Unit Commanders

[stixco1]

What is the benefit to CAP for the 4 yr term limit? If the Commander is doing a good job, has no desire to move up the chain, no one else in unit is jumping to take over?

[jeders]

Asked and answered, search is your friend.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16786.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16709.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15025.0 (This one predates the national term limit rule, but still has the same information/opinions/hilarity.)

[JeffDG]

Another solution in search of a problem.

If a commander is ineffective, he can be relieved without any need for a term limit.

If a commander is effective, then the regulation simply forces the Wing Commander to put someone else who may not really want the job in there.

What it does do is guarantee that a mediocre commander will serve for 4 years, because there's no good reason to punt them before their term is up.

[Eclipse]

Growth and opportunity for more, reduces stagnation for all.

[jeders]

What it does do is guarantee that a mediocre commander will serve for 4 years, because there's no good reason to punt them before their term is up.

As opposed to a mediocre commander serving for 24 years.

[JeffDG]

What it does do is guarantee that a mediocre commander will serve for 4 years, because there's no good reason to punt them before their term is up.

As opposed to a mediocre commander serving for 24 years.

Nope, before the Wing Commander could just say "Hey, Doug, you're doing just fine, but let's get some fresh blood in there."

Now, with a defined term, the Wing/CC pretty much needs a reason to replace.

[Eclipse]

What it does do is guarantee that a mediocre commander will serve for 4 years, because there's no good reason to punt them before their term is up.

Poppycock.

4 years is the limit, not the mandate.  BTDT.

Having a term limit puts positive time pressure on the good managers, forcing them to
build their contingency and transition plans from day-1, and insures a poor CC can't hang out
indefinitely, even if the next echelon has no backbone for uncomfortable conversations.

And the transition is >supposed to< force the recruiting and mentoring issue, but we've seen that
is inconsistent at best.

I've seen way more poor "lifer" CCs who no one wants to be mean to run marginal units into the ground
then "awesome" CCs being run out against their will.

Now, with a defined term, the Wing/CC pretty much needs a reason to replace.

CC's are still "at will" of the Wing CC - no more reason then "I want change" is required.

[JeffDG]

CC's are still "at will" of the Wing CC - no more reason then "I want change" is required.

Yet you had poor "lifer" commanders.

The term limit does absolutely nothing that could not be done before. 

It just takes those folks who are doing a good job and tosses them out for no reason other than the date on a calendar.

If you have a Wing/CC who can't be bothered to have an "uncomfortable conversation", that's where you problem is.

[Eclipse]

If you really view it as being "tossed out", you must not be familiar with business management practices or military
transition in the modern age.

It is difficult not to stagnate in any leadership roll for more then 3-4 years, especially CAP.

And to your point about poor wing CCs, not to mention Group CCs, sadly far too many are not inclined to
make people sad, thus, when you abdicate your responsibility, someone else steps in and does it for you,
usually in the form of regulations.

We need more current managers and leaders and far less den mothers and GOB flying club types.

[JeffDG]

If you really view it as being "tossed out", you must not be familiar with business management practices or military
transition in the modern age.

It is difficult not to stagnate in any leadership roll for more then 3-4 years, especially CAP.

And to your point about poor wing CCs, not to mention Group CCs, sadly far too many are not inclined to
make people sad, thus, when you abdicate your responsibility, someone else steps in and does it for you,
usually in the form of regulations.

We need more current managers and leaders and far less den mothers and GOB flying club types.

So...

My wing can't get it's stuff together, so we'll make everyone else suffer for our Wing/CC not wanting to have uncomfortable conversations.

[Flying Pig]

I was very relived to step aside when the term was up.  Since I left, there have been two other great commanders since.  Maybe harder in some places than others.  If there was a position where this really became an issue, I have no doubt waivers could be obtained. 

[Eclipse]

My wing can't get it's stuff together, so we'll make everyone else suffer for our Wing/CC not wanting to have uncomfortable conversations.

No one is "suffering", and it certainly wasn't just your wing, or even a couple, this was an
across the board problem in every wing.

Before the change, there were CC's who had been in command in excess of 25 years.
My wing had a couple of those, and far too many sitting for in excess of a decade.

Rare is the person in that age group, from that era who would still be "current" in the way CAP needs them
to be, nor no in grained in their personal ruts. 

Sorry, that's just the reality of the situation.

And regardless, even if they were the new "Curry" or "Spaatz", does that mean no one else gets the chance to
be a CC?  And when they get hit by a bus, or simply up and quit because of "all those changes NHQ is forcing on us?
Then you're really stuffed.

Further, as Flying Pig points out, they don't call it "relief" from command for nothing. Al lot of long term CCs
are only still there because they feel "no one else will (or can) do it", which means they are trying to make up
for the failings of those above them (or their own in ability to train their successor.

Any CC who views a term limit in a negative light, is the example of the problem the term limits addressed.

[stixco1]

So a CC serves for 4 yrs., by all accounts does a good job. Group Commander sends out an e-mail to all SM's in the group for anyone interested in the job. No response. Current CC gets extension. This goes on for 3 yrs until it can no longer happen per regs. Still no one interested. What happens then.

[jeders]

So a CC serves for 4 yrs., by all accounts does a good job. Group Commander sends out an e-mail to all SM's in the group for anyone interested in the job. No response. Current CC gets extension. This goes on for 3 yrs until it can no longer happen per regs. Still no one interested. What happens then.

In the extraordinary event that this person is the only one able to do the job, then he can get another 4 year term, and another after that, and another after that, and another after that. There is no limit to the number of terms (absent a region or wing supplement) that a commander can serve.

[Eclipse]

Correct, however from my experience "no one interested' has not been viewed as an "extraordinary" reason.

A CC might get a small extension, but not a new term and his new job one is finding his replacement (or the Group CC's
job, etc).

For a commander to succeed themselves, both Wing and Region have to agree there is no other choice.
I have yet to see a valid reason for anything but a short extension.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

What is the benefit to CAP for the 4 yr term limit? If the Commander is doing a good job, has no desire to move up the chain, no one else in unit is jumping to take over?

This happened to my first unit (long before the term limits were imposed).  I was quite possibly going to be in line for CC...until I met the lady who is now my wife and moved to a different locale.  My CC and I had basically built the unit back up over the prior couple of years from near-Flight status to a viable Composite squadron.  He was tired of the job and I don't blame him.

When he stepped down I heard rumours that the unit sputtered on for awhile, was reconstituted as a Flight and finally got back on its feet a couple of years later.

The problem I have with a CC being on for indefinite periods are that a CC can end up burnt-out, as happened with my former CC, who also happened to be a good friend.

Also, a CC can begin to think a unit is his/her "turf"...in which case a cleaning-out is necessary...which is why I support the term limitations.

[Private Investigator]

... Still no one interested. What happens then.

I call "nonsense" on that. <Expletive device in play.> Tom, Dick & Harry the local GOBs say, "Tom is commander forever". They get new members and they "indoc" them that Tom is the guy and they never will be a commander because Tom is the commander. I have seen it happen and that is a reality check.   

[lordmonar]

Term limits simply replace leadership with bureaucracy.

[MSG Mac]

CAP's Term Limits are longer than the military's. The intent is to have experienced personnel move up and pass their expertise on to a wider audience and allow up and coming officers to lead at the Squadrobs and Groups.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

CAP's Term Limits are longer than the military's. The intent is to have experienced personnel move up and pass their expertise on to a wider audience and allow up and coming officers to lead at the Squadrobs and Groups.

Which is pretty much how the CGAUX operates (most of the time).  Virtually all commanders at all levels are elected, until you really go up the chain, when the CG gets involved.