I had an issue this week with miscommunitcation with my maintenance CPO. I told him some information and he took it in the wrong way. So wrong that he even twisted it and it became something totally different. Not even close to the original information. Now my CPO has a problem with me. And talking to my LPO today I was told that he's a CPO and he's always right. That doesn't sit well with me. CPOs are people too and people make mistakes. Communication gets lost somewhere but this truely was not my fault. I even wrote the information in my passdown log as well as telling the shop what was going on. The whole he's a CPO he's always right makes me ill honestly. I mean no disrespect in any way but if you are wrong then you should admit it. Not hide behind a rank. Is this fair?

I am reminded of an old saw from my days (53-73) which went something like "I may not always be right, but I am always the Chief".

Effective communication will always obviate a problem like you had. Never tell your boss anything in a manner that is subject to interpretation.

The only way to get an honest answer to, or opinion about, your problem is to hear BOTH sides of the issue face to face.. Absent that information its a non issue.

"I may not always be right, but I'm NEVER wrong."

Respy,
BMCS, Ret.

I almost thought this was a trick question until I saw that it was you, Laura, who posted it. Of course EVERYONE knows the Chief is NEVER wrong.

Having heard your side of the story though, I am a little more sensitive to your question. But I have to agree with RiverRat, we are only hearing one side of the story. As everyone knows there are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

That is why I have pretty much stayed away from posting in your other thread. Am I taking sides? No. I just don't think it right to pass any judgment against anyone without hearing their side of the story.

Rule #1: The Chief is right.
Rule #2: In case of doubt, refer to rule #1.

quote:

Originally posted by TMC_SW_Ret:
I almost thought this was a trick question until I saw that it was you, Laura, who posted it. Of course EVERYONE knows the Chief is NEVER wrong.

Having heard your side of the story though, I am a little more sensitive to your question. But I have to agree with RiverRat, we are only hearing one side of the story. As everyone knows there are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

That is why I have pretty much stayed away from posting in your other thread. Am I taking sides? No. I just don't think it right to pass any judgment against anyone without hearing their side of the story.

Ok here's what happened

Tuesday night I ordered a part. It went ISSIP. Got the part and it was no good. Had to D6A it back to supply. Ordered again and went ISSIP again. SK went to issue part to me and saw it was Not In Stock or NIS. Called to let me know. I in turn to the maintenance chief, the shop and put it in my passdown log. I explained to the maintenance chief that part will show ISSIP until the morning when the civilians where the part was issued from would pass it off station. The item was NIS and would be referred to another location for us to receive later. Somewhere with the chief and myself the communication was lost or he misinterpreted me. He then wrote my CPO along with the other maintenance CPOs that I told him that we would get the part in the morning because the civilians would have to break it out and issue to us. I didn't understand how he could misinterpret it. We already received one bad part from supply. Why would we need a civilian to issue the exact same part?

In talking with my LPOs, we have 2, they both explained to me that even though I explained to him, put it in my passdown and explained to the shop, I am still in the wrong because the chief had an issue. Our maintenance chief and our shop chief are not SKs. When explaining to them I try my best to really break it down for them. Have even given them both the P409 in case of any questions and have showed the maintenance chief I work with some basic SK stuff.

You say you don't want to pass judgment but in your opening sentence to me it seems you already did.

I almost thought this was a trick question until I saw that it was you, Laura, who posted it.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverRat139:
The only way to get an honest answer to, or opinion about, your problem is to hear BOTH sides of the issue face to face.. Absent that information its a non issue.

"I may not always be right, but I'm NEVER wrong."

Respy,
BMCS, Ret.

I tried to talk to the maintenance chief last night to ask him where the break down in communication was the other night but he changed the subject. I want to resolve the issue and have feedback if I am not explaining stuff the correct way.

quote:

Originally posted by whyworry:
I am reminded of an old saw from my days (53-73) which went something like "I may not always be right, but I am always the Chief".

Effective communication will always obviate a problem like you had. Never tell your boss anything in a manner that is subject to interpretation.

How do you misinterpret we aren't getting the part to we will get the part in the morning?

quote:

Our maintenance chief and our shop chief are not SKs

Are you an SK? If you are, the above quoted sentence from your explanation is the key to this whole thing.

Effective communication principles require that you drop the occupationally based jargon and abbreviations when communicating with someone without knowledge or understanding of such verbage. In other words, dont talk SK to a (insert your choice of rating). In addition, it seems that a more effective way to have handled this was to have put it in writing, in plain english just like you finally did in response to my first post.

I think that a simple statement in writing such as "The part is not currently available and I will inform you when I find out additional information" would have been simple and straight forward in NOT subject to misinterpretation.

I must say that if your original explanation was anywhere near the disjointed and protracted attempt to explain the incident there is no doubt in my mind that you left reason/possibility for misinterpretation.

You are painting a picture for us. Without hearing the side of your Chief as well as the Maintenance Chief, we cannot necessarily give accurate feedback.

Whyworry hit it on the head regarding the use of occupational jargon and keeping answers along the lines of his suggestion. Don't say too much, keep it simple, and if the customer needs more information let them ask.

Shipmate... Move on...... I retired 3 yrs ago as ENC(SW) and I dealt with the "SK's" all the time.. Regardless of what went down, you did your part, I can pretty mush assure you that THE Chief isn't evening thinking twice about it... YES THE CHIEF IS ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by liddlelaura:

quote:

Originally posted by TMC_SW_Ret:
I almost thought this was a trick question until I saw that it was you, Laura, who posted it. Of course EVERYONE knows the Chief is NEVER wrong.

Having heard your side of the story though, I am a little more sensitive to your question. But I have to agree with RiverRat, we are only hearing one side of the story. As everyone knows there are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

That is why I have pretty much stayed away from posting in your other thread. Am I taking sides? No. I just don't think it right to pass any judgment against anyone without hearing their side of the story.

You say you don't want to pass judgment but in your opening sentence to me it seems you already did.

I almost thought this was a trick question until I saw that it was you, Laura, who posted it.

There is a perfect example of how something can be misinterpreted. The first sentence of the second paragraph

quote:

Having heard your side of the story though, I am a little more sensitive to your question.

was me saying I realized it wasn't a trick question.

As for there being more ambiguity, I am not a supply type either, I don't understand ISSIP or D6A. I did understand NIS even before you spelled that one out.

Not trying to be tough on you, nor am I passing any judgment, but as one of the others here mentioned, pass the information so there is no room for misinterpretation. Don't use your rate specific jargon that anyone outside the SK rate may not understand. I would have asked more questions, but that's my nature. I can see how someone else would understand your explanation to mean that the civilians were going off station for the part in the morning.

Maybe a simpler explanation such as "Chief, the part that was in-stock was damaged. We have to order the part from an outside vendor in the morning. I will give you an estimated delivery date as soon as I get one."

My, my, we nasty old Chiefs have trouble hearing and on occasion do not get the full impact or meaning of what is being said. That is whay you should put everything that becomes confused in writing rather than verbalize about something that is already confused. One on the Chiefs recommended not to use technical language when talking to someone not in the same speciality that you are. That is a good idea, not real practical but a good idea, some rates come to mind that are very aware of SK procedures and language. The HM rating has for years handled their own supply issues when with the Marines. They also handle all the PN/YN duties. There are other issues that they handle that are to numerous to mention in a short reply.

I can't speak from experience, but "THEY THINK THEY ARE"! A lot of them FORGOT where they came from!

"I'm not bitter that I didn't make Chief, but I am very disappointed"!

"Oh well, life goes on.....In the Navy or out of the Navy"!

Take on the big boys and you will lose...