Main Menu

New NHQ Job Posting

Started by JeffDG, January 13, 2014, 04:07:28 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jeders

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 02:42:38 PM
The majority of CAP members are not prior or current service, and leading volunteers is a vastly more complex skill then leading people legally bound to follow orders.

It's amazing how easy it is to get people to do what you say when the alternative is potentially jail.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 02:42:38 PM
I have no real issue with any of the requirements, other then I wish they would make them requirements and not waivable "guidelines".

I can't disagree with this. Though I have a feeling that the chances of any of the requirements being waived ever are pretty low. Unless there is a truly exceptional candidate, I think that there will always be enough applicants to keep the minimums from being waived.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

skymaster

Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2014, 02:05:26 AM
I am not intending to turn this into a uniform thread - honestly - but don't those Maj Gen slides look blue instead of grey?



I personally think that they are grey, but it seems that the shade of grey has changed slightly in different production runs of the epaulet slides. Looking back through my collection of CAP grade insignia acquired from the CAP Bookstore, CAPMart, and Vanguard over the decades, it seems that, over time, the epaulet sleeves have been made in ever-so-slightly darker shades of grey in newer production runs. In fact, very recent ones that I have personally seen worn by persons with eagles and stars look almost as dark a shade of grey, as the old style blue CAP ones were blue. Still different from the AF, still distinctive, and definitely grey and not blue. Maybe it is just that the older ones in my collection have faded over time, but it is also possible that, over time, the AF has allowed Vanguard to produce insignia in a slightly darker (but definitely distinctive GREY) shade for CAP purposes.

JeffDG

Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2014, 03:09:25 PM
I can't disagree with this. Though I have a feeling that the chances of any of the requirements being waived ever are pretty low. Unless there is a truly exceptional candidate, I think that there will always be enough applicants to keep the minimums from being waived.
I have a general dislike of non-waiverable requirements...personally, I think that if you can't trust people to exercise some judgement, you have no business putting them on the BoG.

Here's an example...purely hypothetical, I have absolutely zero knowledge of any of this at all...

Let's say that Col. Gloyd retired from the USAF and threw his hat in the ring for CAP/CC?  He has a wealth of CAP related experience as CAP-USAF/CC, but he doesn'thave either a region command or Level V.  I would submit that his application would still merit consideration by the BoG.  That's the type of thing the waiver authority is for.

HGjunkie

I think Col. Gloyd would make an excellent candidate, but there are probably people with more CAP-specific experience than him.
••• retired
2d Lt USAF

JeffDG

Quote from: HGjunkie on January 17, 2014, 05:55:29 PM
I think Col. Gloyd would make an excellent candidate, but there are probably people with more CAP-specific experience than him.
Not the point I was making.  In the absence of waiver authority, the BoG wouldn't even be able to consider such a candidate, as he is missing requirements.

I'm neither saying the Col is a candidate, nor the best one.  I was simply providing a "for instance" where rigid requirements without the ability to waiver would DQ a perfectly viable candidate.  I don't think that CAP CC should be chosen as a result of a checklist

Eclipse

#45
Quote from: JeffDG on January 17, 2014, 05:44:37 PMLet's say that Col. Gloyd retired from the USAF and threw his hat in the ring for CAP/CC? He has a wealth of CAP related experience as CAP-USAF/CC, but he doesn't have either a region command or Level V.  I would submit that his application would still merit consideration by the BoG.  That's the type of thing the waiver authority is for.

Does he? 

Was he ever a member?  Does he understand how to run a squadron?  Encampment?  NCSA?  SAREx?  I don't think so.

I'm sure Col Gloyd is an excellent USAF Officer, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands ground-level CAP operations, or the minutia
of herding volunteer cats.

