Addition To The Professional Appointments Category On The SM Promotion Chart.

[MSgt Van]

...and don't assume that because someone is a veteran (enlisted or officer) that they've got a handle on leadership.

[Ned]

Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

Does it say the word NCO or officer in that sentence?

Ahh, your statement was not insulting, then.

In the context of our discussion, it was merely an irrelevant non-sequitor inserted into a conversation exclusively about NCOs and officers for no discernable reason.

Got it.

Thanks.

Success as a military commander does not guarantee success as a CAP commander.

Of course.  Just like success as a CAP officer does not guarantee success as a CAP commander.

Or just like success as a CAP squadron commander does not guarantee success as a group or higher commander.

But it in every one of those instances, it sure helps . . . .

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Success in one position doesn't mean that you will be successful in the next higher position. But that is where most higher command comes from is those who make it through lower command. By make it through, I don't mean slip in unnoticed. A 2LT in the Army may be a great PL, but does that mean he would make a half decent XO or even CO? It never does, but that is how they select PLs to become an XO, if they do well as an XO then they will become a CO and so on and so forth. Just because someone was an Infantry PL, that doesn't mean you shouldn't afford them a decent shot at being one in an Artillery Battery.

[Eclipse]

Scratch that - someone wanted to take this to PM, something I'm not real fond of.

The first question was whether or not I was in the military.  The answer is no.  However that is irrelevant to this conversation,
and smacks of a "you weren't there, so you can't know" attitude.

The second is why I have such "contempt" for those who were in the military. If you knew me personally you'd know how ridiculous
a thing like that is to ask, but since you don't, I don't know why you would assume something like that from this thread.  We are discussing whether an NCO corps has any place in CAP and the relative abilities of military NCO's and Officers in a CAP context.

Is that off limits?  There's no room for the possibility that military veterans, used to no questions asked obedience, might struggle trying to herd volunteers?

I have no contempt for anyone who served, I highly respect the service and appreciate what veterans have done and can offer to CAP.
That doesn't mean, however, that I feel that the mere presence of a CAC card in your wallet means you are a leader.

"Volunteering" for the service is not the same as "volunteering" in CAP - not by a long shot.  If you believe it is, you are fundamentally misunderstanding
both situations.

A CAP member can, at just about any moment, simply pick up his ball and go home, with little to no threat of any ramifications beyond extra free time.
Not true in the military.

A CAP member can ignore a directive from a commander with little ramification beyond membership termination, and even then that is not a given.
Not true in the military.

Leading of group of inconsistently trained people who can come and go as they please is not the same as leading a a group of professionally trained
people who are legally bound to follow orders literally to the death, up to, and including death as a punishment for failure to comply.

In the military there need not be any use of the word "why" in orders, you simply do as you are told.

Volunteers need the "why", and further, have to agree with the "why", or they aren't even going to show up.

It is in the "why" that the leaders of volunteers are found.

[Ned]

Bob,

I agree with you that employing the "you weren't X, so you couldn't possibly understand . . ."  bomb is not helpful in the typical give-and-take of a CT discussion.

It usually means that the poster is missing an opportunity to share a point of view and exhange information on the way to understanding.

That said, I think you have so grossly distorted and over-simplified miiiitary leadership as to make it unrecognizable.

Sure, the UCMJ ultimately backs up military leaders, but that is only a tiny part of the equation, and any leader that primarily depends on "do what I say or you will go to the stockade" has already failed as a military leader.

Otherwise the Army wasted a whole lot of time and money teaching me about leadership, if all I really had to do was waive a copy of the UCMJ around.

Seriously, I spent a lot of time in military schools learning about Maslow, situational leadership, and organizational development.  (Coincidentally, pretty much the same thing - often using the exactly the same materials - as we teach our cadets.)

Of course there are some different and interesting aspects in leading volunteers.  But this is not an apples and oranges kind of comparison, more like comparing Pippins to Golden Delicious.

Similarly, a good CAP leader could normally expect to have a similar level of success if fate somehow conspired to have them leading some service members.

Good leadership is good leadership, regardless of context.

Every successful military leader I know did indeed spend a lot of time on "why."  Setting a vision and designing strategy is the essense of military leadership.  Heck, every single OPORD has a commanders vision statement.

Because military leaders depend on subordinate leaders using initiative and discretion in accomplishing the mission.  Which only really works if the subordinates understand the "why."

Finally, I think if you reflected a little more on your statements implying that military NCOs and officers are not really "leaders" merely because their authority has some basis in law does our veterans a disservice and will likely be perceived as hurtful.

[Eclipse]

Finally, I think if you reflected a little more on your statements implying that military NCOs and officers are not really "leaders" merely because their authority has some basis in law does our veterans a disservice and will likely be perceived as hurtful.

Ned,

I never, ever, said that or implied that.

A good military leader is likely to be successful in CAP, because they are a leader, period, and can adjust their dynamic for the audience.

