New CAP Governance Structure

[Garp]

Of interest was the comment that the US Air Force is our primary stockholder.  I think that was a significant reminder for a number of the more "independent" folks in the room (those that say, "Why does the Air Force get to tell us what to do?"). 

However, I hope the assignment of the new "At Large" members will reflect those other important stockholders: our dues paying members.  If the 90,000 members of my University Alumni Association can elect members to the University Board of Trustees, then surely CAP members could at least be considered to participate in electing at least a portion of the new At Large members.

I am also very hopeful for this new structure, and particularly appreciated discussion of holding the CEO and COO accountable.  Accountability was addressed several times; very unusual when discussing senior employees and officers in CAP. 

[Garibaldi]

I doubt that it's really going to effect the pool of NatCC nominees very much. Usually there's not more than 2 or 3 people who want the job to begin with.

And if you ask me, that should be an automatic disqualification.

For me, take a list of people who are qualified, rank order them in order of "Best" to "Worst".  Start at the top, and ask each one "Do you want to be the National Commander", if they say "Yes", move on to the next name until someone says "Hell no, I don't want that crap!"  That's the guy/gal for the job.  I believe in the same system for almost all "high offices" from POTUS on down.   

Isn't that an established theory about those who seek power vs those who don't want it and are thrust into it? The attitudes and morals of those who don't seek power or office are much more stable than those who actively campaign for positions. Kind of an indictment on our government officials...

[arajca]

There's a difference between actively campaigning, i.e. the mess on TV now, and applying for a position. There's also a HUGE difference in someone campaigning for the CAP/CC office and someone accepting it if offered. I know a couple of folks who wouldn't try to get the job, but would accept it if offered. By your definition, they are unqualified.

[jimmydeanno]

Leadership ability is born, NOT learned in school.....

Which is directly opposite of what we teach our cadets in their leadership book.

Leaders are made, not born.  They are a culmination of their past experiences and education.  A leader who sees no value in education is doomed to fail. 

The Air Force philosophy is one that values education.  They don't have warrant officers because the Senior NCOs in the Air Force fulfill that role.  A majority of the Air Force NCOs have a degree past HS. 

Sure, you can point to a select few individuals that don't have degrees and have been successful, but statistically speaking it is not the case.  The typical HS graduate will never reach the level of success that someone with a BS/BS or MA/MS has - period.  Additionally, those with degrees will be offered opportunities in which to exercise those theories they learned about in school, giving them - yet another - leg up on their HS graduate competition.

We are talking about an organization of ~65K with hundreds of millions in assets.  We need a leader with strong executive experience and education, not someone who is a nice guy and thinks he can do a good job because he completed NSC.

[lordmonar]

Leadership ability is born, NOT learned in school.....

90% incorrect.  Leadership is not inborn and it is not learned in school....it is learned in the field/on the job/at the mentor's side......building on the the theory learned in the class room.

If you don't understand this simple concept.....then you have failed to understand everything about the cadet program.

As for the concept of a degree for high positions......even low positions....like any large corporations they use degrees as a gate keeper.  To stream line the process of selecting those with ability....and like all things there are always exceptions and waivers.

[Nathan]

Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

[Eclipse]

Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

The same can be said in the inverse.

If NHQ has chosen to draw this as the line, so be it, it has to be somewhere.

[Dragoon]

Pop quiz - how many current active-duty General Officers in USAF don't have a bachelor's degree?

Hint: Zero.


And that, my friends, is why our GOs need to have one.  Simple.

[Eclipse]

Final Exam:  How many active duty generals are unpaid volunteers?

Hint: Zero.

That's why the discussion is far from "simple".

[lordmonar]

Final Exam:  How many active duty generals are unpaid volunteers?

Hint: Zero.

That's why the discussion is far from "simple".

Don't know about that.  Lost of GO are unpaid volunteers with organisations like the Boy Scouts, ARC, church organisations and the like.

But that is neither here nor there.

The BoG wants our National Commander (and I assume the Vice Commander) to have degrees (or a waiver for exceptional cases)......end of story.

[jimmydeanno]

Paid or unpaid doesn't remove the necessity of having an exceptionally qualified person occupy the position.  For us to behave and operate as a real non-profit organization / para-military organization, we need to have the "best and brightest" we can find. 

While the degree itself doesn't denote actual leadership ability, it is a good indicator of certain qualities and acts as a credential to prove a certain amount of knowledge that is applicable to whatever it is that your degree is in.

