NER Imposes Term Limits?

[EMT-83]

I stumbled across this on the NER website:

http://ner.cap.gov/docs/NER_OI11-01_Subordinate_Unit_Commander_Term_Limits.pdf

Anyone know any background, or even heard about this?

[SarDragon]

Not a big deal, IMHO. PCR has had a similar policy for several years.

[MIKE]

Gonna be a lot of new CCs in 6 months.

[Spaceman3750]

My group (maybe all of IL?) has a 3 year term with the option for a 4th.

[davidsinn]

My group (maybe all of IL?) has a 3 year term with the option for a 4th.

All of GLR has three year term limits with an optional fourth year if no suitable replacement is available.

[MIKE]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

[Spaceman3750]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

[RADIOMAN015]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader.  Also the unit did outstandingly in it's SUI, so it's hard to say we need a change just for the sake of a change.  That doesn't seem to make much sense.   This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does, with very factual basis.  Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 
RM   

[Short Field]

If the unit is so poor in additional leadership potential, then the Region Commander can approve an extension of the Commander for a year - a year at a time.  Term limits were put in place to make sure squadrons didn't become the personal fiefdom of one person.  It has happened and PCR had to establish term limits to stop it.

One of the most important jobs (and responsibilities) of any commander is to train his replacement(s).   

[Eclipse]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader.  Also the unit did outstandingly in it's SUI, so it's hard to say we need a change just for the sake of a change.  That doesn't seem to make much sense.   This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does, with very factual basis.  Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 

No, this is the opportunity for new blood and letting someone else stand at the front of the room for a while, including the new staff and ideas that will come with that.  It also forces those who believe they have a plan to start moving, with the impetus of the clock always pushing them forward.

No one volunteers for the job?  Irrelevant.  This is the term, the end date is coming.  You must have a commander and this gentlemen will not be it as of "x".   Step up or find other ways to serve the community.

Having only one person doing the job and no one who will "train for commander", means that the day the current commander, dies, leaves, or gets hacked off, the unit dies a sudden death, but a lot of people don't understand that idea.

The GLR term limits meant a handful of effective leaders were forced to be relieved while still firing on all cylinders, but it also meant that a number of people who were simply walking in the same groove and doing nothing were required to make a change.  We had one commander who had been in place for 17 years (telling everyone it was 20), and one who was a CC for over 28.

Neither unit was considered effective by anyone but those unit CC's, yet for typical reasons of CAP inertia, no one wanted to change status quo.  The
GLR terms limits forced the issue.

Frankly I think the term limits should be aligned with those of the national commander's term on the mid-point of her cycle, like the congressional terms.
The difference being that you may not succeed yourself, so we would not have the quagmire of self-promotion that Congress has.   This would also make change a constant in CAP, as it is in the rest of the world.

Successful organizations which are forced to be in perpetual change, must have business plans and contingencies to stay alive, something CAP has not been good at.

This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does,

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 

Not remotely the same.  Banks have paid teams of professionals, and are required by law to be have transition plans.

[JC004]

...
This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy
...

Is this serious?

[davidsinn]

...
This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy
...

Is this serious?

Got any anti troll spray?

[lordmonar]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader.  Also the unit did outstandingly in it's SUI, so it's hard to say we need a change just for the sake of a change.  That doesn't seem to make much sense.   This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does, with very factual basis.  Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 
RM

I agree....change for the sake of change is stupid.

Implementing policies that are supposed to balance all the things a good wing commander is supposed to be doing is not change for change's sake.

From what I understand.....this policy is in place to a) Eliminate the fifedoms.  b) Encourage growth of our leaders by moving them around from time to time.  c) Free up experinced leaders to take on more respondiblities at group and wing level. d) Reduce the loss of good leaders due to burn out.

If you look at the policy.....it is possible to keep a commander past the time limit....if they need to be....but it puts the burden of finding the replacement of the wing command team...i.e. working with the current squadron staff to find the a replacement.

These are all good things.....yes of course if there has been a break down at the squadron level...and there is no one suitable....of course they should not change the commanders....but they should also be putting together a plan to "fix" the situation in a timely manner.

None of this has to do with the fact that "The USAF does it too".......it is just a fact that both CAP and the USAF (and many other organisations) have the same ideas about how to keep a unit functional, prevent stagnation and develope good leaders.

[ZigZag911]

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader. 
RM

A rule like this helps a unit CC who has served well to step down before burning out.

I often hear about units where no one is willing to accept command; some may have perfectly valid reasons (family, work, school) for declining); many, however, just don't take into account that it's not fair to expect one person to carry the load year after year.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader. 
RM

A rule like this helps a unit CC who has served well to step down before burning out.

I often hear about units where no one is willing to accept command; some may have perfectly valid reasons (family, work, school) for declining); many, however, just don't take into account that it's not fair to expect one person to carry the load year after year.

Unfortunately situations where a dynamic leader burns out/steps down/has to step down and has no replacement is the reason most units have cyclical periods of greatness and decline. A lot of the times those who can't find a replacement try to hold on for as long as possible to keep the unit running well until they burn out. Of course by that time you end up with a burnt out member and a unit that still lacks a good replacement.

[arajca]

It is easier to find someone to step up if they know it will be for a definite period rather than for the duration.

[lordmonar]

It is easier to find someone to step up if they know it will be for a definite period rather than for the duration.

+1

Nothing like a dead line to motivate people to get it done.  The out going commander does not have to feel like a heel because they are "quitting".  The other members will have to look at the change as done deal....step up or the program folds....situation and maybe someone will step up.  No one has to deal with "Lt Col Sparkplug has been doing this for 10 years...there is no way I can ever do that job" syndrom.  The outgoing commander will not be burned out on CAP and will still be around to mentor and guide the new commander...further reducing the anxiaty.

Add the OE program that (among other things) is set up to groom new commanders and a good strong wing PD program that holds regular Squadron Commanders Courses and we will have more constant leadership and less cycles of good/bad leadership.  We hand off the squadron at a high instead of on the down turn once a commander has burned out and it starts showing up in squadron performance.

[DakRadz]

I just moved to GLR, and I've seen a CC who was affected by the rule change- he stepped down soon after it was implemented after ~12 years (wasn't here, don't know exactly). The unit was doing fine before he stepped down, nothing wrong with it.

Afterwards, a new CC stepped up, grew our squadron past 100, and we have created about 4-5 squadrons in some way in the past 5 years.
Said new CC stepped down, helps keep events going, and we have a good CC as of now, who still has the support of a SUPER Gung-Ho former CC who was not burned out. We just created another Flight (mine) under the new CC.

We have another CC lined up who would do great as well. It's really, really helping us. We went from a good squadron that was always meeting standards to a GREAT squadron which has spun off and trained new squadrons around our area, and generally exceeds standards.

No, I wasn't there for all of this, but I have witnessed the other squadrons, the CCs, and the effects of shortened command. The only non-active, living former CC is the one who was in for ~12 years- he's a great officer, but was burned out.

Heck, our Group CC had a potential cadet and parent contact him- he referred them to our squadron above all, even though it wasn't quite the closest.

[EMT-83]

Anyone from NER heard about this through channels?

I was somewhat surprised to read it, as I've heard no announcement.

[lordmonar]

It's on their web page.