Small commands and detachments like Navy Information Operations Detachment (NIOD) Groton are becoming increasingly rare in the cryptologic community.It’s not easy being a large command nowadays. The cryptologic community thrusts Captains and Commanders into leadership positions over hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of Sailors. Each of these Sailors has their own strengths and weaknesses, and somehow Commanding Officers are expected to build the right team to take care of every Sailor. It’s an incredibly difficult job for even the most talented officer.
The Navy used to prepare officers for this role by having small commands, where junior officers could execute their command responsibilities over small groups of Sailors, learning how to command over their career, so that at larger commands they were already familiar with these responsibilities. This limited the impact to the Navy should a junior officer fail, and also helped weed out those that might not be a good fit for the job. Even previous CNOs held command at the LT level, such as Admiral Michael Mullins aboard the USS NOXUBEE.
For some reason we went away from this model, thinking that somehow our junior officers would magically learn the nuances of command and simply walk in as an O-5 ready to go. Instead, we’ve actually under-resourced our future Commanding Officers, right at a time when the Navy continues to ask more of them. Local Personnel Support Departments are closing across the Navy, placing higher administrative burdens on commands, but no new billets are arriving to make these jobs easier. Training, especially at “A” schools, is being pared down, with the end result of placing more training burden on commands. Even the command schools offered at the Navy’s Leadership and Ethics Center have been shortened, such that CO’s get a whole 3 days of legal training before arriving at positions where they execute Title 10 UCMJ authority over their subordinates. Considering that this authority allows Commanding Officers to reduce enlisted personnel in rank, and even separate them from Naval Service, 3 days seems a bit short for that power.
We’re doing these officers, who volunteer for and work hard to screen for command, a complete disservice. It’s a testament to their ability to quickly learn the job that our community continues to succeed when faced with these challenges.
The Cryptologic Community used to be chock full of small commands, but when the National Security Agency (NSA) moved to larger, regional focused centers, the Navy followed suit. We thought that aligning with the NSA’s Human Resources model would help us integrate better. We couldn’t have been more wrong.
Our Sailors suffer in commands that are too large. The NSA has a giant Human Resources department dedicated to taking care of their people, while we increasingly consolidate more responsibility onto fewer shoulders. Whereas the NSA can keep their personnel in a few locations, the most successful Sailors will execute PCS moves throughout their career, while fighting to keep their record updated for board review. Couple this with the challenge of integrating and Sailorizing new accession Sailors that have increasingly less “A” school time, and it’s no surprise that climate surveys often complain of Sailors falling between the cracks.
Cryptology doesn’t have to sign on to this mega-command construct. We can build smaller commands, where Commanding Officers get a chance to know their people. This benefits the Sailors and helps us build a cadre of officers ready for the challenges of larger commands. Surface Warfare already does this, and now offers O-3 commands on Mark V boats and O-4 commands on mine hunters. Even our joint partners do this. For example, the Army pushes UCMJ authority down to Company Commanders at the O-3 level. In some ways, we’ve started this at Cryptologic Warfare Group Six, where multiple smaller O-5 commands were carved out and now report to a commodore. This looks similar to a submarine squadron, where multiple submarines align to a squadron commander. Considering the success of our submarine force, this is a move in the right direction.
Job satisfaction is even more important when we consider Sailor retention. We have to compete for Sailors that have hard to acquire skills. Outside employers, including the NSA, will gladly pay them high salaries and move them less. The Navy will likely never be able to compete in terms of salary, but we can offer a sense of commitment to mission, teamwork and patriotism that is hard to match in the outside world. These advantages are severely degraded at oversized commands, and even worse, our top-performing Sailors often sit next to NSA employees that have much higher pay and more HR resources supporting them. It’s no wonder we struggle to get them to stay Navy.
Small commands build our officer’s skill sets, take better care of Sailors and enhance the Navy in the long term. The lack of desire to “raise more flag poles” is bureaucratic speak for choosing to not invest in our people. Our best future lies in smaller, agile commands.
Featured picture is an aerial photo of Building 106, the current home of NIOD Groton.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Fleet Cyber Command or any other government agency.
Station HYPO 
10 March 2018 at 14:46
Well articulated Ryan.
LikeLike
10 March 2018 at 15:58
Great article! The lack of command leadership opportunities at the 04 level in particular robs our wardroom of broad understanding, particularly of processes, necessary to inherently realize what is required for proper command and sailor functioning. We have a couple detachments with over 70 people who have only one 1810 and one warrant. They are the perfect classroom for understanding administration, personnel, budgetary, logistics, and requirements processes. In one case, the nearest PSD is thousands of miles away and the nearest Navy Base is several hundred miles away. This type of environment inculcates the knowledge and experience necessary to be an effective and efficient leader in the joint, interagency, coalition and Navy realms. In many ways, these ‘alone and unafraid’ assignments are better for officer development than any of our O5/O6 commands. Also, they are FAR more responsive and efficient. I am hopeful for the future, as I think we will need to dramatically change the composition and structure of all of our IWC commands in order to be sufficiently effective. When that happens, there should be opportunity to redefine functions and how they group into commands.
LikeLike
10 March 2018 at 16:45
Naval Security Group Detachment, (Pearl Harbor 79/82) had 45 CTM, under 200 overall, I forget the number. NSGA NW had under 600 if you include the NATO det, the USCG det, and Navy Com Sta folks. 963 class destroyers started at 260 men, later over 300, Submarines under 150. This Idea that Bigger is better , is masculine bovine droppings. A crew needs to act as a team. hard to do that in a command of 1000 or larger. We are not Army, we operate in smaller units
LikeLike
10 March 2018 at 20:02
Great article. It’s so important to learn to lead and these opportunities are precious and critical. The weight of leadership is heavy and it requires a steady hand. The more exposure to leadership the better your people are for it!
LikeLike
11 March 2018 at 14:37
The most flexible, responsive and focused training occurs in smaller units. Observations by seniors over subordinate officer, and senior enlisted over junior enlisted – articulating the command’s mission occur in smaller organizations. When junior officers do not get sufficient training and responsibility, the future of the organization is like the Titanic trying to avoid the iceberg – slow, ponderous, and when hitting it – having no idea how to manage the chaos.
LikeLike