National Diversity Officer - Volunteer Wanted.

Started by exFlight Officer, January 05, 2012, 04:56:57 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A.Member

Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:27:47 PM
Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 10:21:31 PM
In our squadron, which has 80+ members, we (as a squadron) were called out on a total of 0 missions in 2011.  Zilch.  Zip.  Nada. 

Well, I'm sorry that more people weren't endangered to provide you with a sense of self worth.
Interesting, do all our potential missions require that lives be in danger?

Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:27:47 PM
That's why we try to have the best commanders and staff officers available to lead their units effectively.
Really, Ned?  Really?  Were you able to write that with a straight face.  If so, I need to come visit this utopia of yours.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Ned

Quote from: A.Member on February 22, 2012, 11:36:40 PM
Which part is the states our mission is to grow membership? 

Like I said, as a legal guy, I don't mind pointless arguments. 

So let me help you a bit.  You are correct that the phrase "growing the membership" does not appear in the legislation, the AFI, or the SOW.

Of course, it doesn't appear in the legislation that created the United States Air Force, the Red Cross, or the Peace Corps, either.

Why do you suppose that is so?

Is it possible that you are confusing the mission with the means to get the mission done?

And as others have carefully explained, sometimes "growing the membership" is indeed synonymous with mission in matters like the Cadet Program.

But mostly the size of the membership is a tool to accomplish other assigned and implied missions. 

QuoteAnd to which level shall we grow it?

To 147, 232 in a three phase program with specified intermediate objectives all supported by 17 staff studies and a 116 slide PowerPoint briefing that members need to click through on Eservices right after their safety class.   8)

(And we do have a pretty good record of picking the best commanders and staffers available.  If you feel that some commanders and staffers are inadequate to the task, doesn't that suggest that we need to have more trained and qualified members available to take on these roles?)

Eclipse

#142
Ned already said it better, above.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

#143
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
If you feel that some commanders and staffers are inadequate to the task, doesn't that suggest that we need to have more trained and qualified members available to take on these roles?
Absolutely.  It also suggests that National has not built an effective training and evaluation program for developing and placing it's leaders.  It certainly does not suggest that adding more numbers to the mix will solve that problem.   

As I said before, your basic methodology seems to be one of flooding the issue with numbers in hopes of drowning out the problem rather than actually taking steps to address and resolve it; in effect lowering the bar, rather than raising it.  That's an unfortunate viewpoint for the organization.   Tell me, if you were being robbed at gunpoint and you were to close your eyes, would the robbery cease to happen as well?
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

#144
Quote from: A.Member on February 23, 2012, 01:26:28 AM
Quote from: Ned on February 22, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
If you feel that some commanders and staffers are inadequate to the task, doesn't that suggest that we need to have more trained and qualified members available to take on these roles?
Absolutely.  It also suggests that National has not built an effective training and evaluation program for developing and placing it's leaders.  It certainly does not suggest that adding more numbers to the mix will solve that problem.   

Right.  Because we all know having only one choice for every job opening is the way corporations and the military handle command appointments and
filling important jobs.

No point in bringing in a lot of people to choose from when we might, accidently, totally by chance, find someone who is "perfect" for the job, and then they will accidently, totally by chance, find a replacement when their term is up or they look to a new challenge.

Oh, wait, there's no one to replace them, because they were the only choice and we've already had plenty of members.

Also, having "enough members" insures that those who excel are stuck in whatever job they trip over and do 1/2-well because there is no one to replace them.

I concede the point.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

#145
Quote from: Eclipse on February 23, 2012, 02:17:01 AMRight.  Because we all know having only one choice for every job opening is the way corporations and the military handle command appointments and filling important jobs.
Right and we operate just like how real businesses or the military operate.  Easy to confuse them.  I sometimes forget.  My bad.  ::)   Fact is, if we were a real corporation that had to generate revenue to survive...we wouldn't.

