CAP grades

[CFI_Ed]

So what say you all?

Who's willing to give up their oak leaves for FO rank and making CAP rank meaningful?

Okay.

[RiverAux]

Given how much everyone B&Ms about changing uniform items now, I don't think temporary ranks would prove very popular.  There would also be issues with ID cards. 

[O-Rex]

Given how much everyone B&Ms about changing uniform items now, I don't think temporary ranks would prove very popular.  There would also be issues with ID cards. 

I think lordmonar is in a roundabout way steering towards the CGAUX model: they seem to have the uniform/ID thing worked out.

Given that assumption, all members would be "Auxiliarists," which goes against the grain of our current organizational culture.

[lordmonar]

The Id thing is easy....your 2a assigning you the position/ES rating and a $10 check fixes that.  Keep your old one for when/if you step down to being a FO-5 again.

The changing uniform issues is fixed by staying in your position...keeping your ES rating current.

Again....not really an issue for those who want or don't want to keep their rank.

[RiverAux]

So for the joy of getting promoted I get to spend more money on buying and sewing on more uniform parts that I may only get to wear for a while?  As long as we're doing sew on rank this isn't going to be a good way to go.  I know that in at least one period in my CAP career I would have had to change my ranks at least 3 times in one year. 

Temporary ranks also will take away all incentive for doing any CAP professional development.  So long as I can get promoted based entirely on the "who you know" system, there is no need for it. 

[RiverAux]

The Id thing is easy....your 2a assigning you the position/ES rating and a $10 check fixes that.  Keep your old one for when/if you step down to being a FO-5 again.

the old one would probably be expired. 

The reason the CG Aux system seems to mostly work is that they are not using rank titles with the positions for the most part and they get to keep wearing the insignia of the highest office they have held.  That and the fact that they have much, much, less emphasis on military customs and courtesies.

However, as long as we are using standard military rank systems, people are going to be very reluctant to give up a rank that they have earned.  Do you really think a Wing King is going to take off those eagles for any reason?

By the way, ignore my last comment in the previous post about PD. 

[lordmonar]

So for the joy of getting promoted I get to spend more money on buying and sewing on more uniform parts that I may only get to wear for a while?  As long as we're doing sew on rank this isn't going to be a good way to go.  I know that in at least one period in my CAP career I would have had to change my ranks at least 3 times in one year. 

Temporary ranks also will take away all incentive for doing any CAP professional development.  So long as I can get promoted based entirely on the "who you know" system, there is no need for it. 

If cost is your major draw back, then I think we are on to something.

As far as rank being an incentive for advancing in the CAP PD system....I think you got it backwards.  We don't do PD to promote we do PD to provide our leaders to do the job.  As I argued in the "mandatory PD" thread if you are fat dumb and happy being a FO-2 at the squadron level....well good on you.

If you want to step up to be a commander then you got to do the required PD and press  on.

I thought one of your arguments was that rank does not mean anything.

We can't fix that with out either requiring Lt Cols to take jobs equal to their ranks or we make peoples rank match the job that they are doing.

[lordmonar]

The Id thing is easy....your 2a assigning you the position/ES rating and a $10 check fixes that.  Keep your old one for when/if you step down to being a FO-5 again.

the old one would probably be expired.

Then raise the fee to 20$ to cover the cost of a new ID when you step down.

The reason the CG Aux system seems to mostly work is that they are not using rank titles with the positions for the most part and they get to keep wearing the insignia of the highest office they have held.  That and the fact that they have much, much, less emphasis on military customs and courtesies.

However, as long as we are using standard military rank systems, people are going to be very reluctant to give up a rank that they have earned.  Do you really think a Wing King is going to take off those eagles for any reason?

Sure...it's the rules.  If he wants to keep his eagles he needs to get his IC1 and maintain his currency.  Where's the problem with that?

