Lets make all CAP senior members follow the same program

[lordmonar]

People are always changing/evovlving/growing/contracting.

When they were Col Bigjob of the USAF....the USAF was fullfilling all of their needs....but then they retired and moved.

So they join CAP to fullfill thier belonging,selfesteem needs.

And here is an intresting point you made........"The intangible reward of volunteerism and the service mentality stressed in the military isn't enough?"
Situational leadership.....means you must read each and everyone of your people and find what motivates each one of them.  Sometimes the warm fuzzy of being a volunteer is NOT enought to get the job done.  Even on active duty the core values are NOT enough.....high pay and benifits are NOT enough.  That is why I am support so much bling, and an inclusive rank structure. 

Each and everyone of these things are tools we use to get the job done.

I can care less why someone joins (unless it is to get access to kids in a bad way).  Join because your parole officer said to, join because you thing it looks good on a scholorship application, join for the free benifits that some bases may give to CAP member, join because you get a full on woody playing army man......I don't care.

I CARE about two things.   Protecting our cadets....and getting the mission done.  In a perfect world.....we would have 50,000 independantly wealthy pilots who have no jobs, family or other things to distract them from giving 40+ hours a week to CAP.....but that is not what we have.  We have volunteers....who join for may different reasons.  The ability to continue to serve their country.  The ability to serve their country in lieu of military service.  The chance to give back.  The opportunity to fly.  The oppornity to go camping.  The chance to get away from their wives and families for a while.  CAP fullfills many MASLOW needs....safety, belonging, esteem, self-actualization.

There is no one size fits all leadership style because there is not size fits all senior member (or cadet).

So...back to the OP.

Okay....we have a lot of high ranking senior members who have not completed CAP's PD program.

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

[Eclipse]

OK, fair enough.

So in a CAP paradigm, where the grade is "meaningless" "irrespective of authority", so the military paradigm of "accepting promotion means you are accepting more responsibility" does not apply.   Therefore, CAP grade is, in fact, a reward for previous accomplishments, not a call to future performance.
Our rhetoric is to the contrary, but in practice this is true.

And with the assumption that "member fulfillment" is not a mission of CAP, but is, in fact, a means to an end...

...Which is more likely to be successful on the whole, from the perspective of the organization?

Reward for verifiable performance, or a "thank you for joining gift"?

Further, what has more value to the member?  A "Thank you for joining gift?", or something they actually had to earn (with "earn" being a subjective term).  I don't know about you, but I earned my oaks with those 40 hour weeks, encampments, away ES missions, and two successful commands, but
it doesn't exactly warm my coffee to encounter folks of equal, or higher, grade who don't have a clue, yet aspire to even further "greatness". 

It doesn't wreck my day, but it doesn't make it any better, other than on the ironic / comedic scale.

How much more valuable all the way around would it be if we required CFI's to earn an O-ride ribbon or make AE Senior before pinning on those tracks?
That's a full pilot, 50 rides, and / or a competent AE instructor.  That doesn't seem too unreasonable.

[JeffDG]

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

[Eclipse]

^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

[arajca]

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Not bad, but I would add SOME PD courses so these folks have an idea how CAP works outside of ES.
SLS for Team Leader/Branch Director
CLC or UCC for IC
I really don't think that's too much to ask.

[Eclipse]

Me neither.

Frankly I would like to see SLS required for the membership ribbon.  Leave Level 1 as-is, but make the ribbon actually mean something.

[RogueLeader]

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Why would MP be higher than MO as MP does NOT have to be an MO?  They both have to be MS qualified.  AOBD only requires MO or MP to start training. 

Should there be a minimum TIG, or certain number of training missions, actual missions, hours/sorties flown?

Would people have to choose what track they go; ie: if you are active in PD and ES, do you have to choose one or the other?

[lordmonar]

Further, what has more value to the member?  A "Thank you for joining gift?", or something they actually had to earn (with "earn" being a subjective term).  I don't know about you, but I earned my oaks with those 40 hour weeks, encampments, away ES missions, and two successful commands, but it doesn't exactly warm my coffee to encounter folks of equal, or higher, grade who don't have a clue, yet aspire to even further "greatness".

Well that's my point....'value" is in the eye of the beholder.  What is valuable to YOU is different than was is valuable to ME and that is different with each and everyone in CAP.  You earned your rank the "hard way"....okay....now you have sour grapes over those who get some sort of free pass.  So....your solution.....to the "problem" is to take away the candy from those who have not "earned it".....forget about the reasoning behind the advanced promotion (abused or not there is a reason behind it).  So in stead of fixing the "abuse" you decide to just take away the recruiting tool and making everyone's job harder.