But a poor military leader can, in most cases, still get the military job done, because when their "follow me because you want to" skills fail, they can fall back on the "follow me because you have to" reality of a military commitment.  That doesn't impune the military model, but it does recognize fundamental difference between CAP and the military.

Most CAP members will adopt the "I have to model" for a while, but the "I want to has to" come in soon and more often, or they will walk.

I am not speaking from some theoretical perspective, but personal experience in watching any number of former and current members of the military struggle in command positions because they believed that their military service and experience would be enough to rebuild
a squadron or wrangle a failing wing, even though they had little to no CAP experience or ever worked with volunteers.

I have personally had a number of conversations with a senior officer who believed that you just "tell people to do it, and they do it, or they are out...". Suffice to say he was less than successful in his attempts to bring about anything but rhetoric.

And how many of us have watched respected military officers come into CAP as pilots, with little command or management experience, ascend to positions of high authority by happenstance, and then crumble under the pressure of leading 2000 directionally-challenged people and managing a state-wide business with an empty pen and 2 paper clips.

This doesn't discredit their military service, or make them less valued to CAP, it is the simple fact that someone from the volunteer / charitable sector might be better suited to these jobs.

Surely you have had the same experience, and we all watched the implosion of the former CAP NCO who, when encountering resistance, proceeded to publically accuse fellow members of having "no honor".

Obviously the military imparts any number of requisite skills, and provides opportunities for experience in leadership, squad tactics, and
management.  My point here isn't that we don't need those things, but that the simple act of having served doesn't guarantee success in a volunteer environment.

There are any number of of military NCO's that served their country, did their jobs, and went home.  Thank God, for them, but during their
hitch, they never commanded or lead a group even the size of most CAP squadrons, or if they were charged with that leadership, they did an adequate job but weren't stellar, just like any other career field.

The entirety of all this text is two points.

1) If you really understand the enlisted / NCO / Officer relationship, you know it will never work in the current state of CAP, assuming it ever really "worked" in CAP at all.  Attempts to inject a few military NCO's into the current structure will just cause frustration for them and
confusion for everyone else, since there is no "enlisted" corps to be concerned about.  In this context they are essentially tasked with a responsibility for which they have no authority to execute, and those they would be helping don't understand they need their help.

2) Military service, in and of itself, is not a guarantee of success as a leader in the private or volunteer sector.

Are those really that unreasonable or hurtful?

[Eclipse]

Let me also say this.

I would fully support a program reboot that brought with it more expectation of personal responsibility, more real-world ramifications
for bad behavior, and more initial and continuing training for promotions, staff postings, and command.

I would welcome a program where grade was organically and properly suppressed at the company level based on service and training, and where that grade in turn conferred legitimate authority in and of itself.  I would also fully support WO's or NCO's as leaders and mentors for those who do not aspire to command, with the same level of expectation of performance for progression and increased responsibility.  I have no personal illusions that in such a system I would rise to the grade level I have today, assuming I was able to enter the officer track at all.

I further would support an "up or out policy" for progression, especially for those on a command track, to reduce or eliminate the circular progression that many of our members experience, where a decade of hard work and accomplishment is "rewarded" by being told to
take their clusters and "thank you" plaque and sit quietly in the back of the room while the "new kids" repeat the same mistakes they made 10 years before.

I think that in a perfect world, post WWII, the above would be a challenge to implement, and all but impossible in today's reality
of personal entitlement and low volunteerism.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Finally, I think if you reflected a little more on your statements implying that military NCOs and officers are not really "leaders" merely because their authority has some basis in law does our veterans a disservice and will likely be perceived as hurtful.

No, Eclipse that is pretty much exactly how it came across.

[rmcmanus]

Eclipse:  AEO's are continually asked by NHQ to write/develop curricula for the AEX and other programs.  That requires the preparation of public school-worthy offerings for students and teachers in grades 6-12 nationwide.  Holders of masters and doctoral degrees in education (at accredited programs) receive training in curriculum development, the most intensive of which is at the doctoral level.  Research is necessary to acquire the information appropriate for the preparation of texts and cite the sources to preclude charges of plagarism that would be leveled against Civil Air Patrol as a whole. Several national educational organizations such as the National Science Foundation monitor the levels of education held by our AEO's who write the instructional materials used in the AEX and subsequently consider the valadity of each as a result.  Yes, doctoral-level work AND research are certainly used in CAP education programs. I was specifically referring to that specialty and should have made that clear.  I apologize to everyone who read the previous post for not doing so.

"Google" is not research.  I don't recall seeing anything actually being developed by CAP.

Our textbooks are simply conglomerations of existing data, nothing new.  If you want to argue that a few educators at the national level deserve advanced grade because they are compiling the curriculum, so be it, none of that is happening at the unit level.

[rmcmanus]

I give up Eclipse.  If you're content insinuating that AEO curriculum deveopers merely Google instead of conducting true research; you win. 

