Face to face "yelling"

[Stonewall]

Sorry, couldn't think of a better title for the subject...

Every Thursday night, our top heavy staff conduct an in-ranks inspection of the handful of cadets in flight; 1/3 of whom aren't in uniform.  i.e., they're pretty new in the program.

Our First Sergeant leads the inspection and simultaneously asks memorization questions like the CAP motto, year CAP was chartered and the Commander in Chief of the military.  The problem is, he doesn't casually ask these questions, he yells them.

For instance:  "Cadet Smith, who is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces?"  The cadet will answer back "President Barrack Obama, First Sergeant".  This, followed by "oh, our Commander in Chief lacks a middle name...interesting..."  All of this is said loud enough to hear 50 ft away.

I have never seen this at a squadron, ever.  I have heard "command voices" like this at encampment, but it was never face to face.  Instead, it was directed to a flight or squadron, thus potentially warranting a louder command voice.  I think there is a break down somewhere between encampment and back at the squadron.  For some reason, cadets seem to return from encampment thinking that the "encampment way" is the "one meeting per week way".

Anyone else have this issue?  During last weekend's bivouac I brought it up and no one, including the first sergeant, could really give me a good answer as to why it happens.  I did sense a feeling of "oh, this guy is gonna suck the fun right out of CAP".

[JoeTomasone]

Sounds like a good dose of RST is called for.

That is pretty much the textbook definition of hazing; and it should not be done.

[Stonewall]

I don't know if I would call it hazing as much as I would call it goofy. 

[PHall]

Sounds like a good dose of RST is called for.

That is pretty much the textbook definition of hazing; and it should not be done.

I don't buy the "hazing" tag. Loud, obnoxious and not called for, but it's not hazing.

I think a little sit down session to find out why he/she thinks they need to do this is in order.

And then you tell them to knock it off...

[Eclipse]

Yes, I've seen it, and when I see it, it stops immediately - generally its a cadet who's got Full Metal Jacket on his iPod.

It might not be hazing, but its borderline enough to be knocked off. Its certainly not appropriate in a CAP context (I'm hearing footsteps as I type this).

It doesn't serve any purpose but to put everyone on edge, and that specific scenario is discussed in the encampment RST.

A couple of years ago we had a great RDC who was doing it for fun with cadets to see if he could break their military bearing - volunteers only and under our supervision.  Everyone had a lot of fun with it, but I kept thinking how bad it must be when you're a seaman recruit and this Red Rope has your number.

It also showed the cadets that there are people who are trained and experienced in this type of military training, and that the average Flight Sgt isn't prepared to do it correctly.

[Major Lord]

It sounds like a Cadet is preparing the other cadets well..... for marriage......Crikey! Sounds like a cadet staffer is suffering delayed stress syndrome from a brutal encampment; better call the CISM team!

Major Lord

[NIN]

I don't know if I would call it hazing as much as I would call it goofy. 

I think the term is "False Militarism"

Bear with me here.

I have heard time and again from cadets who are doing goofy things like this: "Sir, we do that because its more military."

"More military?" says me.  "Since when are you qualified to determine and judge what is more military?"

"Well, uh, sir, I, uhhhhh."

Now, having said that, those of us who have been in the military are thinking "More Military = another cup of coffee and the avoidance of a formation after lunch."   

While it doesn't precisely pertain to UK's specific circumstance, the following speaks to some of the difficulties of that fine line between 'too laid back' and 'caricature of a program.'  I wrote this about a month or so ago:

Part of the problem is that there is the "RealMilitary™" and then there is the HyperMilitaristicButTotallyUnlikeTheRealMilitary™" cadet programs.

And once you can reconcile yourself with the concept that the conflated weirdo reality inside any community-based high-school-aged cadet program != The RealMilitary™, the sooner your cognitive dissonance fixes itself and you can keep your inner-ear and your tummy agreeing with one another.

General Tornow, the CG of the the USAC, has stated time and again that his preference in that our program should lean more toward the "academy-style" (note I didn't say "Academy-style") learning environment, where we put some contrived situations in front of our cadets and they may "live" in sort of a microcosm of an organizational structure (ie. a true company doesn't have 30 cadets, but ours do for the purposes of shortening span of control, etc, for learning), etc.

