Staff Duty Analysis

[tsrup]

I sincerely hope the SDA doesn't get the axe.  Seems in the minutes that the only reason that the SDA is proposed to get the axe is that the cadets don't like it, however even the NEC realizes how important it is that the cadets get some familiarization with staff duties. 

The proposals on the table for replacements are just obtuse in comparison to what it would be replacing.

What is on the table to replace it?

it's in the NEC agenda, basically some 2 page technical writing exercises.

[Nathan]

I sincerely hope the SDA doesn't get the axe.  Seems in the minutes that the only reason that the SDA is proposed to get the axe is that the cadets don't like it, however even the NEC realizes how important it is that the cadets get some familiarization with staff duties. 

The proposals on the table for replacements are just obtuse in comparison to what it would be replacing.

What is on the table to replace it?

it's in the NEC agenda, basically some 2 page technical writing exercises.

...? Why would they replace it with something even MORE mind-numbing...?

[coudano]

booooo...  and  hisss...

also, not really of the opinion that this rises to NEC for implementation,
it's hardly an 'emergency' it should be done by the whole NB.


Talk about taking something bad and making it worse...

[tsrup]

booooo...  and  hisss...

also, not really of the opinion that this rises to NEC for implementation,
it's hardly an 'emergency' it should be done by the whole NB.


Talk about taking something bad and making it worse...

Which is why the proposal seems to have no support according to the agenda.

It seems that the proposal for the removal of the SDA and to implement the replacement was done without taking in to consideration what the SDA was really supposed to do.
They saw the SDA as many cadets see it: a writing exercise, when in reality its much much more.

edit: reread the agenda

[Ned]

Which is why the proposal seems to have no support according to the agenda.

It seems that the proposal for the removal of the SDA and to implement the replacement was done without taking in to consideration what the SDA was really supposed to do.
They saw the SDA as many cadets see it: a writing exercise, when in reality its much much more.

Non-concur.

First, the agenda item has the full support of the professional CP staff at NHQ as well as the National Cadet Adviser and the volunteer CP staff.

Argueably the folks who know the CP best.

And I had the opportunity to speak with the original author of the SDA program (Jack Sorensen), and he told me that it was one of the last areas developed for the New Cadet Program and he was not able to articulate a great deal of rationale or doctrine to support it.  IOW, I'm not sure there ever was a sufficiently delineated purpose that the SDAs "were supposed to do."



I understand that this, at best, is an area that only affects 15% of our cadets.  But they deserve a well-developed curriculum that is intergrated with and reinforces the other parts of our successful program.

Ned Lee
#356

[AirAux]

As much as it irks me, I must concur with Ned 110% on this one. 

[tsrup]

I don't,

He was correct that there was more support than I had stated,

however the current proposal only serves to further cadets from working with their Senior counterparts.

The SDA is nice because it gives cadets a chance to see what really goes on to run a squadron. 
The "professional communications" program as proposed (and I can only see what's in the agenda) only gives a name to what cadets are already doing outside of the SDA.

Not saying that the proposal wouldn't be a welcomed augment to the current plan, but as a replacement I just don't see it.

The proposal to remove the SDA hinges on complaints of the SDA being unpopular.  When has popularity ever been a factor in making policy. 
The cadets in my squadron think that the FEMA courses are lame and is unpopular with them, should we remove that requirement from the GES ratings then?

The Phase III and IV process is not supposed to be easy, if you're a cadet and you want to progress past mitchell you are going to have to put in the extra effort.

The only reason the "SDA" is difficult to execute is because it does actually take effort to do.

You gotta want it.

[Ned]

The proposal to remove the SDA hinges on complaints of the SDA being unpopular. 

Hardly. 

While the background information does indicated it is unpopular, it goes on to list at least  three specific reasons why that is so, essentially boiling down to the fact that the SDA program does not meet its stated goals.

Intent of the SDA Program:  The SDA program is fundamentally an exposure to leadership and teamwork as seen through the the lens of a working CAP squadron staff.  The program is not a memorization drill in CAP policies and procedures, or even an effort to train cadets to fulfill responsibilities to CAP senior members. Rather, it is an opportunity for cadets to learn to think critically, develop communications skills, and improve their understanding of teamwork.

