CAP grades

[RiverAux]

SDF officers do not get state commissions. They are LEGALLY civiliains in every way shape & form.

Incorrect.  They do get state commissions.  In fact, some members of the NG get state commissions that differ from their federal commissions as well.

The national guard is the legal milita as defined by the constititution & nothing else has legal authority.

Wrong.  The constitution does not mention the National Guard.  It talks about militia.  And basically, SDFS are no different than militia units that the US had prior to the formation of the modern National Guard system in the early 1900s.  Up until that time state militia members did not have any federal status either.  The only real difference is that current federal law keeps SDFs from being called up into federal service, but that is just law and can be changed.  Heck, by its very nature that law recognizes that they are state military forces.  You are also forgetting about Naval Militias operated by states.  They are authorized under Title 10 and it appears that they could be federalized (as they were in WWII and before) though there is absolutely no evidence that DoD has any procedures in place to do this and is unlikely to even consider it. 

DNall, I've been studying SDFs for years and you need to trust me on this one.  But, this isn't the forum to discuss this issue.  If you want to, go over to the SDF board on military.com and those guys will be more than happy to whup up on you with all the facts you could ever want. 

[PA Guy]

DNall, you might want to check out this website for accurate info on one state's SDF: http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/

At least in CA SDF officers do receive state commissions, can be called to State Active Duty and are often paid for SAD

[DNall]

The structure is dif in dif places. Generally the couple called "state military reserve" are a good bit different than the otehr end of the spectrum. I'm just saying it's highly variable is all.

Again, the point being States w/ actually functional SDFs use them with a degree of interoperability to supplement & stand in for their normal guard people. Obviously to do this they must meet basically the same standards. The presence or lack of a state commission, nor the legal framework around them, isn't why SDFs can fill for NG officers in a disaster. Selecting teh right people, professionally training them as officers, technically training them in the specific profession... having someone on hand that can actually stand relief for that officer is why they get that call. CAP can't do that cause we take anyone with a checkbook - true or not, that's what AF thinks & you don't break that cycle to you prove it to them using their grading system - and qual system.

The concept here being that if we want CAP to be able to work with AF on serious meaningful missions that protect our country, & the lives/property of her citizens,  then they can't be thinking of us as morons incapable of functioning at their level. Can we do that now? Not a chance! Think we can if we change some stuff & get to rolling though? yeah I'm sure of it.

[Dragoon]

This is gonna ruffle some feathers.

I don't believe that it is practical for CAP officers to meet the commissioning and promotion standards of USAF.  It's not a matter of quality people, it's a matter of time needed vs the number of officers we need.  If we "raise the bar" that high, we won't have enough officers to run CAP.

So...if the goal is to become accepted by USAF for being more than just some punks off the street...we need to figure out where we fit in given our standards gap, and make it abundantly clear to USAF.

And (here's the part you won't like), we'll never do that by wearing USAF officer grade.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.  )

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

For example, there are thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians (GS-1 to GS-15 plus the Senior Executive Service).  Sometimes, these folks work for USAF Officers.  Sometimes, USAF Officers work for them.  They aren't officers themselves, but that doesn't in any way hinder them in performing their Air Force duties.

And yes, some of them wear uniforms, especially when deployed.


While I realize this steps on a million toes, if a paid USAF employee doesn't need silver oak leaves to lead and manage a bunch of real Air Force Officers and NCOs, why do we need it?  How does it help us do your job?

Okay, flame away...I'll be hiding under the couch.

[Al Sayre]

I think you'd be suprised  how many Officers we would really have if we did have to meet 50% or 75% of USAF standards.  On the Portal, we had one thread bemoaning the fact that we didn't have enough people to meet the minimum officers standards and we also had a 7-8 page thread about who had a college degree and where it was from.   There are also an awful lot of RLO's & RLNCO's with degrees out here in CAP land.  Now assuming you throw out age and physical ability standards, I think we'd have a lot of ruffled feathers, but we would still have more than enough Officers to keep the show on the road.

[lordmonar]

Al,

The only problem I have with the college degree gate keeper issue....is that it is bogus!