Does that mean that cadets might get a "skewed" picture of what the RealMilitary™ is all about? Yeah, maybe.

But it also means that the programs are kept interesting and fresh to the cadet.

If you wanted to simulate a true "military career exploration program," your days would be pretty darn boring. We'd have to start off with PT just 3 days out of 5, followed by a leisurely breakfast, and a morning formation that appears pretty lackadaisical to an outside observer. Then there is the "amble over to your work area" accompanied by the obligatory cup of Joe, and then 2-3 hrs of what Jimmy the Chin referred to as "professional tea drinking." And don't get between the smokers and the door as they dart out for a cancer stick 2-3 times/hr. Then we all go to a lunch thats so laid back as to make breakfast look positively regimented, and appear back in our work spaces sometimes between 1 and 1:30, if its a slow day. Then another 3-4 hrs of "professional tea drinking," spiced with some work. If we're talking enlisted career exploration, and more specifically Jr. Enlisted (ie. E-4 and below) well, look out, cuz now we gotta teach the time-honored and rather obtuse art of "shamming" that is practiced by enlisted soldiers of the grades E-1 thru E-3, and reaches its pinnacle at E-4 with the pinning of the "Sham Shield" of Army Specialist. Thats not just lightweight shamming, either, but involves active avoidance of supervisors, trips to the nearby Shoppette when you're really supposed to be "working," and endless stories about what happened in the ville last night while you're waiting for the smokers to return from the smoke-tent. Then its time to ingest more food in a "well, I don't really feel like going to the chow hall, cuz I need to take a nap before we go downrange after 10pm.." way, so its back to the barracks and the hot-plate/microwave special. And are you gonna take your troopies out to the, *ahem* recreational facility downrange? Don't think so... So, yeah, that just screams military career!

In other words: We want to show how neato-cool military careers are without demonstrating the underbelly of the beast: that the RealMilitary™ is all about hours and hours of boredom, punctuated by moments of really neat and cool things.. Once in awhile.

A tightrope walk the Wallendas would be proud of.

[NCRblues]

NIN, your "military career exploration program" nailed the work day for a lot of us! Love it!! :clap:

[Robert Hartigan]

Stonewall,
You bring up an interesting topic. I ran into this very issue as a recent Encampment Commander. I asked if face to face "yelling" enhanced our training curriculum? No one could satisfy the question in favor of yelling other than to fall back as a stalwarts of ancestral veneration, "We have always done it this way." When the question is further compounded with the additional question,"Does that make it right?" The answer always came back to "No."

So, nevermind the fact an officer should not have to yell to achieve order and discipline, if it is wrong in one training environment, say the home unit, then chances are close to 100% that it is wrong in another training environment, say an encampment, and vice versa. The litmus test I use is if an open minded outsider sees our actions and can take away a misconception of our training curriculum then someone is doing something wrong, and most likely it is not the basic cadet.

Frankly, I am ashamed when those in my command have to resort to yelling to maintain good order and discipline. Yelling and screaming at your subordinates shows a lack of respect for them, your commander and ultimately yourself.

I believe the defiency is related to poor modeling, not role modeling, but instructional modeling. Rarely have I seen any sort of methods of instruction. And every moment in the cadet program is a learning opportunity. I suggest that cadet leaders apply the ADDIE method to training opportunities.

Analyze:  the performance environment in order to understand it and then describe the goals needed in order to correct any performance deficiencies (identify training requirements).
Design: a process to achieve your goals, that is — correct the performance deficiencies.
Develop: your initial discoveries and process into a product that will assist the learners into becoming performers (in training, this product is often called courseware).
Implement: by delivering the courseware to the learners.
Evaluate: the performers, courseware, and audit-trail throughout the four phases and in the working environment to ensure it is achieving the desired results.

Using this method greatly increases the communications and understanding of both Cadet Leader and Cadet Basic (teacher and student) thereby eliminating the need to raise your voice unless we are using a D&C command voice.

