As discussed in the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), great power competition has returned. China and Russia have large and capable navies. But most officers in today’s Navy have not experienced a true threat in which their ship, aircraft squadron, or submarine could suffer significant losses and defeat, as did officers in World War II. Based on this environment, the Department of Defense must prepare its leaders for that eventuality by emphasizing “intellectual leadership and military professionalism in the art and science of warfighting.”[1] Using the examples of Fleet Admirals King and Nimitz and Army Generals Marshall and Eisenhower provides important insight in what we must do to prepare the next generation of Navy leaders to maintain maritime superiority in today’s environment.
Career Mentoring
Most officers enter the Navy with little knowledge of what lies ahead. Mentors help officers navigate important questions like where to request assignment, what is best for their family, and what will benefit their career, as the relationship is “more personal, involved, and longer term.”[2] Mentoring is key to an officer’s development and vital to retention. Military history provides numerous examples of capable mentors that paved the way for their subordinates to excel.
Mentors use their knowledge of the military and the individual to help ensure capabilities are matched with an officer’s role in the service. They not only guide the officer toward the right path, but also advocate for that officer with their own peers, superiors, and appropriate decision makers. King and Marshall both cut their teeth in World War I at the highest levels. When the U.S. finally entered World War I, King worked directly for Admiral Henry Mayo, commander in chief of the Atlantic Fleet, on issues including the buildup of men and ships, as well as the transition from coal- to oil-powered propulsion plants. In August 1917, King also sailed to Europe with Admiral Mayo and “confronted the issue of how the Americans might best work together with their new British allies.”[3] Similarly, Marshall served first with Colonel Fox Conner who was chief of staff to General Pershing, commander of American forces during World War I. After proving himself as a capable officer, Marshall was selected to be aide-de-camp to General Pershing when Pershing became the Chief of Staff of the Army. Interestingly, Marshall was on his way out of the Army due to multiple delayed promotions between 1920 and 1930, but General Pershing encouraged him to stay the course. King and Marshall served with their mentors and continued to benefit from their wisdom and experience throughout their careers.
Recognizing the need for a strong mentoring program separate from assignments, in 2012 the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1969 created the Alumni Mentoring Program (AMP) as their legacy gift. Alumni from all USNA classes are encouraged to volunteer as mentors, protégés, or both. As of May 2018, more than 2,700 officers had signed up as mentors and protégés and were matched through an e-mentoring on-line platform to allow for meaningful and confidential discussions on challenges in the Navy.[4] This concept should be expanded to all Navy officers. Establishing mentors before college graduation could have a tremendous impact on morale and retention.
Tactical Acumen, Technical Expertise, and Innovation
Although some officers are born with natural talent to inspire and skill to perform their duties, most must develop these attributes throughout their careers. As discussed in the 2018 NDS, the world is evolving with growing national security threats. Russia and China continue to modernize and improve their military forces and are challenging the United States as peer competitors. Admiral John Richardson wrote that to win in this environment, “our leaders must personally learn, and improve their teams, faster than our adversaries. We must create opportunities to become better leaders and make our teams stronger.”[5] Not only do our officers have to excel at leading their teams, they have to develop “operational and warfighting competence,” which is a tremendous challenge given the complexity of the ships, submarines, and planes we operate.[6] Although the equipment was not as complex in World War II, the environment and challenges were no less daunting. Many of the inspirational leaders of World War II were afforded significant leadership challenges early in their career, but also were allowed to make mistakes, learn, and develop.
As an ensign, Admiral Nimitz was stationed in the Philippines and given command of Decatur (DD-5). In 1908, Nimitz ran his ship aground on a mudflat and had to be pulled out by a passing steamer the next morning.[7] Nimitz was found guilty at a court-martial for hazarding his ship and punished with a public reprimand, but he was permitted to continue serving in the Navy and went on to command several other warships.[8] In addition to early leadership opportunities, Nimitz also became a technical expert while serving in submarines. His first submarine, Plunger (SS-22), had gasoline engines, which were explosive and produced hazardous fumes. He advocated converting to diesel engines and traveled to Germany prior to World War I to learn from the diesel-engine developers. Nimitz became such a recognized diesel expert that the first American company to produce them offered him $25,000 per-year salary with a five-year contract in 1915. The Navy was only paying Nimitz $300 per month, but he stayed in the Navy.[9] The opportunity to lead sailors, recover from mistakes, be an expert, and add value to the Navy were critical to the retention of this great leader.
