CAP Chain of Command

[AvroArrow]

So Google didn't come up with good results.. What is the current chain-of-command of CAP?

I get lost after the National Comander.

[Eeyore]

I am slightly lost above National Commander... with CAP CP under the Holm Center, do we use CAP-USAF or the Holm Center Commander in the COC?

[Eclipse]

That's because that's where it effectively ends.

Anything beyond that is only during an AFAM and would include 1st Air Force.

[lordmonar]

For Cadets:

You
Your Element
Your Flight Commander
Your C/CC
Your Deputy Commander for Cadets
Your Squadron Commander
Your Group Commander (if you have one)
Your Wing Commander
Your Region Commander
The National Commander
The Board of Governors

For Senior Members:

You
Your Staff Officer
Your Deputy Commandeer
Your Squadron Commander
Your Group Commander
Your Wing Commander
Your Region Commander
The National Commander
The Board of Governors


The CAP-USAF chain does not apply.

[flyguy06]

Does the national Commander have to report or have any dealings with the Air University Commander?

[lordmonar]

Does the national Commander have to report or have any dealings with the Air University Commander?

Nope.

There is of course a relationship between CAP and CAP-USAF but it is more on the order of a government-contractor relationship not a command relationship.

[flyguy06]

I see. I used to think the CC for AU and the CC for AETC were in our Chain as well. So Iguess the POTUS and the CSAF and SECAF arent anywhere near our chain then

[Eclipse]

I see. I used to think the CC for AU and the CC for AETC were in our Chain as well. So Iguess the POTUS and the CSAF and SECAF arent anywhere near our chain then

Correct, the only time that might be true would be during an AFAM.

Unlike the military, the oath we take when we join, and the one we reaffirm when we are promoted, swears to obey the Constitution and
Officers of the Corporation, not the United States.

[lordmonar]

I see. I used to think the CC for AU and the CC for AETC were in our Chain as well. So Iguess the POTUS and the CSAF and SECAF arent anywhere near our chain then

Correct, the only time that might be true would be during an AFAM.

Unlike the military, the oath we take when we join, and the one we reaffirm when we are promoted, swears to obey the Constitution and
Officers of the Corporation, not the United States.

Nope.....CAP retains command of CAP assets even during a AFAM.

[Gunner C]

For Senior Members:

You
Your Staff Officer
Your Deputy Commandeer
Your Squadron Commander

Actually, I'm gonna say no.  Staff officers don't command, but that is who you work for.  Command vs staff authority are two different things.

[sparks]

Shouldn't the chain of command list end at the National Commander? Isn't the BoG is part of the CAP management function but not a command function?

[FW]

^No.  The Board of Governors IS the governing body of CAP.  If that board makes a decision, the National Commander must obey it.  The only body that may "overrule" the BoG is congress.  And, the only way they can do that is by changing the law.  So, the proverbial "buck" does stop with the BoG.

[lordmonar]

For Senior Members:

You
Your Staff Officer
Your Deputy Commandeer
Your Squadron Commander

Actually, I'm gonna say no.  Staff officers don't command, but that is who you work for.  Command vs staff authority are two different things.

If you are the Assitant Operations Officer....your chain of command starts with the Operations Officer and then goes to the Deputy Commander for Seniors.

How is that any different then than someone being under a flight commander....who for the most part are only staff positions anyways.

[flyguy06]

This is true. In Staff Sections, your Dept. head is your supervisor therfore your chain. But in line units its Commander

[Eclipse]

You need to separate operational direction from "Command", "Supervision" is a good term to use.

We've got all sorts of circular paths for operational roles, but there is only one chain of command in CAP.

Member
↓
unit
↓
group
↓
wing
↓
region
↓
NHQ

Staffers may have operational authority over a given task or department, but no command authority - that stems from delegation of the commander.

Staffers get themselves in trouble with that all the time.

[lordmonar]

The concept of chain of command is that each and everyone has one and only one boss.

Joe Blow Workerbee needs only one boss.  His supervisor.  No need for a "supervisor chain" and "command chain".

The term "command authority" has no meaning.  The Personal Officer has authority over all his assistants. 

In an idea squadron everyone would have a job.  Even if you have a bunch of "at-large" members....they should have someone the answer to.  It could be directly to the Deputy Commander for Seniors or the Commander....or someone else identified by the commander.

[Eclipse]

The term "command authority" has no meaning.  The Personal Officer has authority over all his assistants. 

No and yes.

Over his "assistants", yes, over the rest of the membership, no.

A wing-level DCP, for example, has no authority to wander around the wing inserting his opinion about random squadrons just because
he's bored that night and decide to do a "spot check".

His job is coordinating plans, programs, activities, and compliance at the wing level, and if he becomes aware of an issue, there's a protocol to suggest a fix downstream, which the respective commanders then have the option to follow, or not.

The only person who can tell subordinates what to do are commanders, or staffers signing "for the commander".  There's a difference.

And unfortunately we'll never get to "one boss" in CAP, at least not administratively.  One boss per assignment, yes.

In an idea squadron everyone would have a job.

I disagree here as well.

