Random Thoughts on Command Climate

[catrulz]

Many of the discussions on this forum relate in some fashion to 'Command Climate'.   The military is actively attempting to rid itself of abrasive commander's and hostile command climates.  Command Climate was a major discussion area in military PME, especially around Equal Opportunity and leadership counseling of service members.   CAP deals with volunteers that have no contractual service obligation (no subject to UCMJ), can walk away at any time.  In my opinion, this is even a greater reason to instill a nurturing and constructive command climate.

We have all seen examples of hostile command climate, and hopefully examples of excellent command climate.  So, the question is what makes a good command climate?   I'm sure there will be many responses with various opinions.  It comes down to what is the vision of the leader we would want to be or the leader we would want to serve.  This is my list of 10:

1.   A leader that is selfless, takes care of their people in training, mentoring, needs and recognition.
2.   A leader that is knowledgeable knows the regulations or at least knows where to find answers and correctly interpret same.
3.   A leader that is knowledgeable, is qualified for the badges they wear, and how to qualify others.
4.   A leader that sets the example in uniform appearance (don't care if corporate or AF).
5.   A leader that sets the example in timeliness and dependability.
6.   A leader that sets an standard and adheres to the standard they set, and accepts responsibility for their actions, and does not accept credit for others good work.
7.   A leader that is a defender of their subordinates even if doing so may hurt them politically (we call this moral courage).
8.   A leader that communicates well in both written and spoken media.
9.   A leader that can separate friendship and leadership (hopefully the follower can too), leaders must be able to correct as well as praise.
10.   A leader that listens to advice provided by their staffers (doesn't have to take it, just listen).

The subordinates in the unit contribute to the climate, so it's important to understand the role of the formal and informal leader.  Formal leaders have direct authority and responsibility for others.  Informal leaders have no authority, but have effect on peers and leaders through respect, reputation, knowledge, friendship, etc.  Both formal and informal leaders can have positive and negative effects, they can also cancel each other out.  A poor commander can excel with an outstanding staff.  A great commander can fail through the influence of toxic followers.

I can say personally, I have had leadership successes and failures in CAP.  There is no perfect individual tapping these keys today.  When I look back at the above list, almost every failure can be traced to one of the above ten items.  Likewise, each success can also be traced to one of the above ten items.   Getting it right requires the leader to walk a management tightrope, juggling training, mentoring, standards, and quite honestly just caring.

The most heard complaint with former members of organization like CAP, the member felt like they were wasting their time.  Nothing happens at the meetings, they wouldn't let me do anything or teach me anything.  The other thing I see a lot here on CAP Talk, is personality conflicts between leaders and subordinates.  This is unfortunate, but egos, whether fragile or overbearing contribute to the individuals experience.  Everyone needs to remember, it takes all kinds to get everything done to satisfaction and to standard.

What do you all think?

[THRAWN]

Is there a question here about how to develop a positive command climate, or are you looking for comments on your research paper treatment for the War College, or are you looking for open discussion?

I think you make some valid points that come directly from the LC block of ACSC. How to develop these in potential commanders has always been an issue. Structured and formalized training is one way. A solid mentoring program for new members also works. Too many times we get stuck with commanders because no one else wants the job, and don't really give new commanders the support that they need. The UCC was supposed to help with that, but it seems to have turned into another death by PowerPoint weekend. CAP should probably take a long hard look at how other volunteer organizations (local fire/EMS, SDFs, Red Cross, etc) develop and maintain positive command climate and adapt those concepts. Military leadership is fine, but we get stuck with a lot of commanders who don't have a solid grasp on just what that means, and go with what they have seen on the idiot box...

[catrulz]

This is a random thought post.  I do miss the old "CAP Officer" journal, geee how long has that been gone.

I think many times higher HQ's develop either a climate where lower level commanders aren't allowed to make errors (no defect), and in many cases desire "yes" people, or at least people that are afraid to make waves.  It's interesting when you look at units, how many units are not even really run by the commander, but rather the staff. 

