Proposal: Require progression in professional development

[dwb]

I usually don't engage in the wild, impractical "what if" discussions, but this one has some merit and I think it's doable.

What if we required progression in the senior member professional development program?

I think our professional development program has gotten much better in recent years: the overhaul of SLS and CLC, the introduction of TLC, etc.  We just need to revamp the ADL-13 course, update the UCC curriculum, and maybe introduce training for instructors and in-residence program directors.

All of these great opportunities exist, and yet, the PD program beyond Level I remains completely optional.

A few benefits of requiring PD: 1. members would have a more solid foundation of how they fit into the organization, 2. they would benefit from in-residence training courses and be able to meet other s'members outside of their geographic area, and 3. more people would be eligible for duty performance promotions so they wouldn't develop "1st Lt Syndrome".

Possible drawbacks include: 1. overcoming institutional inertia and resisitance of people who "just want to fly", or "just want to help cadets", 2. adding more requirements to participation in CAP will inevitably cause some attrition, and for some people, CAP is already expensive and time-consuming enough, and 3. some people come in to CAP with training and experience that is arguably superior to what we offer in our PD program, and may feel they shouldn't be obligated to do our stuff.

Scope and rollout guidelines of my proposal:

• All senior members are required to complete up to Level III
  
  
• Levels IV and V remain optional for the hard-chargers, but would be required for senior leaders (Wing CC requires Lvl IV, above that requires Lvl V)
  
  
• Senior members would have to complete Level I within six months of joining, Level II within three years of joining, and Level III within five years of joining
  
  
• Senior members that did not complete the training within the specified timeframes would be moved to Patron status
  
  
• These rules do not apply to Cadet Sponsor Members
  
  
• Current members who have not yet completed Level III will have timeframes similar to new members (i.e., all existing members would have to complete Level III within five years of policy inception)

We teach that the Core Values are the price of admission to CAP.  One of CAP's Core Values is Excellence; I believe personal excellence and self-improvement are one facet of that.

Thoughts?

[kpetersen]

Concerns:  1) We have seniors who do have inactive periods (which can occur in the first 5 years), that need a break for certain reasons (children, marriage, real life).  They don't want their membership to lapse, because they plan on coming back to the program.  I just worry about their continued time in grade, that maybe we won't get them back.
2) This also includes active duty military, whose schedules can be hit or miss.  One of the guys I know in a local unit was deployed to the desert for at least 6 months of 2007.
3) Legal officers, and other random not as oftenly used individuals might not find it as beneficial. (No offense intended)
4) We'd have even worse retainment rates, possibly.  This could also be a pro to people hanging around more often.

Pros: 
1)  At least with TLC, any person who is "just wanting to help cadets" is greatly benefitted by attending this activity IMO.
2)  It would make PD officers more important to the sqdns.
3) see point 4 above.

[arajca]

I like the idea, but I'm sure about implementation. As with any new concept like this, the devil is in the details.

On problem that exists now in some units (more than half that I have seen) is while cadet promotions and achievements are treated with great ceremony and public recognition, the seniors are usually handed their stuff in passing i.e. 2d Lt Jones gets promoted to 1st Lt and the commander tells her as they are leaving the meeting. no one else realy knows about it and it leaves a distinct impression that senors are not nearly as important as cadets.

I will say that in my current unit, every promotion and award - cadet or senior - receives equal recognition. I've seen some seniors who initially joined "to help the cadets" get promoted to 2d Lt at the awards ceremony and realize that 1. they like the recognition and 2. they want to continue getting promoted. One in particular has decided to take on the PDO job since I am leaving to go to wing.

[dwb]

We have seniors who do have inactive periods (which can occur in the first 5 years), that need a break for certain reasons (children, marriage, real life).

Like I said above, if someone happens to be snagged by the five-year thing, they would just be automatically assigned as Patron members.  Which, if they really go five full years without participating in CAP, they should be Patron members.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.  There shouldn't be a stigma assigned to being a Patron; in fact, if every indefinitely inactive member transferred to Patron status, we'd have a better idea of how many Active personnel we really have.

