I have consistently stated, to include many times on this blog, that the difficulties that accompany life in the Navy are easily overcome by a rewarding and fulfilling workplace. Deployments, dreadful Physical Readiness Tests, and silly policies are no match for the joy of being in an awesome squadron (ship, Team, etc.).
Naturally, the converse is also true. A great 401K and a splendid maternity leave policy will never entice someone to stay when they dread coming to work each day. It’s simply not worth it.
In spite of their original intentions when signing on the dotted line, military service is not for everyone. Many will walk, and that’s okay. The trick is getting the most out of all your people, regardless of whether they plan to serve for 4 or 25 years.
Below, Jack Curtis shows us the way, and he reminds us that great ideas matter little if they aren’t followed by dutiful execution and necessary adjustments. Remember, it’s not so much taking the reservation that matters, it’s holding the reservation.
Bridging the Gap Between Managing Problems and Leading People
On May 13th, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus delivered a much-anticipated speech at the Naval Academy that unveiled his Talent Management Initiatives. These initiatives introduced changes to existing policies, and revealed numerous new policies. It was very encouraging to see that many of the ideas discussed came directly from fleet feedback. Some initiatives will require statutory changes; others will require little more than careful deliberation and signatures from SECNAV, CNO, or CNP. While these proposals are a welcome step in the right direction, there is an underlying problem with them: highlighting the fundamental differences between management and leadership, the initiatives demonstrate the Navy’s incomplete approach to addressing personnel challenges.
For many reading this, the differences between management and leadership have been discussed since their earliest days as midshipmen or officer candidates; however, let us briefly revisit the issue. Management is the distribution of limited resources to meet an overarching objective. It is about setting priorities, goals, and timelines. Ultimately, management is about control. Conversely, leadership takes a broader view, which includes motivating others, developing a shared vision, and fostering cohesion. Leadership is about persuasion. Effective organizations balance both and allow elements of each to inform the other…or at least they should.
Who Are The Right People?
Retention has proven to be one of the most challenging issues our senior leaders have wrestled with over the past several years. Retention is a tough nut to crack, because it is much more complicated than simply ensuring there are enough names on the payroll. A sharper mind instead looks at whether or not the right people are being retained, and that distinction is where difficulties present themselves.
When considering the recent Talent Management Initiatives, we should ask whether or not these ideas are aimed at retaining the right people by leading them or, as the title suggests, by simply managing them with targeted stopgap measures. Is the Navy doing enough to prepare all of its personnel to be the right people, or just some of them? Can we increase the number of junior officers who aspire to a career in the Navy by offering increased bonuses, extended maternity leave, and career intermissions? Maybe. For some. But is that good enough?
Instead of continually chasing retention numbers with reactive “solutions,” we should begin addressing the roots of job satisfaction and personal growth. We know that people will walk across burning coals and broken glass to serve an organization or a leader they believe in and trust. The Navy needs to do more than throw money and extra time away from uniform at these people. The Navy owes its officers and Sailors an earnest effort to improve the quality of their leaders, and in so doing increase the leadership skills of those being led. Yes, the SECNAV’s initiatives will sway some to stay, and improve the manner in which some view the organization, and they are an important part of a balanced effort. But coupling these initiatives with a more holistic effort toward improved leadership and leader development will change the target group from some to all. Fortunately, some thought has been given to this very issue.
Naval Leader Development Strategy and its Limits
In January 2013, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert released his Navy Leader Development Strategy (NLDS). It is an important starting point, but his vision for career-long and rank-specific leader development has yet to mature despite continuinghard work by good people. If embraced by commanders across the fleet and properly funded, this program has the potential to shift our entire perspective about leader development. Instead of focusing on compliance training and in-the-moment management techniques, the NLDS aims to equip Sailors of all ranks with the tools they need, not just to survive, but to succeed in positions of increased responsibility throughout their careers. In its current state though, NLDS remains a shell of what could be.
