Main Menu

Out ranking

Started by usafcap1, April 11, 2012, 06:47:30 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

usafcap1

Who out ranks who? A cadet who just crossed over and became a Flight Officer or a Senior Member who has been in for a very very VERY long time.
|GES|SET|BCUT|ICUT|FLM|FLS*|MS|CD|MRO*|AP|IS-100|IS-200|IS-700|IS-800|

(Cadet 2008-2012)

Air•plane / [air-pleyn] / (ar'plan')-Massive winged machines that magically propel them selfs through the sky.
.

whatevah

what do the regulations say?
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin

RogueLeader

A senior member, as in without grade?
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

SarDragon

Senior Member = SM, a grade label used on forms to fill a required entry blank.

senior member = an 18+ yo non-cadet member

All senior members outrank all cadets. All senior member officers and NCOs outrank all SMs.

YMMV.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

usafcap1

#4
Quote from: RogueLeader on April 11, 2012, 07:18:17 AM
A senior member, as in without grade?

Si, I think there BDUs say CAP where the grade should be.
|GES|SET|BCUT|ICUT|FLM|FLS*|MS|CD|MRO*|AP|IS-100|IS-200|IS-700|IS-800|

(Cadet 2008-2012)

Air•plane / [air-pleyn] / (ar'plan')-Massive winged machines that magically propel them selfs through the sky.
.

Ed Bos

If everyone keeps the Core Values in mind, there are very few situations where this question needs to be asked.

But to be explicit, in order from highest raking to lowest ranking:

Major General
Brigadier General
Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Major
Captain
First Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Senior Flight Officer
Technical Flight Officer
Flight Officer
Noncommissioned Officer(s)
Senior Member (No Grade)
Cadets
EDWARD A. BOS, Lt Col, CAP
Email: edward.bos(at)orwgcap.org
PCR-OR-001

Private Investigator

I think this should have been covered during Level I    >:D

SarDragon

Well, it appears, from a post on another thread, that the OP is a cadet. That doesn't relieve him from knowing that information, though.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

FlyTiger77

Quote from: SarDragon on April 11, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Well, it appears, from a post on another thread, that the OP is a cadet. That doesn't relieve him from knowing that information, though.

His profile shows an age of 20. He may be a flight officer wanting to pull rank (whatever that means in a CAP context) on a SM. Who knows.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

bflynn

Why would a new Flight Officer need to "pull rank" over another member?  Better still, why would someone want to assert that they are higher ranked than someone else?  That might work in the Cadet world, but it isn't how things run in my squadron...we aren't military, we are civilian volunteers who use a military rank structure.

As an established matter of leadership, it's clear that you should never enter a new position and then "fix" things unless there is a clear safety issue.  It's a sure way to upset people.  It's another example of being legally right and still being wrong, a lesson that seems to be lacking in cadet training.

Without context, there's no way of saying. 

FlyTiger77

Quote from: bflynn on April 11, 2012, 01:08:52 PM
Without context, there's no way of saying.

Exactly, which is why I phrased my post as conjecture.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

davedove

Quote from: Ed Bos on April 11, 2012, 08:04:32 AM
If everyone keeps the Core Values in mind, there are very few situations where this question needs to be asked.

But to be explicit, in order from highest raking to lowest ranking:

Major General
Brigadier General
Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Major
Captain
First Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Senior Flight Officer
Technical Flight Officer
Flight Officer
Noncommissioned Officer(s)
Senior Member (No Grade)
Cadets

And of course, this is only part of the picture, since position trumps grade in CAP.  Commanders outrank members of their unit; Ground Team Leaders outrank the members of their team; etc.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Eclipse

#12
Quote from: usafcap1 on April 11, 2012, 06:47:30 AM
Who out ranks who? A cadet who just crossed over and became a Flight Officer or a Senior Member who has been in for a very very VERY long time.

All authority in CAP is based on position, even the Major Generals receive their authority based on their command appointments, and once that
appointment is completed, they then move to being "equals" in regards to any command authority.

