Category: Uncategorized

Detailed knowledge of brother officers

Admiral Chester Nimitz brought to his new job a number of advantages, including experience, a detailed knowledge of his brother officers, and a sense of inner balance and calm that steadied those around him.
He had the ability to pick able subordinates and the courage to let them do their jobs without interference. He molded such disparate personalities as the quiet, introspective Raymond A. Spruance and the ebullient, aggressive William Halsey, Jr. into an effective team.

Robert William Love

Choosing the drum beat we march to

We must follow the tune of a different drummer.  Our vocation is one that is unlike most others, and because of this it requires different things of us.  This difference, fundamental to our profession, is nothing to be ashamed of.  It is defined by the terms that include self-sacrifice, devotion to duty, and the highest standards of personal and professional integrity, and contains the values that are among the most respected in Western civilization.
We have been through bad times before.  Unpopularity, lean budget years, and slow promotions have been characteristic problems of the armed forces in every postwar period in American history.  What has enabled us to survive these problems in the past has been adherence to our ideals and principles, and not adaptation to the social fashions of the day, regardless of their appeal.

Lieutenant Commander K.C. Jacobsen, U.S. Navy
USNI PROCEEDING
The Stranger in the Crowd
September 1974

Change of Command at Navy Information Operations Command – Texas

Navy Information Operations Command Texas will hold a change of command in July 2011.  Captain David Bondura will relieve Captain Gregory Haws as Commanding Officer.  Captain Haws is retiring.
Navy Information Operations Command Texas (NIOC-T) is commissioned to support cryptologic and information operations at Texas Cryptologic Center (TCC). The TCC serves as a multi-service facility that conducts continuous security operations on selected targets in support of national and war fighter intelligence requirements using the latest technologies.

On Oct. 1, 2005, the command was renamed from Naval Security Group Activity Medina to Navy Information Operations Command Texas.

More about NIOC Texas HERE.

RDML Leigher is now the OPNAV N2/N6F

Navy Flag Officer Biography

Rear Admiral William E. Leigher

Director of Concepts, Strategies and Integration for Information Dominance, N2/N6F

Rear Admiral William E. Leigher
Rear Admiral Bill Leigher, a native of Appleton, Maine, graduated from the University of Southern Maine in 1980 with a Bachelor in Political Science degree. He attended the Naval War College, graduating in 1994 with a Master in National Security and Strategic Studies.

In 1981, he was commissioned as an ensign at Officer Candidate School, Newport, R.I. His initial assignment was aboard USS Thorn (DD 988) as a communications officer. In 1984, he reported to the Surface Warfare Officers School in Newport, R.I., as the fleet communications instructor.

In 1987, he was selected for lateral transfer and designated a naval cryptologic officer. Later in 1987, Leigher was assigned to U.S. Naval Security Group Activity Hanza, Okinawa, Japan, as morse and non-morse division officer. In 1990, he was assigned as the staff cryptologist for commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group 2 in Charleston, S.C. During this tour he completed two deployments embarked in USS America (CV 66), which included combat action during Operations Desert Storm, Desert Shield and Southern Watch. In 1992, Leigher was assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence Detachment, Newport, R.I., as a war-gaming specialist.

In 1995, Leigher was assigned to COMUSNAVEUR in London, England, as the cryptologic operations officer. In 1998, he reported to commander, Naval Security Group Command, Fort Meade, Md., for assignment as deputy director for Information Technology and Communications and was subsequently assigned to the Pentagon as the executive assistant to the deputy director for Cryptology. In 2002 he reported to the National Security Agency as a senior operations officer in the National Security Operations Center. In July 2004 he reported as the deputy director for Information Operations at Naval Network Warfare Command.

He served as director, Information Operations, Washington, D.C. on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations until December 2009. Most recently, he served as the Deputy Commander, Fleet Cyber Command/TENTH Fleet from December 2009 to June 2011.  He reported to his current OPNAV assignment in July 2011.

