Composite Squadron Organization

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes, it's another one of those questions that pops up from time to time. But so far, I haven't seen any reference to this line of the text:

CAPR 20-1

3. Organizational Structure.
Civil Air Patrol's organizational structure at all levels follows the basic organizational
concepts in this regulation. However, there may be situations where wings/units need to realign organizational elements to fit
unique mission requirements. In these cases region commanders may approve deviations to improve efficiency.

a. Position descriptions at all echelons (national, region, wing, group, and squadron) are so similar that the same position
description applies to all levels, unless otherwise indicated. Short, brief sentences in the position descriptions give a broad
picture of the duties of each position. The tasks listed are described in detail in other CAP directives. All phases of each
functional area have been covered in each position description even though some units may not have a need for every task.
Local units are authorized and encouraged to develop more detailed position descriptions to fit individual unit situations.

b. Each unit commander should develop and post an organizational chart at headquarters, depicting the name and grade of
the incumbent of each position and the specific duties of each so unit personnel know their responsibilities and their chain of
command. In smaller units, it may be necessary that more than one position be filled by the same member; however, someone
should be responsible for each task outlined in the position description so the entire unit is aware of who is responsible for
which duties.

CAPP 52-15

1.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
If units provide tailor–made challenges for ranking cadets, each unit is
apt to have a unique organizational structure. There is no "one size fits
all" solution or standard organizational chart for a cadet unit. Each
squadron should choose an organizational structure that is appropriate
for its mix of cadets, be the squadron big or small, top-heavy or
bottom-heavy.

(Emphasis in bold = mine)


So, what I see are many units that do things many different ways, which I heavily agree with. As a volunteer force, we structure things in a way that work for us to be most efficient/effective to accomplish our missions, be it Cadet Programs or ES Ops or AE.

Is there anyone here that refers to Region to get approval on their organization structure?

One of the topics that keeps popping up is the fact that in a Senior Squadron, everyone reports to the Deputy Commander. In a Cadet Squadron, everyone reports to the Deputy Commander. In a Composite Squadron, the operational corps reports to the Deputy Commander for Seniors, and the Cadet Program reports to the Deputy Commander for Cadets; but the support staff report directly to the Squadron Commander.

Why would the support staff not report to the CDS, or why not have an XO in there? I get it, CAP tries to do the military thing with its structure, but most squadrons are designed to act like a full air wing rather than an individual squadron with a specific function. That's the reality of trying to maximize the resources to operate. I get it. But there's that elephant in the room mish-mosh of where people are supposed to report.

In some smaller units that don't have the resources, but have established org charts, I see conflicts where the CDS is actually the Squadron Deputy Commander with the CDC reporting to him/her. This is completely against the chain of command that CAP expects to see because CP does not report to the Senior Program. I see some units that have a Deputy Commander or Vice Commander with the CDS and CDC below him/her equally. But when unit members wear multiple hats, you do get those crossed lines at times.

So, I can't see that many squadrons are actually going by that excerpt from CAPR 20-1 while nearly all of them will in some way be influenced by that of the Cadet Staff Handbook and tweak their Cadet Program to function as they see fit. Are there really units submitting their org charts to region for approval?

[JeffDG]

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

[Holding Pattern]

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

You do see the "except" right after that, yes?

[TheSkyHornet]

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

And I'll defer that to the previous question as well. It ties in completely with the region commander approval.

I'm not trying to be the "skirt the regs" guy, but how many units here have an org chart that doesn't match the figures in CAPR 20-1? And how many reorganize their Cadet Program structure without going to region on that?

The wording in 20-1 seems pretty clear: If you want to change it, you need approval from region. We know for a fact that this is a routine violation by many units. But is the intent incorrectly written in here in that this is supposed to be more for Wing-level units and not so much the local squadron, or is this every unit? I don't know why the phrase "Wings/units" was used rather than, "Wings, Groups (if applicable), Squadrons, and sole Flights (if applicable)."

