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".

[RiverAux]

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?

No, I said that CG Aux wasn't immune to having GOB and related problems.  That in no way means that they are as much of a problem as they are in CAP.  I have not personally observed a single member that has either been driven from CG Aux or has chosen to leave due to "command climate" issues while in CAP it is extremely common.  I have only ever heard of one person kicked out of CG Aux by the Coast Guard and only heard of that due to participation in a CG Aux discussion board.  Getting kicked out of CAP is a very real possibility, though not quite as easy to do as it used to be. 

Any organization can have the problems that CAP has, CAP just has a lot more of them because of our barely functional organizational model. 

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

No, it is the command climate in CAP that makes people exercise their option to leave.  They don't have that option in the military and in the "real world" of their jobs it is much more difficult to do, but they will eventually leave a bad climate unless they really have no other option but to put up with it. 

There is nothing really wrong with CAP's current origination model. 

I am willing to allow that some of the recent changes involving term limits for squadron commanders may actually help.  At least if you know that you're not going to be stuck with a sucky squadron commander for your entire career then you might be willing to wait them out. 

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.

This is entirely true in theory and I wish it were so.  But the only constituent that a squadron commander is their group or wing commander.  They are not officially beholden in any way to the people in their unit.  So long as their boss is happy they can do (or not do) just about anything they want in their unit and there is nothing anyone in that unit can do (absent any actual violations of laws or CAP regs).  As I said above, I hope recent reg changes have addressed this issue, but I'm not feeling confident of it. 

[Eclipse]

There is no "command climate" in CAP, and >that's< the problem.

Volunteers will generally respond properly to authority and structure which is clear, consistent, and fair.

"A tells B to do C" and no matter who "A" or "B" is, "C" is generally the same everywhere throughout the organization.

Commanders, especially higher HQs, exhibit little responsibility for, nor provide much direction to, their subordinates.

Unit CCs literally serve their entire term and never meet, or even speak to, their wing CC, unless the got themselves in
trouble with a reg they were unaware of because they have been in CAP 15 minutes before assuming command and
no one provided them any guidance or training.

There is no task too simple to delay for 6 months to indefinitely, while at the same time no project too complex to
wait until the last minute to prepare and then "wing" the night before, while at the same time complaining the staff
is "too busy" to do their one job, because they were off at a some activity and simply ignored their assigned responsibilities.

Commanders at all levels treat the mission like a menu, pick and choose their focus on a whim, and have no idea
where they fit in the grande scheme, mostly because there is no grande scheme.

This is endemic to the organization, has been status quo since the last century and can't be fixed from the middle.

[lordmonar]

barely functional organizational model.

Sorry....you are going to have to back that up with some hard facts.

This is entirely true in theory and I wish it were so.  But the only constituent that a squadron commander is their group or wing commander.  They are not officially beholden in any way to the people in their unit.  So long as their boss is happy they can do (or not do) just about anything they want in their unit and there is nothing anyone in that unit can do (absent any actual violations of laws or CAP regs).  As I said above, I hope recent reg changes have addressed this issue, but I'm not feeling confident of it.

And there again you are wrong.   If there is a toxic command environment.....there is and always has been a way for the rank and file to do something about it.

But that brings up the whole question about what you and Eclipse said...abut what the focus of CAP should be.

Is CAP all about "having a positive experience"?   Or is it about the mission? 

One a certain level.....you are absolutely right....if the commander is getting the mission done and crossing his T's and dotting his I's.....then Group/Wing should be happy.   And that fact that his a just a raging butthugger should not really play into it.

The fix for that is for Group/Wing to establish firm, clear, concrete tasks/goals for each and every commander.   When his membership starts leaveing because of his inabilty to foster a positive command climate.....then Wing/Group will not "like" him and have to make changes.

My point to you is......appointed or elected....does not make a difference in leadership ability.   Nor does the concept of term limits.

Your typical 20 person Senior Squadron......okay so maybe 10 people actually do the work.  Of that 10 maybe 2 are actually qualified to lead the squadron.   So....where does that leave you?   What happens when you got a guy who know what he is doing, knows how to make the mission happen....but a majority of the squadron would rather be a "flying club" and not worry about things like H/W restrictions in USAF uniforms, or sharing "THEIR" aircraft with the rest of the wing, and O-Rides......forget about it!

