Public Affairs Training

[JohhnyD]

Your squadron runs a governmental relations program out of its public affairs team?

The squadron ES officer is also supposed to be maintaining local government relations, so its not crazy for it be done at the squadron level. 

Indeed, and we integrate that into our PA efforts as well. PA is not one thing, it is many things, and many hands make for light(er) workloads.

[Eclipse]

here does Wing get trained PAO's? Any time Wing posts for a staff position, they are always looking for someone with a Senior or Master rating, where do Senior rated PAO's come from if we eliminate the unit positions? Wing PAO is a high turnover position already, so how much more turnover do you think we would have if we eliminated the training at the Squadron level, and then dumped all of the Squadron PAO duties on the Wing PAO? You'd have a new Wing PAO every couple months at best.

They are trained, consistently and in a standardized way, by the Wing PAO.
Initial assignment is as an A/PAO reporting only to Wing in that capacity as
initially suggested.  This can be done remotely as most things are these days.

The reality is that posting stories about cadets launching rockets, SARExs, and open houses
isn't difficult. Setting a standard, a tone, and using spell and grammar check seems to be.

And on the whole there is no "Squadron training" to speak of.  It's all adhoc, "figure it out OJT".

[JohhnyD]

They are trained, consistently and in a standardized way, by the Wing PAO.

Circular reasoning. And our Wing PAO has no time, getting the WING work done is a massive effort.

ALL CAP training is self-motivated. The issue is command climate. A hostile command client results in zero PA work being done. A positive climate develops amazing results. We are proof of that. And any unit can do this, they just need that positive command climate and a "spark-plug" member.

[Eclipse]

a "spark-plug" member

Reliance on "saviors" instead of having structured top-down programs that
recognize national realities, not local circumstance and personality-based
success, is responsible for the current CAP climate.

Brute-force effort by a few people in spite of headwinds works until those
people get fed up, or are told "no" by a superior at which point they quit
and everything evaporates.

Any unit counting their success on "spark plug members" is destined to fail.
Seen it dozens of times, especially in areas where one or a small number of members
believes they have some unique idea or ability outside the norm of
regular CAP cycles and programs.

[fyrfitrmedic]

For years I've heard a weak public affairs presence defended with "everyone should be a PAO."

[Holding Pattern]

For years I've heard a weak public affairs presence defended with "everyone should be a PAO."

The answer to that is to say "Great, let's hold mandatory monthly PA training, just like we do for safety because "Everyone is a safety officer.""

[JohhnyD]

Reliance on "saviors" instead of having structured top-down programs that
recognize national realities, not local circumstance and personality-based
success, is responsible for the current CAP climate.

Really? That is an opinion.

Brute-force effort by a few people in spite of headwinds works until those
people get fed up, or are told "no" by a superior at which point they quit
and everything evaporates.

Yep. That is why the command climate matters. A good unit CC and a good Wing CC and you can win. The rotten ones destroy.

Any unit counting their success on "spark plug members" is destined to fail.
Seen it dozens of times, especially in areas where one or a small number of members
believes they have some unique idea or ability outside the norm of
regular CAP cycles and programs.

I can believe that. But it is more likely that the command climate sucked than any other reason. But our experience suggests that your narrow views are reflective of command climate because we have seen both worlds and the results are striking. BTW it has nearly NOTHING to do with NHQ.

[RiverAux]

I obviously disagree with this idea, but I believe that earlier he proposed having a team at Wing level do all the PAO work, so you could have PAOs learning to do the job as part of the team and working their way up. 

I find this unworkable.  As I was never able to find anyone to even be assistant Wing PAO for me.  The few active squadron PAOs just didn't want to leave their squadron and go to Wing (one of them was also the squadron commander in a tiny squadron). 

[JohhnyD]

I obviously disagree with this idea, but I believe that earlier he proposed having a team at Wing level do all the PAO work, so you could have PAOs learning to do the job as part of the team and working their way up. 

I find this unworkable.  As I was never able to find anyone to even be assistant Wing PAO for me.  The few active squadron PAOs just didn't want to leave their squadron and go to Wing (one of them was also the squadron commander in a tiny squadron). 

I agree. This is a solution in search of a problem.

The real problem is leadership. Toxic leadership, to be precise.

Absent that, our PA program does OK. When nurtured by positive leadership, it can do amazing, repeatable, shareable successes.

[RiverAux]

The reality is that posting stories about cadets launching rockets, SARExs, and open houses
isn't difficult.

No, it isn't really.  But, if you're the Wing PAO finding out that the rocket launch happened at Podunk Cadet Squadron 3 hours from you is the problem. 

By the way, I have this same problem in my CG Auxiliary Division (sort of like a CAP group) where I am the newsletter editor.  There are really no active local public affairs folks in any of the flotillas and despite begging to be given any scrap of intel about what is going on in flotillas other than my own and offering to re-write it into something decent, I have a very hard time piecing together a newsletter. 

Exactly the same situation I was in as Wing PAO when offering to do all the PA work for squadrons without a PAO. 
 

[Luis R. Ramos]

The reality is that cadets do not like to give AARs. We ask them to write AARs about things they do. It is like pulling teeth. So I write the AARs of the activities I do, but cannot write AARs about the ones I am not present.

[baronet68]

The reality is that cadets do not like to give AARs. We ask them to write AARs about things they do. It is like pulling teeth. So I write the AARs of the activities I do, but cannot write AARs about the ones I am not present.

Odd, I've had the exact opposite problem where cadets seem to LOVE doing AARs.  It might be because we set AARs up as the cadets' way to provide positive/negative feedback in an environment that is safe and free from retaliation.  One or two senior members usually lead the discussion and then a pair of cadets is asked to write up the discussion notes. 

[TheSkyHornet]

The reality is that cadets do not like to give AARs. We ask them to write AARs about things they do. It is like pulling teeth. So I write the AARs of the activities I do, but cannot write AARs about the ones I am not present.

Maybe you're doing the AAR ineffectively.

Try doing it as a conversation/verbal debrief. Have a list of talking points and have a collective of the cadet staff present. Run down the questions, and have someone take notes. Then transpose those notes onto an AAR report.

Any activity debrief should be conducted as a staff meeting, not a "go home and write about it." Without a dialogue, and without people there to ask questions or comment, it's ineffective.

The purpose of an AAR is not to be homework (or even just a Staff Duty Analysis). It's to note positive areas to sustain and negative areas for improvement. If they don't see the value in it, they won't appreciate doing it.

The same goes for Public Affairs. If you ask someone to write a newsletter, and they're just sitting at home and supposed to write about what's on their mind, they won't do it. They need to talk to other people and do interviews.

I'm not sure that the issue is really just a training problem. I think engagement is the problem.