The proposal points out that current SDA program advances memorization of admisitrivia over leadership skills and is difficult for typical units to administer due to a lack of adequate standards to evaluate staff service and analyses.

In contrast, the proposed replacement will be a tightly focused Professional Communications Program that will be integrated with the new Learn to Lead volumes 3 & 4 to be released concurrently.  Indeed, since we already updating and modifying the leadership curricula for Phases III & IV, it simply makes sense to revist and upgrade the non-functional SDA program.

Every single comment on the agenda is positive.   CAP-USAF concurs, NHQ concurs, the volunteer Senior Advisor concurs, even the volunteer CAP Chief of Staff said "I think this agenda item is well-taken" (and then suggests some amendments).

Can you tell us why we are all wrong, other than saying "we should just try harder to make the current program work"?


Ned Lee

[SarDragon]

SDAs were the brick wall that stalled my progress in the Cadet Program. I joined during the transition to the current program, and no one in the unit had a clue about how to do the SDAs. The guidance was poor at best. It seems like every cadet in my unit who got into Phase III, ended their career there by conveniently going off to college, military service, etc., before jumping into the SDA mire. Back then you had to complete the first Phase III achievement before becoming a cadet officer. Then they added C/WO (C/FO), which was still only the Mitchell Award. So a lot of cadets got stuck right there.

[jimmydeanno]

Sure, cadets should *really* want to advance through the program.  However, do you want a program that cadets are going through just in spite?

If only ~1% of cadets reach the end, with 10% reaching the middle point, I would argue that there is a serious disconnect, and in many ways, not on the end of the cadets motivation, or desire to do well.  To me, that says that we have a program that 99% of cadets never get full use of, or get exposed to.

To me, the CoS' comment about the SDA being there to teach how to be a good support staff officer is the only thing that may have some merit.  However, as pointed out, the SDA program is focused around "list the regs and reports you have to do."  Cadets serve in support staff positions unless they are the cadet commander or flight commander.  We shouldn't be trying to teach our cadets how to be good senior members - it's not the point of the program.

[tsrup]

It doesn't change the fact that this proposal is just trading one brick wall for another.

If cadets don't want to write what a staff job's duties are, what is going to make them want to write anything else?

As for the SDA being hard to implement, I can't understand that.  Especially with CAPP 52-14 laying everything out step by step.

And no not all comments were positive

National CoS

I think this agenda item is well-taken. However, I believe it misses the fundamental purpose of the SDA...
...I agree that all of the suggestions in this agenda item are necessary skills that cadets must master – but the roles and responsibility of service as staff officer is being lost in the proposal.

CAPP 52-14

The objectives for SDAs include:
1) Improve critical thinking skills by identifying problems and imagining solutions that make use of basic technical knowledge of a given specialty .
2) Improve communication skills through active listening on the job and by describing in oral and written briefings staff position duties and procedures.
3) Comprehend leadership and teamwork by explaining how squadron staff functions interrelate and add value to the team and by describing the qualities leaders need to succeed in those specialties.

If the SDA truly is dead on its feet I would agree with this as a suitable replacement

Perhaps, the SDA could be replaced with the requirement of achieving a technical rating in two specialty tracks before the award of the Eaker.

even if the requirement was only technician rating in one specialty track outside of cadet programs.

[Ned]

It doesn't change the fact that this proposal is just trading one brick wall for another.

If cadets don't want to write what a staff job's duties are, what is going to make them want to write anything else?

Please go back and re-read the proposal and the comments.

Nothing in the proposal is suggesting that the problem is that the cadets "don't want to write."

As for the SDA being hard to implement, I can't understand that.  Especially with CAPP 52-14 laying everything out step by step.

Indeed, our terrific CP staff has done everything in their power to write the 52-14 to try to make the legacy SDA program workable.

But the universal feedback from the field is that the SDA system does not function well, regardless of the good faith efforts of some excellent CP volunteers in the field.  One need only look at the feedback provided by the NCAC for confirmation.

And no not all comments were positive

National CoS

I think this agenda item is well-taken. However, I believe it misses the fundamental purpose of the SDA...
...I agree that all of the suggestions in this agenda item are necessary skills that cadets must master – but the roles and responsibility of service as staff officer is being lost in the proposal.