That's one of the problems I see with a lot of our leadership, they jumped in mid-level, or came up through the program with a narrow focus
and were never commanders, then they struggle to catch up because they have no hands-on experience with these situations.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 17, 2014, 06:28:53 PM
Not the point I was making.  In the absence of waiver authority, the BoG wouldn't even be able to consider such a candidate, as he is missing requirements.
And that's the point - if the requirement is appropriate, then you should have plenty in the pool to choose from, if you find the pool is too
small, then you have a choice, adjust the bar or increase the pool.

But either way, knowing you have to meet some mandates in order to continue operations is supposed to spur you to action, not encourage
you to look for exceptions.

That's the problem with CAP, we set up pretty strict and appropriate expectations, but then we assume people won't step up,
so we always leave wiggle room "in case", then human nature being what it is, people live by the expectation of the exceptions
being the norm.

"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: PHall on January 17, 2014, 01:41:42 AM
The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

There is a line that can open an entirely new debate.  I am sure we can find some people that would think the President should be a veteran or at least the SECDEF.

Which, however, would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

bosshawk

FYI: Bob Gates was a Lt in the Air Force, before he came to CIA.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 07:14:16 PM
Does he? 

Was he ever a member?  Does he understand how to run a squadron?  Encampment?  NCSA?  SAREx?  I don't think so.

I'm sure Col Gloyd is an excellent USAF Officer, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands ground-level CAP operations, or the minutia
of herding volunteer cats.

First he said, CAP related experience, not CAP experience.  CAP related experience is pretty nebulous really.

But let us be frank about this.  Does he really need to? 

He is there to run a corporation and interact with the USAF.  Does he really need to understand the nuts and bolts of running a SARX, encampment, or NCSA?  No.  He needs the leadership ability to guide a staff that does know how to do that stuff. 

This is like saying "the CEO of Wal-Mart needs to understand how to be a cashier and customer service manager before taking the job".  It is not their job to understand this.

Listen to Gen Lorenz talk about his experience on taking over as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.  He was a pilot, never had any training in finance prior to that job.

The military always thrusts officers into positions that they have no working knowledge or understanding of.

husker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 02:42:38 PM
.....and leading volunteers is a vastly more complex skill then leading people legally bound to follow orders.

So very true.

Michael Long, Lt Col CAP
Deputy Director, National Emergency Services Academy
nesa.cap.gov
mlong (at) nesa.cap.gov

Eclipse

#50
Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 08:17:26 PM
First he said, CAP related experience, not CAP experience.
His "related" experience is at the C-Level and that is where his concerns would be - big ticket money, coordination
of 500 airplanes, etc., and that's with CAP-USAF, not CAP.  Big. Difference.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 08:17:26 PM
CAP related experience is pretty nebulous really.
Not really, either you know it or you don't.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 08:17:26 PM
But let us be frank about this.  Does he really need to? 

He is there to run a corporation and interact with the USAF.  Does he really need to understand the nuts and bolts of running a SARX, encampment, or NCSA?  No.  He needs the leadership ability to guide a staff that does know how to do that stuff. 
He needs to understand when people are snowing him or literally lying, propagating agendas, etc.  He needs to understand what is actually important to the membership
in order to pick the appropriate staff to provide him good data to make decisions.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 08:17:26 PM
I don't know how much exposure you have outside a unit, but if you look around, I guarantee you that the majority of your best leaders
have all had extensive, hands-on experience in CAP.  There's always exceptions and good-fortune, but on the whole, members who haven't
been unit / group / activity commanders, or whose experience is in too narrow a lane make poor wing and higher CCs

This is like saying "the CEO of Wal-Mart needs to understand how to be a cashier and customer service manager before taking the job".  It is not their job to understand this.
Disagree, a huge problem with CEOs today. 10 years ago, CEOs physically built their companies and understood things from the line to the bank.  These days you
have "career" executives who haven't a clue what their company even does, all they care about is "shareholder value", which means a lot of times the don't even understand
the questions they are asked, or they don't care what the answer is, at least in terms of what happens at the product and store level.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 08:17:26 PM
Listen to Gen Lorenz talk about his experience on taking over as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.  He was a pilot, never had any training in finance prior to that job.