In an ideal squadron there would be enough people so that the administrtative tasks could be covered and the majority of the members could be members - training and doing in their specialty and not worried about keeping the lights on.  Members in their first couple of years should be more like the cadet ranks - worried more about their own learning and training, and less about having to accept squadron staff jobs because there's only 3 seniors in the unit.

That's how it actually works in the model we are emulating.

[Ned]

Bob,

not to nitpick an otherwise excellent post, but

A wing-level DCP, for example, has no authority to wander around the wing inserting his opinion about random squadrons just because
he's bored that night and decide to do a "spot check".

His job is coordinating plans, programs, activities, and compliance at the wing level, and if he becomes aware of an issue, there's a protocol to suggest a fix downstream, which the respective commanders then have the option to follow, or not.

The wing DCP undoubtedly has the authority (and responsiblity) to wander around the wing and offer her/his opinion.  Hopefully that doesn't happen just because the DCP is bored, but as part of a robust unit visitation program that allows the DCP to be in touch with units in the field and spread best practices from unit to unit.

Sure, the DCP also is in charge of the wing-level CP administrivia, but the DCP will inevitiably fail to excel if they don't get out of their office and get out to the units and activities on a regular basis.

But we agree that the DCP is a (critical) staffer with no inherent command authority over supported commanders.

[lordmonar]

I never said a staff officer has authority over anyone except those under him in his chain.

Also everyone should have a job.  Even if that job is "pilot" there should be a chief pilot or all pilots are under the Operations Officer. 

Everyone should have a boss and only one boss.

[flyguy06]

You need to separate operational direction from "Command", "Supervision" is a good term to use.

We've got all sorts of circular paths for operational roles, but there is only one chain of command in CAP.

Member
↓
unit
↓
group
↓
wing
↓
region
↓
NHQ

Staffers may have operational authority over a given task or department, but no command authority - that stems from delegation of the commander.

Staffers get themselves in trouble with that all the time.

I think you guys are saying the samething, just using different terms. I think everyone realizes that  Staffer is NOT a commander but he "commands" his section and is therefore that persons chain of command.  I am the DCP I have a staff of three. I supervise then, but if they have an issue they shouldnt go to the COS. the should go through me. that is their chain of command. Not command in the since of a commander, but chain of command in the since of organizational sturctue.

I think you guys get all bent out of shape and read t0o deep into every specific word. Think about the meanings and the context of how the word or phrase is used.

[Eclipse]

Bob,

not to nitpick an otherwise excellent post, but

A wing-level DCP, for example, has no authority to wander around the wing inserting his opinion about random squadrons just because
he's bored that night and decide to do a "spot check".

His job is coordinating plans, programs, activities, and compliance at the wing level, and if he becomes aware of an issue, there's a protocol to suggest a fix downstream, which the respective commanders then have the option to follow, or not.

The wing DCP undoubtedly has the authority (and responsiblity) to wander around the wing and offer her/his opinion.  Hopefully that doesn't happen just because the DCP is bored, but as part of a robust unit visitation program that allows the DCP to be in touch with units in the field and spread best practices from unit to unit.

Sure, the DCP also is in charge of the wing-level CP administrivia, but the DCP will inevitiably fail to excel if they don't get out of their office and get out to the units and activities on a regular basis.

But we agree that the DCP is a (critical) staffer with no inherent command authority over supported commanders.

Ned,

As usual, we're basically in agreement.  The problem, of course, comes when the "opinion" is asserted as "authority", especially
when its over something subjective.

I grabbed DCP out of handy air, this applies to any staffer.

[RiverAux]

A squadron staff officer only has authority over one of their assistants in regards to how that person performs that assistant function.   So, the Squadron Personnel Officer can't tell the Assistant Personnel Officer that he cannot go to a SAREX, get promoted, or anything other than how to do that job.  But that job is only a fraction of what that member does in CAP, so in reality the staff officer doesn't have enough real authority to be considered in the general CAP chain of command. 

[lordmonar]

A squadron staff officer only has authority over one of their assistants in regards to how that person performs that assistant function.   So, the Squadron Personnel Officer can't tell the Assistant Personnel Officer that he cannot go to a SAREX, get promoted, or anything other than how to do that job.  But that job is only a fraction of what that member does in CAP, so in reality the staff officer doesn't have enough real authority to be considered in the general CAP chain of command.

In that sense then only the commander is in anyone's chain of command.

Promotion authority is not the only factor when determining chain of command.

[RiverAux]

In that sense then only the commander is in anyone's chain of command.

Exactly what the thread is about. 
Situational authority abounds in CAP, but thats a different story.

[Eclipse]

In that sense then only the commander is in anyone's chain of command.

Correct.

Nothing happens in a CAP unit that is not the responsibility of the commander, and everything that does happen is with his blessing.

[lordmonar]

In that sense then only the commander is in anyone's chain of command.

Correct.

Nothing happens in a CAP unit that is not the responsibility of the commander, and everything that does happen is with his blessing.

Same is true in an AD USAF unit....but I had a chain of command that included people below the commander.

