squadron commander?

[shlebz]

how long is one member allowed to be squadron commander? is there acertain time frame allowed? or is it just until one steps down?

[Eclipse]

It depends on your Region.  Some have term limits, some don't.

My Region is 3 year term with a 1-year extension with good justification.  This is becoming more common but there
is no standard.

There are still some units with CC's who have held the job in excess of 20 years.

[SARDOC]

Most places have no term limits...This article is just on example

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays_features.cfm/nys_pantanelli_relinquishes_command_of_namesake_squadron?show=news&newsID=9531

[SarDragon]

Wings didn't used to have limits either.

[davidsinn]

Most places have no term limits...This article is just on example

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays_features.cfm/nys_pantanelli_relinquishes_command_of_namesake_squadron?show=news&newsID=9531

The unit was named after the sitting commander? WTF?

[Extremepredjudice]

Most places have no term limits...This article is just on example

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays_features.cfm/nys_pantanelli_relinquishes_command_of_namesake_squadron?show=news&newsID=9531

The unit was named after the sitting commander? WTF?

She was in for 66 years... 

[SARDOC]

The unit was named after the sitting commander? WTF?

I had the same response.  But when you are commander for so long I guess it's okay to just name it after you and personally make it "MY" Squadron.

[INS2002]

I knew Lt Col Pantanelli personally. She was a major player in New York Wing cadet programs for decades. She didn't change the name of the unit. The unit membership requested it when she decided that she was going to step down.

As far as term limits, I think they can be a good thing. I know that I got burned out on more than one occassion for the 12 years that I served as a squadron commander. I was appointed squadron commander on my 21st birthday. The ironic thing is that the unit I ended up commanding was the same unit I had helped start in 1984 as a cadet and left a year later.

[MSG Mac]

If you look at the photo Lt Col Pantanelli has every CAP Award from the Bronze Medal of Valor down. As long as she was capable of doing the job and wanted to do it she should have been allowed to. We do make exceptions for special people including WW II members of CAP.

[Private Investigator]

Wings didn't used to have limits either.

The DEWG/CC held command for 21 years. I am thinking that was most likely the longest reign for a Wing Commander. Of course no one else can advance if you have a roadblock in the Chain of Command.

[Private Investigator]

As far as term limits, I think they can be a good thing. I know that I got burned out on more than one occassion for the 12 years that I served as a squadron commander.

I agree.

I also think Commanders should be monitored better. I have seen over the years incompetent Commanders just stay on and on because no one higher up wanted to be the "bad guy" and take someone's command away. I think we all know someone who has in the past made their Unit their little kingdom.

[RADIOMAN015]

As far as term limits, I think they can be a good thing. I know that I got burned out on more than one occassion for the 12 years that I served as a squadron commander.

I agree.

I also think Commanders should be monitored better. I have seen over the years incompetent Commanders just stay on and on because no one higher up wanted to be the "bad guy" and take someone's command away. I think we all know someone who has in the past made their Unit their little kingdom.

On the other hand you have units (with the same commander) that work great for many years with inspection results, activities, and retain a strong quality/quantity of members including adult staff members.

Do we really need a somewhat arbitrary rule as to how long someone should be in an adult leadership role at the squadron level   In Northeast Region the threat of unit disestablishment, http://www.ner.cap.gov/docs/NER_OI11-01_Subordinate_Unit_Commander_Term_Limits.pdf is a very strong incentive for someone (in a unit) to step forward, even IF they have reservations about doing the job    I know our squadron has been in existence over over 45 years at the same military base  -- I don't think the long term unit membership wants the unit disestablished.    Also my understanding is wing wide, there's difficulty in getting personnel to step forward to take over adult leadership in units that have very long term commanders -- that are beyond the region policy.  So again do you close all these units, when the commanders reach their "arbitrary" maximum waiver period, and a volunteer isn't forthcoming  

Additionally, from an adult volunteer member standpoint, performing various functional tasks supporting the unit, do we really want a change every three years, dealing with different personalities, etc   I'm sure many can identify with the "Commander from Hell" that gets appointed and the adult staff either transfers to another unit or cut backs on active participation.   Also a commander may be driving 40-50 miles to command a unit; since CAP squadrons are "local" shouldn't we have a requirement that the leadership live in the normal recruiting area for the squadron I think wings need to carefully monitor what is happening in units when a new commanders are put in place.

