Navy Times website has an article about the CO, Cmdr. Frank Azzarello, of the USS Forrest Sherman who was ostensibly fired for trying to make a commemorative trophy out of a seized AK-47.(1) The article presents a much more in-depth description of what got the CO fired and it boils down to accusations that the CO was routinely abusive, foul-mouthed, and demanding.
I’ll leave it to you to read the article and draw your own conclusion although I’ll note that we have no way of knowing the truth of the matter so any conclusion you or I may draw is purely speculative. That said, reading between the lines strongly suggests to me that this was a case of a CO attempting to set standards, demanding people meet those standards, and actively trying to get rid of those who would not or could not meet them.
Some examples that lead me to my conclusion:
“I have seen officers called idiots, retarded or useless wastes,” one anonymous crew member wrote in a command climate survey cited in the investigation. (1)
Given the demonstrated propensity for naval officers to fail at the most basic seamanship tasks, run their ships aground, collide with merchant ships, and surrender to Iranians, it is obvious that a significant percentage of naval officers are, indeed, ‘idiots, retarded or useless wastes’ and by saying so the CO is merely stating a fact rather than being abusive.
Consider this example,
“Get your hands out of your pockets when you speak to me, you son of a bitch,” one officer recounted Azzarello saying … (1)
So now we’re firing COs for demanding a degree of respect from junior officers?
Apparently, the CO opted to try to get rid of poor performers as evidenced by this passage,
It found that Azzarello … overused letters of instruction with junior officers, allegedly in the name of booting underperformers off his ship. (1)
A CO that tries to get rid of poor performers? Good! We need much more of that.
Perhaps he is one officer who understands the potentially fatal results of poor performing officers. Consider the CO’s statement,
Azzarello told investigators of responding to the 2012 collision of the U.S. destroyer Porter with a supertanker in the Persian Gulf, and how he ran the basic division officer course for a year following the fatal Fitzgerald and John S. McCain collisions.
“I admit that I am passionate, intense, aggressive, sarcastic, direct and sometimes use colorful language,” Azzarello said in a statement at his NJP hearing. “I am painfully aware of the potentially deadly impacts of substandard watchstanding.” (1)
While the CNO of the Navy and the rest of Navy leadership ignored the multiple groundings and collisions, this CO apparently took the lessons to heart and demanded performance. Good!
Here’s another disturbing example,
The anonymous IG complaint against Azzarello also accused him of assault while he was serving as executive officer of Vella Gulf before arriving at Forrest Sherman.
During the summer of 2018, Azzarello “repeatedly poked” the ship’s ordnance officer “in the collarbone area while alone in his cabin following an issue with preparations for a maintenance spot check.”
The officer later “noted that the area was sore and tender following the alleged interaction.” (1)
The disturbing part is not the alleged ‘assault’ – which apparently consists of ‘poking’ an officer – but the fact that the officer on the receiving end considers being ‘poked’ an assault. This is not someone I’d want to go into battle with. I want people who are tough enough to take a ‘poke’ and not break down into a simpering, sobbing mess who needs someone to fight his battles for him.
Here’s a comment from a Bradley Martin, a retired SWO,
“Holding people to standards is essential, but simply berating them just demotivates them,” he added. “That doesn’t improve, it just makes them feel bad.” (1)
‘Feel bad’? Oh no. We don’t want people to feel bad. What does Mr. Martin think the enemy will do to these people in a war? They’ll do a lot more than make them feel bad. If you don’t want to feel bad and be criticized, how about improving your performance?
What did the ship’s department heads think?
The ship’s department heads “noted no significant issues, with several noting that the ship was a professional work environment,” the investigator wrote. (1)
Could it be that they supported the CO’s efforts to set standards?
Let me repeat … I have no way of knowing the true story here – and neither do you – but reading between the lines sounds like a CO’s attempt to correct the litany of everything that’s wrong with the Navy and, predictably, the Navy opted for public relations over standards and performance.
