Cadet Executive Officer is not a thing

[Eclipse]

Continuing our 875 part series on "This is how CAP works now.", we bring to light today the fact that
the position of "Cadet Executive Officer" is no longer appropriate or authorized, having been renamed to
Cadet Deputy Commander for Support.

This is true for both Squadron Operations and the Encampment Program.

Ref: CAPR 60-1, Page 22:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPR_601__November_2019_770C0E7C15DF9.pdf


(also the title "Cadet Executive Officer" does not appear anywhere in the document).

Ref: CAPP 60-31, Page 51:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Cadet_Staff_Handbook__Nov_16__Web_47474DD79B032.pdf


Ref: CAPP 60-70, Page 20:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P_6070_Encampment_Guide_2019_Reduce_778814ECFD05B.pdf

Note again the specific verbiage about the intentional renaming, and that while this is a pamphlet, it is
called out as the guidance by the applicable regulation.

Note also that the term "Command Chief" is also absent from these documents.

[PHall]

That's because the title Cadet Deputy Commander for Support replaced Cadet Executive Officer during the last rewrite.
Same thing happened on the Senior side too.

[Eclipse]

The last re-write of what?

C/XO was removed from the cadet staff handbook at least 3 years ago (Nov 2016), from 52-16 (60-1) at least 5 years ago,
and from the encampment curriculum 2+ years ago.

Yet all over we have units and encampment who still have C/XOs.

(I did notice just now that the 360 form for Cadre still has the old reference).

Bottom line, this isn't a new change, especially at the squadron level.

[PHall]

Rewrite of the Encampment Guide. Previously it was part of the CAPR 52-16 then all of the Encampment stuff was broken out to it's own reg and now it's a CAPP.
And yes this is Encampment stuff. At most squadrons a Cadet Commander and maybe a Deputy is enough.

[Eclipse]

The rewrite of the encampment guide was >not< when Cadet Executive Officer was eliminated at the unit.

This change is at least 5 years old.

[ßτε]

Of course CAPR 20-1(i) still calls it Cadet Executive Officer.

[PHall]

Of course CAPR 20-1(i) still calls it Cadet Executive Officer.

And what is the date of that 20-1? Was it even in this century?

[TheSkyHornet]

It's two-fold...whether you agree with it or not is a different matter.

Units have the discretion to structure their cadet org organization so long as the duties of the position are clearly explained. This also applies for Encampment. So there is some level of flexibility.

The problem I see isn't so much the inconsistency of application, but the ignorance and/or lack of education as to the regulations and associated guidance. It's the "we've always done this" attitude, and not willing to research it let alone hear the explanation. I deal with this all the time when I talk to squadrons.

If it works for you, and actually functions, great. But you need to have a really good reason to deviate from the guidance, and no effort to deviate from the regulation.

There is no one-size-fits-all organizational structure. But you need to design your staff structure commensurate with the cadets' grades, their readiness to full positions, and most importantly their opportunity actually learn something out of the experience. You need to really validate the importance and the effectiveness of that role before you slap it on the org chart.

[Eclipse]

The problem is that Units and Encampment CC's read "flexibility" often as "do whatever we want, which is clearly not
authorized.

In this case, there is a clear difference between the CC>CDC>XO relationship and the CC>CDC-S/CD-O relationship,
primarily because now the two #2s are peers, with no subordination either way.

It's a nuance, but it's important.

The issue of consistency between units and activities is important as well.

Scope and scale are one thing, but making up titles and in some cases insignia out of whole cloth because one "knows better"
isn't cricket and works against the stated goals.

[TheSkyHornet]

I'm totally with you.

And there's a real issue with people (both seniors and cadets) understanding pre-existing responsibilities. There are duties that should be fulfilled by Encampment cadet squadron commanders and flight commanders that should be under some other random person; and instead what happens is the squadron commanders think "I'm in charge and don't have to do anything; I just delegate." They're learning zero in that experience.

People also need to not mimic what they don't understand.

[Eclipse]

People also need to not mimic what they don't understand.

Something else for a T-Shirt...

[ZigZag911]

Granting that this is the current regulation, I still think it is a ridiculous title at this level.

The again, I was never crazy about "deputy commander for cadets/seniors",

I prefer unique titles that are not really long.

Commandant of cadet's works for encampments, why wouldn'the it for squadrons?

Executive officer is a brief title identifying a unique position. It's clear and concise.

Multiple deputy or vice commanders should be reserved for organizations that are numerically large or geographically spread out, to address span of control issues.

Squadron's shold have a single deputy, to keep the chain of command clear,

[TheSkyHornet]

Granting that this is the current regulation, I still think it is a ridiculous title at this level.

The again, I was never crazy about "deputy commander for cadets/seniors",

I prefer unique titles that are not really long.

Commandant of cadet's works for encampments, why wouldn'the it for squadrons?

Executive officer is a brief title identifying a unique position. It's clear and concise.

Multiple deputy or vice commanders should be reserved for organizations that are numerically large or geographically spread out, to address span of control issues.

Squadron's shold have a single deputy, to keep the chain of command clear,

Executive Officers, in a military sense, are traditionally the second-in-command. In the Air Force, the XO is not really the SIC; it's an administrative/support staff manager. It makes for a wonky organizational structure because you still have a Deputy Commander who serves as the SIC. In the Cadet Program, your XO reported to the Cadet Deputy Commander or directly to the Cadet Commander serving lateral to the C/CD (and everyone always hates having a lateral position who isn't the SIC).

What I don't like about having two "Deputy Commanders" is the establishment of a contingency of operations. When you have a single Commander, and XO or Deputy Commander, you know the next in the line of succession, and you know that when the XO gives you an order, it's on behalf of the Commander's delegation for the full chain of authority down the line. That's not really the case when you start splitting the org chart and establishing inter-sectioned departments under a single command with "two bosses." It's a personal preference to not do this, but that's not really the hand I've been dealt at the squadron level.

This is also why there is a suggestion that if you don't want to have two "Deputy Commanders," you can call one of them the Cadet Mission Support Officer/Flight Commander and the other the Cadet Deputy Commander. Our squadron currently has a structure for a Cadet Commander, C/CD for Ops, and C/CD for Support. I'm considering a change to have a C/CC, C/CD, and Mission Support Flight Commander reporting to the C/CD.

Anyway, at an Encampment, we don't need XOs. There is absolutely no reason for a Cadet XO to exist under a Cadet Squadron Commander when there is no squadron administrative support team.

What we should do, though, is not focus so much on the titles but the responsibilities defined under that title. If we don't need that role fulfilled, or we are taking those duties away from another role that should be fulfilling those duties, then let's not have the role to begin with. Don't make job positions that aren't necessary.