Performance Reviews for CAP Officers

[RiverAux]

Would having a system of reviewing the performance of CAP Officers regularly (every year?) be something that would be of use in professionalizing the organization?  After all, this is a common practice in just about every job, civilian and military. 

Areas to be reviewed would be:
1.  Participation rate in squadron meetings. 
2.  Willingness to take on staff positions and actually perform the duties. 
3.  If received initial appointment for mission-related or professional duties, have they achieved qualification in that ES specialty or are they performing the professional duties they were bringint to us?
4.  For those who participate in ES we would want to evaluate their participation in SAREXs and actual missions.  Are they showing up as much as can be reasonably expected given their job, etc? 
4.  I'm open for suggestions for other areas, but lets not get too carried away.  Remember this would be a new burden on squadron commanders. 

I would have this review be something that the commander would fill out online.  It would have numeric values for the various ratings for easy database storage, plus some room for comments if necessary.  The next commander up would have to review and approve them. 

Why should a member care about their review?  At a minimum I would suggest that a member must receive at least a certain rating on their last review in order to promote. 

For all those Lt. Cols that are maxed out or others that don't care about promotion, unsat ratings would result in the member being placed on probation and given three months to fix things.  If after three months no real progress was made, I wouldn't be adverse to revoking some privileges (Would need to develop a list from which options could be selected by the CC depending on the situation).  If after 6 months since the unsat rating no progress has been made all ES and flying quals would be suspended and they would be transferred to the ghost/Reserve squadron.  If 6 more months goes by and they don't fix things they will get kicked out. 

If a member needs to take a break for some reason they will be transferred to the ghost/reserve squadron with no privlieges for as long as they want to pay membership dues and they can return and start fresh with no penalty in the future. 

Now, this is closely related to the "active member" issue that DNall talks about regularly, but I don't recall seeing a proposal for a formal review process.  If I have, I apologize for any inadvertent plagarism.

I think that this would put new members on notice that CAP expects them to keep active throughout their career and would make it harder for burn-outs to just coast through CAP enjoying the benefits without making any serious contribution.   

Also, I think it would make squadron commanders understand the seriousness of their job duties a little more.  This would actually make them start thinking a little more as if they were actually in charge of something.  We would probably need some slightly different methods to evaluate squadron commanders.  Not on paperwork junk, but how they're actually leading their units. 

Thoughts?

[shorning]

Why are you so fired up to kick people out?

[arajca]

One thing missing on this (or maybe I missed it) when does the member see/sign their review?
Would there be a "Member refused to sign" check box?

[Al Sayre]

You are going to have to lay out some VERY specific criteria for the ratings.  I have filled out enough evaluations for my troops WIWAS to know that if there is any chance of a grade being arbitrary, you are going to have a battle on your hands as Commander, and maybe a lawsuit since we are volunteers. 

I can still hear a few voices ringing in my ears "I didn't get promoted and it's all your fault, cause you don't like me and screwed me on my evals!  This is all about politics!" 

My reply back then was "Wah F...... Wah, suck it up sailor", but you can't say things like that to volunteers and expect them to hang around.

...JMHO

[lordmonar]

While on the surface...a written performance report would not necessarily be a bad thing...a nice way to give some formal feed back to you squadron members.

On the other side of things...why do it?  I mean...if you are not going to use if for promotion purposes like we do on active duty.  What good will it do?

If Capt B. O'Dirt is not ready for promotion you tell him so when he hands you his CAPF2 for his promotion to to Maj.  You can explain right then and there why and be done with it.

If 2d Lt I. M. Highspeed gets all top markings on his rateings...what can he do with it?  Will it get him promoted faster?

Performance report are used to rack and stack candidates for a limited number of ranks.  In CAP we don't have that. 

Requiring PR's would be a paperwork nightmare.  Can you imagine doing 100 PR's for all your senior members?  You are either doing 10 per month or 100 all at once.

Increasing the work load on our squadron commanders is not really a good idea.

[Al Sayre]

Were already supposed to be doing them for Cadets at least once per phase.  I understand the value, but I've got 30 Cadets to deal with, seems like by the time I owrk my way through them all, they'll be promoting again and I have to start all over...

[Major_Chuck]

Performance reviews for volunteers who receive no financial compensation or reward is a bad idea.  I understand and see why you are wanting to do it but it is not going to work.

For the first thing, it is subjective to the whims of the evaluator.  Captain Fuzzy may not like Lieutenant Dorf so he writes him a bad review, then that ends up following Lieutenant Dorf long after Captain Fuzzy is gone.

