"Undercover" Evaluation Operations Revisited

[RADIOMAN015]

I think any service business or non profit organization, as well as government agencies should utilize "undercover", trained personnel to evaluate a wide range of customer service & procedural compliance.

I've been advocating to my employer to start doing this at our 30+ service industries support locations and it's likely we will do some of this in the future.    Civil Air Patrol is no exception, how well do meetings go (e.g. the published schedule versus the actual)  and how well are potential new members greeted.   Surely as I've stated before even driving habits observed on CAP vehicles should be watched and reported.  How well is our OPSEC and what can we do to improve it, etc, etc.   Also remember the "Undercover Boss" series on TV.

In most instance I don't think we need to take punitive action against the personnel but ensure appropriate cross feeds reports are sent to commander indicating what has been found in these random "undercover" evaluations. 

I'm likely going to start doing some of this both voluntary and hopefully for some pay in the future.  Here's an example:   Awhile back I was stopped for a "random inspection" check at a military base.  Interestingly when they did the check they forgot to do something which I deemed critical.  So I gave the Security Police commander a phone call and left a detailed voice mail message (including my identity military retiree status (not as CAP member).  Recently I noted on observing another "random inspection" that they were doing what they had missed so apparently my call resulted in appropriate corrective action which would enhance base security.

Another example is visits to the Base Exchange (fortunately there's been no wayward CAP personnel involved, in any of my random visits :angel:), over many months I've noted "certain" issues that are indicative poor customer service.  So likely since they've had their chance to correct what should be obvious to management, it's time for a report.  The BX has a formal method (and also anonymous) in which customers can report their concerns.     

A large supermarket chain in my area also has a website form that can be filled in to report concerns and they aren't even interested in the name of the person submitting the report.

I've never had a problem with this type of undercover evaluation/reporting because if you are doing what you are suppose to be doing by policy, etc than you should have nothing to fear. 

My guess is that CAP could easily find someone to do this for free (even non members) IF they had an interest.  (However, my guess is that overall CAP's philosophy is: one shouldn't asked questions if they are afraid of the answers).

RM
   

[Eclipse]

http://tinyurl.com/3dnzzfs

[EMT-83]

Sam and Gladys on the same day. RTV marathon this weekend?

[ol'fido]

Morroco: Secret, do you have our new assignment?

Secret Squirrel: We going to infiltrate a CAP meeting, Morocco. Apparently, enemy agents are trying to steal Top Secret Cessna plans.

[Spaceman3750]

No.

I don't want to look at each visitor like they're a "secret inspector". Furthermore, "secret police" strategies such as these only serve to breed mistrust in an organization.

[jks19714]

Absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. 

If you want to play secret squirrel, go work for Homeland Security and join in the Security Kabuki Theatre there. 

We have enough inspections, we don't need spies too.

[RADIOMAN015]

No.

I don't want to look at each visitor like they're a "secret inspector". Furthermore, "secret police" strategies such as these only serve to breed mistrust in an organization.

There might be some "indicators" that a "secret" inspector is in order in some units.  It could be such things as very low or no minority membership in a unit when local geographic demographics indicate there should be more.   Maybe a senior squadron that appears to have only members that are 40 years old or older, with no younger members joining or staying active in the unit.   It could be just a short compliance "sweep" at a CAP activity involving use of vehicles or aircraft to see if minimum safety requirements were being met.   Also based upon the command policy involved unless something is found wrong, the unit covertly reviewed doesn't even have to know about it. 

I personally think we should handle these type of things in house when there's indicators. I would think that no one should be that concerned if they are doing what they have to (agreed as part of the membership oath)  do in order to comply with CAP policies and are treating everyone fairly and with respect.    Remember that it could be an "investigative reporter" from some newspaper that does the same thing.  Which one would you prefer  
RM

[Spaceman3750]

No.

I don't want to look at each visitor like they're a "secret inspector". Furthermore, "secret police" strategies such as these only serve to breed mistrust in an organization.

There might be some "indicators" that a "secret" inspector is in order in some units.  It could be such things as very low or no minority membership in a unit when local geographic demographics indicate there should be more.   Maybe a senior squadron that appears to have only members that are 40 years old or older, with no younger members joining or staying active in the unit.   It could be just a short compliance "sweep" at a CAP activity involving use of vehicles or aircraft to see if minimum safety requirements were being met.   Also based upon the command policy involved unless something is found wrong, the unit covertly reviewed doesn't even have to know about it. 

I personally think we should handle these type of things in house when there's indicators. I would think that no one should be that concerned if they are doing what they have to (agreed as part of the membership oath)  do in order to comply with CAP policies and are treating everyone fairly and with respect.    Remember that it could be an "investigative reporter" from some newspaper that does the same thing.  Which one would you prefer  
RM

If these "warning signs" are there (and I really don't think any of those things are warning signs) they can be addressed at an SUI or in a phone call to the squadron commander. No black vans, no "compliance sweeps", and no worrying about big brother at everything I do. For example - if I have to worry about someone secretly spying on me at the next fly in I am coordinating our squadron's involvement in, I'm staying home. I deal with that enough as it is without bringing it into CAP too.

As was stated above, if you want to go play secret police, please go do it in someone else's sandbox.

[RADIOMAN015]

If these "warning signs" are there (and I really don't think any of those things are warning signs) they can be addressed at an SUI or in a phone call to the squadron commander. No black vans, no "compliance sweeps", and no worrying about big brother at everything I do. For example - if I have to worry about someone secretly spying on me at the next fly in I am coordinating our squadron's involvement in, I'm staying home. I deal with that enough as it is without bringing it into CAP too.

As was stated above, if you want to go play secret police, please go do it in someone else's sandbox.

RM Responds --  I would think the majority of units put their best efforts forward during an SUI and may not be the 'reality' of the environment, since SUI's are basically just paperwork checklist Charlie inspections anyways, and may not even be conducted during a unit's normal meeting time.    As far as talking with unit commanders, about things, he/she doesn't know all either, and remember some of this "covert reviews" are just a snap shot approach.

Regarding fly ins and other operations involving aircraft or vehicles,  I personally wouldn't be paranoid about it.  HOWEVER, on the other hand there is an expectation of certain policy/safety requirements being met.  I also think when out in the public (as with aircraft & vehicles operations) the public's perceptions are important also (even if a regulation isn't being violated).  I would not expect to see a CAP member who flew in with a CAP aircraft in uniform having a beer or other alcoholic beverage at the local airport restaurant/lounge and than getting back in the plane and flying away.   Frankly I don't think even if they weren't going to fly again it would be a very good idea to be doing this in uniform. 

I personally don't have any intention on volunteering for a Civil Air Patrol covert inspector position :angel:.  HOWEVER, on the other hand IF I observed something that I thought needed to be looked into further, I likely would report it to the appropriate individual within my chain of command OR maybe the IG, depending upon a number of factors.

Of course for all we know, this program might already be in place in CAP   Again it's a tool that could be used by the corporation as another way to check on the organization's integrity & compliance --- likely not on a large scale basis.     
RM
     

 

[sneakers]

I feel in CAP most commanders could find out the info they need by merely observing a situation rather than going undercover. We aren't exactly that secretive.

[ol'fido]

Dude, Like Eclipse said in another thread, open a friggin window, take a few deep breaths, and get some oxygen in there.

[a2capt]

I don't know what I'd do if this guy was in my unit..  Wow.