"promotable" specialty tracks

Started by RiverAux, December 02, 2009, 02:39:26 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2009, 11:26:43 PM
Its not my proposal's fault that your Wing ES officer isn't really doing their job (refer to capm 20-1).
No....but it invalidates your premis that having a Master Rating in one of the "good" specialties equates to being a promotable leader.

Bottom line.

No system change will get the results you desire if commanders do not hold their people to the standards you think they need to have.

That is the real problem......"why do commanders promote people who can't lead?"
None of your last three proposals address this basic issue.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

I already said that this proposal will depend on commanders that will hold their subordinate staff officers accountable for doing (or not doing) their jobs.  But, the same is true of our current system -- people should not be getting credit for their internship time if they're not doing the job.  So, really this particular concern doesn't fly. 

QuoteThat is the real problem......"why do commanders promote people who can't lead?"
You're right that I've been working around the edges of this problem, and thats for the simple reason that CAP will never really implement a promotion system that leaves that much open to subjective interpretation of the commander.  We've talked about that issue many times and while I'm open to it, the GOB charges would just fly if we had something like that, and in many cases those charges could very well be accurate. 

For that reason my latest suggestions still retain some of the cookie cutter mentality enshrined in our current system but are meant to give those that show some leadership abilities some advantages that they lack under our current system where the gems are hidden amongst the herd. 

Basically, I'm looking for something that moves us that direction even though it isn't perfect. 

Short Field

Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2009, 12:04:18 AM
I already said that this proposal will depend on commanders that will hold their subordinate staff officers accountable for doing (or not doing) their jobs.  .......
For that reason my latest suggestions still retain some of the cookie cutter mentality enshrined in our current system but are meant to give those that show some leadership abilities some advantages that they lack under our current system where the gems are hidden amongst the herd. 

If the commanders were doing their job, there wouldn't be a problem.  Unless the commanders are doing their job, nothing you propose will make a difference.    Your proposal is flawed because it assumes that unless you are in one of the "critical" specialities, you can't display any leadership abilities. 

ES progression toward IC has NOTHING to do with any speciality track and I would contend that Incident Commanders have displayed at least some small token of leadership abilities.  So why not link promotions and PD progression to ES? 
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

RiverAux

QuoteYour proposal is flawed because it assumes that unless you are in oneof the "critical" specialities, you can't display any leadershipabilities.
No, I didn't say you can't display leadership in one of the simple specialties, just that it isn't as integral a part of the job as it is in the other specialties. 

QuoteES progression toward IC has NOTHING to do with any speciality trackand I would contend that Incident Commanders have displayed at leastsome small token of leadership abilities.  So why not link promotionsand PD progression to ES?
I don't disagree and in the past I have proposed linking rank with ES qualifications, but that met with pretty universal disdain. 

High Speed Low Drag

Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2009, 04:04:51 AM
QuoteYour proposal is flawed because it assumes that unless you are in oneof the "critical" specialities, you can't display any leadershipabilities.
No, I didn't say you can't display leadership in one of the simple specialties, just that it isn't as integral a part of the job as it is in the other specialties. 

QuoteES progression toward IC has NOTHING to do with any speciality trackand I would contend that Incident Commanders have displayed at leastsome small token of leadership abilities.  So why not link promotionsand PD progression to ES?
I don't disagree and in the past I have proposed linking rank with ES qualifications, but that met with pretty universal disdain.
But, not everyone is doing ES.  I have put off my personal qualifications while I have been getting the cadet program back on track.  If I have 30 minutes to do CAP, I work on the cadet program, not my personal ES quals.
G. St. Pierre                             

"WIWAC, we marched 5 miles every meeting, uphill both ways!!"

RiverAux

Thats why I didn't propose it in this thread.  There is a special thread on just that topic if you'd like to comment on it. 

Major Carrales

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 03, 2009, 04:11:10 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2009, 04:04:51 AM
QuoteYour proposal is flawed because it assumes that unless you are in oneof the "critical" specialities, you can't display any leadershipabilities.
No, I didn't say you can't display leadership in one of the simple specialties, just that it isn't as integral a part of the job as it is in the other specialties. 

