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.

[Eclipse]

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.

That's for sure....

[JoeTomasone]

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.  

Actually, I was a tad more worried about the "middle name" comment, which I thought was a bit demeaning.   The Cadet gave the answer but was made to feel inferior for not knowing (or stating) the President's middle name.

[Always Ready]

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".

Sounds like a case too many chiefs and not enough indians. You may want to address that along with the yelling. Just because someone is Cadet Admin Officer or Cadet ES Officer doesn't mean they can't get inspected. Same thing with the First Shirt and the Cadet Commander.

I find yelling counterproductive. When someone starts yelling at me, the first thing I do is block them out. If they continue to yell, I get angry. Then it's all down hill from there. It's never a good thing to do. For one, it is trying to push subservience (which is hazing by definition). If you are yelling at someone, you are trying to get them to do something that they don't want to do or embarrassing them in front of everybody (which is against our regs). I prefer to give them advice on how to fix the problem and if necessary, show them how to fix the problem. If it is a reoccurring problem, I walk them through the process step by step. Remember leadership is a two way street. I also don't allow people to answer with "No, excuses sir!" That is also counterproductive. I would prefer to know their thought process and have to remedy that instead of yelling at them until they fix the problem. Yelling solves nothing. I would nip that in the bud now before it gets out of hand and drive people away (if it already hasn't).

[capchiro]

Actually, to clarify, since hazing is in the eye of the beholder, and since it is in the reg's, anytime one is yelling in someone's face, they are placing themselves in a very precarious position.  I have had cadets and/or their parents call me after a meeting to let me know that their child is upset because of the action of someone at the meeting.  Usually, the cadet did not act upset or concerned at or during the meeting, but it obviously bothered them and they didn't want to seem sissy or something at the time so they didn't bring it to anyone's attention.  Now, mom and dad are upset and now someone has to start an investigation and guess what, you don't even want to be on the wrong side of that.  It always goes in the cadet's favor.. So as my wife, the Wing Legal Officer, says "Govern yourself and those below you accordingly" (or face the wrath of the IG).     

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Actually, I was a tad more worried about the "middle name" comment, which I thought was a bit demeaning.   The Cadet gave the answer but was made to feel inferior for not knowing (or stating) the President's middle name.

I was thinking that it's possible the demand for a middle name might be political in nature -- remember that there was some political hay made of the CINC's rather Arabic middle name on the campaign trail. Not sure that's acceptable.

That said, the perception is that the right answer wasn't good enough. It had to be exactly what the senior cadet in this situation anticipated. Cadets can perform well without being mind-readers to boot.

[Eclipse]

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.

Based on Joe's comment I went back and re-read this.

I think I might have this fall on the hazing side.  Not only is the question essentially irrelevant to the cadet program, per se
(since POTUS is only a tenuous CINC to CAP), but the cadet answered the question correctly and was still belittled.

On the surface it appears that the First Shirt wasn't trying to reinforce CAP knowledge, but just find a way to catch the cadet(s) on obscure trivia to brow-beat them.

[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".

Sounds like a case too many chiefs and not enough indians.

And this has been a problem for the 2+ years I've been at this squadron (mostly inactive).

That's why I started this thread back in 2007 but it got lcoked.

[EMT-83]

I can't see a situation where yelling in someone's face would be acceptable. Raising your voice to a group of people might be motovating, especially if you're normally a soft-spoken person. "Hey, I never heard the captain raise his voice before. He must be really upset". Of course, it has no effect if you're always yelling.

I think back to the old Bill Cosby routine where he referred to someone as an a-hole. Coming from Cosby, it was out of character and very funny. The same line from Chris Rock would never noticed, or remembered.

[Eclipse]

The "too many chiefs issue" circles back to the perpetual conversations in both the senior and cadet programs about matching grade to job.

We collect people at certain levels as much because of the cycles of recruiting as the need.

Slotting people based on grade, as the military does, would mean we'd have a lot of people who have completed all the training and check boxes but can't progress until the job above them is open, just as the military does.

Its more noticeable in the cadet ranks because there is an expectation that a cadet will be given commensurate responsibility as they progress.  Not so much in the senior ranks.