You missed this gem from CAPR 20-1

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

You do see the "except" right after that, yes?

I would take expanding staff elements as adding in something like "Assistant Operations Officer" or "Assistant Deputy Commander for Cadets." Necessary or not, that's Commander discretion.

My specific point is in regard to the approval of a restructure (deviation from CAPR 20-1) by higher command.

[lordmonar]

[rant]
CAPR 20-1 is majorly busted.   And that "region commander approval" is just the first part of it.
Like the region commander cares if cadet squadron X has an ES officer or if you want to have a DO and and EXO instead of a CDS.
Or if you want your ITO to report to the Comm Officer instead of the deputy commander.

Anyone who knows about leadership can see that the span of control on almost every one of the flow charts is jacked up.

Add to that "this is the best organization" is a direct lie.....as it does not account for the fact that most units only got 20 people in them in the  first place.
[/rant]
You may return to your regularly scheduled thread.   

[JeffDG]

[rant]
CAPR 20-1 is majorly busted.   And that "region commander approval" is just the first part of it.
Like the region commander cares if cadet squadron X has an ES officer or if you want to have a DO and and EXO instead of a CDS.
Or if you want your ITO to report to the Comm Officer instead of the deputy commander.

Anyone who knows about leadership can see that the span of control on almost every one of the flow charts is jacked up.

Add to that "this is the best organization" is a direct lie.....as it does not account for the fact that most units only got 20 people in them in the  first place.
[/rant]
You may return to your regularly scheduled thread. 

It's more "jacked up" than that.

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

In terms of Span-of-Control, I think that I, as a Wing CoS, have 17 direct reports.  You cannot effectively manage 17 direct reports as a full-time manager drawing a rather large salary, let alone a part-time volunteer who has to prioritize his day-job.

[Holding Pattern]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

[JeffDG]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

It says "deviations are not authorized", pretty simple language.

[Holding Pattern]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

It says "deviations are not authorized", pretty simple language.

If you read the very next word, it says "except" and continues from there.

[SarDragon]

And to provide a third iteration of the text of that paragraph:

23. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This
basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are
not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission.

[JeffDG]

One part of the regulation says the Region Commander may approve deviations.  Another says that deviations are not permitted whatsoever.  These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other.

The latter portion you think says that does not say that.

It says "deviations are not authorized", pretty simple language.

If you read the very next word, it says "except" and continues from there.

True, but the org charts themselves are fixed and not changeable, even by CAP/CC.  You can blow things out below that level if you want, and go nuts.  But, you still have 17 people reporting to the Wing Chief of Staff.

[Al Sayre]

Unless you get some deputies...

[grunt82abn]

New guy question since we are talking about span of control during Incidents. Are these structures basic templates like we use in Fed Fire which allot for "Minimum Manning" and allow the IC to appoint positions based on incident need? Or, are these structures set pieces and the IC cannot add or delete from these manning charts?

[Spaceman3750]

New guy question since we are talking about span of control during Incidents. Are these structures basic templates like we use in Fed Fire which allot for "Minimum Manning" and allow the IC to appoint positions based on incident need? Or, are these structures set pieces and the IC cannot add or delete from these manning charts?

ICS has its own command structure independent of the unit. Most of our incidents tend to look the same, but according to ICS, below the command & general staff level (FLOP, IO, MSO, LO, IC, etc) the IC can open and close branches, units, divisions, etc as needed.

[JeffDG]

New guy question since we are talking about span of control during Incidents. Are these structures basic templates like we use in Fed Fire which allot for "Minimum Manning" and allow the IC to appoint positions based on incident need? Or, are these structures set pieces and the IC cannot add or delete from these manning charts?

What's being discussed here is day-to-day org charts for squadrons/groups/wings/regions, not ICS stuff.