_________________________________________
(1)Navy Times, “‘Passion bordering on anger’: The inside story behind the CO’s firing on the destroyer Forrest Sherman”,Geoff Ziezulewicz, 23-Jun-2021,
(2)https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-uss-forrest-sherman-captain-fired-abusive-language/
Correcting and insulting Os in front of enlisted would seem to be a major problem.
ReplyDeleteSometimes people are so incompetent that you need to publicly humiliate them if they aren't getting the message by other means.
DeleteLacking details and context, we simply don't know which is why I look at the overall pattern in the post.
Sounds like a great way to destroy morale and confidence in the ships officers.
DeleteThis guy was clearly a SWO tool. The bigger issue is personnel. The SWO community gets the dregs of the commissioning sources. Guys like this tool wouldn't have made it past JG in an aviation squadron.
"Sounds like a great way to destroy morale and confidence in the ships officers."
DeleteAlternatively, it sounds like setting standards, holding people accountable, and getting rid of the poor performers is a great way to improve morale and confidence in the ship's officers.
It is getting that way across the board. Here at No Such Agency they care more about ensuring someone has a smile on their face than actually completing the work they are supposed to be doing as a Combat Support Agency. When trying to hold folks to standards you find yourself either dealing with employee relations if it is a civilian or if it is a Sailor in your org you are trying to hold accountable their NIOC covers for them because they want the Sailor to feel comfortable. Russia and China don't need to go to war with us because we are kicking our own a$$ for them and taking the warfighting out of our community. I did not expect the community to go down this direction with Gilday at the helm, but something happened. His attitude changed(based on my working experience with him) from always wanting what is best to support the Strike Group Commander in harms way, to hey lets ensure that frown is turned upside down.
ReplyDeleteMake Azzarello SecNav and fire every single Admiral, I say.
ReplyDeleteI was treated worse my first hour of boot camp.
ReplyDeleteSome people are screamers, it's not related to their effectiveness. As long as the CO is doing a good job,
ReplyDeletehe can scream. If you get a CO and XO who both are screamers it saves on command briefings, since everyone will hear about their beef. ;-)
Do we know which sex the complainers were? Might be relevant.
ReplyDeleteThat ship has sailed.
Delete"That ship has sailed."
DeleteI understand what you're saying but we can't accept things just because they appeared entrenched. Slavery was a settled issue, once, but as a nation we kept fighting against it and it was eventually and eliminated.
If women on ships are a detriment to combat effectiveness - and I believe they are - then we are honor bound to keep fighting against it even if it seems as if that ship has sailed … for the moment.
I quite agree, however my actual inquiry had to do with the "Poking" allegation. Poking a male JO for emphasis and getting attention might be acceptable. Poking a female in the chest would not be. Unfair maybe, but, I think, fact. You're right though, we shouldn't have the problem to start with.
DeleteAdditional info to include the investigation report
ReplyDeletehttps://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-uss-forrest-sherman-captain-fired-abusive-language/
My take is you had some JOs who did not want to be held to standard and went overboard
From the actual report, there appeared to be a great deal of support for the Captain among senior leaders on the ship as evidenced in the following findings (the cut and paste is a little choppy due to the redactions):
Deleteq. With the exception of the comment made to-neither the XO, CDR Bridges, nor the CMC, CMDCM Nelson-Williams, were aware of any unprofessional or abusive behavior by CDR Azzarello.
r. The current department heads noted no significant issues with several noting that the ship was a professional work environment. did observe some
name calling but indicated that it did not cross professional lines. noted that CDR Azzarella likely said some things he should not have.
s. None of the ship's Limited Duty Officers or Chief Warrant Officers (LDOs/CWOs) personally observed any demeaning behaviors though several had heard about it.
t. served aboard the ship as the embarked chaplain for the duration of a nine-month deployment. He heard CDR Azzarello yell and use the f-word,'' but never observed
or became aware of any abusive/demeaning language directed at a service member.
------------
What I find disturbing is that the investigation appears to give full weight to the complaints and zero weight to the supporting statements. In other words, it appears that the report's 'conclusion' was pre-ordained due to public relations and political correctness concerns.
I also note that the Captain's combat capabilities and the readiness of the ship was not a factor when, in fact, it should have been the main factor in any conclusion about his fitness to command.