[jimmydeanno]

The too many chiefs 'problem' we see is a direct result of the way our program is structured.  The achievements are based on promotions.  Cadets aren't really considered to have had a successful stint unless they get their Mitchell.  Because the emphasis is on progression/duty position you can have 40 C/2d Lts at one time.

JROTC and ROTC on the other hand have knowledge requirements and awards but don't link them to the promotions.  The job you hold determines that.  You can go four years in either program without being the C/CC and still have been considered successful.

However, I think that the bigger problem we have is not having a cadet with the grade for a job holding a position. (read C/TSgt as C/CC). 

As for your situation UK, it just sounds like your senior cadets need a little retraining.  When I joined my squadron, cadet review boards were a huge issue.  They'd have the cadets come in carrying a chair and grade them on how well they set it up.  Then they'd do 'bearing checks' and ask a barrage of questions for 15 minutes straight.  In all honesty, there was no feedback being given. 

When I became the DCC, it was the first thing I set out to change.  The cadet staff was taught how to do a review board.  It took some getting used to because it required the staff to actually think about what they were doing and focus on the person in front of them and how they are performing - but I think they understand where they were going wrong before.  The new cadet (and older) appreciate the feedback they get because it is constructive.

The inspections your cadets are doing aren't constructive, they're annoying.  If they refuse to change, IMO, it becomes time to put an end date on that positions term quickly and find someone who is willing to go with the culture change.

[Always Ready]

^+1 Retrain them and if necessary, replace them.

With that small number of cadets, I would trim the fat and get rid of unnecessary staff positions. Explain to them that you have no justification to have a 1:1 ratio of staff to cadets and that they are not getting punished or fired. Just so their egos aren't completely shot by that, put deserving members in "Project Officer" roles. In that role, they lead 'X' project/class (i.e. an ES class, FTX, AE activity, Character Development class, etc.) but they are technically not on staff. Set limits on how long they can manage projects and then rotate them between the projects. This keeps them fulfilling the requirements for SDAs, while helping you out, and helping them become more well rounded. Put those Project Officers back into the ranks of the flight and tell everyone that you will recreate staff positions when you need them again (read: there are more cadets in the unit). This way they have incentive to recruit and you will only have 2 or so staff members to deal with instead of 6. That takes care of the too many chiefs problem.

[Eclipse]

^ More incentive as well to recruit.

"Want to be a Flight Commander?  Go find a flight!"   

[NIN]

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

I raised my voice for some reason recently, and a cadet said "Wow, sir, I didn't know you could yell.."

I said "Uh, excuse me?"

(I'm generally not afraid to use my diaphragm in the manner in which it was intended..)

BITD, I used to say "I don't yell.  I merely speak in a tone which ensures I will not be misunderstood, misheard or ignored."

[Nathan]

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.

God forbid our cadets yawn every now and then.

I've only heard of this situation at encampments, but maybe that's just because our squadron doesn't really have anything close to hazing happening at it (crazy, I know).

I have spoken loudly enough for the flight to hear when conducting inspections as a flight leader. This, of course, is not to intimidate, but rather to ensure that the cadets can learn from others' mistakes (I'm not sure the "correct in private" idea needs to apply to uniform inspections). So, if a cadet has his boot laces hanging out, then the other cadets will get the idea to keep an eye on their laces for the rest of the week. Not EVERYONE needs to actually make a mistake in order to learn from it.

A previous encampment inspection experience from last summer sounded like this:

Me: How are you today, cadet?
Cadet: Awake and alive, sir.
Me: Fantastic. Are all your pockets buttoned and secured?
Cadet: Yes sir, I think so.
Me: You think so? It looks like you tried to tie these pockets closed with paracord.
Cadet: Sir?
Me: You have a cable coming off this button I could use to rappel from the moon. I assumed you had a reason for it.
Cadet: No sir.
Me: So you'll take care of this as soon as you fall out?
Cadet: Yes sir.
Me: Very well. (Moves on).

All this done in a "command voice" to ensure that the others can hear, but not humiliating, not intimidating, and certainly not hazing. There is a POINT to doing things loudly once in a while. I think it just takes experience and a degree of maturity to know how to do what and when.