On missions, we use ICS, and yes, it expands/contracts based upon need.  As you're no doubt aware, ICS is specifically designed to be flexible.  On a 2AM ELT search, no way in hell am I going to have an OSC, ABOD, GBD, PSC, LSC, FASC, CUL, etc. etc.  I might grab someone to round up the air-crews and make him the AOBD reporting directly to the IC, have an MSO to watch my back and make sure I don't get too "mission focused" and not consider safety, and maybe a comm guy if I'm lucky!  On a large scale exercise/mission, I'm going to want the whole staff filled out.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

[JeffDG]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

[A.Member]

Unless you get some deputies...

But the deputies are not direct reports.  The direct report may have delegates, assistants, or deputies, but those positions would still report up through the direct who still maintains responsibility and accountability for the assigned duties.  As a Chief of Staff, I wouldn't go to the deputies, I'd be looking to the direct. 

Figure 16 in CAPR 20-1 depicts the hierarchy Composite Squadron Hierarchy for Seniors very clearly, as well as identifying those positions that are allowed subordinates.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

That is the way the fire service does it, for the most part. Battalion Chief is IC, Company officers fill certain roles, and the bigger the incident gets, On coming chiefs and officers fill roles as needed. Not saying this would ever fly in CAP, but now that you bring it up, it seems like a solid idea!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[PHall]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

That is the way the fire service does it, for the most part. Battalion Chief is IC, Company officers fill certain roles, and the bigger the incident gets, On coming chiefs and officers fill roles as needed. Not saying this would ever fly in CAP, but now that you bring it up, it seems like a solid idea!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Now, let's see you "sell" this idea to the folks at National who actually write the regs.  I'll wait...

[SarDragon]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

It only took 6 month for me to finally figure out how an Air Refueling Wing was structured, hopefully not as long for CAP

[TheSkyHornet]

So, I'm not trying to dig too deep into expression internal squadron issues but I'll give a general overview. Lord knows I've had my rants in the past, and they won't be the last of them.

Anyway, I'm in a position where the AEO is also the CDS who is also the Squadron CD. So when working with me for cadet aerospace education, my AEO is my direct superior. As both CDS and CD, and me having to report to the CD, it makes it where Cadet Programs is reporting to the Senior Program.

Now, let's be real here. A conflict of interest like this is very unlikely in the real world, albeit that it does happen. But in CAP, it's a volunteer force, you get over it, you wear multiple hats...yadda yadda yadda... the same story every time one of these discussions comes up.

Our CD wants to run by the book. So with our last unit commander, we had some staff officers who did not perform so great, and the commander appointed the CDS to also be the CD which gave him some authority over the other staff officers to get them in check. Just prior to his appointed to CD, I was appointed CDS, maybe a month or two prior. I suddenly get a new boss to report to, not a huge deal. Unit commanders change, things take a huge turn for the better as far as the Cadet Program, but we have some room for improvement. So, the CD send region his updated org chart, they informally approve (but there's no names filled in, so I'm not sure they understand that the CD is also the CDS and now oversees the CDC). They say they believe the org chart is messed up in 20-1, and they want to work to revise it.

The cadets have had some complaints about aerospace, so I've tried to tell the AEO "here's what I need done for the aerospace lessons as the CDC in charge of Cadet Programs." But it's hard to do that when I'm working with my boss essentially. We had a chat in which I said I want to pull rank over the AEO if he's teaching my cadets as part of a scheduled class each month, and I need the AEO to take my instruction on this matter. He said he would not dare put his CD hat on during AE, but there's still this matter of "I need you to get this done, and I'm ordering the CD at this point to teach AE to my standard." We don't really have a senior AE program at the moment. It's in the works.

But now the CD wants to do staff evaluations, boards for seniors, and talk about my progression as a senior member. Which is fine if the CD wasn't the CDS and wasn't the AEO. I see a major conflict here. I can't have my staff giving me a top-down review when it comes to my progression as a Cadet Programs Specialty Track pursuer or as an officer or what have you. The Commander should do that.

