A521.9.4.RB_HallMike

3 courses into the MS in Leadership curriculum, I find that I understand what it is to be a leader much better than I did 6 months ago.  I have done many of the things that are incorporated as being a good leader, however I did not understand what I was doing or better ways to employ them.  Denning’s book was a great read and something that I plan to use as I continue my path towards better myself, while his dimensions of leadership are also a great thing to keep in mind also.

Denning breaks down his requirements for today’s interactive leader.  First, he says that the interactive leader works with the world rather than against it (Denning 2011).  I completely agree that if you look for ways to allow the momentum of the world to work in your favor, you can use the energy you didn’t use in fighting the world and place it into other areas.  Second, he says that an interactive leader both adds and subtracts elements from the leadership palette (Denning 2011).  What he was trying to say was that the interactive leader cannot submit himself to performing manipulative tactics or other less than ethical means.  I also agree – it is hard for you to stand up in front of an organization and proclaim that you want an ethical company and then turn around and be unethical yourself.  You must embody your organization at all times in order for your people to believe in you.  As a naval officer, I strive to be the best officer I can be by attempting to embody what it is to be a naval officer.  I stand by the core values of honor, courage, and commitment, I am in good physical shape, I have rock solid integrity, and I demand the same from my sailors.  Thirdly, he says that interactive leadership builds on personal integrity and authenticity (Denning 2011).  Continuing from my previous statement, people will not follow you if you can’t practice what you preach.  In this case, no one would say that they run an unethical company therefor you must be ethical.  Also, today’s workforce is much more in tune with the ethics associated with business practices (or at least I would like to think that) – they will (should) not stand for someone who acts in a questionable manner.  Again, this is something I already incorporate into my daily life and something that I will continue to do.

The fourth dimension is something that I have a hard time swallowing as a military leader, however I get what he is saying.  Denning states, “Interactive leadership doesn’t depend on the possession of hierarchical authority” (Denning 2011).  Although I am in an organization that has a very strict hierarchy, what he is trying to say is that leadership can occur within all levels of an organization and not just from the top down.  Even though the military has the hierarchy, it fully supports and promotes leadership at all levels, from the junior most seaman up to the senior most admiral.  This is also something that I work very hard to promote within my subordinates – deck plate leadership development is key in developing a strong senior enlisted corps.  Fifth, interactive leadership benefits from an understanding of the different narrative patterns that can be used to get things done in the world (Denning 2011).  Here he is saying that you must be able to use different communication means in order to connect with your subordinates.

In summary, Denning’s view on interactive leadership is right in line with what my opinion of a leader should be.  Being ethical, accepting of things he can’t change, promoting subordinate development, being a good communicator, and having integrity are all things that a good leader must do in order to be successful.  I hope that some of my guys that I have worked with would say that I meet these dimensions, but regardless of whether or not I did then, I will certainly strive to meet them in the future.  LT Mike Hall signing off from the MSLD 521 blog!

Denning, S. (2011). The leader's guide to storytelling. (2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A500.9.4.RB_HallMike

Looking back over the past 9 weeks, I can’t help but think about how much my thinking has grown/changed.  I’m not just saying that because I think that it what needs to be said, I really do think that this was one of those classes that has a lasting impact on your life - a class that exceeds the scope of the course and enters into your everyday life.  I can only think of 1 other class that would approach how much I have learned here – my SAT prep class I took in high school essentially taught me how to take multiple choice tests.  Instead of teaching a very focused skill however, this class taught me an essential skill to have in life, the ability to critically think about things. 

Looking for positives in the course, first and foremost I would have to say that the book that was selected for this course was spot on the perfect book for learning about critical thinking.  I really liked the practice questions to help develop skills within the book, and the breakdown of the chapters split the contents up very well.  Another thing that I liked was the introduction to the Hunt Library.  I know this was supposed to be the first class in the progression; however this is my second/third.  My first class did not even mention the Hunt Library, which is a shame considering the amount of information that is accessible within it.  Also, driving home the SEE-I process at the beginning of the course really established a foundation to build upon.  Going further, the SEE-I process is another skill that I have taken from this course and use on an almost daily basis when interacting with people and it really does work.

