Over on another site they are having another go around on that CPO Academy out in Petaluma.

Just wondering, it has been in existance for 27 ~28 years now and running a goodly number of E-7 thru E-9 through the course. Has it accomplished its mission yet??

You'd think that after that many years and that number of chiefs, supposedly going back to the fleet and putting into practice what they've learned, that by sheer osmosis the leadership traits and practices would have filtered down through the petty officer grades and all hands should be on their way to being successful leaders.

Are they not putting into practice what they've learned ?? Has it just become a sort of "finishing school", needed to advance, or, to place on ones resume by the time that retirement kicks in ?? Seems to me that if the overall level of leadership hasn't improved over the years, perhaps the training should be directed more towards the entry level petty officers that will have a longer career to put the lessons into practice.

Is it time to shut it down, and re-invent the wheel with something more practical ?? Has the school become another self pertetuating institution ?? It's your CG, do you need something that works ??

Dana,
Training, much like safety, is something that "looks good" even if everything that has been taught is not applied. Cutbacks in training, like safety are rarely done.

I haven't seen a CPO Academy curriculum for a number of years, so I'm not sure what it covered these days. Obviously physical well being is paramount.

Do those that attend the Academy pass what they have learned along... Not sure.. I'm sure some of the 'active duty" guys will tell ya.

I'll be watchin'.....

Wray...

Wray, Hope some will chime in to see if it is relavent anymore.

It kind of passed by fast, but the last MCPON was starting to re-direct the Chiefs back to "deck plate leadership" where the chief has the most influence over their hands. He had a sudden departure without much fanfare. I wonder if the USN CPOs kind of back fired on him and scuttled some of his initiatives ???

I always asked the folks at the academy what the major performance deficiencies of the chief’s corps, how these were measured and how the school was designed to alleviate these shortfalls. I never did get the answer.

Like it or not, the other services have senior enlisted academies so the CG must have its own school, too. To not do so would insult some pretty powerful people working in DC. And that shall not be done regardless of any cost/benefit analysis. Rice bowls are rice bowls and our rice bowls must be protected.

And heck, it doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s a mini-vacation for some hard-working folks. They get to play on the ropes course, ride bikes and drink a little beer. What’s wrong with that?

quote:

Are they not putting into practice what they've learned ?? Has it just become a sort of "finishing school", needed to advance, or, to place on ones resume by the time that retirement kicks in ??

My own experince in the civilian world shows many that attended seminars and/or courses walked out the door and never put into practice those things that should have been learned. I would imagine the same is true of many of those in the military.

Too bad, as much of what was offered where I worked was actually very valuable if you used it.

quote:

Obviously physical well being is paramount.

Certainly should be stressed but one ould hope it is not the major subject being taught.

Awww, the Academy....

I went to give me that "check mark in the box" to advance to E-8. And in the words of Forest Gump... "that's about all I have to say about that".

GUNS

get your ticket punched ... then do a memory dump and forget everything. Yep, typical trainee response.

quote:

Yep, typical trainee response.

Then I must be atypical, Joe, because I recall every poorly veiled threat you ever said while in training!

I'd bet the cannon cockers reply is closer to the truth than most will want to admit though.. Since attendance is directly tied to advancing above E-7, I'd be willing to bet that is a primary motivation to attend.

That it is still in operation indicates that the knowledge hasn't trickled down. But, you've got a staff and infrastructure in place that has a vested interest in keeping employed.

When the grades of E-8 & E-9 were established, the original intent was that E-7 was the 20 year paygrade and E-8 & E-9 were intended to be for those staying beyond 20 years. Over the years, the TIG/TIS requirements have changed and now it is practical to see those grades with less than 20.

Re-tool it for the E-4 to E-6 grades, they are the future leaders. By the time of E-7 they SHOULD have those techniques perfected and in everyday practice.

I never made it to the CPOACAD. Submitted 3 STTRs for classes that worked for my family's schedule, each time, the class was full. So, will end up attending in the 3 week CWOPD course instead of the 2 week course.

My personal feeling on it is that the name should be changed and it should be required for advancement to E-7. Figure since its made mandatory, the CG feels its a necessary training for an E-7. So if that's the case, shouldn't a member receive the training prior to putting on the Anchor?

Like most things in life, you get out of it what you put into it. If you go there determined not to learn anything, you will NOT be disappointed! I promise you... You won't learn a thing.

Of course, not everything is for everyone. Some of the tools and techniques that are offered are not for everyone; neither do all the techniques work in all situations. But you take what works for you; leave what doesn't work for you.

I enjoyed the Academy. It was a great learning experience. The one change I think should be considered is that 1.) it should be required to be advanced to E-7. Or... 2.) If you don't attend within three years, you are reduced to E-6 and not allowed to retire as a Chief. Of course, we would have to make certain that everyone who wishes to attend had the opportunity. But I've put in a lot of requests; I've never ran into anyone who couldn't get in within three years. Not saying they aren't out there, mind you... I've never seen it. Of course, there would be waivers for legitimate operational requirements. The "difficulties" that I normally encountered with getting people in involved them making up excuses on why this class or that class won't work for them. Dog having puppies, stars aren't aligned... Whatever.

I also agree that we need to do a better job with providing formal training to more junior people. Of course, LAMS isn't the end-all/be-all, but is hugely better than what it used to be. And, of course, it is now a requirement to make First Class. Maybe should be required for Second Class???

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 2494906,

quote:

get your ticket punched ... then do a memory dump and forget everything. Yep, typical trainee response.