Senior Members are always in a supervisory, and defacto "loco parentis" role in regards to cadets, and always have a "go-no go" authority in regards
to anything concerning cadet safety, abuse, hazing, or "bad ideas".

However outside that lane, a senior member of long standing does not have any automatic authority over anyone.  A Lt. Colonel who does not have a specific staff or activity role deserves respect, military courtesies, and perhaps deference for their experience, but that's all, and in cases where a random member's directives conflict with the chain's directives, the chain always wins.  This also doesn't mean that a senior giving a cadet bad advice or direction
will get an automatic "pass" based on the senior-cadet paradigm.

While the above is always true senior-to-senior, and senior-to-cadet, it is more nuanced between cadets, where there is an expectation that in the absence of specified authority, the ranking cadet will take charge of the group until things are formalized, especially in regards to cadet officers.

In most cases, the shoulder wins in terms of courtesies, and the business card wins in terms of authority.

"That Others May Zoom"

Pylon

Quote from: usafcap1 on April 11, 2012, 08:03:45 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on April 11, 2012, 07:18:17 AM
A senior member, as in without grade?

Si, I think there BDUs say CAP where the grade should be.

I think you've misunderstood.  The first grade that all senior members become upon joining, until they promote or are appointed to another grade/rank, is "SM" which is generally called "Senior Member without grade" to distinguish them from senior members as a membership category. (And, yes, SM's without grade are the senior members who wear embroidered CAP cutouts on the BDUs). 

All adult, non-Cadet, non-patron members are "senior members" as a membership category.  Only some of them also hold the grade of "Senior Member" (often called "senior member without grade") while other senior members hold officer, flight officer, or NCO grades.  Confusing, yes.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

abdsp51

Quote from: bflynn on April 11, 2012, 01:08:52 PM

As an established matter of leadership, it's clear that you should never enter a new position and then "fix" things unless there is a clear safety issue. 


I disagree you never fix from the onset unless absolutely necessary you observe and fix.  This mindset allows for the way of thinking of it's how we have always done it. 

Example to a degree a former police chief in my city revamped how the department did things, instituted new programs and above all changed the functioning of the department. 

Patton ensured strict adherence to the Army standard, when he took command.  LeMay another example made changes when he took over as the commanding general for SAC and later the USAF. 

To never change brings about complacency and invites stagnation.

On the topic at hand a FO in any capacity outranks a SMWOG or SM who happens to be a sponsor member.  However consideration needs to be taken given the aspects of the SM.

bflynn

Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2012, 08:27:11 PM
I disagree you never fix from the onset unless absolutely necessary you observe and fix.  This mindset allows for the way of thinking of it's how we have always done it. 

I think you didn't understand.

The first three months in a job, you change nothing.  Zero.  Not even if everything looks completely broken to you.  Especially not if everything looks completely broken to you.  The only exception is a clear safety issue that needs to be addressed.

If you do, you will accomplish very little except upset people.  They will resist changes because they don't know you.

After three months, you've established yourself.  Now you can start making changes.

The original question was about a cadet who had just moved up and was challenging a senior member, using rank as power.

Do you understand what I was saying better?  I'm usually really bad at saying it right the first time.

abdsp51

I see that but I am still going to have to disagree. 

SarDragon

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 11, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 11, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Well, it appears, from a post on another thread, that the OP is a cadet. That doesn't relieve him from knowing that information, though.

His profile shows an age of 20. He may be a flight officer wanting to pull rank (whatever that means in a CAP context) on a SM. Who knows.

He stated in an early post that he is a cadet, getting ready to turn  over to the dark side.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

CAP4117

To be fair to the OP, when I first joined I was confused about this too, simply from a customs and courtesies perspective. I wasn't sure if I, a brand new SMWOG, should salute a flight officer. I searched the Internet and couldn't find a definitive answer, so I came here and people told me that yes, flight officers outrank SMWOG. That helped me out a lot when I encountered flight officers in the future, as I wanted to be respectful. I'm on my phone so I can't post the link to the other thread, but it's there if you search for it. Anyway, now that I'm a 2nd looie it doesn't matter so much anymore  >:D but it was good to know at the time.

