Is the Senior Member Professional Development program valuable to CAP?

[RiverAux]

Just tonight someone mentioned in passing the idea of getting rid of CAP officer ranks since as currently configured, they are essentially meaningless in terms of designating authority or responsibility.  Basically, they either represent some past training or experience you have or your participation in the CAP senior member professional development program. 

I would feel pretty confident in saying that a by-product of doing away with ranks would be the virtual death of the senior member professional development program.  Why?  Participation does get you some ribbons and awards, but I think the primary motivator for participation is CAP rank.  If rank is no longer an incentive, I don't think very many people at all would take even the most basic courses. 

This is based upon what I see in CG Aux.  They too have a PD program of sorts and while some of the classroom courses are somewhat difficult to take as they aren't widely offered, others are available through internet courses.  Neither type are really used since there is very little direct benefit to taking the course.  An example is the Aux Administrative Procedures Course which is more or less a test of your ability to read and understand Aux regulations.  I think the only reason anyone takes it is that it is a requirement to become a flotilla commander or vice commander even though it would probably be of value to all members.

So, thats the context in which I bring this up, but you are more than welcome to make your feelings known about the overall program as it now stands and whether it is valuable to the organization even if you don't want to buy the rank elimination scenario. 

[Eclipse]

The program has tremendous value, however the implementation is backwards.

We should be providing the training and requiring completion and then handing out the jobs and the fun, not the other way around.

[a2capt]

When I saw the thread name, I thought for sure it was something that RM posted...

I think the PD is an awsome value that goes largely untapped, myself. Being a volunteer organization though, it doesn't quite fit as smoothly as the system it's modeled after.  But all things considered ..

[AirDX]

I'm the one who pointed out (as I think we all know) that CAP officer grade is pretty much meaningless in terms of indicating the holder's level of authority.

That doesn't mean I want to get rid of it.

I pretty much am in agreement with you on how rank works to motivate folks in the program.  I think the bar should be raised a bit on some of the PD levels... or leave the PD program the way it is and add a couple of items to the requirements for promotion.  Some tweaking is in order, not wholesale massacre.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This is a hard one, and having been in CGAUX I can relate the comparisons between the two.

One thing I could never get used to in the Auxiliary was the concept of someone wearing (for example) four piston rings and chicken collar brass...but they were not a Captain, or in my case wearing (first) a single piston ring and butterbar...but not being an Ensign, and then a piston ring-and-a-half...but not being a Lieutenant (jg).

It was really weird being around non-CG military personnel and being saluted and addressed by a rank I didn't have.  Some of the more zealous types online trying to keep the Auxiliary as "civilian" as possible (Radioman, you'd fit in with these quite well) actually told me that I needed to stop each time and inform the military member that I was, indeed, a civilian who held no rank, do not call me "Lieutenant," etc. etc. etc.  And I never got used to the multitude of alphabet-soup designations that go with whatever "office" (roughly equivalent to a CAP speciality track) one held in the CGAUX.  If you think CAP has too many levels of bureaucracy...at least with us a lieutenant is a lieutenant is a colonel is a colonel.

This is not a Lieutenant...though it looks like he is one.


This is a Lieutenant.


PD in the CGAUX, since there are no "ranks," does not have a lot to do with leadership training (at least when I was in).  The training seemed to focus a lot more on being "on the water."

I do think there is a lot of work that could be done on the system of ranks and promotions within the CAP.  I think it's senseless to grant direct appointments except for the way the military does it: medical personnel, chaplains and legal beagles.  I also think it's silly to just hand someone second lieutenant for showing up and fogging a mirror for six months.  USNSCC requires a year of membership, study and testing before you get ensign brass with them...I don't think that's a bad idea.

Even though I enjoyed my time in the Auxiliary and respect them a lot, there's no way under the sun I would like to go to the rankless ranks they have.

[Hawk200]

I think the program could be more valuable than it is. A lot of it should be done in the beginning, and additional requirements added  for later. Was it Ohio that had basically a "Basic training" for new members? There were a number of things to the program that were good things, and probably should be included in ours. We have too many "2nd looiees" that have no clue how to salute, how to wear a uniform, what regulations are, what specialty tracks are, what the chain of command is, etc. A lot of that stuff needs to be done in the first place, not as progression training.

I think something that would be useful would be training our officers to train others. Making a requirement for someone to actually train someone else could be a viability issue, but an officer having the knowledge would be good. A common phrase in the military is "know one level up, two levels down." I can dispute the "two levels down" a bit, you should never lose the basics. But at least one up is a good start.

I'm also thinking that things like UCC should be included as part of PD progression. I've held command, but there was no UCC at the time I did. I'm planning on attending the first chance that I have the time. I do hope that it's educational enough to be worth it.