[Eclipse]

All this done in a "command voice" to ensure that the others can hear, but not humiliating, not intimidating, and certainly not hazing.

Whether or not it was hazing isn't for the person actually making the smarty-pants comments to decide, especially when they were directed at one person and in a "command voice".

(Which btw the way never needs to be any louder than normal speaking voice if you've already established your own credibility as a leader.

One might suggest that simply directing everyone in the flight to check their uniforms for hanging threads would be much further from the edge of hazing, or a quick comment on the side to the cadet would be more constructive and appreciated by the cadet as well.

If your goal is to insure that a respective cadet has a proper uniform, what's the point of the the "funny dialog"?

[Nathan]

Whether or not it was hazing isn't for the person actually making the smarty-pants comments to decide, especially when they were directed at one person and in a "command voice".

True, but if we follow that line of logic too far, then we end up paralyzed with fear of ANYTHING we do that might be considered "hazing." And maybe you have a different image of what I was talking about than what I meant. When I use a "command voice", it is just that. It is not yelling. It is not screaming. It is not even really booming. It is simply a volume I use in order to ensure I am heard by everyone. I'm not big into raising my voice; I usually order someone else to do it for me.

One might suggest that simply directing everyone in the flight to check their uniforms for hanging threads would be much further from the edge of hazing, or a quick comment on the side to the cadet would be more constructive and appreciated by the cadet as well.

If your goal is to insure that a respective cadet has a proper uniform, what's the point of the the "funny dialog"?

I don't know your complete background in CAP (even after all these years), but as I said, the only time when I personally do something like this is during the encampment environment. I don't know if you were ever a cadet or if you attended a basic encampment as a cadet, but here's my answer.

Yes, telling everyone to check for threads is much further from hazing. In fact, giving a uniform class before every inspection would be even FURTHER from hazing. Or, we can just tell people to read the CAPM 39-1 every second of every day. Then they have no excuse, right? After all, the further we pad ourselves in, the further we get away from a possible hazing scenario.

The point is that cadets don't expect to be treated "nicely" at encampments. Get the quotes, by the way. I am certainly not saying they are expecting to be hazed, or that there is any justification for hazing. But I am saying that if we were to put our encampments into even vague hazing possibility-proof bubbles, the cadets would be... bored? They EXPECT to learn discipline, and it is hard to do when they are never actually disciplined!

But, as I demonstrated above, it is not a requirement to even get close to hazing in order to pull this off right. I don't think I got even close, and after six years of this, I have gotten far more thanks than complaints in my CAP career, so I like to think I've found a good balance.

And what's the point of being funny? Like I said, if you haven't been a basic at an encampment, it may not be immediately apparent. But, well, it's what most cadets EXPECT when they go to encampment. I can teach them and have a sense of humor at the same time. And by mid-week, where the cadets are tired and possibly sick of being told what to do and how to do it, a little humor in at 0530 in the morning can do wonders for morale.

YMMV

[JMessmer]

Content Deleted

[Major Lord]

I think you need to go see what an actual Air Force unit's daily life is like. Encampment is a different story, where the stress level is intentionally higher, but this is a tool to help innoculate you against stress, so that you can perform under pressure.

CAWG has the finest encampment experience in CAP, and I doubt there are many Cadets that are not changed forever as a result, but if you try to make your regular squadron actvities like this, people will know that you are either a sadist, or drunk with power with your exalted staff position....If people exhibiting these impulse control problems ( Going "Gunny Hartman" ) can't be contained fast, they need to be placed in a safe environment; Far away from other Cadets!  Cadets are not military. They are miltary students. Like senior members, we expect them to do stupid things and play grabasticly. Maintaining a level of professionalism and military discipline is a threshold that should be set by your Sq Commander or Deputy Commander for cadets. Cadets are well known for going off the reservation into the "lord of the flies" zones, especially after coming back from an encampment, but these atitudes will cause nothing but trouble for you. You want to impress your SQ Senior Members with your professionalism? Do your job, help others do theirs, and mentor when and where you can. In our Squadron, the mark of a good non-com is one who does these, and who constantly works on getting our own people involved in new and better activities.