A 2a is all it takes to become Active again, with all previous rank and training kept intact.  I'm sure there would be some sort of grace period to complete the required PD before they get reassigned as Patrons again.

And I certainly agree with arajca that senior member promotions ought to have a certain amount of ceremony.  When I was a squadron commander, the senior being promoted got called up in front of formation, and if the group commander was available that night, he would assist with the promotion.

[lordmonar]

It has to do with the mission.

Does the training help the mission....not the individual.

TLC is a great course but what does a Pilot need that for?
Same thing with any of the PD courses.  If you happy being in a one deep squadron admin position....why require more PD? 

Does it improve the mission?  Maybe....but probably not much.  If the member is just a "I fly airplanes" type member....well there is nothing wrong with that...how will CLC help them perfrom grid searches/conduct O-rides/complete night landings?

There is nothing wrong with the "1st Lt Syndrom".  If you need an individual to break out of their rut and take on more responsibilites....you don't do that by forcing them to take some "useless" (in their veiw) training.  You sell it to them.  You mentor them.  You get them to see that they can help the mission/squadron more effectively by gaining the training.....then you [darn] well be sure that the training is actually relevant.

That is what needs to be done.  People should WANT to go to these courses.  We should use all the tools available (be it bling, promotions, pride, mission requirments) to make them WANT to get the training.  You can't force people to make a mind set change by forcing them to a classroom.  And then you add the adminstrative overhead of managing the member's records and adverse actions for failing to complete the "required" training.

Just because a member has not progressed, does not automatically make him dead weight. 

Now I whole heartely endorse the idea that higher levels of PD is required for higher rank (even advanced promotion).  You must have level X to work at wing level.  If you have an advanced promotion for Lt Col you will have n number of months/years to complete the required PD or you will be demoted to the appropriate rank.

But kicking out (moving to patron status) members because they like being 2d Lt's and have not want/need to progress only makes my job as a squadron commander that much harder.

[Short Field]

But Lordmonar, this would be a great way to weed out all those CFIs who got advanced promotions to Captain and only want to fly, do Fm 5 & Fm 91 Checkrides for the rest of the pilots, and provide training for insturment ratings to those interested.   Just dead weight!!!   

[DNall]

One of the biggest problems in CAP at the local level is just not having the staffing to make it work the way it's supposed to. PD is supposed to make those individuals more capable (quality), but it doesn't address quantity of staff I have to get the job done. An up or out policy that forces progression or pushes people out is going to be hard sell with our retention & staffing issues.

In reference to that... I really do have a problem with people that come in "just to fly," or whatever else. Private pilots are a dime a dozen. I don't need those people. I need officers, which means they take on additional responsibilities as part of the team that allows us to operate.

There would need to be a waiver process to extend for inactivity, deployments, etc. But surely we could find a reasonable solution.

I also do give some credence to what Patrick is saying. You can't JUST mandate, you also have to motivate people to development. We do need to better develop these courses for practical application. Right now they all seem like progressive levels of orientation, not practical leader skills development, and certainly not leadership training that would benefit people beyond CAP. We also need to better connect the dots within those courses so people can see the practical applications of the leadership/mgmt skills we're teaching them.

[lordmonar]

But Lordmonar, this would be a great way to weed out all those CFIs who got advanced promotions to Captain and only want to fly, do Fm 5 & Fm 91 Checkrides for the rest of the pilots, and provide training for insturment ratings to those interested.   Just dead weight!!!   

I saw the  .

But if they are in-fact doing the checkrides...they are not dead weight.

[lordmonar]

I agree with DNall to a point....if you need leaders to do job....and we all do...then we need a system that helps us build that capability.  But I disagree with those who only come to do a particular job (fly, comm, AE, ES, cadet, what-ever).  We have to use the resources given to us.  We don't have the luxury of turning away "limited participation" officers (at least I don't).