Not everyone has experience or the ability to write a fair and honest justification.  We've talked about the 'good old boy' syndrome, this will just shore that up.

I'm a Major with close to 17 years CAP experience.  I am not as active as I was 12 years ago when I was really gung ho.  My priorities and commitments have changed.  I don't attend all meetings because I've got real world obligations.  To have someone put me on probation because of this my first response would first to tear it up and then most likely quit.

l

[RiverAux]

Why are you so fired up to kick people out?

I'm not.  I think most of us here are interested in increasing the professionalism of the CAP Officer corps.  I think one of the ways of doing this is starting to demand that our members act like professionals.  If a member just wants to pay dues and not do anything else, I'm more than happy to have them be a member of the ghost/reserve squadron for 25 years.  However, if they want to do the "fun stuff", they need to do some of the not-so-fun work as well. 

One thing missing on this (or maybe I missed it) when does the member see/sign their review? Would there be a "Member refused to sign" check box?

This obviously wasn't a full proposal but I assume there would be something like that, just like there is in "real life". 

You are going to have to lay out some VERY specific criteria for the ratings

I agree, everything needs to be as specific as possible and as simple as possible.

if you are not going to use if for promotion purposes like we do on active duty.  What good will it do?

I did suggest that it be part of the promotion process.  I envision it as being grafted onto the current requirements.  Do the time in grade, required courses, whatever, but you don't get promoted unless you've got satisfactory ratings.  As has been discussed in another thread, commanders have some limited authority in this area but there are absolutely no standards and it is totally subjective.  That is not acceptable. 

Performance report are used to rack and stack candidates for a limited number of ranks.  In CAP we don't have that.

Actually we do in some areas--- there are only so many seats in an airplane.  But, why shouldn't we expect a little bit more from our people?  We all know a lot of folks who got technician and higher ratings in some skill based on holding a staff job that they never actually performed.  They just had their name on the assignment roster for a period of time, but never did much.  Having some actual evaluations involved of their performance might inspire them to actually do the job.  Why not expect people to do some of the staff jobs? 

If a guy wants to join CAP, get some ES ratings, and attends meetings but doesn't do anything beyond that to help with the real work in CAP (staff jobs), I'm fine with not promoting him until he steps up and goes beyond the minimums.

Increasing the work load on our squadron commanders is not really a good idea.

If it gets more members actually doing some of the squadron grunt work in order to keep good ratings so they can go fly holes in the sky it might reduce some of the other paperwork burdens directly on the commander. 

Not everyone has experience or the ability to write a fair and honest justification.

I'm not talking about writing .... numerical scores only.  And if a squadron commander doesn't have the ability to evaluate the performance of the people under them then they shouldn't be in the job.  That is a critical part of being a leader. 

I am not as active as I was 12 years ago when I was really gung ho.  My priorities and commitments have changed.  I don't attend all meetings because I've got real world obligations.  To have someone put me on probation because of this my first response would first to tear it up and then most likely quit.

I didn't get into the specifics of what the sat/unsat requirements would be.  I certainly wouldn't expect 95%+ attendenace, but there has to be some level that is a minimum.  I'm not stuck on a specific number, but personally I think that if someone is attending less than 50% of the meetings I will be questioning their committment to the organization.  Everyone understands other personal committments come up and I'm all for giving a lot of slack for stuff like that, but it can only go so far.  I know that at least locally cadets regularly ask for leaves of absence if they need to back off for a while and I've got no problem with doing something like that for officers. 

[PA Guy]

This thread is just another example of why grade  for seniors is a joke. Let's just get rid of it. Riv Aux, you refer to privileges and benefits being witheld for poor performance. What are those privileges and benefits?

[Dragoon]

Performance Reviews, done correctly, help increase discipline in the workforce.

The key is "done correctly."

If we wanted to add performance reviews, we'd also need

1.  Clearcut standards for every job position (20-1 don't cut it)

2.  Training for all supervisors who conduct performance reviews, probably on a yearly basis.

3.  A much more secure record keeping system, to ensure these reviews are stored, only available to folks who have a right to read them, and secured from anyone changing or deleting them.

4.  Personnel to suspense the system, ensure the reviews are submitted on time and are quality checked for completeness.

5.  An appeals system that allows a member to contest an unfair rating (expect a LOT of use of this thing).


Without all of this, we end up with something that is likely to just be divisive and suck up a commander's time.  For those reasons, I don't think it's very feasible



In general terms, the question is how to increase the the professionalism of the members WITHOUT additional resources.  Unless we think we can get a few million from USAF to support the improvement effort.