Unity of command.....that is everyone only has one boss....what we usually call the "chain".

If you give someone a job and give them subordinate.....the subordinates are below you in the chain.  If they are not....then you have taken away my authority to do the job.  Sure....I can't promote anyone.....but I am still their supervisor and the next link in their chain of command.

[RiverAux]

Well, thats the military, not CAP. 

A CAP member has many bosses and who that boss is depends on what that CAP member is doing at that specific point in time.  The only common denominator is that only the squadron/group/wing commander or IC has any real authority. 

Keep in mind that it is quite common for CAP members to have multiple jobs at the squadron level.  So, at the same time I could be the Operations Officer reporting to the Deputy Commander for Seniors and I can also be the Deputy Administrative Officer reporting to the Administrative Officer. 

[Thom]

Well, since I just recently finished the Officer Basic Course (replacement for ECI-13) and it had a nice module entirely devoted to CAP Chain of Command, how about we reference this 'CAP approved' and 'peer reviewed' materiel?

Quoting from the OBC Lesson Content from this point on:



2. Explain the difference between line and staff officers.
Line officers hold a position in the chain of command. Their titles usually end in the word Commander. They have the right to direct and discipline subordinates.  Their authority does not extend beyond their part of the organization (Cote, 1977). They set policy and make decisions for their command within the parameters of CAP regulations. In business these people would be the president or department head.

Staff Officers provide assistance, counsel or services to others but do not have the right to direct and discipline. (Cote, 1977) The commander cannot be involved in the routine work in all departments nor can they be expected to be experts in all areas.  Staff officers are expected to do those things in their department only.  Staff officers are in the position to recommend policy and influence decisions through expertise and persuasions.  In a business these people would be the accountant or programmer.

A CAP example of this would be the Group Public Affairs Officer (PAO) wanting to see all press releases before they go out to the press.  He can recommend it to the squadron PAOs but not require it.  He can also recommend the policy to the Wing or Group Commander who has the authority to order it/make it policy.  If the Wing or Group Commander sets the policy, the Squadron Commanders in that wing/group (but not neighboring groups) are compelled to tell their PAO of the new policy and require them to follow it.

Any member may consult with their counterpart at the next higher headquarters for assistance, guidance, counsel, advice, training or services directly but they can not order you to do something. You should be mindful that they will tell you how things get done (the policy or regulation) and most likely will be the person who will process the task you want to accomplish.   So let's say you are the Squadron Finance Officer and the Wing  Director of Finance says, "Wing only processes requests for reimbursement on Tuesdays."  (He is advising you of the policy set by the Wing Commander.) You can ask them how long it takes to get things to them by mail or why Tuesdays, but if it arrives on Wednesday you will wait a week.

There are three ways officers often get themselves into trouble with authority. First, they try to extend line authority beyond their area of command. They give direction to people who are not under their authority or direct them to violate some regulation or policy.  For example, a Ground Team Leader and his team are filling sandbags outside a power plant in order to protect it from rising waters.  When asked if CAP can provide more help, he thinks about the three ground teams that had yet to be dispatched when his team left two hours ago.  He says, "Sure I can get three more teams here in an hour".  The decision to accept a mission is up to the Incident Commander (IC) and which resources to commit to the mission are made by the IC in consultation with the staff.  The Ground Team Leader overstepped his authority. You only have authority over those who report to you on the organizational chart and their subordinates   (CAPR 20-1).   You do not have the authority to order someone to violate the regulations.

The second most common way to get in trouble is staff officers trying to use line officer authority.  They try to reassign resources or make policy without approval of their commander or order commanders from subordinate units to do something.   For example, the Operations Officer reassigns an aircraft to a different unit and orders the losing commander to fly it 50 miles to the new airport and drive back.  The Operations Officer is misusing line authority.  It is the Wing Commander who assigns aircraft to units and the Operations Officer then coordinates between the losing and gaining commanders for the delivery of the aircraft.

The last way officers get in trouble is when they try to do something outside their area.  A classic example is when the Communications Officer tells the Finance Officer to write a check so she can be reimbursed for batteries for the radio.  It is the Commander's job to tell the Finance Officer they have pre-approved the expenditure and the Supply Officer's job to buy the batteries.

Remember, staff officers advise; line officers exercise authority and that authority has limits. Know your role and its limits.

[lordmonar]

Thom,

That is correct....and nothing I have said contradicts what the OBC says.

The question was....what is the chain of command.

Assuming that SM New Guy is assigned as an assistant personnel officer in the Homer J. Simpson Composite Squadron.

His chain of command is:

Him Assailant Personnel Officer
1st Lt Grundy, Personnel Officer
Capt Sharpie, Deputy Commander for Seniors
Major Highspeed, Commander H.J. Simpson Composite Squadron
Lt Col Lightyear, Commander Group 1
Col Skywalker, Commander XX Wing
Col Kenobie, Commander XX Region
Maj Gen Courter, Commander CAP

Lt Grundy is a line officer in the chain of command.  He has authority over all of his subordinates.  He is also a staff officer in the H.J. Simpson Composite Squadron and as such has no authority over anyone else in the squadron except his personnel staff.

