Experience or Accomplishment?

[BMC John Phillips III]

I was thinking about this last night and thought it might be a good topic of discussion. Please allow me to set the stage or layout some guidelines. I am asking for your opinion on what the benefits of each are and/or which you prefer?

Ex:

Experience: a well seasoned 3rd class maybe 4-5 years as a 3rd

or

Accomplishment: a young 2nd class with 2-3 years in, qualified at everything the 3rd class above is, but naturally has less experience.

of course I am a Boatswain's Mate so I am thinking BM3 BM2, but respond as if they were both the same rate (any rate you choose). Feel free to bump that up a few paygrades if you like as well, ie E5/E6.

edited to add: ideally you'd be able to choose both experience and accomplishment, but thats not part of the question.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

Your question is a good one JP3. If I did personally know either of them or couldn’t contact anyone that they had worked for to get their opinion I would have to go with the guy or gal that had the experience. Just because they advance quicker doesn’t mean they are better or more qualified to do the job but the same can be said for the one that still hasn’t advance. Why haven’t they advanced? Maybe their happy doing what they do and just because they don’t fall within the HYT guide lines don’t make them any less of a performer. I’d rather have a 20 year MK2 that new how to do all aspects of his job the a 3 to 4 year MK1 with a 4 year degree that didn’t even know what a monkey wrench is or has never tuned up an engine.

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

I'm with Art. I would need to have more specifics to make that decision. There is not enough info in your scenario.

Why hasn't the guy or gal advanced? Is really the primary thing that would need to be answered in order to give more feedback on your question John.

v/r

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

I would rather have acomplished. Because now I could take that person under my wing and be sure they get the experience they need. To many times Experience also means that they are set in their ways and the possiblity of bad habits are much higher in my rate. Thats just my .2 worth.

Now, with that said, I would also agree with Eric and Art. Every situation is different and so is each person. Way to many "If's" left out in your scenario.

[BMC John Phillips III]

My unit has 3 BM3's; one is less than a year out of A school, one with 8 years in but he had changed rates and has only been a BM for 3 years and the other has 11 years in.

The other day I took MSST divers underway with me and they have a BM3 with less than 4 years who is advancing to BM2 on 1 OCT. So yes, that's what got me thinking about it.

So what is it Experience or Accomplishment?

edited to add, initially I was proposing a hypothetical scenario and I don't want to make it personal, but the above is that got me thinking about it.

Ron, I think you make a good point about being set in their ways, but even that is something you can fix if you try hard enough.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Ok JP3, I have "Rons Rulls" view about folks set in their ways or Habits

MOST folks under the age of 27 will or can have their veiws or ways changed. Takes work

MOST Folks over 27 will not change their ways and it get harder as they get older.


The only way they will change is if they happen to be VERY open minded.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

There's really not enough information to make a decision. On the surface, if both are equally qualified I'm opting for the BM2. I've seen both scenarios and both can be good or bad. It's hard to answer that question.

[BMC John Phillips III]

BMCS,

I really don't have any amplifying information as I don't know the BM2 and I don't feel it appropriate to discuss my BM3's, but in general, which would you prefer, experience or accomplishment. In the past I was always a hard core experience guy, but I do believe that people can stagnate or get stale in a position after too long.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I really can't answer the question as asked. Accomplishment is too open-ended to get a round turn on and experience doesn't always equal performance.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Just going on what information is available I'd take the BM2. The BM3 may have a better understanding of his job and his requirements, but the BM2 holds all the same quals and an understanding of our advancement system. Why hasn't the BM3 advanced...... it doesn't matter, he hasn't. He answers to the BM2. If he doesn't start advancing he will be working for that BM2 the rest of his career.

Your question experience or accomplishment...... I'll take accomplishment. What's the point of having alot of experience if you accomplish next to nothing ? And you need at least the minimum experience to allow you to accomplish anything.

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

Nice Stu... good point. Looking at the scenario again, I would have to agree with you. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter why the PO3 hasn't advanced. Bottom line is the PO3 hasn't advanced.

Although, I will say advancement isn't everything. At the PSUs we have squads for our anti-terrorism/force protection work that we do. There are a ton of first classes that I know that I wouldn't want on a boarding team with me or in a foxhole for that matter. Yet there are some E4 and E5 petty officers at my unit with combat and law enforcement experience that I would rather have with me in that foxhole or on that boarding team.