Elections are no better the CAP's current system of "He's the only one who wanted to do it".   Elections make you beholden-ed to the electorate....that means.....democracy is the rule....and if they majority votes for boonie caps....I guess that would be a good thing?

Do you see my point about how we would be just trading problems.

Fixing Toxic Command Climate happens when Wing establishes concrete goals for each squadron commander.  It gets fixed when Wing actually visits the squadrons and actually sees what is going on.

For the most part......CAP is doing okay.  It could be better....and it has been worse.

But as for adopting an "elect your commander" model.....that worked real well at the National level......so why do you think it would work better at the local level?

[Eclipse]

^ And it all circles back to needing more people.

More people = more opportunities, less work and stress on everyone, and a larger pool to choose leaders from,
not to mention more time to allow those on the track to focus on PD and learning to be better staff and officers.

[Eclipse]

barely functional organizational model.

Sorry....you are going to have to back that up with some hard facts.

Well, we could start with a former member of the national board who says that fixing rank and file members isn't NHQ's problem,
and if downstream CC's can't or won't do what they are supposed to, well, that's life, not much you can do about it.

Barely.

Functional.

[Storm Chaser]

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

36 U.S. Code § 40302 states the purpose of Civil Air Patrol, which is what you quoted earlier. AFI10-2701 states that "CAP conducts three primary programs: emergency services and civil support, aerospace education, and a cadet program." (emphasis mine)

[Eclipse]

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

36 U.S. Code § 40302 states the purpose of Civil Air Patrol, which is what you quoted earlier. AFI10-2701 states that "CAP conducts three primary programs: emergency services and civil support, aerospace education, and a cadet program." (emphasis mine)

Hmm...

The corporate side of CAP (i.e. Congress) doesn't agree with what the military side (i.e. the USAF) says is the mission.
And then we ask why we have issues of purpose.

[RogueLeader]

I'm just over a year into command (1 year 4 months) and I'm already starting to ensure that there are several candidates that are trained and capable of taking over.  I'm in the middle of a complete reboot of a squadron.  And to think that a year ago, I was contemplating making a recommendation to close the unit.  Prior to my getting involved in the squadron, and until about 8 months ago, 80% of  the other Senior Members were Active Duty air Force, and the others were not active.

Now I have a solid core of senior members that are retired, and civilians that have really bought into the program.  I don't know where I would be without them.

[Storm Chaser]

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

36 U.S. Code § 40302 states the purpose of Civil Air Patrol, which is what you quoted earlier. AFI10-2701 states that "CAP conducts three primary programs: emergency services and civil support, aerospace education, and a cadet program." (emphasis mine)

Hmm...

The corporate side of CAP (i.e. Congress) doesn't agree with what the military side (i.e. the USAF) says is the mission.
And then we ask why we have issues of purpose.

I don't seen an issue or contradiction. In fact, the purpose of CAP stated in 36 U.S. Code § 40302 is also captured in AFPD 10-27, CAP Constitution and Bylaws, and CAPR 20-1. AFI 10-2701 merely states that CAP conducts three primary programs to fulfill those purposes assigned to CAP by Congress.

How do you twist that into "issues of purpose"?

[lordmonar]

There is no "command climate" in CAP, and >that's< the problem.

Volunteers will generally respond properly to authority and structure which is clear, consistent, and fair.

"A tells B to do C" and no matter who "A" or "B" is, "C" is generally the same everywhere throughout the organization.

Commanders, especially higher HQs, exhibit little responsibility for, nor provide much direction to, their subordinates.

Hold on tight everyone......it is going to be a fun night....but I agree with Eclipse here.  CAP is not very good with setting goals between the wing and squadron level.

Unit CCs literally serve their entire term and never meet, or even speak to, their wing CC, unless the got themselves in
trouble with a reg they were unaware of because they have been in CAP 15 minutes before assuming command and
no one provided them any guidance or training.

If this is happening I got to say it is a failure on both sides of that leadership equation.

