CAP Chain of Command

[Thom]

I think there is a difference between how things work for cadets and for seniors in this area.  Cadets are actually organized more along the traditional lines and that flight commander is actually pretty much in charge of his flight.  Just as a Army squad leader is in charge of his squad.  That new cadet airman pretty much has to work through his flight leader for everything. 

However, that Asst. Personnel Officer only deals with the Personnel Officer on Personnel issues only, which is only a small part of that member's CAP life.   The Personnel Officer has absolutely no authority over him in any other area.

The best way I have seen this summarized is thus:

In CAP, the Unit Commander COMMANDS, the Staff Officer, within their assigned office/function is allowed/required to SUPERVISE and DIRECT their Assistant Staff Officers.  But, the Staff Officer never COMMANDS.

Essentially, the DP (Personnel Officer) can tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to only complete Cadet forms at this meeting, save the Senior forms until the next meeting.  That is SUPERVISION and DIRECTION within the functional limits of the Personnel office/function, it is not COMMAND.

Similarly, the DP can NOT tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to take the Squadron van and drive the Cadets to the other end of the airfield for Orientation flights.  The Unit Commander can tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to do that.  The Deputy Commander for Cadets could tell the Asst. Cadet Programs Officer to take the van and drive the cadets, since s/he would be DIRECTing and SUPERVISING within the limits of the Cadet Program.

But, the DP can NOT tell the Asst. Personnel Officer to do that task, since it has nothing to do with the Personnel function.  The DP only SUPERVISES and DIRECTS the Asst. Personnel Officer within the bounds of the Personnel office/function.

Is that a little clearer?

To have a strict 'chain of command' through one's supervisor in each officer/function would make little sense in CAP since many (most?) officers have more than one role, hence they would have multiple commanders.  Just as an example, I am the Asst. Admin Officer, Asst. Personnel Officer, and the IT Officer for my Squadron.  So, I'm a Staff Officer in the IT area, and an Assistant in two other areas.  Where would my chain of command go in a strict scenario?  To the Squadron Commander, the Admin Officer, or the Personnel Officer?

Thom

[RADIOMAN015]

Well if you are a staff officer in a squadron (e.g. communications officer) you have a functional counterpart at wing that is supervising the overall program.   IF you are asked to do something by the functional supervisor, even though not in your direct chain of command, it is reasonable to comply.

Of course if you have any real heart burn with the request you can go back to the functional supervisor at wing and you could also bring your commander (and eventually wing chief of staff, etc) into it.

Generally, I think it is important to have a good rapport with your functional counterparts at higher headquarters. 

RM
 

[lordmonar]

Thom,

You can't mix your metaphors.

In a strict sense you would only have one job in CAP....You would have only one boss and all of your subordinates would know that you are their one and only boss.

That you have several hats is a problem in and of itself.....but that only makes your chain of command blurred...not the chain of command of any of your subordinates.

You are the IT Officer....and the Asst PD and Asst CP let's say.....your assistant IT officer's chain is him, you, and the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  When you where your Asst PD hat....he is no longer in your chain...your chain is now you the PD officer, the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  That sucks for you.....I would suggest dropping a job.

That CAP can screw up something as simple as the chain of command is not suprising....but we as leaders should know that even if we got a web of command instead of a proper chain.....the basic concept of one and only one boss should not get lost.  The concept that just because an officer is a "staff officer" he looses authority over subordinates is just silly and asinine.

[Thom]

Thom,

You can't mix your metaphors.

In a strict sense you would only have one job in CAP....You would have only one boss and all of your subordinates would know that you are their one and only boss.

That you have several hats is a problem in and of itself.....but that only makes your chain of command blurred...not the chain of command of any of your subordinates.

You are the IT Officer....and the Asst PD and Asst CP let's say.....your assistant IT officer's chain is him, you, and the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  When you where your Asst PD hat....he is no longer in your chain...your chain is now you the PD officer, the Deputy Commander for Seniors.  That sucks for you.....I would suggest dropping a job.

That CAP can screw up something as simple as the chain of command is not suprising....but we as leaders should know that even if we got a web of command instead of a proper chain.....the basic concept of one and only one boss should not get lost.  The concept that just because an officer is a "staff officer" he looses authority over subordinates is just silly and asinine.

And yet, all of Corporate America works in this manner.  I have a Supervisor on each project, in the form of a Project Manager, but they are NOT my boss, they merely Supervise me on that project.  Their ability to Direct me to do things is limited to the scope of that Project.  My Boss remains my boss, no matter what (or how many) Projects I am working on.