If you like your discipline made from steel, the Marine devil pups are looking for people, but you will be on the receiving end, not the giving end. Good luck, be cool, and try not to kill anyone.

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

The encampment way is good. maybe water it down a TINY bit, but thats how it should go.

The "encampment way"?

Please cite or define.

If you are being treated differently during your encampment than at your home unit, there is a disconnect somewhere.

Yelling is not leadership.  Yelling does not install discipline.

[dwb]

I am a former first sergeant and it is my belief that if we wear military uniforms and we go by military regs and we appear to be military, we have to act military.

What personal military experience can you cite as a model for how military CAP's cadet program should be?

[dwb]

If you are being treated differently during your encampment than at your home unit, there is a disconnect somewhere.

Encampment can still be a more stressful environment, even if people are being treated the same.

The stress comes from the longevity of the activity, the intensity of the training schedule, being away from home and amongst strangers, getting less sleep than most teens on summer break are used to, being jolted out of one's normal routine of Facebook and X-Box, etc.

[Ned]

I think that training environments - especially initial military training environments - are different from business or operational environments in terms of military discipline.

Encampment is a different experience than a Tuesday night meeting.

Just as a routine business day in a typical military unit is different than basic training or even Tech School.

But I would certainly agree that current CAP doctrine doesn't define or recognize the difference.  Mostly because all our current doctrine does is define "hazing" which is the "outer limit" of military discipline levels.

We do not do a very good job at defining what the "atmosphere" should be like or provide a workable set of tools to help experienced leaders set the "look and feel" of various cadet activities ranging from squadron meetings to encampments.

Encampment is supposed to be different than a meeting night.  Otherwise, what's the point?  There's certainly nothing on the prescribed written curricula that couldn't be acomplished at a meeting night or a squadron weekend activity.

But we all know encampment is something special in our cadet program.  It affects cadets in measurable ways.  (As just one example, first year encampment attendence dramatically increases retention in a way no other factor has been shown to do.)

I've been through one of Uncle Sam's Initial Entry Trainings (along with several million other Americans.)  I noted that the drill sergeants did a fair amount of yelling, and actively engaged trainees in ways that seemed to motivate the trainees to perform.  Later, when I reached an operational unit, there was little or no yelling (except when it got too loud in the motor pool.)

Obviously, CAP is not the Armed Forces, and simply using the "Air Force Methods of Basic Military Training" would be a failure for our cadets.  Our cadets average 13-14 at encampment, not 17-22 like Big Blue.  USAF MTI's go through long training and apprenticeship before being placed in positions of authority over trainees; CAP staffers are lucky to have a week or two of training.

So CAP's military "atmosphere" will always be different - and probably milder - than the USAF.  But we need to get better at defining what it should be like, and giving our leaders the tools they need to challenge and motivate our cadets while safeguarding their physical and emotional safety.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor

[Eclipse]

If you are being treated differently during your encampment than at your home unit, there is a disconnect somewhere.

Encampment can still be a more stressful environment, even if people are being treated the same.

The stress comes from the longevity of the activity, the intensity of the training schedule, being away from home and amongst strangers, getting less sleep than most teens on summer break are used to, being jolted out of one's normal routine of Facebook and X-Box, etc.

Encampment is supposed to be different than a meeting night.  Otherwise, what's the point?  There's certainly nothing on the prescribed written curricula that couldn't be accomplished at a meeting night or a squadron weekend activity.

I agree 100%, and especially for the reasons DWB cited, but this thread is not about the ways encampment is different from a unit environment, its about using "in-your-face-yelling" as a leadership style and to instill discipline.  Some people are asserting it has no place in a unit meeting, but is ok as the "encampment way".

That's what I disagree with.

Different topics

[dwb]

Hey, you brought it up. 

BTW, lest my post on the bottom of page 2 get lost, here was my reply to the OP:

I am a former first sergeant and it is my belief that if we wear military uniforms and we go by military regs and we appear to be military, we have to act military.

What personal military experience can you cite as a model for how military CAP's cadet program should be?