While the NLDS shows tremendous promise there is a larger point to be drawn from its sluggish development: the fleet must not sit idly by waiting for our most senior leaders to resolve the issues driving the right people out of the Navy. To paraphrase Congressman Tip O’Neil’s famous quote that “all politics is local,” a good starting point might be to realize that “all leadership is local” too. All of us, regardless of rank, must begin a careful self-examination if we hope to turn the tide of negativity, dissatisfaction, and unfulfilled expectations that SECNAV’s initiatives aim to address. We in the fleet must assume responsibility for leading all of our Sailors and ensuring that each is provided with the tools needed to become the right people who feel compelled to stay.
To execute this shift in mindset, two things must occur. First, those on the flight lines and deck plates must accept the challenge of setting aside negativity and begin seeking day-to-day, hour-to-hour victories that can better shape our perspectives and attitudes. Even more, we need to encourage our subordinates to do the same. We need our youngest Sailors looking for reasons to succeed, not excuses for maintaining the status quo or, worse, ways to avoid failure. We need to be the gears that turn the Navy Leader Development Strategy. If we sit passively waiting for another “Big Navy” program, well intentioned though it may be, to “do” leadership and leader development for us, we’re likely headed for further disappointment and will continue to see more of the right people leave because of it.
Second, in order to adopt this so-called local solution, local commanders must be – andbelieve they are – empowered to lead. The Charge of Command, which (ironically) all new commanding officers must attest to having read by signing a Page 13, must be honored on both ends. The relationship between responsibility, accountability, and authority is badly out of balance, as evidenced by countless articles, blogs, and surveys. To address this imbalance, our flag officers must resist the urge to reach as far down the chain as modern methods allow. As difficult as it may be for local leaders to set aside pessimism, it will be just as difficult for flag officers to take a step back and demonstrate trust as it is described in the Charge of Command:
“Without trust we cannot delegate authority. Without authority, we cannot fulfill our responsibilities. Therefore, without the delegation of authority, we simply cannot effectively operate our Navy.”
Cultivating honest and faithful relationships at the unit level creates momentum. When a young JO or enlisted Sailor recognizes that their immediate superior espouses and demonstrates trust, confidence, and loyalty, it enables and encourages that individual to do the same within their sphere of influence. When we do this we cultivate professionals who believe in one another, believe their work has purpose, and most importantly, believe their bosses trust their ability and judgment. When we do this, we lead. If a skipper shows that he trusts his subordinates, these subordinates are much more likely to develop a favorable opinion of the Navy and the skipper; they may even aspire to his job. Take this scenario up the chain-of-command a few levels. If a 3-star can’t, or won’t, demonstrate trust or confidence in the O-6s and O-7s working for him, what impact does that have on their professional aspirations? The answer to this question may be showing itself in the number of post-command commanders choosing to forgo the recently re-instituted command bonus and instead electing to retire.
If We’ve Done Our Jobs, They’ll All Be The Right People
The SECNAV’s speech was well received and pointed to an increasing willingness on the part of our most senior leaders to listen to and respond to fleet inputs. This is undoubtedly a good thing. Where the speech and the initiatives come short is in addressing the much-needed bridge between managing talent and leading talent. One without the other is tantamount to a jet without fuel or a ship without a rudder. Ensuring that steps are taken so every officer and Sailor is provided with the tools needed to develop into the right person is critical to prevent these initiatives from becoming more rounds fired behind a moving target.
Finally, we must accept that not everybody who joins the Navy wants to be “retained.” Some of the finest Sailors and officers I’ve had the privilege to serve with did so for the length of one contract or enlistment. They served honorably and with distinction. We should be grateful for the time they gave the Navy and the nation, but we should also accept that no amount of bonuses, sabbaticals, or extended maternity leave would have convinced many of these people to stay. One could rightfully argue that investing more into these officers’ personal and leadership development also might not have convinced them to stay. We should consider, however, the greater second and third order effects for the organization from just such an investment. The shared benefits would far outweigh the aforementioned Talent Management Initiatives that aim to appease the individual. This should not be an either or; in or out; stay or go conversation. This must be a conversation about how to put more into the individual in order to get the most out of them – while we have them – and at the same time building a bond that encourages individuals to stay. If we’ve done our jobs well, they’ll all be the right people.
LCDR Jack Curtis is a Naval Aviator with 15 years of service. He is a proud member of the Tailhook Association and the Military Writers Guild. The opinions expressed here are his and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or the U.S. Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment