« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
crime rate was increasing at about four times the rate of population growth. Of course, some of these statistics can be challenged. I feel sure, however, that any officer in my position as Chief of Naval Air Training in 1957, faced with the job of training some 24,000 technicians and 2,400 young pilots each year, with a total of some 75,000 men under his wing, would have been just as alarmed as I was over these facts. As the personnel of the Navy are just average American boys in uniform with a degree of additional training and discipline, the weaknesses indicated by these statistics naturally spilled over into the Navy as indicated by the following: The Navy's absent without leave and over leave infractions were up some 30 percent and were costing approximately $100 million per year. Total courts-martial in the Navy amounted to approximately 1,000 per week, 1 every 212 minutes, and it has been estimated that each court cost about $3,000 in manpower and other expenditures. The Navy's brig population was an estimated 20,000 men.
Having heard these statistics, I was determined that I was going to do some thing about it, and I set up a program which was designed to improve the leadership in the Naval Air Training Command from the top down to the lowest
My first step was to take a good hard look at ourselves, determine what were the causes of our troubles, and what should be done to make the command's naval leadership more effective.
And so, in March of 1958, after considerable study, I instituted formal leadership programs throughout my command to revitalize leadership in all its aspectsinspirational, technical, and moral. Particular emphasis was placed on the moral responsibility of each individual, and the necessity for fulfilling his obligations and oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies “foreign and domestic." These were educational programs to assure that every officer and man had a thorough knowledge of just what constitutes effective leadership, and its objectives.
I don't want to leave the impression that there was no leadership program in operation within the command prior to that time. There was, and what there was of it was good. There was a need, however, for an accelerated and more fully coordinated development of what was then in force. My program was an elaboration and an exposition of those basic moral and human relations values which have long been accepted by the Navy's leaders and which are expressed in naval regulations. Actually, since the beginning of the Navy we have been harping on one thing; namely, that the most important element of leadership is inspiration by personal example. Our definition of naval leadership is very simple. It is the sum of those qualities of intellect, of human understanding, and of moral character that enable a man to motivate his personnel effectively, efficiently, and successfully. The basic tenets of my program are briefly spelled out in the little pamphlet titled “CNATRA Leadership Guide, CNATRA-P-73," which is attached.
On May 17, Armed Forces Day of 1958, the Secretary of the Navy, then Mr. Thomas S. Gates, Jr., published General Order 21 pointing up the need to revitalize our naval leadership. This General Order remains the foundation of our leadership improvement efforts throughout the Navy today.
As stated by Rear Admiral Heyward during his testimony on April 3, we in the Navy have placed this program under the responsibility of our line officers rather than our chaplains. I would like to emphasize, however, that whereas we may have taken our leadership program away from the chaplains, we have not and cannot take the chaplains out of our leadership program. We know full well that any attempt to separate naval leadership from moral and spiritual leadership would be a mistake. Integrity, honor, courage, honesty, a sense of awareness, industry, loyalty, and a sense of responsibility are moral qualities without which one cannot be an effective leader. Likewise, they are important ingredients of any religious faith.
One additional step that I took that might be of interest was the establishment of a leadership school for chief petty officers. This was not only a school of book learning, but also one of practical application of leadership. The students, all personnel of many years experience in the Navy, were, to a great degree, made to go through boot school again. When the oldtimers were first ordered to this school they were resentful of the thought that they did not know all there was to know about leadership. But soon after their arrival, their attitude was markedly changed. This school has been in existence for over 2 years now and to my knowledge there have been only minor complaints from the oldtimers, and most of these were given in a constructive attitude. I have had many personal
letters from the graduates, all praiseworthy, but I would like to cite two very good examples of the effectiveness of our efforts to revitalize naval leadership amongst the chief petty officers of the Naval Air Training Command. One letter from chief radioman said, in effect-I entered the school a radioman chief ; I graduated a chief petty officer. A letter from the wife of one of the graduates praised the school and its effect upon her husband. She said—that having com. pleted the school, her husband was not only a better chief petty officer, of far more value to the Navy, and a better American citizen, but also a better husband. Now, if you can accomplish that in a 5-week period, I think the effort is really worthwhile.