I don't find it confusing at all, and I believe the OBC course materials make it fairly clear that this is the model CAP is teaching and applying.

I would submit that if you find this model so objectionable, prepare a proposal to go up your chain of command to the National Board to enforce a 'strict' chain of command and limit CAP officers to a single position, with a rigidly defined role of superior and subordinate.

But, it seems that your idea of 'chain of command' does not agree with the model that CAP is teaching to its officers, and using in actual practice in units throughout the country.

I would also note that in reference to your comments that, "That you have several hats is a problem in and of itself," in reference to the fact that I currently fill multiple Staff Officer/Assistant Staff Officer positions, is addressed directly by CAP in the OBC course materials.  They reference the fact that most CAP units do not have the ideal number of persons to adequately staff all positions, and so some officers will be forced to hold multiple positions.

Again, if you find this objectionable, you need only get the National Board to make a new rule forbidding it.  I would note that the outcome is likely to be that the Unit Commanders simply end up shouldering more jobs, but in any case your objections to the CAP view of chain of command could be dealt with.

Thom

[raivo]

I believe the general idea is that only one person at each level (in your chain of command) is in charge of *you* personally. You may have responsibilities in your job that require following policies or directives from people at a higher echelon, who are not directly in your chain of command - which, again, goes back to the concept of delegated authority.

Point in case: If you're the squadron IT officer, the wing IT officer is not in your chain of command. That being said, you would be required to follow any IT-related directives coming from the wing IT officer, as those directives are implicitly backed by the authority of the wing commander.

However, I have in the past seen members take on roles at the group/wing level and pick up a certain "attitude" that operating at a higher echelon automatically places them above you in the CAP pecking order. If I'm the squadron IT officer, and the group finance officer decides to give me crap, he's going to get told to go jump in a lake.

Courteously, of course.

[lordmonar]

Thom....what is a boss?

[Thom]

Thom....what is a boss?

As the most basic answer:  A Boss can Fire you, a Supervisor/Director can only yell at you.

And, this ties in pretty well with CAP's version of things.  The Personnel Officer can not 2b the Asst. Personnel Officer, only the Unit Commander can do that (or his designee, but in any case not merely a Staff Officer by way of their Staff position.)

If the Personnel Officer can neither promote, demote, nor fire me, then is he supposed to be my Boss?

Again, I don't find this a particularly difficult concept, and apparently neither does most of Corporate America.

And, I understand the Military strict chain of command, and the 'single boss' concept, and I don't find them to be objectionable at all.  But they do require a certain 'commitment' to staffing and roles that CAP simply doesn't have right now.

Again, I'll refer to the CAP OBC course materials as being 'peer reviewed' and representing what CAP is teaching to new officers as part of their Level II PD education.  If you disagree with what they are teaching, run a proposal up the chain to change it.

Thom

[Cecil DP]

Don't confuse Chain of Command with Chain of Support.  Chain of Command is the relationship between you and the various echelons of the Civil Air Patrol. Chain of Support is the  relationship between the various echelons in your job or duty position. IE The Wing DP will set or implement a policy through the authority delegated to him by the Wing Commander IE All duty Performance Promotions to Major or LtCol will be on a CAPF2, rather than electronicly.  He cannot order you to do anything, outside of the scope of the personnel field and as prescribed in the CAP Regulations and Wing supplements.

[DG]

And yet, all of Corporate America works in this manner. 

I don't find it confusing at all, and I believe the OBC course materials make it fairly clear that this is the model CAP is teaching and applying.

I would submit that if you find this model so objectionable, prepare a proposal to go up your chain of command to the National Board to enforce a 'strict' chain of command and limit CAP officers to a single position, with a rigidly defined role of superior and subordinate.

But, it seems that your idea of 'chain of command' does not agree with the model that CAP is teaching to its officers, and using in actual practice in units throughout the country.

Thom

OK.

Except for one thing.

All of "Corporate America" has been working for many, many years to flatten the vertical chain of command.

To create a horizontal organization chart.

Why?  To get things done.

Otherwise, and from all of the discussion here, one gets the impression that an extensive vertical chain of command is far more important than getting business accomplished quickly and competitively, with quality and timely value.

[lordmonar]

Thom,

For the sake of argument let's use the term supervisor.....

So in a perfect world most squadron members would have only one job.

That one job would have one person who is the supervisor who works for another supervisor all the way up until you get to the unit commander.