[DogCollar]

I joined CAP in order to serve my community in a volunteer setting, while making the best usage of my skill set.  I enjoy working with the cadets...that is good use of my time.  I am working on my ES rating (joined in June this year) so that I can be a mission chaplain if called upon.  I will do what is asked of me to the best of my abilities and as time allows.  However, I will not stress out about my professionalism and, frankly, I wouldn't give any weight whatsover to a Performance Review.  Promotions are nice, but that isn't my motivation for being in CAP.  I am first and foremost a volunteer who wants to give back! 

I wonder if confidential peer reviews wouldn't help achieve some of the same goals?  For example Squadron Chaplains reviewing other Squadron Chaplains, Commanders reviewing Commanders, etc...  The goals would be to (1) uphold the standards of CAP (2) offer guidance in areas of struggle (3) provide collegial support (4) enhance the effectiveness of that senior member in the performance of his/her duties.  I would want this to be confidential, with Wing/Group notified only that a peer review was performed, and with no personal consequences unless it was discovered that the person being reviewed is engaged in illegal activities.

This is just my opinion.  I enjoy reading everyones ideas.

[Al Sayre]

Welcome Chaplain!  Peer reviews are a good tool I'll agree, but there are many places where the logistics of it are prohibitive.  In my Wing, most squadrons are separated by 50-100 miles.  How can you do a peer review of a Commander, Chaplain or other staff positions if you don't see them interact with their respective Squadrons on at least 2 or 3 occcasions?  I have trouble making it from work to my own Squadrons meetings on time because of distance (52 miles from home, 90 miles from work).  It would be a real hardship for me and other Commanders to drive 3-4 hours to any other squadron to watch the meetings and then back home and try to get up for work at 4:00 a.m. 

[ZigZag911]

How about this?

1) Have officers set personal, professional, departmental goals early in their service,
    and again early each year (calendar, fiscal, whatever)
    Review & revise with immediate supervisor (generally deputy for seniors or
    cadets)

2) Have officers prepare an annual self-evaluation based on accomplishments and
    standardized officer effectiveness report (OER) form -- several wings have a
    version absed in military forms.

     This should be reviewed, revised, discussed with supervisor & unit commander (chief of staff in higher echelons) ....should lead to setting further goals, or editing standing ones

Hopefully this would be positive, professional, and provide leadership an opportunity to mentor members.

[Dragoon]

How about this?

1) Have officers set personal, professional, departmental goals early in their service,
    and again early each year (calendar, fiscal, whatever)
    Review & revise with immediate supervisor (generally deputy for seniors or
    cadets)

2) Have officers prepare an annual self-evaluation based on accomplishments and
    standardized officer effectiveness report (OER) form -- several wings have a
    version absed in military forms.

     This should be reviewed, revised, discussed with supervisor & unit commander (chief of staff in higher echelons) ....should lead to setting further goals, or editing standing ones

Hopefully this would be positive, professional, and provide leadership an opportunity to mentor members.

I think that's a viable plan.  A basis for improvement rather than a disciplinary tool.

However, I'd suggest it doesn't apply to all members.  After all the "just a pilot" or "just the testing officer because my kid's a cadet" kind of member really doesn't need it. (And regardless of their rank, they really acting as officers)

[DogCollar]

I will learn how to use quotes another day...but thanks Al Sayre for the welcome, and I see your point.

I offered the idea of a Peer Review because I think it's the best tool for enhancing performance.  Yet, it doesn't work for every situation. Whatever is offered, I don't think rewards should be offered for "good reviews" or punitive consequences for "negative reviews."  The purposes of any review should be to correct and enhance!

[DNall]

I think peer/performance reviews (adult version of Fm50) would be a good thing, but honestly meaningless for the purpose intended. Because standards vary so widely from unit to unit, you may go to one of those Boy Scout AE focused day cares & see a Ranger get a bad review for trying to instill military discipline where people don't want it. You can't standardize local performance on biased local review.

[Monty]

We sort of do a quasi-performance review for our officers when it comes time for them to promote.  We have a squadron form that consists of several attributes with the means to rate each attribute on a 1-5 scale.

(It's actually what I use so that I can fairly determine if the person is ready to be promoted, given that no promotions are automatic.  It also helps me to not play favorites when everybody has to go through the same considerations on the same form before I'll put my name on their promotion and send it to NHQ or to my boss.)