Having gotten my program underway to my satisfaction, and confident that it met the requirements of General Order 21, I started to seek means of not only improving my program, but of increasing my own and my officers' knowledge of the underlying causes of our disciplinary problems. As my program progressed, it became increasingly apparent that most of the moral behavioral problems and attitudes were the reult of influences on the individual before he entered the naval service and that in order to solve this major problem it would be necessary to present the facts to the American people and to solicit their assistance in solving this problem. So I proposed to Secretary Gates that I invite some 200 or more civilians from various parts of the country to meet with me and with some of our officers and some of the local citizenry of Pensacola to study the delinquency problems of civil life as they related to the Navy's disciplinary problems. The people invited were all experienced in some facet of the training and discipline of our youth. They included educators, members of the clergy, child guidance counselors, youth institutional workers, and people from various recreational organizations such as the Boy Scouts, YMCA, and USO. There were representatives of labor and management, from the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, a representative from the FBI and experts in the fields of criminology and penology. A few high school seniors from local schools also attended.
We met in Pensacola in February of 1959. This was the first of what I called moral leadership workshops (for want of a better name). After sessions during the morning nd early afternoon pointing ut the juvenile delinquency problems in civil life as well as in the military, and learning how the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the local law enforcement agencies were handling these problems, we divided up into working groups to study the entire picture and to come up with some recommendations as to how to improve the situation. This meeting was most enthusiastically received and contributed considerably to the military and, I am sure, to the civilians who attended. One thing that amazed me was that although many agencies in a city were working on the same or related problems, the individuals concerned did not know each other. As one result of this meeting, in Memphis a mayor's council was established to monitor the efforts in the field of juvenile delinquency.
Another discovery of this meeting was that apparently only a few of the civilians present had heard of the reported behavior of our young men after they were captured during the Korean war. The report of Dr. Mayer is familiar to this committee. His conclusions have been widely published and I know his conclusions have been challenged by some individuals and organizations. However, at the time, February 1959, they were pretty widely accepted.
One of the talks given during this workshop was made by Maj. M. R. Smith, U.S. Marine Corps. He was a prisoner of war in Korea and is an inspiring speaker on the subject of prisoner behavior in Korea. To say that the civilians in the group were shocked by his speech is to put it mildly. Here was proof positive of the dangers of moral decay in times of crisis.
We in the training command had been aware of this report and by our own interrogations and investigations had found that the young men coming into the Navy had very little knowledge of our American heritage or our form of government in comparison with that of the totalitarian ideologies that today threaten our freedom and independence.
These were things that they should have learned at home and in school, but they hadn't. And so courses in our democratic form of government, in comparison with these ideologies, were added to our leadership program because it was felt that a fighting man should not only know what he is fighting for, but what he is fighting against.
To get back to the history of my program, my first so-called moral leadership workshop was comprised of civilian and military personnel from various parts of the country east of the Mississippi River. It was so enthusiastically received that I requested and got permission to conduct another similar workshop at the Naval Air Station, Los Alamitos, Calif., just outside of Los Angeles, in June of 1959. To this workshop interested civilians from the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles, and San Diego, Calif.; Seattle, Wash., and a few from Oregon were invited, and attended along with many of our own Navy people from these areas. The procedure was very much the same as in Pensacola, with the possible exception of added emphasis on the behavior of our men who were prisoners of war in Korea and the dangers of moral decay in times of crisis.
Civilians were encouraged to take the initiative in conducting the discussions in the panels. Strong emphasis was given to the influence of the entertainment industry and mass communications media, and several leaders of the mass media attended and participated.
This was the last of the moral leadership workshops sponsored by the Navy, but it was not the last of my efforts in the leadership field. During the remaining years of my tenure as Chief of Naval Air Training I constantly sought means of improving and revitalizing the program. New ideas are needed to keep such a program alive. To this end I visited Harding College, Searcy, Ark, in March 1960—seeking new training aids and materials and later purchased several of their training aids with the approval of the Navy Departmnet.
With the assistance of the Secretary of the Navy's management office I conducted management effectiveness schools for my commanding officers and executive officers, and periodically gathered the CO's and execs into Pansacola for refresher training—or a shot in the arm-on the need for leadership by example and for top performance of all personnel at all times. The threats to our American heritage were forcefully drilled into them on every occasion. On one of these occasions, August 30–31, 1960, a number of civilians from the local area were invited to hear the speeches when appropriate.