So if we were adopt this system....personal progression in the PD system will be denoted by the FO ranks and real leadership positions will be denoted by standard ranks.  It will greatly reduce the number of squadron commanders with Lt Cols "under them".  It will not confuse any of our customers at a mission base because the ICs and bosses will all have higher rank then most of the worker bees....sure you may have an IC1 pulling OSC or PSC (or less) duty and only an IC3 in charge...but that would be easy to explain to an outsider and again it will greatly reduce the number of Lt Cols just doing MSA or MP duties.

Sorry about my pervious post....I alrady responded before I read your request to ignore it......consider it ingored

[DNall]

As far as rank being an incentive for advancing in the CAP PD system....I think you got it backwards.  We don't do PD to promote we do PD to provide our leaders to do the job.  As I argued in the "mandatory PD" thread if you are fat dumb and happy being a FO-2 at the squadron level....well good on you.

Here's the fundamental part of my argument:

Just put rank completely out of your mind for a minute... our current PD program is about worthless in terms of meeting the internal ldrshp/mgmt development needs for org. This is in turn responsible for the majority of our problems in one form or another, IMO.

The second part of that is... if we made a PD program that legitimately me those needs, a whole ton of people would not be capable of completing it. I hate to be cold about this, but the brains it takes to be a general are not the same as it takes to be a SrA, and the difference is not just circumstance or experience.

Which brings me to another point. You don't use your resources training everyone to be an upper-level leader, then have just a few. That ends up with too many chiefs & not enough Indians. You also don't train no one for leadership, then act frustrated when very few people are capable of effectively doing the job - not to mention also being ethical & professional in their execution of it. The compromise we currently run is CAP is actually the worst of both sides of that equation.

There's also one more element, merit. Checklisting PD requirements doesn't make you anything. Performing above average in comparison to your peers does mean something. That has to be considered as the prime factor in promotions, balanced with PD, and with checks against political BS.


The most logical solution is a dual track system, much like you'll see not only in the military, but civilian govt as well as private business (SOS has a good section on this topic).

Based on qualifications, capabilities, aptitude, and personal desire, more most people are going to be workers. There's nothing wrong with that. They should not looked down on. They are the backbone of the org. Without them, nothing happens. As they progress through their career we do need to provide a PD program to help them improve themselves in that tactical/operational level. In the military this is your enlisted force.

Now that group is exceptionally, important, but it isn't strategic. You need another layer of people that focus on organizational leadership & mgmt. They aren't better than the previous group, just different in key ways that make them capable of doing a different kind of work, which we also can't function without. That's a very complex situation which requires investment of a lot more resources over years to develop each ldr/mgr to function at increasing levels of responsibility. This is your officer corps. That's not to say there aren't people that are initially better suited to the enlisted side, but after some time become qualified & capable of completing the training & meeting the performance standards of an officer. There are such people, and their applications should be on top of the list to accept to such training.

Finally, promotions within both sides have to be managed by selection boards. You can provide checks & balances against stupid stuff by making them anonymous as much as possible. Obviously there's some good example out there on how to do all this.

I'm not arguing that we do things more like the military so we can be more like the military. I'm arguing that they have a very proven system over generations that's just flat got it right. That this same system is present in a slightly altered more cold-hearted form in the corporate world. We're sitting around wondering why things don't work that well in CAP, when we're doing something different than every other successful mgmt system out there.

When you lay grade back over the top of what I just said, it all kind of falls into place & just makes sense.

Why FO1-5? And why no NCOs or LTs? Why purposefully diverge further from the foundation on which we're built?

Also, is a FO5 really interchangeable with a Col? Is it just the position & some crap on their collar that makes them different? Or do you think there might just be a little more to it then that?

[RiverAux]

I thought one of your arguments was that rank does not mean anything.

I've never said that.  I'm one of the people who say CAP rank is just that -- CAP rank and that its silly to get all bent out of shape over how it does or does not relate to similar military ranks in terms of training to get it. 

Now, I'm not all opposed to making rank based on position.  But, I recognize the fact that so long as we have separate systems for administration and operations (ES) then no single system will make "sense".  In other words you will still end up with situations where someone will be in charge of someone else with a higher rank during a mission. 

My proposal, made some time ago, is to have rank based on position in the ES structure since that is where we have the most interaction with other agencies and do our actual work. 