QuoteES progression toward IC has NOTHING to do with any speciality trackand I would contend that Incident Commanders have displayed at leastsome small token of leadership abilities.  So why not link promotionsand PD progression to ES?
I don't disagree and in the past I have proposed linking rank with ES qualifications, but that met with pretty universal disdain.
But, not everyone is doing ES.  I have put off my personal qualifications while I have been getting the cadet program back on track.  If I have 30 minutes to do CAP, I work on the cadet program, not my personal ES quals.

My progress through the Public Affairs Specialty Track has effectively been on hold as the result of commanding my unit (although Command has enhanced my Public Affairs output considerably).

Unit staff is key, you need people you can trust to succeed in the Functional Specialty; your Safety Officer needs to be on the job keeping things safe and executing the program, your Maintenance Officer needs to concentrate on insuring the Aircraft is having its issues mitigated, Stan Eval needs to be monitoring pilot "quality control" which involves, to a degree, the Safety and Maintenance officers roles as well as airmanship en re Unit aviators.

The idea of Functional Specialties is to insure that the unit is working.  There are no "simple" or "difficult" Functional Specialties,it is more about working as a team.

This was commented on above; I am a trained historian and certified teacher in my career.  Some have also said I am a skilled musician.  I've done "grassroots" journalism.  I guess this would make Historian, Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Public Affairs "simple" for me based on my skills sets.  However, if someone wanted me to be a Maintenance Officer, Safety Officer, Fiance or the like; these woudl be "challenging" to be because those sets are not my forte.  Now an AP mechanic, Human Resources Professional, Certified Public Accountant or the like (respectively) would likely find their "simplicity" to be completely at odds with mine.

That is why I find the idea of "difficult" and "Simple" specialty tracks to be suspect.  There is too much "subjective" element to it to use such monikers.  This compounded more by the fact that these things function best when everyone "works as a team."
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

James Shaw

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 03, 2009, 05:13:33 AM
This was commented on above; I am a trained historian and certified teacher in my career.  Some have also said I am a skilled musician.  I've done "grassroots" journalism.  I guess this would make Historian, Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs and Public Affairs "simple" for me based on my skills sets.  However, if someone wanted me to be a Maintenance Officer, Safety Officer, Fiance or the like; these woudl be "challenging" to be because those sets are not my forte.  Now an AP mechanic, Human Resources Professional, Certified Public Accountant or the like (respectively) would likely find their "simplicity" to be completely at odds with mine.

That is why I find the idea of "difficult" and "Simple" specialty tracks to be suspect.  There is too much "subjective" element to it to use such monikers.  This compounded more by the fact that these things function best when everyone "works as a team."

I agree 100% with this. Same thing I said but with better sample.  :clap: :clap: :clap:
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

Airrace

Quote from: NC Hokie on December 02, 2009, 03:01:01 AM
Here's a simplified version of RiverAux's proposal...

CAP has three missions (Aerospace Education, Cadet Programs, and Emergency Services), so why not require a master rating in one of those to complete Level IV?  IMHO, it's very reasonable to expect high-ranking members of CAP to be experts in one (or more) of our three missions.

I like your proposal.

Short Field

Pick Aerospace Education!  You can get the Master rating a lot faster.  ES requires 3 years on Wing Staff for the Master rating.  The time starts after earning your Senior rating.
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

Michael M

#30
CAP is modeled after the Air Force, correct?

Most Air Force officers never hold command or required to hold command to promoted to a field grade rank.  The Air Force treats officers as technical experts in their fields.  Medical Officers depending on their specialty can be initially commissioned up to Colonel.  I have a classmate who is a surgeon, that was his initial commissioning grade.  The Air Force officer structure is based upon college education and technical/functional skills at the specialized level.  "Exceptional" or officers "who didn't duck fast enough" usually become Squadron Commanders.  The Air Force doesn't expect all officers to hold command authority at a Squadron level.  There aren't enough squadrons to satisfy a command requirement unlike the Army whose core command level is a company where a Captain is the commander.  The Air Force doesn't enforce Flight Commander positions because section chiefs take on that responsibility of leading their officers and enlisted personnel.  A Section Admin Officer takes care of the personnel and administrative actions for the Squadron Commander alleviating the need for Fight Commanders.