Even on active duty having a degree is not an indicator about a persons ability to be come an idea officer.

I accept that the USAF needs some sort of gate keeper before they invest that kind of money on their future leaders.  But CAP does not have that necessity.

Sure....let's develop a way that we separate the not so good guys from the good guys....but a college degree is an arbitrary requirement when it is applied to CAP.

I for instance joined before I finished my degree....I would not have been able to become squadron commander and CAP at Misawa would have folded.  I know of lots of very capable officers in CAP and the USAF who never had a degree.

My father was 22 years in the USAF retired as a Lt Col, Navigator.  Served as executive officer to a MAJCOM Deputy Commander for Logistics (3 star).  Dropped out of college after 2 years.  Never went back, never got his masters...but was a fine officer.  I can name 10-15 SM's in my squadron who are as professional and as dedicated as any USAF officer but they do not have college degrees.

Again.....lets put some standards into the system...but let's make sure they are intelligent standards.  I mean you are going to let some 22 year old kid with a liberal arts degree in Art Appreciation get inside the door of the leadership track...but you are going to block the everyone else...no matter how successful a leader they are just because they did not get a degree.

Sorry...I just cannot support this sort of an idea.

[DNall]

This is gonna ruffle some feathers.

I don't believe that it is practical for CAP officers to meet the commissioning and promotion standards of USAF.  It's not a matter of quality people, it's a matter of time needed vs the number of officers we need.  If we "raise the bar" that high, we won't have enough officers to run CAP.

So...if the goal is to become accepted by USAF for being more than just some punks off the street...we need to figure out where we fit in given our standards gap, and make it abundantly clear to USAF.

And (here's the part you won't like), we'll never do that by wearing USAF officer grade.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.  )

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

For example, there are thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians (GS-1 to GS-15 plus the Senior Executive Service).  Sometimes, these folks work for USAF Officers.  Sometimes, USAF Officers work for them.  They aren't officers themselves, but that doesn't in any way hinder them in performing their Air Force duties.

And yes, some of them wear uniforms, especially when deployed.


While I realize this steps on a million toes, if a paid USAF employee doesn't need silver oak leaves to lead and manage a bunch of real Air Force Officers and NCOs, why do we need it?  How does it help us do your job?

Okay, flame away...I'll be hiding under the couch.

How many officers does it take to run CAP, not members now, officer slots? I mean subtract the cadets, subtrac tthe massive inactive population... you're down to what around 12k adults spread all over the country, give or take a couple thousand. What does that require, 500, 1000, 1500, 3000 officers? Not 12k for sure.

There's a conversation going on under ES about how we can get NIMS compliant when IS300/400 are multi-day mid week affairs, that CAP needs to get people instructor certified & conduct them on split wknds. Simple enough right. So what's the big deal? Takes 90 days to make regular officers - doc/lawyers/etc do that in 30 days w/ some correspondence work in front. Army NG does it in 18months of wknd/mo 2wks a year - that's pretty much a CAP meeting schedule.

The plan I put up is DVD based training modules done at your own pace requiring about 4-8hrs/mo in combination w/ an appointed officership mentor to guide you thru the program & use your time at Sq over that year to make use of that training in an OJT setting. John wants to add a couple wknds in there to give them some practical experience w/ basic skills, feel lik ethey've accomplished something, & build relationships w/ other officer candidates. That sounds reasonable enough if you can make the logistics work. I think that's a pretty reasonable adaptation to our unique environment & situation.

Let me get you a couple others quickly also...

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

Where would we be right now if the national guard had taken this attitude 20 years ago? Where would the total force concept be? Where would the Guard be? See what I mean? you are what you decide you want to be, the rest is tenacity.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.

You know if you look around the AF, there's LtCols that have commanded units, and there's LtCols that have never had more than two people under them at any point in their career. Some are hardcore line officer leaders that can pretty much take the gate of hell if need be, and others are scientists or maint or supply or moblility officers (not to slight any of those professions). The fact is you just don't know what tat person's experience is or why they got promoted along thru their career. Some are great & some are not, most are in between somewhere.