Even though I've got a proposal on the table, I recognize that it, and all the other rank proposals out there, will make very little, if any, true difference to the organization and that our current system, while not entirely logical, gets the job done. 

[DNall]

I'm not all opposed to making rank based on position.  But, I recognize the fact that so long as we have separate systems for administration and operations (ES) then no single system will make "sense".  In other words you will still end up with situations where someone will be in charge of someone else with a higher rank during a mission. 

That's so backwards. Rank isn't tied to positions like that, and shouldn't be. It's not about looking right, lines of authority, or whatever else. It's about there is a personal skill level required for each higher position level, those skill levels can be determined in part by grade. That only works is 2Lt has a level of education, trng, testing, etc; if 1Lt has a higher skill level plus experience; Capt has it pretty well figured out & ready for first command. If only the top 40% (example) of Capts can make Major; top 30% of majs can make LtCol, etc. If it's just sitting thru some classes/serving some time then that's completely meaningless. If it's i need an experienced person above average to this theoretical percentage level, then I can define that with grade, IF the background grade system makes sense. Otherwise it's a charade.

[RiverAux]

The latest proposal in this thread from lordmonar did specifically tie rank to position.  See the page before this one.

[DNall]

I understand. The reason lots of people think rank should be tied to positions is cause it looks right & maintains consistent lines of authority. That part is true, but the actual reason they're tied together is a matter of the qualifications/capabilities necessary to execute the position. The rest is bonus. If you come up with a system that addresses the bonus while ignoring the primary purpose then it's kind of missing hte point isn't it?

[O-Rex]

I understand. The reason lots of people think rank should be tied to positions is cause it looks right & maintains consistent lines of authority. That part is true, but the actual reason they're tied together is a matter of the qualifications/capabilities necessary to execute the position. The rest is bonus. If you come up with a system that addresses the bonus while ignoring the primary purpose then it's kind of missing hte point isn't it?

Lots of frosting, but no cake.......

[DNall]

^ exactly.

That's why I'm talking about you need a system of initial qualifications, developmental training, and merit based progression to determine officer grade. Cause that then says something significant about qualifications to be a unit commander or branch director or whatever the case may be. That's why grade exists.

[lordmonar]

Merit based progression?

I though we had that....

Do this training, go to these conferences, obtain and maintain an appropriate rating in a specialty track, do so much time in a staff position, X number of months TIG.....and you MERIT a promotion.

What more do we need?

Promotion boards?   We do that now don't we?

Rank quotas?  So we can slow boat some hard charger because there are too many Lt Col Old Farts in another squadron?

Compete for rank?   I'd like to see the proposal for that one.

[DNall]

Merit based progression?

I though we had that....

Do this training, go to these conferences, obtain and maintain an appropriate rating in a specialty track, do so much time in a staff position, X number of months TIG.....and you MERIT a promotion.

That's checklisting some requirements & serving your time to promotions that are virtually automatic.

What more do we need?

Promotion boards?   We do that now don't we?

Rank quotas?  So we can slow boat some hard charger because there are too many Lt Col Old Farts in another squadron?

Compete for rank?   I'd like to see the proposal for that one.

Yes, promotion board.

No we don't legitimately do that now. Very few units actually put anyone thru a board. In the cases they do, it would only be held up for past problems, like poor performance. Basically, as long as you keep plugging along you get promoted. Even in the few cases where this happens now, the standards are extremely inconsistent with no command guidance.

No, I'm not talking about quotas, which would in some cases hold people up. Yes I very much am talking about competing for grade. Merit of individual performance versus peers, and in comparison to overall standards for the next higher grade, taken in view of a whole person concept that looks at experience, education, background, participation, achievements, etc.

You know.... the stuff that tells me this guy can actually perform in any generalist Major position I put him in, versus that guy that's a decent Capt but isn't ready to make the jump & may never be.

If I do promotions that way, then when I say IC is a LtCol or above slot, then it's actually meaningful.

[ColonelJack]

Sigh.

Heavy sigh.

Heavy sigh.