How much more valuable all the way around would it be if we required CFI's to earn an O-ride ribbon or make AE Senior before pinning on those tracks?  That's a full pilot, 50 rides, and / or a competent AE instructor.  That doesn't seem too unreasonable.

I don't think that is unreasonable....just as I don't think it is unresaonable to make those who get advanced promotions to complete the PD program to keep their rank.....but both of those suggestions are different then just eliminating the advanced promotions.

[lordmonar]

^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Not bad....but how do the CP/AE/and non-ES types get rank?

[Eclipse]

^ That's not unreasonable either, and actually reflects a legitimate level of commensurate authority with real-world mission-based applications.

Not bad....but how do the CP/AE/and non-ES types get rank?

Normal duty performance would organically get most members to the same general grade at about the same rate, even people who did a national ES school would not be able to progress much ahead of their peers.

This would certainly negate the arguments people make that Es takes too much time to worry about PD, etc.

ES is a core, high-visibility mission.  Why not recognize the performers?  Anyone who attains GBD / AOBD or higher is certainly just as valuable to CAP in terms of capabilities and experience as in in-the-door military officer, Dr., CFI, or teacher, etc.

You could also turn ES into an actual "elite" thing within the organization.

"How'ed that guy get to be a Major in 4 years?"

"Check out the IC badge and the decked out SAR ribbon!"

(And there's really no point in trying to interject the "What about people who are Parker 51 GBDs!"  There will always be people who abuse the system, no matter what you do, but that should not shape the system itself, beyond standard controls)

[RogueLeader]

At what rate does duty performance allow you to promote?  Normal professional development?

[Eclipse]

Spitballing, I'd say no more than 1-click a year, or maybe every two, but if we're talking about promotions around
ES positions, then for the most part TIG is self limiting. 

Few people reach for GBD before they are GTM1/GTL, but even the minimum is going to take a solid year, even factoring in
NESA or similar schools.  Another year for GBD, and probably a year apiece for OSC, PSC, and IC.

I don't think you'd see too many people getting to Lt. Col. / IC in less than 5-6 years minimum, and of course all IC's have to be
wing endorsed anyway, so if you're a goober, then that route would be closed anyway.

Anyone who can make it to IC in 5-6 years is at least as qualified as most other Lt. Col.'s in his peer group.

And there's no reason you'd have to be single-tracked - make it to Major via ES, but do normal PD work and then move to O-5 that way.
Members involved in ES like this would likely be looking to serve as ESO's and OPS officers anyway, during down time.

[lordmonar]

Well....after 6 pages of this.....I have to ask....what exactly is the problem that we are trying to fix?

[Eclipse]

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

[Spaceman3750]

Your solution is to eliminate the advanced promotions...okay that's one option.
Another solution is to allow the advanced promotions but still require the PD.

Or make PD one of several tracks to rank.

Take ES for example:
IC=Lt. Col.
Section Chief=Maj
Team Leader/Branch Director=Captain (by team leader, I'm talking GTL/MP/CUL)
Sr. Team Member (GTM1/MO/TMP)=1st Lt.
Team Member (GTM2/GTM1/UDF/MS/MSA)=2nd Lt.
GES=SMWOG.

I'm sure similar structures could be developed in our AE and CP mission areas.

Except that you're treating non-pilot aircrew members (MO) on unequal footing with pilots. In some places, the MO is the "aircrew leader" while the MP drives the bus, much like how the guy behind the wheel of the van isn't always the GTL (in fact, that's preferred). You've essentially made it so that in order to promote a non-pilot MO has to go two quals higher than a pilot.

[lordmonar]

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

[RogueLeader]

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

If there is a skill that can be used, I don't have a problem.  If they get promoted for a skill that can't be used, why should they get ahead of me.

[Eclipse]

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

No - you asked what this thread was about.

[lordmonar]

Inconsistent criteria for promotions and other awards, in many cases based on irrelevant experience, or skills which cannot be, or are not provided to, CAP.

So...you are just pissed that other people get a pass.....and you don't?

If there is a skill that can be used, I don't have a problem.  If they get promoted for a skill that can't be used, why should they get ahead of me.

That's not the "problem" as defined by Eclipse.

I got nothing wrong with looking at the regulations and saying....do we need to give health care professionals or aircraft mechanics advanced promotions?   I know that those are just old rules from the days we needed those skills.....but that is a different question then saying "everyone" must go up the same PD process.

[Eclipse]

I didn't "define" any problem - this isn't my thread.