Clearly the volunteer COS believes that learning the roles and responsiblity of staff officers is a "fundamental purpose" of the SDA program. 

Reasonable minds differ on that point, but neither is his comment in any way negative.

If the SDA truly is dead on its feet I would agree with this as a suitable replacement

Perhaps, the SDA could be replaced with the requirement of achieving a technical rating in two specialty tracks before the award of the Eaker.

even if the requirement was only technician rating in one specialty track outside of cadet programs.

The SDA program has always been part of the Leadership component of the cadet program.  The proposal to earn technician ratings may be a nice thing, but it is not leadership training - the whole point of the cadet program.

Earning technician ratings is "technical training" in areas outside of the cadet program.  I'm not saying that cadets should not work in areas outside CP.  After all, many cadets play a vital role in ES.

But we should not get involved in calling ES (or any other techincal speciality in CAP) a form of leadership training.

Which is what the proposal is about - correcting a portion of the CP's leadership training.

[coudano]

Can you tell us why we are all wrong, other than saying "we should just try harder to make the current program work"?

Sure, here you go...
Reason #1 that it's wrong:  You CAN NOT implement a professional communications program at the locality level.
You can't even implement effective armstrong essays and speeches at a quality level at local units, let alone a consistent level.  Who is going to evaluate professional communications?  Fine for units that happen to have an expert on hand.  It aint most units.

Reason #2 that it's wrong:  The products that the proposed replacement creates are MORE empty and useless than the current SDA regime.  I"m not saying that the SDA is the *BEST* way to accomplish what we want out of cadet officers, but the proposed replacement is a step away from what we want, not a step toward it.

Reason #3 that it's wrong:  The product doesn't make better leaders anymore than the current SDA program does.  It might make better policy wonks, but that's hardly effective leadership, without the punch for implementation.  This strikes me as a great big "CAC class".  CAC is already irrelevant (though this whole discussion might aruge that, let's say below the national level...)  Teaching people how to write proposals better isn't going to make them more effective at influencing a group of people to accomplish a task, even at a policy and administration level.

Reason #4 that it's wrong:  There is no basis of experience from former cadets having been there or done that, nor of existing guidance on how to DO the proposed replacement activities, let alone how to evaluate them.  That said, I would also add that the current SDA has not been in place long enough to evaluate its effectiveness compared to its predecessor.  I doubt any data exists anyway.

Reason #5 that it's wrong:  I have an option that is so much better than the SDA and its proposed replacement that they don't even belong in the same league:
Don't just propose activities, or write AAR's on them...
ACTUALLY PLAN AND EXECUTE A SQUADRON GROUP OR WING ACTIVITY EVERY PHASE 3 or 4 ACHIEVEMENT.
1.  Exposes cadets (hands on) to every core staff function in CAP (admin, finance, public affairs, safety, ops, logistics, etc)
2.  Requires analysis, planning, and procedure, problem solving
3.  Requires formal writing
4.  Requries public speaking
5.  Is consistent with stated 'elements' of the cadet program (activities)
6.  *INCREASES* cadets' buy in to CAP and to their unit
7.  *IMPROVES* the local program for cadets (how many cadets quit for lack of activities?  this makes more!!!!)
8.  *IMPARTS* skills and experience to cadets that is invaluable to CAP, and to the cadet personally in ANY career endeavor that they move on toward
9.  Is a definable, repeatable, teachable process
10.  Comparatively easy for 'joe blow' senior member in 'podunk squadron 123' to teach advise counsel, and evaluate

win. win. win. win. win. win. win. win. win. win.  vs at least 4 pretty major "loose's"

We shouldn't be trying to teach our cadets how to be good senior members - it's not the point of the program.

What exactly is the output of a (any) cadet program if not an officer???

I think if you look at cadets that stick to be highly effective senior members, it is the ones that go through the staff based SDA process.  those that never made officer or stagnate at the mitchell aren't (generallly speaking) our high calibur ex cadet senior members.  I'm sure there is an exception or two, but generally speaking...