My only criteria is that you actually do the job that you volunteered to do.

[dwb]

Requiring PD would be a culture shift, to say the least.  Ambitious people can knock out the requirements for Levels II and III in one year, I don't think it's unreasonable to think most people could get them done in five.

You'd have to change the way you pitch CAP membership.  To use the pilot example: "yes, you get to fly, there's all this great stuff you can do with the aircraft, but as an officer in the Air Force auxiliary, we also expect that you'll complete this handful of training that will make you a more well-rounded participant in the organization."

Would we lose a lot of people?  Honestly, I don't think we would.  Our retention rates are notoriously bad, but who are we losing every year?  We're losing people who don't have a deep personal stake in the organization, we're losing people that were never given meaningful duty assignments, and/or were blown off when they did volunteer for a position, and we're losing people that joined then couldn't figure out what to do next.

We're losing people because of poor leadership.

I don't have access to statistics to back me up, but I can go on a gut feeling and personal experience here: people who complete higher levels of the program are less likely to leave; they're the dedicated ones, the lifers, the people that see value in hanging a Wilson Award on their wall.

That senior member that joins and hangs around at the squadron looking for something to do... we're going to lose him if we don't get him into an SLS, if we don't get him into a specialty track.

We're not talking about requiring Region Staff College here, we're taking about a couple of weekends, a correspondence course, an actual duty assignment, and attendance at some higher-echelon functions.  All things that we, frankly, should expect long-time members (or potential long-time members) to do.

I know everyone is busy; I'm busy, too.  The point is, if people are going to make CAP a high enough priority to actively participate year after year, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some advancement in that time.

[DNall]

I agree with DNall to a point....if you need leaders to do job....and we all do...then we need a system that helps us build that capability.  But I disagree with those who only come to do a particular job (fly, comm, AE, ES, cadet, what-ever).  We have to use the resources given to us.  We don't have the luxury of turning away "limited participation" officers (at least I don't).

I don't entirely disagree with that statement. This is just where I depart calling them officers & start talking about we really should have an enlisted system. Enlisted folks do a specific job & stay in a lane. Officers get trained for a job so they can supervise the NCOs supervising the people doing it, but their real function is to be operational leaders/staff/etc to make the thing function.

I just think we need to incentivize those leadership/staff roles that we're not over incentivizing roles that are important, but very limited in scope & authority. You're right that the pilot who does nothing else doesn't need leadership development courses to fulfill the mission. He also doesn't need to be an officer. He just needs to show & have the authority necessary to do his very limited job.

[DNall]

Would we lose a lot of people?  Honestly, I don't think we would.  Our retention rates are notoriously bad, but who are we losing every year?  We're losing people who don't have a deep personal stake in the organization, we're losing people that were never given meaningful duty assignments, and/or were blown off when they did volunteer for a position, and we're losing people that joined then couldn't figure out what to do next.

We're losing people because of poor leadership.

I think we would lose people any time we tell them they have to do something they don't want to do. I don't care!!! If it addresses even a little the leadership & other issues (the ones you listed & others), that will result in better future retention & help improve morale which results in better recruitment. More then that, I think it attracts the kind of people we need to the program rather than those just looking to take from us as part of their hobby.

[Short Field]

[But if they are in-fact doing the checkrides...they are not dead weight.

Right!  So what if they only have Level I and remain a Capt (due to being a CFI) forever.  They contribute a lot more to the success of the organization than the ones who hit all the schools and maintain just enough activity in a position to progress and get promoted.

[Fifinella]

Similar to the thread RiverAux started about linking PD and ES, but still in keeping with this thread:

At the very least, there should be a correlation between PD and duty positions (which may have been the original intent, but is not in the regs), i.e.:

In order to become a squadron commander, one must have completed Level II.
In order to assume a position on wing staff, one must have completed Level III.
In order to assume a position on regional staff, one must have completed Level IV.
In order to assume a position on national staff, one must have completed Level V.

