Does position trump grade?

[RiverAux]

I was just stating the simple fact that due to the structure of CAP you will never come close to a rank system that works well for everything CAP does.  Either you put up with the Lt. commanding a squadron full of Majors or you put up with a Lt. running a mission manned mostly by people higher ranking than them, or you put up with both.  People will complain about any one of those options. 

[Hawk200]

I was just stating the simple fact that due to the structure of CAP you will never come close to a rank system that works well for everything CAP does.  Either you put up with the Lt. commanding a squadron full of Majors or you put up with a Lt. running a mission manned mostly by people higher ranking than them, or you put up with both.  People will complain about any one of those options. 

Point taken. Sorry, didn't quite realize your viewpoint. Apologies. Personally, I've never had problems with such a system. If a person is qualified, I've got no problem with them assuming a mission. And I don't think someone that isn't qualified should have a problem with it.

If someone higher ranking has a problem with it, then that is a case where they need to obtain the appropriate qualifications to assume command of the situation. Otherwise, they need to maintain silence.

[Dragoon]

If you work backwards from real military grade, you can figure out how a volunteer system based on such grade should work.

1.  Grade is an outward symbol of the generic authority and responsiblity a servicemember holds. In the absence of a clear chain of command, the ranking guy is in charge, and responsible for upholding the standards of the organization.

2.  Grade is an outward symbol of the responsibility the person holds in their job.  When I see an E-8, I can be pretty sure that his job is more than just turning wrenches.  When I see an 05, I'm pretty sure he's either a high level staff officer, mid level commander, or highly trained and experienced (like a doctor)

3.  Related to #3, Grade is used to determine what job to give to a person. The military won't waste a Colonel on a Captain's job.  But it would fill the Captain's job with a Captain before putting a 1st Lt in the job.

4.  Grade is tied to pay.   Because of 2-4 above, we pay more for higher grades.


So.....how can we mimic this system within CAP, given our volunteer nature.



1.  Grade = Generic Responsiblity and Authority. CAP doesn't do this today .  If a Major sees a bunch of Captains from some other unit screwing up, he has no authority to correct them and no responsiblity to get involved.  If CAP officers had this authority and responbility,  we'd have a lot more people empowered to uphold our standards.

But.....things would get wonky if a Major worked for a Captain.   There would be conflict if they disagreed - both would feel they had the responsiblity to fix things and the authority to do so.  This is probably why CAP gives no authority to grade.

2.  Grade symbolizes your level of responsiblity in the organization.  Not in CAP it doesn't.  People can't be forced to take jobs.  And CAP members often move up and down the chain.  They may choose to take a lesser role because of all kinds of outside life issues (problems at work, having kids, getting older).   In CAP, members who used to be Wing ES officers may now just be Squadron Testing Officers - so their rank gets all out of whack with what they are doing.

3.  Grade determines what job you get.  If we did this, it would clear up the possible problems with #2 - Majors wouldn't work for Captains.  The Major would get the job, and the Captain would work for him

4.  Grade = Pay.  We can throw this right out.  We don't pay people.

But, we have the same problem as with #3.  The Major may not WANT the job, and be happier working for the Captain.  And now we're back to the #2 issue.


Is there a way out of this?

Yup.

Make rank temporary.

So when you apply for a job, if you have completed the appropriate level of PD, you get a promotion. 

But if you decide to move back to a lower level of the organzation, you accept a lower grade. 

You can always move back up later when you have more time and energy.


If we did something like this..

1.  We could tie rank to responsiblity and authority.  The guys currently in charge would also be the guys with the rank.  Makes sense the the rest of us would have to listen to 'em.  And that they could be held accountable if they didn't run things correctly.

2.  When you saw a Major, you'd know he held at least a  Major's job (he might hold Lt Col's job but only have the PD for a Major).  So the grade would give you some idea of this guy's level of responsibility.

3.  We wouldn't have to worry about using grade to fill jobs.  We'd fill jobs based on PD level, past performance, and interest, and then give them the appropriate grade. 