Err didn't the report say two of the department heads reported suicidal ideation due to stress?
DeleteSince you read the report, you know the answer. Do you have a point to make?
Delete"They can always hurt you more" Rules of the House of God
ReplyDeleteWhile none of us will know for sure, my take is that the Navy probably sacked a CO that had his priorities straight. Id love to see results of the INSURVs, OPPEs, etc while he was in Command!! I bet we all could even predict what the performance curves look like before reading them!
ReplyDeleteI had two different COs during my one sea tour, and they were completely at different ends of the command personality spectrum. My first was more like Cdr Azzarello then not. Salty, direct, demanding, knowledgeable, and unafraid to call out poor performance. But he also bent rules regularly in order to reward his crew. He frequently appeared, touring every nook and cranny of the ship unannounced, and questioned junior sailors about what he saw. Every level of the crew caught hell, and praise from him. But every one of that 400-ish strong crew would've followed him anywhere, because we respected his leadership.
Im afraid todays Navy is following along with today's societal softening, and leaving the rigidity, structure, and heirarchy that created an integrated and effective crew behind. While we dont want to see a fleet led by Captain Queegs, even he had a lot of qualities that are useful aboard ship. Soft and entitled JOs and sailors, and the Navys support of them is encroaching on a COs historically official and implied "power", and the fleet will suffer for it, especially the next time ordanance starts flying...
"the Navys support of them is encroaching on a COs historically official and implied "power", and the fleet will suffer for it, especially the next time ordanance starts flying..."
DeleteThis is what so many non-service people - and now even the Navy leadership - don't understand. The Navy is NOT a microcosm of society and is NOT a social entity. It is a combat entity and the 'rules' of polite society have no place in a combat organization and, indeed, ARE OFTEN DETRIMENTAL TO COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS.
Im going to add that it appears the Navy is directly responsible for creating the conditions leading to this. The ship had two nearly back to back deployments without a maintenance availibility, a 22% crew turnover, and the Goat Locker was at least four Chiefs short. That puts a heavy strain on the JOs to lead their divisions/departments without solid NCO support. Although the JOs are the "leaders", the Chiefs are the ones who "get it done", ensuring that sailors get the hands-on technical knowledge, have the proper training to support their certifications, etc. So the Navy set up the JOs to fail, and then they earned the derision from their CO. My humble opinion here is that the whole situation is an indictment of the Navy, and the rot thats present in manning and maintenance. The interpersonal issues aboard Forrest Sherman arent problems, they're symptoms of much greater issues that should've been addressed and rectified when the Fitzgerald/McCain incidents brought them to high level attention...
ReplyDeleteWell said!
Delete" The interpersonal issues aboard Forrest Sherman arent problems, they're symptoms of much greater issues that should've been addressed and rectified when the Fitzgerald/McCain incidents brought them to high level attention..."
DeleteI'd say long before then, but otherwise agree.
Sure... Things should have mever gotten to a state where the Fitzgerald/McCain incidents happened, but thats when for darned sure things should have gotten turned around. From then on, leadership from the lowest petty officer, all the way to SecNav dropped the ball...
DeleteI found this part troubling:
ReplyDeleteThree junior officers recounted an event on the bridge during which CDR Azzarello allegedly leaned over and raised his hand when reacting to a report from the Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Officer … that there was not enough beer to support a shift in policy to allow crew members 18 years and older to drink,” the investigation states.
According to that report, the female officer “believed CDR Azzarello was going to punch her, and two officers on watch who observed it … believed it looked the same.”
I don't know if Azzarello was going to strike the female officer or not. Maybe he was going to slam something out of frustration. But, I would never put my put myself in a position where another, especially a woman, would think I was going to strike them.
And, in this incident, as with many others, Commander Azzarello claims not to recall the specifics. Which is concerning as well.
The investigation also faulted Azzarello’s Executive Officer, Cmdr. Damon Bridges, "for not pushing back on such behavior and recommends that he not be allowed to “fleet-up” to CO of Forrest Sherman."
