BUMED Retention Lead
Started by Boddah12
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
If it only took one person to convince you to GTFO, then you probably were not meant long for this business. And that's ok . . . you're allowed to GMO and GTFO. Nothing wrong with that.
You're better served though with a thicker skin . . . in or out of the Navy.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh I've known much worse people . . . placed in much higher positions.
It's the "Peter Principle" - people rise to the level of their incompetence.
I'd mostly agree with that, certainly up to the O5 or O6 and maybe even O7 level.
Line officers do not typically roll out of bed the day they get out and step into a job that doubles or triples their income while heptasextupling their job satisfaction.
They start wholly new careers, or maybe slide into a similar but less fun job (e.g. hang up the keys to an F-18 for the thrill of flying a a 250 ton bus full of high-maintenance tourists for United).
Flag officers slipping into "consultant" positions being a notable exception.
Point being, it's a whole lot easier to retain talent and to be able to pick the best of a pool of talent, when there's no real market for those people outside the military.
Plus the line knows what quality military leadership is. They don’t know what quality physician leaders look like. And why should we expect them to?
Donald Arthur is the extreme example. But that actually happened. I worked with an HMCM who worked with him when he was CDR Arthur. “As a HM3 I couldn’t believe that a doctor could be that stupid.”
Donald Arthur is the extreme example. But that actually happened. I worked with an HMCM who worked with him when he was CDR Arthur. “As a HM3 I couldn’t believe that a doctor could be that stupid.”
A significant difference (and the most important IMO) is that on the line side leadership positions are highly sought after. There is fierce, fierce competition for them. Most unrestricted line officers in the Navy above the rank of O3 have the same general career ambition: command at sea, command ashore, command of a wing. A Marine infantry officer who selects for O5 wants command of a battalion. Yeah, there are some who just want to sit at a desk and write policy memos to grind out 20, but the essence of being a line officer is the ambition to lead.
For the medical corps, individuals who want command/leadership positions are the exception, not the rule. There's simply less competition for those roles because the vast majority of physicians want to practice medicine, not run departments or clinics or hospitals. That's not to say the O5 and O6 selection boards aren't or can't be competitive; doctors want the rank for the paycheck and a little more control over their lives.
(I personally spent a year as DSS, a 90% nonclinical job I hated, but did my best at because it was a box I had to check to make O5. I was grossly unqualified for the position. I was surrounded by similarly unqualified people in similar leadership positions. None of us really had the training or experience or mentors to run a hospital.)
So we in the medical corps observed a disappointing phenomenon all too often: we were led by people who
a) didn't want to lead but reluctantly filled those roles for a short time because someone had to do it
b) wanted to lead because it was escape hatch from practicing medicine (they hated it and/or sucked at it)
c) weren't doctors
None of these are a recipe for identifying, selecting, and retaining excellent leaders.
I'll also note that this problem can exist in the civilian world too - very few good doctors make the jump to administration because they're busy and happy being good doctors. Civilian hospitals are usually led by non-physicians and doctors who've abandoned the practice of medicine. The advantage the civilian world has is that the administrators both want those jobs and ruthlessly compete for them, and do those jobs for many years (vs the 2 year tours military leaders have before moving/leaving).
Agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It’s a recipe for very low quality senior leadership.
At the academic center where I work, a department chair will have a CV that is at least 100 pages long. Some of that is fluff, most is not. Most of the work they do is administrative. Medical school dean is the next step if they want to keep going. These people exist, but mil med is not the place for them.
At the academic center where I work, a department chair will have a CV that is at least 100 pages long. Some of that is fluff, most is not. Most of the work they do is administrative. Medical school dean is the next step if they want to keep going. These people exist, but mil med is not the place for them.
A buddy of mine is USMC MG. was a Hornet driver who had to hang it up at 54. His prior posting was as XO to a 3 star that started out as enlisted 0300, then got commissioned. My buddy was a Blue Angel. Even their SES is a retired USMCR MG. He has now laterally transferred to another command.
My point is, these line guys drip with leadership. And, they are like shark's teeth - take one out, and another fills right in. The MC is missing this. The days of Walter Reed as USA Chief of Staff are SO last century.
My point is, these line guys drip with leadership. And, they are like shark's teeth - take one out, and another fills right in. The MC is missing this. The days of Walter Reed as USA Chief of Staff are SO last century.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You guys need to spend some time in the Surface Navy, in which there are plenty of examples of poor line leaders. The line doesn't always get it right.
