Promotion system needs guidelines, dates, and followup

[Ned]

When CP tackled this particular issue, we created "Leadership Expectations" that described the necessary leadership skillsets for cadets in grades ranging from Cadet Airman to Cadet Colonel.  For each achievement cadets are evaluated against the leadership standards, and provided with specific feedback.  The cadets have a fairly clear idea about the differences in behavior between a C/2d Lt and a Cadet Colonel, and what they have to do to be ready for their next promotion.



See CAPM 52-16 (in particular Chapter 5), The Cadet SuperChart , and especially the evaluation forms themselves, CAP Forms 50-1, 50-2, 50-3, and 50-4.

If the PD crew were to develop something similar, I think it might address some of the issues raised here.

Thoughts?

[ProdigalJim]

^^^^

Yep, I think this is solid. You can kinda/sorta piece something together like that now from the CAPF45, as a starting point. Then put descriptions of the knowledge items, skills and behaviors you expect at each level.

I think Ned's idea, coupled to a more transparent/accountable system in eServices to track promotions, would go a long way toward improving the professionalism of the entire corps. Everyone would know, in advance, what's expected of them, and commanders at all levels would have to act, either up or down. No more "pocket veto" of promotions. Like my favorite Canadian says, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Like my favourite Canadian says, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." 

FTFY in CanEnglish.

Or choosing a ready guide in some celestial voice?

What you and Ned say have merit.  I offer some clarification, though...I'm not seeking a promotion, not in the way that I'm going to rattle cages until I either tick everyone from Group up to National off or someone hangs a Silver Medal of Valour on me for distinguished negotiation of CAP organisational Bravo Sierra.

What I am trying to do is just find out what the yardstick is, why I am not meeting it, and how my personal circumstances (matters beyond my control) are a part of it.

If I am to be told I can never be promoted again, I want to know that, and I want to know why.

[Eclipse]

I think Ned's idea is workable as well, the issue being that no matter when/how we raise expectations or change things, there will be
a fairly protracted time (5-10 years) where people have to deal with others who made it farther with less performance expected.

As the program exists today, it's reasonable to be a marginal player and still expect to be promoted to Lt Col.  I would say that needs to change.

Just as in the military, if you choose to be a less-active player, then perhaps Captain is a reasonable expectation on the top end, with the field grades reserved for those who choose to accept higher responsibility, serve at higher echelons, or run large-scale activities (such as encampments and national schools).

As it stands today, and unlike the CP, there is absolutely zero expectation or requirement to ever hold a command position, or any position of
real authority or leadership to be promoted to Lt Col.  There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Wings and Regions are holding people to "double-secret" extra expectations, but by the letter of the reg, a quietly-serving unit FM who completes his PD should have the same ability to be promoted, on the same timeline, as a member who moves up the command chain, is involved in high-visibility roles, and in general puts in more time to CAP.

[Ned]

[T]here will be
a fairly protracted time (5-10 years) where people have to deal with others who made it farther with less performance expected.

True, but that is also motivation.  When I crossed to the Dark Side, I did not even apply for the "Spaatz to Captain" program because I thought 21 year-old captains were a problem.  I wanted to have "grade integrity."  (Although I still am a little fuzzy about what I meant by that.)  I stayed a SMWOG for several years.

Then, a fair number of people I thought were "substandard" started sporting railroad tracks.  As I was saluting them, it occurred to me that it was time for me to start working my way through senior member PD.

Petty, I know, but it was what got me moving.  And just forty short years later I have been promoted 3 times!  Talk about a fast track.

As the program exists today, it's reasonable to be a marginal player and still expect to be promoted to Lt Col.

I think that was what I put in the Remarks block on my Form 2 -- "Marginal Player - promote to Lt Col."   

[JeffDG]

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Wings and Regions are holding people to "double-secret" extra expectations, but by the letter of the reg, a quietly-serving unit FM who completes his PD should have the same ability to be promoted, on the same timeline, as a member who moves up the command chain, is involved in high-visibility roles, and in general puts in more time to CAP.

That's not true.

The letter of the reg includes the requirement that the member be serving in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade.  Since exemplary is not defined, that comes within the discretion of the promoting commander, and since it's a very vague term, it gives tremendous latitude to such commanders to do what they deem to be appropriate.

[Eclipse]

It's 100% true. 

I'm not talking about the vagaries of "exemplary", which frankly need to be revisited and defined, I'm talking about
commanders placing specific, objective criteria in the path of promotion, outside the reg.

Like, for example, requiring UCC before a squadron CC promotion to Captain.  Completely reasonable, and not allowed.
There are lots more examples of this, but more commanders are smart enough not to write them down.

You may remember that a few years ago a wing actually had an OI that mandated higher HQ service before major.
This was published, yet stood until people made noise.

And again, just to clarify, I'm not advocating a single change to the promotion regs in regards to lowering or raising the standard,
this proposal is simply about mandating action on promotions and requests in a timely manner to pat basic respect to
our volunteers.