The military always thrusts officers into positions that they have no working knowledge or understanding of.
That's very nice for them.  I don't see the word "volunteer" in that paragraph anywhere.  Again, you can move mountains without machines
when your workforce can't disagree or quit.  The military can roll the dice on people, or shuffle them around at will, CAP can't.
When the military appoints an in appropriate leader, they just put him elsewhere and grown more.  CAP can't do that, either.

How many thousands of times has the military, over the years, put someone in a command they didn't want or weren't qualified for,
but the person stuck it out for "retirement points", or "the next job", etc.  CAP doesn't do that, either, so there's no "I know you don't want this job, but
it's the best for you and the service, salute and execute."  We are a coalition of the willing.

Until that's the case in CAP, we need leaders who understand what the member-level impact will be of every decision.

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

By the way, in thinking about a requirement for our national commander to the prior military, think about the National commander prior to General Carr. I've known General Courter for 25 years she's never been in the military. However, I can tell you that she had been pretty good squadron commander, involved with drill team, professional development stuff, was a group commander, a vice Wing Commander, and then a wing commander and subsequently the Vice National commander and the National Commander. And all this while she was a successful IT executive, too. A C-level exec in a global company. That counts for something.


I'd say in those 20 plus years she got about all the experience she needed for Civil Air Patrol.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse

+1 And we are sadly left to wonder what she could have accomplished had she been allowed to lead instead of being mired in clean-up and baseless complaints.

Lost opportunity and time, never to be recovered.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 09:15:45 PM
His "related" experience is at the C-Level and that is where his concerns would be - big ticket money, coordination
of 500 airplanes, etc., and that's with CAP-USAF, not CAP.  Big. Difference.

For a CAP National Commander, why would this be a problem.  Are not their concerns on big ticket items?

Quote
Not really, either you know it or you don't.

So no one should get any advance rank based on related experience.  So NCOs, military officers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc should not be recognized for their related knowledge and experience?  Since you want to work in black/white, they do not know it so their experience does not count?

Quote
He needs to understand when people are snowing him or literally lying, propagating agendas, etc.

So a person cannot tell when people are "snowing him" or "lying to him" simply because they do not have CAP experience?

QuoteHe needs to understand what is actually important to the membership
in order to pick the appropriate staff to provide him good data to make decisions.

I am pretty sure his staff is already picked at the Corporate Level.  How long has Susie Parker, Curt LaFond, and others been working there?  It is not like the new commander will need to instantly choose a new staff.

Quote
I don't know how much exposure you have outside a unit, but if you look around, I guarantee you that the majority of your best leaders
have all had extensive, hands-on experience in CAP.  There's always exceptions and good-fortune, but on the whole, members who haven't
been unit / group / activity commanders, or whose experience is in too narrow a lane make poor wing and higher CCs

So that is an opinion with no factual data to back it up?  Sure you can tell me some stories about so and so, but really that is anecdotal evidence.  So, do not know what to tell you on that.

I have met plenty of people with extensive CAP experience that are terrible leaders.  I have met plenty of people that have little CAP experience but extensive related experience that have allowed them to be great CAP leaders.  I have known great CAP leaders that due to their narrow experience, they relied and trusted their staff.

Anecdotal evidence works both ways.

Quote
Disagree, a huge problem with CEOs today. 10 years ago, CEOs physically built their companies and understood things from the line to the bank.

10 years ago?  Really?  So apparently 10 years CEOs were building their companies.  Hmm, I guess Wal-Mart, Target, Lockheed Martin, Boeing are only 10 years old.

Also, are you really saying that there are not CEOs that have done the same thing today? 

QuoteThese days you
have "career" executives who haven't a clue what their company even does, all they care about is "shareholder value", which means a lot of times the don't even understand
the questions they are asked, or they don't care what the answer is, at least in terms of what happens at the product and store level.