[Eclipse]

Paid or unpaid doesn't remove the necessity of having an exceptionally qualified person occupy the position.  For us to behave and operate as a real non-profit organization / para-military organization, we need to have the "best and brightest" we can find. 

While the degree itself doesn't denote actual leadership ability, it is a good indicator of certain qualities and acts as a credential to prove a certain amount of knowledge that is applicable to whatever it is that your degree is in.

I agree - the "qualified" being the important and the degree one of many potential delimiters of "qualified".  Knowledge and successful experience within CAP should be the first and foremost thing considered.  While a college degree is certainly one route to knowledge, it isn't the only one, nor
even the best one in certain cases.  The number of art-history majors, with a minor in romance languages who will spend their working
careers asking whether you'd like to biggie-size your order, or want extra foam on your latte, should show you that.

There are career fields where being a proficient technician requires years of formal education and even more hands-on working, being a surgeon
comes to mind, but the fact that you can transplant a heart doesn't automatically mean you can also manage the hospital - those are disparate disciplines with different mindsets and experiential needs.

Some of our most brilliant scientific minds can't balance a checkbook, (etc., etc).

The BoG wants our National Commander (and I assume the Vice Commander) to have degrees (or a waiver for exceptional cases)......end of story.

If a waiver is possible, then there isn't even a discussion here - highly-qualified individuals are highly qualified individuals.  I'm 100%
behind the idea of having "requirements" vs. "suggestions", but there isn't a corporation worth working for that would not accept
relevant experience and success in lieu of a degree for the right candidate.

The key to leadership is being a leader.  Lesson #1 of being a leader is knowing that yo have to surround yourself with SME's you can trust.
For years there was an unspoken rule that you could not be a Wing CC unless you were a pilot.  We all know that's nonsense, but doesn't
change the history.

Bottom line, by raising the bar, some people will have to accept that they can never be considered for the top job. So be it.  The pool
might be a bit smaller, and there will be some sour grapes, but there won't be a shortage of well-qualified applicants for these positions,
and clearing the board (so to speak), may make room for people who thought they would never have a shot.

[Nathan]

Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

The same can be said in the inverse.

Eh, really?

I think that people with college degrees recognize better than most how our job situations change. I know for a fact that I only got the job I have now because of my degree, and I'm literally making twice as much money as I was making before I graduated last year. People with degrees have actually lived on both sides of the line.

Obviously, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily smarter than any given non-degree-holding individual, but it does apparently mean that many companies have a greater faith in my ability to succeed and are willing to pay me more because of it, despite the fact that I had almost no work experience in this field before I started. College isn't exactly a cakewalk, and regardless of my intelligence relative to someone else, I have at least proved I am smart and dedicated enough to complete a four-year degree.

That's not to say that someone else who currently doesn't have a degree COULDN'T have completed the coursework, but a company simply has more information about me than it does about someone who hasn't had to prove that level of academic fortitude or perseverance.

It reminds me of the arguments people make about how the Spaatz apparently means nothing. I would argue that while a Spaatz cadet isn't SURE to be more competent than a C/Lt Col, what the Spaatz cadet has done is prove a certain level of capability, which the Eaker cadet cannot match. It's true that some Spaatz cadets are morons and many C/Lt Cols are very competent, but if you need a quick reference of how qualified an individual is for a high-level position, the Spaatz (analogous to a college degree# gives you a pretty good standard as to what the individual has accomplished in the past. Quite simply, the Eaker cadet #or non-college person) hasn't had to prove themselves by an easily-standardized test, and therefore have a much greater population of underqualified people for high-level jobs.

That being said, I'm not against the concept of having a non-degree-holding commander. I just understand how much easier and safer it is to simply require the degree. It eliminates a lot of wild cards.

I realize that it comes off as biased, since I have both a Spaatz award and a college degree, so you can take my words with whatever weight you want.

[Eclipse]

Eh, really?

I think that people with college degrees recognize better than most how our job situations change. I know for a fact that I only got the job I have now because of my degree, and I'm literally making twice as much money as I was making before I graduated last year. People with degrees have actually lived on both sides of the line.

Yes, at entry-level, with little work experience, that is the case.  Why?  Because you have no relevant work history to substitute
for the paper on the wall.  After ten years in the workforce, you'll see that the subject rarely comes up, unless you happen to be in
a field where collegiate affiliation is important, or root for the same sports team as the recruiter.

After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

Something else to consider - statistically speaking, the average US worker changes careers, not jobs, careers, 3-5 times in his lifetime.
That degree becomes less and less relevant every time, and can actually become a liability if your career change comes after a masters or Ph.d.

