to the timelines that our sister services face. People may be advanced before they are ready for that additional responsibility, because the people whose responisiblity it is to monitor that, can't make the tough decisions. We shouldn't be making their jobs easier. People are either ready to advance, or they're not. The people that want the progressing marks to come back would never have to mark someone Not Recommended......even that complete s__bag you mentioned earlier.
When you hold a qualification board for someone, they either pass or fail. Everyone who fails could be considered as progressing toward certification. Why is it that people don't seem to mind telling that person at the qualification board, you're not ready, but we look for ways to candy coat it when it comes to marks ?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

It might work better to use what other services use, and have several blocks for advancement:

o Advance ahead of peers.
o Advance with peers.
o Advance behind peers.
o Do not advance.

This might give the detailer better insight into who is being transferred, and to the actual character of a person's service at a unit.

When a new Station OinC gets a new XPO, he can look and see that the BM1 has four years in service, :eek: but has had all "Advance ahead of peers" marked... And, SHOULD keep the OinC from getting some guy that has a bunch of "Advance behind peers".

If they have DNA on their marks, they AREN'T ready, and shouldn't be advanced at all. Perhaps if we gave point values to the command endorsement... a "behind" gets 1 point, a "with" gets 10, and "ahead" gets 20 points. If you want to be advanced, then you should work harder to raise your points for the NEXT cycle.
_______________________________________

Now, Senior, I HAVE to take exception to your notion that the USCG has the best leadership training in all the services... how in Neptune's name did you establish this asinine opinion??

Just because we have SNBM coxswains and independant duty people, this DOESN'T mean we have ANY sort of leadership training. Just because a BM3 is a good boat driver DOESN'T mean that he can lead ANYTHING outside of that boat.

The Coast Guard is truly pitiful in the lip service that we pay to leadership training, and it burns my bottom on a daily basis. We have LAMS that is only available to PO2 and above... so where can my crop of eager PO3's get the training?? Do petty officers do the same things as officers? Heck no!! They manage - WE lead. Why give them BOTH the same training??

Two reasons:
1. The Coast Guard doesn't understand.
2. The Coast Guard doesn't care.

This is the ONE topic in which I will bad-mouth my service, and it is truly hard for me to not foam at the mouth and beat my fists on bulkheads and desks...

To retain formal leadership training for E-7s and above is like putting makeup on a corpse... too little, too late. For SA Slesh to grow up to be a great leader in the USCG is nothing more than an accident. If SA Slesh has several asses for BM3s and BM1s and a BMC on the "ROAD" program, he will either get out, or learn that it is fully acceptable AND EXPECTED to be intolerant, insufferable and an ass as a leader. Viola! The Coast Guard leadership program worked!!

If SA Slesh has a BM3 that CARES, a BM1 that WANTS to train the next generation of leaders and a BMC that cares about the mission as well as the next generation of leaders, SA Slesh will be provided with the tools to become a good leader. Viola!! The Coast Guard leadership program worked!

See what I mean about accidental?

"A" schools need to be made longer by three weeks to a month... to incorporate leadership training into them. If a member strikes a rating, then there should be a mandatory 3/4 week training course that is MANDATORY to pin on their crows. Same thing for First... and Chief.

To do less is a disservice to the Coast Guard, the units, and the member. The attitude of "Congrats! You are a surgeon, just watch the other surgeons really close and you will get the hang of it," just doesn't cut it!! Would you want to be the patient in that person's care? What about the boot SA under that new petty officer? :mad:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

When you hold a qualification board for someone, they either pass or fail. Everyone who fails could be considered as progressing toward certification.

And nothing prevents the CO from having a board review the evaluations and recommendations for advancment.

I've appeared before an evaluation board as an ET2 when I was curious about a leadership mark.

I've sat on evaluation boards reviewing all the Petty Officer's marks at the unit.

I've convened evaluation boards for PO3's with all the PO2s and up in a 25 man shop. It was good training for those PO2s concerning evaluations.

Nothing prevents the CO/OIC from convening an Advancement Recommendation board.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Asinine opinion ? What's asinine is thinking the Coxswains are merely the person driving the boat. I've never qualified a coxswain based solely on his ability to drive a boat. What's asinine is comparing leadership with surgery. So on the flip side, if someone has had formal leadership training you would allow them to operate on you.
You want to see leaders ? Go to a playground. You can pick out the leaders in a matter of minutes. I can show you people who have taken every formal leadership course available, and couldn't lead obsese people to an all you can eat buffet. I've seen people with none, lead people into and safely out of harms way.
Go watch a buoy deck evolution sometime. The best buoy deck supervisors aren't always the ones with the most schooling or even the most Aids under their belt.
Some people excel despite the poor leaders that they have worked for. Just ask SA Slesh.

[BMC John Phillips III]

It might work better to use what other services use, and have several blocks for advancement:

o Advance ahead of peers.
o Advance with peers.
o Advance behind peers.
o Do not advance.

This might give the detailer better insight into who is being transferred, and to the actual character of a person's service at a unit.

Or they might just read the command endorsement on the eresume and figure that one out themselves.

When a new Station OinC gets a new XPO, he can look and see that the BM1 has four years in service, :eek: but has had all "Advance ahead of peers" marked... And, SHOULD keep the OinC from getting some guy that has a bunch of "Advance behind peers".

The first thing I look for is a NR or U in conduct and any 3's or less. Same y same.

Now, Senior, I HAVE to take exception to your notion that the USCG has the best leadership training in all the services... how in Neptune's name did you establish this asinine opinion??

so where can my crop of eager PO3's get the training?? Do petty officers do the same things as officers? Heck no!! They manage - WE lead. Why give them BOTH the same training??

Asinine opinion, I am not a moderator but I would say you are treading into tou territory there, well speaking from a moderator type point of view. Speaking from JP3 point of view I think now that Dennis is gone Gerald is getting a little balsy, or stupid one of the two. I wouldn't say stupid but I do believe you have thanked Dennis in the past for "enlightening" you. Anyway, to answer the question in bold, they get it from you or don't they?

Two reasons:
1. The Coast Guard doesn't understand.
2. The Coast Guard doesn't care.

This is the ONE topic in which I will bad-mouth my service, and it is truly hard for me to not foam at the mouth and beat my fists on bulkheads and desks...


Now that's asinine, however I can picture you sitting at your desk foaming at the mouth. Apparently you let some of that foam run over on your keyboard.

I am sorry, I can't go any further. Except to ask were you talking about this guy? Or did you mean "voila" as in (vwä-lä)?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Okay, leave it to me to let a misspelling ruin a good rant... voila it is...

Senior Chief, do physicians get formalized training? You betcha. And now, after seeing generations of crappy people skills, they are formalizing the bed-side manner side of things.

Even coxswains get formalized training - for driving a boat - but not for leadership. This was (supposed to have been) the crux of my point.

On a 47, the BM3 doesn't have to be a "good leader"... he can very easily be a dictator - and he SHOULD BE! If something isn't right, it is up to him - or her - to stop the badness immediately. I'm not talking about the on-board activities... I am talking about 20 minutes after the boat is moored and it's scrubbed down, when you can't default back to Captain Queeg to get the job done.

As a second class, I had an SNMB yell at me like a red-headed step child, and I didn't say a thing about it - because he SHOULD have. I got stupid on a 44' and got in his way. After we were moored, he tried to apologize, but I cut him off - telling him that he was completely in the right - because it was his position to yell. The captain/coxswain is God... and I made sure the rest of his crew heard me say it.

The training you are claiming as the "best in the service" is NOT leadership training - it is coxswain training. Being a dictator on a 47' isn't going to help him do counseling for giving someone a NR, or a 3, or deal with interpersonal relationships or a thousand other things. It will help him make snap decisions in life-or-death situations, but not deal with people.

THIS is why I called your opinion all wet.

I've tried to get leadership training whereever I have been, both for myself and for my crew. There are some units out there that refuse to send anyone under PO2 to LAMS... why?

Why should we keep tools from our leaders? Why should we depend upon nothing but luck to make SN Slesh and SN Motyka good leaders? Obviously you had a spark to begin with - some don't have that spark. THOSE are the ones that we need to ensure get the tools that are available... but that the Coast Guard doesn't see fit to give them.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Gerald, just because you got chewed out by an SNBM and deserved it, does not a dictator make. If you even knew half of what goes into becoming a coxswain on a standard boat at a small boat station you would retract your opinion.