Leigher wears the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), the Navy Commendation Medal (three awards), the Navy Achievement Medal (two awards) and various unit and campaign medals.

Electronic Warfare – Well Done

 The Chief of Naval Operations appreciates the contributions to winning of the war made by the officers and enlisted men, who, under hazardous conditions, manned our Combat Information Centers afloat and ashore.  The tactical employment of radar and associated equipments, both offensively and defensively, gave our Fleet a telling advantage over the enemy.  To those who waged our electronic warfare so loyally and effectively, “Well done”.

E.J. KING
Fleet Admiral, USN
Chief of Naval Operations

in Combat Information Center (C.I.C.) magazine
November 1945

Thankfully, the Navy does not have this problem – ‘toxic leaders’

Army worries about ‘toxic leaders’ in ranks
By Greg Jaffe
Published: June 25; Washington Post
A major U.S. Army survey of leadership and morale found that more than 80 percent of Army officers and sergeants had directly observed a “toxic” leader in the last year and that about 20 percent of the respondents said that they had worked directly for one.
The Army defined toxic leaders as commanders who put their own needs first, micro-managed subordinates, behaved in a mean-spirited manner or displayed poor decision making. About half of the soldiers who worked under toxic leaders expected that their selfish and abusive commanders would be promoted to a higher level of leadership.
The survey also found that 97 percent of officers and sergeants had observed an “exceptional leader” within the Army in the past year.
“This may create a self-perpetuating cycle with harmful and long-lasting effects on morale, productivity and retention of quality personnel,” the survey concluded. “There is no indication that the toxic leadership issue will correct itself.”

“We are looking at the command selection process asking how can we introduce 360-degree evaluations,” General Martin Dempsey (the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said in a meeting with reporters this spring. “We can ask a battalion commander, does the senior commander [over him] engender a climate of trust.” Such an approach could help weed out toxic leaders.

VADM James Bond Stockdale Inspirational Leadership Award Winner in 1999 – His team loves him, they really do.

You have a pretty good idea that you are on the right leadership track when your peers nominate you for the prestigious VADM James Bond Stockdale Inspirational Leadership Award. RADM Bruce Grooms is such a man.   Back in 1999, as a commander, Bruce Grooms was Commanding Officer of the nuclear powered fast attack submarine USS ASHEVILLE (SSN-758) when he was selected as winner of the VADM James Bond Stockdale Inspirational Leadership Award.  At the time, my Shipmate and sometimes mentor, RADM Al Konetzni said “CDR Grooms is a top-notch performer and an ideal leader.” RADM Al Konetzni, Jr. was Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet at the time. “He’s the best of the best and I couldn’t be happier for him and his great crew.”  I wrote more about RADM Grooms HERE in September 2009.
This award was established in honor of VADM James Bond Stockdale, whose distinguished Naval career symbolized the highest standards of excellence in both personal example and leadership. The award is presented annually to two commissioned officers on active duty below the grade of captain who are in command of a ship, submarine, or aviation squadron at the time of nomination. Candidates are nominated by peers who themselves must be eligible for the award.  More about RADM Grooms below. 
PLEASE NOTE:  MORE THAN A COUPLE OF OUR CNO’S HAVE EARNED THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING RECOGNIZED BY THEIR PEERS WITH THE VADM JAMES BOND STOCKDALE AWARD.

Rear Admiral Bruce Estes Grooms

Assistant Deputy, Operations, Plans and Strategy (N3/N5B)

 

Rear Admiral Bruce Estes Grooms
Rear Admiral Grooms, a native of Cleveland, Ohio, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering.

Following completion of nuclear power training, he served in nearly every capacity aboard a variety of submarines including a tour as executive officer of USS Pasadena (SSN 752) where he twice deployed to the Persian Gulf.

