Quality Versus Desire?

[Dragoon]

Lots of folks want to beef up the PD.  But my guess is we're heading for a big argument about what exactly we mean by that.  And I'm not talking about the subjects of the PD, but the approach to it.

If we add additional classes and hoops to jump through, we will definitely reduce the number of promotions.  Only those who truly want it will go through the hoops and sit through the classes.

But - it the goal to promote only those with the burning desire to get promoted?  Or to promote the highest quality individuals?

Because if you want high quality Lt Col's, you'll have to eliminate potential low-quality candidates.  Which normally doesn't sit well with members, especially those who don't make the cut.

For example, we have a TON of career majors in CAP.  Wonder why?

  Level 4 requires ACSC or Region Staff College.  ACSC requires not just dedication, but also some book smarts - after all it's got tests you can fail and papers to write. It's tough, and few do it.
 
  Region Staff College is at first glance the easier route - when's the last time you heard of someone failing RSC for academic or competency reasons?  If you show up and be nice to your neighbor, you're gonna pass.

So, how come all these majors don't just go to RSC?

Because they have to take a week off from work. 

It's possible that there are some outstanding leaders out there whose day jobs are pretty demanding (sharp, educated leaders tend not to work at Arby's) and it's a real pain to be away from work that long.

So, these hypothetical guys don't get promoted.  Not because they aren't high quality.  But because their desire to be a CAP Lt Col isn't as high as their desire to, say, become a VP at work and spend quality time with their family.  And yet, these guys can (and do) get selected for high speed CAP jobs because of their talent.  But they don't get promoted because while they have the desire to to the work, they don't have the desire to wear the grade.  And given a choice between taking a week for RSC and taking a week to, say,  support encampment, they choose the latter.

On the other hand, our system allows the unemployed 50 year old  wholives in his mom's basement to attend RSC (no problem getting time off) and get promoted.  This guy is a good guy, and is always there to lend a helping hand. Because CAP is the main thing in his life.  He's got time to kill.  But he couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. But he gets promoted.


Right now, our system promotes based on desire over quality.

So, if you beef up PD, what do you do? 

Do you just add more "show up and you pass" classes you must attend to make sure we weed out the undesiring?

Or do you add more tests and evaluations to make sure we weed out the low quality?


Or a mix of both.

Does everyone, regardless of ability, deserve to be a CAP Lt Col?

[DNall]

I know you don't want to drag off in a conversation about the specific option I'm presenting, but let me explain the portion that applies.

In the military, promotion in the Amn grades & in the company officer grades is fairly automatic based on TIG, hoop jumping, & not getting caught with the bosses daughter or anything like that. I have that fairly well preserved. There's nothing that says as a line Capt you have to be Sq CC material, but it shouldn't be from lack of training & development opportunity. Now the field  & NCO grades get a harder look. The way I have that running there are limited slots on the officer side folks are not allowed up unless they are ready for the responsibility. Same deal with NCOs, but no cap on their numbers.

I think that's what makes sense, which is to say a little of both in balance with a way to pull out talent early & develop it with focused energy, but still another place where the more average member can go to & make their contribution in a big way.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dragoon:

I had not yet addressed this, since  was working on the "One thing at a time" method, and wanted background on initial officer accession.

My thoughts (as I put on my flame-retardant clothing) on beefing up the PD are:

1.  Tougher initial standards for entry into CAP as an officer.  This would entail a formar, in-residence, OTS.  With us, as in the AF, most of our leading is done by junior officers, yet the current PD doesn't even require them to know how to march.

2.  Front-loading the training that is presently required before making captain.  AFIADL-13 and SLS should be initial entry requirements incorporated into OTS.

3.  Incorporate mission training into the specialty tracks.  Right now we have the bizarre situation that, for example, you can qualify at the master level in say, public affairs, but you are not qualified to serve as the IO at a mission.  The same in administration, finance, etc.  Mission quals are a separate track, and I don't see a reason why they should be.  We require attendance at wing conferences to get promoted, but not missions and exercises?

4.  Develop resident specialty track courses.  These can be weekend seminars, but the idea of giving new people a book and a list of requirements and tell them to figure it out for themselves is poor leadership.  After OTS, a weekend resident class to reach the tech level should be required.  These can be conducted annually.

I'm going to need some help with RSC, since I never took it.  I got it waivered by attendance at Officer Advanced.  I haven't had the pleasure of ACSC or NSC yet.