So, no question this purely commentary, and would like to get others opinions on this very general subject.  By the way, I think SLS, CLC should have to be passed and not simply attended.

[jeders]

What do you all think?

I think you're missing the most important aspect of a "positive" command climate. You touched on it in several of the various points, but never outright said it. As Aretha Franklin said, you gotta have respect. Without respect, a commander that knows all the regulations is simply a know-it-all. Without respect, a selfless commander gets walked all over and burns out. Without respect, a leader well set a standard and be completely unforgiving of anyone who fails to meet it.

Just my 2 cents.

[THRAWN]

This is a random thought post.  I do miss the old "CAP Officer" journal, geee how long has that been gone.

I think many times higher HQ's develop either a climate where lower level commanders aren't allowed to make errors (no defect), and in many cases desire "yes" people, or at least people that are afraid to make waves.  It's interesting when you look at units, how many units are not even really run by the commander, but rather the staff. 

So, no question this purely commentary, and would like to get others opinions on this very general subject.  By the way, I think SLS, CLC should have to be passed and not simply attended.

Great gravy...that was a good pub...

I agree that any course that you attend should have to be passed. The CAP PD has been pretty watered down with each year...

[catrulz]

What do you all think?

I think you're missing the most important aspect of a "positive" command climate. You touched on it in several of the various points, but never outright said it. As Aretha Franklin said, you gotta have respect. Without respect, a commander that knows all the regulations is simply a know-it-all. Without respect, a selfless commander gets walked all over and burns out. Without respect, a leader well set a standard and be completely unforgiving of anyone who fails to meet it.

Just my 2 cents.

Excellent point!  I always felt as a commander that I owed everyone respect ("benefit of the doubt", but I needed to earn others).   But you did hit a very important aspect, without respect your serving a lost cause.  I do think though that a commander that cares, and takes care also respects.  But it wasn't stated as it should have been.

[Garibaldi]

Basically, just having skimmed the post, I can see that this is something worth considering.

What I've noticed in my 20+ years of CAP with regards to leadership is that there are a couple or three different types of people in charge of units in CAP.

1. Those that have been in the military and have some experience in command, but not necessarily CAP experience.
2. Those that have been in CAP and the military, and have experience with the program from that aspect, as a para-military organization.
3.  Those that have never been in CAP or the military, but have plenty of real world experience that may or may not translate well into CAP.

Of the three, the most effective I've seen are those that have been in the program, grew up in it, went to the military and came back. They know how to relate to the military aspect of CAP, they know the program and how to navigate through it, and are very good at dealing with the day to day BS it takes to run a unit.

Being realistic, I know that having one in every unit is impossible, but for the dynamic to work 100%, we should have that mix of CAP/military experience in charge.

Leadership failures, in my opinion, are from commanders who do not fully grasp what it means to be a leader in a paramilitary organization such as CAP. Being a scoutmaster, a  youth group leader, a squad leader in JROTC for a year, a manager in a company, none of those translate well into a fully successful CAP commander. Throwing a new 2nd Lt in as a squadron commander because no one else can do it due to term limits isn't healthy for the unit, although the newbie has resources to call on. Transferring an experienced member to a struggling unit isn't really an answer either, because it would cause resentment.

However, I think the UCC is a good start. Everyone is potentially a unit commander, except me. I made my intention known that I do not want, nor will accept, a unit command.

[Eclipse]

I agree with the above, and add this:

I would say "apathy" is more prevalent then hostility.

The problem with CAP is that, unlike the military, the member is the maker and the mission, many people seem to forget about that.

It is the rank and file members who do all the work, and actually perform the external mission work, so the pyramid of attention and experience
should be inverted with the rank and file member being the focus of the entire organization.

In a nutshell the full resources and focus of the organization should be on the member experience, and the upper echelons serving
the member, who in turn serves CAP's customers, both internal and external.