The people at the pointy end of the stick not only get OJT in leadership and everything else, they are held accountable for their actions. Making a call in a tough situation produces some of the best leadership training there is, either positive or negative. When putting something off until after the 1000 coffee break is not an option, you learn to problem solve on your feet. You also learn to use those around you because of the skills they have. That is leadership training.

You said, and I quote, "I've tried to get leadership training whereever I have been, both for myself and for my crew. There are some units out there that refuse to send anyone under PO2 to LAMS... why?" The simple answer to that one is that in the solicitation message that announces the class dates, it specifies that this class is intended for E-5 and above...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

See, I had to cut my previous post short because my wife was leading me to a birthday party.....
But Jerald....I appreciate creative writing, and a good analogy.......some of your comments were neither.
Let's go with make-up on a corpse. Now this might just be my asinine opinion....but I'm going to put that down as a requirement prior to being viewed by the public. Now you can contact your local chapter of the Morticians Union and I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that they'll have my back on that one.
And before I fill out any short term training requests, could you please enlighten me on which of your formal leadership schools taught you the most effective way to get people to come around to your train of thought was to tell them that their opinion was asinine ? I think I'd like to attend that course.
All that "formalized" training that you think that coxswains are getting, is on the job. That's my point. Like those surgeons that you keep talking about, you can read all the books that you want, doesn't make you any better once the scalple is in your hand. The on the job training that they get from a skilled surgeon is what hones their skills.
Those coxswains that you keep demoting to boat drivers, carry that leadership ability back on the peer. A dictator underway, doesn't always get the job done. Those people that think that their way is right because of some birthright will eventually get someone hurt. And didn't Captain Queeq's crew mutiny...underway.....at war ? Might be a bad analogy.

Coxswain Training is all about building your people skills. Putting enlisted people in Command positions is all about building people skills. Assigning junior people in independant duty slots is all about building people skills. The CG is very big in the trial by fire leadership method. We put people into positions of great responsiblity, and the cream rises to the top, not by accident, but by design.
You can make all of the snap decisions you want during life or death situations, and they might all be right. But if you can't get people to follow those snap decisions when they need to, you're going to end up with more death than life at the end of the day. Coxswain realize that, ....boat drivers...not so much.
Crediting our success as luck, removes all personal reponsibility. All leaders need to start with that spark. If that spark wasn't there, you could build a fire under them, and all they would do is burn. Your CG might not be providing your people with the tools that they need, but my CG gives my people everything they will ever need to get the job done. The people that aren't getting what they need , aren't really trying to get it, but we all know that that's just my asinine opinion.
And some of the best leaders I've ever seen were Officers. And some Chiefs only ever manage to avoid leading their entire career. It's a catchy little slogan....but it's crap.
And without looking up a definition in the dictionary......I'm going to go with God is God. Captains and Coxswain that think that they're God, will eventually be proven wrong. Let's just hope that it isn't one of their crew that has to be the first ones with irrefutable evidence of that.

[BMCS John Brady (Ret)]

Stuart,

First and foremost you CRACK me up, great repsonse(s)..... I especially like your use of analogies ---- leading an obese person to the buffet, good stuff.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately no amount of training is going to help some people become or be better leaders.

I have heard this same tired arguement "just send them to LAMS training and they POOF they will come back a great leader". Following this logic this outfit would be full of great leaders.

Leadership is often very intangible and can be taught but more often then not you have or you don't. I was one of the taught ones through much trial and error.........

Jerald,

Caling a coxswain a boat driver is belittling his/her awesome responsibility and final accountability. I am not sure why you got yelled at but you probably got yelled at by the boat DRIVER because the DRIVER took his/her responsibilty very seriously.

In my humble opinion a coxswain of any platform is an OIC in training. There can be no classroom setting or book that "teachs" better leadership........

Finally, just what exactly does an MST3/2 lead? aren't they techs??? not being a smartass but pleassssssse.

JB

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Wow, Dont read for the weekend and miss it all. Well put in your last reply Stu!

Gerald, who told you NO when you wanted leadership training?

That surgeon you refer too, where is his Leadership training? The ability to "command" an OR is just as important has the ability to "command" a small boat. There is not an OINC, or BM, that has ever sat on a Coxswain review board and and did not know wether or not that candidate had the "spark" as Stu put it. Stu is right, I can pick out leaders at a playground too! I find it ironic the the leaders that cry the most about leadership training are the ones with the fewest people to lead. You know what I got out of LAMS as a Bm3? That certain rates thought LAMS would teach them, as Seconds and First, how to get out of feild days in thier offices since they had no non-rates.

As far as E4's going to LAMS, plead your case to the school, I have sent several!

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Jerald, I hope you change your attitude about the Coast Guard and where it stands in leadership training before you get to your job with the Air Force. Take a look at the other services and tell me where an enlisted person has half the responsibility that one does in the Coast Guard. Maybe they need the classroom training becuase they don't get it on the job. Also, I think you are confusing LEADERSHIP with INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS. While they may go hand in hand in many cases, they are two different animals. A person can be a great leader, and not necessarily easy to get along with.

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

I can’t stand it any more. I have to ad my comments. I have to agree with Jerald. To get back on track this whole discussion started by Stuart saying “First the CG leads all other services in leadership training”. If you look at the requirements for advancement in the other service like the Air Force they are required to attend leadership training prior to advancement starting from E-3 and by they time they get to E-7 they have already attended 4 leadership courses that are required for advancement. In the Coast Guard you’re not required to have any leadership training until you take the E-8 service wide. So I just don’t see how you can say that the Coast Guard has the best leadership training. I’ve seen a lot of qualified Cox’n that couldn’t lead there way out of a box. Granted they have a lot of responsibility but the last time I looked I didn’t see a section in the boat crew seamanship manual on leadership. Responsibility and Leadership are two different issues.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And Art, qualified and good are two different things also. I don't know who would qualify someone who couldn't lead. I don't know a good coxswain that can't lead his crew. A coxswain who can't lead is just a boat driver. Is there a section in the boat crew seamanship manual on responsibility ?

In the Coast Guard we teach leadership everyday. Wait let's back up for a minute. In the Coast Guard our leaders teach leadership everyday. We don't wait around for someone at a school to do the job that we are being paid for. Who's supposed to teach those E-4s leadership ? Why not those E-5s who were fortunate enough to attend the class. Are you counseling your members on their marks ? That's a great opportunity for leadership training. The opportunities in the CG are endless. But you have to sieze those opportunities. What the CG isn't giving you, you have to take.

Talk about the wonderful schools that the Air Force sends it's people to all you want........what does it get them. Educated people. Wonderful. I'll put my Coasties up against them anytime. We have E-3s and E-4s snatching people out of the flood waters. Barking out orders to civilians. We arm our E-2s and E-3s and send them out to do boardings against people we know to be hostile under the watchful eye of an E-4. We've empowered our non-rates with the ability to stop an evolution that they think is unsafe. We give all of our people a voice, and then hold them accountable to use it. Take two minutes and review a non-rates written standard for evaluations. Next time you do a GAR model, look at the people whose opinions you are "required" to solicit.

Do you really think that sending someone to a school can compare with the University of Hard Knocks that my people face everyday ? If your people really "need" LAMS training, it isn't going to help them. They will always be answering to my people anyway. LAMS training can be extremely benificial to anyone who attends it. But if you don't allow your people to put those practices into play, their benifts are lost. No amount of schooling is going to fix the woes of the world. And nothing teaches like experience.

Throw these out to the BMs.......
Did you learn more about being a good coxswain, before or after your qualification board.?
Did you learn more about being a good OinC before or after your certification process ?