I can't really believe that we are having this discussion....this is really basic stuff.

The debate about line officers VS staff officers is usually about higher echelon staff officers.

When the Wing Personnel Officer start dictating policy down to the groups and squadrons, that is a problem.  When a squadron staff officer bypasses the chain to go to the group staff officer for action....that is a problem.  But the wing Assailant Cadet Program guy works for the wing Director of Cadet Programs.  The DCP is in his chain of command.

Now granted.....often individual members in CAP may have several bosses....but that is because they wear several hats.   The Assistant Squadron Personnel Officer, may also be a SAR/DR pilot.  So he may fall under the Personell Officer and/or the Squadron Operations Officer.  Even if neither one of these staff officers have any "command" authority, they are still in his chain of command.  We can eliminate this duel path by ensuring that we do not give two jobs to any one individual (like that is going to happen) .

[Spike]

I would really love to get on the OBC course and see what is being presented.  However, since I get ECI 13 over 12 years ago, can't do it. 

[RiverAux]

Lt Grundy is a line officer in the chain of command.  He has authority over all of his subordinates.  He is also a staff officer in the H.J. Simpson Composite Squadron and as such has no authority over anyone else in the squadron except his personnel staff.

I can't really believe that we are having this discussion....this is really basic stuff.

Gee, seems to be that CAP disagrees with you about this.  Lt. Grundy only has authority over Him in regards to personnel department issues only.  If this was the military or just about any other job you would be correct.  But in CAP it isn't the case. 

[Thom]

I would really love to get on the OBC course and see what is being presented.  However, since I get ECI 13 over 12 years ago, can't do it.

Well, you can't take the tests, but you can certainly read all of the course materials.  They are available as PDF files at the bottom of the course information page, here:

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/officer_basic_course.cfm

You can freely download all of them and read through them just like you were taking the OBC for real.

Thom

[lordmonar]

Lt Grundy is a line officer in the chain of command.  He has authority over all of his subordinates.  He is also a staff officer in the H.J. Simpson Composite Squadron and as such has no authority over anyone else in the squadron except his personnel staff.

I can't really believe that we are having this discussion....this is really basic stuff.

Gee, seems to be that CAP disagrees with you about this.  Lt. Grundy only has authority over Him in regards to personnel department issues only.  If this was the military or just about any other job you would be correct.  But in CAP it isn't the case.

Then why do we even bother to teach the concept of chain of command?  How can new officers learn about authority and responsibility if this vital precept of command authority is simply ignored?

CAP is not the military....but the chain of command is not a simple military only concept.  Lines of authority have to be established or leaders and followers cannot function.

Lt Grundy has the authority of the program placed under him as a staff officer.....and the people under him as line officer.

I think that is the point that you are missing.  You can be both a line officer and a staff officer at the same time.
I don't think CAP disagrees with this concept so much as you are misreading the lesson being taught in OBC.

As a unit level staff officer your chain is through your deputy commander and commander.....NOT up the group and wing chain through the staff officers.  But as a staff officer who actually supervises people you are also a line officer with the command authority that goes with it.

As I say this is a vital principle....without it all of our command and control concepts go out the door.....up to and including the authority of GTLs, PICs, Mission base staff and ICs.  Not to mention that the entire cadet program is designed abound the concept of the chain of command.  By your interpretation of the chain of Command The cadet chain of command is from him to the Deputy Command for Cadets, Unit Commander.....the entire cadet chain is bypassed because they have not authority to promote or discipline.

[RiverAux]

We do teach it except that CAP's version of a line officer is different.

Lt. Grundy is only a staff officer, he is not a line officer in CAP World. 

The text from the OBC seems to explains CAP's view pretty well. 

Yes, it conflicts with how things are done in other organizations, but thats the way it is. 

[lordmonar]

One more thing about CAP that I am just going to ignore. 

[CadetProgramGuy]

Wing staff is not in command of squadron staff.

I.E.  XXWG DCP does not command XXSQ DCP.

Nor is Squadron Cadet Programs officer in command over any of his assistants.

Command is Command and only the Commander is in charge.

[lordmonar]

Wing staff is not in command of squadron staff.

I.E.  XXWG DCP does not command XXSQ DCP.

Nor is Squadron Cadet Programs officer in command over any of his assistants.

Command is Command and only the Commander is in charge.

So....your flight sergeants have no authority.....that's good I can't wait to tell my cadets.

[raivo]

Wing staff is not in command of squadron staff.

I.E.  XXWG DCP does not command XXSQ DCP.

Nor is Squadron Cadet Programs officer in command over any of his assistants.

Command is Command and only the Commander is in charge.

So....your flight sergeants have no authority.....that's good I can't wait to tell my cadets.

Whoa, straw-man.

This would be where delegation of authority comes in. The only person "officially" in charge at a squadron is the commander. However, people in positions of authority at the squadron derive their authority from the fact that the squadron commander has authorized them to command on his behalf, within their scope of responsibility - if their subordinates become insubordinates, the squadron commander will be coming down on them (the subordinates.)