This is why we have an organsation chart.

My point being.....brand new Mr. SMWOG Newguy who is going to be an assistant personnel officer has a "chain of command" that goes through the personnel officer as his primary supervisor.  Even if the personnel officer can't fire anyone he is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

This is in line with the definition of the line VS Staff officer definition in the OBC...because the personnel officer is both a line officer and staff officer at the same time.

He is line when it comes to the people he directly supervises and he a staff officer when it come to personnel issues involving the entire squadron.

Just like the cadet flight sergeant (with absolutely no power to do anything to his flight members) is in the chain of command the squadron Personnel Offier (with no power to do anything to his staff members) is also in the chain of command.

[Eclipse]

Even if the personnel officer can't fire anyone he is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

No, he is in an operational chain of command, and related only and purely to duties of a personnel officer.

The personnel officer would have no say in any ES activity, promotions, discipline (outside dereliction of personnel duties), or anything else this member does.

Some companies would refer to this as a "group leader" - someone who has to make sure the cats wander in the right direction, but with no actual authority.

[lordmonar]

Even if the personnel officer can't fire anyone he is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

No, he is in an operational chain of command, and related only and purely to duties of a personnel officer.

The personnel officer would have no say in any ES activity, promotions, discipline (outside dereliction of personnel duties), or anything else this member does.

Some companies would refer to this as a "group leader" - someone who has to make sure the cats wander in the right direction, but with no actual authority.

Never said he was......The chain of command is the chain of command.  The unit commander has no authority over anyone or anything outside his chain....that is not the issue. 

The Personnel officer is in his asstants' chain of command while they are working for him as assistant personnel officers.  When they are off at a SAR EX they fall under someone elses' chain of command.

Got no problem with this.   This is an organisational issue of multiple chains of command based on what an individual is doing at a tactical level.

The USAF addresses this with what they call ADCON and OPCON.  ADCON is administrative control of assets and OPCON is operational control of assets.  This usually only happens when you have detached units to other commands (like in a JOINT TASK FORCE).  The JTF has OPCON of the assigned personnel but the administrative issues (promotions, testing, awards and decorations, pay issues, etc) are handled by the ADCON unit (usually their home unit).

In a CAP environment this same concept can be (and in my unit is) used to take care of those duel hatted individuals.  Someone who joins the unit as a newbie is assigned a job and placed under a mentor.  That mentor is part of the new guy's chain of command.  If the new guy then starts doing ES work....he falls under the ES Officer for the duration of the activity.  During the activity his chain of command changes to the ES officer.  Once the activity is over his original chain of command comes back into place.

Again the point I am making.....both the ES officer and the Personell officer are "staff officers" but they also line officers with "command" authority over the people assigned to them and the operations that are within the scope of operations.

This does not change anything that the OBC says about line/staff officers.

SM Newguy may be adding additional hats...but he only wears them one at a time.

For experienced officers who hold down several jobs at once that are outside their normal chain of command.....say an Assailant Comm officer who has one chain up to the DC Seniors who is also the Personnel Officer who has another chain up to the DC Seniors......they have to work closely with their supervisors to ensure that they are staying in their lane and are getting clear guidance.  Hence the concept that in an ideal squadron, members would only have one job.

I understand that reality is not that way.  We often have to wear several hats that make the chain very strange.....such as I am the DC Cadets.....and an ES officer.  As DCC my chain is me....my commander.....wing...region....national.  As an ES officer I go to Operations Officers, Deputy Commander for Seniors, Commander, wing, region, national.

So I am in a loop.  I have to know that as a CP guy I'm boss....but as an ES guy I have a boss.  No problem.

Either way.  All of us staff officers are in the chain of command and wield the authority given to us by our commander over those placed under us.

[Eclipse]

Again the point I am making.....both the ES officer and the Personell officer are "staff officers" but they also line officers with "command" authority over the people assigned to them and the operations that are within the scope of operations.

Except they aren't line officers, and that's the point, and they have no command authority in the way CAP defines it.

As a commander, I can tell a member what they can and cannot do.  Not so for a staff officer, and that's where the confusion and
conflicts start.

Personnel is  probably a bad example, because really, how much conflict will there be regarding 2a's and SLS?

But look to ES and CP and its a different story.  Cadet Programs Officer has no authority over anyone involved in the CP, same with ESO's,
but in many cases they will assert that because they have involvement in creating the plans and programs, they also have authority over those people involved.

A PDO can't even discipline his assistant - only complain to the Commander about something he doesn't like.

Staff positions are administrative postings with no inherent authority, period.

Want to boil it down to the brass tacks? 

If you can hire / fire / terminate someone, you're a commander and have "command authority", if you can't, you're a supervisor at best, with no actual authority.

Another example...

When you drop off your kids at a neighbors house, you retain "command authority" over them.  The neighbors have "supervisory responsibility" for them.  Keep them safe, give them something to do, and/or tell them to "...get the heck out off the chandelier and out of my house!"...

When the cops show up, its mom & dad who meet out the grounding, not the neighbors.

In fact, that is probably a good way to characterize this:

"Command Authority" vs. "Supervisory responsibility"

[lordmonar]

Eclipse.....

They are staff officers AND line officers at the same time.

As the squadron commander you can tell people what the can and cannot do.....I agree.  Are you the only one in your unit who can do this?

Your Deputy Commander for Cadets has no authority to tell his cadets what to do?
You C/CC has not authority over the cadets?
The Flight commanders?
The Flight Sergeants?
Element Leaders?

There are several types of authority.

Having 2b authority is only one form.

I disagree with you assertion that the Deputy Commander for Cadets does not have authority of his CP staff.  It is his program and his people.  If his leadership officer or AE officer does not follow his desires he most certainly should have the authority to do something about it.

Can he 2b him?  No....but he can go to the commander and recommend that they be disciplined for insubordination and failure to perform his duties.  If he has no authority he can not push those issues.

To put a USAF spin on this.....only the squadron commander has UCMJ authority.  That is only he can "punish" someone as it is defined by the USAF legal eagles.  But that does not mean that the NCOIC of the SATCOM workcenter does not have authority.  One of my airman does not follow my orders he is going to get into trouble.  Even if all I can really do is "complain to the commander about something [I don't] like."

In this way CAP is no different.  The CP officer and ES officers must have authority to make policy and enforce said policy or they are just empty shirts.  The commander gives them this authority when they appoint them to their position.  Even if the officer in question has not promotion authority, no 2b authority, no authority outside of his "lane".  If you fail to follow this basic concept of authority you are setting up your unit to fail.

Responsibility with out authority can only result in failure.

2b authority is not the only kind of authority.

We give IC's authority all the time and almost none of them have 2b authority over me.  (only one my wing CC at this time).

So are you suggesting that IC's have no authority?   In what way is an IC any different in context of situational leadership then the unit CP guy?

You will find that if you cannot give your staff officers authority period, because they Can't  fire anyone, then you cannot allow IC's to have any authority either.

This is the logical Conundrum that you have painted for yourself.

If only commander's have authority...then no one but commander can have authority.  If others can have authority without gaining 2b authority then you have to allow that anyone placed in a supervisory role has some authority with in the scope of his mandate.

[Eclipse]

OK, we need to remove the people with the word "commander" from the discussion of staff officer.  I'll grant that they
can be fully delegated command authority, that's the point of their existence.

Otherwise, I think my analogy of "supervisory responsibility".

An asst "x" officer is appointed by the commander, to assist the "main" officer in the performance of his duties, within either the mandates
of the program (i.e. the regs), or the nuance of the program the commander has authorized.

In the case of a disagreement between the asst and the "main", the arbiter is going to be the commander or the regs.

[lordmonar]

One of the precepts of leadership is you cannot have responsibility without authority.

Your baby sitter analogy is case in point.

The baby sitter has the authority to command the children and keep order....but not the authority to issue grounding or spankings (if you believe in that thing).  But the point is that they have authority....even if it is limited...over their charges and within the scope of their responsibilities.  The baby sitter can't do anything about their school grades, nor about their sunday school activities....those responsibilities lie with other people.

Same for your personnel officer.  He has authority over the job of keeping the personnel records right and processing personnel paperwork for the squadron.  The personnel officer is given a staff to assist him in this endeavor.  He is a line officer with respect to those people who work for him.....he commands them.  That is as far as his authority goes.  He commands nothing but the personnel staff.

They have a supervisory responsibility....with that in must also have a supervisory authority or it won't work!

At the USAF NCO academy we learned about different kinds of authority.   But the brass tacks lesson what that you cannot give responsibility to someone with out giving them authority as well.  Those lines of authority must be as clear as possible of your ability to lead will break down.

Responsibility and authority are two related but different things.

[Eclipse]

I'm gonna let some other people chime for awhile...