This post is a response to an article in the August issue of USNI’s Proceedings by Commander Darcie Cunningham, U.S. Coast Guard, titled “Millennials Bring a New Mentality: Does it Fit?” So if you haven’t read it yet, I recommend you start there. This post appeared in its original form at CIMSEC.

Where to begin? To her credit, Commander Cunningham asks an important question: “how does our structured military culture adapt to this new generation?” It’s also clear her frustrations are borne of personal experiences in command. Unfortunately it’s a question she fails to answer (more on that later) and in doing so perpetuates myths and patronizing generalizations. [Full disclosure: I’m in the millennial generation, on the older end of the spectrum, and like all such groupings the term “millennial” is a debatable construct but I’ll accept her definition (those born in the 80s and 90s) for argument’s sake.] “Kids These Days!” Commander Cunningham begins by noting several behaviors that are supposedly unique to millennials: that they “posture to work only the bare minimum number of hours required,” that their “customs and courtesies are eroding,” and that “there are an increased number of negative confrontations.” It is entirely possible that this is what is happening at Coast Guard Base Los Angeles, it is certainly her perception. But more likely it is just that: perception. Such perceptions have existed about pretty much every generation when they were in their youth. That doesn’t make them accurate.

From a more disciplined era of service.

From a more disciplined era of service.

Let’s return to the important question: “how does our structured military culture adapt to this new generation?” Beyond the advice to use positive feedback to keep the crew motivated, the Commander Cunningham offers nothing. Instead she says they must be “educated,” “course-corrected,” and evaluated for whether they will “truly be able to adapt to the service.” And that’s the thing – this isn’t really an article about adapting the military to millennials, it’s about adapting millennials to the military, as reflected in the title. Which is not all bad. To be sure respect for rank and proper military etiquette are just good manners, and appreciation for a service’s traditions, structure, customs, and courtesies are the marks of a professional. Yet here is where it gets downright galling. The commander moves to close by questioning whether millennials are just “focused on what’s in it for them.” This is flat-out wrong. As the Washington Post reports, millennials “want jobs that affect social change, and they give what they can. A 2012 study found that three-quarters of young people surveyed gave to a charity in 2011, and 63 percent volunteered for a cause.” It bears remembering that this is an all-volunteer force. While many undoubtedly join the military in part for other reasons – heck I joined partly to pay for college and to travel abroad – I would submit a vast majority, such as myself, also joined in part for the ideals that military service embodies and a belief that such work is work towards a better world. Instead of playing to these motivations, however, Commander Cunningham advises reminding these servicemembers that there are “long lines” waiting to get into the coast guard and that the economy is not the best. There’s so much wrong in this. First, it’s unclear if the commander thinks that since “millennials…may not be the right fit,” they can be replaced by one of the other five generations she says she oversees, or if she’s referring to individual millennial members. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt she means the latter and that she’s not saying that taking on the challenge of motivating millennials may just be too hard and that they should be written-off en masse. Second, there’s a reason these individuals are the ones in service and not in the supposed long lines. It’s because these they were the top qualified candidates. Even those who aren’t top performers in service are not likely to have too much trouble finding work outside the military, or using their benefits for further education, so this threat rings hollow except for those really troubled individuals threatened with a non-honorable discharge. And that’s to say nothing of how trying to scare one’s employees isn’t typically the best management or leadership strategy. 091013-N-9132C-008Third, because these were the top qualified candidates this also means that any millennial you give up on is going to be replaced by…another millennial…who by and large won’t be as qualified. Sure you can keep up the numbers, but again, what does this say of the quality of your talent pool? One complaint the commander makes that does ring true is that “younger members…have an expectation of accelerated advancement through the organization.” In Commander Snodgrass’ 2014 Retention Survey he notes that 60% of respondents “feel they are making a difference in their job, but regardless of what they do – 64% don’t think they will be rewarded in any way by superior performance.” This should not be an indictment of millennials but a recognition of a drawback of military service in comparison with civilian organizations, as well as an opportunity to prove one’s leadership bona fides. Yes, we millennials want positive feedback and to know whether we’re doing a good job, and yes we wish we could rise through the ranks commensurate with our talents rather than in accordance with organizational and statutory limitations. Leaders would be well served to look for alternatives such as creating opportunities for crewmembers to prove themselves through increased responsibility or challenges. If the military can’t keep up with the rest of the world in reasonably advancing its people, Commander Cunningham should at least be able to explain what is or isn’t in her control and that she will do what she can to position her people for success. There are going to be bad apples among us, as there are in any generation. But tarring an entire generation with questionable generalizations is counter-productive. While this article may ask the right question, it doesn’t really attempt to answer it. What most millennials want is appreciation, when earned, an opportunity to make a difference, and a voice that is heard if not always heeded. The military, the top employer of millennials, still needs to make a serious attempt at understanding how to best take advantage of what this generation has to offer. A good place to start exploring the issue is Air Force vet Tim Kane’s Bleeding Talent, NYT review here. Another response to this article can be found at CIMSEC by LT Matt Hipple.


Posted by LT Scott Cheney-Peters in Training & Education
Tags: , ,

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  • Greg Smith

    Society has changed since I was a Marine (1980’s) and a lot of the kids today believe they are entitled to more than those generations past. Not all but there is definitely a different outlook. I know plenty of people of the “millenial” generation and a lot of them put in a hard days work and earn their keep just like all generations past. There are a lot of differences in attitude, though, that reflect today’s world much more than most older generations would probably like.

    The military, by necessity, has to maintain a conservative ethic because it has to. Without discipline there would be no military success, just a large mass wearing the same uniform. The 21st century world is simply a much more liberal place but those people in question need to understand that the military has no place for that or we’d simply be defended by an armed mob.

  • Stacy

    Very good assessment. Except I will say that my opinion of Tim Kane’s book, while it does have some interesting concepts, is that it is an example of ideas without a plan for implementation and ideas that he claims will solve problems but he fails to discuss the potential problems his ideas create. These problems are potentially as bad or worse than the problems he wants to solve.

  • Stephen Ryan

    This is a long (too long) article that illustrates a simple fact: one joins the Navy to keep out of the infantry.

    • grandpabluewater

      You say that like it was a bad thing. It worked for me.

      The meaningful question for those of us with less than pure motives (or as one writer sniffed….”scum of the earth, recruited for drink”) is why does one commit to a working life and personal definition of self as a US Navy sailor; a dedicated professional who will strive ceaselessly (except for a bit of liberty) to improve one’s self and one’s Navy , fair weather or foul, good leaders or stinkers, promotion, recognition and pay, or stagnation, obscurity and frustration?

      Why live and work apart, at sea.. when society regards us as rascals, thieves and bigots, and worse?

      Then there is the minor matter of the unforgiving ocean. “What is woman, that you forsake her, to go to the old gray widow-maker?”

      Add that to the crap shoot which croupier pronounces a flawless system to assign and promote the best fitted to rise to guide the Navy safely through the storm tossed seas of the remainder of the twenty first century, but can’t keep good sailors in or ships manned properly, or give able, decent and honest sailors the orders they need to become competent mariners and technicians in any predictable fashion. Why would anyone do it, much less love it, count it a high privilege, and service in it the most meaningful achievement of a long and adventurous life?

      I dunno. You love what you love because you can’t not.

      So here’s to us, and those like us, DAMN FEW LEFT.
      God bless us all, every one. All we ask is a willing foe and sea room. Thus it has ever been, pray God it shall ever be.

      So say we all?

      with affection and esteem always…Gramps