Is it possible that the inherit stress of command got the better of Commander Azzarello? A ship's captain is a pretty tough job as it is. And, as Jjabatie pointed out, "(T)he ship had two nearly back to back deployments without a maintenance availibility, a 22% crew turnover, and the Goat Locker was at least four Chiefs short."
Irt the possible striking of a female officer. I tend to believe that the Skipper can't recall details because there were no details to recall. If I was standing there with someone who I thought was going to strike my shipmates or a female I'm jumping in. So if these "Officers" thought she was actually going to be struck and they did nothing ther than watch I would want them out of the Navy.
Delete"I would never put my put myself in a position where another, especially a woman, would think I was going to strike them."
DeleteYou clearly disagree with me and the tone of your comment scares me. I am afraid that you may track me down and do physical harm to me. As soon as I finish this reply, I'm going to a judge and file a complaint against you.
I take it you grasp this object lesson? Sometimes it doesn't matter what your intent is and that you would never put yourself in a position where your actions could be misinterpreted but unless you're going to avoid all human interaction of any kind, someone (with an axe to grind?) can always misinterpret you. To say you would never put yourself in negative position is naïve in the extreme. You can easily put yourself in a negative position without ever having any idea you're doing so. People have become so sensitive today that we can offend, intimidate, and scare people without ever realizing it. This is all the more true for a ship's Captain trying to set and maintain standards aboard a warship while faced with the litany of challenges cited in the report and likely having to deal with a bunch of whiny babies.
Once upon a time, a Captain was presumed innocent and justified in ALMOST any action. Today, Captains are presumed guilty by the mere allegation of hurt feelings and subsequent investigations are conducted to justify the firing, not to find the truth. In your fairness and thoroughness, you noted that there were just as many supporting statements, and from the ship's leadership, as there were complaints from junior officers and yet the Navy automatically chose to believe JOs over the Captain and senior leadership. That is a severely messed up way to approach complaints.
How many good Captains has the Navy dumped for no good reason? We're supposed to be preparing for war not campfire group hugs.
What ever happened to "I have no way of knowing the true story here – and neither do you"? Like everyone else, I'm going by what was reported. And, when "reading between the lines," one can come to any conclusion they want. No?
DeleteAnd, I didn't realize it was normal for anyone to appear like they're going to fly off the handle when given bad news. But, there might be something to this as one crewmember noted "how your watch will go depends on the mood of the CO.”
But, the issue with the MWR officer aside, is it normal for a commanding officer to issue 46 Letters of Instruction (LOI) as mentioned in the article?
One division officer received three LOIs over four weeks. One officer recounted how Commander Azzarello used LOIs and other actions to remove an officer from the ship. Is that normal behavior?
And, as reported, “Multiple officers alleged that CDR Azzarello threatened to fire, detach or remove them." Is that normal behavior too?
Given the lengthy deployments, short key staff, and a good number of his crew (including two department heads) diagnosed with mental health issues, Commander Azzarello was certainly in a tough spot. Again, I wonder if stress got the better of Commander Azzarello.
@Fighting Irish. I think I'm agreeing with you. Azzarello sounds to me like he was at the end of his rope with so much "incompetence" and was under high levels of stress to get the crew straight and not end up with another McCain or Fitzgerald that at the end, he lost his cool and some level of detachment from the situation to realize he probably was going too far. That's where a good experienced second in command would have been handy to give him some proper feed back and allow the captain to look at what he was doing from a different POV. I dont think Capt Azzareello meant necessary to always be an assh#le but it sure looks like it since we not getting much from what Azzareello was doing on the "positive" side, thats too bad and USN is wrong in not showing both sides to this story.
DeleteAzzareello comes across as all STICK and NO CARROT.
"Is that normal behavior?"
DeleteIs it normal behavior to surrender to Iranians? That's exactly what two boat crews did so, yes, that's normal. That does not, however, make it correct behavior. So, to answer your multiple questions, no, it's not normal behavior for today's Navy. The real question is, is it correct behavior? The answer to that is, if the Captain feels he has poor performing officers then, yes, it's correct - and, in fact, mandatory - behavior.
