New Commander's specialty track

[lordmonar]

Integrity works both ways.

Sometimes all you need to do it take their word for it.

[Eclipse]

I go by "Trust but verify".  In this case, the most important person to verify things to is myself.

Of course the vast majority of members would never do anything intentionally dishonest
or put themselves in for something they didn't deserve, but to catch the few who would, the standard
has to be the same for all.

I keep just about everything, so odds are I can find it.  I might also consider asking my former Group CC,
who is still a member, though inactive, to provide an affidavit to the effect that I served enough time as Group
CD.  That actually might be the most expedient way to go.

Now, to stir the pot a bit, it might be interesting to see how many sitting Wing CC's or higher would qualify
for the Master rating as a jump-start. The level of expectation is pretty reasonable for that level of authority.

[Eclipse]

Just sent my Jumpstart for senior to the Wing CC.

2 months short of master.  Bummer.

[ol'fido]

Mine was posted about a month ago. I think he did a bunch of them at one time.

[Eclipse]

Jumpstart to OE Senior posted yesterday.  WOOT!

[Private Investigator]

Just sent my Jumpstart for senior to the Wing CC.

2 months short of master.  Bummer.

That is epic. Nothing is noted prior to 2006 in eServices but fortunately I had kept hardcopies of F27 and PAs from the past so my Master was approved and posted.

Now if NHQ would reconsider letting us wear the Command Badge below our nametag ala USAF.   

[Hawk200]

Now if NHQ would reconsider letting us wear the Command Badge below our nametag ala USAF.   

:clap:

[Alaric]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

[Eclipse]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

The commander's badge is for members who are commanders of a unit or group.

The Commander's Specialty Track is intended to be a mentoring program to build good commanders and staff.
Interestingly it does not currently have a badge.  Up until the recent change, it was referred to as "Operational Excellence".

While we'd like them to be, the two are not actually related.

[FW]

The Commander's Specialty Track is intended to be a mentoring program to build good commanders and staff.
Interestingly it does not currently have a badge.  Up until the recent change, it was referred to as "Operational Excellence".

While we'd like them to be, the two are not actually related.

Did I understand your thoughts here Eclipse? I thought that "Organizational Excellence 2.0" was still a program with its own guidelines (CAPP 50-9), and the (new) Command Specialty track was a formalized version of the old Command track found in CAPP 222. OE was developed for members to take an expanded roll in CAP; not just command. The Command Specialty track is to develop members to take an active leadership role in the organization; from the squadron to national level. Although there are similarities between the Specialty Track and OE, they are mutually exclusive. Mentors, although important in all specialty tracks and programs in CAP, are essential in the OE program.

"We" would like our leaders to be formally in the OE program, however it isn't mandated.  Maybe it should be? :angel:

[Eclipse]

Fair enough, the impression I got was that OE was dead.  I don't personally know anyone pursuing it, but then again I
don't know anyone pursuing Command either except through the jumpstarts.

As to mandated?  In an environment where 1/3+ of the units aren't even properly manned and commanders are selected based on "presence"?
I don't know how you can mandate anything and still keep the doors open.   Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm against the idea,
but National appears reticent about the kinds of disruptive change that would surely increase attrition, and we're still operating in an environment
where people have a hard time swallowing term limits, let alone mandated training.

Also, if OE and Command are actually still alive and complimentary, that begs the question as to how many "Leadership and Mentorship" programs
we need?

We already have the technical tracks, then there is SLS, CLC, RSC & NSC, not to mention UCC, which is supposed to be a training program for
commanders yet isn't mandated nationally.  And of course the ubiquitous TLC as well.

Sadly, in a lot of Regions, RSC is a rehash of SLS/CLC, which are in turn just rehashes or exercises in slide reading, but if we have an active OE & command
mentorship program, do we still need those?

And when will our "leaders" have time to actually lead or participate in unit or larger activities?

[arajca]

OE was developed for members to take an expanded roll in CAP; not just command.

Gotta call BS on this. To enroll, you do not need to be, or have been, a commander. To progress to any level you do.

[FW]

Good questions, Eclipse.  I have ideas and opinions, however the powers that be have other ideas and opinions...We must go with the flow, and do the best we can.  Our leadership has put the programs in place, and we need to utilize them in the best possible way.  I must note, though, our PD program gives us a great way to advance our knowledge of CAP.  In the "perfect world", OE would develop members to truely be "more qualified" to take a larger role in CAP; not just command. And, Andy, OE advancement does require command experience.  OE advancement also would, theoretically, better qualify us to be members of the BoG, National Staff leaders, or other such position at region, wing, group level; not just command...
Just sayn'... :angel:

[arajca]

In the "perfect world", OE would develop members to truely be "more qualified" to take a larger role in CAP; not just command. And, Andy, OE advancement does require command experience.  OE advancement also would, theoretically, better qualify us to be members of the BoG, National Staff leaders, or other such position at region, wing, group level; not just command...
Just sayn'... :angel:

Fine. Why not require a certain level in OE for wing and region staff members?

[Alaric]

Often there are more people who would like the opportunity for leadership than may be available.  Lets say in a composite squadron with 25 seniors you have 3 interested in commanding the squadron (I've been in squadrons with both higher and lower percentages), only one person will be able to have the position, further if he or she is doing a good job, there is no reason to remove them to allow another the opportunity.  This only gets worse as you rise higher, there is only one Wing Commander, and in Wings without groups that is the only place to command at a larger scale than squadron. It would be nice if OE was used to develop people so they could take a larger role, but until the politicing gets out of CAP, that will never happen, after all CAP is made of people.

[FW]

^It's true, as one rises to the top of the leadership pyramid, there are less positions to fill. In theory, OE advancement would give members an edge in filling those slots.  OE is a program which gives a member the "wider field of vision" in looking at CAP.  As one advances, the "student" realizes the organization is more than the sum of its mission, members, funding, and values. Unfortunately, most members have too much on their plate to begin the process.  Politics also still is a major factor in rising above a certain level; nothing can be done to change that; we are all human. 

Since, it seems, OE has never taken off, I guess we'll never know if it will make a change in how leaders are selected in CAP.

[Private Investigator]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

In the USAF if you are a sitting Commander, you Command Badge is above the nametag. A former Commander will have his Command Badge below his nametag.

NHQ decided against it because, "you already got a ribbon (Command Service) for it." But really besides Cadets, who wears every ribbon?

I have a Master rating in Administration and got a badge for it but I also have the Leadership Award with a silver star attachment for it too. What is the difference?   

[Alaric]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

In the USAF if you are a sitting Commander, you Command Badge is above the nametag. A former Commander will have his Command Badge below his nametag.

NHQ decided against it because, "you already got a ribbon (Command Service) for it." But really besides Cadets, who wears every ribbon?

I have a Master rating in Administration and got a badge for it but I also have the Leadership Award with a silver star attachment for it too. What is the difference?   

There is none and I think that is superfluous as well

[Eclipse]

There is none and I think that is superfluous as well

Which one?

The ribbon says you did something in PD, the badge says what you did. 

Neither is required for wear together, and may be worn separately.

[Alaric]

There is none and I think that is superfluous as well

Which one?

The ribbon says you did something in PD, the badge says what you did. 

Neither is required for wear together, and may be worn separately.

I think there should be one ribbon or badge (or device) for a single accomplishment.  For instance, if you are a Master in Aerospace than you get a badge, not a badge, a ribbon (Crossfield), and a device (on the leadership award).