I ask him where we got the idea of even having a Squadron Deputy Commander. He said because the Commander had 15 duty assignments reporting to him. I pointed at that now the Deputy Commander has 14 duty assignments reporting to him. What was changed? I suggested consolidating the departments to be more effective and reduce that span to no more than 8 subordinates with their own delegated staff as necessary. It's what I've done with the Cadet Program and it's structured very nicely in my own opinion. But on the senior side, they don't seem to grasp it.

I was then informed about the "region needs to approve the change" line in 20-1, which I'll admit I didn't know (ignorance doesn't excuse you from reality, you got me). But I pointed out that the Cadet Program is supposed to be flexible and run as structured to meet the needs of the unit. And I got told that it still needs to be approved by region.

No, that's where I draw the line. That's ridiculous. I don't want to be reg-busting here, and starting an internal conflict, but come on. That's way too far.

I'll admit, this did get to be a bit of a rant, and I'll also admit that I was looking for some comfort and alignment in the idea that I was right. But I really appreciate hearing the feedback of how this is supposed to be played out and how units are structured/approved for structural changes. I want to make my side run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and before I take it to the Commander to say "Look, Sir, here's what I need to accomplish my goals," I need to make sure I'm not going to come out of that meeting feeling smaller than I already do with how the authority has been bulked up on the senior side.

This is also one of those things where CAP Talk can be really helpful, but also detrimental in the fact that I'm just waiting to get that email from my Deputy Commander with "I saw your post..."

Dun dun dun........

[etodd]

So, I'm not trying to dig too deep into expression internal squadron issues but I'll give a general overview. Lord knows I've had my rants in the past, and they won't be the last of them.

Anyway, I'm in a position where the AEO is also the CDS who is also the Squadron CD. So when working with me for cadet aerospace education, my AEO is my direct superior. As both CDS and CD, and me having to report to the CD, it makes it where Cadet Programs is reporting to the Senior Program.

Now, let's be real here. A conflict of interest like this is very unlikely in the real world, albeit that it does happen. But in CAP, it's a volunteer force, you get over it, you wear multiple hats...yadda yadda yadda... the same story every time one of these discussions comes up.

Our CD wants to run by the book. So with our last unit commander, we had some staff officers who did not perform so great, and the commander appointed the CDS to also be the CD which gave him some authority over the other staff officers to get them in check. Just prior to his appointed to CD, I was appointed CDS, maybe a month or two prior. I suddenly get a new boss to report to, not a huge deal. Unit commanders change, things take a huge turn for the better as far as the Cadet Program, but we have some room for improvement. So, the CD send region his updated org chart, they informally approve (but there's no names filled in, so I'm not sure they understand that the CD is also the CDS and now oversees the CDC). They say they believe the org chart is messed up in 20-1, and they want to work to revise it.

The cadets have had some complaints about aerospace, so I've tried to tell the AEO "here's what I need done for the aerospace lessons as the CDC in charge of Cadet Programs." But it's hard to do that when I'm working with my boss essentially. We had a chat in which I said I want to pull rank over the AEO if he's teaching my cadets as part of a scheduled class each month, and I need the AEO to take my instruction on this matter. He said he would not dare put his CD hat on during AE, but there's still this matter of "I need you to get this done, and I'm ordering the CD at this point to teach AE to my standard." We don't really have a senior AE program at the moment. It's in the works.

But now the CD wants to do staff evaluations, boards for seniors, and talk about my progression as a senior member. Which is fine if the CD wasn't the CDS and wasn't the AEO. I see a major conflict here. I can't have my staff giving me a top-down review when it comes to my progression as a Cadet Programs Specialty Track pursuer or as an officer or what have you. The Commander should do that.