Everyday in the CG we are presented with the opportunities to learn. We are given these opportunities that those members of our sister services can't even imagine. Our leadership training is limitless. Other service members know exactly what the day has in store for them, unless they're in a war zone. In the CG, we go where the day takes you.....every day. We change plans....every day. We have to relay those changes to our subordinates and our superiors .... every day. The opportunities are there. You can't see them, because they're passing you by. You're so wrapped up in what you can't have that you're ......whoops....there goes another one.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I will just counter by saying, "more with less." In the CG a BM3 might be the 1st LT of a cutter, in the Navy, a BM3 might be the senior line handler. In the CG a BM1 might be the XPO (XO) in the Navy a BM1 might be in charge of all the line handlers. This is not a mathmatical equation to prove more leadership, but it does equate to more responsibility at lower levels. Responsibility, one of the 28 Leadership Competencies or at least half of one:

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Coast Guard leaders know ours is a military service and recognize the organizational structure and the chain of command. Each individual is sensitive to the impact of his or her behavior on others and the organization. Leaders take ownership for their areas of responsibility, are accountable to effectively organize and prioritize tasks, and efficiently use resources. Regulations and guidelines that govern accountability and responsibility allow leaders to use appropriate formal tools to hold others accountable when situations warrant.

so, I would say that the amount of responsibility placed on junior members in the CG is in a sense, leadership training (OJT) pass or fail, try again.

I am not fully opposed to Mandatory Chiefs Mess Training, because honestly, there are a lot of Chiefs out there that can use it. Not excluding myself. Do we need it to the extent that other services do? I doubt it. I guess it would depend on your rate and the experience you have leading.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Your CG might not be providing your people with the tools that they need, but my CG gives my people everything they will ever need to get the job done. The people that aren't getting what they need , aren't really trying to get it, but we all know that that's just my asinine opinion.

.


I concur with your last part about your asinine opinion and I especially like the part about your CG giving it's people everything it needs, BS, Tell me how to get in your CG. I spent 3 years at TACLET South trying, along with all the other Chiefs and Officers, to get the proper equipment like Radios, camel backs, body armor, long guns, PPE and the such and the sad fact of the matter is that if what your asking for is not on the "list" of approved items then they aren't needed, as decided by someone in a job who is never going to use. The equipment was certainly needed and useful in the Persian Gulf, which some of we borrowed from the navy.

What about all the waterfront repairs that "NEED" to be made to a good number of the D1 units that won't get done because of money, we (me and several other people in D1 who maintain the facilities that the coxswains or boatdrivers or whoever moor up at) are Really trying to get that, not only what we need but the CG as a whole, So please don't make aboslute comments or statements without considering the "big Picture", Senior Chief The part about "not getting what they need aren't really trying" is a crock of $--t.

My .02
Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Todd, you make my point for me. The things that you "needed", you borrowed. You found a way.
Things that weren't on your list weren't "needed"....did I say that, or did you say that ? The bottom line is that if you getting the job done, the things that you wanted but didn't have, really aren't needed.
And which one of us needs to look at the "big picture" ? You're looking for money to make these "needed" repairs to CG facilities, and the CG is spending the money somewhere else. Maybe your "needs" don't coincide with the CG's needs. Maybe the CG sees your "needs" as wants, and they "need" to spend the money where they feel it's "needed" now. That's the big picture I'm getting. I'm not holding on to your money, someone who's watching the big picture is.
Ever heard of this one .....? Where there's a will there's a way. I didn't make that one up. It's been around for a while. Do you want an absolute ? If you want something....really, really want something...... you won't stop until you get it. If you need something to get the job done and you don't have it.....you can't do the job. Now you can call that a crock of $--t all you want......but dems da facts.
You want into my CG ? Come over to AtoN. We can be flat broke busted. Not a nickle left in the till. But if we need to respond to an outage, replace a fallen Aid, rebuild after a hurricane.......the money is always there. We're meeting the CG's need. That's the big picture. Let the CG set the priorities for you. You tell them what you think that you need, and they'll tell you whether or not you're right. The people making those decision never have to do the job, it's their job to figure out what needs to be done, and how they're going to pay for it. They have the keys to the car. They're just asking you to drive for a while. That's my CG. And you can join anytime you want.

[BMC John Phillips III]

wow, I am not a former QM, but even I know we got a little off course there!

Ok, because I am sick and twisted, the first thing I did this morning was open up my blue-jackets manual. Actually, I was just looking at the pictures while eating my peanut butter crunch, but I turned to the section on leadership and actually started reading. Here is an excerpt:

The CG places a strong emphasis on leadership. It considers it the most important criterion for advancement in all pay grades......
Because you will learn the most about leadership from your own experiences, it follows that you will not become a good leader over-night. Developing a leader is a complex process that takes time. The Coast Guard begins this developmental process by having you be a follower first. As you advance you will be put in positions of responsibility and be given leadership opportunities. Remember that today's Master Chiefs used to be seaman recruits. Leadership and learning go hand in hand. Good leaders are always trying to learn how to become better leaders.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

They should give a copy of that to everybody in the CG.............

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Senior Chief, the problem is that if that aid isn't fixed, somone may die.

If PO2 Snuffy doesn't get leadership training, nobody will die... and it doesn't matter a damn if he acts like a mini-Hitler and sours a half-dozen thirds and non-rates on the Coast Guard, cuz when they get out we still have people coming in. Then PO2 Snuffy makes PO1... and then POC... and the number of people he can sour and spoil increases.

There are a couple more ratings in the Coast Guard than Bosun's Mate, if you might recall. I will NEVER take away the fact that BMs have a HELLUVALOT more leadership time than other ratings... I am just thinking of the comment from above where it was admitted that there are always things to be learned.

On an aside, I was wondering why it was only BMs that were all upset about my comments. No, I didn't call your opinion "asinine" because I'm a jerk or talk out of my adze... I did it for a reason - and this is it... and I thank you for helping me make my point.

There is one major rating out there that has more leadership time than any other. There is also one major rating that is overwhelmingly held by other Coasties as being staffed by a bunch of guys that represent themselves as over-inflated, dictatorial, inflexible jerks... who can't seem to deal with the rest of the ratings or people in them, and when dealing with folks on land almost always seem to ruffle feathers. Care to guess who I am talking about? In the outside world, the same traits can be seen in cops, who adopt an... altitude. This is a supreme idea that who they are and what they do is to be held in the highest of esteem and that they should be treated as such at all times.

This isn't a slam - it is an observation borne of fifteen years of dealing with Coasties and how we handle people - both internally and externally. If you can get a straight answer out of people (probably who don't know your rate or rating!), you will hear this for yourself. Ask a Yeoman or an Corpsman about it.

The huge majority of leadership training is interpersonal relationship crap and conflict management - and we all know that. We also know that if ordered to screw in a screw and if provided with a hammer, the screw will end up screwed in - we all know that too.

My argument is: Why the heck don't we want to give our junior folks the right tools to start with? It may cut down on the numbers of times when one person can screw up an entire crew.

Look at retention rates. The Coast Guard has the highest in ALL of the military. If you look closer, you will see a huge disparity. Some units have near 100% retention - and others have much, much lower. It ends up hinging upon the small unit leaders... the PO3 and PO2 that has had to "make due" with whatever they had, and now run roughshod over their crews. What I want to do is at least present them the tools they MAY use to fix the problems - before they become problems. Once they have the tools, it is up to them to use them.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

It might work better to use what other services use, and have several blocks for advancement:

o Advance ahead of peers.
o Advance with peers.
o Advance behind peers.
o Do not advance.

This might give the detailer better insight into who is being transferred, and to the actual character of a person's service at a unit.


Jerald...This marking system wouldn't work any better, maybe the same, but not better. Think about it. The same people who don't want to mark the NR, won'r want to mark the "Advance behind Peers" or "Do not Advance". They will mark the "Advance with Peers" and hit the submit button. The problem isn't the marking system, it's the people hitting the submit button.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well Jerald let's examine that shall we.........
I'm a BM, always have been. I have worked for, alongside, or supervised almost every rate in the CG.
I am that small unit command. Care to guess what the retention rate has been for people who work directly for me over the past twenty four years. 100%. That's my CG. When it comes time to re-enlist, everyone who worked for me has. When it came time to deal with people that were unsuitable, I worked to discharge them. And I didn't only retain BMs. I didn't only discahrge other rates.
I have three non-rates that will be leaving for three different "A" schools in the next three months. Do you know how many are going to BM "A" school ? Zero. They're choosing the path that's best for them. They were encouraged to do that by a BM. They were provided the opportunities to go and look at the other rates by a BM.
I provide the same opportunities for every rate that works for me. I provide the same counseling for anyone who wants to hear it. I will always be there for anyone that works for me. You know who works for me ? You want ego ? Everybody works for me. I'll show you my ID card. MCPO. Everybody works for me. And I work for everybody, regardless of their rate or their duty section.
Call up a YN, or an MK, or an HS, and ask them yourself.
And ask someone from any Mess I've ever attended. I don't hold two calls, one for BMs and one for everyone else.
Look back and find a post of mine where I belittled another rate. I probably sent someone into that rate sometime during my career.
BMs are the most vocal people on this board. BMs are some of the most vocal people in the CG. I've argued with more BMs about issue brought up here than I have with any other rate. That's because the BMs are the ones chiming in.
You've had some bad experiences with BMs and now you want to blame us for all the woes in the world ? Let's get some numbers. Find out which units are having those retention problems. Find out which rates are having those problems. But the BMs are bullies arguements aren't flying. If you're being bullied, you're allowing it to happen. The CG put measures into place to see fit that the bullying stops.
Whoops bad news. 7 of the 10 Gold Badges used to be BMs. Let's hope that they're more professional as CMCs then you gave them credit for when they were BMCMs.