Like all large organizations, CAP's focus has become the self-sustaining bureaucracy instead of the mission and the members.

[Ned]

The problem with CAP is that, unlike the military, the member is the maker and the mission, many people seem to forget about that.

Non-concur.

With the exception of the cadet program (where the cadets are the mission), seniors are not the mission in any shape or form.  Congress sets our missions, and "focussing on the adult members" is not one of them.

It is the rank and file members who do all the work, and actually perform the external mission work, so the pyramid of attention and experience
should be inverted with the rank and file member being the focus of the entire organization.

Obviously the rank and file do the great majority of our mission related tasks.  Exactly like the military, your local fire department, and a hospital.  And just like businesses and charities world-wide.

But to suggest that we should invert the "attention and experience" pyramid to put the least experienced and unskilled members in charge of coordinating and executing the missions of a nation-wide organization with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer provided assets is just as silly as it sounds.

In a nutshell the full resources and focus of the organization should be on the member experience, and the upper echelons serving
the member, who in turn serves CAP's customers, both internal and external.

Again, non-concur.  The focus of every organization with missions and customers has to be on the missions and customers.

It goes without saying that we need to care for our members and families and treat them with respect and courtesy while they perform our missions.

But it goes too far to say, in essence, that the focus of CAP should be on CAP and its members, rather than on the missions entrusted to us by the US Congress.

Like all large organizations, CAP's focus has become the self-sustaining bureaucracy instead of the mission and the members.

I'm sorry that your recent transitions in CAP have left you embittered and unhappy.  Try to focus on the good that we do. 

Creeping bureaucracy is indeed a problem in almost every human organization with more than a half-dozen members.  We can and should continue to work the issue to make CAP more efficient, responsive, and "user friendly" to our customers and members.

[Eclipse]

But to suggest that we should invert the "attention and experience" pyramid to put the least experienced and unskilled members in charge of coordinating and executing the missions of a nation-wide organization with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer provided assets is just as silly as it sounds.

No one said that. 

The members execute >all< of the missions, and the headquarters components should support the rank and file, who then
execute the missions.  Sadly, most HQ components are more concerned with status quo and checking box then supporting the
members, and view the rank and file as the data for their forms, instead of the core component of the mission they are.

I'm sorry that your recent transitions in CAP have left you embittered and unhappy.

It would be nice it you focused on the discussions, and spent less time on Rhetoric, Deflection, Abdication, and Excuses,
or why you "think" people "feel" a certain way.  Minimizing legitimate issues is another on the NHQ top 10.

For the most part my post are specific and discuss verifiable or demonstrable situations.  How I or anyone "feels" about it
is irrelevant to something when it is a fact.

We can and should continue to work the issue to make CAP more efficient, responsive, and "user friendly" to our customers and members.

Can and should?  Um, yes.  Are?  Cite please.

[Ned]

Can and should?  Um, yes.  Are?  Cite please.

Your negativity makes it difficult for you to see that which is before you.

In cadet programs alone, significant paperwork reduction and decreased bureaucracy projects include:

• The new on-line encampment report being rolled out in the next week or two.  I know you've been an encampment commender (as I have) and the ability to complete the report on-line and get members their encampment credit almost instantly is a good thing.
  
  
• On line cadet applications.  New this year.
  
  
• On line achievement testing.  Saves a lot of meeting time and helps eliminate bottlenecks in cadet advancement.
  
  
• Automated cadet promotion management
  
  
• "Squadron in a Box" which includes 2 years worth of sample meetings with detailed lesson plans linked directly to the supporting materials.  A boon for new and "re-forming" units.  No use re-inventing the wheel if you are short of planning resources.
  
  Outside of CP, we have significantly reduced paperwork as well (although not without some controversy).
  