According to the Air Force, my commander is the commander of my squadron, and not my flight commander. However, if I suddenly decide I don't want to listen to my flight commander, I'm going to find myself in service dress in the squadron commander's office real quick...

By the way, I'm a little confused by some of the posts in this thread - does CAP have a different definition of "line officer" than I'm used to?

[lordmonar]

Wing staff is not in command of squadron staff.

I.E.  XXWG DCP does not command XXSQ DCP.

Nor is Squadron Cadet Programs officer in command over any of his assistants.

Command is Command and only the Commander is in charge.

So....your flight sergeants have no authority.....that's good I can't wait to tell my cadets.

Whoa, straw-man.

This would be where delegation of authority comes in. The only person "officially" in charge at a squadron is the commander. However, people in positions of authority at the squadron derive their authority from the fact that the squadron commander has authorized them to command on his behalf, within their scope of responsibility - if their subordinates become insubordinates, the squadron commander will be coming down on them (the subordinates.)

According to the Air Force, my commander is the commander of my squadron, and not my flight commander. However, if I suddenly decide I don't want to listen to my flight commander, I'm going to find myself in service dress in the squadron commander's office real quick...

By the way, I'm a little confused by some of the posts in this thread - does CAP have a different definition of "line officer" than I'm used to?

Give the man a cigar!

Now what is the function difference between a flight sergeant's authority over the people assigned to him and a Squadron Personnel officers authority over the people assigned to him?

My point being there is no difference between C/AB Newguy's chain beginning with his element leader, through his flight sergeant, to his flight leader and on up.....and a new SM chain begging with the the staff officer in charge of his job area and going up from there.

The Line Officer/Staff Officer distinction only come in at higher echelons of command.  The Wing Cadet Programs Officer cannot dictate policy directly to squadron commanders or even worse squadron Cadet Program people because he is only a staff officer.  He does no command in his own name but must go through the wing commander. (i.e. he is not in the squadron's chain of command).  But at the same time the Wing Cadet Program Officer is a line officer to his wing Cadet Program Staff.

This is no different then the way the USAF does it.  MAJCOM A staff's do not command.  They advice the MAJCOM commander.  But they do wield command within their directorates.

[RiverAux]

I think there is a difference between how things work for cadets and for seniors in this area.  Cadets are actually organized more along the traditional lines and that flight commander is actually pretty much in charge of his flight.  Just as a Army squad leader is in charge of his squad.  That new cadet airman pretty much has to work through his flight leader for everything. 

However, that Asst. Personnel Officer only deals with the Personnel Officer on Personnel issues only, which is only a small part of that member's CAP life.   The Personnel Officer has absolutely no authority over him in any other area. 

[Thom]

I think there is a difference between how things work for cadets and for seniors in this area.  Cadets are actually organized more along the traditional lines and that flight commander is actually pretty much in charge of his flight.  Just as a Army squad leader is in charge of his squad.  That new cadet airman pretty much has to work through his flight leader for everything. 

However, that Asst. Personnel Officer only deals with the Personnel Officer on Personnel issues only, which is only a small part of that member's CAP life.   The Personnel Officer has absolutely no authority over him in any other area.

The best way I have seen this summarized is thus:

In CAP, the Unit Commander COMMANDS, the Staff Officer, within their assigned office/function is allowed/required to SUPERVISE and DIRECT their Assistant Staff Officers.  But, the Staff Officer never COMMANDS.

Essentially, the DP (Personnel Officer) can tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to only complete Cadet forms at this meeting, save the Senior forms until the next meeting.  That is SUPERVISION and DIRECTION within the functional limits of the Personnel office/function, it is not COMMAND.

Similarly, the DP can NOT tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to take the Squadron van and drive the Cadets to the other end of the airfield for Orientation flights.  The Unit Commander can tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to do that.  The Deputy Commander for Cadets could tell the Asst. Cadet Programs Officer to take the van and drive the cadets, since s/he would be DIRECTing and SUPERVISING within the limits of the Cadet Program.

But, the DP can NOT tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to do that task, since it has nothing to do with the Personnel function.  The DP only SUPERVISES and DIRECTS the Asst. Personnel Officer within the bounds of the Personnel office/function.

Is that a little clearer?

To have a strict 'chain of command' through one's supervisor in each officer/function would make little sense in CAP since many (most?) officers have more than one role, hence they would have multiple commanders.  Just as an example, I am the Asst. Admin Officer, Asst. Personnel Officer, and the IT Officer for my Squadron.  So, I'm a Staff Officer in the IT area, and an Assistant in two other areas.  Where would my chain of command go in a strict scenario?  To the Squadron Commander, the Admin Officer, or the Personnel Officer?

Thom

[RADIOMAN015]

Well if you are a staff officer in a squadron (e.g. communications officer) you have a functional counterpart at wing that is supervising the overall program.   IF you are asked to do something by the functional supervisor, even though not in your direct chain of command, it is reasonable to comply.

Of course if you have any real heart burn with the request you can go back to the functional supervisor at wing and you could also bring your commander (and eventually wing chief of staff, etc) into it.