For personal "bragging rights" we'd still have our level 1-5 PD system with the ribbons.  We could also do some sort of past officer device that could be used during purely social occasions (like banquets) so you could show off that you used to be a Colonel.

But for the most part, we'd end up with results closer to the military - the grade on the collar would tell us what kind of responsiblity and authority this officer currently holds.



The one tricky place is ES, where  the chain of command can be completely different from the one used in Wings/Groups/Squadrons.  The easiest answer is not to wear rank for ES ops, as it simply doesn't matter.  Another way would be to require Armbands or some other indicator of current ICS position, making it clear that on ES ops, no ICS indicator = no authority. 

The only other alternative I can think of is what CAP does today - use grade to recognize training and past performance, but don't give officers any authority or responsiblity by virtue of grade, so that it doesn't get in the way of the chain of command.

[ddelaney103]

Now, I'm not steeped in Army stuff, even though I worked for them.  However, it seemed the WO's are a little less "grade conscious" among themselves, at least from a saluting standpoint.

If we adopted a FO system (FO-X where X=PD Level) would it be easier for us to operate in a way that the Real Military would understand?

[Dragoon]

Yup, right down to their generic title of "Mister" the warrants have a certain casualness that might be a good model to follow.

Some will say that the problem with such a plan is that USAF doesn't have warrants or flight officers.

But this could be a strength - it would clearly define us as "not real USAF" but at the same time keep us within a traditional U.S. military system.

It also eliminates direct comparisons with active military (especially if we used flight officer grade) which should limit the accusations of "wannabee."

[mikeylikey]

Now, I'm not steeped in Army stuff, even though I worked for them.  However, it seemed the WO's are a little less "grade conscious" among themselves, at least from a saluting standpoint.

If we adopted a FO system (FO-X where X=PD Level) would it be easier for us to operate in a way that the Real Military would understand?

Hell  most of them don't even salute commissioned officers most of the time.  They are very casual.  I also love those 20 year old warrants that JUST competed the "high school to flight school" program.  They think because they have the word "officer" in thier title, that they are equal to commissioned officers.  I sometimes enjoy making a point to let these new "officers" know they still have to salute a 2LT. 

Warrants would be BAD for CAP.  Lets change the system that says after 1 year of service you can be promoted to 2nd Lt, after 2 more years you can be promoted to 1st LT, after 3 more years you can make CAPT, after 5 more years you can make major, and after 5 more years you can make LTCOL.  That means it would take 17 years to become a LTCOL.  Now.....those officers have demonstrated some commitment to the program right?  We will then have members that are truely "senior" to lead the organization at higher levels.  Also......lets get the SLS and CLC and other courses online.  GAS COSTS WAY TOO MUCH NOW to have a member travel any long distance to attend a weekend class at the wing HQ.  Does it make sense to drop $150.00 on gas and another $30.00 on tolls, not to mention food and lodging?  Lets produce soemthing that doesn't cost a small fortune to be part of.  WE spend enough on Uniforms!

[Dragoon]

Warrants would be BAD for CAP.  Lets change the system that says after 1 year of service you can be promoted to 2nd Lt, after 2 more years you can be promoted to 1st LT, after 3 more years you can make CAPT, after 5 more years you can make major, and after 5 more years you can make LTCOL.  That means it would take 17 years to become a LTCOL.  Now.....those officers have demonstrated some commitment to the program right?  We will then have members that are truely "senior" to lead the organization at higher levels. 

You're making an assumption that these Lt Col's will actually lead CAP, instead of just staying in the squadrons.

In many cases, key wing staff positions are filled with Lt's and Capt's because they were the best qualified person who wanted the job.  A lot of Lt Col's and Major's didn't even apply.


As for putting CLC and SLS online - we could certainly do that.   But I'm not sure I want a leader who did all his "training" in his living room.  While the current CLC and SLS need a LOT of work to become decent courses, you can't learn to lead online.  You have to have hands-on instruction involving other people.

We have lots of dedicated members who have demonstrated "commitment to the program,"  but that doesn't mean all these members are interested in - or capable of - running a Wing or Region.