Plus who you often deem to be a "good leader", is who you like on a personal level . . . it's a popularity contest. We all fall for the likable dreamboat (the aviator, the cut Marine, etc).
Do some actual bean counting, look at details . . . and you'll often find who you thought were good leaders weren't actually doing that great of a job. They were just well-liked.
This is why 'leadership' is a farcical notion (one could argue).
Line officers who get stars generally fall into three categories:
1) tyrants who get results
2) master bureaucrats
3) Real deal leaders
At least that’s what someone who spent many more years in the Navy than me once said.
For what it’s worth, I asked Google AI “what sort of person did well in Soviet bureaucracy?”
A person who did well in the Soviet bureaucracy was typically a conformist, highly loyal political operator who prioritized obedience, paperwork mastery, and patron-client networks over creative innovation or economic efficiency. [1, 2]
Key Traits for Success
A person who did well in the Soviet bureaucracy was typically a conformist, highly loyal political operator who prioritized obedience, paperwork mastery, and patron-client networks over creative innovation or economic efficiency. [1, 2]
Key Traits for Success
- Absolute Political Loyalty: Success required unwavering alignment with the Communist Party line and public conformity, as ideological deviation ended careers or lives. [1]
- Patronage and Network Building: Advancement depended heavily on pleasing a higher-ranking patron (the nomenklatura system) and building personal loyalty chains rather than merit. [1, 2]
- Mastery of Red Tape: Thriving meant navigating endless paper trails, official stamps, and bureaucratic hurdles to fulfill central quotas on paper—even if the actual data or production was faked. [1, 2]
- Risk Aversion: Successful bureaucrats avoided bold, independent initiatives because deviation from standard procedures carried high professional and personal risk.
- Conflict Management: They excelled at internal office politics, suppressing rivals, and shifting blame while protecting their own institutional privileges.
O6 in the medical corps is a funny thing -
For many doctors, even the ones who've already committed to staying for 20 years, the math doesn't make sense to try for it.
I was a good example of this. For me to promote to O6 (actually put it on, many months after selecting), and accept the extension of time on active duty, would've taken me to 22 years. The retirement pay benefit is only fully realized if your entire high 3 is at that higher rank.
Which meant I'd have had to forgo two entire years of civilian income, for a very modest bump in pension income. The difference between retiring as an O5 at 20 and an O6 at 22 isn't trivial, but the lifetime difference in pension income is absolutely dwarfed by two full years of civilian pay rather than military pay. Factor in the time value of money (money now is worth much more than money later) and the difference is even more dramatic.
If there's a significant pay gap between civ and mil pay for your specialty (as there is in mine), once you hit the 20 year cliff and qualify for the pension, every additional day on active duty is a substantial financial loss.
Had I somehow been selected for O6, I'd have declined it in order to be able to leave at 20. I realized this several years prior to 20, which permitted me to politely decline any offers or nudges toward leadership positions or roles that would look good to the selection board. I told my dept chair to just give me Ps on all of my fitreps, and save the EPs and MPs for people who were hoping to make O6.
Being a terminal O5 is a great rank. Nothing but clinical responsibilities. No need to gun for collateral duties or compete for dept chair or director or program director positions. No drama or stress over who gets the top marks on the fitness report. My fitrep input took me about 3 minutes.
O5 is enough rank that few people will bother you. But not so much that it generates extra work if you don't want it.
I've always kind of marveled at the people in my specialty who made runs at O6. I think it only makes sense if there's something nonclincial you really want to accomplish during your military career, that demands that rank. To each their own, but I opted out.
Yaa know, your personality type intrigues me. You're young (I presume), you GTFO, probably disgruntled (that's fine), you've moved on to other things . . . .but you kinda linger? you miss the sht show?
PugetPounder
Full Member
Some people like to watch the world burn - and others like the drama that comes with it.
You’re very astute.
Not disgruntled. Mostly feeling lucky. I linger because I sometimes reflect on what could have been, for better and for (much) worse.
Also, I’ve been thinking about the frequent dressing down in my Navy internship. Frequently ridiculous, but it did help me get better. My civilian career is at a much stronger hospital, but many of my current civilian residents have never been yelled at. They see residency as another step that is only about themselves.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
