Keeping New Senior Members

[SMWOG]

Be honest and dont sell people a bridge. A lot of folks think they are going to put on a zoom bag and hang out at the O club and sing "Youve lost that luving feeling"

Show them your unit in action,not a fantasy!

[Chappie]

Be honest and dont sell people a bridge. A lot of folks think they are going to put on a zoom bag and hang out at the O club and sing "Youve lost that luving feeling"

Show them your unit in action,not a fantasy!

You mean we don't fly inverted either?

[Fubar]

It would be nice if we could figure out a way to reduce the amount of work it takes to keep a squadron afloat. If we can't seem to add enough people for the current workload, perhaps the workload should be adjusted.

That will likely mean removing certain aspects or programs from AE/ES/CP, which could be painful.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It would be nice if we could figure out a way to reduce the amount of work it takes to keep a squadron afloat. If we can't seem to add enough people for the current workload, perhaps the workload should be adjusted.

That will likely mean removing certain aspects or programs from AE/ES/CP, which could be painful.

We can probably save on admin by making eservices track any and all meaningful data.

[Fubar]

We can probably save on admin by making eservices track any and all meaningful data.

Definitely.

[Eclipse]

We can probably save on admin by making eservices track any and all meaningful data.

Meaningful being the keyword, discarding the stuff that punches a box and does not serve any purpose.

For example, there is an entire bureaucracy around tracking Safety currency, yet CAP does not track attendance.

One has incredible value at every level, one has nearly zero value at any level. The energy and effort around both
is a nice paradigm for the current state of CAP.

[etodd]

Goals of the new member.

Some new members aren't interested in ranks/grades and uniforms, so the carrot of a new ribbon/badge isn't what they are looking for. Ask them what their goals are and show them the path in a clearly defined step by step process. The websites are a mess in this regard.

Most new Senior members who were never Cadets don't have clue what jobs/duties are available, and again, what the paths/steps are if they see one they like. Trying to look themselves on the websites is very frustrating.

Some things could really be downsized. I spent about 8 - 10 hours or more going through FEMA 100,200 & 700(?) to get those knocked off. I marathoned it one Saturday. SO much duplication. I don't have any desire to be a Director or leader, etc.. So after all of that 'training' and testing, what I got out of it was: show up, check in, find your supervisor, do as your told.  Those four steps are all I really needed to know as a little volunteer helper. Those who want to the boss can take the longer course. Someone with less time on their hands may take weeks or months to finish up those courses. That can discourage folks. And yes, I realize CAP doesn't have control over these courses, but its a good example and the principle applies to many other situations.

Everyone is expected to fit a certain mold.  Cookie cutter solutions. In this day and time ....

[Eclipse]

Everyone is expected to fit a certain mold.

Yes, they are - that is the nature of a paramilitary organization.  If the structure and expectations are more then you are interested in,
there are any number of other less-structured organizations that would be happy to make use of your time and contributions, however the
number of those who will allow you to sign out a $350k aircraft without some standardized training is somewhat..."limited".

The ICS classes are one of the things which set CAP apart from other organizations, and CAP's internal adherence to ICS principles
is one of the things it markets to partner agencies and customers.  The three you mentioned are baseline "follower" training
designed to introduce you to the functions you would encounter as a field asset (i.e. aircrew or ground resource) during a mission,
they have little to do with being a leader in those situations other then some definitions of the terminology.

Everyone absorbs things at a different rate, but those classes should be an hour or so each tops. Directors and Section Chiefs are
required to take in-residence classes which last from 2-days to a week or sometimes more.

I agree the opportunities and expectations of membership need to be discussed with prospects well before an application is mentioned,
but the fact of the matter is that if you want to serve in an organization with a larger scope, there are significantly higher training
expectations then your characterization, even if the actual duty looks a lot like your portrayal.    A new member doesn't know what
he needs until he needs it, thus standardized training for everyone.

The "I only need this" attitude is regularly cited as one of CAP's limiting factors when it tries to expand its mission scope, or work with new partners.

[etodd]

.... those who will allow you to sign out a $350k aircraft without some standardized training is somewhat..."limited".

Of course. I was speaking too broadly, and obviously there are many exceptions. All of your points are well taken.

This thread is entitled 'Keeping New Senior Members' ... and we have other threads related to Recruitment.  In my view (over 40 years in marketing) if you put 80% of your efforts on the Retention side .. the recruitment side will take care of itself with just minor efforts needed. Easier to keep someone than to find a new person and start from scratch.  Exit polling over a casual lunch where people will open up and talk helps.

[SarDragon]

Every time I go to the wing conference, we are told recruitment and retention figures, and the point is made that retaining just 25 or 30 percent of the people who drop out, in addition to the normal recruiting input, will give us a 3 to 5 percent gain in members every year. EVERY YEAR!

[Eclipse]

Every time I go to the wing conference, we are told recruitment and retention figures, and the point is made that retaining just 25 or 30 percent of the people who drop out, in addition to the normal recruiting input, will give us a 3 to 5 percent gain in members every year. EVERY YEAR!

True enough, and from the year-over-year figures currently, CAP is clearly not executing on even that level.

The problem with that assertion, is that it doesn't factor in who you're retaining.  Keeping people on the roster purely for the sake of numbers,
does not serve the emission, and in many ways actually impedes it.

[SarDragon]

OK, who do you want to retain? Fifty percent of our cadets leave after their first year. Retaining any portion of them is a start.

[Eclipse]

OK, who do you want to retain? Fifty percent of our cadets leave after their first year. Retaining any portion of them is a start.