  See, for example:
  
  
• Financial Procedures for local units - the Wing Banker program (now better described as CAPR 173-1 and supporting guidance) saves units countless hours of financial adminsitrivia.  I spent many an unhappy hour pouring over the squadron's cancelled checks and accounts to fill out the CAPF 173 by hand. 
  
  
• Automated Property Management is much better than the old days of computer printouts being mailed to units.  I was recently able to sign for some CAP equipment on line without having to worry about making copies of paper receipts or records.
  
  
• On line promotions and duty assignments for senior officers saves time and trees every day.
  
  
• On-line ES qualifications and testing.  It is easy to verify another member's qualifications when necessary.  I can continue to test for some specialties on line.
  
  

Just off the top of my head.  Things really are better for local units in terms of "the bureaucracy."

(Notice I did not list on-line monthly safety education as a benefit.    )

Are there still issues and problems?  Of course.  Can we do better?  Certainly.  Are there dedicated members and corporate employees working this very issue at this moment?  Absolutely.

Which is sorta what I said.

I'm sorry that your recent transitions in CAP have left you embittered and unhappy.

For the most part my post are specific and discuss verifiable or demonstrable situations.  How I or anyone "feels" about it is irrelevant to something when it is a fact.

Sure, Bob.  For a guy who is pretty quick to denounce trolls and question others' motivations, this just seems a little  . . . ironic.  Knowing the background -- and yes, the feelings --  of a given poster allows all of us to place their posts in proper context and evaluate credibility.

That's particularly important for a guy who has posted 250 times so far this month.

[Chappie]

For years, the Chaplain Corps had to submit Form 34's by hand.  It was a pain in getting people to fill them out and submit them to the Wing Chaplain...who then compiled the reports from individual chaplains and character development instructors into a consolidated report and sent it to the Region Chaplain...who then compiled the consolidated the Wing Reports into a report sent to the National Secretary of the Chaplain Corps.  About two years ago, this went online.  We went from 60% - 70% of Chaplain Corps reporting to over 90%.  Everything is automated...time from submission to finalization of all reports is very minimal now.  Took a bit of leadership to get it down -- but its well on its way....and there are a lot of real happy campers that reports are being submitted and processed in a timely and efficient manner.

[Eclipse]

Can and should?  Um, yes.  Are?  Cite please.

Your negativity makes it difficult for you to see that which is before you.

In cadet programs alone, significant paperwork reduction and decreased bureaucracy projects include:

• The new on-line encampment report being rolled out in the next week or two.  I know you've been an encampment commender (as I have) and the ability to complete the report on-line and get members their encampment credit almost instantly is a good thing.
  
  
• On line cadet applications.  New this year.
  
  
• On line achievement testing.  Saves a lot of meeting time and helps eliminate bottlenecks in cadet advancement.
  
  
• Automated cadet promotion management
  
  
• "Squadron in a Box" which includes 2 years worth of sample meetings with detailed lesson plans linked directly to the supporting materials.  A boon for new and "re-forming" units.  No use re-inventing the wheel if you are short of planning resources.
  
  Outside of CP, we have significantly reduced paperwork as well (although not without some controversy).
  
  See, for example:
  
  
• Financial Procedures for local units - the Wing Banker program (now better described as CAPR 173-1 and supporting guidance) saves units countless hours of financial adminsitrivia.  I spent many an unhappy hour pouring over the squadron's cancelled checks and accounts to fill out the CAPF 173 by hand. 
  
  
• Automated Property Management is much better than the old days of computer printouts being mailed to units.  I was recently able to sign for some CAP equipment on line without having to worry about making copies of paper receipts or records.
  
  
• On line promotions and duty assignments for senior officers saves time and trees every day.
  
  
• On-line ES qualifications and testing.  It is easy to verify another member's qualifications when necessary.  I can continue to test for some specialties on line.
  
  

Just off the top of my head.  Things really are better for local units in terms of "the bureaucracy."

(Notice I did not list on-line monthly safety education as a benefit.    )

Are there still issues and problems?  Of course.  Can we do better?  Certainly.  Are there dedicated members and corporate employees working this very issue at this moment?  Absolutely.