As far as negatives are concerned, I really only have one complaint, and even then I know it really isn’t one.  At times it seemed like there was a ton of work to be done in the class.  From week to week it felt like I worked hours on the material, but in reality, it really wasn’t that bad and none of it was what I would consider busy work – all of it had a purpose and resulted in a better understanding of the topic at hand.  So, even though I thought it was a bunch of work, it was my undergraduate side of me complaining as opposed to my more mature masters student that understands it is necessary.  I really can’t think of anything additional that either the university or the instructor needs to do in order to better the class.  Every that was covered in the class was relevant to the course, to future courses, and life in general.  I would even go as far to say that this course or something similar to it should be required in every degree program in the university!

In summary, this class has definitely made my top 5 classes of all time.  I found it truly entertaining and a pleasure to learn from.  I look forward to working with the instructor in the future and would recommend this course to anyone interested in learning how to critically think.

A500.8.3.RB_HallMike

It is amazing how varied presentations can be.  Some are absolutely amazing in the way that they hold your attention while others are almost as effective as Nyquil at putting you to sleep.  As we saw in this week’s readings, I think that presentations are most effective when you use them as an aide during your discussion as opposed to it being the basis for your discussion.  As a result, I think keeping your presentations as simple as possible - with effective pictures - can do wonders at both maintaining your audiences’ attention and getting your point across.

 There is a fantastic saying in the Navy: Keep it simple, stupid.  I think that this is just as applicable for presentations as well.  Using a blue background with white lettering ensures that your text will be easily readable in any light situation.  Also, it makes the text much more easy (less harsh) on the eyes.  And speaking of text, the less text the better is the most preferred.  I learned this fact years ago in a technical writing class.  That class instructor would go crazy if you put more than 3 bullets on a single slide, and those 3 bullets had better not add up to more than 5 lines of text.  In this class we learned that even that might be too much text – each slide should only contain 1 main point.  The reason for this is pretty simple – if you have too much text, your audience will tune out your speaking and concentrate on what you have written on the screen.  While this is ok at times, especially since your main points/your takeaways should be the only thing you have in text, for the most part it isn’t due to the fact that you are verbally expounding on the main points.  If they aren’t listening, they will completely miss out on why what you have displayed is important, or what you learned about it, or whatever it is you are talking about.  Another added benefit of having small amounts of text is that it helps to prevent you from reading from the screen.

 Something else that gets to me at times is the use of bad or random clip art.  The presentation is supposed to help what you are trying to say.  If you use bad clip art/photos, I find my self almost discrediting the presentation as amateurish and of questionable material.  If on the other hand you use fantastic supportive photos that drive home the point you are trying to make, I will more easily remember what you are trying to say later since many people, including myself, are visual in nature.

 The different programs we were introduced to this week will definitely help in the long run, especially if I decide to sit down and really learn one or two of them to the depth that I have learned PowerPoint.  Specifically, any program that can help you create slides with video clips (I am thinking specifically about showing mouse movement on a screen to produce a step by step example) would be greatly beneficial if the situation needed it.

A521.8.4.RB_HallMike

I have different levels of comfort when dealing with strangers.  If I am in a professional setting and in a room full of my peers, I have no issue talking to complete strangers.  On the other hand, I am in no way comfortable being in a room full of complete strangers in public unless, and as much as I hate to say it, there is some alcohol involved.  My brother and I are alike in many ways but our personalities are completely different.  I am much more reserved and would rather sit and talk with friends rather than go out and meet people but my brother would get up from his friends after a couple of conversations to go out and work the room with the ease of an experienced politician.