[Stonewall]

NIN, your "military career exploration program" nailed the work day for a lot of us! Love it!! :clap:

Yeah, now let's hear about a day in the life of NIN at his civlian job. 

0800:  Wake up
0830:  Grab cup of java
0845:  Call Stonewall on the way to work
0900:  Check out CadetStuff
0930:  Check out CAP Talk
10:00:  Get new cup of java
10:30:  Photoshop picture of Stonewall for laughs
11:00:  Lunch
13:00:  Check out USPA's site for pictures of self
13:30:  Make post of how ACA is cooler than CAP
14:00:  CadetStuff
15:00:  CAP Talk
16:00:  Call Stonewall on the way home
17:00:  Hang out with hottie girlfriend
19:00:  CAP

[Eclipse]

Frankly, I am ashamed when those in my command have to resort to yelling to maintain good order and discipline. Yelling and screaming at your subordinates shows a lack of respect for them, your commander and ultimately yourself.

+1 There are signs all over the RTC that say "Yelling is not leadership."

[NIN]

NIN, your "military career exploration program" nailed the work day for a lot of us! Love it!! :clap:

Yeah, now let's hear about a day in the life of NIN at his civlian job. 

0800:  Wake up
0830:  Grab cup of java
0845:  Call Stonewall on the way to work
0900:  Check out CadetStuff
0930:  Check out CAP Talk
10:00:  Get new cup of java
10:30:  Photoshop picture of Stonewall for laughs
11:00:  Lunch
13:00:  Check out USPA's site for pictures of self
13:30:  Make post of how ACA is cooler than CAP
14:00:  CadetStuff
15:00:  CAP Talk
16:00:  Call Stonewall on the way home
17:00:  Hang out with hottie girlfriend
19:00:  CAP

The difference is, nobody is running a "Broken down IT director internship" that I know of.

My day doesn't quite look that way.  I hit CAPTalk before CadetStuff, cuz CadetStuff is like dessert to me.

[alamrcn]

The usual suspects already responded, but I'll throw in too...

Rather than immeadiately judging that the volume is bad or uncalled for, does the First Sergeant have a purpose in doing it? Does it suit the situation or scenerio?

Obviously you established that distance to the cadet being addressed isn't a factor, but does he want the exchange at a volume for everyone else in flight to hear as well? When you said a "handful" of cadets, I assumed that this was not the case.

I don't think that an inspection is the time for any type of motivation techniques, but how are the cadets responding? Does it motivate them to do better next time? Do they LIKE that level of intensity?

If the CCF's main purpose of yelling is intimidation, then he might not have any other leadership styles to draw from. The Cadet Commander should certainly then help him find other techniques and tools to use, as just only one style does not fit all.

[winterg]

I never yell.  I speak in a loud clear command voice so that everyone around can get the benefit of the instruction. 

[Eclipse]

I don't think that an inspection is the time for any type of motivation techniques, but how are the cadets responding? Does it motivate them to do better next time? Do they LIKE that level of intensity?

It doesn't matter if they "like it" or not - it inappropriate.

In fact, one of the things that is stressed in RST is that cadets will indicate they "like" something just to agree with the pack and not be singled out even further.

Here's our buddy from the RST slide on this (and the cadet is probably past college at this point):


That expression has no place in CAP.

[dwb]

I learned a long time ago that silence is more effective than noise.  I would be a lot more "on my game" if every cough, sniff, and twitch was audible during the inspection.

The yelling of general knowledge questions is almost cartoonish, and I thought that even WIWAC.

IMO, uniform inspections in formation should be swift, serious, and relevant (e.g., the things being inspected are actually spelled out in the 39-1).  Gunny Hartman tactics just make it drag on longer than it needs to.  The cadets have more important things to be learning than how to scream without giggling.

[Stonewall]

Obviously you established that distance to the cadet being addressed isn't a factor, but does he want the exchange at a volume for everyone else in flight to hear as well? When you said a "handful" of cadets, I assumed that this was not the case.

6, maybe 7 cadets in the flight. 5, maybe 6 cadet "staff".