In the real world, if a business does not have a qualified candidate, they leave a position open until they find one.  Kind of a novel concept, huh? 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

If you're going to pick pieces of either side of the discussion just to continue on your point, there's not much further this can go.

You can't argue in one place that things are fine, and then followup with a statement that current ops are the problem.

"That Others May Zoom"

A.Member

Quote from: Eclipse on February 23, 2012, 03:04:24 AM
You can't argue in one place that things are fine, and then followup with a statement that current ops are the problem.
I've said at least 4 times in this thread and numerous times in others that National's lack of strategic vision and a roadmap, particularly as pertains to the ES mission, is a problem.   I've also argued quality over quantity from day one.  Sorry if that consistent message confuses you.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

FW

The appointment of a Nationaol Diversity Officer is part of a "roadmap".  Our LTO's show us were the road leads.  Ask your wing commander about the map and the destination.  It's there somewhere.....

Problem1: most members have no idea where we are going as an organization.  It's why we on CT have such a great time opining on such matters.

Problem 2: membership numbers haven't really changed since 1970.  Membership demographics? We don't have any idea how they've changed over the years; we can only guess.

Problem 3: governance.  The nature of our "business" is kind of unique or, is it? What will the BoG do to improve the way we are govened and led so, we can grow and improve our "product"? 

I could go on about uniforms, AE, ES, CP and, the funds  resources needed to deal with all however, that's for another day... maybe the new NDO will help figure it all out... yeah, that's the ticket... ;D



BillB

FW is correct on all 3 items he mentions.
1. This is a failure to communicate to the membership from ABOVE the National Board level.
2. Demographiocs have changed greatly since 1970. First a larger Afro-American population moving to smaller towns and more rural areas (cite, 2010 Census) Also moch larger hispanice population throughout the country inclcluding northnern states. Add to this a larger percentage of females entering colleges and not marrying at early age but rather going into career fields.
3. This is in the process of being answered by the BoG commissioned Governence Study.

However FW should have added one area that needs answeres. Namely, what are the missions of CAP? I'm not referring the AE, CP oe ES, but rather what types of missions in each of those areas is an area that CAP can be of value to customers and stakeholders.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: Eclipse on February 22, 2012, 11:12:09 PM
One more thing.

No actual missions doesn't the time is wasted.  There have been thousands and thousands of people in the military and ES over the years who trained
up and never got the call, never fired a shot in anger, never flew in combat, never made anything more than a traffic arrest, never saved a life, and never extinguished anything more than a practice fire.

That doesn't mean their time was wasted.  It means they were lucky enough to never need their training.

We train to be ready.  We hope we are capable when the bell rings, and hope the bell never rings.

If, when the bell rings in your area, you see missions and work that you know your people could be involved in, but they simply aren't able to
go, the the failure is local in making the connections with the agencies who would invite you. 

If, If, when the bell rings in your area, there simply just isn't anything your people could actually do, for whatever reason from lack of interest to politics, then so be it.  Time to move on to the Condo Board or the Pet Shelter, but don't insinuate your situation is anything but local, and don't think for a minute CAP has anything close to "enough" people.

(And as Ned said, there can never be "enough" cadets, since some of the mission is growing the corps)
I don't think most people are interest in attending a lot of training (hours), spending money for equipment/supplies/uniforms for NOTHING that will ever happen.  On the ES side I've given example (in a post in that area) that require much less training than CAP, no uniform BS, and very little administrative mumbo jumbo. The strategic direction for these programs are primarily at the community level.   CAP as an organization doesn't seem to have a published strategic plan.

As far as recruiting "minorities" the biggest draw back is the cost of membership in CAP and likely lack of transportation resources to where many of the current units are located (check the price of gas recently, what does your squadron van get for MPG  ???).  Even some of our retirees who are CAP members no longer can afford to do very much flying or do any long distance travel because of the costs involved.   

Of course we all know what one of the new strategic goals is going to be, don't we ??? :angel:
RM