In my case, I have always been the shy one and it took a ton of work to get me out of being a complete recluse.  I can’t really pin why I am this way on any single event growing up so I can only say I think it is just who I am.  I was by no means the unpopular kid in high school, but I also wasn’t Mr. Personality either.  I had a pretty big group of friends but I didn’t really reach out and get really close but with a few of them.  In my first attempt in college, I stuck with the swim team or made friends with other friends of the swim team (i.e. I didn’t go out and meet people).  When I got back down to Florida I didn’t go out of my way to meet new people either.  It wasn’t until I started bartending that I began to learn how to strike up conversations with complete strangers.  Being that I learned the skill in a bar, I would venture to say that my ease at talking with people in a bar setting has just as much to do with it being a familiar place as it is the alcohol helping me.  I only got better with talking to people in the Navy as it forces you to be in contact with new people all of the time.  But again, I really can’t go out into a non-Navy setting and just walk up and start talking with someone.

From the readings, I would say that body language is not a problem with me as it is something that is usually on my mind in that kind of situation.  For me, the problem is the ice breaker, but again, the book didn’t really cover anything that I haven’t already heard before.  Also, the art of conversation is something I am good at – once I get the ice broken.  I did like the break down between the ritual and informational questions and the given example was great at illustrating the difference between them.  In the end, I think deep down inside I am rather insecure (something that most who know me would argue) and it is the worry of rejection that prevents me from starting up the conversations.  Until I can get over that, I think that social events with strangers will continue to be a little intimidating.

A500.7.3.RB_HallMike

Last week we looked at the uses of qualitative research methods and how important they are to the scientific process.  Recall that qualitative research looks to make general statements about observed behaviors as opposed to making general statements and then testing to see if the observed behaviors validate the statement.  This process of making a statement (hypothesis) first and then testing your statement with experiments is what is referred to as quantitative research.  This method can be most easily described by the use of “if, then” statements; i.e. if my theory x holds true, then I should observe the following y traits in my experiment.

As an engineer, I am far more comfortable with this type of research method than qualitative methods due to the fact that all of the research and projects I did during my undergraduate studies fell under the quantitative methods.   Also, one could argue that most things in life can be quantified and measured using numbers.  I completely agree and would further argue that everything in life/the world can be explained with a mathematical equation; just some equations are simpler than others.  What is often the challenge (especially in social sciences) is being able to convert observed behavior into a numerical data set for mathematical interpretation, with the data set being the raw information of the experiment.  Another challenge when using quantitative methods in social sciences is that most quantitative methods require the testing of a single variable at a time and trying to isolate that single behavior can be next to impossible.  Due to this, studies often simplify the reality of the project, which can alter the results.  Additionally, you must be able to ask very precise and definitive questions in order to extract the needed information from the subject.  Assuming you can find the right questions, interpreting the response to the question can be just as challenging.

With these limitations aside, there are still distinct advantages to quantitative research within the social studies; largely that if you can overcome the hurdles associated with quantitative research, the results you obtain can be very good.  Some of the hurdles just referred to include ensuring the correct question is asked (hypothesis), that your research methodology is best suited to test your hypothesis, and that your data collection method will result in unbiased and unambiguous data.  Regardless, I would rather perform quantitative vice qualitative research any day.     

A521.7.4.RB_HallMike

Telling stories about my line of work to people outside of my community is quite a hard proposition.  First, submariners operate in a very specialized community that uses both tactics and systems that are foreign to most military members, none the less civilians not used to military speak in the first place.  Secondly, most of what we do is extremely classified in one manner or another.  I could probably think of literally hundreds of stories to tell that pass on knowledge to the younger generation of submariners but it might not convey much other than a cool story to people unfamiliar with subs.  I’m going to still try and tell one that would have a great learning point at the end for a sub guy, but should still be interesting to a civilian. 