Generally, I think it is important to have a good rapport with your functional counterparts at higher headquarters. 

RM
 

[lordmonar]

Thom,

You can't mix your metaphors.

In a strict sense you would only have one job in CAP....You would have only one boss and all of your subordinates would know that you are their one and only boss.

That you have several hats is a problem in and of itself.....but that only makes your chain of command blurred...not the chain of command of any of your subordinates.

You are the IT Officer....and the Asst PD and Asst CP let's say.....your assistant IT officer's chain is him, you, and the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  When you where your Asst PD hat....he is no longer in your chain...your chain is now you the PD officer, the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  That sucks for you.....I would suggest dropping a job.

That CAP can screw up something as simple as the chain of command is not suprising....but we as leaders should know that even if we got a web of command instead of a proper chain.....the basic concept of one and only one boss should not get lost.  The concept that just because an officer is a "staff officer" he looses authority over subordinates is just silly and asinine.

[Thom]

Thom,

You can't mix your metaphors.

In a strict sense you would only have one job in CAP....You would have only one boss and all of your subordinates would know that you are their one and only boss.

That you have several hats is a problem in and of itself.....but that only makes your chain of command blurred...not the chain of command of any of your subordinates.

You are the IT Officer....and the Asst PD and Asst CP let's say.....your assistant IT officer's chain is him, you, and the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  When you where your Asst PD hat....he is no longer in your chain...your chain is now you the PD officer, the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  That sucks for you.....I would suggest dropping a job.

That CAP can screw up something as simple as the chain of command is not suprising....but we as leaders should know that even if we got a web of command instead of a proper chain.....the basic concept of one and only one boss should not get lost.  The concept that just because an officer is a "staff officer" he looses authority over subordinates is just silly and asinine.

And yet, all of Corporate America works in this manner.  I have a Supervisor on each project, in the form of a Project Manager, but they are NOT my boss, they merely Supervise me on that project.  Their ability to Direct me to do things is limited to the scope of that Project.  My Boss remains my boss, no matter what (or how many) Projects I am working on.

I don't find it confusing at all, and I believe the OBC course materials make it fairly clear that this is the model CAP is teaching and applying.

I would submit that if you find this model so objectionable, prepare a proposal to go up your chain of command to the National Board to enforce a 'strict' chain of command and limit CAP officers to a single position, with a rigidly defined role of superior and subordinate.

But, it seems that your idea of 'chain of command' does not agree with the model that CAP is teaching to its officers, and using in actual practice in units throughout the country.

I would also note that in reference to your comments that, "That you have several hats is a problem in and of itself," in reference to the fact that I currently fill multiple Staff Officer/Assistant Staff Officer positions, is addressed directly by CAP in the OBC course materials.  They reference the fact that most CAP units do not have the ideal number of persons to adequately staff all positions, and so some officers will be forced to hold multiple positions.

Again, if you find this objectionable, you need only get the National Board to make a new rule forbidding it.  I would note that the outcome is likely to be that the Unit Commanders simply end up shouldering more jobs, but in any case your objections to the CAP view of chain of command could be dealt with.

Thom

[raivo]

I believe the general idea is that only one person at each level (in your chain of command) is in charge of *you* personally. You may have responsibilities in your job that require following policies or directives from people at a higher echelon, who are not directly in your chain of command - which, again, goes back to the concept of delegated authority.

Point in case: If you're the squadron IT officer, the wing IT officer is not in your chain of command. That being said, you would be required to follow any IT-related directives coming from the wing IT officer, as those directives are implicitly backed by the authority of the wing commander.

However, I have in the past seen members take on roles at the group/wing level and pick up a certain "attitude" that operating at a higher echelon automatically places them above you in the CAP pecking order. If I'm the squadron IT officer, and the group finance officer decides to give me crap, he's going to get told to go jump in a lake.

Courteously, of course.

[lordmonar]

Thom....what is a boss?

[Thom]

Thom....what is a boss?

As the most basic answer:  A Boss can Fire you, a Supervisor/Director can only yell at you.

And, this ties in pretty well with CAP's version of things.  The Personnel Officer can not 2b the Asst. Personnel Officer, only the Unit Commander can do that (or his designee, but in any case not merely a Staff Officer by way of their Staff position.)

If the Personnel Officer can neither promote, demote, nor fire me, then is he supposed to be my Boss?

Again, I don't find this a particularly difficult concept, and apparently neither does most of Corporate America.

And, I understand the Military strict chain of command, and the 'single boss' concept, and I don't find them to be objectionable at all.  But they do require a certain 'commitment' to staffing and roles that CAP simply doesn't have right now.

Again, I'll refer to the CAP OBC course materials as being 'peer reviewed' and representing what CAP is teaching to new officers as part of their Level II PD education.  If you disagree with what they are teaching, run a proposal up the chain to change it.