Another similar meeting was held on November 11, 1960, at Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Tex. This was a 1-day session held for the dual purpose of stimulating and further developing the internal leadership program of the Naval Air Advanced Training Command and to acquaint about 400 civilians with both the Navy's leadership effort and the threat of world communism. Although it was titled a workshop, it was not conducted as such as there was not sufficient time to conduct group discussions. About 500 military and 400 civilians attended the lectures. I was one of the speakers. The meeting resulted in considerable interest and activity by the citizens of Corpus Christi in the months that followed.
Tangible results from our efforts were soon to appear. The number of courts. martial dropped, as did the brig population. But more important, the attitude of the personnel took a change for the better. Individuals performed their assigned tasks with greater interest and efficiency. They began to realize their own importance and take pride in being a member of a fine organization. As a result, availability of aircraft for flight increased, as did flight safety. Year after year we broke safety records of the command and when I left it was the lowest in history and it is still going down under Vice Admiral Lee, my successor, who is continuing the program. Even the number of automobile accidents which involved our personnel decreased. While I do not attribute all these gains solely to the leadership program, I do believe that a large degree of the improvement was due to a change of attitude stimulated by that program.
As a result of his inspections in 1960, the Naval Inspector General made the following report to the Secretary of the Navy:
"c. General Order 21 is being implemented in the Naval Air Training Command in a degree, scope, and intensity not observed anywhere else in the Navy. This is reflected not only in the interest and zeal with which the leadership schools are being used, but also in the exemplary appearance, bearing and performance of officers and enlisted men in the various stations.”
As a result of the two workshops at Pensacola and Los Alamitos, other similar meetings—whether they be called projects or workshops—were held in various parts of the United States. It was, I believe, inevitable that the efforts of the Navy in the field of moral leadership should spill over into some of the civilian communities near our installations.
The Los Angeles Community Coordinating Councils participated actively in the Los Alamitos workshop and established a close working relationship with the Navy which resulted in an invitation to a representative of the Naval Air Training Command to participate in the White House Conference on Youth in April 1960. An active followup program was conducted in the Los Angeles area.
The delegation to the Los Alamitos workshop from Seattle held a meeting aboard their aircraft enroute to Seattle and decided to conduct a similar workshop for civilians in the Parific Northwest.
A civic group headed by Mr. James M. Cain, of Seattle, was organized and requested the facilities and assistance of the Naval Air Station, Seattle, Wash., to conduct a workshop. This was the first workshop initiated and conducted by civic leaders with naval personnel ssisting. Civic leaders from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana attended.
This workshop was held on November 17-19, 1959, and the reaction of the civilians attending was highly enthusiastic. On November 21, 1959, one of the participants of this workshop organized an additional workshop at Great Falls, Mont.
A followup council to the Seattle meeting was established titled “Seattle Council of Torrow's Leaders,” which engaged in a very active program to educate youth in what we must do to preserve our American way of life. The mayor, his committee, the Navy League, and the Navy cooperated in this intensive followup program.
Due to the excellent results of the Seattle workshop, I urged all my commanding officers to cooperate with civic leaders in their respective local areas in organizing and conducting similar workshops and to permit the use of facilities under the cognizance of the Chief of Naval Air Training when available and in accordance with current regulations. Such assistance has been at little expense to the Navy, but with fullest cooperation by individual naval personnel participating on a voluntary basis. I would like to emphasize that another stipulation was that the Navy was not to be the sponsor of such projects—they must be sponsored by local civilian groups.
Under these stipulations, a moral leadership-cold war workshop was organized under the sponsorship of the Dallas and Fort Worth Councils of the Navy League and was conducted with the assistance of the commanding officer at the Naval Air Station, Dallas, Tex., on February 22, 1960. At this workshop the dangers of the international Communist conspiracy were given added emphasis.
Similar workshops under the sponsorship of various civilian groups have been held as NAS Grosse Ile, Mich.; NAS South Weymouth, Mass.; and NAS Olathe, Kans. The south Weymouth meeting was sponsored by the local junior chamber of commerce and the workshop at NAS Olathe was sponsored by the Navy League. The workshop at Grosse Ile was sponsored by the Detroit Men's Council and the Detroit Women's Council of the Navy League. The last of these workshops was held at NAS, Minneapolis in early 1961. I spoke at each of these workshops, except the last one, as I was asked to do so by the civilian groups sponsoring the meetings. The purpose of my address in each case was to point out the dangers of moral decay in time of crisis. All these meetings were successful in combining civilian and naval leaders in studies concerned with strengthening the moral character of our Nation and in alerting our citizenry to the dangers of international communism.