You really think that is something new to "these days"?  That has been going on for decades.  Even then, it does not matter.  That CEO knows how to run his interactions between the share holders and the staff that takes care of those decisions.  Why would he be required to know what the lowest person does in the company?  That is not his job.

Quote
That's very nice for them.  I don't see the word "volunteer" in that paragraph anywhere.
I see, so because volunteer is not in the paragraph the point was invalid?  You like to work in black/white situations do not you?  The point is a person at the top of an organization does not need to know the nuts and bolts of the jobs.  That is why you have experts and people do those jobs.  The leader needs to have a basic to minimal understanding of the jobs.  More importantly, those corporate positions require a person that has strategic thinking and leadership abilities. 

In the military, why do you think officers do not go through basic training and MOS courses.  Because that is not their job.  Their job is not to do the work or know all the in's and out's of it.  That is for the NCOs.  The officers job is to plan and make decisions at the tactical level.  As the officer increases in rank, he/she works towards an intermediate level and strategic level of leadership.

Just because a person does not have extensive CAP experience, it does not mean their experience as a corporate exec in a global company or equivalent is worthless.  Besides, even the requirements for wing commander are not that "strict".  A person could in theory go from nothing to being a wing commander in 5 years.  Or if a Spaatz Cadet, could make wing commander in 3 years.  Does not require extensive CAP experience does it? 

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
So no one should get any advance rank based on related experience.

Nope.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
So a person cannot tell when people are "snowing him" or "lying to him" simply because they do not have CAP experience?
Not always.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
So that is an opinion with no factual data to back it up?
Fact, backed up by 15 years of personal experience coupled with plenty of news from 'round the CAP world'.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
Just because a person does not have extensive CAP experience, it does not mean their experience as a corporate exec in a global company or equivalent is worthless.
Who said it was?  CAP doesn't have the time for people to learn on the job at that level.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
Besides, even the requirements for wing commander are not that "strict".  A person could in theory go from nothing to being a wing commander in 5 years.  Or if a Spaatz Cadet, could make wing commander in 3 years.  Does not require extensive CAP experience does it?
I'll take a Spaatz cadet or a 5-year member who was able to be a successful wing CC over someone who has never been a member all day.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 17, 2014, 11:53:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 09:15:45 PM
Disagree, a huge problem with CEOs today. 10 years ago, CEOs physically built their companies and understood things from the line to the bank.

10 years ago?  Really?  So apparently 10 years CEOs were building their companies.  Hmm, I guess Wal-Mart, Target, Lockheed Martin, Boeing are only 10 years old.

Also, are you really saying that there are not CEOs that have done the same thing today?

(Should have been 100, not 10)

There are plenty, but not on the scale of Walmart.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2014, 12:12:25 AM
Not always.

Exactly, so your point is moot.

Quote
Fact, backed up by 15 years of personal experience coupled with plenty of news from 'round the CAP world'.

Nope, still anecdotal evidence.  Mine is also ~15 years of personal experience.  So according to you, my statement is also fact. Hmmmm, still works both ways.

Quote
Who said it was?

You did because either you know it or don't.

Quote
I'll take a Spaatz cadet or a 5-year member who was able to be a successful wing CC over someone who has never been a member all day.

Neither would CAP.  The person would obviously need Level 1.

Quote(Should have been 100, not 10)

So 100 years?  The problems of 100 years ago and the problems of today are vastly different.  Speaking from a corporate view, who cares about 100 years ago.  So again, moot point I guess.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2014, 12:10:32 AM
Nope.

Well I guess that would eliminate the NCO program, which may or not may not be good.  I guess you would also eliminate the alternatives for the Officer Basic Course, RSC, and NSC?

So a person with 30 years of leading soldiers or airmen has nothing to contribute then?  I mean "volunteer" was not in their leadership experience and since you "either know it or don't", then they do not know how to apply leadership theories learned from the military to volunteers?