During World War II, Dudley (Mush) Morton, skipper of the Wahoo (SS-238), had an exceptional method of pushing authority down. For example, his executive officer Dick O’Kane stood as approach officer—a position normally held by the CO—for countless attacks on Japanese ships. When O’Kane later took command of Tang (SS-306) he was ready to make the required tactical decisions because he developed rapidly under Morton’s leadership.
Innovation must be encouraged as well. The challenge is determining when to follow existing procedures, policies, and values and when to deviate in the interest of innovation. In the early days of naval aviation, most flight operations occurred during daylight to ensure the planes could find their way back to the carrier. Admiral King, however, had a “penchant for experimentation [that] brought much-needed innovation to the operations and tactics of America’s new carrier fleet.”[10] King was the first to recognize the value of night operations and the importance of combat air patrols to protect carriers from enemy attacks.[11] The Navy must encourage officers to think out of the box to identify new tactics and techniques. COs must have the flexibility to experiment with existing equipment and developmental products to work through the concept of operations from the user’s perspective, which will be instrumental in rapidly fielding technology and staying ahead of adversaries.
Intellectual Professional Development
The Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) reading program highlights 150 books across disciplines including naval warfare, leadership, land warfare, and corporate expertise. The CNO challenges us to read these books to “sharpen our thinking, learn the lessons from history, and expand our minds.”[12] Historical examples demonstrate intellectual professional development is best achieved by reflection, study, and discussion.
General Dwight Eisenhower catapulted from a newly selected brigadier general in 1941 to General of the Army in 1945. His dramatic rise was certainly due to his being a tremendous individual with significant natural talent, but it can also be attributed to Fox Conner’s intellectual mentoring from the early 1920s through Conner’s death in 1951. George Patton introduced Eisenhower to Conner at a routine Sunday dinner. Conner was so impressed by Eisenhower that he invited Eisenhower to serve on his staff once Conner was promoted to brigadier general and assigned as 20th Infantry Brigade Commander in Panama in 1921. During this three-year span, Conner assigned Eisenhower various books to discuss, including military fiction, Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Carl von Clausewitz, and biographies of Civil War generals.[13] This effort had a tremendous impact on Eisenhower’s intellectual and professional development as he moved up the ranks and subsequently led the U.S. and its allies to victory over Germany.
Further improvement in military thinking and employment of the armed forces at the operational and strategic level requires in-depth study, collaboration, and contemplation at one of the military’s war colleges. The Navy’s commitment to sending officers to these institutions has dwindled, though, and most officers attend only if convenient and if it has no impact on the normal career progression. Performance at sea is understandably the Navy’s priority, but commitment to sending the best officers to joint education must be renewed. Admiral Nimitz attended the Naval War College in 1922 and later referred to his year in Newport as “one of the truly important assignments of my career.”[14] As the chief of staff to the Battle Fleet Commander, Nimitz introduced into fleet operations the concept of carriers as capital ships, which he learned from war game assessments at the Navy War College.[15]
The Army’s commitment to military education had a profound impact on Marshall. In 1908, he graduated first in his class at the Army Staff, and then served as an instructor from 1927 to 1932. It is impossible to measure his impact, but his students represent a substantial part of the Army high command of World War II and after to include Bradley, Ridgeway, Bedell Smith.[16] His attendance at the Army Staff College early in his career and the ability to hone the skills he learned on the battlefields of World War I developed him into the great organizer, tactician, and leader that significantly contributed to the U.S. victory over the Axis powers in World War II.
Today, the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force continue to maintain a high emphasis on attendance at service colleges, the National War College, and the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy, with selection boards used to identify the top officers to attend each year. The Navy should adopt this model and prioritize getting top officers to either the Naval War College at the lieutenant commander level or to one of the senior colleges post-command as a commander or captain.
Participation in High-Level Meetings
When Secretary Mattis took charge of DoD in January 2017, he immediately interacted with his staff at all levels, from action officers on the “deck plate” to senior leaders throughout the department. Senior leaders throughout the DoD can learn from this example.