Capination

Quote from: Eclipse on April 11, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: usafcap1 on April 11, 2012, 06:47:30 AM
Who out ranks who? A cadet who just crossed over and became a Flight Officer or a Senior Member who has been in for a very very VERY long time.

All authority in CAP is based on position, even the Major Generals receive their authority based on their command appointments, and once that
appointment is completed, they then move to being "equals" in regards to any command authority.

Senior Members are always in a supervisory, and defacto "loco parentis" role in regards to cadets, and always have a "go-no go" authority in regards
to anything concerning cadet safety, abuse, hazing, or "bad ideas".

However outside that lane, a senior member of long standing does not have any automatic authority over anyone.  A Lt. Colonel who does not have a specific staff or activity role deserves respect, military courtesies, and perhaps deference for their experience, but that's all, and in cases where a random member's directives conflict with the chain's directives, the chain always wins.  This also doesn't mean that a senior giving a cadet bad advice or direction
will get an automatic "pass" based on the senior-cadet paradigm.

While the above is always true senior-to-senior, and senior-to-cadet, it is more nuanced between cadets, where there is an expectation that in the absence of specified authority, the ranking cadet will take charge of the group until things are formalized, especially in regards to cadet officers.

In most cases, the shoulder wins in terms of courtesies, and the business card wins in terms of authority.

Couldn't say it better! superb

bflynn

Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2012, 09:06:24 PMI see that but I am still going to have to disagree.

Well, Ok.  Good Luck if you're in that situation.

The number of leaders that have run in trouble over this issue is long.  From a pure leadership standpoint, it's a mistake no matter where or who you're leading.

whatevah

I can see his point, I've been in units where things were blatantly against regulations, like giving out "practice tests" that consisted of the cadet leadership/AE tests with a fill-in-the-blank instead of the multiple choice answers.  By continuing to let something like that go on for 3 months, you're risking serious trouble from higher headquarters.
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin

Major Lord

Its vitally important to know who is ranking just in case the President walks in someone has to report, or if a SMWOG has to get into the back of the car before or after a SM......or God forbid, what if two SM's are saluted by an AF Air Person, and they, not knowing who is senior in time and service fail to return the salute? It chills my blood to consider.

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

abdsp51

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 12:13:13 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2012, 09:06:24 PMI see that but I am still going to have to disagree.

Well, Ok.  Good Luck if you're in that situation.

The number of leaders that have run in trouble over this issue is long.  From a pure leadership standpoint, it's a mistake no matter where or who you're leading.

Again from personal experience I will have to disagree with that statement from a pure leadership standpoint.  If you will look back at what was said I said never change from the get go unless absolutely necessary.  If things are up to par and within standards set down then you improve the process.  I will again refer to the example of Gen LeMay who took over as the Army Air Corp CO in the Pacific region for the bombing raids on Japan.  The day he took office the bombing strategy and policy changed, and it was for the better. 

We can heam and haw on it all day long I have examples and my own experience to stand on with my viewpoint. 

FW

I'm pretty sure I'm the highest ranking CAP Colonel contributing on CAPTalk.  :)  From a leadership standpoint, my grade or rank is meaningless here.  From an experience standpoint; you can take it for what it's worth. From a C&C standpoint; you guys can salute my posts any time you feel like it.... >:D

Since we conduct ourselves in CAP in a military manner, military C&C's are supposed to be followed.  When in uniform, members should render proper courtesy; instructions which can be found in numerous publications. Cadets learn this early on.  SM's usually learn this in Level 1 of the PD program however, I guess it's not stressed when the coffee and donuts are being served...

The most most important points to remember were explained very well by Eclipse.  His discription of authority and grade/rank in CAP is spot on. :clap:

spacecommand

Quote from: usafcap1 on April 11, 2012, 06:47:30 AM
Who out ranks who? A cadet who just crossed over and became a Flight Officer or a Senior Member who has been in for a very very VERY long time.