Which is sorta what I said.

I'm sorry that your recent transitions in CAP have left you embittered and unhappy.

For the most part my post are specific and discuss verifiable or demonstrable situations.  How I or anyone "feels" about it is irrelevant to something when it is a fact.

Sure, Bob.  For a guy who is pretty quick to denounce trolls and question others' motivations, this just seems a little  . . . ironic.  Knowing the background -- and yes, the feelings --  of a given poster allows all of us to place their posts in proper context and evaluate credibility.

That's particularly important for a guy who has posted 250 times so far this month.

Fair enough on the handful of that list that have taken a decade to accomplish, aren't "done" and aren't exactly
shining examples of UI or UX. and may make a member or CC's life easier, however I think you'd find some
"disagreement" on the WBP (though not from me) on whether that's made life easier, and that was certainly not something the
unit's wanted.

As to my attitude, if my factual, data-based, characterizations of the state of the program appear negative, then
there's not much I can do about that, since they are factual in nature.

I "get" that NHQ staff need to be 1/2-full most of the time, beyond that, telling people to put on their sunglasses at midnight doesn't make it light outside.

[RiverAux]

The problem with CAP is that, unlike the military, the member is the maker and the mission, many people seem to forget about that.

Non-concur.

With the exception of the cadet program (where the cadets are the mission), seniors are not the mission in any shape or form.  Congress sets our missions, and "focussing on the adult members" is not one of them.

Time to get on my soapbox about our ACTUAL missions as stated by Congress.  For those who have forgotten, here they are:

(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.

The cadet program is not a mission.

In fact, providing aerospace education to our senior members is every bit as important to the actual expectations that Congress has of CAP as is providing that education to cadets.

I know that CAP has tried to simplify things  by saying that we have three missions, but no matter how much it is said, it isn't true. 

[lordmonar]

RiverAux....CAP's THREE missions is simply a restating of the congressional five missions (actually Purposes).

CAP's AE mission.....embodies 1.a, 2, and 3.
CAP's ES mission.....embodies 1.a, 1.b, 4, and 5.
CAP's CP mssion......embodies 1.a, 1.b, 2, 3,

So....are we meeting the purpose that Congress Chartered CAP to do?

[RiverAux]

Are you going to re-write the Bill of Rights too? 
Congress was clear. 

[RiverAux]

Now, after that thread drift (caused by me).....

To address the primary topic, the problem is the focus on a COMMAND climate.  I believe that many, not all, of the ills in CAP relate to our top-down selection of leaders.  Volunteers just do not respond well to this and never will.  Yes, this structure is used in the military and in just about any private business that you can name, but in those situations people are either required by law or by their pocketbooks to accept the issues that cause problems lumped into "command climate".

Just about every personal conflict I've observed in CAP has been exacerbated by the fact that the person in the command role has no responsibility to those under them and has no check on them except that provided by a distant Wing or Region Commander who has no real idea what is going on and can't make a fair judgment about who is right or wrong. 

I really can't name how many people have been driven out of CAP by such situations. 

Compare this to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, which while not immune from GOB-syndrome, has only a tiny percentage of the "command climate" problems of CAP since all leaders are elected and all real authority to kick people out or remove people from a position lies with someone in the actual Coast Guard.  Everyone knows that they are only going to be in a position for 2 years at most and don't waste their time using their very limited authority to try to drive out others in order to defend their positions.  And even if they had a God complex they don't have the authority to cause much in the way of real problems for their enemies.  I know it violates the military ideal that some want to see in CAP, but real life shows it works much better in a volunteer PARAmilitary organization.

[lordmonar]

I believe that many, not all, of the ills in CAP relate to our top-down selection of leaders.  Volunteers just do not respond well to this and never will.

Except in the Boy scouts, the ARC, and all sorts of other volunteer agencies.