It should be interesting to see what subsequent events/results occur in this entire volunteer adult leadership challenge
RM   
 

[Spaceman3750]

In the squadrons I know, the role of squadron commander is a cross that is passed from active SM to active SM - it's almost an unwritten expectation that at some point you will take up command. Most of the active members I know would or do make fine commanders, and rotating through the membership ensures that nobody gets stuck with the job for a decade because nobody else will do it and keeps everyone invested in the unit.

[Private Investigator]

do we really want a change every three years, dealing with different personalities, etc  

Well yes.

[ColonelJack]

Wings didn't used to have limits either.

Neither did regions, apparently.  Not long after I joined CAP, Col. Bill Tallent became SER CC.  He stayed there a LONG time, about 11 years, finally stepping down in 1993.

Jack

[HGjunkie]

He must have been a pretty Tallented commander.

[RogueLeader]

He must have been a pretty Tallented commander.

Or nobody else wanted the job. idk.

[SarDragon]

He must have been a pretty Tallented commander.

Har-har...   

[Private Investigator]

Neither did regions, apparently.  Not long after I joined CAP, Col. Bill Tallent became SER CC.  He stayed there a LONG time, about 11 years, finally stepping down in 1993.

Jack

Louisa Morse was the Delaware Wing Commander for 22 years.

One good reason to change Commanders, lets say you a Composite Squadron but the Commander is a gung ho ES guy but has no interest in the Cadet side of the house or even wants Cadets to do ES activities. You going to let the Cadets leave because we like our skipper, he's a good ole boy? 

[Private Investigator]

He must have been a pretty Tallented commander.

Or nobody else wanted the job. idk.

When your a good Commander, you train up the next generation of Commanders. A bad Commander will create a bad atmosphere.

JMHO and 2 cents.

[lordmonar]

Term limits are a two edged sword.

Pro

1) They help prevent burn out.
2) They ensure that fresh ideas are being brought into the unit...prevent stagnation.
3) They allow for other capable members some time to develope and grow into better officers.

Con

1) Change for sake of change
2) With no place to send the old commander, it makes it difficult for him to step away....they either interfer with the new commander or they just leave the program.
3) Finding his replacement is difficult....the military solves that problem my moving the officers around.....CAP must promote from with in.....and if you have a hard policy....then sub-prime officers will by default be given the job.

[NIN]

When your a good Commander, you train up the next generation of Commanders. A bad Commander will create a bad atmosphere.

Thats a fact.  At least 25% of my efforts as a unit commander, once I got my feet under me, was training up my talent pool so that I could have a good pick of potential replacements when the time came.  Whether that was recruiting new members with specific skill sets (ie. former military), ensuring that my membership was advancing thru the professional development program, or just overall unit-level leadership and mentorship as it pertained to decision making and policies.

My last two tours as a squadron commander were from 1999-2004 and again from 2006-2008.

The first 5 years was a "fix a busted unit" assignment and I think I did OK, went from "almost deactivated" to "2004 Region Squadron of Distinction"  Not too shabby.  My thoughts on selecting and training a successor were two fold:

1) A unit is not just the commander. So unless the whole staff are working as team and know their jobs, it doesn't matter who is in the big chair, there is only so much one guy can do.
and
2) No matter how good a job I've done over the last 4 years, if I hand the unit over and it falls flat on its face in 12-18 months, I've failed and its gonna reflect poorly on me.

When I handed the flag to my successor on Veteran's Day 2004, #2 was key, and #1 was already in the bag. I had a finely oiled machine of a staff really kicking some butt and taking some names.

