• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Acting Chief of Military Personnel on Diversity, Inclusion, and Culture Change Short-Term Initiatives

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
936
Points
910
I mean I looked for the ref one time on what OFP in the Navy meant?

They pointed me to a policy with a number and everything. I then asked where said policy was written as I wanted to have a read of it...

"Oh we haven't written or published it yet"

Me: "so it's complete made up? Got it!"

🤣🤣🤣
Typical.

Two years ago the pub that stated promotion requirements for reserve naval officers was rescinded without replacement.

All of a sudden, dozens of otherwise unqualified JOs were promoted, as they had magically achieved OFP.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
936
Points
910
Here's another one: the pub defining a naval C7 famil shoot was also simply deleted while still referenced by the pub that mandates them every 2 years.

They sent me to run a range as RSO. I asked about it, they just said "oh just do what we used to do".

Uhhhh no. We have a whole CF Operational Shooting Programme, why would the navy do differently on the basis of a pub that doesn't even exist anymore? So I just went ahead and used an existing PWT.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
29
Points
580
I belief that the naval C7 is still PWT1 unless a member of the boarding party.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
12,857
Points
1,160
Typical.

Two years ago the pub that stated promotion requirements for reserve naval officers was rescinded without replacement.

All of a sudden, dozens of otherwise unqualified JOs were promoted, as they had magically achieved OFP.

Magic Trick Abracadabra GIF by iliad
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
5,470
Points
1,360
Here's another one: the pub defining a naval C7 famil shoot was also simply deleted while still referenced by the pub that mandates them every 2 years.

They sent me to run a range as RSO. I asked about it, they just said "oh just do what we used to do".

Uhhhh no. We have a whole CF Operational Shooting Programme, why would the navy do differently on the basis of a pub that doesn't even exist anymore? So I just went ahead and used an existing PWT.
The Navy is legit just making it up at this point. One of the reasons is due to them running out of sailors, none of that necessary corporate governance and administration is getting done because all of the positions have been reallocated to fill sea billets.
 

Booter

Full Member
Reaction score
785
Points
810
The Navy is legit just making it up at this point. One of the reasons is due to them running out of sailors, none of that necessary corporate governance and administration is getting done because all of the positions have been reallocated to fill sea billets.
But when will we actually say out loud that we aren’t staffed to hit our missions- especially 2 years out ( at the rate we re going)

It’s like- our senior leaders across the board are so bankrupt that even if by some miracle one showed up and was honest- they’d just replace them immediately with one of the legion of gravy boat drinking, bagless, say “yes” for another rank waiting in the wings.

Like it’s a literal shell game with everyone talking out both sides of their mouthes.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,007
Points
1,040
But when will we actually say out loud that we aren’t staffed to hit our missions- especially 2 years out ( at the rate we re going)

3-5 years ago (at the working level)

At the BGH level, sometime between the Nerth of Smarch and never.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
12,857
Points
1,160
This rings too true, sadly:


"the reason many interventions nevertheless remain popular is a hidden motive: that they are used not to reduce discrimination, but to shield against litigation."


Workplace diversity programmes often fail, or backfire​

Many may do more to protect against litigation than to reduce discrimination​

Aug 25th 2022

Diversity and anti-harassment training is a booming industry. International company surveys suggests the number of people hired for jobs with “diversity” or “inclusion” in the title has more than quadrupled since 2010. Attempts to reduce discrimination and harassment in the workplace are laudable, and make good business sense. But only if they work.

Unfortunately, the consensus now emerging among academics is that many anti-discrimination policies have no effect. What is worse, they often backfire. Some among them suspect the reason many interventions nevertheless remain popular is a hidden motive: that they are used not to reduce discrimination, but to shield against litigation.

Successful anti-discrimination programmes should, for instance, help make firms’ management less male and pale. For a forthcoming book, Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev tested this proposition. They collected data on anti-discrimination training programmes and targeted grievance procedures at 829 American companies implemented from 1971 to 2002, and how they affected the representation of ethnic groups and genders in management up to 2015. They found that most did the opposite of what one might expect. On average, 20 years after these interventions were introduced, the group that benefited most were white men.

What about the short-term? One large experiment compared the effects of eight one-time interventions to reduce unintentional biases, such as reading a vivid story with a black hero and a white villain. Among 6,321 non-black Americans, all reduced implicit bias favouring white over black people immediately after. But when retested one to five days later, the effects of all interventions had faded. Statistically speaking, the effects of all but one were nil.

Yet some programmes worked well. Mr Dobbin and Ms Kalev found that cultural-inclusion training, with an emphasis on how managers could increase their teams’ productivity with a more varied crew, was linked with greater diversity among higher-ups later on. Targeted recruitment, mentor programmes, and cross-training between groups, were also found to help.

This is in line with a recent study by Oriane Georgeac and Aneeta Rattan, who found that atypical candidates feel less likely to be included when given a company statement with a business case for diversity instead of one with a simpler acknowledgment of its importance. They suggest explicit rationales make some suspect they will be judged based on stereotypes—rather than how they do their job.

You can forgive firms their initial eagerness to implement programmes of unproven effectiveness. In global surveys, 75% of them now say diversity is a stated value or priority. But if they mean what they say, such firms should now be shifting resources, away from programmes that do not work (or worse) and towards those that do.

But it could be, at least in America, that the courts will need to move first. Many employers may be motivated to institute diversity policies less by productivity or morality than by legal liability. In a study of 1,188 federal civil-rights opinions decided between 1965 and 2014, Lauren Edelman, a researcher, found that judges increasingly considered such practices evidence of compliance with civil-rights laws, regardless of effectiveness. If judges start paying more attention to which programmes work, it may force firms to do so too.■

Sources: “Getting to diversity”, by F. Dobbin and A. Kalev, Harvard University Press, 2022; “Reducing implicit racial preferences”, by C.K. Lai et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2016; ZoomInfo


Workplace diversity programmes often fail, or backfire
 
Top