Whether denied or approved, the process and the timeline should not be vague or foggy.

[MSG Mac]

The establishment of a report to tell Commanders and individuals when promotions are due is a bit of overkill. As shown in a previous posting, there is a report in E-services which lists unit members who are eligible for promotion and  updates automatically when the qualifications are met. In addition members should be pro-active in working with the Professional Development and Personnel Officers to determine what must be done to advance in both grade and qualifications. The final step is to have a formal briefing with the Commander at a minimum of every six months to discuss their performance as CAP Officers, both good and bad, using CAPF 40 for a record. All of these actions are already available to every unit in CAP from the National Commander's Unit to the newest Flight. Let's use them rather than creating more reports (both up and down).

[JeffDG]

The Squadron CC captain is an unusual case, in that it's not a duty performance promotion, but a position promotion to which a cc is entitled by reg.

Duty performance promotions, however, are at the discretion of the approving authority (and in reality, lower-level commanders too).

A Wing Commander who uses his discretion to say "If you're not serving on at least a Group Staff, you're not getting Major" is entirely within his prerogative as the approving authority to determine that members who are performing in an exemplary fashion meriting promotion to a field-grade rank should be those serving on Group Staff.  If not, why bother with an approving authority at all?

Vague language is sometimes a feature, not a bug.  Sometimes it is intentional and permits commanders to utilize a little thing called "judgement",

[FARRIER]

Here is a a real world example from the corporate world. And since we are technically a corporation, we are not exempt like the military or certain governmental agencies. What if a member has a disability that prevents them from making regular attendance, but are more than able to perform their duties at their Squadron, Group, Wing over the web. Communications can be completed by phone or internet. Corporations globally hold training sessions over the web. Attendance is counted when you call into the training.

In relation to CAP, a member in a similar situation, doesn't physically attend regularly, but is performing their duties otherwise, and could phone in, if it was made on option, do you consider this member an active member? Does this effect their promotion?

[Eclipse]

A Wing Commander who uses his discretion to say "If you're not serving on at least a Group Staff, you're not getting Major" is entirely within his prerogative as the approving authority to determine that members who are performing in an exemplary fashion meriting promotion to a field-grade rank should be those serving on Group Staff.  If not, why bother with an approving authority at all?

Nope, sorry. That is in direct violation of the regulations in that no objective standards outside what is published may be put in place. As is a CC saying you have to complete UCC.  A refusal based on some subjective "you're not ready" is acceptable, but generally requires what that means, but any objective gateway, be it a staff post, class, or test, is explicitly prohibited.

[a2capt]

Wasn't PAWG was one of those entities that held back Field Grade promotions unless you served on staff at the Wing level? Seems like I read something restrictive about their promotions sometime back.

[JeffDG]

A Wing Commander who uses his discretion to say "If you're not serving on at least a Group Staff, you're not getting Major" is entirely within his prerogative as the approving authority to determine that members who are performing in an exemplary fashion meriting promotion to a field-grade rank should be those serving on Group Staff.  If not, why bother with an approving authority at all?

Nope, sorry. That is in direct violation of the regulations in that no objective standards outside what is published may be put in place. As is a CC saying you have to complete UCC.  A refusal based on some subjective "you're not ready" is acceptable, but generally requires what that means, but any objective gateway, be it a staff post, class, or test, is explicitly prohibited.

So,

You think it's better for a wing king toj just have in his head "If Capt Bagodonuts isn't good enough for Group Staff, then he's not field grade material" but not ever say it out loud (just telling everyone not meeting the criteria "youre not ready") than that same commander saying out loud and letting folks know what they need to do?

If a commander has discretion, then the preferable course is for him to let folks know what he expects of them.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Vague language is sometimes a feature, not a bug.  Sometimes it is intentional and permits commanders to utilize a little thing called "judgement",

And sometimes it is a way to deliberately muddy the waters so that personnel who DO THEIR BEST WITH WHAT THEY HAVE stay stuck where they are.

At least in the military one has performance reports, etc., to use as a point of reference.

Jeff, you seem to be hung up on a definition of "exemplary" that I cannot square with.

This from the online Oxford Dictionary of the English Language:

adjective

    1serving as a desirable model; very good: exemplary behaviour

    2(of a punishment) serving as a warning or deterrent: exemplary sentencing may discourage the violent minority
    Law (of damages) exceeding the amount needed for simple compensation.


The danger with using such an open-ended definition is that while at one point it may work for you, depending on who is administering it later it may work against you.

[JeffDG]

Vague language is sometimes a feature, not a bug.  Sometimes it is intentional and permits commanders to utilize a little thing called "judgement",

And sometimes it is a way to deliberately muddy the waters so that personnel who DO THEIR BEST WITH WHAT THEY HAVE stay stuck where they are.