I ask him where we got the idea of even having a Squadron Deputy Commander. He said because the Commander had 15 duty assignments reporting to him. I pointed at that now the Deputy Commander has 14 duty assignments reporting to him. What was changed? I suggested consolidating the departments to be more effective and reduce that span to no more than 8 subordinates with their own delegated staff as necessary. It's what I've done with the Cadet Program and it's structured very nicely in my own opinion. But on the senior side, they don't seem to grasp it.

I was then informed about the "region needs to approve the change" line in 20-1, which I'll admit I didn't know (ignorance doesn't excuse you from reality, you got me). But I pointed out that the Cadet Program is supposed to be flexible and run as structured to meet the needs of the unit. And I got told that it still needs to be approved by region.

No, that's where I draw the line. That's ridiculous. I don't want to be reg-busting here, and starting an internal conflict, but come on. That's way too far.

I'll admit, this did get to be a bit of a rant, and I'll also admit that I was looking for some comfort and alignment in the idea that I was right. But I really appreciate hearing the feedback of how this is supposed to be played out and how units are structured/approved for structural changes. I want to make my side run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and before I take it to the Commander to say "Look, Sir, here's what I need to accomplish my goals," I need to make sure I'm not going to come out of that meeting feeling smaller than I already do with how the authority has been bulked up on the senior side.

This is also one of those things where CAP Talk can be really helpful, but also detrimental in the fact that I'm just waiting to get that email from my Deputy Commander with "I saw your post..."

Dun dun dun........

How many actual participating members in your Squadron? Must be huge compared to the one I'm in where we just have a few folks that all wear multiple hats. I see so many posts here like this with organizational issues and I never see anything like it in our group. Maybe its because we are so small(?) About 30 Seniors and 20 Cadets, with about half actually showing up for meetings. Very good group of folks, but casual I guess would describe it.

[THRAWN]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

It only took 6 month for me to finally figure out how an Air Refueling Wing was structured, hopefully not as long for CAP

It took you 6 months to figure out there is an ops group, support group, maintenance group and (sometimes) a med group? That's faster than most load masters....

[TheSkyHornet]

How many actual participating members in your Squadron? Must be huge compared to the one I'm in where we just have a few folks that all wear multiple hats. I see so many posts here like this with organizational issues and I never see anything like it in our group. Maybe its because we are so small(?) About 30 Seniors and 20 Cadets, with about half actually showing up for meetings. Very good group of folks, but casual I guess would describe it.

Our squadron is actually very small.

We currently have the following

- *Commander / Public Affairs Officer / Recruiting & Retention Officer
- * Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors / Professional Development Officer / Personnel Officer / Aerospace Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer
- * Chaplain / Safety Officer
- Finance Officer / Testing Officer / Administrative Officer
- * Emergency Services Officer / Communications Officer
- Logistics Officer
- Transportation Officer
- 1 member on hiatus (former Commander)
- * Deputy Commander for Cadets / Activities Officer (Cadet Programs) / Leadership Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer

(*) represents people who show up frequently (at least 2 meetings a month)

So 5-6 regularly show up. The 3 commanders definitely due most of the work. I have no involvement with the programs outside of the Cadet Program whatsoever, and I have specifically stated that I will not take on responsibilities for the senior side. I have too much to do on the cadet side.

The Cadet Program is essentially self-sustained, aside from the fact that I need to have another senior present for any cadet activity, whether at the meeting or outside of the meeting. An exception would be Aerospace Education, in which the Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors is the AEO.

So in a unit of relatively 6 people, I don't understand why this is such a big to-do. Simplify the org chart. It seems very cut-and-dry to me.

But that's when this whole "it needs to go to region" came in.

[C/SrA Ravlin]

In my squadron the cadet support staff report to our XO. Flight staff report to the flight sergeant who reports to the flight commander who then reports to the cadet commander and then up to the senior member chain...

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

It only took 6 month for me to finally figure out how an Air Refueling Wing was structured, hopefully not as long for CAP

It took you 6 months to figure out there is an ops group, support group, maintenance group and (sometimes) a med group? That's faster than most load masters....