I can tell you from personal experience that when I need to go into a hostile or potentially hostile area under escort. Paygrade has NOTHING to do with who I'm taking. At that point it is all about expertise and experience.

v/r

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Eric brings up a good point of view on this.

From my office work point of view, my answer still stands.


Now, from an operational point of view, say a Bording team. Duh, experience

MY SK2 (SKC now) while I was on the Munro was a BO because he was one of the most experienced folks onboard. But he does not fall into the same situation that you gave an example of JP3.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

I see the value in both but I would take the DC2, not only does he have the minimum experience needed to advance , but he also has the "drive" that it seems is lacking from the DC3.

Give me an eager PO(any paygrade) who is willing to learn and step up to the plate and I'll take him/her anyday.

I have seen many Junior PO's who throw out the ole "I don't want the extra responsibility, I'm already doing most of PO1/PO2 Gooblats stuff, if I advance I'll get more heaped on me". To those members I've always said if you are already doing most of the job, as you say you are, why not get the advancement and pay to go with it. The answer I get almost always, "it's just not worth it". Hell I even met a first class many years ago who had 27 years in and when I asked him why he wasn't a Chief, his reply was "I still like to get down there and get my hands dirty" I asked him "But if you're the Chief can't you get your hands dirty but control when you do?" he double talked a few minutes and we just moved on with the conversation.

So to me, and this is just my opinion, an 11 year 3rd, Not a lot of motivation there. so I guess I would take accomplishment.

Todd

[BMC John Phillips III]

I've always said if you are already doing most of the job, as you say you are, why not get the advancement and pay to go with it.

Todd, great post, I have actually said the same exact thing to one of them. I will add that part of advancing is learning to delegate so you won't have to do PO1/PO2 Gooblatz job, I have explained that as well.

As far as being a Chief and getting your hands dirty, I got two words for anyone that would question that, ATON UNIT.

[BMC Trent Spiroff]

Can I slighty move up the chain on this thread? The original example was BM3 to BM2, which one to choose. If the AO's on the phone offering a BM3 or BM2, we take the BM2 with hopes that we're getting experience and accomplished. Anyways, I immediately think of the BM that made BM1 within his/her first tour.

Slow advancers: Do they have desire to advance, but can't pass NAVRULs or their BM2 test? The great go to person, the one we count on to get the job done. Then there's the drifter, stagnant. Time comes to transfer and after two/three years as a 3rd class find themselves with orders as a BM3 to a BM2 position.

The quick advancer comes with assertivness, driven... ...sounds good. But, the four year BM1 is missing part of his/her foundation, and now in an XPO or Dept Head position, is busy with the demands of being in that position, struggles supervising BM3/BM2 programs.

A couple of years ago I had a great member in regards to getting the job done. Saw him report from boot camp, and depart four years later as a BM1. He was one of those go to people. I offered every year to move him. Being a small unit, didn't give much of an opportunity for the member to grow. Like a gold fish in a small tank. They (the BMs, not the fish) can drive boats but lack the knowledge and policies needed to perform their job as a BM1.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I can think of two BM's that were first tour PO1s or PO1s shortly after reenlisting. Cliff and Wray. I know Wray has spent half of his 30 years as a MCPO.

A long time PO2, and I had one with 12 or so years in when I was a 9 year CPO can be set in their ways and in some respects are more difficult than that hard charging PO2. I also had a 18 year PO1 when when I had 10 years TIS. Sometimes it felt like I was conselling my grandfather. :)
That PO2 eventually made CPO.

I'll take hard chargers any day.

[BMC Mark D. Emerson]

This is an excellent question and here is my take on it. Strong experience will lead to acomplishments but accomplishments won't lead to experiance. I would have to go with experience and help them with the accomplishments. It is easier to guide an experienced petty officer to advance then it is to teach someone that has advanced the level of experiance they need to succeed.

This opens up a new question to the 2 choices - if you have someone that has accomplished alot should you reccommend them for advancement or do you hold their advancement until the gain the right level of experience for their paygrade.