I left it in capable hands, but my successor had a job change that necessitated he hand over the reigns after a little over a year. The next commander was a former cadet from another wing, recently new-back-in-CAP SM who was a full-time ARNG Major and happened to rejoin about 2 1/2 months before my successor had to step down.  There was a little disconnect and he managed to spend his first 60 days in command driving off anybody who was doing work (me included).   (the new guy was not someone I'd trained and inculcated, so things went off into the weeds for 6-8 months under him as he spent all his time re-inventing things that were working just fine in his own image and not realizing that leading volunteers in CAP is a *lot* different than leading soldiers in the Guard).  He got picked up for an active duty tour elsewhere and had to give up the unit, and I stepped in as a pinch hitter just about 2 years after I'd last left command.

The 2nd time around, I had to do a lot of "pick up the pieces" after the previous commander did a really good job of really ripping apart a staff that knew their jobs, knew their place and knew how to get things done. That was a royal pain, smoothing feathers, putting apple carts back up on their wheels, etc.    The guy who'd been my successor the first time got his job situation sorted out and came back to the unit, and after about 14-15 months, I handed the unit back to him, again with my #2 above as an operative concern.

That was in 2008.  My successor had moved up to wing, the Major who took command temporarily (he had been my outstanding safety officer) did a fine job and handed the unit off to the current commander, who is doing a fantastic job as well.  These are all guys I trained, and it shows. 

And that should be a lesson to any unit commander: you can be as good as you want while you're in command, but if the whole things falls down like a house of cards cuz you're not there to hold it together, you've missed the point of the whole exercise. You're there not just to "command," but to "lead, develop & grow" the organization under you to accept new members and to bring those new members along to take over as you move onward and upward.

[Patterson]

^ Wow....that is a great lesson there!

What does a Squadron Commander do when he is now forced to turn over Command though?  Will he or she be offered a Group Position?  Does that person go from an excellent and worthwhile leadership role to second assist Aerospace Officer for a Group Staffer who has held the position for 10 years?

Perhaps if there were more of a "Command Track" those that are proven leaders can follow it would not be so difficult to go from enjoying running a Squadron to something else.  You would know future Command/ Leadership roles are available.

Right now, the majority of Group Commanders and some Wing Commanders I have met, never once Commanded a Squadron.  Moreso, how can a person spend 4 years as a Wing Chief of Staff, followed by 4 more years as a Wing Vice Commander, followed by Selection as a Wing Commander?  Isn't that almost worse than being a Squadron Commander past the "4 year max term limit"??

The NER policy will be judged in a few years, after we begin seeing the results.  Tell me how a Squadron Commander is to develop further if he or she is not afforded the chance to advance after maxing out the Swuadron Command time limit policy?

A few awesome Squadron Commanders will leave when they are told "your done now....pick an assistant staff job".

CAP is like a business....you leave the guy who does great at his job in his job until he no longer makes you money!  Then again.....maybe Group Commanders should be looking out for their Squadron Commanders!

[lordmonar]

Yep that is the two edges of the term limit sword.

Go getter, effective, energetic commander that everyone likes, has the time and talent to do the job and wants to do the job......out you go, your 3 years are up.  No what?  another squadron? Group? Wing?....sorry the good jobs are filled up and they don't rotate for a year or two....so he cools his heels and gets bored and the goes and joins the Boy Scouts or CGAUX or USACA.

So.....I think that we should adopt a policy that says "a typical tour of duty as squadron/group commander, group/wing staff is two years.  Consecutive tours can be served".  This places the concept that maybe we should be moving our people around if they need to.....but no requirment to break up a winning team simply because the timer has gone "bing".

Back this up with a formal yearly reveiw process.....ala OER's or EPR's.....and active monitoring by the group and wing commanders...and we got a good system.

[RiverAux]

I think that overall term limits for squadron commanders are probably a good thing.  Three or four years is probably a good compromise that lets the really good ones have a decent interval to make their stamp.  I would hope that the really bad ones would be removed before they get to that level.  But, I could also argue that the 2 year limit the CGAux has is probably good as well.  So, we could play with the exact time limit a lot and I wouldn't be too upset about what was settled on.

But, the one thing I can say that is if a unit has the same commander for more than 5 years, that commander is most likely not doing a great job of developing his members OR just likes playing king/queen too much to pass it off to someone else.  If you can't find and train a replacement in 5 years you're not trying very hard.

