by yoshi » Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:46 pm
@Arkad:
Sorry about the delay in responding, I certainly didn't want to stall the discussion. Most of my perspectives arrive to my superiors in the form of white papers. However, they have admittedly been limited to "work": proposals to improve processes, training initiatives, Fleet LOEs, proposed pilot programs. Some have met with "success" (POM-16, new courses/curriculum, improved FRTP results, etc), most have not (didn't get past the internal organization here, or didn't get any traction through the first level of staffing beyond my organization). I have no problem putting my reputation on the line (if the impact is sufficiently positive), and co-workers past and present would confirm that. However, I have not produced a white paper which focuses on the IW community/IDC corps. Truthfully, I don’t believe I have enough information about the direction of the Corps or community to be able to produce a letter or white paper which would be helpful. I don't hold enough specifics regarding our direction for my "insight" to be of value. I know what we are doing now - building CNMTs, getting "healthy" (separate discussion), doing "operations", but what are the criteria which should/will define the IW community (as successful) in 3-4 years? What are the metrics? What is the long term plan for our utilization which will be effective no matter how the military's cyber efforts changes (cyber service, sub-unified to unified, new community, etc)? How are we going to be/should we be utilized OUTSIDE of FCC/C10F? In this regard, inertia cannot pilot us where we need to go, I don't think. I think an active hand in (the community) shaping our utilization throughout the Navy is the best course, and perhaps I'll give this more thoughtful consideration when the time comes to write a community related white paper/letter.
In support of above, if I am looking to improve effectiveness of my community's efforts, say, in CPF, to whom do I appeal? It feels like CPF to me. Notwithstanding the fact organizational structures and processes are controlled by the organization, shouldn't there be involvement (from perhaps the IDC or community level) which assists shaping CPF/USFF utilization of IDC folks and associated codes (say, an N2/N6 which can drive "operations" (better defined as readiness production at those places), thereby ensuring the best, most efficient processes are in place? We can and should be more assertive at the fleet level in this regard. I think future success and agility require it. But, I'm not sure what the community/corps plan with this is or even to whom I should address my thoughts. Thus, other topics are a better choice for the time required for a white paper. Additionally, the unknown of C2 for military cyber and IDC in the future (new service, etc) makes any discussion/proposal of future community/corps trajectory less likely to be of value (relative to "work" related items) and therefore highly speculative. And, I suspect the same unknown probably is the reason our community leadership is so quiet - they simply don't know what is coming from the politicians, either, and can't reliably communicate. Telling leadership they don't sufficiently communicate with the wardroom, while maybe true from my perspective, doesn't bring value, it just adds animosity toward JO (an anonymous forum could too, but who has the time and energy to grind an axe over this stuff?). With respect to the diversity aspect, misunderstanding diversity, as the Navy continues to do, will not be corrected by a white paper or letter. We value varied experiences, backgrounds, and education - so long as they are those experiences, backgrounds, and education deemed important by the system. A thought: are we selecting our best leaders or are we making the best leaders the system wants?! (Does anyone else wonder if this is connected to the struggle with long term problems - relief of COs, culture issues, etc?) By the time an officer does what they need to for major command, they look an awful lot like all the other officers competitive for major command, don't they? Opportunity for introduction of diverse thought (which would move us forward) doesn't seem to be very large. We don't engage in group think, we manufacture it. That's great at the squad level - very important to be on the same page. Not sure of its value at the strategic level, however, as some problems of tomorrow require revolutionary leadership in thought and the ability to adapt processes and organizations to things completely unrecognizeable and not at all understood in a way never before executed. I suspect this is one of the reasons CEOs of major corporations are often hired from OUTSIDE – they aren’t a product of the system, but capable of bringing something the system doesn’t have.
I hope I answered the questions related to letters to leadership, doing what I can. I understand they are not precisely what we would like to see, right now. As far as exemplifying the behavior I’d like to see in my superiors (increased communication), I do my utmost to keep anyone interested informed (and some who probably aren’t). Thanks for your post, I sincerely appreciate the dialogue. If you don’t mind, I’d like to run a couple of related items by you via PM. Thanks.