[BMC John Phillips III]

There are a ton of first classes that I know that I wouldn't want on a boarding team with me or in a foxhole for that matter. Yet there are some E4 and E5 petty officers at my unit with combat and law enforcement experience that I would rather have with me in that foxhole or on that boarding team.

Eric, are the first classes experienced or accomplished? Same question could be asked of the E4s and 5s you mentioned. I think I know what you are implying, but please elaborate.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Here is a sub-question on the experience accomplishment, how long is too long in one paygrade?

My answer to that question would be when you stop getting longevity raises even though it probably shoud be sooner than that.

[ASTC Ronny German]

I'm for the hard chargers.

Like others have said above, I think the PO2's and PO1's who are approaching the 20 year mark have some responsibility issues. From my experience, they want to be told what to do, and not make any of the tough decisions. I'll take a young buck that is willing to stick his or her neck out and make a decision any day of the week over a factory worker.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

This opens up a new question to the 2 choices - if you have someone that has accomplished alot should you reccommend them for advancement or do you hold their advancement until the gain the right level of experience for their paygrade.

You can hold their advancement up as long as you have the documentation that supports your decision, i.e. evaluations, CG-3307s, etc., otherwise, you should recommend when they have met the minimum Coast Guard requirements for advancment.

If you don't agree with the minimum Coast Guard requirements write letters or apply for the rating review boards for your rating and make a difference.

Before anyone brings up some isolated incidents of inexperience, remember, the few OICs I've heard of being relieved were not inexperienced rookies. If there were widespread incidents of inexperience, the advancement Rules of the Game would have changed to reflect the new needs of the service.

All special duty assignments need not be mentioned because every one of them requires special qualifications in addition to recommendations from the CO/OIC.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mark, you need to do the minimum to advance so the accomplishments has to hold some level of experience. And again, I've met people who have all the experience in the world and accomplish nothing. They do the minimum with everything. I've met the twenty year BM2 who thought everyone should be listening to him, because he was the one with the experience. I've seen the people who have four or more years at the unit and don't want to listen to the new XPO or OinC because "that isn't the way we do things around here."

Sometimes people with a lot of experience, aren't willing to experience new things.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Here is a sub-question on the experience accomplishment, how long is too long in one paygrade?

Any thoughts?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There's no such thing, ...from either view point. If someone isn't ready for the next paygrade, don't let them advance until they are.
And as long as someone is willing to do the job of their current paygrade.... let them stay. I personally don't care if someone wants to be a non-rate for twenty years. As long as they're doing non-rate work. Once they get to the point where they no longer want to do that, they need to advance.

I always encourage people to maximize their base pay, but you can't force someone to better themselves. They're only going to do what they actually want to do.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

It's too subjective. I've seen both sides of it and poor performance wasn't because of TIG...they were just poor performers. They didn't become poor performers because of their TIG...they were poor performers because of their desire/committment.

There is no clear answer to that...it's too subjective.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

Expierence is always nice. But....a body is a body. I can find somewhere to put them, make them shine, etc. etc. I really don't think about it much. When they show up, lets see what you got. If it does not work out, well...I'll deal with that when we have too. Then hope we get another body :)

CS

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

This is something that I struggle with.

Do I want somebody that does everything they can to make rate as fast as they can, and then penalize someone that is a "slug" that sits at POX forever... or do you want someone that reaches a certain level and is very comfortable there and is damned good at the job (but doesn't want to get advanced out of the position), and penalize a guy that doesn't amass "enough" experience to truly be useful??

I have to answer truthfully... "It depends". :(

I recall talking to people in the past that told me (read: convinced me) that the best rate/rating in the entire Coast Guard was BM2. The BM2 got to be coxswain and work their asses off - and do all the "fun" things the Coast Guard does, but had none of the ultimate responsibility that a BM1 and above does.

Really, how can you fault a person for that? How can you fault a person for being "content" with what they have?