[Patterson]

^ Not a question about training replacements, question primarily the lack of further leadership and Command development for those that are both capable and desiring. Unfortunately, for various political/ timing reasons there is very little opportunity to advance up the command ladder. 

I could agree the 20 year Squadron Commander might be excessive.  Again, Wing and Group Commanders need to remember the "span of control" methodology and focus on thier subordinate Commanders development/ goals for the unit, etc.

I really wish the Commanders at every level had a much better PD program available to them should they aspire to Command at higher levels.  Currently we have the Organizational Excellence Program, but it is completely dependent on the individual's personal relationship with his or her Commander at both the Wing and Region level.

[JeffDG]

I really wish the Commanders at every level had a much better PD program available to them should they aspire to Command at higher levels.  Currently we have the Organizational Excellence Program, but it is completely dependent on the individual's personal relationship with his or her Commander at both the Wing and Region level.

Not speaking to OE specifically, but a mentor should never be your immediate supervisor.  The line between mentor and supervisor is not one that can be crossed easily or frequently.

[Larry Mangum]

As a currently serving Squadron Commander, my goal from day one of assuming command was to find and start training my replacement.  Unfortunately, it is not that easy, when your seniors are all primarily long serving members, who are tired and discouraged from the constant changes and mandates imposed upon them by Wing and NHQ.  Sixteen months later, I finally have a successor in training, after convincing a sponsor member, nine months before, to convert to being a regular member. He has now completed SLS and last month became the Deputy Commander for Cadets.

For the others, we are slowly getting them reenergized and involved by revamping professional development, and providing aircrew training for those who were interested.  We are also planning on conducting UDF training in the near future. 

[Private Investigator]

Go getter, effective, energetic commander that everyone likes, has the time and talent to do the job and wants to do the job......out you go, your 3 years are up. 

What about an average Commander? The guy/gal does not walk on water, but they are not drowning either. Sometimes you have to call them and remind them that reports are overdue, or that they have Cadets over 18 and they have not taken CPPT yet, etc, etc. They are really just average, but they are the first ones to point out the weaker Units and make excuses why they got overlooked again for Regional Unit of Noteriety.

[lordmonar]

Go getter, effective, energetic commander that everyone likes, has the time and talent to do the job and wants to do the job......out you go, your 3 years are up. 

What about an average Commander? The guy/gal does not walk on water, but they are not drowning either. Sometimes you have to call them and remind them that reports are overdue, or that they have Cadets over 18 and they have not taken CPPT yet, etc, etc. They are really just average, but they are the first ones to point out the weaker Units and make excuses why they got overlooked again for Regional Unit of Noteriety.

??
Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

All commanders should have a formal annual review.....any short commings need to be addressed in that review....and if they are marginal then the wing commander is free to fire them at his leasure.

Term limits are not a cure all for bad leadership.

Term limits are good in that they help prevent burn out, they give us an easy way of getting rid of bad or marginal commanders, they allow others the chance to sit in the hot seat and get some command time.
Term limits are bad in that they force the hand of higher headquarters....you got to go...good or bad...your time is up.  They add to the appointment of commanders where are available in stead of commanders who are ready and able to take command.  They shunt otherwise good officers to jobs they have already done and that leads to boardom.

Like I said before.....I think the principle of a tour of duty being X number of years long...is great.  It gives the sittle commander a nice time frame to plan his tour of duty and plan his career.  But it hsould not be a hard and fast rule.  If the sitting commander is doing a good job and his subordinates are not getting squashed by him/her sitting in that position....there should no be any manditory movers.

[JeffDG]

Like I said before.....I think the principle of a tour of duty being X number of years long...is great.  It gives the sittle commander a nice time frame to plan his tour of duty and plan his career.  But it hsould not be a hard and fast rule.  If the sitting commander is doing a good job and his subordinates are not getting squashed by him/her sitting in that position....there should no be any manditory movers.

Having a fixed term is great.  Having term limits is bad policy IMHO.

The fixed term would require the next echelon to at least look at the commander on a schedule and determine if they are effective.  That way, inertia won't keep someone in the job...they have to do the work anyway, so they can either re-appoint or appoint someone new...