There is no task too simple to delay for 6 months to indefinitely, while at the same time no project too complex to
wait until the last minute to prepare and then "wing" the night before, while at the same time complaining the staff
is "too busy" to do their one job, because they were off at a some activity and simply ignored their assigned responsibilities.

Well I got to call BS on this one.......to a point at least.  But just to a point.  You yourself said that squadrons should be able to cherry pick from CAP's missions.   That is a lot of things that they have to find time to do.  And as you also pointed out we are volunteers and not everyone lives CAP 24-7 like some of do.   So....there is some truth that priorities shift, and staffs are busy and that YOUR prioity may not be MY priority, or wings, or NHQ's or CAP-USAF's.   

Commanders at all levels treat the mission like a menu, pick and choose their focus on a whim, and have no idea
where they fit in the grande scheme, mostly because there is no grande scheme.

Yes that is true....because no one higher up told them they had to X, Y or Z.......to this level....and they are too short manned, not skilled enough technically (as a squadron and an individual) to do all three missions....so the pick one to focus on.   

This, IMHO, is actually a good thing.   In the projects world they say you can have your project done right, done on time or done cheaply.........pick two.   

You are right we as commanders pick our focus on a "whim"....that is we either focus on what we like to do, what we THINK we aught to do, what we think we are able to do.....and we do that because no one has told us to do XYZ. 

ES....okay.....how may pilots do I need?  How many IC's?  How many MRO/FLM/GTM/et al do I need?
Cadets....okay.....how many cadets should I have have in my squadron?  What is considered a "good" turn over rate?  What is considered a "good" promotion rate?
AE.....How many of my SM's need to have their Yeagers?  Is AEX optional or required?  How many External AE presentations do I need to put on and to how many people?

Of course I'm going to pick and choose my "missions" because even with 40 Senior Members I find it hard to meet the goals that my squadron commander has set for our squadron.....on his personal whim.

I whole heartedly believe that "specialized elements" is actually the way CAP needs to go.
 
Element 1......your job is to maintain 1 CAP aircraft, recruit and train 10 mission pilots (Three of which must be O-ride qualified), 10 observers, 5 Aerial Photographers, 4 Scanners and 1 High Bird MRO. (that is 30 people by the way not 10 with three qual each).
Each one of your crews will fly at least ONE proficiency flight a month (that 10 hours a month of Pro Flight).  You will fly at least 6 O-rides a month in support of the Hommer James Simpson Middle School Cadet Element, The Spring Field Cadet Element, The Krusty the Clown High School Elements and the Sunnydale High School Cadet Elements.

done.

That is a flying squadron.   The commander knows his base line hard bottom fact of where he is in meeting his mission goals.  It is an easy way for group and wing to at any time pull up the information in WIMRS/EServices and say "you are exceeding/meeting/falling short of your monthly goals.

This is endemic to the organization, has been status quo since the last century and can't be fixed from the middle.

To a point I agree with you here.   it is the status quo....I disagree that it can't be fixed from the middle.  It just takes a lot of time and patience to make it happen. 

[lordmonar]

^ And it all circles back to needing more people.

More people = more opportunities, less work and stress on everyone, and a larger pool to choose leaders from,
not to mention more time to allow those on the track to focus on PD and learning to be better staff and officers.

That I agree on.   More people and clear concrete goals for the squadron commanders.

[Eclipse]

Just to be clear, I've never said units should be able to choose their missions, that is opposite
of my stance.

I think all unit should be composite and participating in all three missions.

Otherwise, we're agreeing, so it's time for me to go watch "Star Trek Continues" and some Robot Chicken.

[lordmonar]

Just to be clear, I've never said units should be able to choose their missions, that is opposite
of my stance.

I think all unit should be composite and participating in all three missions.

Otherwise, we're agreeing, so it's time for me to go watch "Star Trek Continues" and some Robot Chicken.

Yes....I know you said we should not be able to specialize.

That is where we split.

Note.....when I say specialize....I don't mean newly appointed commander X can say "I think we should just to Ground Teams".....I mean that Wing and Group under a unified and coordinated plan based on the missions and purposes of CAP should identify specific units to handle specific tasks.....that may or may not include all three CAP missions.