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

I had a tech that made E5 at his last unit, needed Sea Time for advancement and his choice was the Storis or, if I remember correctly one of the 378's in Hawaii. Well he was newly married and knew that was a recipie for a broken marriage so he choose to come to another land unit for four years (turned out to be 3.5) From here he got a 378 in a more desirable geographical location. He was more than ready for advancement to E6 but the situation was was it was. I think he made a good choice as far as the big picture of his life was concerned. He was an excellent performer and experienced. Best of both worlds for me. I also get guys right out of A school. No Experience or Accomplishments as of yet. I like both situations. I can teach both techs about various aspects of the ET world and I just have to understand that each tech is different. Teaching to me is the best part about this job. Nothing more rewarding that watching an E5 pass down something to an E4 that they learned in the past.
So my vote? Neither experienced or accomplished would be my choice so I'll vote for motivated instead.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jerald, I'd take BMCM over BM2 any day. The BM2 is still ultimately responsible while they're the coxswain. And the BM1s get to decide who stands duty as the coxswain. The BMCs and above get to decide who qualifies as coxswain. And the higher up you go, the more fun you're allowed to have. The more people you are able to affect. The more platforms you're able to command........... The amount of fun those BM2s are allowed to have is limited by the people above him. The higher up you go the fewer number of people that can regulate your fun.

And Pat, I'd argue that you need the motivation in order to achieve the accomplishments.

[LT Pat Leftwich (YNC)(Ret.)]

I have seen both sides. I worked for a YN2 back in 1979 as a YN striker and when I made Chief and transferred, I never would have expected that my YN2 was the one I worked for 12 years earlier. I also had a hard charging YN3 who wanted to take on the world. When new tasks came in the YN3 wanted to jump right in with both hands while the "experienced" YN2 wanted to just do the same old job. In this particular case I went with the hard charging YN3 who I knew was motivated to not only do the job, but excel at it. Later on in my career, I was very fortunate to have this former YN3, now a YN1 work for me again. We as leaders are forced with these type of decisions quite often. Choosing between hard charging "rate grabbers" and experienced "doesn't want to make decisions" Petty Officers. Our job is not only to foster the enthusiasm of the motivated ones, but also give motivation to and understand whey the so-called "experienced" ones are where they are in their career. I hop I didn't confuse you all too much.

Lefty

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

And Pat, I'd argue that you need the motivation in order to achieve the accomplishments.


My point exactly.

[BMC John Phillips III]

The higher up you go the fewer number of people that can regulate your fun.

Master Chief, believe it or not I am going to partially side with Jerald on this one. See the most fun I've had yet was as a BM2, but I am certain I am not the one who told him that. I do most certainly agree with you that BMCM is better than BM2 any day! My only reservation about your remarks is the above and I just want to add that some of the fun that you could have as a BM2, well it's not always behavior expected of a higher ranking petty officer. I don't want to open up a can of worms here, but I think that you can be a go getter 2nd class and still get away with some things that you definitely couldn't get away with as a Chief. I don't have any clear cut examples and I sure the heck aint gonna provide any. I will just elaborate on that by saying that as a Chief or Master Chief, there might be less eyes over you, but there are a hell of a lot more eyes under you. So I guess it boils down to your definition of fun.

Teaching to me is the best part about this job. Nothing more rewarding that watching an E5 pass down something to an E4 that they learned in the past.

Pat, you've been reading my essay? Or are you just the second version of the chief that people should want to be like.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Pat, you've been reading my essay? Or are you just the second version of the chief that people should want to be like.

Don't want to make it sound like I walk on water. It just happens to be my favorite part of the job. There are other areas I'm not strong in like some admin areas for example. I ask other Chiefs and I learn as well. Just happens that teaching is something I like to do and being a Chief is an excellent opportunity to teach a little, get out of the way a lot.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It does boil down to your definition of fun. ...... and I have fun everyday. The same things that those BM2s want to do, those BMCMs can do. Anytime they want. And the things that a BMCM should think twice about because there are more eyes on him.......... the BM2 shouldn't even think about doing.
What's wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

The most fun I ever had in the CG is working the deck. I've worked the deck from being a BM2 thru being a BMCM. When I was a BM2 I had to ask to run the deck. Now I just say, I'm taking this next one. And you could take a poll at my unit, ask them when they have more fun working AtoN, when I there, or when I'm not ?

[BMC John Phillips III]

ETC, I think you misinterpretted my post, the part I quoted you on, I totally agree with you. I guess if you read the essay, it might make more sense.

BMCM, as a BM2 on the VISE, I was CDS, crane operator, and I drove the boat all the time (qual'd underway OOD shortly after making 1st). I even got to work a spud when I wanted to ;) That was the most fun I have ever had. My crew was on top of their game and we used to do everything that a construction tender should.