I don't think it's at all beyond us to reach the average in that spectrum, and you'd be suprised what kinds of leadership situations CAP officers face in their careers that AF officers don't (having to lead & inspire 24/7 w/o the force of law behind you for one). No, on an individual level AF people tend to be respectful of CAP officers & judge them for themselves. It's when you get moron walking thru a base looking & acting like an idiot & niether AF nor CAP can do much about the big picture that you get problems. Our problem now really isn't that we suck, we aren't that bad really, but we need to step up big & have them see us doing that. I just think we haven't kept pace w/ the professional develoment evolution of the AF since WWII, & I don't think that's so hard to fix w/ some tenacity.

[RiverAux]

Just for comparison, the Coast Guard Reserve Officer Indoctrination Program is only 3 weeks.  They of couse would have additional technical training after that depending on what they're doing, but the basic course is short enough that CAP could produce something fairly equal to it. 

[sandman]

This is gonna ruffle some feathers.

I don't believe that it is practical for CAP officers to meet the commissioning and promotion standards of USAF.  It's not a matter of quality people, it's a matter of time needed vs the number of officers we need.  If we "raise the bar" that high, we won't have enough officers to run CAP.

So...if the goal is to become accepted by USAF for being more than just some punks off the street...we need to figure out where we fit in given our standards gap, and make it abundantly clear to USAF.

And (here's the part you won't like), we'll never do that by wearing USAF officer grade.

As long as our Lt Cols don't have commensurate training, education AND EXPERIENCE to USAF Lt Cols, they will always have a little of the "wannabee" aura around them.  (And 20 years of CAP squadron command  or staff jobs is nowhere near commensurate experience.  )

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

For example, there are thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians (GS-1 to GS-15 plus the Senior Executive Service).  Sometimes, these folks work for USAF Officers.  Sometimes, USAF Officers work for them.  They aren't officers themselves, but that doesn't in any way hinder them in performing their Air Force duties.

And yes, some of them wear uniforms, especially when deployed.


While I realize this steps on a million toes, if a paid USAF employee doesn't need silver oak leaves to lead and manage a bunch of real Air Force Officers and NCOs, why do we need it?  How does it help us do your job?

Okay, flame away...I'll be hiding under the couch.

It's interesting that you mention civilians wearing uniforms. An example of that from the Navy side would be the US Navy civilian mariners or CIVMARS. The ship drivers and custodians of the US Army fleet (I think the Army has more "ships" than the Navy!) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are mostly CIVMARS. They wear a uniform and military grade insignia so as not to confuse the active duty folks embarked on their ships (Think USNS Mercy, USNS Comfort). I have noticed that the CIVMARS driving MSC ships are wearing Merchant Marine officer devices (anybody know if the US Merchant Marine has been reactivated?) Anyway, food for thought....

[Major Carrales]

It's interesting that you mention civilians wearing uniforms. An example of that from the Navy side would be the US Navy civilian mariners or CIVMARS. The ship drivers and custodians of the US Army fleet (I think the Army has more "ships" than the Navy!) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are mostly CIVMARS. They wear a uniform and military grade insignia so as not to confuse the active duty folks embarked on their ships (Think USNS Mercy, USNS Comfort). I have noticed that the CIVMARS driving MSC ships are wearing Merchant Marine officer devices (anybody know if the US Merchant Marine has been reactivated?) Anyway, food for thought....

Go to ths webpage...and interesting read on historical ARMU Corps of Engineer head covers.  Here is what is says about these types you mentioned.

Corps of Engineers Civilian Captain's Service Cap

Civilians have always served in supporting roles within the U.S. Army. Their contribution is nowhere more important than within the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army traditionally has operated a wide variety of watercraft. The civilian personnel of the Floating Plant crew the many tugboats, dredges, tow boats, barges, and other watercraft the Corps operates on the waterways of the United States. In order to identify the officers serving on dredges, towboats, and ships of 60 feet or more, the Corps directed they wear uniforms starting in 1969. The uniforms are unique within the Army in that they are based on those worn by a completely different service—the Navy. This seemingly odd switch is actually traditional for the Army's boat crews, both military and civilian.