Specialization by design not by choice.

[Eclipse]

Specialization by design not by choice.

OK, on this I also agree.

[Storm Chaser]

Unit CCs literally serve their entire term and never meet, or even speak to, their wing CC, unless the got themselves in
trouble with a reg they were unaware of because they have been in CAP 15 minutes before assuming command and
no one provided them any guidance or training.

You're making generalizations based, perhaps, on your own experience. In my wing, the WG/CC has periodic town hall meetings and CC's Calls with commanders, staff and members. In addition to periodic face-to-face meetings (to include visits), he has video conferences and webinars with staff and commanders. And periodically sends e-mails to let us know what the wing is doing.

I realize that not every wing or WG/CC probably does that, but there are 52 wings and to say that none or very few are doing this without having actual data to support this assertion is not presenting facts, but anecdotal evidence.

[Eclipse]

Yes, they all have cnf calls, and emails, and whathaveyou.  No one said people don't try.

The focus is minutia - which reports are late, who isn't getting their safety to 100%, and
why 20% of the planes are down.  1/3rd of the cc's don't show, 3 can't unmute their phone, and most
of the call is spent arguing over who gets the new vans, when a repeater no one even knows is down
will be fixed, and why the CAC isn't fully represented.

There's very little new under the sun, and it's not like in this day and age there are many secrets.
For better or worse, I've had the benefit of some fairly wide exposure to CAP nationally.
Most of it unattributable so you have to take it for what it is, but that doesn't make it not true.

Further to this, the results of SUIs, CIs, Evals, and other related documents are all public, at least in a CAP
context.  There are pockets of anecdotal or circumstantial success, but no one is really outshining
or much different then anyone else in these regards.

Hardly comprehensive strategic planning.

[catrulz]

Great discussion, I have to comment on couple of things.

There is no "command climate" in CAP, and >that's< the problem.

There is "command climate" in every social situation where someone has authority over another.  In many cases we just don't think about it in those terms, but there is a command climate at work unless you work for yourself and you have no employees, at shcool if you are a cadet student, within your family in relation to spouse and children.  Family tends to bring out the most selfless leadership attributes in everyone (there are exceptions, there are some really dysfunctional families).  I always wonder why we can't mirror that family climate at CAP.  There is probably not a more healthy environment to strive for.  Who would not defend their little brother or sister from a bully, knowing that you may receive lumps for the effort?  There is no greater love than a mother cat who risks life to save her kittens!  These are metaphors of course, I do not advocate violence.

Leaders create the environment whether good or bad, other leaders add or detract whether formal or informal leaders.  I find myself now as an informal leader.  I feel it's my duty, to work in the background to make things happen.  I can help improve the command climate by doing what I can to make the unit appear in a positive light at all higher echelons.  This is what I choose to do! 

The bottom line is the Climate is established by the Commander, but it is maintained by the informal leadership.  We are either loyal to the unit, or we invest in it's failure.  I suppose you can take this further by saying the same about the Group, Wing, Region and even NHQ.  We support the organization or we invest in their failure, at that point we go from being casual gripers to guilty of a greater crime.  Whether you are well liked or not, you must support your higher leadership (Wing, Region, National), as long as that support doesn't create a moral delimna within yourself.  I always think you should do the right thing first, and the Higher echelons don't always go in the same direction!  But remember, they might be wrong about one thing and right about everything else. 

It pains me to read stories where people are simply ignored, cast aside, bullied, or not defended by their leadership, simply because the leader is AFRAID for their own carrer!  Candor is an attribute that is openly despised in CAP.  Lack of candor limits the feedback loop to what subordinates feel the higher HQ wants to hear.  There are also two sides to every story, the harmed is not always the victim, and some leaders over-react with rebellious volunteers, instead of counseling and developing them.  Most points of contention can individuals be sorted out fairly easily to everyones satisfaction.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It pains me to read stories where people are simply ignored, cast aside, bullied, or not defended by their leadership, simply because the leader is AFRAID for their own carrer!  Candor is an attribute that is openly despised in CAP.  Lack of candor limits the feedback loop to what subordinates feel the higher HQ wants to hear.  There are also two sides to every story, the harmed is not always the victim, and some leaders over-react with rebellious volunteers, instead of counseling and developing them.  Most points of contention can individuals be sorted out fairly easily to everyones satisfaction.

