What is your definition of "Cadet Run?"

[jimmydeanno]

Howdy Folks,

This seems to be something that comes up fairly regularly in my CAP travels.  What exactly is meant by, "the CAP cadet program should be cadet run..."  I am a cadet programs guy, and always seem to get various interpretations of that statement.

I have been witness to squadrons where the Squadron Commander demands that the seniors are more or less "baby-sitters," and the cadets make every decision regarding the cadet program. Stopping only to get the required signatures.

I have been witness to squadrons where the DCC sets the local policies and procedures and the cadets say "yes sir" and execute them.  The cadets in these ones tend to "clear" all decisions through the DCC before executing.

I have also been witness to squadrons in which the DCC tells the cadets specifically what to do and how to do it, with no decision making authority given to the cadets.

I'm just looking for a good discussion about what "boundaries" should be made for the cadets, how much "officer involvement" there should or shouldn't be, and what your definition of "cadet run" is.

[dwb]

A few years back, I wrote an essay on this for CadetStuff (linky).

Basically, it depends on the cadet staff.  Experienced, well-trained cadets need a different kind of supervision/mentoring than green cadets.

It is the responsibility of the senior members working with cadets to find that line, and start working with cadets to give them more and more responsibility in manageable chunks, allowing for failure here and there.

I can't really answer the question of where the boundry belongs, because it depends on the people involved.

[Psicorp]

Great topic.

I was a Cadet in a squadron that was "Cadet Run", taken to an extreme.  We'd plan and execute every meeting and reported the plans and results to the CC (or whichever Officer happened to show up and unlock the building for us that night). I don't think that should ever have happened, and I jump squadrons to help out if I heard of a unit where that was happening.

That being said, I also don't believe that Officers should ever "baby-sit".  That's insulting to the Cadets and insulting to the Officers.

If you've got a group of mature dedicated Cadets with some experience behind them, then you are in a position to be able to sit down with them, list objectives they need to meet and allow them to come up with a schedule/plan to meet those objectives.  Always be available to offer guidance/advice and be prepared to step in  and re-direct if things slide.  There are always things Cadets don't know, don't understand, don't have access to, and can't do on their own. 

Naturally, this is highly dependent on the Cadets you have.  The more "ownership" they take in their own program, the better it will be.  What I mean by that is, if the Cadets take initiative and participate in the planning and execution of meetings and activities, the more successful and more fulfilling it will be.     If you have a squadron full of younger/less experienced Cadets, then this isn't as possible, but you can instill in them your expectations and before long they should be stepping up all on their own.   Set your expectations high and see if they rise up to meet them.

[LtCol White]

I agree that it depends on the ability of the cadet leadership. Its very important that the cadets have ownership in the program. They are treated like "kids" in everything they do right now. CAP provides them the opportunity to start having adult responsibility. I have told my senior cadets and CAC in the wing that " I dont want to run cadet programs. I want you to run it." We shoud lay out the framework and guidelines and let them plan and execute and consult with the seniors for approvals and support. Senior members should no more be baby sitters than a teacher in school should be. As with teachers, we are there to instruct, mentor, develop and build the cadets. With our supervision, they need to be allowed to break things and be given the opportunity to fix them.  If they are never allowed to make mistakes (ones that won't get us sued or cause injury) then they will never learn or really appreciate leadership roles. When they are in school each day, they are told what to do and how to do it all day long. They don't need that when they come to a meeting. They need to see that we have confidence in them and will help and guide them.  I have seen this work over and over. It also builds a strong relationship between the cadets and senior members which translates to a better program.

Be a mentor !

[DNall]

We could talk about this forever, but it comes down to an on teh ground assessment. You test cadets to theri capabilities, not set them up for failure for the sake of calling it "cadet run." Balance is the key word & all extremes are bad.

You cannot be a babysitter, hence the required signatures... the DCC is ultimately responsible for everything regardless of whos fault it is. You should be handing them a visiion which is part of a larger Sq vision that hopefully was constructed from seeing where Wing & so farth are trying to take the organization. You hand them a vision with goals they need to accomplish & then it's a matter of balance. If they can take it from there & get the job done or even struggle thru in mediocre fashion, then by all means let them take it & limit yourself to mentor & adminstrate. If on the other hand oyu don;t have a competent NCO, much less officer (and that's almost always attrition & not failure to train people up), then it may well be that you need to give them a plan & do some more directing or even direct training as necessary to jumpstart the process.