I go through and answer the same questions for company grade promotions, bearing in mind that it's a little harder to get a higher mark for a Capt than a 2d Lt.  (Nothing unreasonable, of course; we're CAP, meeting 2.5 hours per week, not 24/7 like my USAF days.)  When all's said and done, I tally an average and if it is within a certain amount, their good to go with no further comment; a lesser amount, they're good but we need to meet, and an even lesser amount means that I'll rethink the matter in a month.

As always, they'll get my form that I use to rate how they are to do with as they wish.

It's worked great for us; my officers know what I rate them high in, they know what they need to tweak, and they see a fair estimate of how I consider them to be as I send in their promotion.

The option exists for us to do one outside of a promotion but nobody's asked and I've not offered...I'm not entirely convinced that outside of the day I have to consider them for promotion, that any feedback on a paper should overtake what I can tell them to their faces.

[RiverAux]

I see this as part of the overall improvement package for CAP and not a stand-alone idea.  It would take a real dedication to professionalism at all levels to work. 

As to having to do it for 100 senior members, just how many squadrons out there actually have 100 senior members?  The average in CAP is somewhere around 30.  And if some of the inactive members were fairly quickly transferred to the ghost/reserve squadron you would probably only be talking about 20-25 people. 

As to local standards being different, I'm not talking about grading the folks on how well they fit in, but rather on the amount of dedication they are showing to the organization and in developing their own skills. 
If the member is only attending 20% of the meetings and hasn't received a leave of absence or whatever technique we want to use to give people some slack every now and again for personal reasons, they they would probably get an unsat on that criteria. 

And how about this as a general question?  Why do we devote a lot of time to trying to develop leadership abilities in our cadets, evaluate them regularly, expect them to meet uniform standards, expect them to attend meetings regularly, but don't do or expect any of this from our Officers? 

Take a look at the form 50s for the various levels.  You could almost graft them into the Senior Member training program for what we would expect out of our Officers at various levels in their CAP careers. 

[RiverAux]

After all the "just a pilot" or "just the testing officer because my kid's a cadet" kind of member really doesn't need it. (And regardless of their rank, they really acting as officers)

1.  My kids a cadet member -- if they are not actively helping the squadron by taking part, then they don't need to be there. 

2.  Just a pilot members:  If somebody joins CAP just to fly and doesn't want to do any staff jobs or any of the grunt work, I suppose thats fine.  But, they should know up front that they will be on the very tail end of the alert roster and o-ride call sheet.  If the squadron ever gets to the point where they honestly have all the jobs filled with people actively working in them (and not just filling a blank on the chart), and each of those officers has an assistant actively working with them then MAYBE we could have room for people to be "just a pilot". 

People have to acknowledge that in order to make the organization work we need people to do a lot of grunt/office work.  Frankly, I'm not sure its always worth our time to train up the "just a pilots" to CAP standards.  We will get more bang for our buck training up a multi-tasker. 

Your normal flying squadron with 1 plane assigned to it really doesn't need more than 6-9 pilots to ensure a 100% probability of having someone ready to fly the plane 24/7.  There are many more slots on the org chart than that. 

The guy that wants to be "just a pilot" needs to remember Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."  In CAP, the power is the airplane and the airplane is staff work. 

[ZigZag911]

I see this as part of the overall improvement package for CAP and not a stand-alone idea.  It would take a real dedication to professionalism at all levels to work. 

As to having to do it for 100 senior members, just how many squadrons out there actually have 100 senior members?  The average in CAP is somewhere around 30.  And if some of the inactive members were fairly quickly transferred to the ghost/reserve squadron you would probably only be talking about 20-25 people. 

Commander would do direct reports on (imagining a composite squadron) both deputies, safety officer, perhaps the chaplain... total = 4

DCS would prepare reports for  department heads (who would write for any assistants)

DCC would do his staff reports (leadership, activities, etc)

[Dragoon]

After all the "just a pilot" or "just the testing officer because my kid's a cadet" kind of member really doesn't need it. (And regardless of their rank, they really acting as officers)

1.  My kids a cadet member -- if they are not actively helping the squadron by taking part, then they don't need to be there. 

Yeah, but sometimes "actively helping" involves nothing more than occasionally driving some kids in the van.  No squadron commander is going to turn down that help, but neither does such minimal commitment require some kind of performance evaluation.