At the very least, one may be selected for these positions before the completion of the required Level (one Level below), only if the person can and will fulfill the requirements within one year.  If the requirements cannot be met, (time in staff position, etc.), the person is not eligible for the position.  And if the person does not complete the requirements within the timeframe, s/he is removed from the position.

Perhaps this will only motivate the seniors interested in positions, but at least it's a start, and it will ensure the folks on the staffs have the appropriate Level of training for their positions.

[RickFranz]

Just a thought, maybe we should have a program like the Army Warrant Officer.  In that, we would take the "I only want to do flying, ES, COMM..." and not have interest in doing any thing else members and put them in that group of specialist and let them contribute and not fill pushed.  After a while, if they see that they would like to do more, have an instrument to make the move to Officership.  I know that the Air Force does not have WO's any more, but they don't have Flight Officers either.  That way the CFI that comes in would not be a Capt. but a W3.

I don't think you can push people to do things in Civil Air Patrol.  I do think you can lead people to do many things in Civil Air Patrol.  However it is a lot of work to do that.

[Gunner C]

Similar to the thread RiverAux started about linking PD and ES, but still in keeping with this thread:

At the very least, there should be a correlation between PD and duty positions (which may have been the original intent, but is not in the regs), i.e.:

In order to become a squadron commander, one must have completed Level II.
In order to assume a position on wing staff, one must have completed Level III.
In order to assume a position on regional staff, one must have completed Level IV.
In order to assume a position on national staff, one must have completed Level V.

At the very least, one may be selected for these positions before the completion of the required Level (one Level below), only if the person can and will fulfill the requirements within one year.  If the requirements cannot be met, (time in staff position, etc.), the person is not eligible for the position.  And if the person does not complete the requirements within the timeframe, s/he is removed from the position.

Perhaps this will only motivate the seniors interested in positions, but at least it's a start, and it will ensure the folks on the staffs have the appropriate Level of training for their positions.

I agree but to a point - let's tie promotions more solidly to PD:

• 2nd Lt - Level 1
• 1st Lt - Level 2
• Capt - Level 3
• Maj - Level 4
• Lt Col - Level 5
• Not eligible for Col (Wing/Region command w/o Level 5

Let's make officers go through some gates if they want to be WG/CC, RG/CC, CAP/CC.  There's too many wing/region CCs who haven't paid their dues - they're good politicians, but lousey leaders.

Gunner C

[DeputyDog]

<snip> You sell it to them.  You mentor them.  You get them to see that they can help the mission/squadron more effectively by gaining the training.....then you [darn] well be sure that the training is actually relevant.

That is what needs to be done.  People should WANT to go to these courses.  We should use all the tools available (be it bling, promotions, pride, mission requirments) to make them WANT to get the training.  You can't force people to make a mind set change by forcing them to a classroom.  </snip>

I have found that a good professional development officer makes the membership in the squadron WANT to progress. If you have a bad professional development officer, which I define as one that is reactive in their duties rather than proactive and doesn't have a clue as how to motivate the membership, making professional development mandatory will further fuel our retention problems.

A big part of the problem with the current professional development program is that there is no real guidance or standardized training for professional development officers outside of reading and following the CAPP 204 (which needs to be updated, BTW.).

[Flying Pig]

Could someone please describe the "Dead Weight" member?  How does this person impact your Sq? Do they cost you money? Do they cost you time?  I don't get it.  I am a Sq. Commander, and I have several people on my roster whom I have never met. They aren't active, they don't come to meetings, nobody in the unit currently has any idea who they are, yet, every year they continue to send in their $86. 
I have periodically sent them emails, but receive no response.  In no way have any of these members caused me any hardship.  I see no benefit in sending them a letter telling them they have been dropped from CAP.