No Joe, not everything . Oops, I said in my previous post "I had nothing else to say".

I think this subject is very controversial like the 2nd Amendment that is all and I have voiced my concerns in the Chief's Mess were I believe this subject belongs.

quote:

I'd bet the cannon cockers

I resemble that remark!


GUNS

TVCJohn - you hit the nail right square on the head.

quote:

Originally posted by Mastersmate:
TVCJohn - you hit the nail right square on the head.

What did TVCJohn say?

Over on the CPO web site. they have this topic on a roll.

Yes. I saw. I frequent that site. You not only get the benefit of sage advice of those who have gone before us, but you get much more AD participation with a feel for the Guard today.

But to answer the question... Now, it has been a few years since I attended, so I've either forgotten some of it or perhaps I incorporated it into my routine now to the degree that I don't recognize it as something received at training.

Having said that, I do recall a couple of things that immediately come to mind. Personally, I spent a lot of time in independent duty. Although I enjoyed this immensely, I felt it did leave me ill prepared to lead large shops. The Academy set me at ease about the things I already knew and gave me tools to help me.

Speaking for others, I know the requirement to write awards and correspondence is something that they will use the rest of their career. As a Chief, your job isn't to just know how to make the widget work anymore. You take care of people. And part of taking care of people is communication and recognition. I frequently reference some of the writing guides that we were provided.

In addition to awards and corresondence, public speaking and physical well-being is covered to a significant degree. These are all things that Chiefs should be capable of and comfortable in doing. Of course, there is Bob and his kool-aide. But even Bob provides valuable information, if you are willing learn.

As I said before, if you go and you are determined not to learn anything, you will not be disappointed. If you go with the slightest inkling that that there just might be something you don't know, you just might learn something!

TJ,

Like all training, it's designed around the "typical" attendee. Unfortunately how we identify that "typical trainee" is tough ... as you know from being the rating manager.

As far as you being a "typical trainee", I'm sure you got something from the courses as you did bring the sum of your experiences to the class. Some concepts came easily for you, some not, because of the sum of your experience.

The CPOACAD will suffer from the same circumstances as all CG training.

Typically everyone will garner at least one thing from the training.

Like you, it would be nice to know the deficiency the CPOACAD is attempting to correct. Is it for executive level service (gold or silver badges) or something else.

If it's general leadership improvement, the service is putting it on way too late. I am glad to see there are other leadership schools for lower rates as they are long overdue. I know in our day, we had LAMS and SPOLAMS, but neither was mandatory and the CG dropped the ball on that one.

I'm glad, and I've advocated that the leadership training should begin about the time someone starts supervising others. This typically happens at the E-5 level for most rates but can happen at E-4 for the rates that have strikers.

It's one thing to go to the school and absorb the knowledge, it's quite another to place that knowledge into action. In alot of the cases, the latter is sparce.

Sending that PO2 to a leadership school and then not allowing them to hone those new found skills is a waste of time. Yes, that too happens in alot of the resident training, the trainees are eager to use their new found knowledge, but are held back by their commands.

How many times have people hear ... forget everything you learned in "x" school or we do it differently here.

Those are systemic of the problem. Empowering people to act will hone their leadership skills. You empower them as that PO3, PO2, PO1. You should already have the desired skillset by the time one reachs CPO.

Humans are the sum of our experiences, like it or not.

Going to resident training, some trainee's vision of what they will be receiving may not be congruent with the scope of the course.

As never been an attendee of the CPOACAD, I have interviewed many who attended. I've always asked people for their thoughts whenever they attended some training or seminar ... to see what new skillsets they are bringing to the table. I had expectations based on the sylabus or the curriculum outlines on what I should be getting back from the training, I wanted to know IF I got back the product I expected. If I didn't, why?

I'm sure as the CO, you had expectations of those you commanded. You even had a decent idea of what that ET3 should know when they arrived. You even knew if you asked a question that was addressed by an E-4 PQS, the "C" school curriculum, or a sylabus, you expected the correct response. It's part of knowing your people. It's part of doing an accurate EPEF. Hell, it's part of being a good leader.

So, TJ, like all humans, you run the spectrum on the libert scale of life. Your evaluation, like mine, can be 1's on somedays, 7's on others, but probably average out close to the mean of 4 when the daily evaluation is summed and divided by the number of samples. There is no "rate creep" or "TIS creep" when we do our self-evaluations. We can have "EGO creep".

quote:

Like you, it would be nice to know the deficiency the CPOACAD is attempting to correct.

Joe, if there truly were deficiencies - especially those critical to mission capabilities, including leadership - one would believe that these would become easily apparent and measurable in the evaluations. But I would bet that there is not any evidence in the enlisted evaluations that most E-7 and above suffered below average marks in ANY required task.

As always, I could be wrong...

FWIW, one of the earliest written articles I could find concerning the Mission of the CPO Academy. Is it the same as today ?? Was the active duty selection process the same as listed for the Reserve ??

If the mission is still the same today, then you've created a school that is a "finishing school" for CPOs. Doesn't mention anything of returning to the fleet and passing that knowledge on to the sailors. So then, if it is now required to advance to E-8, looks like those considering advancing above E-7 should be signed up, and those staying at E-7 should take advantage of a school that the CG determined 20 years ago or so, would be beneficial if you need it to assist you to do your job.

Could this CPO Academy be somewhere on a budget chopping block, and the vested interests are circling the wagons. Recent heightened interest and requirements to attend the school, hint of a "preservation" mode.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mastersmate,