I don't know how many times I've seen these, "The problems with today's Chiefs..." comments at these and other forums but knowing a collateral duty is nice, but the ability to lead people has very little to do with whether or not I've read the MILPERS Manual lately. I didn't care for the advice of CCC on my first boat so I looked stuff up affecting me myself. As a Chief I taught my guys to look up the references before doing about anything except the immediate actions for a casualty. Maybe it was because I didn't know anything about collateral duties, but I knew that I was responsible for getting the ship ready to go to sea and that I was responsible for the development of my men and I wanted them to know the reference vice a factoid out of the reference. When I made Chief at the 7 year point I had never written a primary PMS schedule or made a material history entry, but I could read and ask questions, and I was willing to put in extra time to learn requirements I didn't know. You'd have to ask my guys and my CO's what kind of CPO I was.
I don't want to sound condescending, but unless you've walked in a CPO's shoes, you don't know what it's like. I don't deny that some are struggling and hurting their guys and the navy. There are also many that are doing excellent work. To respond to the concerns about lack of experience, we are starting an LCPO course this fall. The purpose of the course is to expose new LCPOs to all the requirements (i.e. the collateral duties) in preparation to go to sea as the Chief. I'm sure many will find fault with this too.
Sorry to pontificate, but I think the real issue is way more complex than time in rate, collateral duties, and back-stabbing (As some have said how guys make Chief or what the Chief does to look good).
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891) - Theodore Roosevelt
Well said Senior Chief,
When I came in seven year chiefs were plentiful. As a student in Power school, I remember there were more Chiefs with one hash mark than with two or more. The Master Chief who made the most lasting and influential impression on me was a 13 year MMCM at the age of 30, and was phenomenal in every way. I had the good fortune to be initiated as a Chief while working for him, and it was a privilege. The bottom line is not everyone is destined to make Chief at the same time. The system IS FAIR. I have participated in the selection process and seen how it works first hand. For an organization (Navy) that is promoting people from all walks of life stationed all over the globe, I have yet to hear anyone propose a better system.
Needs of the navy change, and advancement opportunities follow suit. There was a 5 year stint around the Tailhook era where Nuclear LDO selection was < 5 candidates every year. Then the floodgates opened and it has been hovering near 40 Nuclear candidates a year for a decade. Needless to say the experience level of the successful candidates has changed accordingly. That is how the cookie crumbles.
It is unfortunate that some on these boards don't understand that one not be need the system expert on every part of the division to be the one worthy of Chief. Chiefs remain the backbone of the Navy. It is not because they know everything. It is because they have experience, are proven, talented, and passionate.
I would argue that being a great Chief, is similar to being a great EWS or EOOW. The day we qualified EWS or EOOW we all know we were not the most competent at the watch. But through more experience, study, drill debriefs, watchteam backup and reflection we hone our skills, not unlike a new Chief being mentored in the Goat Locker.
Regarding what requirements the Khakis should be training their troops on, I have always researched it on my own. It doesn't matter if it is a principle behind an IA, pay issues, or leave policies. The job of the Chief is to team em to fish , not give em one.
As long as I am ranting, let me discuss EVALS and FITREPS. This should start some healthy controversy. I have always been amazed at the vast # of sailors who pride themselves on never writing their own EVALS. These tend to be the same ones who complain of poor recognition from the command. These guys are doing themselves a disservice. If they honestly think the Chief and Div "O" (Spoken "FNG") have time to dedicate hours into honing a superb EVAL for all of their troops, they are sadly mistaken. I have always ensured my guys Evals were well written, but witnessed many who didn't for a wide variety of reasons. Senior second classes and above should submit EVAL input in the format of a completed EVAL.
I Digress.
Keep it up Senior Chief, We need more like you.
JB
