Group Commander Assignments

[Woodsy]

JeffGD,

I'm not sure those numbers are exactly correct.  At last check, FLWG was over 90 units.

2 of FLWG's 6 groups have around 20 squadrons.  Each of these groups is larger than the vast majority of wings.  It does present a span of control issue.  Before I went to wing staff, I was on the largest group's staff.  There were well over 1,000 members in the group.  Challenging to say the least.

One issue we have in reducing the size of groups is finding qualified (and willing) members to staff the groups, without sucking the talent and life out of squadrons.  When group or wing comes in and says "we need member so-and-so on group/wing staff so we're transferring them" the squadron can take a hit.  Even if that member wants the position and agrees (I've never heard of a situation where someone was involuntarily transferred) it can still cause hard feelings at the squadron.  I've seen that time and time again (including with me.) 

Many new group/wing staff members scale back or even eliminate their involvement at their local squadron.  This leaves the squadron in a lurch.  Is there someone ready and willing to take over whatever position that person was?  Of course, we should all be training our replacements, but the world rarely works in reality as it should on paper or in theory.  When a squadron with 5 senior members loses it's finance officer to group, chances are there's not anyone ready to take over on a moments notice. 

I believe it is IMPERATIVE for new (and seasoned) group/wing staff members to remain involved at the local squadron.  How else are we to know what is going on day-to-day out in the field?  Headquarters personnel can not just sit at home and read reports and have a full understanding of the challenges facing the front-line units (squadrons.) 

[JeffDG]

JeffGD,

I'm not sure those numbers are exactly correct.  At last check, FLWG was over 90 units.

I just pulled the data out of CAPWATCH...I did exclude the "Groups" themselves and the 001 Wing HQ unit.

About your comment about remaining involved.  Personally, I have duty positions on Unit, Group and Wing, and find the unit meetings invaluable in keeping connected with what's going on in the field.

[Eclipse]

I believe it is IMPERATIVE for new (and seasoned) group/wing staff members to remain involved at the local squadron.  How else are we to know what is going on day-to-day out in the field? 

No. No. No.  (Is three enough?  I wasn't sure.)

The circlular reporting structures that CAP is saddled with is(are?) one of the biggest problems in the organization. 
"Who's in charge?" "I don't know - depends on which conversation we're having."

What's imperative is that WE NEED MORE PEOPLE so that we're not just recycling the same 25% in every job in the wing, and
passing commands between a select few.  Members should be able to move within and up in the organization, or on to new
challenges without having to worry about whether their old job is getting done.

Headquarters personnel can not just sit at home and read reports and have a full understanding of the challenges facing the front-line units (squadrons.)

They shouldn't >be< headquarters personnel if they don't have a fundamental understanding of unit operations.

[Woodsy]

I believe it is IMPERATIVE for new (and seasoned) group/wing staff members to remain involved at the local squadron.  How else are we to know what is going on day-to-day out in the field? 

No. No. No.  (Is three enough?  I wasn't sure.)

The circlular reporting structures that CAP is saddled with is(are?) one of the biggest problems in the organization. 
"Who's in charge?" "I don't know - depends on which conversation we're having."

What's imperative is that WE NEED MORE PEOPLE so that we're not just recycling the same 25% in every job in the wing, and
passing commands between a select few.  Members should be able to move within and up in the organization, or on to new
challenges without having to worry about whether their old job is getting done.

Headquarters personnel can not just sit at home and read reports and have a full understanding of the challenges facing the front-line units (squadrons.)

They shouldn't >be< headquarters personnel if they don't have a fundamental understanding of unit operations.

I see what you're saying, Eclipse.  Let me rephrase my statement.  When I say involved, I don't mean in a position of authority, command, etc.  I agree that one person should have an official position in one unit.  By involved, I meant as in showing up and knowing what's going on.  The circular reporting as you call it isn't good. 