Certainly we want them to learn with as much hands on opportunity as possible, but we also don;t want to put to much on them & break them, or take their lives out of balance, or teach them a pattern of failure, or allow failures that can be learned from on one level to waste the time of everyone underneath. Ultimately, it's just balance & knowing when & where to do how much is how expert of a cadet programs officer you are.

[mikeylikey]

My definition of Cadet Run.........is lining them all up in formation and running them 5 miles.  Other than that.......nothing is "cadet run", CAP Officers run everything.  You can try to give the appearance that the cadets are running their program......but in the end, it is better if they actually don't.  I visited a few SQD's that had the cadets doing their own thing in one building with no adult supervision while the adults were doing the typical Senior Member BS session and donut eating contest!

[MIKE]

I've seen a lot of instances where you wouldn't want to let the inmates run the asylum, but having to spoon feed the program to cadets is not ideal even in the worst case scenario.

[LtCol White]

My definition of Cadet Run.........is lining them all up in formation and running them 5 miles.  Other than that.......nothing is "cadet run", CAP Officers run everything.  You can try to give the appearance that the cadets are running their program......but in the end, it is better if they actually don't.  I visited a few SQD's that had the cadets doing their own thing in one building with no adult supervision while the adults were doing the typical Senior Member BS session and donut eating contest!

I disagree here. CAP officers don't run everything. Here in LA, we have the cadets planning and executing the program. This is of course with oversight and supervision. It is also not better if the cadets don't run it. on the contrary, the program is MUCH better if they do. Again, the caveat is that the cadets in charge are capable of doing this. This again is accomplished by proper mentoring.

Not only CAN it be done, it IS being done, and it is working very well.

[DNall]

the caveat is that the cadets in charge are capable of doing this. This again is accomplished by proper mentoring.

Absolutely, and that works well on a Wg level, but an individual unit with 12-20 cadets may or may not have such people. It may be a process to create them & during that process the balance shifts the other way somewhat.

[LtCol White]

the caveat is that the cadets in charge are capable of doing this. This again is accomplished by proper mentoring.

Absolutely, and that works well on a Wg level, but an individual unit with 12-20 cadets may or may not have such people. It may be a process to create them & during that process the balance shifts the other way somewhat.

Oh absolutely. Cadets on the sq level can be assessed as to their ability and mentored accordingly with more responsibility being released to them as they improve in their ability. Clearly it is more difficult on the sq level but even the smallest steps can be taken here where possible.

I used to start off with having the cadets teach the chapters from leadership and aerospace to the other cadets after they had passed their own tests and demonstrated a sufficient knowlege of the material. This helped them gain confidence and ability in speaking and teaching. It also demonstrated to the other cadets that the cadet teaching knew his material which helps to generate further respect.

With field activities, the cadets were brought into the planning and allowed to design the mission scenarios and then questioned on what equipment and supplies were necessary to meet the goals. They were coached as needed when they missed things with details on why those items were important and trained to see the bigger picture. Eventually we reached the point where the activity was completely planned by the cadets, brought to the seniors for presentation and review  and resulting in the activity being held.

All of this helped to instill ownership on the part of the cadets. You could visibly see the results and at multi unit activities we would overhear them telling the other cadets that they had planned out their activities and meetings.

[ZigZag911]

The first factor to take account for is the age, grade, and experience of the cadet leaders.

If your cadet staff is young and inexperienced they are going to need a lot of guidance, and perhaps even some direction.

With more experienced cadets, there can be less guidance....but there always needs to be supervision, which in this case means reviewing plans sufficiently in advance to fix any major mistakes (i.e., failing to take the need to feed & hydrate personnel into consideration; safety concerns; CAP or base regs).

Part of this is senior leaders setting a good example for cadet leaders; planning events, reviewing one another's plans (we all make mistakes! and others also have good ideas), working to gether to carry out the activity, showing flexibility and adaptability as conditions change.

