New CAP Governance Structure

[flyguy06]

I went to college because...everyone told me to. School teachers, counselors, parents, CAP SMs, etc.

Did I enjoy it? Not really. I did find a field I found interesting and challenging however.

Now that I'm done? I plan on getting a well paying job, at least $19-24/hour to start (as opposed to a cap of around $13 you can find without a degree through a staffing company). It was hard to come to grips as to why someone would pay me basically double or more of minimum wage JUST because I went to college. But now I realize that while most of my classes (I had about 2/3rds of a year of Fin, and maybe a year of various business classes) were BS college money pits, it's the fact that I DO see the world differently, I DO think about issues differently, and I believe it did make me a better thinker and decision maker that I "deserve" a better paying job.

There's a lot of talk that investment firms would prefer Liberal Arts majors and Philosophy majors over Business students. Why? Because they are creative, thinking people. The company will have to train you to do things their way anyway. They don't really care for the four-years-of-business-courses-omg-I-am-so-awesome-at-business kids. They want thinkers. Idea people.

That's the value of a degree. Proof that you can stick with something that may not be your interest, but also get it done. I could have probably been a straight A Management degree guy. But I found the field to be boring. I ended up being a B student of Finance, but it was challenging and rewarding at the same time.

Here's hoping I didn't waste four years of my life!

Why do you suppose the military requires its officers to have formal higher education and now adays Senior NCO's while not required most Senior NCO's have Msters degrees.

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

He will control the paid staff THROUGH the COO. If I'm a Commander, I dont have to have direct contact with my subordinates. Thats what subordinate management is for. The CEO of Delta Airlines is responsible for the guys that load bags on the airplanes,but he doesnt directly supervise them does he?

Very true but our CEO doesn't supervise the COO like the CEO of Delta does.  The Delta baggage handlers report to someone that reports to the CEO. 

The BOG supervises the COO when it comes right down to it no matter how much influence the National Commander has over their day-to-day activities. 

I'm actually pretty familiar with the position the National Commander is in -- I get operational control over a lot of folks at various times in my real job but I'm not their actual supervisor. 

[RiverAux]

Separate from the issue of just how much control the National Commander has over the Executive Director, the larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

Some may argue that we can't trust a volunteer with that much authority given some of the issues we've had with previous National Commanders.

That may be true, but remember the BOG are nothing but volunteers.  Sure, some have had distinguished careers, but then again, so have National Commanders.  What evidence is there that they would give the paid staff any fairer of a shake than the National Commander?

Additionally, if the National Commander is supposedly good enough to trust with the lives of 60,000 volunteers, which he/she does have some impact on in terms of their oversight of people that actually do make life and death decisions on every mission, why couldn't that person be trusted to really oversee some paid personnel? 

[FW]

^Good questions, Riv.  The BoG, in it's infinate wisdom, has decided on this division of labor between the CEO and COO; probably due to past practices and political infighting.  After a few years, when the pipline has been purged of "the old ways", there could be a realignment of the CEO/COO responsibilities. The BoG needs to see how everything unfolds. They may be volunteers too however, they are the body which congress created to govern CAP. Remember, it was due to CAP's weaknesses the BoG was "thrust apon us" 12 years ago.

It's the BoG which determines policy and strategic vision now. The Commander translates these into action plans then, directs the COO and subordinate commanders for action.  The COO and Subordinate Commanders are responsible for implimentation.  Scheduled meetings will, most likely, discuss, evaluate and, recommend changes to the BoG for consideration. This is all good.  It's done like this in the Corporate Profit/Non Profit world and, in the Pentagon.

[Eclipse]

Separate from the issue of just how much control the National Commander has over the Executive Director, the larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

I would say it appears that past leadership, both within and outside CAP did not trust the National CC, and the BOG will now transition the Nat CC back to a full place of authority, one piece at a time.

We prove ourselves operationally, the rest will follow.

And no matter "who trusts who", the bottom line is that the Nat CC has more defined authority then he had before the meeting.

