initial term limit for squadron commanders?

[lordmonar]

Yes.  Successful is defined as fulfilling its assigned missions.

Yes, we as leaders should be working to train our replacements......but it not really our mission to do so.

It is Groups/Wings job to select and train our commanders....not our sitting commanders.

That is why us former commander's get all bent when people say "it is a failure not to have a replacement".

Yes we need to have a plan and a system to make sure there is a succession......which is one of the reasons why this "4 years and out" rule is so stupid as applied.

As a good rule of thumb...sure....as part of an overall system where potential replacements are identified and groomed......by GROUP/WING....then yes it is a good thing.....but as a "You got 4 years to learn your job, have a successful unit AND train your replacement" is not really a good idea.  Not when applied to our organization and our limitations.

[Storm Chaser]

Yes.  Successful is defined as fulfilling its assigned missions.

Just out of curiosity, how do you define a unit who no longer can fulfill "its assigned missions" because of one individual that left the unit?

[lordmonar]

Yes.  Successful is defined as fulfilling its assigned missions.

Just out of curiosity, how do you define a unit who no longer can fulfill "its assigned missions" because of one individual that left the unit?

THAT unit is a failure.....but it's not my job as a squadron commander to select and train my replacement.

Sorry it is just not.  If I am replaced by Group/Wing.....then it is Group/Wing's failure not mine...not the units.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yes.  Successful is defined as fulfilling its assigned missions.

Just out of curiosity, how do you define a unit who no longer can fulfill "its assigned missions" because of one individual that left the unit?

THAT unit is a failure.....but it's not my job as a squadron commander to select and train my replacement.

Sorry it is just not.  If I am replaced by Group/Wing.....then it is Group/Wing's failure not mine...not the units.

Who trained you?

[Eclipse]

Mandates?

I'd like to see those mandates.

They are pretty self-explanatory.

Execute the missions, insure continuity.  Everything else is a nuance of that.

[Eclipse]

It is Groups/Wings job to select and train our commanders....not our sitting commanders.

That is why us former commander's get all bent when people say "it is a failure not to have a replacement".

Strongly non-concur.

It is 100% the unit commander's responsibility to actively recruit and train personnel to fulfill the missions and insure
continuity of the unit and the organization as a whole.  Groups, Wings, Regions, and NHQ should not and are not
recruiting doorways and people should not be starting at that level.  It all starts and lives at the unit.

Train your replacement, per se?  Arguable, and that's the expectation of most business situations, however
if a commander is properly executing his part - recruiting and training, then there will be a cadre of qualified members
to choose from and who are actively interested in moving forward themselves.

A good commander puts actual ideas and plans into place that he wants to see live and grow beyond his tenure,
the only way to do that is to train and mentor a group of people as potential replacements.

Any organization, group, or activity which depends on a single person to be successful or even exist is a walking failure
that doesn't know its dead, because when that one person leaves or dies the organization dies, and then in that case
telling stories about all the "great things the old CC did" are irrelevant since no one is in the room to hear them.

Any unit that doesn't have a couple of members chomping at the bit to get their shot at the podium is doing something
wrong.  They aren't recruiting enough, they aren't recruiting the right people, or the CC has held things so close to the vest through
micro management and/or constant complaining about "group, wing, national, admiinistrivia, etc." that being a CC sounds like a burden
instead of a challenge, and no one is interested.

[lordmonar]

Well....I'll have to disagree with your disagreement.

It is the Group/Wing Commander who appoints the squadron commander.....not the old squadron commander.

Ergo it is his responsibility to get said commander trained.

Sorry it is as simple as that.   I can pick my replacement, and train him, and get him all set up to take over if I ever fall over dead........but I don't have the authority to do that......so it CANNOT be my responsibility.

Now......if Group/Wing are doing their job.....they are visiting my unit, the will know my people (to a point) they would be working with me and my PDO in grooming a pool of potential candidates and as the 4 year mark approaches they could pick one and recruit (i.e. talk the sucker into taking the job:) ).  But it is not my job to do so.....not directly.

I am not saying that this mentoring, grooming, training should not be going on.....and I am not say that I as the sitting squadron commander cannot be doing said training.......but the ultimate responsibility for "getting it done" is with the next higher commander because it is his/her call on who that person is.

So.....failure of a squadron after change of command, lies with Wing/Group and the new commander not the old commander for "not training his replacement".

My whole problem with this new 4 year rule.....is that we got groups/wings doing their job by "following the reg" but not doing their job by recruiting and training the new commander.

[Storm Chaser]

@ lordmonar

You're getting it all wrong. While it's not the unit commander's responsibility to designate their successor, they very well can work with the group or wing commander, as appropriate, to find and train the replacement. A commander that just says "that's not my job" in detriment to the squadron is not a very good commander or leader, for that matter. As commander, you have no control over who will replace you, but you can offer advice to the group or wing commander and offer to appoint their designee as your deputy commander, although not required, to facilitate the transition.

Regardless of the succession plan in place, if any, a good squadron commander ensures that all critical functions are covered effectively so that in his/her absence, the squadron can operate and accomplish its mission successfully. If good staff leadership is in place within the squadron, it makes the transition with a new commander much more easier. And having a good staff in place >IS< the responsibility of the outgoing squadron commander, not the group or wing commander.

[dwb]

You two are saying the same thing. Go back and read Pat's post where he talks about mentoring potential successors.

And he is exactly right - the Wing Commander is the ultimate decider. It's his/her signature on the CAPF 27.

[Walkman]

All this talk about "training the replacement" has me thinking. I can see the validity of higher echelons being involved, but where I see their main role in that is providing opportunities for regularly scheduled well produced PD courses (UCC, TLC, SLS, etc). The current CC should be motivating their people to be attending these as much as possible. Group/Wing also does have a responsibility to know the people in the unit.

Where I see the CC's role in "training the replacement" is leading by example. Every CC should be making goals, having a vision and a plan to get there. Every ESO, PDO, and PAO should be doing the same. So a CC does this well and then encourages and mentors their staff to do the same in their own AO is in essence "training the replacement" That kind of leadership skill scales.

In my mind, both the current CC and the higher echelon CCs share the responsibility to ensure the when the term is up, someone is ready to take over and succeed. Each has a different role in it, though.

[Eclipse]

In my mind, both the current CC and the higher echelon CCs share the responsibility to ensure the when the term is up, someone is ready to take over and succeed. Each has a different role in it, though.

+1

[Private Investigator]

I am trying to get a formal transition program implemented in my group:

T-4 months: announce an impending vacancy with application requirements (Goals, Resume of CAP Service Career) and change of command date
T-3 months: empanel a board to review the applications and make a recommendation
T-2 months: receive the board's recommendation
T-6 weeks: request wing commander's concurrence and announce incoming commander

This gives the new commander time to transition with the outgoing commander (the old transitinon of the incoming and outgoing commanders exchanging high-5s at the office door never worked too well) and let's everyone know what is going on.

Of the 3 changes of command I have presided over, we have been able to do it once and it worked pretty well.

I did something similar when I was a Group Commander. But I would announce at 6 months the up coming vacancy. Also I asked if the outgoing Commander wanted the Change of Command at a Squadron Awards Banquet or just on a meeting night. Some Squadrons have annual banquets, summer picnics or a holiday party.

I kept a spread sheet so I know when each Commander assumed duties. Some were well prepared for the transition and you will be surprised that others will come up with multiple reasons why the should be extended or postpone the Change of Command. I also do not like the way the new CAPR 20-1 is worded. I told the Squadron Commanders after they completed their probation period they are on a year to year basis as the PA reappoints them every 1 January.