FLWG has recently done a pretty good job with handling this by making wing staff members choose.  We had lot's of staff members that were also a deputy commander at a squadron or group, and some who were even pulling primary duties at all 3 levels.  The current CoS has insisted that staff members have one assignment at one unit.  As such, a lot of duty assignments have been removed so members can fully concentrate on one unit.  Example:  One of my assistant PAO's and OIC/ Emergency Information (lead PIO) was also a deputy commander of one of the +/- 20 squadron groups.  He is now just the group DC with no official duties at wing, though I know he's only a phone call away if I need advice. 

The exception to this is some of the ADY assistant positions.  The rule of thumb has been that no one with the word commander (including deputy) can be assigned at the director level or above at wing.  Also, people with several assignments at different levels have been asked to pick a primary. 

This has also allowed other members to step up into new positions and have a turn. 

My point was that there are wing staff members that live in the back yard of my local squadron, that I only ever see at wing commander's calls and conference.  Hope I explained that better.

[Eclipse]

My point was that there are wing staff members that live in the back yard of my local squadron, that I only ever see at wing commander's calls and conference.  Hope I explained that better.

I get it - but why would you expect to see them?  Consider yourself lucky they aren't at your meetings trying to drive from the backseat.

As the Wing ESO, I have no role to play at a local squadron, I can't imagine what I would do at a unit meeting, absent being there to comment on some specific wing-level initiative (by invitation), or very rarely to provide hands-on training - my contacts are supposed to be with the Group ESOs OR Group CCs. That's what I accepted as my job and role when I moved up.

As a Unit and Group CC, one of my particular sore spots was staffers with no authority just showing up to unit meetings unannounced and deciding to
pontificate on "whatever" for 45 minutes while the meeting ground to a halt.  That or an insinuation that they were there to "audit" operations.  No thank you.
Just send the information through channels, and if you desperately feel the need to directly address the membership, make sure you send me talking points
in advance, and you get a fixed amount of time.  We have actual unit business to take care of that doesn't include you reading 12 Powerpoint slides about a subject you're only 1/2 informed on, and that we knew about 2 months ago. (BTDT).

Now, I do participate in non-ES activities, encampment especially, and I still provide advice and counsel when asked to the unit and Group CC's who came up with me,
but the problem with "being around" is that it leaves room for "who's call is this?" questions, when someone from higher HQ is in the room - that's not fair to the guy who currently wears the badge.

[coloncapfl]

I appreciate each of your comments. I am currently in NY but was originally from FL and I see the current situation in FL where 1 group covers over 20 squadrons - almost 1/3 of the state and over10 counties. I believe that it is a span of control issue. I also agree that sometimes there is not qualified or willing personnel to run the group. I wouldn't mind taking that role if I return there, the question is if the Wing Commander would be willing to re-open a new group and if the current Group Commander be willing to loose 10 - 11 squadrons. I think that it is important to the squadron to see an active Group Commander. When I was a cadet we used to see our Group Commander at least once every 4 months and when I was Group Cadet Programs in FL, my Group Commander visited a different unit every week. I think that it shows that your Group Commander cares when you see them often. Also he used to do his staff meeting / Commander's calls in a different unit every month. If a Group Commander doesn't visit it doesn't mean that is not working but I believe that is a morale boost when they do. I wouldn't mind doing that job. My hand to everybody that has posted so far, you all have been a group of gentlemen in this discussion.

[NCRblues]

I get it - but why would you expect to see them?  Consider yourself lucky they aren't at your meetings trying to drive from the backseat.



As a Unit and Group CC, one of my particular sore spots was staffers with no authority just showing up to unit meetings unannounced

This sort of drives me crazy though. Lets say the wing has no groups, and a unit is failing hard in a certain area, lets say CP as an example, it's the DCP that SHOULD be coming and talking to the unit trying to get it back on track. Even 20-1 says the directorates handle their area in a wing.

This bashing of higher HQ is something I hate dearly. Higher hq isn't there to "back seat drive" they are there to make sure the subordinate units are doing the job correct. If I was a squadron/cc and I was not doing so hot, I'd expect the random drop ins and talking to from wing staff, in fact I'd want all the help I can get. The squadron isn't an island all to itself...

[coloncapfl]

I would like to say that in my honest opinion I believe that a member should be allowed to do more than one position, perhaps 2 one as primary and one as secondary. I use the example of the Army, when I was in the military a soldier had a primary MOS and was able to eventually select a secondary MOS to be qualified in. This concept works best when both assignments are related or similar. For example Personnel and Admin, Supply and Finance, Cadet Programs and Aerospace, PAO/Historian, ES?Communication. I am currently in my unit the Deputy Commander of Cadets and the PDO. It has been easy for my because is just the same principle on both just with different programs, he have new members and I am mentoring some to assume this roles because I want to grow myself. Having multiple positions has given my an experience close to a Unit CC and I have been blessed to have a fine staff mentor me as well (that with my previous experience in CAP). When I move to Florida I will see what I can be of service.

On a separate note, I want to get this of my chest. I was a cadet for 3 years and I am always grateful to all the senior that took the time to teach me and guide me, my CAP foundation helped me when I joined the military and also while on Group and Wing staff. Now I am in a unit and I see and feel through my cadets what my senior staff felt and why they gave their time and effort to CAP. I want to use this forum t thank all the seniors on behalf of the cadets for all of your effort and service, you might not see it in the moment but you are changing lives and not just at Sq level but everybody that helps is putting a little something in the development of our youth. In might sound corny but THANK YOU. I really mean it.

[Eclipse]

I get it - but why would you expect to see them?  Consider yourself lucky they aren't at your meetings trying to drive from the backseat.



As a Unit and Group CC, one of my particular sore spots was staffers with no authority just showing up to unit meetings unannounced

This sort of drives me crazy though. Lets say the wing has no groups, and a unit is failing hard in a certain area, lets say CP as an example, it's the DCP that SHOULD be coming and talking to the unit trying to get it back on track. Even 20-1 says the directorates handle their area in a wing.

This bashing of higher HQ is something I hate dearly. Higher hq isn't there to "back seat drive" they are there to make sure the subordinate units are doing the job correct. If I was a squadron/cc and I was not doing so hot, I'd expect the random drop ins and talking to from wing staff, in fact I'd want all the help I can get. The squadron isn't an island all to itself...

But that's not the responsibility of the Wing's staff, at least not self-initiated.  If a Squadron is struggling, it's the commander's responsibility to >ask< for help, or a higher commander to direct staff to go and help, with the acquiescence of the down-stream people.  Absent that, a higher HQ staffers has no authority or warrant to be
randomly wandering into unit meetings to "help", not to mention that a CC who isn't aware he needs, capabe of asking, or interested in, "help" isn't likely to receptive to the
random "pop in".

The wing staff's job is administrative in nature, tracking what is happening, making sure resources are ready and available, and deconflicting when they can,
but it's not their place to be going down and "fixing" things.

[coloncapfl]

I see all the points brought up about who's responsibility. I believe that if a Group Commander visits a squadron regularly, not to inspect but as a cordial visit, it creates a better sense of open communication and also it gives a sense of familiarity that opens the communication channels better. It is my personal opinion that it helps the flow of communication when you see an individual on a regular bases, than if you only speak with them via email. I think it creates a more personal setting. On the other hand this has to go along with the leadership style. This does not only applies to the CC but also to their staff. Is not only a matter of I have a problem but also opens the door of communication to I have some ideas that I would like to discuss. By nature people are better receptors when they hear and see things than when they just read it. You can see expressions that can give you better clues of a message. I honestly believe that if you have a good leader and add a more personal interaction, it creates more committed subordinates and a solid operation. I have experienced this many times. That it works all the time? absolutely not, nothing is flawless, but it sure worth's a try. Again is my opinion

[Eclipse]

I agree wholeheartedly that the Group CC should absolutely be a regular presence at unit meetings and events, after all, he can make policy and
direct action within his AOR, it's the staffers that become somewhat of a geometric problem.

In a Group with 6 squadrons, and 6-10 or so Group staff, if every staffer only visits one unit a month, individually, you wind up with just about every meeting
that has someone hanging around who really has little to do, isn't locally invested, and may potentially be writing checks for the Group CC that
he isn't interested in cashing, though at the Group-Unit level this is less of an issue then at the Wing-Unit level when there are groups.