Eclipse

#58
Quote from: LSThiker on January 18, 2014, 01:00:48 AM
I guess you would also eliminate the alternatives for the Officer Basic Course, RSC, and NSC?
Yes, in a minute.  Those have no relevance to CAP whatsoever, and in most cases, the scale of the military school doesn't even
match the scale of the CAP level it's getting equivalence for.

Everyone should walk in the door with the same slick sleeves, do the same work and move up in the same way.

As they said to me at the DMV when I renewed my license and asked for a waiver on the motorcycle written
test because I've been teaching and administering that same test for 13 years...
"Well, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to get 100%, then should it?"

Quote from: LSThiker on January 18, 2014, 01:00:48 AM
So a person with 30 years of leading soldiers or airmen has nothing to contribute then?
None?  Of course not.  Relevant?  Hard to say.  Few military units or echelons, other then an aircrew, really match
the way CAP is laid out in any meaningful way.

People say NCOs are more akin to a squadron then officers because NCOs are attuned to small squads, but that's
not a function of CAP's structure, that's a symptom of CAP's shrinkage.  A CAP squadron isn't supposed to
be a small squad in the typical military sense, nor are they single-task focused or specialists.

Another issue is the consistency of training, which is non-existent in CAP.  Much of the military moves because
everyone is on the same team, has the same (relative goals) and has had the same experience to get where they
are.   If you're a load-toad, you likely sat in the same classroom as everyone else you work with, etc., etc.

That also doesn't exist in CAP.

Further, there's zero authority based on grade. I've seen more then a few situations where a new Lt Col
with 30 years military walks into a room and expects to get things done based on his shirt collar.  When nothing
happens but blank stares, they are not sure where to go.

Next you have the 5+ hats worn by the typical member, generally based on little more then willingness to "do",
and rarely having anything to do with grade or relative experience.

Ultimately, people are either leaders or they aren't.  Anyone successful in the military is going to be able to translate
those skills, experience, and abilities into success in CAP, or any similar organization, but not as a day-1 Messiah basis,
and no more, or less, then anyone else with the same relative life experience working as an adult in the real world.

Consider this #1:  How much rhetoric do we get here about all the senior squadrons and members who
feel CAP doesn't need to emphasize the paramilitary aspects, and in too many cases, ignore them
altogether.  How effective is someone used to leading in an environment of military discipline and
structure when the subordinates can't be bothered to care?

Consider this #2:
You can usually tell in CAP where the real risk and importance is vs. rhetoric and appearance.
There's plenty of equivalence, waivers, and exceptions in grade, specialties, and staff appointments,
but zero in ES.

Army Ranger?  Great.  You still have to demo a compass like everyone else.
Head of your County EMA?  Excellent, still have to take 100/200/300/400, etc., whether you "know this"
or not.  Etc., etc.

Flew SAR missions for the CG in 182s?.  Congrats!  That Form 91 should be breeze.

No, there should not be equivalences or waivers for anyone.



"That Others May Zoom"

Luis R. Ramos

#59
Quote

then they do not know how to apply leadership theories learned from the military to volunteers?

Nope, not the same situation.

Military: "Do this, or its the UCMJ with ya."

Volunteer: "Do this, or its... what? 2b???" "Oh yes? MARB for ya!"

We could say the same thing for Police and Fire Commissioners, the top-of-the-line jobs for NYPD and FDNY. "The commissioner is a civilian appointment, they do not need to know how to arrest a criminal, how to patrol a beat, how to fight a fire, how to drive a bus (ambulance), how to drive a fire engine, they only need to know how to interact with politicos, unions, etc." Yet each commissioner has always arose from the ranks or had previous experience in another city's department. Once those commissioners get appointed, they stop wearing the respective uniform instead wears a business suit, but they are previous experience police and fire.

Flyer
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer