Organizational Excellence specialty track

[CAPOfficer]

This isn't the proposed CAPP 222 for commanders'; I have seen the working document for that area (pre-draft) and this isn't it.

[SJFedor]

It's alright I guess. Definitely not my cup of tea, but some may enjoy it.


But, is it just me, or does "organizational excellence officer" kinda make it sound like a corporate cheerleader?

[jeders]

But, is it just me, or does "organizational excellence officer" kinda make it sound like a corporate cheerleader?

Yes. Or maybe the pep squad made up of wannabe cheerleaders who weren't quite popular enough to be a cheerleader.

This isn't the proposed CAPP 222 for commanders'; I have seen the working document for that area (pre-draft) and this isn't it.

So if this isn't the commander's specialty track, then why? Do we really need, as Fedor put it, a cheerleader officer?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

[Gunner C]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

Full time CAP member is usually called a commander. 

Gunner
Two-Time Loser (Best four years of my career)

[lordmonar]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

You know....I've been in CAP for about 5 years now....and I got most of this stuff done already.  Granted not everyone has the same amount of time...but it is not really that hard to pick up a specialty rating or two as you go along.  Getting involved in the PD process (teaching SLS//CLC) is usualy as hard as picking up the phone and telling the course director you want to help.

And here is the real kicker....no one is required to take this specialty track...except maybe commanders and those how want to be commanders.  Those people are a special breed who should be active in all aspects of CAP....all this specialty track does is guide and direct them down the right path.

[RiverAux]

This isn't the new so-called commanders track?  For senior rating you have to have a year as squadron commander or above.  If its not that, I don't really see a reason to have it.  Seems to be a hodgepodge of requirements to have completed other specialty tracks and instructing courses and giving briefings.  Not impressed. 

[CAPOfficer]

My apologies to one and all, this does appear to be the new commander's track.  The actual document I seen was identified by the correct number (222) and had a title which also identified it as the command track.

Additionally, some of the terminology has been changed as well.

Again, my apologies.

[jeders]

My apologies to one and all, this does appear to be the new commander's track.  The actual document I seen was identified by the correct number (222) and had a title which also identified it as the command track.

Additionally, some of the terminology has been changed as well.

Again, my apologies.

Which begs the questions, why did they give it the wrong number and such a weird name?

Other than that though, I think it's good that they're finally making something to try and prepare commanders. Now we just have to see if the overall command quality in CAP actually goes up.

[Gunner C]

I see it in a bit of a different light - it's more of a line officer track.  We've needed something for years to develop leaders, a core of not just well trained officers, but well educated as well.  The military does this and it works.  Sure, there's lug nuts in any organization, but this is a pretty good - albeit not perfect - approach.

The other officers will be more on the order of limited duty officers (see Marine Corps and Navy) or warrant officers (see Army).  It works pretty well for them.

Gunner

[dwb]

Personally, I liked how they used the cover art from the old "Introduction to Civil Air Patrol" booklet.  Wasn't it CAPM 50-1 or something like that?  The one with the blue cover.

[FW]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

You know....I've been in CAP for about 5 years now....and I got most of this stuff done already.  Granted not everyone has the same amount of time...but it is not really that hard to pick up a specialty rating or two as you go along.  Getting involved in the PD process (teaching SLS//CLC) is usualy as hard as picking up the phone and telling the course director you want to help.

And here is the real kicker....no one is required to take this specialty track...except maybe commanders and those how want to be commanders.  Those people are a special breed who should be active in all aspects of CAP....all this specialty track does is guide and direct them down the right path.

Exactly however, this track is not just for commanders.  This track is for members who desire to hold any position of authority or responsibility at any level above group.  The proposed guide will evolve into, IMHO, a great document for steering members in the proper direction to achieve "organizational excellence".  For all intents and purposes the "command track" is gone.

[NEBoom]

Good grief!  Another entire separate bureaucracy to handle this whole thing.  Aren't we busy enough without dealing with new forms, pamphlets, forming new committees, and the like?  I ask you, how well has this approach work with CISM?

The idea's not bad, but they're going about it all wrong.  Expecting Wing and Region HQ's to "manage" this program when we already have major issues getting existing routine things done is ridiculous.  The National leadership continues to insist we build the upper stories without an adequate foundation.

When all is running smooth, and things like awards and promotions are being processed through higher HQ's in a timely manner (fact is they're not right now in many cases) then maybe this would be worth exploring.  As it stands now this is just another example of the disconnect between our National leadership and reality on the ground in the Wings and Squadrons.

That said, another issue is that this is going to be largely irrelevant anyway.  People will still be eligible to hold command and/or higher headquarters staff positions without going through any of this (they'll have to be or we won't have enough people to run a higher HQ), and most of us are way too overloaded with CAP commitments anyway.  This will fall by the wayside with most people as they will just not have time to do it.  We have a hard enough time as it is getting people through Level V.

Again, I like the concept, but we'll have to come up with a better way to go about implementing it.  Something other than a new bureaucracy imposed on us from above without regard to the realities we face as an organization.

[lordmonar]

I thought this was the sort of thing we were looking for?

Sure it is a new committee....but it is one that should have exited for a long time.

Now we can effectively identify potential commanders and senior staff officers early and get them the training they need.

This is not the same as CISM....CISM was imposed on high...no one really know why we needed it or what is was supposed to do.

We really need a this specialty track.

While there will be no "need" to complete this speicalty track to hold command....it can be used as a tool to vette our potential candiadates and to train those who hold command.

Not a fix all....but definatly a good tool.

[RiverAux]

Now we can effectively identify potential commanders and senior staff officers early and get them the training they need.

I didn't really see anything in there that would meet those criteria.  What extra "training" are you talking about?  Existing specialty track qualifications?  Nebulous needs to understand some basics about CAP?  Additional reading that might get assigned to them?  I am all for additional training, but this isn't it. 

[davedove]

I applaud the effort to develop better commanders.  However, this is just a document.

Will a member be required to reach certain ratings to hold certain levels of authority?  If so, what happens if no one is qualified, or if the person qualified refuses the position.

If it's not required, what's to stop a higher level commander from picking his buddy to fill a position, even though the person isn't really qualified to hold it.

It's a step in the right direction, but there are still issues to be addressed.

[lordmonar]

Now we can effectively identify potential commanders and senior staff officers early and get them the training they need.

I didn't really see anything in there that would meet those criteria.  What extra "training" are you talking about?  Existing specialty track qualifications?  Nebulous needs to understand some basics about CAP?  Additional reading that might get assigned to them?  I am all for additional training, but this isn't it. 

Then you are not reading it.

It is not about extra training....it is about getting specific training in specific areas that a commander needs to know.

If you are an AE guy...you have zero need to learn about equipment accountability or finacial process...but the OE specialty track sends you there first thing.  Sure this is existing training...but you can have a Masters Level in just about any specialty track and NEVER have to deal with this stuff.

This specialty track is just a training plan to take a new nugget through a systematic processess to prepare them for command and senior leadership positions.  It will force those who choose this path to expand their knowledge of all three CAP's missions.

Currently we have nothing that prepares potential candidates for command positions.  Now we do.

[lordmonar]

I applaud the effort to develop better commanders.  However, this is just a document.

Will a member be required to reach certain ratings to hold certain levels of authority?  If so, what happens if no one is qualified, or if the person qualified refuses the position.

If it's not required, what's to stop a higher level commander from picking his buddy to fill a position, even though the person isn't really qualified to hold it.

It's a step in the right direction, but there are still issues to be addressed.

Nothing at all.  But it is one of those....if you build it they will come....sort of things. 

We build the specialty track...we get people enrolled and progressing...then we can start advertising position and requiring specific levels of accomplishments.   Will this solve the "no qualified volunteers" problem....of course not.  But will give those volunteers a road map on how to become qualified.  It gives commanders a clear definition of what "qualified" means.

I think in the long run...we will see that those who are seeking command positions will complete this course of study and that will benifit all of us.

It will give regional and national command selection comittees (if they have them) a tool to effectively evaluate candidates.  Sure...wing CC will still be able to appoint their buddies....but if you wanted command of squadron X and the wing king gave it to Joe Incompetant...you now have a tool to go to to region and say that you were the more qualified candidate.

Right now....what can you do?

[RiverAux]

but if you wanted command of squadron X and the wing king gave it to Joe Incompetant...you now have a tool to go to to region and say that you were the more qualified candidate.

Hmm, I missed that part of our regulations that said that the most qualified candidate has to be selected as squadron commander or that gives anyone the right to appeal the Wing Commander's decision on the matter. 

Unless they're going to make this a requirement for someone to obtain a command position, I don't anticipate it being used very often. 

[ZigZag911]

Unless they're going to make this a requirement for someone to obtain a command position, I don't anticipate it being used very often. 

And even if it is made a requirement (for the sake of argument, let's say for group command and up only), there will STILL be a "waiver" provision; organizationally we have an aversion to merit as a sole (or even main) criterion for appointment or promotion!