[Eclipse]

I give up Eclipse.  If you're content insinuating that AEO curriculum deveopers merely Google instead of conducting true research; you win.

Define research.  I meant in the scientific sense of exploring new technologies or re-purposing existing, not looking up who was the first to fly a powered flight.  CAP AEO's are not doing scientific research, at least not by design within the program.

And local AEO's, as a concept, are certainly not "creating" curriculum.  If they are, they aren't following the program.

[FW]

And local AEO's, as a concept, are certainly not "creating" curriculum.  If they are, they aren't following the program.

Except for former cadets, I'm not one to advocate advanced promotions; even for prior/current military.  However, we have the process in place and, it seems to work.

Professional educators who become AEO's; either by design or choice bring much to the table and should qualify for advanced grade, IMHO.  These individuals can use their talents to impart the AE program to those we target and, do it in a much more successful way than those who do not understand educational technique.  Research is more than the technical aspect of aerospace science or historical data.  It is also the search for improvement in fundamentals of the educational process.  This "research" can be used at the local level and should be commended.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

What about when you have done the same things over and over with primarily the same group of cadets, they get bored. When that happens you can either just keep regurgitating the same thing over and over again until no one shows any interest in AE or you can come up with a few things here and there on your own to supplement the program. Come up with things that are out of the ordinary for the AE program, maybe one month instead of having another class on the same things you can "skip" the AE night and one Saturday take every one to an aerospace museum. Then have cadets pick one thing from the museum, have therm "research" it on the net and give a five to ten minute presentation on things that the museum might not have shown about the particular exhibit. Sometimes things can get a little stale doing them over and over, you have to shake things up from time to time to keep interest alive.

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, that is the description of an AEO, appropriate to the job.

It is not doctoral level "research" of the kind mentioned above and worthy of advanced promotion.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Who says a unit AE officer has to have a doctrine?
The thing about it as i read into giving the promotion is that hey this is great, he won't need much help doing his job, he can do it primarily on his own and he will be rather efficient with the material. If the AEO has that much schooling in the aerospace realm, he probably won't give much in the way of false information.

[Eclipse]

Who says a unit AE officer has to have a doctrine?
The thing about it as i read into giving the promotion is that hey this is great, he won't need much help doing his job, he can do it primarily on his own and he will be rather efficient with the material. If the AEO has that much schooling in the aerospace realm, he probably won't give much in the way of false information.

Eclipse:  AEO's are continually asked by NHQ to write/develop curricula for the AEX and other programs.  That requires the preparation of public school-worthy offerings for students and teachers in grades 6-12 nationwide.  Holders of masters and doctoral degrees in education (at accredited programs) receive training in curriculum development, the most intensive of which is at the doctoral level.  Research is necessary to acquire the information appropriate for the preparation of texts and cite the sources to preclude charges of plagarism that would be leveled against Civil Air Patrol as a whole. Several national educational organizations such as the National Science Foundation monitor the levels of education held by our AEO's who write the instructional materials used in the AEX and subsequently consider the valadity of each as a result.  Yes, doctoral-level work AND research are certainly used in CAP education programs. I was specifically referring to that specialty and should have made that clear.  I apologize to everyone who read the previous post for not doing so.

I wholeheartedly agree with your other assessments about this "shaky" process and hope that effective solutions will be adopted in the future.  Master's level clinical psychologists and ministers (for example) are certainly licensed and qualifed to perform CISM, but I don't have a problem with doctoral degree holders receiving advanced rank if they (and all others who enter with advanced rank) specifically work in the assigned speciality.

I maintain that the vast majority of AEO's don't do anything on this level and that no one in CAP is doing scientific "research" in the way this is intended.  Checking to make sure you haven't committed copyright violations is not Doctoral-level research, that is an intern's job.

[rmcmanus]

Again, you win Eclipse.  It's obvious that no one can convince you to change your mind on this topic and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Those of us who choose not to split hairs employing your interpretation of "research" are mindful of that fact. Unfortunately, you chose to select that single aspect of the education process and snidely refer to Google, implying that its use is common. Professional educators are trained, even warned against using "social media sources" to verify information.  Fortunately, the regulations clearly indicate that certain levels of credentials and experience are worthy of advanced promotion regardless of how little they are valued by some members of the organization.

[JeffDG]

As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

It shows the ability to set a goal and follow up until you get there. There is a reason the military requires one.

Yet the USAF officer for whom our Aerospace Education award is named for, retired as Brigadier General and was later promoted to Major General...and never went to college.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

So what? Gen Yeager was so awesome he made Rick James look like a baby he was so cool!

[JeffDG]

So what? Gen Yeager was so awesome he made Rick James look like a baby he was so cool!

True, true...the good General has one helluva story to tell about a phenomenal life.

But a BA qualifies you to pay a massive student loan while asking "Do you want fries with that?"  Nothing more.