2.  Just a pilot members:  If somebody joins CAP just to fly and doesn't want to do any staff jobs or any of the grunt work, I suppose thats fine.  But, they should know up front that they will be on the very tail end of the alert roster and o-ride call sheet.  If the squadron ever gets to the point where they honestly have all the jobs filled with people actively working in them (and not just filling a blank on the chart), and each of those officers has an assistant actively working with them then MAYBE we could have room for people to be "just a pilot".  )

People have to acknowledge that in order to make the organization work we need people to do a lot of grunt/office work.  Frankly, I'm not sure its always worth our time to train up the "just a pilots" to CAP standards.  We will get more bang for our buck training up a multi-tasker. 

Your normal flying squadron with 1 plane assigned to it really doesn't need more than 6-9 pilots to ensure a 100% probability of having someone ready to fly the plane 24/7.  There are many more slots on the org chart than that. 

The guy that wants to be "just a pilot" needs to remember Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."  In CAP, the power is the airplane and the airplane is staff work. 

Sounds good - but it doesn't normally work that way. First, having a "just a pilot" who's work (or retirement) allows them to answer the call almost any time is EXTREMELY valuable - I can't see not using the guy because he won't be your squadron admin officer as well.  Second, most units not only have to man the planes, they are required to put X hours on the plane in order to keep it.  Right or wrong, that's how the game is played.  And every "just a pilot" who pays for an hour of proficiency flying each month helps the unit keep their utilization rate up and therefore keep the plane. 

And in any case, no reason to evaluate that guy on a staff job he doesn't hold!


Now, if you've got a choice between the "cadet chaperone"  and the full fledged cadet programs officer, I know who I'd take.  Ditto the choice between "just a pilot" and the full fledged flight rated squadron operations officer.

But normally, that choice isn't there - there aren't enough applicants to allow most squadrons to turn away useful help, in any quantity.

(Truth in advertising - as a squadron commander, I only accepted folks who were willing to commit to attend all meetings and hold a staff job.  It worked out OK, but there were always the exceptions, like the CFI who was willing to do checkrides all day long but didn't want to attend staff meetings, and the guy was willing to fix the van for us, but was really lousy at staff work.  I got better compliance than many units, but still had to compromise a lot.)

[arajca]

The only comment I have on the "just a pilot" mindset is that one (or more) of those "just a pilot" types needs to step up and maintain the pilot specific paperwork.

[lordmonar]

Again...on the surface...a formal evalution process is a good thing.  It allow you to give feed back to your troops to let them know where they stand and what is expected of them.

But....adminstratively is it necessary...if I am going to task all my commanders to make sure all their people get these done, what is in it for them.

I, as a commander, am the only one who should be doing the evaluation because I am the promotion approval authrity (even for Lt Col and Maj).  It must gove over my desk first before it goes to wing.

If as we say...most squadrons are small...I should know all of my SMs and do not need a piece of paper to determine if they are ready for promotion.

Likewise...if a member is a staff officer who is not up to snuff....I don't NEED to do a formal review to help him get up to snuff.

That is my only complaint of a formal PR system.  Those that are working for you and doing a good job and continuing their PD are ready for promotion when you sign their 2a.  Those that are just sitting on their current level of PD, maintaining their mission readiness and or meeting their commitmenst do not need to have PR's done of them because they do not want/need to be promoted.

If on the other hand you got some guy who you never see but once a quarter and he somehow completed his promotion requirments shows up one day with a 2a for you to sign.....its a no brainer to disapprove it and tell him why and be done with it.

But requiring annual PR's for all (even you inactives) is more a waste of your commanders and suprvisors time. IMHO.

[Monty]

Again...on the surface...<snippers>

But requiring annual PR's for all (even you inactives) is more a waste of your commanders and suprvisors time. IMHO.

Agreed.  I suppose I should clarify that when my folks give me their promotion forms, I go ahead and do the feedback form (that is strangely similar - though not exact - to an AF officer's form) for their benefit, more than mine.  And of course, to keep me grounded when it comes time to thinking if they're ready.

I'm human and am more apt to be kind in practice with someone that e-mails and calls me with updates on their stuff...and I might forget that so and so has a hard time turning in reports on time.  Once confronted with the squadron-specific evaluation form I have, I can run down the list and rate my folks so as to make a well-balanced determination, give the form to the promotee, and let 'em know that the things that I considered less than perfect should be where their emphasis is as they work to their next grade.

I've also had people that were about as socially decent as a case of prostate cancer who, when evaluated on the same attributes, still were able to score sufficient to get my endorsement for promotion.  Of course, they got their form back with my recommendations for a social shift.  (I.e., "she had a face that could stop a clock" and "her image made time stand still" are the same thing, but one is a bit more socially acceptable to say.)