[JMessmer]

I am a former first sergeant and it is my belief that if we wear military uniforms and we go by military regs and we appear to be military, we have to act military.

What personal military experience can you cite as a model for how military CAP's cadet program should be?

who said it had to be personal military experience?

my father is a colonel and i go on post all the time to witness training and etc. i hear him and all the other officers talking and i talk to the NCO's and other CAP people. If we look military, lets act it. that way when we do things right, and people think were USAF, they have a good wrong impression, not a bad one.

[JMessmer]

Content Deleted

conent deleted? whaaaaat??

[DC]

Content Deleted

conent deleted? whaaaaat??

Nice try. According to the message on the post you were the one who edited it. There is a forum policy of not 'nuking' posts, so I doubt a mod did it.

[MIKE]

This is why we need edit logging.  [/offtopic]

[Rob Sherlin]

 Also, you probably want to be REAL carefull yelling at cadets, or using too harsh of a tone. All members should have gone through the "Cadet Protection" orientation. A lot of people forget...WE ARE NOT REGULAR MILITARY!!!!!!!!! (Especially with cadets!!)
  I've seen our cadets get talked to in such a way that it's acceptable (they're not "barked" at...They're just told)...And they do so without further dissorder......There's no need for an "old time" DI type person!!

[Stonewall]

My dad is a colonel, I know exactly what goes on in the real military!!!  Meetings should be run exactly like encampment...

After all, we're not making Corn Flakes...

Can you say "wanna be"? 

[Rob Sherlin]

 It has nothing to do with "Wanna be", and we're definitly not producing "Corn Flakes". We're also not putting young people through "Boot Camp" for regular military! You may be seasoned and a "[Filter Subversion]" soldier, but don't try to make the children of other people into a "carbon copy" of you!...I'm sure it will backfire and become lawsuit one day if you treat them that harsh.
We treat our cadets with respect and motivation without being abrupt! And they respond with dedication and respect that makes us proud!.....No "barking" going on!...You ask them...they do it!
  You once said you were thinking about quitting...One of the reasons you gave was you didn't like the attitude of the cadets now adays...Now I'm thinking....Is it actually the cadets?...Or are they being treated like they're in the regular Army?
  I mean no dissrespect to you...but maybe you're being a bit to hardcore!!!!

  Maybe our motto is true.."We aint' #1 for nothing!"

[Major Lord]

Some people don't understand sarcasm because E-mail does not communicate it well....Others just don't understand sarcasm......

Major Lord

[Stonewall]

Yes, Rob Sherlin, I was being sarcastic towards our young JMessmer.  I certainly don't have that train of thought.  I've been in CAP 22 years (5 as a cadet) and have tons of cadet success stories.  In fact, read this month's VOLUNTEER about the Pararescueman and you'll see one.

[Rob Sherlin]

 Sorry! Took it in another way and to a whole new level I guess.

[Michael]

<<<<Previous Content Deleted>>>>

[Pingree1492]

I will only "yell" at a cadet if the situation makes it worth doing so, and if I am darn sure that the cadet will respond to it in the manner that I need him/her to.

For the sake of discussion, what would be an example (or two) of a situation worth yelling at a cadet?  And at what distances between you and the cadet(s) are we talking about?

[Michael]

<<<<Previous Content Deleted>>>>

[cap235629]

Ma'am, I suppose there would be very few situations where a subordinate cadet is in my charge, is around my age and size, who is not putting forth the amount of effort and energy that is appropriate for whatever activity. 

I would be able to sense, with a fair degree of certainty, that said cadet could put out considerably more energy, could accomplish more for his or her self, and for the unit, and is making a choice not to do so.    A quick call-out to that cadet, I believe, would both work, and be appropriate in that situation.  The activity would most likely take place outside, with some kind of physical work being done. 

My previous post was meant to serve as leadership commentary only, not a suggestion for set-in-stone, unconditional protocol.

Very respectfully,

WMC

And would be considered hazing.

Cadet, I guarantee you do not have the maturity, experience nor disposition to partake in this type of "leadership"

I am a veteran, former Marine Corps JROTC cadet, and former police officer as well as a parent.  So in other words, BTDT. I can ensure you that the Gunny Hartman, smoke em, PT til you puke style of "leadership" has NO PLACE in the cadet program INCLUDING ENCAMPMENT!