Now as for things that a BM2 can do that a BMCM probably shouldn't. it has more to do with after hour activities like going out and enjoying a few beverages and just letting loose and having a good time. Yes of course a Master Chief can do that too, but I guess I would be more conservative and the type and level of interaction with the crew, no matter how you see it, just isn't the same. That's all I am saying. BM2 (E5) right in the middle, not too high, not too low. And again, as good as it was, I much rather be getting the pay I am getting now and being an OIC certainly beats 1LT.

Edited to add the following two points: 1. I never had to ask to run the deck, only to drive the boat and the answer was always yes. 2. It's not what they do while you're there, it's what they do while your gone.

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Rgr, didn't really mean to dispute anything you said guess I was just spouting off on why I like this job. No worries.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Here is a look at the question from outside of the box...

Since we don't determine what type of personnel are assigned to work with us, (this could pertain to all ranks above and below our own), our only course of action as leaders is to find the best way we can to get the most out of them. Since you have to evaluate everyone individually, what may motivate some may not work for others so you have to adjust your leadership accordingly. You can always attempt to find ways to motivate an experienced individual to advance, continue their education, or a million ways to be given the chance to make those accomplishments. The same applies for an accomplished individual that lacks experience, you can always find ways to get them that experience. We are building those who will follow...The Coast Guard is built on the backs of its people and we are in the business of building people... ;)

Strat sends...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Strat, should we be building those that will follow,.... or those that will eventually lead ? Again what good is all that experience, if you accomplish nothing ?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

It is the same thing, those that will follow us WILL BE the future leaders/supervisors/commands...We are the ones evaluating our personnel and are the ones that know the experiences they need and give them the chances to accomplish their goals. We have to give them the tools and opportunities to learn so they will be prepared when it is their day...so it doesn't really matter who I get to work with, I will try to do the best I can with them.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It's not the same thing, you only want it to be. If you constantly direct those people who work for you, they may always follow, but unless you let them, they will never be prepared to lead. They can have experienced the same taskings before, but unless they're showing you the results that you're looking for, you're still going to be directing their every move. Once they start accomplishing things, you let them try things on their own. All good leaders are/were good followers, but not every follower is going to become a leader. And the question is which would you prefer ?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Hmm...I hear what you're saying Stu...

And I think that's what I'm saying as well...

I am confused about one item...what part of my posts are comming across as micromanaging???

Is it my use of the word follow? Cause I was meaning it as the people who will be doing our jobs in the near future and beyond...not as in following my every direction... :confused:

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

Well, this post applies directly to me, so here's my story. Did 2 years over seas, 1 1/2 years in Texas, 2 years in New York, 4 1/2 years in San Fran, then I got sent to Alaska. I had a wife and a 1 year old son when I arrived in Juneau. We loved it from the moment the ferry arrived. I was a PA2 in a PA3 billet. The detailer told me as soon as I advanced, he was moving me. We bought our first house there. As you all know, if your married, its not just about you. I loved my job, my house, my neighborhood, and my wife was very happy there also. I stayed a PA2 for 7 years for all those reasons. It would not have been worth it to make first class and move the whole family some place where none of us would have been happy. And I didnt rob anyone from getting to go to Juneau. After I was tour complete, the detailer shopped my billet every year. When he would get no response, he would grant me a one year extension. My boss gave me a lot of grief for not taking the service wide. He felt you should advance as fast as you can. We would go round and round about it. According to my marks and awards, I wasnt a poor performer. After 6 years in Juneau, Admiral Barrett moved me, as a PA2, to Anchorage to set up a new independent duty billet. HQ's came back and questioned him about a second class petty officer starting up a new independent billet, and his reply was, "you dont know this petty officer the way I do." After getting to Anchorage I took the service wide and made first class. After 2 years I took the service wide for PAC. A little over 10 years in Alaska and I called it quits. So, if you come across a petty officer who is sitting at a level and not moving up, dont be so fast to judge. They may have a valid reason.
Oh, as for the original question, Experience or Accomplishment? I would take Experience every day of the week. Experience means you know how to get the job done. Accomplishment just tells me you know how to take a test. And with some of the fast tracking I saw before I retired, I know experience is the better answer.