And just to throw another rate under the bus.......MKs used to be the biggest rate in the CG before the QM merger. MKs are at every unit that has a BM and then some. At some units, the most senior enlisted person is the MK. MK are provided every leadership opportunity that a BM is given short of their own command. And I could give you the names of some MKs they ride rein over everyone in their path. They have made their unit their own. Everyone answers to them. The Lead the way. They reach higher. And they were never BMs.

Edited to add: Jerald if that PO2 Snuffy doesn't have leadership training and somehow managed to because a Coxswain,...... people may die. If PO2 Snuffy can't get his people to do what is needed during that vessel inspection, ....people may die. If PO2 Snuffy can't get people to follow his instructions while they're changing out that engine,.......people may die. If PO2 Snuffy is in the Persian Gulf and can't get his people the PPE that they need,.....people may die.

[BMC Mark Lewis]

I believe that leadership is taught in the field but I see nothing wrong with the CG providing leadership training to supplement what they learn via OJT. Most of us have learned our rates by OJT and schooling why should leadership be any different.

On a side note, I could be mistaken but some of you put more importance on OJT leadership then schooling yet say CPOA is the way to go. Which is it OJT or schooling. You cannot have it both ways.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

On an aside, I was wondering why it was only BMs that were all upset about my comments. No, I didn't call your opinion "asinine" because I'm a jerk or talk out of my adze... I did it for a reason - and this is it... and I thank you for helping me make my point.

I'm a little confused about what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that Stu and the others that have responded have proven that they are asinine? Please explain your comment above.

Jerald...I'm reading your posts and I'm a little concerned about all of this bitterness and anger that your words convey. I hope that when you're our representative at the AFSNCOA you don't forget which team your playing for.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mark so we're clear....I'm for OJT. I also say that if the CG thinks that the Academy is so important, they should make it mandatory. I require people to perform to my standard before I certify them. I don't suggest that they do things a certain way. I don't recommend that they do things a certain way. I require them to do things that way. That's the way we train people here.

With some people OJT may not be enough. Some people might need that structured formal environment. Some people are going to get more out of it than others.

I'm not knocking formal classroom training. I'm just saying it isn't going to help everyone. There isn't a leadership school that puts out leaders. There are leadership schools that give leaders some of the tools that they can use to be more effective.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Why are you so bitter Jerald? Did you get bumped from LAMS by someone who leads more people? maybe BMs. Why are BMs so vocal? Maybe it is because we care more! We have too we do not have the luxary you have to go down the hall and ask a SK, Yn or and officer. Your decisions are made for you, at every turn, every chiefs call and every staff meeting you go too. You want a reason so you point at the leadership training in the CG. I wonder how any medal of honor winners had formal leadership training in the sister services. Do you think Douglas Monroe did? I doubt it. They were leadership sponges, like every good boat coxswain, boarding offcier, DCTT leader and Chief. good leaders continue to absorb traits as long as they are in. You must ring it out and wait on a lesson plan. As far as yelling, i tried that route, I did not like it, but at war, I am sure it works! I have yelled at every unit I have been too and it was not up for debate. I do it when someone steps into harms way. when the step in the bite of a line, stradle a live chain or get thier hands too close to a bit. But since i dont yell often, it is rememebered. I even yelled at a Group XO once. You know what he siad after I explained what happened? He said thanks!

Maybe you should go undrway for a while, visit a station for ops, go to an ANT so you know how the CG really functions out of the Marine Safety environment.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Well said Burt. Jerald, one more thing about your PO2 Snuffy post. In your scenario there is a Chief somewhere letting PO2 Snuffy play fascist Dictator. There is a marking official recommending PO2 Snuffy for advancement or he doesn't have the option of making PO1. That's where leadership training is. Noticing a problem, and then jerking a knot in PO2 Snuffys attitude. Maybe even reducing him to PO3 snuffy if the case warrants.
If I was to have to name one particular trait that I have noticed in all of the BM's I have respected and learned from it is caring about your people, and not being scared to be vocal and opinionated about it. True we generally have more people (of all rates) to look after than other rates, but practice makes perfect. If you let Snuffy walk all over people like that and sour them on the Coast Guard you have let a fine leadership training oportunity pass you by, and no school can teach you to step up. That's genetic I think.

[BMC John Phillips III]

If PO2 Snuffy doesn't get leadership training, nobody will die... and it doesn't matter a damn if he acts like a mini-Hitler and sours a half-dozen thirds and non-rates on the Coast Guard, cuz when they get out we still have people coming in. Then PO2 Snuffy makes PO1... and then POC... and the number of people he can sour and spoil increases.


I agree with your statement that BM's have a lot more leadership experience. However, I will say no matter your rate, by the time you advance to Chief, you should have enough leadership to be a real Chief.

This quoted statement above is NOT something that is solved by a leadership school. It's solved by the Chief. Solve the problem Jerald. Then send PO Snuffy to leadership school.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

Wow. I didn't think when I asked my fellow Chiefs to sound off it would get so negative amongst each other. I am seeing some over sensitivity to the BM vs. other rates issue. I thought everyone in here were Chiefs. So knock off the knife throwing and put away the cutlass. Stu, I agree with some of your thoughts. One of my favorite quotes that I tell my junior guys when I counsel them is that I feel that 1% of those born, were born natural leaders like Dr. Martine Luther King Jr., President JFK, and those type of people. Then there are 1% that no matte what OJT or formal training the individual receives, will never be a good leader. The rest of us, and I include myself in that group, the other 98% have the potential to be good leaders. It comes mainly from our own personal experiences with the different units we been to, the people who we worked with and worked for. We take those who we use as role models and take the best they have and use it. We take those who we worked for who we saw as bad leaders, and take the worst from those and say, this is how I am not going to treat my people or circumstances. You take the two to develop your own type of leadership skills. Stu, you must be in that 1% that were natural born leaders by the way you describe yourself. I have a SABM that has been masted twice now and still as a high self-assessment of herself, and a BM1 that just made BM1 before departing and gave himself solid 6's and 7's with a couple of 5's in there for his Self marked transfer marks. He is one of those I told you about that didn't get recommended for advancement. He was an OOD, a damn good coxswain, and a fair 1 LT. He was a E4 arriving to the unit and made E6 in just over three years. Now mind you I have 58 active duty and 27 reserves that I lead, but hold the position of Chief of Operations. I do believe our service gives junior members the greatest amount of responsibility of any other service or even the job of anyone else. Can you be a good leader threw on the OJT. Of course. Over time. I have seen at least 20 members that I have worked with go to a unit, strike a rate, and keep on advancing, all the way to First Class at the same time they received there first Good Conduct Medal in the required time. They were QM's, BM's, EM's, MK's and other rates. They went to boot camp to their first unit (ships), advanced to PO1, then one went to a job as XPO, another went on to be an EPO. Stu, you seem to be taking this personally, probably because of your command position. I was talking about the CG as a whole, including all other rates. I am with you about the types of positions we as BM's fill, such as OINC, XPO, Coxswains on 47's, 41's, and the list goes on. But those are positions of responsibility, and just like anything else, there were some damn good coxswains, and some bad ones. I have pulled quals for lack of judgment whether it be for a mishap or for blowing threw a manatee zone (if your not from Florida you may need to look it up) or failing to follow a rule or reg. I feel that OJT is good, that we need to be good, positive role models for those who look up to us, but I don't feel it is enough. There needs to be formalized leadership training in each level of advancement. Just like most training including the CPOA, I take something out of every class I have been to. I like many take certain aspects of what is being taught and apply it. And the rest we may discard or reserve it for future use. But we have to give our members, every member an opportunity to obtain those same tools, and if they choose to throw all their tools away, hopefully, we as leaders and those who have direct control of their marks, recognize it, and say, your not recommended to advance. And if that member can't conform to change, then they need to get out of our Coast Guard. The fact is we need to have a balance. The Coast Guard can't just rely on the OJT or just on formal leadership training to ensure we mold the best leaders we need for an ever changing Coast Guard and its missions. Outside of that lets stay on topic. I just started posting because I was disgusted with how Freds Place posting could get with the views from all services in there. I didn't think it was going to be more of the same in here. :rolleyes:

[BMC John Phillips III]

I believe that leadership is taught in the field but I see nothing wrong with the CG providing leadership training to supplement what they learn via OJT. Most of us have learned our rates by OJT and schooling why should leadership be any different.