A lot should start at the beginning, not later. Now, I'm not looking to create CAP officers that are directly equivalent to military officers, that's a non starter. But, compared to what was required in the beginning of the Civil Air Patrol, many of our officers are woefully ignorant. We need to work on that. Let's start with educating our officers on chain of command, what specialty tracks are and how they fit, how to wear a uniform, and the purpose/proper execution of a salute. Just to name a few.

[CAP4117]

^ +1
As someone who recently went through it, I can say that Level 1 training alone did not adequately prepare me, particularly in the more "paramilitary" aspects of CAP. While I am slowly figuring it out, it would have been very helpful to have the sort of "basic training" program that was mentioned. I think it would give new members more confidence, and would probably help new member retention. 
That being said, I am really impressed by the PD program and am looking forward to being more heavily involved in it. I think that if people are motivated enough to use it, the program can be a very powerful asset to CAP. I also agree that the rank structure is a good way to accomplish this.

[Spaceman3750]

The program has tremendous value, however the implementation is backwards.

We should be providing the training and requiring completion and then handing out the jobs and the fun, not the other way around.

So I make them sit on their hands for 6-12 months until the next SLS or OBC cohort rolls around?

[lordmonar]

Well that's the self licking icecream cone.

Rank does not mean anything other then completion of PD.  If we take away the rank, then 90% of those who only took PD to get the rank would not do any PD beyond level I.

So.

This becomes a case of "identify the horse".

Why do we do PD?
Why do we have rank?


Have fun with that.

[JC004]

So I make them sit on their hands for 6-12 months until the next SLS or OBC cohort rolls around?

OBC enrollment will not take 6-12 months.  I enrolled and completed the course - all the material and all 400 exam questions overnight.  Enrollment to completion was less than 24 hours.  The credit popped up in e-Services on Monday after I completed it on a Friday.

If SLSs are not being offered often enough, it's time to complain to the PD staff or relevant commanders.

Professional development needs to be looked at in general - especially the specialty tracks that are like 15 years old. 

If we implemented an NCO program, a SERIOUS look at the program would need to be done because, for instance, the AF has apprentices and all that jazz at the NCO level.

I think that at least in some wings, there is a serious gap between Level I and Level II - and especially between Level I and higher than Level II.  When I ran statistics about two years ago, there were huge gaps here (and I DO need to update those stats with current information).  We should look at why if this is a national trend, then figure out how to fix it.  If SMs are only doing Tech level (as I was finding in my statistics), the program can be suffering as members don't advance their education and do the tasks that contribute to the program.

So PD needs a serious look, top to bottom - using surveys, statistics, and lots of information collected from the field, in my opinion.  We should not remodel the program arbitrary or on anecdotal evidence. 

[Briski]

Well that's the self licking icecream cone.

Rank does not mean anything other then completion of PD.  If we take away the rank, then 90% of those who only took PD to get the rank would not do any PD beyond level I.

So.

This becomes a case of "identify the horse".

Why do we do PD?
Why do we have rank?


Have fun with that.

The interesting part, from my perspective, is that I was pretty surprised to find out that this thread was primarily about the rank structure. In my mind, the "horses" of PD and rank are very different.

I'm a former cadet with about a year and a half of "active" service as a Senior Member. Perhaps this is related to the fact that I'm still pretty new to the Senior side, but it honestly never occurred to me that rank would be considered part of the "professional development" program. Promotions are not a result of professional development achievements so much as they are a result of overall service: time in grade, staff/command experience, and yes--professional development in the form of courses completed (SLS, CLC, etc.) and specialty track ratings earned.

Progress within the PD program itself is recognized by ribbons (Membership, Leadership, Loening, etc.), not through promotions.

To me, the "horse" of why we do PD is to equip people to accomplish our missions more effectively. In that regard, overall, I'd say that yes, the Senior Member professional development program is incredibly valuable.

I would feel pretty confident in saying that a by-product of doing away with ranks would be the virtual death of the senior member professional development program.  Why?  Participation does get you some ribbons and awards, but I think the primary motivator for participation is CAP rank.  If rank is no longer an incentive, I don't think very many people at all would take even the most basic courses. 

I've already admitted my relative inexperience as a Senior Member, but I honestly do not believe that rank is the primary motivator--for cadets or seniors. While you always get a few (and some might be more highly concentrated in certain areas than others), I still think that the majority of volunteers are here primarily to serve.

But here's the challenge: the rank structure is a symbol of social status. Moreover, it provides recognition for your contributions to the organization and what your leaders believe you're capable of contributing in the future.

I do think that if we did away with the rank structure as-is, retention of Senior Members would suffer. Not because rank is the primary motivator, but because dedicated volunteers would suddenly be struggling to figure out where they fit in. We would also need to solve the immediate problem of how we recognize individual volunteers for their service and accomplishments.

Basic Maslow, man.

In the end, to keep the two-horse metaphor lordmonar introduced, I think the intent of the two-horse system (rank + PD) is for them to work together to accomplish the mission, like two couriers on the Pony Express. But all too often, they become two horses competing to see who has the best jockey in the Kentucky Derby.