The yelling of general knowledge questions is almost cartoonish, and I thought that even WIWAC.

Agreed 100%, even WIWAC too.  It's funny, people stereotype me the wrong way all the time.  People that have never met me; who have just heard about me, assume I'm some Drill Instructor wannabe.  I actually had an AEO/Major with a son in another squadron send email after email telling me I was out of line and I was a detriment to the program.  Then I took over her son's squadron and she fell in love with me...not really, but you know.  I think that since people perceive me in this manner, such as the cadets in my squadron, they think they are impressing me.  "Oh, Lt Col Bowden is a real military guy, let's be loud and proud."  When in fact, I'm the complete opposite.  I'm hyper active, not hyper ridiculous.  dwb may disagree after a certain incident at a PA McDonald's in 2002, but YMMV.

IMO, uniform inspections in formation should be swift, serious, and relevant (e.g., the things being inspected are actually spelled out in the 39-1).  Gunny Hartman tactics just make it drag on longer than it needs to.  The cadets have more important things to be learning than how to scream without giggling.

Exactly.  They're spending 15+ minutes in this uniform inspection.  For 6 or 7 cadets, 3 minutes, 5 tops.  In fact, in the schedule I build, uniform inspections is an actual even that occurs once a month, same with D&C.  Not every meeting and not for 2 hours.  A 45 minute block each month is allotted for D&C and a "real" uniform inspection.

[capchiro]

As a matter of fact, it is hazing, no if's and's or but's about it:
CAPR 52-10
"c. Hazing. Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby someone causes another to suffer or to be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Examples of hazing include using exercise as punishment or assigning remedial training that does not fit the deficiency (such as making a cadet run laps for having poorly shined shoes). Hazing, as defined in this policy, is considered a form of physical abuse and the reporting procedures for physical abuse must be followed."

There is no way that a ranking cadet member screaming in one's face is not humiliating, demeaning, or harmful.  

We are not the military and we do not have the right to treat or allow such treatment to go on.  I am often surprised that the members that disregard this Reg are often times the one's that are so vocal about 39-1.  I am also surprised that this treatment is usually from, allowed, or condoned by someone that is not prior service.  We are the "Civil" Air Patrol.  Is it any wonder that we have trouble recruiting and retaining cadets??

[Eclipse]

The simple act of "yelling", in and of itself is not hazing.  Without knowing what and why its being yelled the definition is never that black and white.

If we're all talking about the Gunny Hartman scenario, it might be, and usually is, but if each cadet is receiving the same treatment, its a fine line as to whether its really hazing or not (and yes, hazing is always in the eye of the beholder).  Poor leadership and incorrect technique aren't necessarily hazing.

I have seen flight commanders and sgts praising cadets in the same Hartman way because they are having fun with it, or because they think that is how they are always supposed to talk to maintain the RDC/DI/TI persona - in that case its still silly and inappropriate, but far from hazing.

That's why the second part of RST focus on avoiding getting into these situations in the first place through training, planning, and supervision.  If cadets understand that yelling isn't hazing, they don't get there in the first place.

[dwb]

Not to derail this discussion, but I've learned something over the years about hazing.

When you start to discuss hazing, you flip a bit in people's brains.  Depending on the brain, it can cause one of several things:

• They very fervently defend their particular "hardkewl" style of leadership.
  
  
• They very fervently assert that even the tiniest bit of stress constitutes hazing.
  
  
• They are so jaded by hazing discussions that they just shut down and refuse to listen.

None of these things are productive.

Instead of endlessly debating the hazing angle when it comes to topics like this, I prefer to put forth a logical argument that has nothing to do with hazing.  I don't even use the word, if I can avoid it.

Reference my post above: I stated that I thought such activities looked goofy, that we could spend our time teaching more important lessons, and that sometimes less noise is better.  These are all points people are willing to discuss without bringing up the h-word and the reactions it spawns.

The participants in this thread will never, ever come to consensus on whether the scenario in the OP is hazing.  But I bet we can all talk sensibly about how best to conduct inspections, how to best use our limited contact hours, and mentoring techniques for inexperienced first sergeants.