Random Thoughts on Command Climate

[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...