Tuesday, April 24, 2012

The Navy Believes. . .

in putting a man in a position with a job to do, and let him do it – [and] give him hell if he does not perform . . . We . . . capitalize on the capabilities of our individual people rather than . . . make automatons [out] of them. This builds the essential pride of service and sense of accomplishment. [And] if it results in a certain amount of cockiness, I am [all] for it.”

Admiral Arleigh Burke


Justin Rogers ENS, USN (1170) said...

Hooyah! We should push for more people to accept a broader array of challenging, non-traditional assignments. Beat the 'NO' mentality!!

mike said...

@ Justin Rogers, ENS, USN (1170)

Welcome back. We have missed you. Hope your education and training are going well.

Anonymous said...

This used to be true but sadly I think, at least in the surface community, this attitude does not exist. Now it is do exactly as I say or else.
I am in a postion where I go onbaord many ships for training and it amazes me on the lack of senior leadership involvement.
My own two cents.
22 year OPS TECH LDO

Anonymous said...

Captain Lambert,

The good Admiral never had a ship with nuclear power or nuclear weapons aboard, though he was right for the times, the Standard Operation Procedures required with these devices gives one no way to go except the manual, you are an automaton under these conditions.

Very Respectfully,

Anonymous said...

You are correct about the lack of senior leadership. They spend too much time trying to be a buddy/friend that they loose their credibility as a leader. Boundaries are blurred which result in poor decisions, blame, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. If they only knew the mockery made about them when they turn their back. There is no trust and confidence of the people below them. Then there are those who use an abusive, unprofessional style. It borders on harrassment>> using demeaning language, and leading by threats and abusing their power. Sometimes I wonder whose looking through those rose colored glasses or wearing blinders when they review or appoint these people as "leaders". There are many who are fearful to report the misconduct of these "Leaders" for fear of retribution. Who then is blamed? Who is accounatable? Who really cares?