I wased a grunt, and they ain't learnded me so good

[etodd]

How many actual participating members in your Squadron? Must be huge compared to the one I'm in where we just have a few folks that all wear multiple hats. I see so many posts here like this with organizational issues and I never see anything like it in our group. Maybe its because we are so small(?) About 30 Seniors and 20 Cadets, with about half actually showing up for meetings. Very good group of folks, but casual I guess would describe it.

Our squadron is actually very small.

We currently have the following

- *Commander / Public Affairs Officer / Recruiting & Retention Officer
- * Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors / Professional Development Officer / Personnel Officer / Aerospace Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer
- * Chaplain / Safety Officer
- Finance Officer / Testing Officer / Administrative Officer
- * Emergency Services Officer / Communications Officer
- Logistics Officer
- Transportation Officer
- 1 member on hiatus (former Commander)
- * Deputy Commander for Cadets / Activities Officer (Cadet Programs) / Leadership Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer

(*) represents people who show up frequently (at least 2 meetings a month)

So 5-6 regularly show up. The 3 commanders definitely due most of the work. I have no involvement with the programs outside of the Cadet Program whatsoever, and I have specifically stated that I will not take on responsibilities for the senior side. I have too much to do on the cadet side.

The Cadet Program is essentially self-sustained, aside from the fact that I need to have another senior present for any cadet activity, whether at the meeting or outside of the meeting. An exception would be Aerospace Education, in which the Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors is the AEO.

So in a unit of relatively 6 people, I don't understand why this is such a big to-do. Simplify the org chart. It seems very cut-and-dry to me.

But that's when this whole "it needs to go to region" came in.

I guess I should ask who I should report to. So far any questions or concerns I've simply sent a cell phone text or email to the Squadron Commander and he answers. Never tells me I should be talking to anyone in-between. Maybe there is a chart somewhere for our Squadron ...

[TheSkyHornet]

In my squadron the cadet support staff report to our XO. Flight staff report to the flight sergeant who reports to the flight commander who then reports to the cadet commander and then up to the senior member chain...

In our CP structure, the C/CD reports to the C/CC.

C/XO reports to the C/CD, and oversees all of the executive staff (C/PAO, C/AEO, etc).

Flight Commanders report to the C/CD for operational flight responsibilities.

[I guess I should ask who I should report to. So far any questions or concerns I've simply sent a cell phone text or email to the Squadron Commander and he answers. Never tells me I should be talking to anyone in-between. Maybe there is a chart somewhere for our Squadron ...

What is your role, Sir?

I used to report directly to the Commander. Now I report to the Deputy Commander, which isn't a big deal. But the Deputy Commander in our unit is also the Deputy Commander for Seniors (wears two hats in this case---in addition to the other duty assignments he holds). So effectively, the Deputy Commander for Cadets is reporting to the Deputy Commander for Seniors due to the dual role.


I saw a post previously that said in one unit, the Commander was also the Deputy Commander for Seniors, while a separate Deputy Commander for Cadets was assigned. I think people are misunderstanding how chain of command works in the absence of an assigned duty. I keep getting broadcast as "also the Activities Officer and Leadership Education Officer." This shouldn't be the case. I should automatically be filling those roles because I'm the next higher in the chain of command and those positions are currently vacant. Until I have someone reporting to me in that particular role, it's my responsibility, albeit that the quality will be reduced simply because of the fact that I can't do everything. But I wouldn't expect my Commander to also be my Leadership Officer for the Cadet Program.

You either delegate responsibilities, or fulfill them at your level. That's how I see it.

But I'm also coming from a background of a strict chain of command that goes up, not up and down and sideways and back down again. So it's a bit hard for some to catch on to my ideas of staffing, and hard for me to back off from trying to fix the spaghetti monster that is a unit's organizational structure. Bear in mind that I'm solely referring to the Cadet Program and how it reports to the Commander. The senior side isn't my business.