But I consider taking a week off work and away from the Old Bird to be one of the benefits of membership!

[Chappie]

[quote author=JohnKachenmeister link=topic=1417.msg20172#msg20172 date=1169149

My thoughts (as I put on my flame-retardant clothing) on beefing up the PD are:


2.  Front-loading the training that is presently required before making captain.  AFIADL-13 and SLS should be initial entry requirements incorporated into OTS.
[/quote]

I really like the idea of AFIADL-13 being required on the front-end.  And it should apply to ALL senior members...including the Chaplains.   The biggest problem that I have had to deal with have been Chaplains who have no clue about the CAP/Military culture.  They may be fine pastors but are lousy chaplains when it comes to the area of Chain-of-Command, uniform wear, customs and courtesies....and my list could go on.  The AFIADL-13 certainly gives them an insight in the culture in which we operate.

[Dragoon]

Would someone be able to fail this OTS?  Or would everyone who chooses to attend pass?

[Dragoon]

I know you don't want to drag off in a conversation about the specific option I'm presenting, but let me explain the portion that applies.

In the military, promotion in the Amn grades & in the company officer grades is fairly automatic based on TIG, hoop jumping, & not getting caught with the bosses daughter or anything like that. I have that fairly well preserved. There's nothing that says as a line Capt you have to be Sq CC material, but it shouldn't be from lack of training & development opportunity. Now the field  & NCO grades get a harder look. The way I have that running there are limited slots on the officer side folks are not allowed up unless they are ready for the responsibility. Same deal with NCOs, but no cap on their numbers.

I think that's what makes sense, which is to say a little of both in balance with a way to pull out talent early & develop it with focused energy, but still another place where the more average member can go to & make their contribution in a big way.

So your basic concept is that anyone (meeting the entry standards) with the desire could make Captain, but some folks would not be allowed to progress futher due to lack of competence?

[DogCollar]

Chappie,
I'm probably one of those chaplains that you're referring too!  I don't have a military background, I don't have military customs and protocols memorized, I do the best I can with my uniforms (I'm sure it's not perfect...but, I think I've seen worse).
This is my reality, and my main concern with all of these threads.  (1) I only have so much time that I can "volunteer" to CAP.  I'm not going to be overly ambitious with my professional development.  (2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  (3) I have already had to go through a rigorous endorsement process from my denomination in order to "volunteer" my time as a chaplain, I have 20 years of Pastoral Ministry experience.  I could care less about what rank/grade I achieve, because it's not about me, but about the service I can offer.  (4) You can "beef up" all the requirements and training you want, but unless my employers give me another three weeks of vacation, my family kicks me out of the house, and someone decrees that there will be four more hours added to each day, then, I just don't have the time to front load, back fill, or even drive by!

That being said, I need to sign off and go over my Moral Leadership session preparations for tonight.

[A.Member]

There will never be a solution that will satisfy all people.  That must be accepted from the start.  Some people may leave, others may join.  And so the world turns.  Take the current direction as an example: As evidenced by the recent exodus, a number of people evidently aren't particularly compelled to stay with the organization for one reason or another (wouldn't it be nice if someone actually tried to quantify this a bit through some sort of post-mortem follow-up survey - "why did you leave"?).

That said, another component that I haven't seen mentioned in these discussions is "continuing education".  So, you finally reach Maj., Lt. Col., or whatever...then what?  Do, you wait to die?  Seems that way.  Instead, there should be some sort of ongoing requirement to keep members currently appraised of regulations, etc.  It's evident, even from comments on this board, that many people have been around a long time.   On the surface that may seem good but things have changed and often enough those people have not changed with them.  Maybe some sort of weekend "AFIADL 13"-type refresher every 2 years? 

And, as mentioned, put some teeth into the training.  I'm not necessarily talking anything over the top gung-ho (although difficulty should increase accordingly)  but certainly much more than the simple ability to fog a mirror.

[KRCopes]

Point of Order:  Level 4 requires RSC or USAF Squadron Officer School, not ACSC.  But the point of the post still remains true.