As a new lieutenant commander, Admiral James Stavridis—who would later become SACEUR—had the opportunity to participate in developing the Navy’s Maritime Strategy.[17] He interacted with numerous senior officers and benefitted from their experience, mentoring, and wisdom, which helped shape him into a great naval leader and strategist. This type of process was used in writing the 2018 NDS as well, and should be expanded to other aspects of DoD’s daily operations.
The 2018 NDS states, “developing leaders who are competent in national-level decision-making requires broad revision of talent management … and assignments that increase understanding of interagency decision-making processes.” King, Nimitz, Marshall, and Eisenhower were all afforded the opportunity to learn in environments that are rare if nonexistent today. While serving as the Pershing’s aid-de-camp, Marshall was able to attend countless meetings and participate in decision making forums, including informal talks between General Pershing and President Harding. Marshall viewed this time in his career as the “most fruitful in terms of exposure to politics and to personalities of politics and business, not only in Washington but in the course of his frequent travels through the country with his chief.”[18]
In the Pentagon, most meeting attendance is limited and carefully controlled. While space is an issue, the desire to have an environment in which senior leaders can speak candidly is another key reason for this approach, but this must be balanced with building future leaders. A process of rotating discretional “plus ones” throughout the DoD could take advantage of development opportunities while reasonably minimizing the audience. These discretionary attendees could be subject matter experts or executive/military assistants and given guidance to observe rather than talk. Changing how we approach meeting attendance in DoD is an easy way to achieve the direction provided in the 2018 NDS.
Conclusion
Respecting history and learning from the past is an important part of the Navy and its leadership. We are preparing leaders not just to be technically and tactically proficient at sea, but to be prepared for war. These leaders must “study every text, try every method, seize every moment, and expend every effort to outfox their competition.” [19] All leaders must start this effort by dramatically improving the mentoring of their protégés. Officers serving throughout the Fleet must be challenged intellectually to be tactical and technical experts, but also afforded the flexibility to develop and learn early in their careers the techniques, experience, and processes they will need when they are senior leaders. While continuing to maintain our values and compliance with Navy policies and procedures, we must encourage innovation and allow for the possibility of mistakes and failures in the effort. The Navy must also prioritize sending talented officers to formal military education as part of their normal career progression. Finally, it is vital that we use every opportunity to train and develop the next generation of senior leaders by exposing them to the day-to-day policy discussions and decision forums. Although great leaders will certainly emerge on their own should a major conflict occur, we have the opportunity to develop a pool of them in advance, ensuring we are victorious in all domains of battle and that we bring as many of our soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and sailors back home when the war is over.
[1] James Mattis (Secretary of Defense), 2018 National Defense Strategy, (Washington, D.C., Office of the Secretary of Defense, January 2018).
[2] John Richardson (Chief of Naval Operations), Navy Leadership Development Framework, (Washington, D.C., U.S. Navy, April 2018), 8.
[3] Walter R. Borneman, The Admirals, (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1976), 97.
[4] Captain Jeanne McDonnell (USN Retired), “Another Chance for Mentoring,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, September 2014.
[5] Richardson, Navy Leadership Development Framework, 2.
[6] Richardson, Navy Leadership Development Framework, 4.
[7] E. B. Potter, Nimitz, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1976), 61.
[8] Borneman, The Admirals, 58.
[9] Potter, Nimitz,125–126.
[10] Borneman, The Admirals, 144.
[11] Borneman, The Admirals, 146.
[12] U.S. Navy, “Chief of Naval Operations Professional Reading Program,” All Hands Magazine, www.navy.mil/ah_online/CNO-ReadingProgram.
[13] Edward Cox; Grey Eminence: Fox Conner and the Art of Mentorship (Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press Inc., 2011), 117.
[14] Borneman, The Admirals, 136.
[15] Borneman, The Admirals, 136–137.
[16] Forrest C. Pogue, George C. Marshall: Education of a General 1880-1939, (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 248 –249.
[17] Admiral James Stavridis, Sea Power: The History and Geopolitics of the World’s Oceans, (New York: Penguin Press, 2017), 302.
[18] Pogue, George C. Marshall, 223.
[19] Richardson, Navy Leadership Development Framework, 3.