The Floating Plant's civilian officers wear their Navy-inspired service uniforms, including a visored service dress cap, while on duty. These caps are of the "convertible" type in that they have removable covers so they can be used for several orders of dress by simply changing the cover. This example uses the khaki cover normally associated with the summer service uniform. The badge, which also was approved in 1969, is unique to the Corps' Floating Plant. It consists of the Engineer castle, surmounted by the national eagle, with an anchor superimposed over the castle.

[Dragoon]

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

Where would we be right now if the national guard had taken this attitude 20 years ago? Where would the total force concept be? Where would the Guard be? See what I mean? you are what you decide you want to be, the rest is tenacity.

Not a good analogy.  The NG picks up guns and kills bad guys in Iraq. They are part of the DoD's main line of business.  We're not.  If we were, we'd be the NG, and therefore woudn't be needed.

I don't think it's at all beyond us to reach the average in that spectrum, and you'd be suprised what kinds of leadership situations CAP officers face in their careers that AF officers don't (having to lead & inspire 24/7 w/o the force of law behind you for one).

I wouldn't be surprised at all - I walk both sides of that fence (active duty and CAP).  But that goes both ways - volunteer group leadership/management  and real military leadership/management are extremely different.  There's really little basis for comparison - you can be great at one and lousy at the other.  All the more reason to acknowledge the differences with a different grade structure that doesn't try to compare apples to oranges.

Tags and spacing - MIKE

[Dragoon]

Here's another way to approach this - why do we need grade in CAP at all?  How does it help our missions.


Grade in the real military does a couple of things -

1.  It designates a level of pay. 

2.  It designates a minimum level of responsiblity that the service member have to accept in each and every job he does  (we don't assign Colonels to Second Lieutenant jobs, even if they want a break).

3  It  identifies who's in charge when things get chaotic. If your normal leadership had just got blown up, follow the ranking guy.

4.  It provides some universal authority to leaders, allowing them to step and and correct things even outside their normal scope of responsiblity.

5.  It confers status, giving people a reason (along with pay) to better themselves and perform, in order to get promoted and gain more status.


So.....what does rank give us in CAP?

#5.  That's it.  Status.  And not much of that.

To examine the other points

#1 - Pay - we don't get paid, so we don't need grade for this.

#2 - Minimum level of responsibility - wont' work in a volunteer organization.  If we don't let Colonels to only 2d Lt work when they need a break, they'll have to quit. I was a Wing Guy, now I'm back in a squadron for a while, working way below my grade.  How can you not allow me to do that?   The only way CAP can use rank in this way is to make it temporary and tied to position.

#3 - Who's in charge.  Today, the guy in charge is the appointed commander or project officer, or IC, regardless of pay grade.  In our most critical missions, leadership will always go to the guy with the most training and quals (the IC), not to the highest insignia on the collar.  It would take a lot to change this (for example, promoting all ICs to Lt Col, all GTLs to Captain, etc.)

#4 - Universal Authority.  Today there is none.  As a Lt Col, I cannot order a 2d Lt not in my chain of command to do a durned thing.  You can't be kicked out of CAP for disobeying the orders of an officer not in your chain, as long as you're polite about it.  This could be fixed, but will still cause problems given the way we organize for missions.


Could we bastardize the system to make it work?  Mebbe.  But why?  What does it get us?  How does it make us better.

I wonder how many folks who are fighting to make officer rank mean more are planning on being EMs after the changes are made?  Or do we all assume that because our our incredible talents, it'll be those lowly non-qualified senior members saluting us......

The real key (I think) is NOT to make us into little USAF officers.  It's to make us into whatever type of leaders we need to be in order to have a better CAP.  I'd rather see someone start with a clean slate, analyze CAP's missions, functions and membership, and then design an effective system of responsiblity and authority that best fits.

How many of us would quit CAP tomorrow if we still got to do all the things we do today, but didn't get officer rank and titles? 