[Dragoon]

Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

[edit - spelling]

I don't think you're going to grow them through CAP.  Because as you pointed out, the experiences needed aren't available in most CAP leadership positions.   Teaching the stuff won't matter if they have no place to apply it within the organization (and be evaluated on it).   Successful business leaders won't have the time to put in to something like CAP and gain the necessary CAP skills.  Especially without pay. 

I predict you will find  a few retirees, some  military and and some high level business guys who have the skills you want from their previous lives.  Your challenge will be identify them early, and fast track them into positions within CAP to give them the necessary operational experience while somehow not alienating the large numbers of the membership who will protest any "favoritism" given to those with fancy book learnin' and high falutin' white collar job titles.  Good luck with that.   

But while looking for that perfect CEO candidate, at the very least, the changes will give the BOG more control over the best (not perfect) candidate you CAN find.  And that's gotta help. 

Use the CEO for the vision thing  and get a good executive (paid) as COO.  And then just be ready to adjudicate the inevitable ego problems between the two leaders as necessary.

[lordmonar]

I think we can grow them....we start at the vice wing and wing commander level.  Find some sort of NGO/NFP corporate level training (online and in person) and start sending them to those courses.

[Ned]

[T]he larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

I can honestly say that the word "trust" was not used during by anyone on the BoG during the governance reform process.

Because the integrity, character, and abilities of our senior leaders have been demonstrated and are simply assumed to be the minimum qualification for office in CAP.  The BoG collectively places great trust in both Gen Carr and Mr. Rowland.  Indeed, both are highly trustworthy men -- they have each served their country in the armed forces with distinction and demonstrated skills and integrity both within and without CAP.  If we did not trust them, they would simply not be in their positions.  For the record, I would trust both of them with my life.

Ask yourself what happened to the last CAP leader that the BoG could no longer trust.

But corporate governance (and indeed government itself) is not about "trust."  It is not like we look hard, find the person we "trust the most", and then turn over the keys to the castle in the form of absolute authority, and walk away.  As long as people are people, that is simply the recipe for disaster.

The point of governance is to design a system where average trustworthy leaders can work together to make the organization highly successful.  In fact, it seems wise to design a system where even trustworthy leaders who are "below average" will be successful.  (Because to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, by definition half of our senior leaders are going to be below average.)

And while CAP is an unusual organization in terms of makeup and mission, principles of good corporate governance tend to be universal.  That is one reason why we hired outside nonprofit governance experts --  in addition to the internal governance experts -- to review best practices, specifically compare us to similar organizations, and make recommendations.

And both groups showed us that some form of checks and balances is both the norm and best practice when it comes to the relationship between the CEO and the COO.  As well as between the senior leadership and the "compliance folks"; the CFO and GC.  So we placed some controls on who could hire and fire some of the senior level folks in the corporate governance scheme.

Not because of who we did or did not "trust."  Because one thing is certain: sooner than later the leadership (including me) will change, and people that we do not even know at this point will become our senior leaders.  Our challenge was to design a system that has nothing to do with personal trust or relationships between the BoG and any current or future leaders.  We sought to create a governance structure that will stand the test of time and allow CAP to be highly successful with regular folks like you and me in charge.

[ZigZag911]

It's possible that the idea of National CC having a bachelor's degree is simply to ensure that his/her educational background is comparable with that required of the commissioned USAF officers with whom Nat. CC is in contact...to see to it that they 'speak the same language', in effect.

Some further education or recognized equivalent (not necessarily a degree) eventually ought to be expected of wing & region commanders, vices, chiefs of staff...these individuals should exceed the minimum requirement for CAP membership, a high school diploma...we can discuss what ought to be accepted, but I think senior CAP leaders need to learn something beyond what they knew when they were 18 years old!

[Майор Хаткевич]

A lot of people will say that life is their learning experience.

[lordmonar]

One can always argue that some sort of "requirement" is not really needed.