Thom

[Cecil DP]

Don't confuse Chain of Command with Chain of Support.  Chain of Command is the relationship between you and the various echelons of the Civil Air Patrol. Chain of Support is the  relationship between the various echelons in your job or duty position. IE The Wing DP will set or implement a policy through the authority delegated to him by the Wing Commander IE All duty Performance Promotions to Major or LtCol will be on a CAPF2, rather than electronicly.  He cannot order you to do anything, outside of the scope of the personnel field and as prescribed in the CAP Regulations and Wing supplements.

[DG]

And yet, all of Corporate America works in this manner. 

I don't find it confusing at all, and I believe the OBC course materials make it fairly clear that this is the model CAP is teaching and applying.

I would submit that if you find this model so objectionable, prepare a proposal to go up your chain of command to the National Board to enforce a 'strict' chain of command and limit CAP officers to a single position, with a rigidly defined role of superior and subordinate.

But, it seems that your idea of 'chain of command' does not agree with the model that CAP is teaching to its officers, and using in actual practice in units throughout the country.

Thom

OK.

Except for one thing.

All of "Corporate America" has been working for many, many years to flatten the vertical chain of command.

To create a horizontal organization chart.

Why?  To get things done.

Otherwise, and from all of the discussion here, one gets the impression that an extensive vertical chain of command is far more important than getting business accomplished quickly and competitively, with quality and timely value.

[lordmonar]

Thom,

For the sake of argument let's use the term supervisor.....

So in a perfect world most squadron members would have only one job.

That one job would have one person who is the supervisor who works for another supervisor all the way up until you get to the unit commander.

This is why we have an organsation chart.

My point being.....brand new Mr. SMWOG Newguy who is going to be an assistant personnel officer has a "chain of command" that goes through the personnel officer as his primary supervisor.  Even if the personnel officer can't fire anyone he is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

This is in line with the definition of the line VS Staff officer definition in the OBC...because the personnel officer is both a line officer and staff officer at the same time.

He is line when it comes to the people he directly supervises and he a staff officer when it come to personnel issues involving the entire squadron.

Just like the cadet flight sergeant (with absolutely no power to do anything to his flight members) is in the chain of command the squadron Personnel Offier (with no power to do anything to his staff members) is also in the chain of command.

[Eclipse]

Even if the personnel officer can't fire anyone he is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

No, he is in an operational chain of command, and related only and purely to duties of a personnel officer.

The personnel officer would have no say in any ES activity, promotions, discipline (outside dereliction of personnel duties), or anything else this member does.

Some companies would refer to this as a "group leader" - someone who has to make sure the cats wander in the right direction, but with no actual authority.

[lordmonar]

Even if the personnel officer can't fire anyone he is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

No, he is in an operational chain of command, and related only and purely to duties of a personnel officer.

The personnel officer would have no say in any ES activity, promotions, discipline (outside dereliction of personnel duties), or anything else this member does.

Some companies would refer to this as a "group leader" - someone who has to make sure the cats wander in the right direction, but with no actual authority.

Never said he was......The chain of command is the chain of command.  The unit commander has no authority over anyone or anything outside his chain....that is not the issue. 

The Personnel officer is in his asstants' chain of command while they are working for him as assistant personnel officers.  When they are off at a SAR EX they fall under someone elses' chain of command.

Got no problem with this.   This is an organisational issue of multiple chains of command based on what an individual is doing at a tactical level.

The USAF addresses this with what they call ADCON and OPCON.  ADCON is administrative control of assets and OPCON is operational control of assets.  This usually only happens when you have detached units to other commands (like in a JOINT TASK FORCE).  The JTF has OPCON of the assigned personnel but the administrative issues (promotions, testing, awards and decorations, pay issues, etc) are handled by the ADCON unit (usually their home unit).

In a CAP environment this same concept can be (and in my unit is) used to take care of those duel hatted individuals.  Someone who joins the unit as a newbie is assigned a job and placed under a mentor.  That mentor is part of the new guy's chain of command.  If the new guy then starts doing ES work....he falls under the ES Officer for the duration of the activity.  During the activity his chain of command changes to the ES officer.  Once the activity is over his original chain of command comes back into place.

Again the point I am making.....both the ES officer and the Personell officer are "staff officers" but they also line officers with "command" authority over the people assigned to them and the operations that are within the scope of operations.

This does not change anything that the OBC says about line/staff officers.

SM Newguy may be adding additional hats...but he only wears them one at a time.

For experienced officers who hold down several jobs at once that are outside their normal chain of command.....say an Assailant Comm officer who has one chain up to the DC Seniors who is also the Personnel Officer who has another chain up to the DC Seniors......they have to work closely with their supervisors to ensure that they are staying in their lane and are getting clear guidance.  Hence the concept that in an ideal squadron, members would only have one job.

I understand that reality is not that way.  We often have to wear several hats that make the chain very strange.....such as I am the DC Cadets.....and an ES officer.  As DCC my chain is me....my commander.....wing...region....national.  As an ES officer I go to Operations Officers, Deputy Commander for Seniors, Commander, wing, region, national.

So I am in a loop.  I have to know that as a CP guy I'm boss....but as an ES guy I have a boss.  No problem.

Either way.  All of us staff officers are in the chain of command and wield the authority given to us by our commander over those placed under us.