In Wings with Groups, having wing staffers attending unit meetings smacks of jumping the chain.  Good staffers will know when to sit quietly and listen,
poor ones will be "telling people questions", etc.

[arajca]

When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units. That was part of our job. Now, there was a procedure that had to be followed:
1. Contact unit commander at least a week ahead of time. No pop-in visits.
2. Make it clear that this visit is not an inspection, an audit, an interview, or looking for trouble.
3. The unit commander could request a different date, but they could not say no.
4. Show up in proper uniform - service dress, blazer, or CSU.
5. Make sure to talk to your counterpart. Let them ask questions. Answer honestly.
6. Send a report to the wing commander. We were expected to be able to identify problems or potential problems, even if they were not in our field.

[coloncapfl]

I see your point Eclipse. When I was part of Group staff in Florida, my Group Commander wanted that if we were to visit a Squadron, to be the same one he was visiting, exactly for that reason, unless there were issues in a squadron that needed my visit. Half of his visits were during Commander's Call, each month was hosted on a different unit, therefore that unit made it a big deal to show their best since there were a lot of commanders visiting. It created a sense of importance on that meeting. I don't say that every Group Commander should do that but at that time it worked for him and we had a better communication and cooperation from the units.

[coloncapfl]

arajca, I believe on that when there Is no Group structure, otherwise, my opinion, otherwise it gives the impression that the Wing undermines the Group's capacity to lead. I am a believer that a leader should let his subordinates develop and lead freely, as long as it follows the Regs and is for the good of the organization. Everybody has different styles of leadership and they all can be effective.

[Eclipse]

arajca, I believe on that when there Is no Group structure, otherwise, my opinion, otherwise it gives the impression that the Wing undermines the Group's capacity to lead.

Exactly - and I've seen this exact thing happen.  The whole point of a Group structure is proper span-of-control, and a big part of span-of-control is being a filter and a pressure
valve between the wings and the units.  I can see a Wing CC wanting his staff to be in communication with his Groups, but going lower just negates the point of having groups to start with.

And an off-handed, 1/2-informed comment by a wing staffer could undo months of work by a Group CC.

[JeffDG]

When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.

It's encouraged by regulation for some...

CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:

(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.

But seriously, if you're a Group and/or Wing staff member, and you don't know the limits of your job, then the solution is not to avoid unit visits, its to give up your higher HQ job.

Part of my reason for joining CAP was actively participating in a squadron, and at no point was I told I would have to stop that in order to assist at Group or Wing.

[FlyTiger77]

When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.

It's encouraged by regulation for some...

CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:

(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.

It could be argued that a wing's subordinate unit is the group in the 23-25 wings that have a group structure.

[JeffDG]

When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.

It's encouraged by regulation for some...

CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:

(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.

It could be argued that a wing's subordinate unit is the group in the 23-25 wings that have a group structure.

True, that...that reminds me, I should come visit y'all someday as encouraged by the regulation (as a member of Group I staff, I talk to them all the time!)...that and finding someone to take my job, your Group/DC has been highly recommended to me (not that I'm trying to steal him...but I like to talk to people whom I've heard good things about!)

[FlyTiger77]

When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.

It's encouraged by regulation for some...

CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:

(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.

It could be argued that a wing's subordinate unit is the group in the 23-25 wings that have a group structure.

True, that...that reminds me, I should come visit y'all someday as encouraged by the regulation (as a member of Group I staff, I talk to them all the time!)...that and finding someone to take my job, your Group/DC has been highly recommended to me (not that I'm trying to steal him...but I like to talk to people whom I've heard good things about!)

We meet the 4th Thursday of each month at a different location. C'mon down.

[ZigZag911]

When I was Group CC I required my staff to visit our units (at various times we ranged from 6 to 9 squadrons) regularly, mainly to support, assist, train.

They were expected to clear their visit with unit CC in advance (this rule did not apply to me, deputy or IG).

For most part, worked well...helped units with less experienced staff, picked up ideas and encouraged inter-squadron cooperation with the more established members/squadrons.