You said a lot.

That said, I have never been bullied in CAP - but that is because I do not allow anyone to bully me, in any situation.  I had it too much as a kid and do not tolerate it now.  It is not without consequence.  I have lost jobs over it and I have left CAP one time over it, when someone tried to bully me and discovered how intractable the quiet guy in the corner can be when backed against the wall.  I own what I did in response to the attempted bullying, and to me it was worth it on a personal level.  I will readily bug out on my own accord than perpetuate a bad situation that could well result in a 2B.

I have been ignored in CAP - in the past and in the present.  However, I have to own a lot of that, simply due to my personality.  It is easy for me to be passed over/unnoticed.  Sometimes that is not so good, and other times it has kept my six from being flamed.

You are right about candour, though.  It is not encouraged, if not, as you say, "openly despised," in CAP.  However, it is not limited to CAP.  There are many instances, in paid employment, military and volunteer organisations when speaking your mind with the "wrong" set of ears picking up can have detrimental effects on your standing/career.  I have done it, not always wisely. 

However, I remember my dad telling me that when he was in the Army, as a SP4 Radio Repairman, his Company Commander (a Captain) needed the radio on his Jeep fixed.  He did not have the tubes for it, so he requisitioned them, and requisitioning can be as "hurry up and wait" as anything else in the military.  The Captain came in and wanted his radio.  Dad said "the tubes are on requisition, Sir, and as soon as they arrive I will fix your radio."  The Captain said he wanted his radio, now.  Dad said, "Sir, I told you what the situation was.  Until the [darn] tubes come in your [darn] radio is going to sit right there on the shelf!"  The Captain said "That man's rank is frozen until further notice and he is confined to base."  Dad said, "I had a weekend pass already so I went and got it and went downtown to the biergarten (this was in Germany)."  He said the Captain came down and said "I restricted you to base!"  Dad said, "And I already had a weekend pass, Sir!"  He said that they sat there and got absolutely blotto...not good for fraternisation under the UCMJ, but he said from then on the Captain didn't want anyone else working on his radio...although he didn't get his rank unfrozen until just before he got out of the Army.

So candour, although risky, is not always the worst thing.  However, I am very surprised things didn't turn out worse for my old man, though he said his Company Commander was one to not give an order he wouldn't follow himself.

It's really apples-to-oranges to compare the command climate in CAP to that of the CGAUX.  The CGAUX doesn't have "command" as such, it has "leadership and management."

Even with the reforms to the 2B process, it is a lot easier to kick someone out of CAP than out of the CGAUX.  The Air Force is not at all involved in ours (except where a certain former National CC is concerned) whereas in the CGAUX the Coast Guard does get involved, and it is a lot more difficult to make the case for kicking someone out.  I never saw it happen during my time in the CGAUX.

[RRLE]

Since the CGAux has been brought up, here are the three main quotes that others are mentioning:

AuxMan 1. C.1.a. Definition
In the Auxiliary, the phrase “chain of leadership and management” describes a system of organizational communication and responsibility providing for an effective and efficient path for the flow of information through all organizational levels. The system is best described as a chain of leadership and management rather than a chain of command, as no military command authority exists.

AuxMan 1. C.6. Auxiliary Leadership and Management
The Auxiliary, as a uniformed organization of civilian volunteers, presents unusual leadership and management challenges. There is no authority to hire or fire an Auxiliarist, nor is there any military command authority.

AuxMan 1. C.7.Leadership
Leadership and management capability rests on Auxiliarists’ consent and on effective leadership skills. No group, including the Auxiliary, can function effectively without direction and goals. Leaders must conduct planning, provide coordination, and employ appropriate motivational techniques to attain desired objectives. Most successful leaders are individuals who practice good human relations skills. Effective Auxiliary leaders convince Auxiliarists to accept personal responsibility for task and mission accomplishment for which they have volunteered. Elected Auxiliary leaders are encouraged to seek help from past leaders and use their experiences whenever possible.