At least in the military one has performance reports, etc., to use as a point of reference.

Jeff, you seem to be hung up on a definition of "exemplary" that I cannot square with.

This from the online Oxford Dictionary of the English Language:

adjective

    1serving as a desirable model; very good: exemplary behaviour

    2(of a punishment) serving as a warning or deterrent: exemplary sentencing may discourage the violent minority
    Law (of damages) exceeding the amount needed for simple compensation.


The danger with using such an open-ended definition is that while at one point it may work for you, depending on who is administering it later it may work against you.

OK...let's say some fictional Wing King has it in his head that you should serve on at least Group Staff to make Major...were I a Wing/CC would I create such a policy, probably not, but that's why we have commanders, to exercise judgement.

That could well be justified as "serving as a desirable model" if the Wing/CC wants to have good folks serving on Group and Wing staffs (his desired outcome), and as such, fits squarely within that definition of exemplary.

What Eclipse is saying, that I squarely disagree with, if a Wing/CC does this (without saying the why he's doing it), that's OK, but if he declares the policy out loud, he's violating the regulations.  I disagree.  I would rather have him tell folks why he's denying their promotion requests, as he has every right to do as the approving authority.

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail.  We have commanders, at all echelons, to exercise good judgement.  If they are incapable of same, they should be relieved and replaced by those who can do so.

If you have some requirements that you want filled for promotion, reject it and tell the person why.  If you want to just leave it hanging without going through the bother of rejecting it, perhaps someone else should be there to make the decisions.

[Eclipse]

What Eclipse is saying, that I squarely disagree with, if a Wing/CC does this (without saying the why he's doing it), that's OK, but if he declares the policy out loud, he's violating the regulations.  I disagree.  I would rather have him tell folks why he's denying their promotion requests, as he has every right to do as the approving authority.

Which part of this is unclear?

CAPR 35-5, December 2012
"1-1. General.   Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly
throughout Civil Air Patrol.  CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications
or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures and practices prescribed
herein are prohibited."

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail.  We have commanders, at all echelons, to exercise good judgement.  If they are incapable of same, they should be relieved and replaced by those who can do so.

Yes, because the current state is so functional as to negate adjustment. What we have at most echelons are inconsistently trained members who
are generally trying to do their best with conflicting, ambiguous regulations, and little-to-no-guidance from higher HQ.

In far too many of the cases, the approving authority for a given promotion is of lower grade then the grade being considered, and the commander(s)
have less relevant CAP experience then the person who has been submitted for promotion. 1st Lts with less then a year in CAP who got bumped for a pilot ticket considering someone for a field grade because they are the Squadron CC.

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail.

As to this, lack of definition and "discretion" is one of the reasons we're in the state we are, and the only way this organization is ever going to
return to the baseline level of performance that it regularly gives itself credit for, is by stepping back and defining just about everything.
Until we show we're capable of following basic, clear instructions, we should not be allowed "discretion".

If you want to just leave it hanging without going through the bother of rejecting it, perhaps someone else should be there to make the decisions.

This has been the only point I tried to make, I said nothing, initially, about changing the criteria or removing authority from commanders, only they be required to actually do their jobs, but the "why" people let things sit is clearly a part of the problem.

[RiverAux]

Hence the silliness of some aspects of our promotion system.  It IS basically a check the box system to reward people for performing certain tasks in the past and that is where you get the requirement that no one can add any additional check boxes (which is clearly stated in the regulations).  BUT at the same time we give commanders the authority to approve or disapprove of promotion requests on a whim (the exemplary leadership clause). 

This will always lead to confusion and inequities in the system as it leaves open an incredible amount of latitude in a system that really isn't meant to have much. 

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col. 

[Eclipse]

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col.

Where do I sign?

[MSG Mac]

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col.

Where do I sign?

Why not just eliminate Lt's and FO's if everyone is guaranteed Captain. Better to require completion of OBC for initial appointment to officer grades, a formal promotion board at every level, and the requirement of a sit down session with the Commander to review membership every six months with a CAPF 40 or written review for the record.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail. 

The less definition, the more room for abuse under the label of "judgement."

Perhaps it's my past experience with programming and flowcharting.  The current way things are done would require a flowchart that would look like a crazy-quilt.  I believe I actually could do a better one, given a couple of hours.  Would it be accepted?  No.

We have commanders, at all echelons, to exercise good judgement.  If they are incapable of same, they should be relieved and replaced by those who can do so.

Good luck with that one.  I do not know how long you have been in CAP, but relieving an incompetent/biased commander is like pulling teeth, for two reasons:

1. The still-extant-and-will-never-completely-go-away GOB network.
2. It is so hard to GET anyone to step up to TAKE command.

You talk much of "judgement."  Some people don't HAVE a good sense of judgement, and too often they find themselves in positions where they can lord that over others.

As the "system" stands, there is no accountability for a commander who refuses promotion to a qualified candidate.