I was reading the June 26th edition of Rhumb Lines about diversity and really liked the key messages contained. Lets think critically about what this says one key message at a time.- Leaders who embrace diversity and differing viewpoints and seek talent that embodies a broad range of life experiences ensure naval readiness today and tomorrow.
- The Navy must reflect the face of the nation. Further, we want an officer corps that is reflective of the enlisted force it leads.
- Obtaining talent from diverse populations across the U.S. strengthens the force and ensures forward progress.
I would love to see the Navy "embrace diversity and differing viewpoints" but sadly, that isn't reality. The reality is, the way the Navy expects to call itself a diverse officer corps is to align minorities and women into the the right jobs that insure promotions. That is exactly what ADM Roughead told the Current Strategy Forum, nearly verbatim.
You see, on one side the Navy claims it isn't about quotas, but on the other the direction by the CNO is to insure that minorities and women are selected for specific commands because the CNO knows very well that only people with a certain degree and a certain career path insures possible selection for promotion. It has nothing to do with talent, and has never had anything to do with race. The Navy is the furthest thing possible from a racially insensitive organization, because in the end if someone didn't get promoted, it had nothing to do with race or sex. It had everything to do with what your command was, what your degree was in, and what assignments you had. The CNOs plan is to add 'diversity' to those commands, meaning populate with more minorities and women, so that from the pool of eligible promotions (a small pool of a certain career paths and degrees) more minorities will be eligible.
The problem is, the Navy will change the race or sex of a flag position, but the career paths are exactly the same as the folks before them. This means the Navy will not actually "embrace diversity and differing viewpoints" because the promotion system is designed to pick exactly the same people they have always picked, same career path, same degree. As much as the Navy would like diversity to be about differing opinions, the only thing that is actually different is race or sex, meaning it is about quotas and not diversity.
For example, count up the aviators who are flag officers. The fighter jocks make up a minority of the naval aviation community, but an overwhelming majority of flag officers. Why? Because that is how the promotion system is rigged. To call themselves diverse, the Navy is simply encouraging and placing more minorities and women to CO a F-18 squadron. OK, but you still end up with every officer coming from the same command track, with basically the same education, the same experiences both on staffs and in the field, and somehow all of this carbon copy will translate into diversity and differing viewpoints? How? Is the Navy saying that because the promotion isn't a white male, it is diversity and will result in different viewpoints? Basically, yes... that is exactly what the Navy is saying.
How does this meet any metric of different viewpoints if the experiences are the same? How is this diversity if all you have effectively done is change the quota count for women or minorities?
The truth is there are women and minorities that could be promoted today, but because the Navy sucks the promotions soda from the same tiny straw every year those minorities and women aren't actually eligible, and it has nothing to do with anything other than they don't fit the template for flag established by flag officers. The CNO actually says he looks around the leadership of the Navy and they look like him. DUH. The criteria built into the promotion system is so limited to exactly who already dominates the flag ranks why would the Navy expect to have anything but the same resume with a different name? The Navy has been cloning the resume for leadership for decades, which is why it is no surprise the big idea of 2009 is to build DDG-51s, which ironically is the same big idea Navy leadership had in 1989. Transformation has turned out to be a revolution, as in the Navy finds itself going in circles. That isn't the path towards innovation, much less a broad definition of diversity.
If the Navy is serious about embracing diversity and differing viewpoints then the Navy needs to change the way it promote folks as an organization. The Navy picks favorites for promotion, which is why when you read biography's all the SWOs look the same, all the aviators look the same, and all the submariners look the same. Diversity my Aunt Fannie! There were more Army officers with a PH.d on the staff of General Petraeus in Iraq than in the entire unrestricted line of today's US Navy, and they think they are going to find diversity with a sex change or by picking more minorities for flag? If the Navy wants to find more minorities making flag, try picking from the pool of minorities and COs of amphibious ships for a change, or try finding a minority or woman aviator CO who didn't fly the F-18. Don't stop there though, don't end up the organization where all the white folks come from one specific career path, while minorities and women come from another.
If you want to be a diverse organization, then be one by broadening the scope of what makes someone eligible for promotion to 0-5, 0-6, or higher.
When I was at the Naval War College I made every effort to find students and ask questions. It wasn't easy, many were watching over closed circuit TV from the campus. I ran into a pair of RW pilots and asked one of them what his elective was. He answered "counterinsurgency."
In my mind I was thinking 2 things. First, brilliant... a helicopter pilot who is studying counterinsurgency would be the foundation of an asymmetric warfare specialist in the future officer corps. My second thought is how screwed this young man is, because being a RW guy who elected to study counterinsurgency probably disqualifies him from promotion. I didn't tell him that, but he probably already knows it.
My point is simple. If the Navy took seriously the effort to meet the objectives of the very well stated first 'key message' listed above, two and three would take care of itself. If the Navy wants the best of the best in their flag officers, then the Navy needs to expand the pool beyond the same career tracks that make almost every flag officers resume look the same. When that happens, finding a broad pool of outstanding candidates of any race or sex will no longer be the problem. The problem will become picking the best people among a list of great people. What a terrible problem that would be.
--
Photo caption: PUERTO CABEZAS, Nicaragua (Aug. 18, 2008) Capt. Walter Towns, right, commanding officer of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), and Capt. Fernandez "Frank" Ponds, mission commander for Continuing Promise (CP) 2008, greet Kearsarge crew members selected to play a friendly game of softball against the Puerto Cabezas Veteranos. Kearsarge is supporting the Caribbean phase of CP 2008, an equal-partnership mission between the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Brazil, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana.
Comment: A perfect example of two minority O-6s who will in the future be eligible for flag promotion. I don't know much about Capt. Towns, but I have had a chance to speak to Captain Ponds when he was conducting soft power to South America and he remains the most impressive officer (of any rank) I have interviewed for the purposes of the blog. Big problem though, one amphibious squadron commanding officer was promoted to flag in 2009, meaning these guys have to overcome the enormous Navy bias not against minorities, but against commanders of the amphib force.
No comments:
Post a Comment