The Aux leadership is elected at all levels. IMHO, the process is a bit backwards. I think the elections should start at the local level and proceed upward. However, the process starts at the top. The current elected National officers and the current elected district leaders (next level down) elect the next set of national officers almost always from among themselves. The process is then repeated down the organizational structure. The district officers are elected by the current district officers in that district, the national commodore gets one vote and the current elected division officers (next level down). Then the division officers are elected by the current elected division officers and the current elected flotilla commanders (bottom level). Then the flotilla members elect their local officers. The only direct democracy in the Aux is at the flotilla level. If a member is not a higher level officer, they have no vote in any higher level office. Further, since the current crop of officers elect their replacements almost always from within their closed group, the system appears designed to thwart "revolutions from below".

The Aux has a strange concept of planning. There is a National plan. Each district is supposed to then write its own plan. It is supposed to keep the national plan in mind but it is not required to do so. A few years ago, one district put the required national boilerplate in its district plan and then stated it was not doing most of that. It proceeded to explain what the district considered its most pressing problem (member recruitiment and retention) and built its plan around that. Nothing happened to the District Commander, except he wasn't selected for election to higher office in the next cycle. The divisions within each district are supposed to have their own plans but I doubt you would find many written division plans in the Aux. Most flotillas don't have a written plan either. And the reason is simple. For many years, the Aux has had a policy of "The Auxiliary of One". A new member is encouraged to volunteer to do whatever they want to do. Flotillas on the other hand, although they may not have written plans, often have their favorite or pet missions. Some are heavy into boating, some are into RBS (Recreational Boating Safety), a few even specialize in flying. So it is easy to get a conflict between a member who joins to do mission X but mission X isn't on the flotillas pet mission list. In some areas of the country, there are a multitude of flotillas within driving distance so the prospective member may not be SOL, but he will be if the flotilla he is joining is the only one around.

So at the base you have an "Auxiliary of One" with everyone running around doing what they want and when totaled up that may not (and usually doesn't) add up to what is in the district and national plans.

But so long as the Coast Guard appears happy - no one really cares that the planning process and the plans are just "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Storm Chaser]

While there might be some similarities, the CGAUX and CAP are clearly two very different organizations with very different missions, goals and organizational structures. What works for the CGAUX wouldn't necessarily work for CAP.

I'm not sure why this comparison continues to be brought up here. I guess the grass is always greener...

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure why this comparison continues to be brought up here. I guess the grass is always greener...

I brought it up because I go to picnics in both yards and see advantages and disadvantages in the way the hosts treats their guests on both sides of the fence.  They're both in the same neighborhood and could learn something from each other about the best way to fertilize their lawns. 

[RRLE]

Since the Aux has been mentioned, one other thing that bears on the general discussion deserves mentioning. CAP is a paramilitary organization, as such it does have a command environment. As the previous quotes show, that is anathema in the Aux. The AuxMan makes clear in several places that the Aux is a civilian organization and is restricted to the civilian side of the CG "house".

A few examples: although both organizations have and wear military style uniforms, the insignia on a CAP uniform is rank/grade. The insignia on an Aux uniform is an office designation. CAP "credits" a member with prior military experience in the issuing of rank. Since the Aux insignia is office insignia, everyone starts at the bottom with member insignia. It doesn't matter if the member is a non-prior, seaman/private or general/admiral, everyone starts at the bottom.

CAP member are supposed to salute senior officers, how often that is honored in the breach, is a matter of discussion here. The Aux discourages saluting, the AuxMan states it it "not normal and not customary". About the only place it happens on a regular basis is the biannual changing of the national watch between the in-coming and out-going National Commodore. You might find saluting in local pockets in the Aux, usually started by some gung-ho member (often not prior service) but once a higher level officer finds out about it, they end it quickly.

CAP members also address each other by rank. In the Aux, the only officers addressed by rank are the District Commodores (head of the second highest organizational unit) and anyone holding an office with Commodore in its title at National. Depending on the office holder, even the use of rank may be optional outside of a formal meeting.