You appear to have bought in to the get-along, go-along, warm and fuzzy mode of operations as being normal just like the Navy has. You also appear to have accepted the account of JOs over those of the ship's senior leaders whose statements supported the Captain in the report. You are arbitrarily choosing to believe junior officers over senior personnel for no justifiable reason. That if flawed logic, at best, and reveals a bias.
There is no reason to disbelieve the ship's senior leaders and the ship's Captain and there are multiple reasons to disbelieve the JOs.
We cannot know the actual truth of the matter but we can make some pretty well reasoned conclusions. There is no guarantee that those conclusions are correct but there is even less reason to believe they are incorrect.
This is, almost literally, a case of the Navy believing the kids over the adults with no supporting reason or logic to do so and you appear to have bought into the same warped thought process.
I'm truly curious, why do you automatically believe the JOs over the ship's senior leaders, including a Chaplain? That's perplexing.
"Azzareello comes across as all STICK and NO CARROT."
DeleteYou totally missed the important passage in the report: the listing of the various ship's senior leaders who unanimously supported the Captain. Go back and re-read the report.
How can you possibly say that the Captain was all stick and no carrot? The Navy report was clearly intended to justify the Captain's removal and there was zero effort in the report to document the Captain's positive impact on the ship and crew or to present any kind of balanced accounting of his actions.
Have you considered that 'stick' is what the Navy needs? We've seen what excessive 'carrot' yields: collisions, groundings, waivers, surrenders, SWO failed evaluations, INSURV failures, widespread corruption (Fat Leonard investigation), etc. And you think the Captain should have been using less stick? The dead sailors on the McCain and Fitzgerald would probably have liked higher standards and more stick and not cared about anyone's hurt feelings.
"Is it normal behavior to surrender to Iranians?"
DeleteYou might remember that at the time those boats were in Iranian territorial waters due to navigational errors and found themselves surrounded by several Iranian patrol boats. Would you rather they had fought it out and we lose 10 sailors?
As for Commander Azzarello, in my opinion, there seems to be sufficient evidence to question Commander Azzarello's ability to command. The article references at most three division officers, so I wonder what the other division officer had to say. And, let's remember that his own executive officer was faulted for his behavior.
And, what Chaplain are you referring to? I don't see that mentioned in the linked article.
"You might remember that at the time those boats were in Iranian territorial waters"
DeleteDid you read the posts on the seizure? Not a thing you've stated or implied about this incident is true. If you've forgotten all the facts, go back and refresh your memory. If you're just being obtuse, please stop.
"what Chaplain are you referring to?"
From the report:
"[redacted] served aboard the ship as the embarked chaplain for the duration of a nine-month deployment. He heard CDR Azzarello yell and use the f-word, but never observed or became aware of any abusive/demeaning language directed at a service member.
I have read several articles concerning CDR Azzarello’s removal, and I had pretty much the same observations as you—looks like he hurt the feelings of some of his junior officers and he appears to have expectations of a level of performance which may have made them uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteIn a related item, in my humble opinion, according to an article in DefenseNews, a test of general seamanship of 184 junior officers who had been judged as qualified by their commands to wear the SWO badge, resulted in only 16% of those tested rated as “satisfactory”, 65% were rated as “satisfactory but needing additional training”, and an incredible number,18%, were rated as “unsatisfactory”.
I’m guessing that a lot of these “unsatisfactory” performing officers were qualified by a commanding officer who was sensitive to their needs and one who was reluctant to push a performance level which might make them uncomfortable.
The navy needs to recognize they simply can’t drive ships and if they continue to be ok with this fact, then they need to adopt ramming as their primary tactical concept.
Old reserve OOD(F) XO/NAV
"Navy Times website has an article about the CO, Cmdr. Frank Azzarello, of the USS Forrest Sherman who was ostensibly fired for trying to make a commemorative trophy out of a seized AK-47. The article presents a much more in-depth description of what got the CO fired and it boils down to accusations that the CO was routinely abusive, foul-mouthed, and demanding."