On a side note, I could be mistaken but some of you put more importance on OJT leadership then schooling yet say CPOA is the way to go. Which is it OJT or schooling. You cannot have it both ways.

I agree with your post and I will add that the CPO Academy is not a place to go to learn leadership, you go there to hone it. It is also a place to better yourself, both mentally and physically, which again is something that a lot of chiefs could use. I would call the CPOA, IDP for Chiefs. But back to the topic of the thread, I find nothing wrong with mandatory monthly training at Chiefs calls, I would just have to question whose giving it? and what is it on?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Even after my note that said that I wasn't slamming people...

No, I've never been shown up by a Bosun, never lost a slot at a school, and hold no animosity towards them. It's kinda like being a democrat at a republican convention... I am noticing a trend that the majority in the crowd probably won't see. When I was stationed on board a cutter, I saw it. Working with stations in Long Island, the Great Lakes and now here in Jax, I see it. I see it in the local Chief's Mess, and I also see it here.

Ken said:
If I was to have to name one particular trait that I have noticed in all of the BM's I have respected and learned from it is caring about your people, and not being scared to be vocal and opinionated about it.
That is my point in a nutshell! Please go back to the BMs that you DIDN'T respect or DIDN'T teach you... what did you see? Why were they that way?

The comment was made that if BM2 Snuffy is a jerk, he should be reigned in. Sure - by a service that has significant problems clicking on the "Not Recommended" button, right? When you see a poor PO3 being advanced to PO2, odds are you will find a poor PO2 who is in turn supervised by a poor PO1. I won't comment on the Chief... we ALL need the training - and I agree with Senior Chief Slesh in that it should be mandatory.

With the proper tools, presented early in their careers, perhaps we could fix the situation of the PO1 and PO2 that are trying to lead that PO3 so that he doesn't grow up to be a crappy PO2.

BMs are vocal - I have no problem with that. By position, they HAVE to be. There is a stereotype that is well based in history and practice about the loud Bosun. The problem is, very few Bosuns see it, let alone have even heard of it. It is just the way they are. The add-on problem is, these Bosun's Mates will be sent to shore billets eventually. Sectors, instructor billets, districts... there are more jobs in the Coast Guard than just being on the 47 or the cutter.

How do they relate to the people they meet there? THIS is when they need the leadership training. When you are in a homogeneous group, the group goals and experiences are similar, but when you get mixed groups the dynamics are MUCH different.

JPIII, you said:
I agree with your statement that BM's have a lot more leadership experience. However, I will say no matter your rate, by the time you advance to Chief, you should have enough leadership to be a real Chief.
Unfortunately, by this standard, there would never be another PAC, and damned few other chiefs outside of BM and MK... certainly never another MSTC. What is "enough"?? A year supervising three people? Five years? Twenty people?? In many - I am guessing a majority of jobs in the Coast Guard, there just isn't the opportunity to do this.

Gene, I still wouldn't consider this "negativity". I could very easily see this conversation taking place in a house of refreshment, with beverages of your choice flowing freely... Okay, we might have raised voices now and again, but I don't think this rates being called "Fred's Place"!!

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

Stuart my point exactly

With some people OJT may not be enough. Some people might need that structured formal environment. Some people are going to get more out of it than others.

Stuart, my point exactly. I’m just puzzled on why you’re so supportive of sending people to the academy but rather the junior people use OJT for their leadership training. If OJT is good for our junior folks then why would any one need the academy? It’s a tool for the tool box just like LAMS is a tool for the junior folks so why not make it mandatory for all and not just a select few?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

OK, I am a vocal BM, and continue to have more to say.
First of all, Leadership is a great deal more than conflict management. If it gets to the point of conflict, there was probably poor leadership in there somewhere.
Next, LAMS should be required. CPOA should be required within 2 years of making Chief. It is a big step from E-6 to E-7 and being part of a quality mess that is run like a mess should be run is a great learing experience for any Chief.
I have been to LAMS, and I have been to CPOA and found value in both. Where I have leaned about leadership mostly has been on the deckplates. Making mistakes, learning from them and moving on. I have worked for a CWO that was the most micro-managing SOB that I have ever seen. If something was not done his way, whether right or wrong, stand by.... I have also worked for a BMCS that would give everyone enough rope to get themselves all tangled up in knots before showing them how to get themselved out. I learned from both. Much more from one than the other though. What I am getting at, is that everyone needs to grow their leadership style. They aren't going to all fit nicelly into one paradigm. During this growth process, someone might be offended. If the person growing has a quality leader then they will point out areas for improvment and let the person learn. BM2 Snuffy will likely be a much different leader as a Chief if he is given a chance to learn what works and what doesn't. That comes with time, experience, and maturity. It doesn't necesarilly come from a week at school.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Let's try and set the record straight. I don't think that the Chiefs Academy should be mandatory. I've never attended. What kind of hypocrite would I be if I said everyone else should go ? I'm saying that if the CG thinks that's it's that important.....it should be important enough to make it mandatory.....for everyone, E-7 and above. No waivers, no exceptions. It's either that important, or it isn't. Everyone who has attended seem to think that it is that important.

Jerald, we, me and you, you and I...still have issues. We don't have a SERVICE that has significant problems clicking on the "Not Recommended" button, ....we are part of a service that has PEOPLE with a significant ..........
Before you go and talk to people in the Air Force, try and remember that. Our service has a standard, ....we have people that don't want to enforce that. We have other people that end up cleaning up their mistakes.

Art, I'm supportive of CG policy. If the CG wants my support on this Academy issue....make it policy. By the way.......I don't want to go....but I'll be applying for the Oct or Nov class. You see it is CG policy to attend before they consider you for one of those Gold/Silver Badge jobs. CG policy......I can't argue with that......

[BMC John Phillips III]

E
Unfortunately, by this standard, there would never be another PAC, and damned few other chiefs outside of BM and MK... certainly never another MSTC. What is "enough"?? A year supervising three people? Five years? Twenty people?? In many - I am guessing a majority of jobs in the Coast Guard, there just isn't the opportunity to do this.

Jerald, man, I don't know what to say. I don't want to argue with you, I want to debate. It's funny you brought up politicians in part of this reply, when someone pins you down on one issue you jump to another.

PAC, OSC, FSC, YNC, MUC* it doesn't matter! There are minimum time in grade requirements and I believe if you come in as an E3 the quickest you can advance to E7 is 6 years. I didn't check so if I am not right I am sure someone will correct. Either way, it's gotta be really close to that and in 6 years time, no matter how many people you have had working for you, one thing has been consistant, you were working for somebody. Good Leadership (if you read your blue jackets manual) is an outcome of good followership. That's day one stuff.

I am not argueing (or debating) that formalized leadership training is a bad thing, it's a great thing. However, and don't waffle on me here, you make it sound like it's the solution to all of the Coast Guards leadership problems. I totally disagree with that and I believe we have tons of good leaders out there that are willing to mentor their subordinates or even peers to become good leaders themselves.

I am not good at everything, just everything I do. I have made it known to anyone that has ever worked for me, I will share every bit of knowledge and wisdom I have and challenge you to get better than me. That's my style of leadership. You know what, that benefits us both. I get to share my knowledge and when I see one of my subordinates catching up, I try harder. When I got back from the CPO Academy, I shared a lot of the things I learned there, the CPO Academy, with non-rates junior petty-officers and even my fellow Chief.