[Eclipse]

Again the point I am making.....both the ES officer and the Personell officer are "staff officers" but they also line officers with "command" authority over the people assigned to them and the operations that are within the scope of operations.

Except they aren't line officers, and that's the point, and they have no command authority in the way CAP defines it.

As a commander, I can tell a member what they can and cannot do.  Not so for a staff officer, and that's where the confusion and
conflicts start.

Personnel is  probably a bad example, because really, how much conflict will there be regarding 2a's and SLS?

But look to ES and CP and its a different story.  Cadet Programs Officer has no authority over anyone involved in the CP, same with ESO's,
but in many cases they will assert that because they have involvement in creating the plans and programs, they also have authority over those people involved.

A PDO can't even discipline his assistant - only complain to the Commander about something he doesn't like.

Staff positions are administrative postings with no inherent authority, period.

Want to boil it down to the brass tacks? 

If you can hire / fire / terminate someone, you're a commander and have "command authority", if you can't, you're a supervisor at best, with no actual authority.

Another example...

When you drop off your kids at a neighbors house, you retain "command authority" over them.  The neighbors have "supervisory responsibility" for them.  Keep them safe, give them something to do, and/or tell them to "...get the heck out off the chandelier and out of my house!"...

When the cops show up, its mom & dad who meet out the grounding, not the neighbors.

In fact, that is probably a good way to characterize this:

"Command Authority" vs. "Supervisory responsibility"

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....

They are staff officers AND line officers at the same time.

As the squadron commander you can tell people what the can and cannot do.....I agree.  Are you the only one in your unit who can do this?

Your Deputy Commander for Cadets has no authority to tell his cadets what to do?
You C/CC has not authority over the cadets?
The Flight commanders?
The Flight Sergeants?
Element Leaders?

There are several types of authority.

Having 2b authority is only one form.

I disagree with you assertion that the Deputy Commander for Cadets does not have authority of his CP staff.  It is his program and his people.  If his leadership officer or AE officer does not follow his desires he most certainly should have the authority to do something about it.

Can he 2b him?  No....but he can go to the commander and recommend that they be disciplined for insubordination and failure to perform his duties.  If he has no authority he can not push those issues.

To put a USAF spin on this.....only the squadron commander has UCMJ authority.  That is only he can "punish" someone as it is defined by the USAF legal eagles.  But that does not mean that the NCOIC of the SATCOM workcenter does not have authority.  One of my airman does not follow my orders he is going to get into trouble.  Even if all I can really do is "complain to the commander about something [I don't] like."

In this way CAP is no different.  The CP officer and ES officers must have authority to make policy and enforce said policy or they are just empty shirts.  The commander gives them this authority when they appoint them to their position.  Even if the officer in question has not promotion authority, no 2b authority, no authority outside of his "lane".  If you fail to follow this basic concept of authority you are setting up your unit to fail.

Responsibility with out authority can only result in failure.

2b authority is not the only kind of authority.

We give IC's authority all the time and almost none of them have 2b authority over me.  (only one my wing CC at this time).

So are you suggesting that IC's have no authority?   In what way is an IC any different in context of situational leadership then the unit CP guy?

You will find that if you cannot give your staff officers authority period, because they Can't  fire anyone, then you cannot allow IC's to have any authority either.

This is the logical Conundrum that you have painted for yourself.

If only commander's have authority...then no one but commander can have authority.  If others can have authority without gaining 2b authority then you have to allow that anyone placed in a supervisory role has some authority with in the scope of his mandate.

[Eclipse]

OK, we need to remove the people with the word "commander" from the discussion of staff officer.  I'll grant that they
can be fully delegated command authority, that's the point of their existence.

Otherwise, I think my analogy of "supervisory responsibility".

An asst "x" officer is appointed by the commander, to assist the "main" officer in the performance of his duties, within either the mandates
of the program (i.e. the regs), or the nuance of the program the commander has authorized.

In the case of a disagreement between the asst and the "main", the arbiter is going to be the commander or the regs.

[lordmonar]

One of the precepts of leadership is you cannot have responsibility without authority.

Your baby sitter analogy is case in point.

The baby sitter has the authority to command the children and keep order....but not the authority to issue grounding or spankings (if you believe in that thing).  But the point is that they have authority....even if it is limited...over their charges and within the scope of their responsibilities.  The baby sitter can't do anything about their school grades, nor about their sunday school activities....those responsibilities lie with other people.

Same for your personnel officer.  He has authority over the job of keeping the personnel records right and processing personnel paperwork for the squadron.  The personnel officer is given a staff to assist him in this endeavor.  He is a line officer with respect to those people who work for him.....he commands them.  That is as far as his authority goes.  He commands nothing but the personnel staff.

They have a supervisory responsibility....with that in must also have a supervisory authority or it won't work!

At the USAF NCO academy we learned about different kinds of authority.   But the brass tacks lesson what that you cannot give responsibility to someone with out giving them authority as well.  Those lines of authority must be as clear as possible of your ability to lead will break down.

Responsibility and authority are two related but different things.

[Eclipse]

I'm gonna let some other people chime for awhile...