The vast majority of people I have worked with over my 15 years in CAP have enjoyed the program, and many already participate to a level that has caused significant sacrifice on the part of themselves and their families.  I have a member who is a school teacher.  An asset to our unit in every way.  She has been a member for about 4 years.  She has not completed any of the PD courses.  She would like to, but she is an extremely busy person both with work and family.  I just learned she is going to be going inactive for about 1 year because she just cannot find the time for CAP right now.  Should I send her a letter telling her not to come back at all because she is dead weight?

If a CFI has come into the program and is at the level where they are now doing Form 5's and Form 91's I wold hardly call them dead weight.  For those who have attained this level, its hardly a "check the box" goal to reach.  I don't care if Senior Member Smith joins and tells me that all he wants to do is clean toilets and nothing more.  I will say, "Thank You Senior Member Jones, I will find you the nicest toilet brush mankind has to offer.....Hey, SM Jones, do you want to go to SLS? They will let you clean toilets." Its no different than the 18 year old who enlists, and after 4 years leaves the military as an  E3/E4 with an Honorable Discharge.  They did their duty, and at the end of the day, rendered the final salute and drove through the main gate in a cloud of dust, while at the same time a different 18 year old reenlists for 4 more.  Was first one "Dead Weight"?

Believe me, we will have our share of CAP lifers.  Then we will have our share who do their "season" and move on and we have those who drop in every now and then. We need all of them.  Some of the most productive members I have had are the parents who have joined with their cadets, busted their butts making things happen for 3 or 4 years.  Then one day, High School graduation comes along, cadet moves on, and you part with the parent with a good handshake, never to be heard from again.
I enjoy wearing the uniform, I enjoy CAP activities and I enjoy being with like minded people.  I have no issue with PD or people progressing.  But lets knock of the "up or out" nonsense. 

[dwb]

I am a Sq. Commander, and I have several people on my roster whom I have never met. They aren't active, they don't come to meetings, nobody in the unit currently has any idea who they are, yet, every year they continue to send in their $86.

Those people are, in effect, Patron members.  They're just not listed as such.  Just as there is no harm in keeping their membership current, there is also no harm in categorizing their contribution to CAP more appropriately.

But lets knock off the "up or out" nonsense.

Remember that being in Patron status is not the same as being kicked out of CAP, so I'm not talking about "up or out" here.  You're misrepresenting my argument to make it easier to criticize.  I can't imagine kicking someone out of CAP because they're not active.

Again, for emphasis, I'm not proposing we drop people from CAP, or tell them to never come back, so stop using those terms.

[Flying Pig]

No, that is what your saying.  There are several aspects of CAP someon cant participate in as Patron, and your proposing this soley based on whether they are active in the PD program, vs being an active member contributing member.  I have been a Senior Member for about 6 years, and I am still a boot 1st Lt.  I havnt attended SLS, and havnt even completed ECI 13 and I can gaurantee I have more knowledge and real world experience in what CAP does than several LTC's I know.  Under your policy, I would have been dropped to Patron  status by now.

I will get to the courses when I can.  I have been so involved with CAP over the last couple of months with CD and taking on a new Sq Commander position, that I didnt even realize my son was on the track team and has his first meet this weekend.  So what did I do, I withdrew from the UCC Course I had signed up for this weekend. 
One of the most influential Seniors I ever knew was a 1st Lt for 10 years but somehow managed to take a Drill Team to NCC 4 years in a row.  I have no problem with PD and trying to motivatye people.  But dropping them to Patron soley based on their PD progression is silly.

Scope and rollout guidelines of my proposal:


All senior members are required to complete up to Level III


Levels IV and V remain optional for the hard-chargers, but would be required for senior leaders (Wing CC requires Lvl IV, above that requires Lvl V)


Senior members would have to complete Level I within six months of joining, Level II within three years of joining, and Level III within five years of joining


Senior members that did not complete the training within the specified timeframes would be moved to Patron status


These rules do not apply to Cadet Sponsor Members


Current members who have not yet completed Level III will have timeframes similar to new members (i.e., all existing members would have to complete Level III within five years of policy inception)