[DNall]

Well we have a Fm50 for cadets to be done once each phase, plus for activity graduations, & as often past that as you wish - I have a sit down counseling session w/ them & a couple of their superior cadets... at roughly every other promotion, at least once a quarter. It's the only time I let down the wall & talk to them openly about how I think they're doing & what I'd like to see them work on, the rest of the time I do that thru C/Off & NCO staff.

I think it might be appropriate to come up with similiar form for adults. One that might be used as mentioned for promotion reviews, also for specialty track mentor reviews, and it can be recommended to use at least once a year w/ each member, but nothing mandatory, for now. I do think there's already too much load down on extremly understaffed local units. I also don't think you can get anything meaningful out of the forms beyond the local level at this point, cause you just can't enforce an even standard when there's so much uneven-ness in each aspect from one unit to another. All bigger problems not helped by this process... but an optional form there to help you manage your people if you choose to use it, I could go for that.

[lordmonar]

Well we have a Fm50 for cadets to be done once each phase, plus for activity graduations, & as often past that as you wish - I have a sit down counseling session w/ them & a couple of their superior cadets... at roughly every other promotion, at least once a quarter. It's the only time I let down the wall & talk to them openly about how I think they're doing & what I'd like to see them work on, the rest of the time I do that thru C/Off & NCO staff.

I think it might be appropriate to come up with similiar form for adults. One that might be used as mentioned for promotion reviews, also for specialty track mentor reviews, and it can be recommended to use at least once a year w/ each member, but nothing mandatory, for now. I do think there's already too much load down on extremly understaffed local units. I also don't think you can get anything meaningful out of the forms beyond the local level at this point, cause you just can't enforce an even standard when there's so much uneven-ness in each aspect from one unit to another. All bigger problems not helped by this process... but an optional form there to help you manage your people if you choose to use it, I could go for that.

Oh I'll go along with that...everyone who gets promoted gets a feed back to where he stands and where he aught to be going.  That way you are focusing you efforts on those who need it.

[ZigZag911]

 

Sounds good - but it doesn't normally work that way. First, having a "just a pilot" who's work (or retirement) allows them to answer the call almost any time is EXTREMELY valuable - I can't see not using the guy because he won't be your squadron admin officer as well.

Active participants in the flying program -- mission pilots & aircrew, transport pilots, orientation pilots, check pilots -- are actively contributing....normally one finds these folks involved in AE, ES training, and so forth....often serving in Ops Officer, ES, Stan/Eval or Safety roles.

These are not 'just pilots'.

The ones who simply want to fly at a reduced rate, however, without pitching in to some aspect of the CAP program, we really don't need

Tags - MIKE

[ZigZag911]

I, as a commander, am the only one who should be doing the evaluation because I am the promotion approval authrity (even for Lt Col and Maj).  It must gove over my desk first before it goes to wing.

As commander you should be the FINAL evaluator within the unit....what the military calls 'senior rater'.  Your comments would tend to be more generic, concerning the person's overall attitude, performance, and leadership potential.

Assuming you are delegating supervisory tasks, the officer an individual reports to is best suited to comment directly on his/her performance, initially.

[DNall]

The ones who simply want to fly at a reduced rate, however, without pitching in to some aspect of the CAP program, we really don't need

No kidding!!!

[Hoser]

First, CAP is a volunteer organization therefore performance reviews are meaningless and counterproductive. I wouldn't give you two dead flies for them. Second, professionalism cannot be mandated. It is a quality and attitude that an individual has and fosters and helps spread throughout an oprganization, by example and by enthusiasm. If an individual sits on his keister and does nothing, or is a whiner, A#$h*&! but does nothing outside the regs, i.e. moral terpitude, blatant insubordination, etc, then there really is nothing that can be done officially. The unofficial channels provide for more options....... the cold shoulder, "forgetting to pass on information about activities" etc. My experience has been these folks will go the way of the dodo.
That is my opinion, I could be wrong

Hoser

[RiverAux]

When we talked about "just a pilots" we meant people that just wanted to fly and do absolutely nothing else.  If they're holding an Ops position they're not "just a pilot".  If they're doing AE, CP, etc. in addition, they are not "just a pilot". 

It is a quality and attitude that an individual has and fosters and helps spread throughout an oprganization, by example and by enthusiasm.

That is true, but the problem is that CAP really doesn't try to do that at all with its Officers while reviews are an integral part of leadership development in the cadet program.  Why can't a similar system work to develop adult leaders?