* I think MU's go straight to E6 out of boot camp, but even they get a chance to lead the band.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Since this thread moved to a leadership discussion I'll add my dime.

I went to the CCGD3 Leadership School back in 1975 when I was a PO2 thanks to the SCPO I worked for at the time. Of course back then the non-resident courses had leadership as part of the MRN courses. PME, Professional Military Education ... should be the introduction to leadership techniques.

For far too long the CG has relied on the observation method of learning to be a leader, following the good traits and remembering the bad traits of the leaders we've observed.

At my last unit, my PO2 asked for a leadership school. He found the Navy Leadership school in Memphis [back in 1992, so I don't know if it's still there]. When I sent up the STTR, it appears D2 had to convience the Navy that our PO2s do things that the Navy reserves for PO1s, in order for my PO2 to gain admission to the school. Both my PO2 and my yeoman at the PERSRU ... another PO2, attended the school.

When my PO2 returned and checked in, his first question was when did I attend a leadership school.

I had asked the yeoman about his experiences with the school and he learned a few things, but what struck me as odd was he stated my PO2 didn't need that school ... to which I replied, he needed to hear it from someone else besides me.

Getting your PO2's to school is one thing. Allowing them to use and expand on the tools and knowledge they received at the school is also important. Granted this is easier to accomplished in the BM and MK ratings vice some of the others.

As far as the CPO Academy, everyone I know who attended it has relayed to me they learned a thing or three [or more] during that course of instruction.

Get them to school. Let them lead and expand on their baseline knowledge.

Get creative if necessary. Have the LAMS come to the sector and allow the unit's to send people to the sector TAD.

The first leadership book I've read back in 1975 was "Managers for tomorrow" by Rohrer, Hibler, & Repiogle published in 1965 ... touting "A modern psychological approach to the managerial process." The last leadership book I've read in 2004 was "It's your ship" by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff, published in 2002. Another book to read as an example of poor leadership, if the author is to be believed, is "The Arnheiter Affair" by Neil Sheehan, published in 1971 [I read it in 2004]. You can check http://www.half.com for some good deals on books.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Train em', Test em', support em', then turn em' loose and get the hell out of their way. After all, experience is not making bad judgements and to get experience you'll make some bad judgements. A typical catch-22.

[BMC John Phillips III]

ALCOAST 388/06
COMDTNOTE 5351
SUBJ: LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
A. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK, COMDTINST M5351.3

HTTP://WWW.USCG.MIL/CCS/CIT/CIM/DIRECTIVES/WELCOME.HTM

ask and you shall receive. Chapter 4 has a lot of "to be determined's" that correspond to a lot of what we have been talking about. It seems maybe someone is listening? Which refutes "the Coast Guard doesn't care" statement made earlier.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

A step in the right direction... albeit 30 or more years behind the power curve established by the other services.

Senior Chief Slesh, sorry about attributing an opinion on you that you don't hold... I could have sworn I had seen that you posted that you wanted mandatory CPOA. I apologize.

I realise that the service is made up of individuals and that individuals may have problems. My point from earlier is that when the collective individuals do nothing to establish service-wide rules about it, then it becomes a service problem. Take juniority: While we talk a good story about Chiefs taking the initiative and holding people back until they are ready, the SERVICE is waiving SWEs and EOCTs and allowing people to advance early. Now, in many ratings, numbers are up so the SERVICE is reinstituting the tests... taking part of that option out of our hands.

In the same light, while YOU might be hell-bent on providing as much leadership training as physically (and fiscally) possible - and I might be doing the same, the SERVICE is taking a back seat about the issue (though the instruction above is a good start). While the policy makers sit back, it IS a service problem. Remember when the three guys died from Station Niagara? It took just a month to change policy and get clarification on extreme cold weather ops. The SERVICE took it seriously because they thought it was important.

Hopefully, with the instruction above, we can see a change in course for the SERVICE, and they will begin to take junior leadership training more seriously.
___________________________

JPIII, your earlier post sounded like you thought there should be additional requirements on advancement than just TIS/TIG... adding in Time in Leadership or Quantity of Leadership or something like that.

I know I've come on strong about leadership training. Please let me say that I don't believe that it is a panacea that will fix all of our ills... it won't. What I am saying is that it will HELP fix many of our ills. It's still up to us - the individuals - both as followers and as leaders.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Why must the service be at fault? What are you doing to teach leadership Chief? You voice an awful lot of problems and lay blame very quickly on the service? Do you know the 28 Leadershiop competencies? Do you kow it was 21? I ask again Chief, what are you doing? Start by training your people. Is that why you took a job with no one to surpervise?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Want leadership training? Take some initiative and visit the LDC website. There are plenty of resources and the staff there is eager to help. Why do we need to be spoon fed leadership in a classroom? Didn't we graduate from that in boot camp? Sure there are advantages to classroom training, but there is plenty of leadership training out there available for anyone that is willing to put forth the little effort it takes to get it.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Hopefully, with the instruction above, we can see a change in course for the SERVICE, and they will begin to take junior leadership training more seriously.
___________________________

I know I've come on strong about leadership training. Please let me say that I don't believe that it is a panacea that will fix all of our ills... it won't. What I am saying is that it will HELP fix many of our ills. It's still up to us - the individuals - both as followers and as leaders.

Jerald...I have a challenge for you. When you get settled in at Gunter, fwd up the chain to COMDT a leadership plan for the CG. If it's up to us, what better person to submit a plan? You're the rep at one of the schools that we want to be like...send up the plan. Maybe nothing happens...maybe something happens...you'll have done your part.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And you're still blaming the Service. The CG is waiving the SWE....not the Command recommendation. The Service put capable people in positions to make those calls. Capable people are choosing not to. It's still not the Service....it's the individuals. And that one's not about leadership...it's about personal responsibility. Those people who aren't holding people accountable., are shirking their responsibility.
And what are you basing the 30 years too late on ? I don't remember having some of these issues when I came in. The Service bases it's policies on the need. There is a need that is now being expressed that obviously wasn't expressed to the right people earlier. Again.....my CG is very timely. If you're not getting timely results........try telling the right person. You'll know who the right person is once you see action taken.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

Stu,

You make a good point that it is the leaders that are in the position to mark the Recommended, Not Recommended area that are not doing their part. So maybe it needs to be pounded into everyone’s heads that portion of the marks need to be weighed heavily. But that was my point from the start. There is a minority of leaders that are stepping up to the plate by saying the person they are marking is not ready to meet the challenges of the next level. Even though this is in the best interest of that individual, the unit, and the Coast Guard as a whole. That is where the marking system and the advancement process is flawed. Too many people interpret and bring their own philosophy when doing marks. So some people have a great advantage, and some will be held back for three years because the marks were done strictly and conservatively. I know from personal experience in my own professional development. I had a Approving Official ready to give me a 3 for health and well-being because I was 4 lbs over my weigh-in in October. Never mind the fact that I set a policy for setting aside hours during the workday for everyone to participate and work out. I was getting to the station at 0630 to run 4.6 miles three times a week. Besides that I then set up a workout routine for a few of my members that were on the weight program because they were 30lbs overweight (before you go off and say how did you let the members get that big, one was a MK3 that just transferred late August. Once again commands not holding their end of the bargain and COMDNT standards). I was also working out five times a week at home, played racquetball (use to play tournaments), and did weight resistance training three times a week. Had a strict diet and seldom drink, never to the point of being drunk. So even though I did all that, my career for the next three years or more years was going to come to a halt because I was detaining too much water that day. So how would you all have marked a PO3 in that same situation. Go by the black and white, or would you have made so determination based on performance. My point exactly. Everyone brings their own philosophy to the table and so the system doesn't treat everyone equal. But with training, formalized training, not just OJT and experience, maybe we can close the gap quicker. OJT and experiences is like advertising by word of mouth, say a good restaurant. And consider formalized training like advertising on the TV or mail flyers. Yes, word of mouth will eventually get you a good customer base over a period of time, and they will be faithful. But can your business survive during those early years. The TV advertisements or mail flyers will get to a greater amount of people and so your business will be profitable from the start. Which would you choose. Can you afford to wait. Whether you like it or not, juniority is a problem. JPIII, your previous post about taking at least 6 years to make E-7 was off and the number of people that person worked for. Try under five years. I know a BMC right now, who made it in 4 years and a few months, and currently an XPO on a ship. When that member went through CCTI, trust me, it showed. A policy change was made due to that members piss poor performance so that a review is made half way through the process and if the member doesn't cut the mustard, they will not be allowed to continue and will be placed at the back of the list of potential "boots". The members piss poor planning perpetuated the members piss poor performance. But a good place to start this would be the Chiefs Mess. I did like a previous post that suggested holding Evaluation Boards at the unit. Won't micromanage and take any power away from my SPO's, but for the E-6's get with all the Chiefs at Fort Lauderdale and hold a Board for our E-6's that are "Chiefs in Training". Even though the post started to get personal, I have to say, it created some good discussions, and debate. Thank you all.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Gene, your posts seem to be well thought out and you make compelling arguements......... but you will never be able to convince me that we have a problem with juniority in the CG. Those people aren't advancing themselves. Some of them are doing everything that they need to and more. Others work for people who are afraid of confrontation. But all of them are being recommended and advanced by a senior person. In that senior person , we find the problem. Until we identify and remove those senior people, we will continue to have a problem that you see as juniority.