Another factor to consider is the nature of the event -- a new problem is going to require fresh insights....your cadet leaders may be great at organizing unit meetings & training....but might never have experienced a bivouac or awards ceremony from the leading end of things.

To use a metaphor, we as seniors are the 'training wheels' for the truly inexperienced cadet staff, the 'safety net' for those more able to work semi-autonomously.

[LtCol White]

Its sounds to me that most of us seem to agree that with proper mentoring/guidance, based on the ability of the cadets involved, cadets should be allowed to run things to the degree of their ability and competence and increase proportionally as their ability increases.

[dwb]

I visited a few SQD's that had the cadets doing their own thing in one building with no adult supervision while the adults were doing the typical Senior Member BS session and donut eating contest!

Let me balance your anecdote with a counter-anecdote.

I had a Cadet Commander that could basically do anything.  I would only have to mention an idea, and at the next meeting, I'd find out that the plan had been put in place and was actually on the path to being smoothly executed.

I'm not a sit-in-the-office-with-the-doughnuts kind of s'member, but I very well could have been, because this cadet was responsible enough to run the weekly meetings, accomplish the program objectives, train her staff, and still have some time left over for long-term planning.

However, those cadets don't come from nowhere.  They're nurtured, trained, and mentored by senior members who know what their role is.

Cadets can have ownership and responsibility for their own program, but that's not the same thing as just dumping a pile of 52-16s on them and retreating to the office to drink coffee and trade war stories.

I can't stress enough that being truly "cadet run" is a point far down the continuum from where most squadrons are today.  But that doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, be a goal.

[jimmydeanno]

Great, we all seem to be on the same page about varying our direct instruction based on the situation we have in our squadrons, but what do you do when your highest ranking cadet is say a C/CMSgt.  Say this C/CMSgt is mature enough and capable enough of operating at a more administrative C/CC level.

Would you advocate having the cadet serve as the C/CC even though the program recommends that position for a C/Lt Col?  Would you say this is more of a time for the DCC to "play" C/CC and keep the C/CMSgt as a C/Flt CC or C/1Sgt?

If you do put the C/CMSgt as a C/CC what does that leave them later on in the program to work towards (besides say CAC Chair).  What types of alternatives would you provide to ensure this cadet doesn't get bored as a C/Flt CC or the like if they are capable of much more...?

[MIKE]

Phase appropriate roles! 

[ZigZag911]

The grade/position correlation is a guideline.

Phase approrpiate roles are wonderful when you have that luxury....some units start off small enough that their sole cadet NCOs can serve as flight CC & flt sgt, and that works fine for awhile.

Bottom line, I'd let a cadet NCO with her/his act together be the cadet commander....I'd expect to need to give more guidance than to, say, a C/Capt!

[LtCol White]

You let the CMsgt serve as the CC.

[jimmydeanno]

Boy, not too much explanation there...   Why are we seeing such variations though, we have a little bit of everything.  We have a "wait until the cadet reaches the appropriate level," and a "well if that's what you've got."

If I recall correctly, the new TLC really stresses the "phase appropriate roles," and favors the senior staff taking more control until there is a cadet to fill the role.  It speaks of having the highest ranking cadet be a first sergeant or flight commander and basing the cadet structure around that.  It makes sense to me.  As I said above, if your C/CMSgt is a C/CC before getting the Mitchell award, what is left after they are done being C/CC? 

Does it make sense to make the positions a "right of passage" so to speak, like holding the carrot out in front of the horse to get them to move on...

How often do we get cadets who get to be C/CC too early and never progress rank wise?  Is there a correlation?

[Al Sayre]

I became a Cadet Commander as a 14 yr old C/Sgt back in the 70's.  I held the job for 4 years, I have to admit that while I did get my Mitchell (C/WO), I probably could have gone much farther rank-wise without the additional responsibility.  However, that being said, I did learn an awful lot about leadership, and running a squadron etc., I just never managed to get the bling that goes with the job.  All in all, it was probably a fair tradeoff.

[MIKE]

From what I have seen, putting a cadet at the top early on is BAD news.  Cadets tend to see it as the capstone, so you end up with "I'm here, now what?" and they aren't competing for grade anymore, because now they're the C/CC and what else is there?