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

[TacticalTea]

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Two years ago the pub that stated promotion requirements for reserve naval officers was rescinded without replacement.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

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]

I belief that the naval C7 is still PWT1 unless a member of the boarding party.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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Two years ago the pub that stated promotion requirements for reserve naval officers was rescinded without replacement.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

I belief that the naval C7 is still PWT1 unless a member of the boarding party.

I think that's right but don't quote on me on that, it's been some time.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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]

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]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

Failure to give sufficient time in the ditch to do necessary maintenance and repairs, to say nothing of upgrades, means the RCN may have to slow down once a FFH investigates the bottom of the Atlantic.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

Something else to be careful of...

‘Diversity dishonesty’ is the toxic workplace trend we’re not talking about enough​

Diversity dishonesty is where a company or organisation works hard to look like they are invested in diversity, without making the internal changes to support their diverse employees.

When people hear the word ‘diversity’, it can prompt mixed responses. For countless people of colour, it represents a longstanding desire to be represented in spaces where we deserve to be seen and heard. For some others, it’s another politically correct buzzword like ‘woke’, which has risen in popularity over the last decade and is seen as a nuisance more than a necessity. Back in 2015, writer Anna Holmes posed the question of whether ‘diversity’ had lost its meaning, asking: “How does [diversity] go from communicating something idealistic to something cynical and suspect?”

Holmes’ question spotlights how the word has been overused, exaggerated and at times, demonised over the years – so much so that the mere mention of it in some circles will result in nothing more than a sigh and an exasperated eye roll.

But at the root of it all, the underrepresentation of people of colour across various sectors and industries is a very real issue that many still have to deal with today – but one they rarely feel safe enough to address. A 2021 poll by culture change organisation Right Track Learning found less than half of people felt comfortable talking openly about diversity and inclusion at work.

Organisations that aim to convey that they are diverse and inclusive will focus on things that are public-facing

Another survey in 2022 found that one in five (20%) employees didn’t think their current company was an inclusive place to work, highlighting how a lack of diversity continues to permeate the UK. In fact, a 2021 report by Savanta’s Diversity & Inclusion team showed that 42% of Black employees had resigned from their job citing a lack of workplace diversity and inclusion.

While underwhelming diversity in the workplace is something numerous people experience, there’s a rising trend of businesses and organisations appearing to be more diverse than they actually are – something that has been dubbed ‘diversity dishonesty’.

“Diversity dishonesty is a company or organisation working hard to give the appearance that they are invested in diversity, but not making the internal changes to support diverse people in the organisation,” says Tricia Callender, PhD, head of diversity, equity and inclusion at Thinx Inc.
“It’s hiring a ton of diverse people, putting diverse people on company photographs and advertising assets, but not valuing them in the organisation and then gaslighting when the issue is raised.”

‘Diversity dishonesty’ is the toxic workplace trend we’re not talking about enough

It’s taking performativity and virtue signalling to a whole other level.

www.stylist.co.uk

 

[ueo]

I don't like online assessments - they are rarely time sensitive - and thus give the respondent a great deal of time, to think about the "appropriate" answer - and potentially research the question as well.

I believe that at the very least they should be Video chat (preferably in person) with trained clinical professionals who can both understand the answers/topics, as well a understand if the interviewee is being truthful.
That manner has been used for selection of Tier 1 SOF worldwide - as well as other key positions (like folks entrusted with nuclear materials).

Additional trg time lost!