We had a close encounter with a surface ship one day while away from the pier, and it was due to a situation that should have been anticipated but wasn’t.  While operating in deep water and if conditions are right, sound that is sent down into the water towards the bottom will actually curve back up to the surface many miles away from the originating point.  As a result of these convergent zones, we can often hear ships at greater distances than would normally be possible.  As I mentioned before, conditions must be right for this to happen, and we had been operating in such conditions for several weeks.  The problem that was not anticipated was that we were transitioning to a water space where a convergent zone might not occur down certain bearings due to underwater mountains coming up and obstructing the sound propagation.  Low and behold, a contact was gained and placed out to the historical range for first contact based on a convergent zone, however what was not caught was that this contact was literally straight down the bearing of a rather large underwater mountain.  This mountain had not only obstructed convergent zone propagation but it also stopped normal propagation until the contact was relatively close to our ship.  The situation was not determined to be serious until the contact trace displayed characteristics of it being much much MUCH closer than what had been previously thought.  Although the final distance is classified, suffice it to say it was very close - the magnitude of it being approximately 10% of the distance that is normally the closest we ever want a ship to get to us.

For a submariner, the take away from this story is that you must be familiar with the bottom topography of the water you are operating in.  Not doing so can result in a close contact situation is a best case scenario and getting run over in a worst case scenario.  We experienced something in between those two; however it was way to close for us not to report.

Although this story is a little watered down to remove classified details, I think that there are parallels for the business world – you must always be aware of the changing environment around you, including ones that are generally taken for granted as being constant.  Small changes to the environment can have profound effects further down the road – the proverbial butterfly effect where a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the world will cause a typhoon on the other side.  Failure to do so could result in you changing for a company with significance within the marketplace to one that is irrelevant to the big picture.

A521.6.3.RB_HallMike

In today’s business environment, few things are stressed more than increasing collaboration and team usage.  Many studies have shown that effectively working as a team can drastically increase the productivity of the group when compared to the output of the individuals within it (Denning 2011).  Team collaboration can be broken down into 4 different types of teams – work groups, teams, communities, and networks.  Work groups are the traditional subunits within divisions that entail people working on the same subject in the same place (Denning 2011).  Teams are groups of interdependent people with shard common goals that coordinate activities to accomplish the task at hand (Denning 2011).  Communities are people that share common interests and practices but might not share the same geographic location (Denning 2011).  Networks are similar to communities except that people within networks stay connected to each other due to a perceived benefit in doing so (Denning 2011).  I have had great experiences with teams that I would definitely call high performance.  I was on a special task group to look at how training was conducted on a specific topic with several other JOs.  Being that we all had the same background (from a naval standpoint) and we all wanted a change in the current system, we all worked hard and produced an outstanding product that it used today in the fleet.  With that being said, I am not really sure that communities are the best method of applying teamwork due to no true organization amongst the members.  Based on the readings, it appears to me that communities are more a collection of like minded individuals – that is great for discussing things that do not have a time line.

            Even though there are differences between these different subcategories, they all share common traits in order for them to be considered high-performance teams.  First, high performance teams tend to exceed expectations by actively shaping the group the project is for (Denning 2011).  For example, a high performance team might tell the customer to expect the product in 72 hours when they know it will probably take less.  This falls under the old adage of “it is better to under promise and over achieve than the opposite”.  Secondly, a high performance team is capable of rapidly adjusting the team response to emergent issues within the project (Denning 2011).  There is another adage associated with this statement – “a battle plan is good only until the first shot is fired”.  In other words, you can plan on how you think things will go as much as you want however what makes people great is the ability to rapidly adjust to meet the current situation.  Thirdly, high performance teams grow stronger as time progresses due to members learning the strengths and weakness of each other (Denning 2011).  I have said it many times in this course – if you aren’t actively learning you are falling behind, and this is just as applicable to people.  Another trait about high performance teams is that they all grow as individuals (Denning 2011).  Again, you must constantly be bettering yourself or else you are doing yourself a disfavor.  Next, high performance teams self motivate due to the developing interpersonal relationships (Denning 2011).  In other words, you push yourself harder because you do not want to let your team mates down.  Finally, high performance teams carry out their work with a shared passion (Denning 2011).  I think this final one is very important – it is hard to achieve much excitement about anything without having passion.  Without passion you will not put in as much effort into your effort; as a result it is hard for the first 5 traits to exist without the final trait.