Yes, this structure is used in the military and in just about any private business that you can name, but in those situations people are either required by law or by their pocketbooks to accept the issues that cause problems lumped into "command climate".

So the problem is not really with the "command climate" but the inability of some members to accept the way CAP is organized.

Just about every personal conflict I've observed in CAP has been exacerbated by the fact that the person in the command role has no responsibility to those under them and has no check on them except that provided by a distant Wing or Region Commander who has no real idea what is going on and can't make a fair judgment about who is right or wrong.

I would agree with most of this statement.

I really can't name how many people have been driven out of CAP by such situations. 

Compare this to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, which while not immune from GOB-syndrome, has only a tiny percentage of the "command climate" problems of CAP since all leaders are elected and all real authority to kick people out or remove people from a position lies with someone in the actual Coast Guard.  Everyone knows that they are only going to be in a position for 2 years at most and don't waste their time using their very limited authority to try to drive out others in order to defend their positions.  And even if they had a God complex they don't have the authority to cause much in the way of real problems for their enemies.  I know it violates the military ideal that some want to see in CAP, but real life shows it works much better in a volunteer PARAmilitary organization.

So....you are saying the coast Guard Auxiliary is just as bad as CAP....but you add a popularity contest every two years at the squadron level?

I don't think so.   There is nothing really wrong with CAP's current origination model.    Copying CGAux's model would not really fix anything IMHO at the most it would trade one set of problems for another set of equally bad problems.

[FW]

River, I think you've hit the target pretty well, however may I disagree with the "has no responsibility to those under them and has no check on them except that provided by a distant Wing or Region Commander". 

All commanders in CAP are responsible for what happens in their unit.  If a commander is not performing to the members' standards, things go wrong.  Members leave, go dormant, gripe, post on CT, and other such ways to show displeasure. It is a symptom of poor leadership.  If a commander performs well, members tend to do things right, stay, be more active, gripe, post on CT and do other things indicative of good leadership. Such is our feedback loop. 

I think Leadership is independent of election or appointment.  It is a skill set which must be practiced on a daily basis.  Good Leaders, by nature, care about those they lead.  It is good practice.  It may not be CAP's mission to care about it's members, however what is the point to have an organization if leadership's role is to just dictate and enforce policy? 

It's been almost two years since we changed our governance structure.  It's nice we have reduced our paperwork burden, however what is our Leadership doing to improve first year cadet retention, keep senior members motivated to perform our missions, and grow our bank accounts to make things easier for all of us?

These are my random thoughts...

[lordmonar]

I will echo what FW just said.

A commander's first responsibility is to the mission......full stop.

Members are critical to accomplishing that mission so they must focus a large amount of their time on the people of their unit.

CAP is a special sort of leadership.   Like RiverAux said we can walk anytime we want.....and so we have to always be cognizant on that fact.  We don't hold anyone in the organization through a pay check or law.

But we have to also maintain standards.   We have regulations and policies that need to be followed.

And that is a tight line to walk sometimes.

A happy squadron....is an effective squadron.....and by effective I mean they are accomplishing their mission.

Where I think CAP really needs to improve is to communicate clearer to the squadron commander exactly what his/her tasks are to meet the mission goals.

Simple things like "How many cadets should my squadron have"?  "What sort of ES qualifications should my unit have....and how many of each?"  "What should my External AE foot print be?"

These need to be clearly and concretely stated, so the commander can know at any point of his/her term "Am I meeting my mission goals".

As for "command climate" as the military uses that word....basically it is asking "how happy are your people".  Do they feel like they are personally contributing to the mission of the unit?  Do they feel that their contributions are valued by their commander?  Do they feel that they are part of a team?  Do they feel that they are part of the decision making process?

Catrulz made a lot of good points.  The only things that he left out are  "A leader knows the mission/task/Objective and communicates that to his subordinates" and "A leader is always working toward accomplishing the assigned mission/task/objective".