And "your point exactly" misses the mark in my case. I would have given you the 3. If you failed to meet the weight standards, you failed to meet the written satndard. I don't factor in performance in that case. I could have given you sevens in other areas based on the great work you did for the others mentioned, but I would have looked you in the eye an given you the three.
And in all fairness, you didn't retain water on that day. You retained water on that Day. You retained water the day you went over to medical. They put you on the tape and determined that your body fat was over the COMDT's exceptable standard. They sent you to another health expert who checked your diet. They sent you to another health expert who said there was no medical reason for you to be that heavy. Then you were put on the program.
The weight program is designed to be the fairest program the CG has. Ties go to the runner.
Marks are supposed to be against the written standard. Asking people to factor in things like perfomance, in areas where performance isn't a factor, is why the marking system is screwed up.
I feel for you and your four pounds. Especially since we have people out there who are 30, 40, or 50 pounds over weight, and work for a command that has no intention of holding them accountable to that written standard. I see people everyday busting their hump to make weight. On the same base, there are other people eating whatever they want, because they are playing the system. One of the other threads brought up that 40% of the next CPOA class in over their MAW..... 40%....... By now everyone should know that you can't go to school, or be advanced if you are over weight. But apparently 4 out of every 10 units that send people to the CPOA have never heard of that policy......or just choose not to enforce it. I think that the unit is sending the wrong people to that formalized training. Instead of sending the person that is over weight, why not send the person that's allowing them to be.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I did like a previous post that suggested holding Evaluation Boards at the unit.

The biggest advantage of the evaluation board in my case was it counteracted any bias I might have had based on the members performance. I was the type to remember the negative more than the positive, so the other's on the board were able to put that one negative in it's proper prospective ... a one time event in a 180 day evaluation process.

Another technique I used to train junior POs was to have them do an honest evaluation of themselves based on the standards. Only once did I have someone clearly demonstrate the "halo" effect when they evaluated themselves. In all the other cases, their marks were within 1 of what I would have given them only their performance self assessment was lower than mine. When they did that exercise was they knew I used the written standards in the evaluations.

Of course, all this was well over a decade ago and the people involved are either retired or approaching retirement.

If you think your setting the standard, have your juniors evaluate you ... without them signing it. You will find out that your "all over" the boards, as you should be. That exercise could be a great prelude to a training session on how to mark people.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Remember when the three guys died from Station Niagara? It took just a month to change policy and get clarification on extreme cold weather ops. The SERVICE took it seriously because they thought it was important.

Jerald, I see your point about an important event changing policy, but get real. A month??? The investigation took longer than that. And we only lost two service members that night, so lets not up the casualty count. Once they figured out what the problem was it took over a year to implement and fund the fix. The OIC there was the Chief of the Mess when I went through CCTI. When I visited him I got to hear the whole story from start to finish. What went wrong was improper wear of cold weather clothing and poor communications. It had very little to do with leadership training. As a Service we got standardized boatcrew equipment, and stricter policy on the wear of the same.

What I'm wondering is what that has to do with mandatory Chiefs Mess Training???

[BMC John Phillips III]

Yes, someone could actually advance to E7 in 4 years, but it's a very unlikely scenario. They would have to join on January 1st as an E3 and advance via the supplemental to 1st class then make E7 the first SWE they took. Not to mention having the required sea time.

Congrats to your friend for advancing so quickly! I am sure he's doing a wonderful job!

As far as the 3 in health and well-being goes. I would have to give you a 3 too. It's cut and dry, "Maintained weight standards and adhered to the Coast Guard Fitness Program. Used alcohol discriminately or not at all; job performance not affected. Held self and subordinates accountable in meeting minimum standards, on and off duty." I would underline everything except, "maintained weight standards."

I actually had an EPO fwd me a set of marks for a member that was close to 50lbs overweight with a 4 in health and well-being. I said, I am not gonna take a lower mark on my integrity in order to give this guy a 4.

I have had another crewmember (2nd class) that needed lots of mentoring and he was independant duty. Well, after reviewing his marks, I noticed that at an earlier point in his career he had several 3's in one marking period but was still given a mark of Recommended.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Yes, someone could actually advance to E7 in 4 years, but it's a very unlikely scenario. They would have to join on January 1st as an E3 and advance via the supplemental to 1st class then make E7 the first SWE they took.

I don't think the supplemental lists have anything to do with advancing to E7. After all, according to CIM 1000.6 (series) 5.C, if someone enlisted as an E-3 can not make it to E7 in under 4 years without a waiver of TIG. However, they could advance to E7 on their fourth anniversary in the CG, and that would take some serious studying to have that shot.

When is the last time they waived TIG other than those for the TBD for a SWE with some minor early advancements? I guess if you were lucky enough to get a few months waiver for a early advancements [greater than 6 months] in three paygrades, you could advance and be a slick arm Chief. That certainly would be one sharp individual to be competitive and advance on the first shot of each paygrade.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Joe, the reason I said supplemental lists, is because to time the SWE's and advance in the minimum amount of time to make it in 4 years, would be too many perfect case scenarios. I also stated you would have to enlist just before January, making you eligible to take the SWE for E7 in your 3rd year. Enlist as E3, 6 months to E4, 6 more to E5, 1 year to E6, 2 years to E7= 4 years no TIG waiver necessary. Again, I said 6 years in my earlier post as a realistic, fast track to E7. Which really has nothing to do with the whole thread, I also called that someone would try to correct me.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

I am glad to see that those who stated in a getting a 3 for Health and well-being are strictest and are conservative when approving marks for their junior personnel. If only everyone had the same mentality to make the advancement process and put everyone on equal footing, then I would have no problem. But I wanted to see the re-action before finishing the story. I did go to medical, after the CO indicated to the XO that my self-eval which I did the middle of September 05 giving myself a 6, the weigh-in was 03Oct06. The CO at that time told the XO to make it a 3. I went to medical and they did the measurements, and my body frame was not right, and so my MAW increased by 4lbs, and therefore making weight. I made it mandatory to do weekly PFT to get ready for RFO and I was doing the 1.5 mile run in 10:00 flat almost consistently even though my standard was to do it in under 13:36. I did 50 PU and 50 SU without breaking a sweat. Only two of my junior guys out of the 54 could do better, or at least put in the effort to do better. But I would also like to see the evals expected from those same strict and conservative marking personnel. Is your self-expectation a 6 or better in each category. If so, it seems a double standard is being enforced. I did end up getting a 6 since the end of the marking period was before the weigh-in, and of course my performance does come in play by the way the Health and Well-being category is written. But I did put in for CWO and got such a low final multiple for the equation for evals (14.46) I had to contact HQ to see what was the deal. CWO Linda Luna indicated that my marks were the bottom of the barrel :confused: compared to all those who applied. Now mind you, I had mainly 6's, four 7's, and a few 5's. So bottom of the barrel with those marks, so where are all so strict interpreted, conservative markers. Must not be any that are marking anyone higher than E-6. I talked to someone at a D-7 desk job, being evaled by a civilian with a AO a CDR. Almost solid 7's with a couple of 6's. I wonder if one of those 7's was for STAMINA :rolleyes: Of course in the Airforce and E-7 is expected to get nothing but solid 7's and have a MSM before advancing to E-8. Ask the School Chief of the CPOA. Should CPOA be mandatory?? Absolutely. Should there be formalized training for enlisted for each pay grade all the way to Master Chief, can't hurt, and the same for officers. Many problems that I personally have noticed focused around evals and advancements. But the ones making those decisions are senior enlisted and senior officers. Regular leadership training would be a good thing. More discussions amongst the Chief Mess is also a good thing. Look forward to future discussions. Maybe at the next Miami/AirSta Chiefs Call.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