Someone, please tell me we're not doing this one again.

While I have absolutely no problem with theoretical discussions, this one seems to be a re-hash of one (or more) we've already had.  Any proposal to change/re-do CAP grades is -- in my opinion -- both a solution in search of a problem and never going to happen anyway.

The theoretical exercise is quite interesting, don't get me wrong.  But I hope you're not seriously proposing this as a real change as opposed to said theoretical exercise.  CAP grade does exactly what it is supposed to do -- reflect an individual's progression and/or achievement in the senior program.  Any CAP field grade officer who has a problem being led by a company grade officer who is also a Squadron CC or an IC needs an attitude adjustment.  Rank is not, and should not be, attached to position in CAP.

My two cents.  Flame away, if you feel the need.

Jack

[DNall]

Yes it's theoretical, to an extent. No one is proposing we step in & completely remake all of CAP in one fail swoop. There is merit though to considering incremental change along the path being discussed.... And just so you know, this is that old conversation revived to clarify on that past discussion. If you don't want to participate, no one is making you read it.

CAP grade does exactly what it is supposed to do -- reflect an individual's progression and/or achievement in the senior program.

Which is absolutely in every way meaningless. That program is just slightly better than completely worthless in terms of what we actually need as an organization for internal leader/manager development.

To the extent that we need to recognize progression thru what I'll very VERY loosely call a professional development program, that can & should be done thru ribbons. Grade (to the whole rest of humanity in all of history, military or otherwise) is a symbol of deserved authority entrusted by the public.

Any CAP field grade officer who has a problem being led by a company grade officer who is also a Squadron CC or an IC needs an attitude adjustment.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the discipline CAP members show toward those appointed over them. It has to do with the extreme lack of quality well-trained leader/managers at all levels of the organization, the lack of an adequate program to create them from within, and the lack of a system to select people for positions based on their abilities in this arena.

These problems are, IMO, the primary limiting factor that holds CAP back & causes the majority of our problems.

[ColonelJack]

CAP grade does exactly what it is supposed to do -- reflect an individual's progression and/or achievement in the senior program.

Which is absolutely in every way meaningless. That program is just slightly better than completely worthless in terms of what we actually need as an organization for internal leader/manager development.

To the extent that we need to recognize progression thru what I'll very VERY loosely call a professional development program, that can & should be done thru ribbons. Grade (to the whole rest of humanity in all of history, military or otherwise) is a symbol of deserved authority entrusted by the public.

I couldn't and wouldn't argue with you in that regard.  The problem is, your point (and it's a good one!) is being made about 67 years too late.  The Army Air Forces took CAP into their organization and gave us uniform, grade, etc.  Things change over time, and what may have originally been what you describe has slowly evolved into the system we have now.  And I just don't see The Powers That Be (and that includes the Air Force, which has final say on CAP's grade structure from top to bottom) being at all willing to entertain ideas to change that.

As far as signifying progression through what you laughably call "PD" through ribbons, there seems to be a similarly strong thread to do away with many of those, and perhaps represent the levels of PD with various devices on a single ribbon.  Even if professional development is something of a joke, it takes work and time, and should be reflected in some measure.  (You can already tell I like having both grade and ribbons -- one doesn't always wear one's ribbons.)

It has to do with the extreme lack of quality well-trained leader/managers at all levels of the organization, the lack of an adequate program to create them from within, and the lack of a system to select people for positions based on their abilities in this arena.

To accomplish that, we need a top-to-bottom recreation of our PD program and the development of a leader/manager program.  And we would have to have the willingness to accept having potentially necessary positions unmanned if qualified members can't be found.  But, I don't see what rank has to do with that.  Our current system, which quite often has lower-ranking people in command slots over higher-ranking people, would work the same with a better PD system, wouldn't it?

These problems are, IMO, the primary limiting factor that holds CAP back & causes the majority of our problems.

But will recreating our rank structure solve that factor?  The insignia displayed on a member's collar really isn't that big of a deal; the ability of the member to do the job needed at the level of proficiency required is the issue. 

Or did I misunderstand something?

Jack