His command tours include service as commanding officer of USS Asheville (SSN 758). During this tour the ship received the Battle Efficiency E award, the Golden Anchor and Silver Anchor for the highest retention in the Submarine Force. Asheville twice earned the Engineering Excellence E award, won the Fleet Recreational Award for best quality of life programs, and twice won the Submarine Squadron 3 Commodore’s Cup. Grooms subsequently served as commander, Submarine Squadron 6 and later as Commander, Submarine Group 2.

Ashore he served as a company officer and later as the commandant of midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy. He served as the senior military assistant to the under secretary of Defense for Policy. He was the senior inspector for the Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board. He served as deputy director then director, Submarine Warfare Division (N87) and as vice director, Joint Staff. Currently, he is serving on the chief of naval operations’ staff as assistant deputy, Operations, Plans and Strategy.

Grooms was selected as the Vice Admiral Stockdale Inspirational Leadership Award winner for 1999. He earned a master’s degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College, graduating with distinction and attended Stanford University as a National Security Affairs Fellow.

He has been awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit and various campaign and unit awards.

Your team hates you. Really. I’m not kidding.

Your team hates you. Really. They do. They hate you but they just won’t say so because they know better.  The Navy has taught them to bite their tongue and to grin and bear it until either you or they transfer. But when they go home at night, they spill their bile about their taskmaster of a boss who does nothing but drive them crazy (isn’t that what you do too?).
10 Reasons Your Team Hates You: 
10. You don’t prioritize. Everything is important. When you do this, you remove your team’s ability to say no to less important work and focus their efforts on critical tasks. 
9. You treat them like employees. You don’t know a darn thing about them as a person (which makes them feel like nothing more than a number). 
8. You don’t fight for them. When is the last time you went to bat for a team member? And I mean went to bat where you had something to lose if it didn’t work out? When you don’t stand up for them, you lose their trust. 
7. You tell them to “have a balanced life” then set a bad example. You tell them weekends are precious and they should spend them with their family then you go and send them emails or voice mails on Sunday afternoon. 
6. You never relax. You walk around like you have a potato chip wedged between your butt cheeks and you’re trying not to break it. When you’re uptight all the time, it makes them uptight. Negative or stressful energy transfers to others. 
5. You micromanage. You know every detail of what they’re working on and you’ve become a control freak. They have no room to make decisions on their own (which means yes, they’ll make a mistake or two). 
4. You’re a suck-up. If your boss stopped short while walking down the hall, you’d break your neck. Your team hates seeing you do this because it demonstrates lack of spine and willingness to fight for them. It can also signal to them that you expect them to be a sycophant just like you. 
3. You treat them like mushrooms. Translation: they’re kept in the dark and fed a bunch of crap. Do you ration information? Do you withhold “important” things from them because it’s “need to know” only? All you’re doing is creating gossip and fear.  
2. You’re above getting your hands dirty. You’re great at assigning work. Doing work? Not so much. They hate watching you preside (and they hate it even more when you take credit for what they slaved over).
1. You’re indecisive. Maybe. Or not. But possibly. Yeah. No. I don’t know. OH MY GOSH MAKE A DECISION ALREADY! That’s what you get paid to do as the leader. You drive them crazy with your incessant flip-flopping or waffling (mmmm waffles… oh. Sorry… still writing). 
More about this over HERE at Thought Leaders.

Qualities of Admiral Chester Nimitz

The qualities of Admiral Chester Nimitz’s character were apparent in his face, in his career, and in his heritage; combined, these factors made him precisely the man he was and placed him in this particular situation at this moment in history. 
He was not a cold man, or a bad tempered man — quite the contrary — to the world he presented a figure of almost total complacency; he seldom lost his temper or raised his voice.
It could be said that Admiral Ernest King was a driver who knew how to lead; it could also be said that Nimitz was a leader who conquered any personal urge to drive, and achieved his ends more by persuasion and inspiration to men under his command.
Edwin Palmer Hoyt