When is enough a enough?

[Lemur King]

So, you're a squadron commander and you have an individual in your unit who has been in CAP for over 30 years and knows his stuff. He is extremely resourceful, usually motivated and cares a great deal about the squadron's success.

The problem, he is an extremely tempermental chap and a good chunk of your time is spent calming him down and explaining to him that "we can't do things like ignore the Group Commander or not follow Wing policies." He also has a bad habit (when he is being a "Sad Panda) of "explaining" to any seniors who will listen what is wrong with CAP.

What would you do?

[RogueLeader]

Be glad it's not me.

But in all seriousness, ask these questions:

How frequently does he act up?
How disruptive is he?
Is he making the unit worse?
How much effect does he have on the other members?
How much effort does calming him down take?
What would losing him cost the squadron?
   Vital job?
    Mission Quals?

If most of the answers are not good, you may want to consider asking him to leave, or here are some other suggestions:

Ask him WHY he doesn't like things from wing or group- answers "because we never did it that way before," don't cut it.

Ask him how he thinks that things could be improved.

Remind him that there is a chain of command that we ALL have to follow, whether we really like it or not.

Ask him to try what is being sent from wing and group first.

If those work, great- you just saved a very good resource for the unit.  If it doesn't work out, you know it can't work- so ask him to leave.

[Al Sayre]

If he's been around CAP for 30 odd years, he should have enough rank and experience for a Group or Wing job.  Tell him if he really sees it as a big problem, apply for a position where he can do something about it.  "You can't fix the problem until you get close enough to turn the wrench."    Let him put up or shut up.  YMMV

[ddelaney103]

Get him a CAPTalk account - he seems to fit the profile.

[Dragoon]

"Target, cease fire!"   

[Eclipse]

4 words.

Shut up and color.

An insurgent, no matter how "resourceful and knowledgeable" is not an asset if he is not playing your game.

It is these uncomfortable conversations, which many unit CC's refuse to have, which are the core of CAP's issues.

[RogueLeader]

4 words.

Shut up and color.

An insurgent, no matter how "resourceful and knowledgeable" is not an asset if he is not playing your game.

It is these uncomfortable conversations, which many unit CC's refuse to have, which are the core of CAP's issues.

Isn't it not better to get him playing your game better than turning him out to pasture?  To be sure, do it if he refuses.  It creates less hard feelings, and it could avoid people becoming ReHa

[Eclipse]

Isn't it not better to get him playing your game better than turning him out to pasture?  To be sure, do it if he refuses.  It creates less hard feelings, and it could avoid people becoming ReHa

Yes.  I would never suggest a new CC, on day #2, start bouncing people he can't get along with, but there are limits to how much people will, and should put up with.

In my case, rather than confront the trouble makers, I chose to let them sow their descent, etc., and work my plan, giving them the option to either follow or be left behind.

All that bought me was a couple of years of pain, instead of getting it over quick.

Everyone deserves a fair shake, and the chance to be heard, but when it becomes counterproductive, or a broken record, conversations need to be had.

Allowing naysayers to become a loud voice in your room, just reduces your own command ability and credibility.  Members who know you and are on your page may just choose to ignore / marginalize the PITAs,  but what about the new guys?

Another thing I basically said (not that I abide by it myself all the time) was to check discussions about things out of our control at the door. 

[Eagle400]

An insurgent, no matter how "resourceful and knowledgeable" is not an asset if he is not playing your game.

I'm not being politically correct, but isin't there a better word to use than 'insurgent'?  I mean, this isin't war you know. 

[SarDragon]

From the online Merriam-Webster:

insurgent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

I think that's broad enough to fit the situation.

[afgeo4]

I think there's an old saying that says "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"

Experience and eagerness aren't everything. Sometimes you have to account for the other things the person has to bring to the table, the good and the bad.

I would try to channel it somewhere else. Perhaps up to HQ level as said previously or maybe an an autonomous position where he can create unit level policy that's in line with regulations, but where he would have less personal contact with people. Use his experience and expertise in that manner. It may work out.

It's usually sad to see people with so much experience go awry, but I've seen it before. Recently actually. Something happens with people who spend a loooooong time in an organization. Some grow complacent, some over-confident, and some simply want for things to go back to how they were. The latter isn't a bad thing, it's just one of nature's cruelties. After all, who's to say that things today ARE better than they were before? Who's to say they AREN'T?

Sorry... that way way too deep.

[floridacyclist]

Once upon a time we lost one of our key players like this. I won't name his position or how long ago it was, but the bottom line was that he thought he knew everything because he had been a cadet a long time ago and had spent forever in the RealMilitary@ since then. He refused to learn anything new since he knew it all already and was determined not to let any civillian tell him different...although by his refusal to follow orders, he was being extremely un-military regardless of who issued them. It was sad to see him go but the mood of the squadron improved tremendously without all the drama.

[IceNine]

Before the flaming starts I'm not pointing fingers.  There are people in command positions that due to tons of factors (inexperience/newness, lack of assertiveness, etc) that are unable to handle these types of people.  There may be no amount of talking, reassignment or other action that will allow . 

There are also times when however rare that an ultimatum will be the only option. 

[Hawk200]

From the online Merriam-Webster:

insurgent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

I think that's broad enough to fit the situation.

I wouldn't consider CAP a "political party". There may be politics, but "political party"?

How about just "bad apple"?

[ZigZag911]

Sometimes, when discussion, compromise, and counseling have been exhausted, there is no other alternative than to ask the individual to find another unit or face termination for cause (insubordination generally fits the circumstances, unfortunately).

It should be a last resort....but on the other hand, from bitter experience, I can tell you that letting it drag on too long is as bad for the unit as moving too quickly.

[O-Rex]

If a member is "motivated" and "cares a great deal about the squadron's success" then it stands to reason that they will try to work and play well with others.

Part of being a leader is persuading the member to get in line (note "persuading" and not "ordering.")  There are many forms, but people-skills are paramount.

That's not to say that you should get everyone to hold hands and sing "kumbaya;" some of the more seasoned folks are going to push the edge of the envelope, and see what they can or cannot get away with (particularly of the CC is a fairly young and/or inexperienced, which for some reason if often the case in CAP squadrons.)  Stand your ground tactfully and diplomatically.

There are two rules of CAP membership that are paramount:  Maintain your sense of perspective, and work within the organizational framework.  Failure in the former almost invariable leads to failure in the latter.

Regardless of what a person has done or can do, we have no use for a dispruptive member.   

[JCJ]

There is usually a group of dedicated people in each unit who gladly do the largely thankless jobs (LG, Finance, Admin, etc) so that most of the rest of us can fly, hike through the woods, and do cadet stuff.  It disrespects the time and effort of these individuals to allow someone to be so disruptive that he/she makes everyone else's job diffcult.  No one's getting a paycheck here, we all do this out of sense of duty, volunteerism or just plain fun.  Boundaries and clear expectations are important here.  If the individual can modify his behavior so that he can be a member of the team without making everyone else's CAP service unpleasant, then he will likely be a great asset.  If he can't or won't do that, he's got to go.