Why the requirement for being a former wing commander?
Say some retired USAF general wants to be national commander after finishing his level I training.
His life experince certainly is comprable to running a CAP wing....so where is the angst over that requirement?

Let it go.....it is new requirment that the BoG has implemented and can waive if they see fit.  Where exactly is the problem?

[Critical AOA]

Of course to be POTUS, you only have to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen of the USA.  That is about it.  One could argue the lack of more qualifications is the reason we get what we get when it comes to that office.

So I have no issue with adding reasonable qualifications to any important post such as CAP National Commander.  And in my opinion, higher education cumulating in the award of a degree is certainly a reasonable qualification.  However the degree needs to be relevant to the position and its duties to some degree. Having a degree in music for example while maybe meeting the requirement to have a degree adds nothing of real value.  In contrast having a degree in public policy, business, aviation, or something that has some relevance to CAP and its leadership / management would be of benefit. 

Also one also needs knowledge and experience specific to the job in question and to its subordinate positions if one expects to be successful.  This experience can come from a multitude of sources including years of service and experience in CAP itself.  Other sources of useful experience would be the military and other emergency organizations, especially if the experience involved aviation assets and personnel.   

To be honest, I am a bit surprised that having a degree, especially a relevant one was not already a requirement. 

[MSG Mac]

Of course to be POTUS, you only have to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen of the USA.  That is about it.  One could argue the lack of more qualifications is the reason we get what we get when it comes to that office.

So I have no issue with adding reasonable qualifications to any important post such as CAP National Commander.  And in my opinion, higher education cumulating in the award of a degree is certainly a reasonable qualification.  However the degree needs to be relevant to the position and its duties to some degree. Having a degree in music for example while maybe meeting the requirement to have a degree adds nothing of real value.  In contrast having a degree in public policy, business, aviation, or something that has some relevance to CAP and its leadership / management would be of benefit. 

Also one also needs knowledge and experience specific to the job in question and to its subordinate positions if one expects to be successful.  This experience can come from a multitude of sources including years of service and experience in CAP itself.  Other sources of useful experience would be the military and other emergency organizations, especially if the experience involved aviation assets and personnel.   

To be honest, I am a bit surprised that having a degree, especially a relevant one was not already a requirement.

Our last non college degree President was Harry Truman and no one can say he was anything less than a great President.

[Eclipse]

Dewey didn't care for him much...

[Critical AOA]

Dewey didn't care for him much...

And in a fit of rage Dewey unleased his decimal system on us.  We were decimated.

[JeffDG]

Our last non college degree President was Harry Truman and no one can say he was anything less than a great President.

He also appointed another non-college educated individual, Justice (yes, a Supreme Court justice who never went to college) Jackson, as the Chief Prosecutor for the Nuremberg tribunals.  Although many consider that a consolation prize, as Roosevelt had promised Jackson the job of Chief Justice.

[jimmydeanno]

I could have sworn that Dewey defeated Truman...

[JeffDG]

I could have sworn that Dewey defeated Truman...

It was in the papers and everything:

[Critical AOA]

Our last non college degree President was Harry Truman and no one can say he was anything less than a great President.

Actually, one could say that he was less than great and make a sound argument in doing so.  However this isn't the proper venue so I will refrain.

[flyguy06]

Separate from the issue of just how much control the National Commander has over the Executive Director, the larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

Some may argue that we can't trust a volunteer with that much authority given some of the issues we've had with previous National Commanders.

That may be true, but remember the BOG are nothing but volunteers.  Sure, some have had distinguished careers, but then again, so have National Commanders.  What evidence is there that they would give the paid staff any fairer of a shake than the National Commander?

Additionally, if the National Commander is supposedly good enough to trust with the lives of 60,000 volunteers, which he/she does have some impact on in terms of their oversight of people that actually do make life and death decisions on every mission, why couldn't that person be trusted to really oversee some paid personnel?

I can understand your point of view of this River and I dont disagree.