Face to face "yelling"

[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?