[Private Investigator]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

[arajca]

Another good point about fixed terms or term limits is you may find more members willing to take on the job if they know it's not for an indeterminate time period.

This can be established by policy or by agreement between the incoming commander and his next higher commander.

[JeffDG]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

[SarDragon]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

Hence, the need to find and train your replacement as soon as you take office.

[JeffDG]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

Hence, the need to find and train your replacement as soon as you take office.

Regardless, you will require the squadron to go through all the phases of teambuilding when you change command, even to your hand-picked successor.

Change just for the sake of change is a bad idea...

[arajca]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

Hence, the need to find and train your replacement as soon as you take office.

Regardless, you will require the squadron to go through all the phases of teambuilding when you change command, even to your hand-picked successor.

Change just for the sake of change is a bad idea...

No change just for the sake of no change is not a good idea either...

[bosshawk]

I certainly agree with the concept of picking your successor and training him/her for the eventuality.  However, in my 18 years in CAP, I could count on one hand the number of commanders(Sq, Gp or Wing) who actually did this and the results certainly showed that lack.  Unfortunately, the idea also applies to staff positions and the same lack appeared with amazing regularity.

[Private Investigator]

I certainly agree with the concept of picking your successor and training him/her for the eventuality.  However, in my 18 years in CAP, I could count on one hand the number of commanders(Sq, Gp or Wing) who actually did this and the results certainly showed that lack. 

I disagree. When I was in the postion to select Squadron Commanders I always wanted to interview at least three people for it. You will never know where your talent is. 

The problem with handpicking your successor is the "good ole boy syndrome". I.e. a Squadron that is a "flying club" will want to continue with a Commander that will go along with that activity. How about the Commander who picks his wife to succeed him? You know he has 'control' issues.

[FW]

The concept of "training your successor" is a good solid one.  Picking your successor first is not (for the reasons mentioned above).  IMO, it's best to insure everyone is given the training and information necessary to take over if and, when necessary.  A strong team to pick from is your best chance of continued success.

[Flying Pig]

I certainly agree with the concept of picking your successor and training him/her for the eventuality.  However, in my 18 years in CAP, I could count on one hand the number of commanders(Sq, Gp or Wing) who actually did this and the results certainly showed that lack. 

I disagree. When I was in the postion to select Squadron Commanders I always wanted to interview at least three people for it. You will never know where your talent is. 

The problem with handpicking your successor is the "good ole boy syndrome". I.e. a Squadron that is a "flying club" will want to continue with a Commander that will go along with that activity. How about the Commander who picks his wife to succeed him? You know he has 'control' issues.

I disagree.  The Grp Commander, and I believe up to the Wing CC ultimately choose.  Interviews?  As a SqCC I already know my people.  Im interviewing you every meeting night whether you know it or not. I could interview as a formality, but as a SqCC I already have my go-to members. And of those, I pick my replacement.  I formally knew who was going to replace me at least a yr before I ended.  And I "informally" knew who my successor was going to be the day I took command.  And my Squadron is booming.  Then and now.  So it seemed to work out just fine.

[lordmonar]

Term limits or no term limits.

We should always developing our officers.....whether they are candidates for command or not.  That is simply one of the jobs of a senior officer.

As Flying Pig said.....it is the WING/GROUP commander's job to choose a sucsessor for a sitting commander.  So most definatly they have to be in the process of grooming the new commander.

And if this happened more often....we would have less problems with commanders getting appointed before they are ready.

[TBT]

In our wing commanders serve a 3 year term. Term limits allow for some commanders to leave without causing irreparable damage. Comments from either the commander or his/her staff, like: We don't do it that way. I don't like that. He won't like it. Don't waste your time. Unit/command can become stagnant. Commander's can burn out and not realize it. Ever see a commander who says "Do it because I told you?"  Three years will seem like an eternity. If you hang around long enough. When everyone realizes there is a term, it can motivate those who are dedicated and serious about forward movement and improvement to "hang in there" and wait them out. New blood. New vision. Renewed motivation to a unit who may have long since lost their will to recruit and perform to even the most basic of standards. Term limits are good. The good ones, can and should move up. I've personally been a commander of eight different units. Been there, done that!