Now WIWAC, the SDA process was much more poorly defined.  I had a deputy for cadets that made me write multiple pages on EACH LISTED TASK in the old SDA guide (some of those task lists had 20-30 tasks in them).  I became *proficient* in the minute details of 7 core squadron staff positions.  Technician and Senior qualification level proficient.  And when I became a senior member, for it, I was able to hold down *multiple* jobs right out of the gate.

I'm not suggesting that is what the SDA *should* be, but it was a more pure and ultimately more useful real-world application of the program than most people get.



Personally as I grade my cadet officers' SDA's, I don't really care about their reg citing and suspense listing.  I'm interested in the *CONTENT* of the section B questions.  What are the core skills and impacts?  How does this position affect the squadron's mission?  How does this position affect the cadets.   Learning and demonstrating the understanding of these key things is invaluable...  Learning HOW TO IDENTIFY these things, and proving it by articulating it in a short paragraph is an invaluable general skill in life outside of CAP.  I have seen very bright lights switch on when cadets "get it" about this stuff.  Position papers, (mere) activity proposals, AARs, and PLPs are never going to reach that level of substantive impact.  They are just going to be some meaningless empty busy work.  Incidentally that's exactly what people THINK the SDA is now, and are trying to get away from; in reality, they are running toward it, not away from it.

With regards to the NCAC and COS, quite frankly I wouldn't *EXPECT* them to see the value in it.  That's not meant as a dis on cadet officers (remember I was one, once).  I don't expect a cadet airman to fully understand all of the underlying principles behind drill, customs, and uniform excellence either...  Nor do I expect a cadet in phase 2 to fully comprehend the self confidence and assertiveness that comes with GIVING proper drill commands, and executing task teams (even if the task is 'get the latrines clean' or 'take out the trash').  I would expect that AFTER MASTERING those skills, upon reflection, the value lessons become more apparent than they are while you are simply 'enduring the suck' in the moment.  I think if you talk to most former cadet officers that actually did their SDA's you're going to hear that story...


Of courses all of this is for naught, this thing looks like it's going to pass pretty much unopposed in a few days.
But I can still rant and gnash my teeth and tear at my clothes anyway...  so I will

[tsrup]

Please go back and re-read the proposal and the comments.

Nothing in the proposal is suggesting that the problem is that the cadets "don't want to write."

No, your right that it isn't mentioned in the proposal, and if it were my proposal I wouldn't mention it as a reason either.  However it has been my experience involved with cadet programs (and I'm sure there are others in CP who agree with me) that this is the case. 
Sit down and get to the core of it, it's just the extra work that makes it difficult.  The steps are outlined very well, it's just taking the extra time to do the interview, do the research, and write the report that turns some people away.  It's easily cured with some pep talk and convincing that it really isn't that hard and they'll be better off in the long run.

Maybe I'm not giving all the Mitchell's out there their due credit, but that has been my experience thus far.

Indeed, our terrific CP staff has done everything in their power to write the 52-14 to try to make the legacy SDA program workable.

No arguments there.  CAPP 52-14 is an excellent resource, I wish there were more manuals written like it.

But the universal feedback from the field is that the SDA system does not function well, regardless of the good faith efforts of some excellent CP volunteers in the field.  One need only look at the feedback provided by the NCAC for confirmation.

fair enough, and I for one don't think that the SDA is a perfect system, however nothing truly ever is and I don't think this is a cause to abandon it.  Augment, update, and continue to grow the system, don't replace it with something that is truly a waste of a cadet's time.

Clearly the volunteer COS believes that learning the roles and responsiblity of staff officers is a "fundamental purpose" of the SDA program. 

Reasonable minds differ on that point, but neither is his comment in any way negative.

Why?  If there is one thing a student asks all the time is "where am I possibly going to need to use this?"
Learning the staff jobs that go into running a squadron gives that cadet a chance to see all of the things that they have learned put in to action, and also things that they may need to improve on. 

The SDA program has always been part of the Leadership component of the cadet program.  The proposal to earn technician ratings may be a nice thing, but it is not leadership training - the whole point of the cadet program.

Earning technician ratings is "technical training" in areas outside of the cadet program.  I'm not saying that cadets should not work in areas outside CP.  After all, many cadets play a vital role in ES.

But we should not get involved in calling ES (or any other techincal speciality in CAP) a form of leadership training.

Which is what the proposal is about - correcting a portion of the CP's leadership training.