During the period August 29-September 2, 1960, a seminar was held at NAS Glenview, Ill. This meeting has not been included in the above because it was a departure from the leadership-cold war programs in which other units of my command participated. It was not a workshop as no panel study reports were made at the conclusion and it did not combine the moral problems with which we are faced today with the threat of communism. The seminar was titled “Education for American Security” and Dr. Fred Schwarz was the moderator. At that time I did not know Mr. Fred Schwarz and had not heard of "Education for American Security." I have been informed that "Education for American Security" was formed in connection with the Glenview seminar but was not incorporated until some time later.
I did not learn of the plans for this seminar until late in the planning stages when I was invited to give the commencement address. In fact, this seminar conflicted with plans I had for a Naval Air Training Command commanding officers seminar to be held August 30–31 at NAS Pensacola which I desired Captain Hampton to attend. As the plans for the Glenview seminar had progressed to such a point that it would have been embarrassing to change its location and to make other arrangements, I permitted Captain Hampton to remain in Glenview for the seminar there. In addition, I was not pleased with the open invitation concept as all previous workshops held in my command had been restricted to a select list of individuals prepared by the civilian sponsors.
Prior to concluding this statement, I would like to clarify the purpose of the “cold war packet” which was mentioned in the hearings of this committee on April 3. This packet should not be considered a part of my leadership or educational programs, but should be related to my cold war efforts. The intent was to utilize the many officers going home on Christmas leave (1960) to stimulate the interest of civic leaders in their respective home communities in the problems which our Nation faced in the cold war.
By letter of December 5, 1960, addressed to the Chief of Naval Air Basic Training and to the Chief of Naval Air Advanced Training, this intent was specifically indicated and it was further stated that individual participation should be voluntary. The letter also indicated that time limitations precluded the development of elaborate plans for implementation. In other words, the program was rather hurriedly put together. It was a one-shot effort, and I considered the concept to be within the intent of expressed desires of higher authority.
The letter over my signature in the packet itself explained the purpose of the materials in the packet, which was to assist the officers in informing their friends and neighbors in their hometowns of the clear and present danger of Communist control of the entire world. The paper titled “What Can I Do?” was intended as an answer to that question which invariably arises when a citizen first becomes aware of the true danger that threatens this country today and which existed when the idea was conceived. The suggestions enumerated in the aforementioned paper were not intended as instructions to the officers of my command as to what they should do. This misinterpretation can be made only when the paper “What Can I Do?” is taken out of context, so to speak.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the sole motivating force behind my cold war efforts was the belief that I held then, and still hold, that this country is at war with international communism. Be it psychological, economical, ideological, cold, hot, or lukewarm, it is war nevertheless, and the sooner all Americans realize this fact the safer we will be. I also believed at the time, and still do, that my efforts in the leadership and cold war programs as a whole were in compliance with the then current directives of higher authority and were in the best interests of the U.S. Navy and of this country.
ROBERT GOLDTHWAITE, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navi. (The attachment referred to is as follows:)
NAVAL AIR TRAINING COMMAND LEADERSHIP GUIDE
Leadership principles are fundamental rules which are applied by a leader to control or guide the actions of his subordinates.
1. Know your profession and be able to teach it. 2 Know yourself and seek self-improvement. 3. Know your men and look out for their welfare. 4. Maintain a fair, firm, and friendly relationship with your men. 5. Keep your men informed. 6. Insure that each task is analyzed, organized, assigned, and supervised. 7. Train your men as a team. 8. Make sound and timely decisions
9. Seek responsibilities and develop a sense of responsibility among sub ordinates.
10. Take responsibility for your actions. 11. Set the example.
INDICATORS OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP
Discipline is that mental attitude and state of training which renders prompt obedience and proper conduct instinctive under all conditions. True discipline demands habitual, but reasoned, obedience to command.
Morale is the state of mind of the individual. This state of mind is de pendent upon his attitude toward everything that affects him. The importance of morale cannot be overestimated since it is a great contributing factor to the efficiency of a unit.