[Dragoon]

It's interesting that you mention civilians wearing uniforms. An example of that from the Navy side would be the US Navy civilian mariners or CIVMARS. The ship drivers and custodians of the US Army fleet (I think the Army has more "ships" than the Navy!) and the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are mostly CIVMARS. They wear a uniform and military grade insignia so as not to confuse the active duty folks embarked on their ships (Think USNS Mercy, USNS Comfort). I have noticed that the CIVMARS driving MSC ships are wearing Merchant Marine officer devices (anybody know if the US Merchant Marine has been reactivated?) Anyway, food for thought....

My Navy knowledge is the weakest - but  that's an interesting concept.  What I've seen for USA and USAF is civilains in BDUs or ACUs, just like their military brethren, but instead of officer or NCO grade insignia, they have some sort of insignia identifiying them as Department of the Army (or Air Force) civilians.  That way they are officially "on the team", but not confusing things by adopting grade and titles that don't correctly define their responsibility and source of authority.

Tags - MIKE

[DNall]

We'd work a lot better with USAF if we both admitted what we are - civilians in uniform, and built a system based on that.

Where would we be right now if the national guard had taken this attitude 20 years ago? Where would the total force concept be? Where would the Guard be? See what I mean? you are what you decide you want to be, the rest is tenacity.

Not a good analogy.  The NG picks up guns and kills bad guys in Iraq. They are part of the DoD's main line of business.  We're not.  If we were, we'd be the NG, and therefore woudn't be needed.

See I think it's an excellent analogy, and I tell ya why. They had their wknd warrior persona & had to kill it in reality & perception. They did that & now they're a professional force and part of the total force standing side by side w/ active & reserve.

Now I want to take CAP plane, slap a NRBC mapping detector between the seats & FLIR in teh back, put us over transportation routes, the border, ports, coastlines, stadiums, events, etc as not only America's first line of defense but in many case ONLY line of defense to prevent movement of such devices in the US w/o the govt knowing about it. They can't do that w/ sats, they got literally two planes in CONUS w/ that capability & no more coming. DHS thinks its important & is willing to pay for the gear if AF will pay for the missions after its installed. So let me see, where's that busisness of the military again? Right, protecting America isn't it. I think it requires more than we currently are.... meanwhile, our traditional work is about to go away making us closer to obselete.... ket's see, I don't know about you, but I think maybe it's time to consider changing some aspects of who we are.

Maybe it's time to look at what teh guard & reserve did 25 years ago to professionalize their ranks, and maybe we should look at the stadards required of the AF, and maybe we should not cry about our lack of paycheck when we need to get in the game. Just my opinion though.

I don't think it's at all beyond us to reach the average in that spectrum, and you'd be suprised what kinds of leadership situations CAP officers face in their careers that AF officers don't (having to lead & inspire 24/7 w/o the force of law behind you for one).

I wouldn't be surprised at all - I walk both sides of that fence (active duty and CAP).  But that goes both ways - volunteer group leadership/management  and real military leadership/management are extremely different.  There's really little basis for comparison - you can be great at one and lousy at the other.  All the more reason to acknowledge the differences with a different grade structure that doesn't try to compare apples to oranges.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think most of the people on this thread are or have been in the military & in leadership postions on both sides of the fence. I guess an officer could be great in one branch & never able to adjust if they move to another. Not hard to see, supply guy gets a line job & jacks it up - old joke. Sure there are differnces, but we're working on shrinking that gap in a varriety of ways. Even as it is though, I tend to find quality leaders are quality leaders regardless of the circumstance. If you handle the transition of prior-service officers & NCOs to CAP in the right way, and if you build a culture with your people, then they are superb. If you still thnk I'm wrong though, call and talk to my Wing CC, straight over from AF Wg CC slot & short time in CAP to the top, done an outstanding job. All I can say is to the extent they don't cross over cause we're wierd, let's change that. Lets make a CAP that ACTS like the reserves, even if it's not.

[Dragoon]

. If you still thnk I'm wrong though, call and talk to my Wing CC, straight over from AF Wg CC slot & short time in CAP to the top, done an outstanding job. All I can say is to the extent they don't cross over cause we're wierd, let's change that. Lets make a CAP that ACTS like the reserves, even if it's not.