ReplyDeleteI have somewhat mixed reactions to these revelations. On the one hand, I am relieved to find out that it was not about the AK-47. That always seemed to me to be an excessively stupid reason to relieve a CO. I figured it was trumped up because there were other reasons that they could not prove
Now I find out that those other reasons were that he was "routinely abusive, foul-mouthed, and demanding." Routinely demanding is what a CO is supposed to be. That is something that should be cultivated, not disciplined. Foul-mouthed is a question of style. I have known good COs who were foul-mouthed, good COs who weren't, and perhaps the best CO who had been extremely foul-mouthed in his younger days but decided to reform himself. Abusive is kind of in the eye of the beholder. If I had any thoughts to offer, I would say that he would have done well to honor a maxim that I was always taught, "Praise in public, criticize in private." Calling a JO an idiot in front of his troops undermines the JO's leadership ability; calling a JO an idiot in private is often entirely appropriate.
But in any event, I highly doubt that CDR Azzarello suddenly became "overly abusive, foul-mouthed, and demanding" once given command. The Navy could and should have recognized the "abusive, foul-mouthed, and demanding" parts of his makeup in earlier assignments, cultivated the demanding part, counseled the abusive part, and recognized the foul-mouthed part as part of his leadership style. The Navy cannot fire this officer without acknowledging a massive failure of their officer development program.
"The Navy cannot fire this officer without acknowledging a massive failure of their officer development program."
DeleteSure they can! They do it around 20 times a year!
" I would say that he would have done well to honor a maxim that I was always taught, "Praise in public, criticize in private."
How do you know he didn't? Perhaps he tried repeatedly to counsel JOs in private and got no results. Perhaps he reached a point where the only remaining option was to criticize in public in the faint hope that the embarrassment would trigger some improvement or a request for transfer.
Don't make the mistake of taking at face value a report that was clearly intended only to justify relieving the Captain, not finding any truth. I just did a post on analyzing what we read. Do so with this incredibly one-sided report.
"The Navy cannot fire this officer without acknowledging a massive failure of their officer development program."
DeleteSure they can! They do it around 20 times a year!
" I would say that he would have done well to honor a maxim that I was always taught, "Praise in public, criticize in private."
How do you know he didn't? Perhaps he tried repeatedly to counsel JOs in private and got no results. Perhaps he reached a point where the only remaining option was to criticize in public in the faint hope that the embarrassment would trigger some improvement or a request for transfer.
You're doing the exact same thing the Navy did which is to assume the JOs version is correct and that the Captain's version is incorrect. Why is that? You did note the ship's senior leadership uniformly stated their support for the Captain? Why don't you believe that over JOs?
America has adopted a culture where the accusation is its own proof and the accused is guilty until proven innocent and, when proven innocent, is still guilty. You seem to have bought into it.
Don't make the mistake of taking at face value a report that was clearly intended only to justify relieving the Captain, not finding any truth. I just did a post on analyzing what we read. Do so with this incredibly one-sided report.
The reality is that none of us commenting here knows what actually happened. And I don't think that violating the, "praise in public, censure in private," maxim constitutes grounds for relief. Nor do foul language and wanting to make a captured AK-47 into a trophy. And I don't know how one can be excessively demanding on a warship. I don't know where the dividing line is, or whether there even is one, and I doubt that there should be.
DeleteWe (the blogging 'we') constantly talk about needing to find and promote warriors instead of the peacetime incompetents we seem to have and yet when we find a warrior like this Captain, we destroy him. Is this guy a competent naval warrior? I have no idea but at least he demonstrates some spirit and some desire to set and enforce standards and what does the Navy do? They fire him. And what do we readers do? Too many of us automatically side with the JOs and sympathize with their hurt feelings when, instead, our automatic reaction should be to tell the JOs to toughen up or leave the service. The fact that they complained tells me they should leave the service because they clearly don't have a warrior's toughness.
DeleteConsider your own initial reaction. While we do not, and cannot, know the truth, your automatic belief in the JO's version demonstrates that you're laboring under a paradigm that does not support combat toughness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Consider your own initial reaction. While we do not, and cannot, know the truth, your automatic belief in the JO's version demonstrates that you're laboring under a paradigm that does not support combat toughness."