And aren't each step of these achievements in phase 3 named after a staff position?  Isn't part of being a good leader properly utilizing your staff?  Aren't some of these cadets expected to serve in staff positions within their squadrons? 
How does the new program plan on doing it better?

The way I see it, we have two similar imperfect systems on the table.  One of them has the benefit (intended or not) of familiarizing a cadet with the way things run on the senior side, or at the very least, forces them to sit down and talk with a senior member in their squadron that they may have had little to no interaction with in their squadron.  This has the benefit of opening a cadets eyes to something new, and a senior member feeling a little bit more important because someone is taking the time to ask them about their job.

It seems silly, but it's one more silly thing that the SDA has over the current proposal.

But in keeping an open mind, sell me this new program.  Tell me why it's going to make all of my cadet's wildest dreams come true.  Tell me exactly where it's going to succeed where the SDA has failed.  Tell me what this program is going to do to develop the leaders of tomorrow that the SDA isn't doing.

If things are going to change, then it's going to change.  I'll have a new manual to read, and I'll salute and execute; and make sure my cadets know how to do it.  But it will be a sad day to see a program with much potential abandoned for another program that will surely be just as unpopular in the years to come.

[RiverAux]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another on the current program or the proposed change, but I do wonder why if the SDA was effective it hasn't been incorporated into the senior member program? 

Or, you could look at it from the opposite point of view and say why should cadets officers do it when the seniors (who hold the actual leadership positions being studied) don't? 

[jimmydeanno]

What exactly is the output of a (any) cadet program if not an officer???

Since our published goal for the program is to: "...provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community."

Does learning how to be a Civil Air Patrol Administration Officer develop their leadership skills through an interest in aviation?

We may want cadets to become senior members, but the objective of the program certainly shouldn't be to do so anymore than it should be the goal of the Boy Scout to become a Scout Master.

[Eclipse]

Does learning how to be a Civil Air Patrol Administration Officer develop their leadership skills through an interest in aviation?

Maybe, but learning to be an OPS officer certainly would.

[lordmonar]

What exactly is the output of a (any) cadet program if not an officer???

Since our published goal for the program is to: "...provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community."

Does learning how to be a Civil Air Patrol Administration Officer develop their leadership skills through an interest in aviation?

We may want cadets to become senior members, but the objective of the program certainly shouldn't be to do so anymore than it should be the goal of the Boy Scout to become a Scout Master.

Learning the real jobs of the organisation helps the cadets learn responsbiilty, time management, organsiation, attention to detail and other general management skills.

The admin officer is one of the key players in any squadron.  Expanding the cadet's horizons makes him/her a better leader.

The whole point of the SDA's is to get the cadet out of the "troop leading" role and into the "buisness managment" role.

[Eclipse]

Learning the real jobs of the organisation helps the cadets learn responsbiilty, time management, organsiation, attention to detail and other general management skills.

The admin officer is one of the key players in any squadron.  Expanding the cadet's horizons makes him/her a better leader.

The whole point of the SDA's is to get the cadet out of the "troop leading" role and into the "buisness managment" role.

On more thought I agree with this more than "maybe" - especially for Phase III & IV cadets.  By this point in their lives they should
start to realize just what a herculean effort it is to do things they take for granted - whether it is school, job, CAP, or their driver's license.

Far too many members, even seniors, think the whole thing runs itself and then complain then their 101 card is approved a day later than
they expected.

[jimmydeanno]

It seems to me that "general management skills" would be more effective if taught in the management portion of our cadet program.  Being a "manager" is certainly not within the scope of what cadets in Phase IV should be learning.  Strategic leadership is a bit further than "we have to turn in the CAPF 73 by the 5th of each month so that it can be entered into the system."

We have a tendency to keep our thinking down to the tactical/operational level, because that's where most of us live.  Remember that being a good manager doesn't equate to being a good leader, which is the actual goal of the cadet program.

If anything, I think you could only really argue that the SDA is an important development tool to Phase III cadets, and that Phase IV cadets would certainly need something different.  But, I think the whole SDA program stinks, badly.  At least with my cadets, by the time they write them, they already know what the person does and how it affects the cycle.  Practical application of those skills, in my opinion, would be far better than more book learnin'.