I do think you're wrong in this case.  You can call over and talk to the field grade USAF officer who has caused our Wing several IG complaints because of his behavior with the volunteer leadership, or the Army 0-5 who called all the way to National because he didn't understand why the Wing wouldn't put an Airplane in his son's squadron just so he could use it to learn to fly.  Or the former USAF NCO that went on a tirade to our Wing ES Officer when politely informed that he couldn't wear that blue beret with his CAP BDUs a few years back.

Not that they're all like that - we've had some fine ones as well.  The good ones are worth their weight in gold.

Leading volunteers is different.  You've got a LOT more ego stroking to do, and you have to accept a lot more compromise than you do when you're holding someone's paycheck in your hands.  Some folks make the transition.  Some don't.  It works both ways - some fine CAP leaders just wouldn't measure up on the battlefield (though I think some would).

[Al Sayre]

Al,

The only problem I have with the college degree gate keeper issue....is that it is bogus!

Even on active duty having a degree is not an indicator about a persons ability to be come an idea officer.

I accept that the USAF needs some sort of gate keeper before they invest that kind of money on their future leaders.  But CAP does not have that necessity.

Sure....let's develop a way that we separate the not so good guys from the good guys....but a college degree is an arbitrary requirement when it is applied to CAP.

I for instance joined before I finished my degree....I would not have been able to become squadron commander and CAP at Misawa would have folded.  I know of lots of very capable officers in CAP and the USAF who never had a degree.

My father was 22 years in the USAF retired as a Lt Col, Navigator.  Served as executive officer to a MAJCOM Deputy Commander for Logistics (3 star).  Dropped out of college after 2 years.  Never went back, never got his masters...but was a fine officer.  I can name 10-15 SM's in my squadron who are as professional and as dedicated as any USAF officer but they do not have college degrees.

Again.....lets put some standards into the system...but let's make sure they are intelligent standards.  I mean you are going to let some 22 year old kid with a liberal arts degree in Art Appreciation get inside the door of the leadership track...but you are going to block the everyone else...no matter how successful a leader they are just because they did not get a degree.

Sorry...I just cannot support this sort of an idea.

I agree with you.  However my original argument was to address someone who said if CAP Officers who couldn't meet the basic standards were stripped, we wouldn't have enough Officers to run the program.  I don't necessarily see the need for a degree in CAP, but since the USAF uses that as the "gatekeeper", then I believe we have enough people to get the job done, not whether or not it was the right way to do things, but simply that we have the numbers that can make it past the "gate".

[Dragoon]

The problem with gatekeeping is that, well, it keeps people out.

I know, I know, this sounds like a good thing.  At least to those of us who figure we'll be let IN the gate.  But here are a couple of things to keep in mind.


1.  Dues matter.  Until they don't, National wants lots of members to generate income.  So they give away officer's grade for free.  The alternative was to lose members who don't want to be "just airmen."

2.  Numbers matter, especially when lobbying Congress.  See #1 above.

3.  If we really want a quality officer corps like the real military, we won't just screen at the door, we'll screen at every promotion.  And some good guys might not get promoted.   Because not every Captain makes a good Major, regardless how good a Captain they were.  You're promoted on potential for higher grade, not performance at current grade.  Of course, in a volunteer group, if you tell someone "you went to all the schools, but we don't think you have the potential for field grade service" odds are they're gonna quit.  So now you're out a decent captain.  See #1 and #2 above.

Real military folks don't quit over this after about the first 10 years because they want the pension.  CAP has no such carrot.

Bottom line - any true attempt at a quality officer corps will involve failing folks, not because they are criminal, but because they're just not "good enough."

Heck, we don't even like to fail folks who attend our schools, because "it's a waste to fail them after they've put in the time and effort to attend."  But without passing and failing, there is little quality control.

That's gonna cause all kinds of heartburn, and affect our numbers.  Which, rightly or wrongly, carry a lot of weight.

[DNall]

Now if you want to push quality up, you start by keeping people out & demanding lots to be in. You'd be amazed how that improves recruiting & retention rather than not.

I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences with prior-service folks. There's a few problems in any group of people, what can I say. It's unfortuante though. I'd expect if they were correctly oriented to CAP & understood how things are going to work that they'll get with the program or move on. That sort of behavior would not be tolerated in the military, and they really do know better.