I'm not against increasing time in grade - it would ensure our folks were about the same age as their USAF equivalents - but it still doesn't help with the  issue that we wear military rank, but use it in a most un-military fashion.  Nor would it help us get better leaders.

[SAR-EMT1]

Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.

[SarDragon]

Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.

I took them on consecutive weekends, because that's when they were being offered.

The rest of the story - I was in an overseas unit in Japan and we made the course available to the Kadena and Yokota units. Most of the attendees had been in CAP at least two years, so it wasn't a big issue.

Would we have been better off waiting a while between the two courses? Probably. Would it have been practical? Probably not, given instructor availability. He was leaving Japan in less than three months, so we got as many folks together as possible and went for it. There were no other qualified instructors among the three units.

[Dragoon]

Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.

Topic drift continues...

Yeah, I've seen guys knock out Level 1, SLS and CLC in their first six months.  It was clear by the CLC that they weren't getting anywhere near as much out of it as the folks who had a few years in, and held critical jobs at Squadron or Group.

If the courses has tests you had to pass, then the inexperienced guy would probably fail.  But since it's just "show up for a weekend and get your certificate," I'd support at least delaying CLC until Level II is complete.

SLS, taught correctly, is good for anyone holding a squadron staff job, so doing it early on makes sense for many.

[lordmonar]

Would it also make sense to demand time spent in CAP between SLS and CLC? I know a guy who took SLS and CLC practically back to back.

Topic drift continues...

Yeah, I've seen guys knock out Level 1, SLS and CLC in their first six months.  It was clear by the CLC that they weren't getting anywhere near as much out of it as the folks who had a few years in, and held critical jobs at Squadron or Group.

If the courses has tests you had to pass, then the inexperienced guy would probably fail.  But since it's just "show up for a weekend and get your certificate," I'd support at least delaying CLC until Level II is complete.

SLS, taught correctly, is good for anyone holding a squadron staff job, so doing it early on makes sense for many.

If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?

It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years. 

And if the training is NOT teaching you anything you did not already know through experince...then it is just a hoop jumping/box checking exercise and should be dropped altogether. 

The only reason why we have rank requirements for training is to help control class size.  RSC is limited to Majors (with some exceptions) because if you allowed anyone to attend then there would not be any seats for those who "need" the course.

[ZigZag911]

If the courses has tests you had to pass, then the inexperienced guy would probably fail.  But since it's just "show up for a weekend and get your certificate," I'd support at least delaying CLC until Level II is complete.

This is one of the big problems with Level 1, SLS, CLC, RSC, UCC...no requirement to demonstrate any learning other than showing up....there ought to be something, not necessarily tests for every one of them, but some sort of objective demonstration of performance....writing a briefing, or making a briefing, teaching a class, designing a multi-month unit schedule....maybe writing a paper, or giving a speech, as the cadets do for certain achievements.

[MIKE]

Lets try to steer this one back om topic guys.

[lordmonar]

Lets try to steer this one back om topic guys.

I though we sort of beat that one to death.

In an everyday encounter and on general terms grade determines rank....but in specific cases position determines rank.

[Dragoon]

If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?

It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years. 

The concept is that a certain level of experience in one job helps you absorb the training for the new job.

I mean, you could send a new Airman First Class off to the First Sergeant Academy, but he'd be a heck of alot better prepared if he'd been an NCO for while first.

I know that having done some leading and supervising in my job already, I got a lot more out of my graduate management classes than the 21 year olds in the class who were straight out of their bachelor's programs.  They just didn't have enough experience to attach the new knowledge to.


Since Level II is focus on Squadron work, holding off CLC until completion of Level II should give you some grounding in squadron stuff before you being learning wing stuff.

Now, if you're working at Wing as a pre-level II guy, all bets are off.

[lordmonar]

If experience is so critical to passing SLS and CLC.....why have them at all?

It is the old chicken and egg issue. The training should prepare you for the job you are going to take....not the one you have held for 2-1 years. 

The concept is that a certain level of experience in one job helps you absorb the training for the new job.