As an alternative, my suggestion would be to have a development track called "Command" where a PD program is put in place to requiring training/task certification in Logistics, Finance, Personnel, Administration, Emergency Services, Aerospace Education, and Cadet Programs. 

Then, those of us who desire a command position will be better prepared if they want to be a Squadron Commander. 

The bottom line is the Air Force trains its officers to be leaders, not necessarily commanders.  CAP trains it Senior Members to be leaders, not necessarily commanders.

lordmonar

Quote from: Michael M on December 04, 2009, 04:04:17 AMAs an alternative, my suggestion would be to have a development track called "Command"...
Got one already....it's called Organisational Excellance.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Michael M

Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2009, 05:54:17 AM
Got one already....it's called Organisational Excellance.

Problem solved?

lordmonar

Quote from: Michael M on December 04, 2009, 06:18:42 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 04, 2009, 05:54:17 AM
Got one already....it's called Organisational Excellance.

Problem solved?
Sort of.....while the CAPP is out...they still have not launched it.  There was a call for mentors (I volunteered) but they still have not called for applicants for the Specialty Track.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

FW

There used to be a "command track" however, there was no guidance except for: "have fun".
The Organizational Excellance track is supposed to be the guidance for all leadership positions in CAP. 

Col Pearson is still working with the commander for "finishing touches"  before initiating the program.  I know there are region OE officers but, I don't know if the rest of the infrastructure is complete.  Maybe we'll hear something soon?

flyguy06

You think Flight Operations is a simple specialty track? All the flight ops officers I have seen in CAP are very intense an always busy keeping track of aircraft, scheduling, maintenance, and locations. Looks like a very demanding job to me

Major Carrales

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 06, 2009, 06:26:52 PM
You think Flight Operations is a simple specialty track? All the flight ops officers I have seen in CAP are very intense an always busy keeping track of aircraft, scheduling, maintenance, and locations. Looks like a very demanding job to me

I agree, and I will state it again.  Words like "difficult" and "easy" are so subjective in variance from person to person that they have no meaning in CAP parlance.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

RiverAux

As I said in my original post, exactly which specialties to place in each category is certainly debatable and I'm sure that there would never be 100% agreement about where any particular track would be placed. 

However, it is indisputable that the level of difficulty and level of leadership required for the different staff positions varies greatly.  All staff jobs and specialty tracks are not equal.  I am suggesting that we recognize this fact in the senior member PD program. 

Major Carrales

#38
Quote from: RiverAux on December 06, 2009, 07:40:35 PM
As I said in my original post, exactly which specialties to place in each category is certainly debatable and I'm sure that there would never be 100% agreement about where any particular track would be placed. 

However, it is indisputable that the level of difficulty and level of leadership required for the different staff positions varies greatly.  All staff jobs and specialty tracks are not equal.  I am suggesting that we recognize this fact in the senior member PD program.

Categorizing things as "difficult" or "easy" or the like prejudices new membership against it a creates and promotes "factionalism."

Could it be that "he level of difficulty and level of leadership required for the different staff positions varies" because of the inherent difference in what these entail?  I should say so.  Additionally, the good old phrase "to each his own" applies in that some people might be well qualified in their specialty track and excel, whereas they would be lost an in a difficult situation if they were a "fish out of water."

I would not recommend any compartmentalizing and labeling of Specialty Tracks as anything more than being necessary for the running of a squadron.  ES is different and has its various SQTRs to illustrate that fact. 

....and while some "cross pollination" might be necessary (as in ES Officer) for some between Operational and Functional specialties, they are very different in scope and mission.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Short Field

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 06, 2009, 09:58:40 PM
I would not recommend any compartmentalizing and labeling of Specialty Tracks as anything more than being necessary for the running of a squadron.

+1  Identifing some Speciality Tracks "for Leaders" and others "for Followers" is just going to make filling the "for Followers" tracks that much harder.  I am really sure all the squadrons need everyone signed up in the Flight Ops and ES tracks instead of something "easy" and doesn't require leadership skills like Personnel, Professional Development, Admin, etc.

SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640