[USADOD]

If you are being treated differently during your encampment than at your home unit, there is a disconnect somewhere.

Encampment can still be a more stressful environment, even if people are being treated the same.

The stress comes from the longevity of the activity, the intensity of the training schedule, being away from home and amongst strangers, getting less sleep than most teens on summer break are used to, being jolted out of one's normal routine of Facebook and X-Box, etc.

facebook and Xbox360(particularly Halo) is my buddy lol

[Pingree1492]

My previous post was meant to serve as leadership commentary only, not a suggestion for set-in-stone, unconditional protocol.

I understand that, and don't feel that I'm picking on you personally- this is just something that I encounter quite regularly in the cadet program.  If I pull a post apart a little bit it's to try to teach something, not to attack you personally.  The fact that you recognized something in your behavior that needed to change, and then made those changes is commendable, and exactly what we, as seniors, want to see in you as a cadet leader.  But it seems you have a bit further to go.

Understand that yelling AT someone doesn't have a place in the Cadet Program (yelling at a flight or individual for poor attitude, poor performance, etc).  Yelling FOR someone (or a flight/squadron/team) is a different story.  Yelling encouragement during a CPFT, or mile run competition, yelling jodies (or cadence calls, or whatever other name you want to use), etc, etc, is all okay.

Ma'am, I suppose there would be very few situations where a subordinate cadet is in my charge, is around my age and size, who is not putting forth the amount of effort and energy that is appropriate for whatever activity.

So I assume we're talking about an attitude problem here.  In my experience, yelling at a cadet, or assigning "some kind of physical work to be done" never works, and you end up with that cadet walking.  This is, of course, the "easy" way to do it, and for whatever reason, maybe the only thing you know.  Now is your time to change, as you've done before.

Here's an example from WIWAC (an expanded version from my recent post over on CadetStuff).  I was the Deputy Cadet Commander, and that year we had 203 cadets attend our encampment.  It was a truly awesome week!  However, the second or third day of encampment, we were doing a Parade practice in the evening, and most of the officers on flight staff were goofing off during the practice, in front of the basics.  During the practice portion of Officers Center, they were doing the bare minimum to be considered "drill" and were laughing at each other when they goofed up (not being in line, not getting salute right, etc.).  I saw this, and pulled them all to the side after the practice, and had a little "come to Jesus" meeting with them. I never once raised my voice, questioned their linage, or otherwise questioned their worth as human beings. I addressed their actions only, and in a calm and level voice.  But they got the message loud and clear (years later, all the cadets that were there STILL remember that speech).

Later that night at the staff meeting, I asked if they remembered what I had talked to them about on the Parade Field. Immediately, the room sobered, and I got a bunch of nods. I asked if my little speech had had the appropriate affect on them. Again, nods and a chorus of "Yes, ma'am". Then I asked if they remembered if I had ever raised my voice during the entire conversation. Silence. I asked if they remembered the positive thing I said to them at the end of the speech, most nodded their heads. Then I asked them if what I said would have been as effective if I had been yelling at them. Quite a few of them had a "Lightbulb Moment".  If I HAD been yelling, most if not all, of the staff would have dismissed it as the rantings of a crazed Command Staff member.  Worse, they would have lost respect for me as a leader.

The professionalism that I saw the rest of that week out of my cadet officers was fantastic, as was the performance of their flights.


So, how do you fix discipline problems without yelling at your cadets?  How do you EARN respect, instead of DEMAND it?  I can't answer that in one post, but a good place to start looking is the AFOATS Training Manual (just do a google search for it, you'll find it).  This is used in AF ROTC, and is an outstanding publication.  I highly recommend you read it, then analyze how you would apply what you've read to the situation above that you just described.  You should have your own "LightBulb Moment".  And if you don't, I'm always available for discussion, in forum or over PM.

[Michael]

I truly meant to refer to the positive reinforcement type of "yelling" from the outset.

My apologies for not being more clear and responsible earlier on.  I will express my thoughts better in the future.