I mean, you could send a new Airman First Class off to the First Sergeant Academy, but he'd be a heck of alot better prepared if he'd been an NCO for while first.

Apples and oranges.  You should have said send an A1C to Airman Leadership School.  First Sergeants Academy is for E-7's and above.  Much too great of a jump.

But an A1C certainly could pass the ALS with little or no problems....in fact he could learn the "book way of doing things" much easier than older Airman because he does not have a lot of years experience of seeing and doing it "wrong".

I know that having done some leading and supervising in my job already, I got a lot more out of my graduate management classes than the 21 year olds in the class who were straight out of their bachelor's programs.  They just didn't have enough experience to attach the new knowledge to.

Again apples and oranges.  SLS and CLC are NOT graduate level anything.

I do agree that some seasoning is required for the RANK but the course?   No....if you were assuming that the member is a just out of high school 18 year old FO....maybe....but let's take me for example....I got 21 year in the AF and have 4 years of CAP under my belt....I have been waiting for a SLS class for over 3 years now.....should I really wait another 2 years until I take my CLC to get some seasoning?  SLS is NOT going to teach me anything new (I have reviewed the syllabus) so it is just a hoop jumping exercise for me.

Granted not everyone is just like me.....but if we make rules that make getting training MORE difficult then I am against it!

Since Level II is focus on Squadron work, holding off CLC until completion of Level II should give you some grounding in squadron stuff before you being learning wing stuff.

Now, if you're working at Wing as a pre-level II guy, all bets are off.

And how many times does that happen?

You have illistrated the need NOT to have waits between formal training courses.  We shove people into jobs they are not ready for as it is....if you with hold the training they need to do those jobs....then you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

[arajca]

In an ideal program, SLS and CLC would be conducted at least annually. In fact, National funds one of each per wing per year. CAPR 50-17 says

5-3. Corporate Learning Course (CLC).
After completing the Squadron Leadership School and learning about squadron operations, senior members should attend the Corporate Learning Course (CLC).

It does not mention any period of separation between SLS and CLC.

[mikeylikey]

In an ideal program, SLS and CLC would be conducted at least annually. In fact, National funds one of each per wing per year. CAPR 50-17 says

5-3. Corporate Learning Course (CLC).
After completing the Squadron Leadership School and learning about squadron operations, senior members should attend the Corporate Learning Course (CLC).

It does not mention any period of separation between SLS and CLC.

Wait, Wait, Wait!  NHQ funds one once per year?!?  What does that funding include?  Lunches, billeting, dinners???  If they do, why do some Wings charge for a member to attend the ONCE PER YEAR SLS/CLC??  I am curious now.......so Wing gets money that can be going to something totally NOT the SLS/CLC. 

[arajca]

The funding covers the materials (books and certificates) only. Billeting, food, etc, would be REAL nice to have covered, but it ain't. National won't even cover coffee and donuts for the course. Many times, the instructors/directors eat (no pun intended) the cost of these.

[ColonelJack]

To help redirect this careening thread back to the proper highway ...

I think we've debated this "rank vs. position" before here.  It was the consensus, I recall, that the grade insignia worn by a member was simply recognition of what he/she has achieved, whether in CAP or in the RealMilitary(tm).  Apart from the reserved grades (colonel, brigadier general, major general), the grade worn has little if anything to do with one's job in the squadron/group/wing/region OR on SAR activities.

Position in this organization is, of course, everything.  So it wouldn't be uncommon for a 1st Lt to be in command of a squadron full of field grade officers.  And any field grade officer who has an issue with that simply doesn't understand the way CAP uses grade, and needs to be "educated."

I understand what folks mean when they say, "We can use bling instead of grade to show what one has achieved."  Unfortunately, that only works when you have  a member who wears the bling.  (We have a lot who don't.)  And it's important to recognize what one has achieved, and in some there's a need to show it off.  Grade does this at a glance -- "Oh, you're a major, you've made it through this and this and this.  Good on you!"

That's my opinion ... free, and worth what it cost.

Jack