            The final trait also plays into shared values.  As was with my own personal experience I spoke of earlier, shared passion results in a tighter team that is more focused on the objective and one that should produce a superior product.  My experience was easy to achieve the shared values; however this is not always the case in the business world.  That is why it is very important for the leader of the group to get the group to gel and establish the shared values, which is why Denning devoted an entire chapter of his book to catalyzing the establishment of shared values through stories.

Denning, S. (2011). The leader\'s guide to storytelling. (2 ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A500.6.3.RB_HallMike

Our world has drastically changed over the past 150 years from one of a mostly agrarian society to one that is industrialized and centered around commerce.  The speed of the change hit new heights with the invention of the PC and the spread of the internet.  Few can doubt that this would not have been possible were it not for engineers and scientists conducting research to push the boundaries of science.  Most of this research was conducted via experimental means – i.e. an experiment is conducted to test a hypothesis and to gather data, the data is interpreted via statistical methods, and the results are published – however not all research is performed in this manner.  Qualitative research, or phenomenological inquiry, “uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings” (Hoepfl 1997).  Further, qualitative research can be broadly defined as, "any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (Hoepfl 1997).  In other words, qualitative research uses observations of nature/the test subject in its natural settings and deduces the causes based on the observations.  For example, I could perform qualitative research by going to a local mall, people watch to gather observations on fashion trends, and then determining who the popular stylist is.

                Qualitative research has several key elements associated with it.  First, qualitative research uses “the natural setting as the source of data and the researcher attempts to observe, describe, and interpret settings as they are” (Hoepfl 1997), vice trying to manipulate the settings.  This statement basically restates what I said above – that observations are made in the test subjects natural setting.  Secondly, the “the researcher acts as the human instrument of data collection” (Hoepfl 1997).  In other words, the researcher must be making the observations, which makes sense since it would be hard to interpret your results if you were not there to collect them.   Thirdly, the use of inductive data analysis is key (Hoepfl 1997).  The key here is inductive vice deductive.  Inductive logic takes multiple individual observations and attempts to make a general statement governing the group whereas deductive logic takes a general statement and checks the statement by looking at observations (if A then B statements are key in deductive logic).   Fourth, “reports are descriptive, incorporating expressive language and the presence of voice in text” (Hoepfl 1997).  This statement is almost directly contrary to most quantitative reports where you want to present the facts in the most objective manner possible without using any first person nouns.  Fifth, “qualitative research has an interpretive character, aimed at discovering the meaning events have for the individuals who experience them” (Hoepfl 1997).  This again goes back to the original statement that you are trying to find the cause of events by looking at (interpreting) observations.  Sixth, “researchers pay attention to the idiosyncratic as well as the pervasive, seeking the uniqueness of each case” (Hoepfl 1997).  What this is saying is that all data is taken into consideration as opposed to some quantitative research where outliers are often discarded as either faulty indications or observations.  Seventh, “qualitative research has an emergent (as opposed to predetermined design, and researchers focus on this emerging process as well as the outcomes or product of the research” (Hoepfl 1997).  In other words, qualitative research projects are fluid in design and can warp to suit the needs of the observations – researchers let the observations take them to the conclusions as opposed to forcing the observations to conform to your conclusion.  Finally, “qualitative research is judged using special criteria for trustworthiness” (Hoepfl 1997).  Due to the nature of the style, results must be judged in a different manner than quantitative research.  Phrases like credibility of the author, transferability of the results to different subject areas, past dependability, and conformability are used when judging the accuracy of qualitative results.