[coudano]

Yes, at entry-level, with little work experience, that is the case.  Why?  Because you have no relevant work history to substitute
for the paper on the wall.  After ten years in the workforce, you'll see that the subject rarely comes up, unless you happen to be in
a field where collegiate affiliation is important, or root for the same sports team as the recruiter.

After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

Something else to consider - statistically speaking, the average US worker changes careers, not jobs, careers, 3-5 times in his lifetime.
That degree becomes less and less relevant every time, and can actually become a liability if your career change comes after a masters or Ph.d.

Yeah, it probably depends on the career field and the employer quite a bit.

It's less important in some jobs than others.
It's less important in some companies (particularly smaller ones) than others.

I have been on the hiring authority for both cases,
cases where we normally require a college degree, and hired only candidates who had one;
as well as hiring candidates anyway even if they didn't have one when required.

I got my start in full time IT without a college degree;
However I earned one later and can testify that it has been a jump in pay and responsibility level.
Would I have gotten that jump without the degree???   Peers who started with me, but never finished that degree off never did...  Many of them aren't even employed in the career field anymore...  fwiw.

I have been rejected numerous times for not meeting educational, experience, or certification requirements for employers, which are pretty much all BS.  My work experience, competence on the job, and outstanding recommendations from people I have worked with and for _MORE_ than make up for any deficiency I might have in the actual requirements criteria.  An insider who knows me might hire me through it (and infact i've gotten offers that way), and if I somehow got to the interview, I can usually stand for myself (and infact i've gotten offers that way).  But I would have never made it past the HR office.  Particularly for not having a master's degree... (in my case).  And have been turned at the door for that reason many times.  Like it or not...  fair or not...  that's the way it is.

Quite frankly, I think that a BA for a national commander, 'field grade officer', leader of a corporation of our size, assets, and budget, and expected to interface in terms of business, politics, and yes education as a peer with people generally far more educated than a BA/BS, is ridiculously low-balling it.  Keeping the requirement that low is a tremendous reach toward making national commandership accessible and attainable.

[ColonelJack]

I find two points to agree with in your post, Eclipse.

After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

Something else to consider - statistically speaking, the average US worker changes careers, not jobs, careers, 3-5 times in his lifetime.

Concur.  I found it out the hard way ... after HS and my brief time on AD, I became a radio announcer.  Loved the work, but the pay stunk.  So I went to college and got my degree and became a teacher.  Pay soared, because I entered a career where a degree is mandatory.

That degree becomes less and less relevant every time, and can actually become a liability if your career change comes after a masters or Ph.d.

Again, concur.  After two years of total bovine scatology at my school, I "retired" this past year.  Now I find getting a new career going very difficult, because I have a Specialist in Education degree (one step below a doctorate, for those who don't know what that is).  And my degree is the very thing keeping me from finding that elusive great job that I know is out there for me.

All that said, I'm rather glad that our next National CC will have to have a degree and Level V to be considered.

Jack

[Pylon]

After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

I disagree.  At the director and executive level, I find that while yes — it's your experience which gets you the job — they won't look at your experience because a baccalaureate and oftentimes a post-graduate degree is a bare minimum pre-requisite.  In other words, the degree doesn't get you the job.  But having a bachelor's degree or higher does mean you meet the minimum pre-requisites for many management & executive level jobs, which get you the interview wherein your experience can get you the job.   The degree isn't a be-all-end-all to getting better paying jobs or being better qualified.  But for many career fields, at a certain point experience without the degree still won't get you the interview.

[Eclipse]

I'd go 50/50 on this - in the tech sector, a lot of it is street cred, but at a certain level, and for certain situations, the collegiate background
becomes important, not because of ability, but because the financial world is invested in collegiate propagation.

It can be difficult (though not impossible), to get venture funding if you aren't in the "club".

[RiverAux]

While I understand the arguments in favor of allowing the possibility of someone without a bachelors to be chosen as National Commander we can't plan our regulations around the remote possibility that Super CAP Commander is out there without one making his/her way up the ranks causing grand improvements in the organization on the way up.  You can't regulate for the exceptions. 

[Eclipse]

While I understand the arguments in favor of allowing the possibility of someone without a bachelors to be chosen as National Commander we can't plan our regulations around the remote possibility that Super CAP Commander is out there without one making his/her way up the ranks causing grand improvements in the organization on the way up.  You can't regulate for the exceptions.

Agreed.  We'd be a lot better off if we had more bright lines and less "suggestions". 

More "wills" and "shalls" and less "shoulds".