[Chappie]

Chappie,
I'm probably one of those chaplains that you're referring too!  I don't have a military background, I don't have military customs and protocols memorized, I do the best I can with my uniforms (I'm sure it's not perfect...but, I think I've seen worse).
This is my reality, and my main concern with all of these threads.  (1) I only have so much time that I can "volunteer" to CAP.  I'm not going to be overly ambitious with my professional development.  (2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  (3) I have already had to go through a rigorous endorsement process from my denomination in order to "volunteer" my time as a chaplain, I have 20 years of Pastoral Ministry experience.  I could care less about what rank/grade I achieve, because it's not about me, but about the service I can offer.  (4) You can "beef up" all the requirements and training you want, but unless my employers give me another three weeks of vacation, my family kicks me out of the house, and someone decrees that there will be four more hours added to each day, then, I just don't have the time to front load, back fill, or even drive by!

That being said, I need to sign off and go over my Moral Leadership session preparations for tonight.

Sorry for the use of the word "lousy"....it was a reflection of those fine pastors who cannot for the previously stated reasons make a good connection with the squadrons/squadron commanders which they serve.   It is disheartening to see the lack of chaplains within CAP (would love to see every squadron have a Chaplain) ... and you are 100% correct...it is an ordeal to get the ecclesiastical appointment and jump through the hoops for an appointment...but it is a greater disappointment when squadron commanders want to get rid of their chaplains because the chaplain isn't getting with the program. 

That is where the AFIADL-13 is...IMHO...a necessity for all senior members including the chaplain. 

Like you, I brought 20+ years of pastoral ministry (no military experience but about 15 years of volunteer LE chaplaincy) experience with me.  But CAP is not structured like the local churches or the Police/Sheriff Departments that I served.   It took me awhile but the training requirements for all Levels of Professional Development were met.  It was not easy --- the AFIADL is a 4 book course which one can take a home...you have up to a year to go through the material and take the 100 question exam at the local squadron (just study the end of the section/chapter questions and you will breeze through it).  Complete the open-book 221 questions and submit the answers to your Wing Chaplain....and you have met the requirements for Level 2.  Levels 3 and 4 will come in time as you attend the various conferences/hold staff positions/CSRSC.   I know and can attest that it is a pain and a sacrifice....but I feel better equipped for the various opportunities that have afforded me to serve within Civil Air Patrol.  Prioritizing my time and picking and choosing when I could attend certain activities/events all were a factor.   Looking back -- I never thought that those baby-steps would culminate in the GRW.

None of us serve simply for the "bling" or the rank/grade ... but with the training came opportunities to serve that when I finally received a CAP Chaplain appointment (took about 6 months from the time that I began the process) never thought would be possible. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Would someone be able to fail this OTS?  Or would everyone who chooses to attend pass?

If I had full authority and responsibility, yes.  But I don't see anythingin AFIADL-13, Drill and Ceremonies, or SLS that a person bright enough to feed themselves would have difficulty with.

In all probability, the "Failures" will voluntarily withdraw themselves, and return to their parents basement to save the world from alien invaders using their X-box.

[flyguy06]

Dragoon:


3.  Incorporate mission training into the specialty tracks.  Right now we have the bizarre situation that, for example, you can qualify at the master level in say, public affairs, but you are not qualified to serve as the IO at a mission.  The same in administration, finance, etc.  Mission quals are a separate track, and I don't see a reason why they should be.  We require attendance at wing conferences to get promoted, but not missions and exercises?

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

[arajca]

DNall and I have had this discussion a couple times (here and on Civil Air Portal).

A good example of how it should be done is in the Admin specialty track. For the Tech rating, the senior is required to be familiar with the Fin/Admin SC requirements and duties, but is not required to be qualified as such.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dragoon:


3.  Incorporate mission training into the specialty tracks.  Right now we have the bizarre situation that, for example, you can qualify at the master level in say, public affairs, but you are not qualified to serve as the IO at a mission.  The same in administration, finance, etc.  Mission quals are a separate track, and I don't see a reason why they should be.  We require attendance at wing conferences to get promoted, but not missions and exercises?

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

What would you say to an applicant for a position as a manager trainee at Pizza Hut who told you in the interview that he wasn't interested in making pizzas?

We have 3 missions.  Officers, if their rank is to have any meaning at all, have to be generalists and ready to step into any of the three missions to the extent their training will allow.

I was an MP officer.  Could I tell the general I wasn't interested in engineer tasks?  No, because officers sometimes find themselves in charge of units outside their specialty.

If somebody came to me and wanted to be in finance, but didn't want to be qualified to do finance on missions, what good are they to me?  I'm still gonna need another finance officer to handle the missions, so why have the duplication?