DeleteExcept that was not my initial--or ever--reaction.
My reactions, as I understand them, have been:
Delete1) I called out the AK-47 incident as total BS; at worst, he may not have followed a couple of procedures to the nth detail, but his intent was pretty clear, proper, and appropriate, so you send him an off-the-record "aw, crap" memo for not following the book and a commendation for doing something to reward his crew; or just commend him and forget the "aw, crap" memo
2) As far as being too demanding, foul mouthed, and abusive: Number 1, I don't think there's anything wrong with being too demanding. When lives are at stake, too demanding is just fine. Number 2, foul mouthed is a style thing. Some people are, some people aren't. I've worked for great leaders in both groups. Number 3, abusive, none of us knows how truly abusive he was or was not. I offered the, "praise in public, criticize in private" maxim as kind of a safe harbor for him to consider, but hardly reason to relieve a CO.
As far as the beer incident, my response would have been something like, "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions. Get with the Command Master Chief and come up with a solution."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a major matter, and giving the Welfare and Rec Officer experience in crafting solutions would have been useful in her development.
I believe the standard beer ration used to be 2 cans per person. Unless over half the ship's company is 18-21 years old, one obvious solution would be one can per person, and explain that the problem is not enough cans of beer onboard to to the normal two. Perhaps turn it into some sort of recognition event where top performers got a second can.
I think that the MWR officer/beer incident might disprove the "all stick, no carrot" theory. The fact that the Cdr got angry over a hiccup in trying to reward his crew, clearly shows otherwise. Ill again state the disclaimer about not being able to know the real story. But knowing that the average command is undertrained, underqualified, understaffed, and overworked with deficient equipment, I have to believe that this is a case of a CO doing what he could to build a warship crew. The beer and AK parts show that carrots existed in his mind. When faced with poor performance, he used other, harder tools from the leadership toolbox. With terms like "workplace environment" used so often, and the very existence of Command Climate Surveys, I think COs that can be harsh, yet effective, are sadly at the mercy of their subordinates. Their authority and even their command is imperiled by anyone who decides to be offended. And while there DOES have to be a process for catching the poor officers that somehow sneak by and make CO (I served under one of those, too, amd although it shouldnt happen, it does), the process has to be much more fact and performance based, not just focused on feelings, as this clearly was...
Delete"The beer and AK parts show that carrots existed in his mind."
DeleteReally excellent observation and analysis!
Since no one mentioned this, some comments from another site suggest that the issue may lies with the CO's other problems and he may have unknowingly aired it out on his subordinates. This was unjustified and coupled with foul language makes the situation beneficial to either sides. Now, I don't think the report mentions this as the case and I'm inclined to not believe so. But you have to wonder the fact that multiple JOs actually complaining (A rare case?) to wonder that there is some truth to such theory and judging the fact that he himself has much experiences with training (He served as BDOC Norfolk OIC in his previous command, I believe so), one is inclined to believe that there are many deeper issues at hand. I personally believe that the truth is somewhere in between. The CDR may have become agitated and aggressive unjustifiably but he's doing it with good intentions. The JOs are probably used to his command style (and treasure it as such) but now find his more recent actions to be more damaging than helping, leading to a reported downward spiral on the officer corps on his ship. It's unlikely but it happens to the best of us.
ReplyDelete"comments from another site"
DeleteI strongly discourage this kind of comment. It's based on what I presume to be speculation, from another site, with no link, and no way to verify the information. This blog is based on data and logic. Even in a case like this where we can't know the truth of the matter, we're at least looking at actual reports and applying logical analysis.
If you have a source that can offer additional, verified information, please feel free to offer a link. If not, I would discourage this kind of unverifiable, uncheckable, second hand comment.
I appreciate your cooperation.
Don't know if you have seen it, but this report addresses a lot of the leadership failings we have been discussing here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/navy_report.pdf
From the report, "'I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I'm sorry that I can't say the same of their ship handling training,' said one recently retired senior enlisted leader."
"Individuals like CDR Azzarello"
ReplyDeleteThis comment was deleted. Feel free to repost if you can put your thoughts into a reasoned, logical comment.