Those who participate.  Anything else shields the churn and virtually insures nothing will change and it will likely get worse.
Allowing a cadet's parents to continue to write checks for a cadet off to college who's never coming back, or a cadet who
came to two meetings, didn't like it, and is never coming back, doesn't serve anything.

Raw numbers are the quickest / easiest to access gauge of the organization's health.  A high churn rate indicates
something is broken - whether it's expectations or execution, something isn't right, but if you hide the churn in
empty shirts, that doesn't bubble up unless the leadership is willing to look deeper at progression and participation.

Within the above is supposed to be a lot of energy and effort around the "why you left", which CAP tends to ignore culturally.

[etodd]

Within the above is supposed to be a lot of energy and effort around the "why you left", which CAP tends to ignore culturally.

Hence my comment above regarding a casual lunch or cup of coffee a few days or maybe even a month after a Senior Member has left (cooling off period) to get some ideas of "how they would make the Squadron better". And obviously should be done by some low ranking member the former member would feel comfortable discussing it with.

But then again ... would anything really 'new' come from those exit interviews? Are not most reasons already known? Everything from "our squadron didn't do anything" to "the military wannabes turned me off" .... and more.

[dwb]

But then again ... would anything really 'new' come from those exit interviews? Are not most reasons already known? Everything from "our squadron didn't do anything" to "the military wannabes turned me off" .... and more.

Maybe. I would posit that some well-meaning local leaders don't realize how they might be failing to bring new members into the fold. That, and hearing the same reason(s) more than once means you can't pretend that it's the other person's fault (i.e., the only constant in all your failed relationships is you).

Last summer I joined a local running club. I had been thinking about joining for a couple years, and I finally bit the bullet. On my very first run with the group I spent the whole run with one of the guys who talked all about the routes they go on and which days they run and who the key people in the club were, etc. When I saw him at the next run he introduced me to all the people I hadn't met and we ran together again talking about all manner of things. He wasn't a club officer or anything, just a friendly guy.

It's a small gesture, right? But that early kindness made me feel so welcome and made me want to join them on more group runs. I re-arranged my running schedule over time to where most of my miles are now with the club. There's a tangible emphasis on camaraderie and encouraging each other.

The running club is a social activity. It bears no resemblance to CAP. But what if we could have even a fraction of that welcoming atmosphere when a new senior walks in the door? Maybe stop signing people up then leaving them in a corner to figure everything out for themselves. Encouraging people no matter where they are in their education and training.

On the CAPF 12 there's a sentence above the commander's signature that asks the commander to verify that a mentor has been assigned to the new member to bring them up to speed. I wonder how many squadrons actually do that.

[NIN]

But then again ... would anything really 'new' come from those exit interviews? Are not most reasons already known? Everything from "our squadron didn't do anything" to "the military wannabes turned me off" .... and more.

I think you're pretty spot on here.  I won't say there is nothing new under the sun, but for the most part, its not hard to look at a unit and go "not active," or "zero communication" or something without having survey the departed.  Maybe the commander needs to hear that from "the departed" to make him/her go "Hmm, really?"

(as a commander, I always took feedback like that. I may not have fixed exactly what the person who left was expecting, but I tried to apply it..)

There are only so many times we can hear "admin requirements are too high" or "didn't do anything" or "my time wasn't valued."

*Some* of these things we can help with at a national scale.  Some things (ie. "crap leadership") varies from unit to unit and time to time, and its hard to pin down and correct. "OK, so yeah, these two people think this unit has poor leadership. Are *they* willing to step up and help correct that? No?"

[Holding Pattern]

There are only so many times we can hear "admin requirements are too high"

No, this one can be repeated a lot more. The technology exists to streamline a not-insignificant amount of the admin work, and we don't have it.

...

I'm sending my notice to volunteer for higher level IT committee discussions now. 

[NIN]

There are only so many times we can hear "admin requirements are too high"

No, this one can be repeated a lot more. The technology exists to streamline a not-insignificant amount of the admin work, and we don't have it.

...

I'm sending my notice to volunteer for higher level IT committee discussions now. 

and in the very next paragraph I said "*Some* of these things we can help with at a national scale."

Like that.

Yes, I agree, it needs to happen. And people are trying to make it happen.
And it does need to be said over and over again.

But you hear the same 5-6 "Time wasn't valued" "Didn't do anything" "Admin burden too high" etc, yes you realize that those things need to be fixed.

But I can't fly to 1000 squadrons and fix their lack of mentorship or an inability to delegate.

that comes thru selecting and training good squadron commander and leaders. People who "get" that you engage your members and value them.   Don't drop 12lbs of blue binder in their lap and walk away.

Some of this is accomplishable nationally in a short time, some of it is not. It is a sea change that will take *years* to come to fruition.

[Eclipse]

If the prospective members don't see >you< i.e. CC, and staff, enjoying your time and being excited for the future, why, on earth,
would they want to join?

I literally had this exact conversation last night with a couple or prospective members.  We had a lot going on, there was a fair amount of
energy in the air, and conversations about current and future ops. 

I told them that they seemed like a potential fit, we had interesting things they might enjoy, and being on the upswing of the bell,
lots of opportunity, but I did not view them as "saviors" and it would be 6 months before they could really be a resource to the unit as they get their sea legs.

Expectations properly set, no surprises.  Of course it's also incumbent on the existing staff to continue to execute and keep the promises we're making.

It's about planting the seeds, and then tending to them dutifully, knowing some won't grow, but overall the effort will pay off. 


Knowing what you're doing, what you intend to do, and not being overly concerned about the naysayers helps too.

[NIN]

BTW, when we talk about retention:


Those stats (59.68% and 89.47%) are from my unit.