alright...all this talk about going to medical to be taped??? Isn't this an administravie issue, not a medical issue???? I tried to send some folks to medical for a taping after they weighed in and was told no way...that's a admin thing! OK, I was just looking for a little love, we missed the class for taping an was hoping for a little help. Maybe we just have a medical staff that is overworked. :confused:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But see Gene, with the rest of the story, I would have marked you differently. You weren't four pounds over weight as previously described. You met the COMDT's weight standards. As far as marks......they should have a mandatory monthly training class for anyone who does someone else's marks. I've always been told that to be competitive for Warrant, someone needs to average all sixes with two sevens. I admit that I give every benefit of the doubt when I mark people who I feel deserve that benefit. But I never ignore the written standard. The problem is that some people who do approve other people marks, have never taken the time to read them. And we should go back to unlining what someone fails to meet in order to reciev a certain mark to ensure that some people are reading at least that much. It wouldn't help for those that are simply assigning sixes thought. As though I brought it up before, I'll repeat myself here, just "cause I like to type......but stamina isn't the real issue at that desk job. Some of those people don't have anyone to supervise, no call for safety, flexibility, don't mark anyone else, don't communicate outside that cubicle.............. and the beat goes on......... And someone else knows that its not fair and doesn't do anything about it. I know of a place, where three OinCs of afloat units were marked by a person who also marked the guy who did the RFOs in the cubicle next to him. That guy never had a DWO letter or sat for an OinC review board. That guy was quite vocal about both. That guy got higher marks than the three OinCs....and was vocal about that also.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

Stu,

I agree with you totally. I guess it is what it is. But the more we talk about it the more awareness we bring to the table and hopefully the people in senior leadership roles are listening, so that all members can compete on a SWE or CWO on a more fair platform than has been the case in the past. Thank you for all your replies.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Gene, this was one of the issues that we brought up with the COMDT when he was down here. I think if every Mess that thought it was important enough to change, brings it up when he visits them, .......... We suggested all three people having the recommended mark stay as part of the final mark.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I am glad to see that those who stated in a getting a 3 for Health and well-being are strictest and are conservative when approving marks for their junior personnel. If only everyone had the same mentality to make the advancement process and put everyone on equal footing, then I would have no problem.

I wouldn't say conservative. I would say in accordance with the written standard, but you are right, uniformity or consistancy would be a good thing.


But I wanted to see the re-action before finishing the story. ....Only two of my junior guys out of the 54 could do better, or at least put in the effort to do better. But I would also like to see the evals expected from those same strict and conservative marking personnel. Is your self-expectation a 6 or better in each category. If so, it seems a double standard is being enforced. I did end up getting a 6 since the end of the marking period was before the weigh-in, and of course my performance does come in play by the way the Health and Well-being category is written.

Ah Gene, the old bait and switch, I would have thought you were above that. Seriously, knowing all the facts is key for us here and for your supervisors I will elaborate later in my reply. Congrats though on ranking so high within your unit!


.....So bottom of the barrel with those marks, so where are all so strict interpreted, conservative markers. Must not be any that are marking anyone higher than E-6. I talked to someone at a D-7 desk job, being evaled by a civilian with a AO a CDR. Almost solid 7's with a couple of 6's. I wonder if one of those 7's was for STAMINA :rolleyes:

We can all interpret the rules in different ways but a written standard is a written standard. They say peoples' perceptions are their realities, well I say reality is reality. The bottom line is we all mark ourselves. I told my people this, "I don't write your marks, you write your marks. I only recommend or not recommend you for advancement." Not sure if everyone out there agrees with that and I am quite sure not everyone believes that but that is my reality, remember I am the type that says reality is reality. Anyway, we all write our own marks through our performance over the 6 month period. If you care deeply about your marks (as you obviously do Gene) you do things like get to the bottom of why you are coming up over the weight standards when you are truly physically fit. So for my subordinates, I expect a well written, documented self evaluation. I also expect them to challenge any mark that they don't agree with. I have marked personnel to each end of the spectrum (2-7) and have never had one appeal. I have a memory like an elephant, it's not really big, just really good. I also have a good eye for spotting BS, which is why I was so surprised you pulled a fast one on me with that not actually being over the weight standards- touche'!


...... Regular leadership training would be a good thing. More discussions amongst the Chief Mess is also a good thing. Look forward to future discussions. Maybe at the next Miami/AirSta Chiefs Call.

Can't argue with that. Just not sure if it should be mandatory training at Chiefs Calls. I think it would help if we could have more frank discussions like we do here. Although, typing it at our leisure is sometimes a lot more productive than trying to get your point across in a room full of Chiefs :p Which is part of the reason I like this forum so much.


BMCM Slesh , you mentioned stamina at a desk job. Well for me, if you can manage to stay awake under those God-forsaken flourescent lights while staring at 3 gray cubicle walls, that in itself deserves a 4! And I am the king of stamina, or at least I was at one time! lol :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well, king of stamina,.....foiled again. A one is the low end of that spectrum you talked about earlier. You should give someone a one when their actions are detrimental to the unit. I've marked people throughout the spectrum. And I've never had anyone formally appeal the marks I've given them. But that doesn't mean the marks were accurate either. I've never appealed my own marks and I've rarely agreed with those.

[BMC John Phillips III]

the spectrum of my reality goes from 2 to 7! Actually, I have never given someone a 1. I have also never had anyone disagree with the marks I have given them.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And if I were still doing your marks I would lower them because you limit your reality to fit your own needs.........
And I personally know people who disagreed with the marks that you gave them. They weren't justified in disagreeing with them, but they disagreed all the same.
I once remember a conversation that went something like this......
Person 1- I don't understand why I'm getting a two in integrity. JP3 - Because you're a liar. Person 1- Oh that.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Was the person disagreeing or were they just pretending they disagreed, therefore lying? :p

[BMCS Burt Ford]

When i was an XPO I had my EPO appeal his marks. It was post RFC but he appealed none the less. He brought a MKC with him, unbiased. But, the unbiased MKC was really, as he put it later, willing and wanting to stick it to me and my Chief. He told us later he once got marks he disagreed with and lost an appeal. Anyway, after 1.5 hours of reading letters from the MK1 on why his marks should be higher. Using the written standard, our documentation and 3307's, the unbiased MKC and my old EPO, left without getting one mark changed. That was my only appeal as well. Now the really funny thing was the 5 page letter written by the MK1. It was written by a LY sea lawyer with promises we could not win with our marks. YOu see the MK1 only provided the paper version without the notes we wrote. He also did the same thing to the District Commander. He lost everything!

[BMC Gene Daigle]

First of all I would like to appologize for the bait and switch. I should have given all the info from the beginning. I thank you for the bold truth. Helps get some different perspective. But I have counseled members that wanted to appeal their marks. But what I have done is even though the XO is the AO for E-5's and below and I am the MO, and the E-6's I am the Sup and the CO the AO, I have the CO/XO tell me when they are done with reviewing the marks and before they submitt it and mark "Final" in the box, I print out the Counseling report and counsel the member. If the member can totally justify why the mark should be higher, which I say out of a couple of handfull of members that wanted to appeal only one was justified and wanted to continue to appeal, I can route that "local appeal" back up the Chain and after giving my reccomendation, which after talking to the member did have two good bullets as to why it should increase, we raised the mark then hit submit. Then we printed out the couseling report and I gave the final results to the member. It makes it much easier than sending a Memo to EPM and getting one back from them when the changes were made. That is what the CO even had to do for me. The CO submitted mine with the 3 and sent a Memo to change it to a 6. He too said he was just going by what the Instruction said in black and white. In my world, somethings don't always fit in a nice little box, and see some shades of grey. But contrast in mindsets, like we currently do at the Station, helps to ensure perspectives from all angles are seen.