                As described above, qualitative research is an entirely different approach to determining phenomenon in this world.  Rather than starting with a general statement and then testing for accuracy of the statement, qualitative research goes about it in the opposite manner – make neutral observations in the test subjects environment, and then determine if a general statement can be made based on the observations.  As an engineer, this type of thinking is entirely foreign however one that is just as important at furthering our quest for knowledge.

Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html

A500.5.3.RB_HallMike

There is no question in my mind that my critical thinking skills have increased to date, and apparently it is obvious to not only me but also my wife.  When I first started this course, I would have considered myself an above average thinker but perhaps that was a misuse of the word thinking when I meant intelligent.  In hindsight, however, I think my thinking skills prior to this class were average at best.  I rarely used any of the circle of elements that were discussed very early on in this class.  As a result, when I thought about stuff I produced results that were not near as well thought out as they could have been a may have arrived at the conclusions in a hap-hazard manner.

Now however, I find myself questioning my thought processes constantly.  I am finding that a question of “why I am thinking in this manner” is often associated with my thinking.  When I am thinking about something, I actively use the circle of elements - something I have found to be very effective at organizing my thoughts.  Many of the things associated with the circle of elements I used before, however they were not used in an efficient manner nor would I have been able to identify what I was doing.  Now, I look for assumptions I am basing things on, I look at different points of view, I look at the multiple conclusions that can be drawn from my thoughts as well as the consequences and implications, and I think about the quality of the information I am using while thinking.  As a result, I really do think that my thinking has gone from average to one that is utilizing critical thought.  

As I showed in my concept map that outlines how I want to get better at critical thought, I intend on rereading the book at some point to ensure that I really understand the concepts contained within it.  Also, I am going to continue to actively think about the circle of elements anytime I am thinking about a specific topic.  As I said above, the circle of elements is something that I have already put into place in my thinking, however I would like to make its use second nature and not something that I have to spell out each time, i.e. I want to use it in a manner similar to how the SEE-I process is intended to be used – fluidly and without breaks in the process.  Mainly, I would like to be able to do this fluidly so that I can show others how to think critically in the future and the best way to do that is to become completely fluent in it.  Additionally, repetition is the key to ensure that the circle of elements is solidified within my head.

A521.5.8.RB_HallMike

When I think of values within the submarining community, there are many that come to mind.  Values like procedural compliance, knowledge, and communication are all part of the submarining community; however 1 value – brotherhood – is one that sums up the community in a single word.  As I described in  my earlier blog, brotherhood within the submarining community spans the divides between the many different countries in this world – if you wear dolphins for one country, you are my brother regardless of what flag flies from your flagstaff.  With that being said, some guys lose sight of this fact and take on a much more selfish attitude.  The following is a story about a situation I watched develop while I rode the USS FLORIDA several years ago.

Back in my early days with the force, I had the opportunity to ride one of the most versatile warships within our fleet – the USS FLORIDA (SSGN 729).  We were on mission and as a junior JO, I was standing Junior Officer of the Watch and assisting with scope operator.  There were 3 Fire Control Technicians (FT) in my section, a FT1 who was rarely around due to collateral duties, a FT2, and a newly reported FTSN.  For whatever reason, FT2 did not like FTSN in anyway, and he wasn’t afraid to let the FTSN and the rest of the crew know it.  This was happening even though the FTSN tried day in and day out to get the FT2 to not just tolerate him, but to like him.  Every day the FTSN would come in with a great attitude and eagerness to learn and every day the FT2 would be nothing but nasty to him. 