As to leading volunteers... we were just talking abou tthis a couple days ago in another thread. You really can't jsut order people to do things in the military. I mean you can, but you're going to get the very worst possible performance from them by doing that. You really have to motivate & inspire them to want to do the job. Some of that is culture & some is you as a leader, none of it is the paycheck they get regardless of how good or bad they do.

In CAP you have to do exactly the same thing. You have to build a culture, motivate/inspire followership, and we also discussed how you can explain to people the consequences (real & maybe a little stretched bluff too) that are out there for not doing what they're told. The truth s you volunteer to join & you can volunteer to quit, everything in between is governed by regs. Part of this too is about people not getting good training when they come in. They don't have military discipline. You can build it to a degree, but it'd be a lot easier with an entry program to take care of that. That's what you'll see Kach talking about on his TAC wknds for OTS idea.

[Dragoon]

Now if you want to push quality up, you start by keeping people out & demanding lots to be in. You'd be amazed how that improves recruiting & retention rather than not.

I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences with prior-service folks. There's a few problems in any group of people, what can I say. It's unfortuante though. I'd expect if they were correctly oriented to CAP & understood how things are going to work that they'll get with the program or move on. That sort of behavior would not be tolerated in the military, and they really do know better.

As to leading volunteers... we were just talking abou tthis a couple days ago in another thread. You really can't jsut order people to do things in the military. I mean you can, but you're going to get the very worst possible performance from them by doing that. You really have to motivate & inspire them to want to do the job. Some of that is culture & some is you as a leader, none of it is the paycheck they get regardless of how good or bad they do.

In CAP you have to do exactly the same thing. You have to build a culture, motivate/inspire followership, and we also discussed how you can explain to people the consequences (real & maybe a little stretched bluff too) that are out there for not doing what they're told. The truth s you volunteer to join & you can volunteer to quit, everything in between is governed by regs. Part of this too is about people not getting good training when they come in. They don't have military discipline. You can build it to a degree, but it'd be a lot easier with an entry program to take care of that. That's what you'll see Kach talking about on his TAC wknds for OTS idea.

I'm still not with you.  Patton would have made a horrible CAP leader- no one would have put up with his posturing.  And we've got some "Den mother" types in CAP who accomplish incredible things with volunteers, but would get cut to ribbons in a military unit.

Yes, there's overlap, but it just ain't the same thing.  If you've got 20 odd years learning one style of leadership, that's the way you're gonna do things in the future. We simply don't have the time and resources to do that level of reprogramming. And...there are many sources of good adult leaders.  If you find me a guy with 10 years of leadership in another volunteer group, or even certain commercial businesses.  He may be IMMENSELY more valuable out of the gate than a 10 year USAF Captain.  And yet we give him nothing on his collar.

Yes we need good leaders.  And yes, we can get some out of the military.  But we can get them elsewhere as well, AND we can get some not-so good ones out of the military.

I'd say everyone start at the bottom and if you're good, we'll figure it out quickly and promote you.  And if that's too much for your ego to handle.....you'll probably cause us problems later anyways.

[DNall]

Dif leadership styles work with dif audiences, that's true, but you can also create a culture that defines & controls your audience so they behave as though they are reservists, even if they aren't. From your military experince I'm sure you know you pick up much more from the people around you & the standards informally enforced on you than by having it taught in a class or read from a book. Just control the environment & control the situation. You can make people who you want them to be. It's not even hard.

We may just have to agree to disagree here, but I'm telling you there is no choice in the matter over the direction CAP is going now. We are going to implement some of the things we're talking about here & CAP is going to change. CAP'll be given the opportunity to make that choice for themselves, then they'll be pressured from above, maybe forced if it takes it. I'd rather do this the easy way.

If I can give you the hypothetical that this is the situation & CAP will be making these changes, can you then help us brainstorm & develop: how to recruit the right people, keep out the wrong ones, fit military training standards & programs to the structure of CAP time allowances, fully meet NIMS standards, integrate into the AF total force structure, take on front line holemand defense roles, etc.  I'd really appreciate your perspective on these items.