[coudano]

Hmm i'd say it's not as valuable as it could be.
And that's just based on watching several members who have gone through it (and some that are in it now).

Then again it has changed since I went through it, and I haven't seen the new stuff in actual implementation yet.  I'm (told) that it's better.  When I did it (and instructed it), it was all just rehash upon rehash of the same stuff over and over and yes, over again.  It was the boring "staff parade".

Then again I was a cadet (C/Lt Col, 7 years) prior, and basically have yet to encounter something in PD that I didn't already know as a cadet (I took and passed ECI 13 after briefly skimming the objectives).  The rightly done cadet program really is maybe the best introductory training there is.  Of course not everyone does that; and maybe i'm just too insensitive to the adults coming in without the prior experience.

I took SOS instead of Region Staff College just because I wanted to try something "different" for a change.  The thought of another, longer, smaller group, more expensive, repeat of the same. stuff. yet. again. made me want to stick my head through a wall.  That's no offense intended at the PEOPLE at my region who would have run and participated in staff college.  It's offense at the PD program.  I have no reason to believe that my fears would not have been met in full.


I think that PD should be more relevant to the needs of the member, rather than just the needs of the corporation, and it carry some more substance.

Your "level 1" or in the door training, is the first thing a CAP member does.  Waiting until SLS for some of these lessons is a mistake.  This is your best and first chance to get a new member the right impression, and we toss them a stack of 3 page flyers that contain a lot of fluff.   Level One should include A LOT more about cultural identity of CAP, expectation level setting, attendance, participation, how to look, how to act, how much to produce at what quality level, timeframes for upcoming milestones (tech level completion), introduction to people and resources to help with those goals, a stronger orientation down the "right path" along with healthy little shove down it.  Level one introductory training should equip AND MOTIVATE a new member sufficiently to get them on a 'great start' that will carry them through their first year of membership.  It should include  mandatory specialty track selection and enrollment (before completion of level 1).

Faster and higher quality completion of a technician rating should be pushed harder, and prerequisite to SLS.
Put in here things like TLC for cadet programs and equivalent course for other specialties.

Then they can pick up with SLS sometime during, or near the end of, that first year.
SLS should not be 'introductory' anymore.  Take for granted that they got the introductory stuff done, and are technician rated, and already are, or are on the way to being technically competent in a specialty.  Do a quick review and reinforcement "re-bluing" (10% of SLS).  Now get to work on their transition to leadership in a CAP context.  Use the previous stuff as a base and build off of it.  Rather than SLS being the first 'base' training that most new members get.  Do SLS as a 1st Lt, pre-requisite to pinning Captain.  This should be the "finishing out and rounding off" of 'how to be a rockin CGO'.  If you see a senior member wearing captain, that person should be the 'master of domain' of squadron level operations and leadership, and a contributing pro-am in their specialty track(s).

Then you can start with the transition to field grade, which should (rightly) presume, pardon the term, "phase mastery" of squadron level operations and leadership.  And introduce officers to operations and leadership above the squadron level, taken as a Capt.  With an intermediate development taken as Maj.  Followed by a "finishing out and rounding off" of how to be a FGO after the person pins Lt Col.   Ironically it seems (vaguely) to me like this is done better than the intro level stuff, as is, provided that rsc and nsc content are as good as advertised.  Unfortunately so few of our members see that stuff.

We need to spend more time doing a better job on what the vast majority of our senior members see, which is level 1 and technical training.


I get the sense that some of this is sort of going on, but it comes off to me as being a little discombobulated, poorly timed, and sometimes out of order.

I would prefer to see suggested, and encouraged "career paths" and (better) contribution expectation levels at each step along the way.  And of course many if not all of the tech tracks need to be "fixed".  And some of them probably just need to be eliminated/consolidated.

[Eclipse]

The program has tremendous value, however the implementation is backwards.

We should be providing the training and requiring completion and then handing out the jobs and the fun, not the other way around.

So I make them sit on their hands for 6-12 months until the next SLS or OBC cohort rolls around?

No, but you also don't make them FM or CD before they get their membership ribbon.  We are so short-handed and desperate for help in some areas that we don't allow member to just be members before we give them huge responsibility and authority in a program they know little about.

No one should be anything but a legit assist (meaning someone actually doing the full job) until they are at least a Tech in that specialty.  That helps the member, too, because then they might have a clue what they are responsible for, and whether they want any part of it.

[EMT-83]

Because CAP is local (to borrow the theme from SLS), I think you'll find that Professional Development varies greatly. At least in its content and delivery.

There are still folks who make up their own material and replace the intended course content. Also, consider those who subject the students to Death By PowerPoint.

Presented properly, with dynamic instructors who really know their stuff, I think PD has a lot going for it. In the wrong hands, it's a waste of time.