[A.Member]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

[mikeylikey]

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

I wouldn't say a member should be "interested" in the 3 missions, but they should know of them, and have a basic understanding of them, and be ready to become involved in one or all of them if necessary and desired.

[RiverAux]

I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of Kach's suggestions. 

However, I would add that the specialty track levels should be somewhat linked to the level of the unit in which they were performed.  If everyone had groups it would be easy to go Tech=Squadron level, Senior=Group, Master=Wing, so lets just reserve the Master rating for those performing that specialty work at the Wing level for the specified length of time.  If pressed, in order to allow for the large Wings where there actually would be too many people to be able to run them through a Wing job, I could go for restricting Master to just Group or Wing level service. 

[flyguy06]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

[Chappie]

(2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  

Bill,

There is present reality and there is CAP reality    Wing Chaplains are limited to a 6 year term.  That means a Wing Chaplain will often serve at least 2 Wing Commanders.  It can be one full term of a Wing CC and 1/2 with the other...or 1/2 term with one and 1/2 term with another.  Since Wing Commanders can select their own Wing Chaplain, an incumbant Wing Chaplain can be relieved from duty without prejudice.

In the VAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 12 chaplains serving:
1st Lt (3) - each at Level 1; Capt (3) - each at Level 1; Maj (3) - each at Level 1; Lt Col (3) - 1 at Level 1, 1 at Level 2, 1 at Level 4.   In other words 10 out 12 chaplains have not pursued their Professional Development beyond Level 1.

In the CAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 28 chaplains: 1st Lt (2) - each at Level 1; Capt (11) - 10 at Level 1, 1 at Level 3; Maj (7) - 4 at Level 4, 1 at Level 3, 2 at Level 4; Lt Col ( 8 ) - 4 at Level 4, 2 at Level 3, 2 at Level 5).

The following stats were shared at the 2005 CAWG Chaplain Services Conference in a briefing prepared by Chaplain (Col.) Charles Sharp, Chief of CAP Chaplain Services: Chaplain Sharp shared in his briefing concerning the Levels of Training in the CAP Chaplain Services: 659 total chaplains: 593 - Level 1; 10 - Level 2; 15 - Level 3; 26 - Level 4; 15 - Level 5.  Nearly 90% of the Chaplains had not progressed past Level 1.

There is a general "rule of thumb" that Wing Chaplains should attain at least Level 4 and those serving on the Chaplain Service Advisory Council (CSAC: Chief, Dep. Chief, Secretary - National Chaplain Service Staff and the 8 Region Chaplains) should have attained Level 5.

The questions raised in light of the high percentage of the CAP Chaplain Service not pursuing their professional development should be:
--- where are going find Chaplains to serve in senior levels of leadership?
--- do we have Chaplains prepared to take on senior levels of leadership?
--- if we do not have adequate numbers of Chaplains trained to assume these responsibilities, what is the future of the CAP Chaplain Service?

Let me tell you that no Chaplain who has a sincere desire to serve as a CAP Chaplain, came in with the aspirations of one day becoming a Wing or Region Chaplain or on the National CAP Chaplain Service Staff.  If so, then his/her motives are wrong.  However, it is not wrong for a Chaplain to desire to pursue their professional development that if and when an opportunity to serve in one of those capacities, they would be prepared to take on those responsibilities.  

It is not beyond the realm of possibility -- there is a pattern that is repeated time after time.  Your current squadron commander can one day become a Wing or Region Commander or even a National Commander.  If you have served faithfully and with distinction....and that commander has trust in you and your abilities, who do you think will get tapped on the shoulder to serve on the Commander's staff?  A few years ago, the National Chief of the CAP Chaplain service was a chaplain who began his career like you and I -- a squadron chaplain.  As his squadron commander was promoted to higher levels of responsibility (Group/Wing/Region and yes, National), he was asked to serve at that Level.  Not saying that scenario is right or wrong --- but it happens.   But as the Chaplain went on to the next level -- he had either met or pursued the training required to perform at that Level.  

Just food for thought.

[ZigZag911]

And what if a member isnt interested in being mission qualified? Should they not become officers?

I would tell them we offer patron memberships...

As JohnK stated, we have 3 missions and members are expected to be 'interested' in all of them.

wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Put out?? Certainly not!

Limited in how high up the food chain you could go (in terms both of rank and responsibility)....yeah, I'm afraid so....and you might be satisfied with that, i don't know.

I don't envision 'single interest' members going beyond captain at squadron staff officer level