This pattern continued for several weeks.  We pulled off station and pulled into a liberty port where we were afforded some free time.  As it turned out, FT2 and FTSN met up at a bar accidentally.  FT2 was already 3 sheets to the wind whereas FTSN had been responsible and had barely had a few drinks.  After hanging out for a bit, FT2 was essentially thrown out of the bar and FTSN volunteered to take FT2 back to the ship.  At this point, FT2 punched FTSN squarely in the jaw, knocking him out and breaking his jaw.  Several other shipmates jumped on him and restrained him, then carted him back to the ship to be put into confinement.  All sailors on liberty were recalled back to the ship for the night and there was discussion of not allowing any further liberty into the town despite the fact we were going to be in port for a few more days.  In the end, the CO decided not to punish the crew for the actions of 1 guy, but FT2’s selfishness and lack of brotherhood almost cost us free time in a foreign port, and it brought shame to both our ship and the Navy being that multiple locals witnessed the assault.

I am not sure what exactly was wrong with FT2, but I am sure that his actions are not in accordance with any spoken values, whether it be the Navy’s core values or something else.  I am completely positive that his actions in no way represented what the dolphins on his chest represent – the brotherhood that we all share as submariners.  We all must trust each other not only because we are in tight quarters, but because our very lives depend on it.  Having bad attitudes towards your shipmates does nothing to promote this sense of brotherhood and can only have a bad influence on the patterns of the ship.  Clearly the FLORIDA had issues with this sense of brotherhood as their Chief of the Boat was fired for a hazing incident that occurred several years after I rode them; however you get the sense that a lack of brotherhood on board was a key contributor to his removal.

In the end, I would hope that the above story would show fellow submariners that it is in our best interest to promote the brotherhood within our community.  The actions of 1 person can drastically effect how the ship operates, so we can’t tolerate selfish people on board.  You are either entirely part of the crew and are willing to go to any length for any of your shipmates, or you aren’t part of the crew.

A521.5.4.RB_HallMike

As was discussed in the book, I completely agree that many companies in today’s world are far from ethical in their practices.  I myself am part of an organization that is probably more unethical than ethical when you use the pillars of an ethical community.  The pillars of trust, loyalty, and solidarity are spoken of within the Navy however in many situations, that is about it.  With that being said, those three pillars are ever present within the submarine community.

First off, trust is probably the most used pillar within the Navy, or at least it is within my community.  As submariners, we trust that everyone on the submarine knows what he (or she now) must do in every situation that could occur on the boat.  It has to be this way or else no one would ever think about going submarines – some situations are so time-sensitive that if 1 or 2 people do not do exactly what they are supposed to do in a timely manner the whole ship could be lost.  To signify trust in the guys on board, we give our warfare pin to those who have earned it.  This lets God and country know that we as a community trust this person with our lives as he as trusted his life in ours.  Additionally, we trust that each of us will always treat each other with mutual respect and friendship.

Loyalty also plays into the submariner’s code and ties directly into trust.  As I mentioned above, submariners must be able to perform their duties when called, and we assume that all submariners will have loyalty to the trust that we have given them.  Further, solidarity is something that we submariners are proud of as is something that spans the gap between other nation’s submarines.  For example, even though we squared off with the Russians during the cold war, and submarines were essentially the front line, now that it is over submariners from both sides meet quite often to discuss sea stories about each other’s experiences.  Additionally, anytime there is a submarine accident, all submariners of the world do what they can to help the downed submarine or to express their condolences.  In the end, I think all 3 pillars of an ethical organization exist within the submarine community which is why we call our community a brotherhood vice any other terminology.

With respect to aligning the ethical pillars to my organization, I think they are already aligned, however I think that this is done more informally than explicitly, which might be a way to improve awareness.  The qualification process goes a long way in teaching new guys what it means to earn your dolphins (the warfare pin), however sometimes some guys need a quick reminder as to why they wear what they wear.  A possible method to ensure this happens is to ensure that all members of the crew are involved in the qualification process of all new guys.  If anything, this will give new guys a more broad understanding of everyone on board, but it will also increase the sense of community within the sub and will remind the older guys what it is all about.