Depends on what position that Flight Officer holds vs the Senior member who has been in for a very very VERY long time.

As mentioned, authority in CAP is based on the position a person holds rather then grade.  (Example): If you have a 1st Lt Squadron Commander who's been in CAP for two years and never cadet, their position (Squadron Commander) trumps the operations officer of the squadron who might be a former Spaatz cadet and a Lt Col who has been in for a very very long time. 

However, that 1st Lt would still render proper customs and courtesies to that Lt Col (and anyone in higher grade to the 1st Lt).

ol'fido

Grade: What you wear on your collar or sleeve. Higher grade trumps lower grade for customs and courtesies.

Rank: Your seniority within your grade. Major with DOR of 2001 outranks major with DOR in 2007.

Position: The job you hold within the staff or chain of command. Position trumps grade or rank with regard to authority.

There are probably exceptions and ambiguities to these guidelines as the next few posters will probably want to point out but that's basically how it works.

Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

EMT-83

There is a certain Captain in my squadron. He's the same grade as me, but outranks me due to seniority. As Deputy Commander, my position trumps his Operations Officer gig. When we fly, his MP beats my MO.

Does any of this matter? Nope.

Major Carrales

Let's look at this from a different angle starting with the last post I read from ol'fido.

The only "authority" in CAP is command authority.  Rank is indicated in terms of position.  I am a squadron commander, so I rank above those that are staff officers in my unit.  The Group Commander is in command of the echelon above me and, thus, he out ranks us at the Squadron Level.  Then there is the WING COMMANDER and REGION COMMANDERS, they...as corporate officers....out rank us all.  The National Commander has RANK over all those in some command function.

They are where orders, information and policy are directed downward.

Grade is what were wear on our collars, shoulders and sleeves.  And, while there is a respect there, let us not forget what CAP GRADE indicates.

1) Progression through the CAP SENIOR MEMBER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.  So, I am a Major...my grade and ribbons reflect my progress in CAP.  I have been in CAP more than 6 months and finished LEVEL I.  Have a tech and senior rating in a specialty track, taken SLS and CLC, completed the OLD ECI 13, attended wing conferences and so on and so forth that show what it means to be a MAJOR in CAP.

Thus, you can assume...if I have been active in CAP continually, that I have earned this rank over the course of over 10 years and might know a bit about CAP and how it works.

So, if I see a 1st Lt with a leadership ribbon, I can make a judgement about what they have done and develop the professional development focus of my unit to include that officers needs.

2) Mission Related Skill-  If I see wings and a CAP railroad tracks I might assume that this person achieved their rank via being some level of aviator.  There is something to be respected there.

3) Professional Achievement- If I see a CAP or Major with no CAP ribbons, or maybe a MEMBERSHIP RIBBON...I might assume they earned this rank for achievements in their professional careers.  A master school administrator or Chaplain.  There is a respect factor in that as well.  A busy professional takes time to volunteer for CAP.

4) Military Rank- A Lt Col with lots of Active Duty Ribbons and few CAP ones could very well be a retired General who wants to continue to serve with CAP.

5) COMMAND SERVICE- Any Cols, Brig Gen or Maj Generals took a Wing, region or whole ball of wax for a while.  Also worthy of the respect of Military Courtesy.


I find it to be, unless it is some sort of situation where it is done for humor, a bad things when a CAP Officer "pulls rank" over some junior CAP officer.  If it is out or arrogance or as an abuse, it diminishes us all.  We offer the customs and courtesies out of respect, in my case, for those listed above and for those reasons.   Pulling rank destroys the integrity of that and is, thus, questionable.

Now...Flight Officers are often misunderstood sorts.  I have seen CAP Officers treat them like cadets and deny them participation and respect because they see the Flight Officers as an arrogant over reaching cadet needing to be "put in their place."  I have corrected this when I have seen it.

In fact, one of the first things I ever took such notice of occurred to the this year's TEXAS WING SENIOR MEMBER of the YEAR.  He was an outstanding cadet who transitioned to SENIOR MEMBER.  He was a TFO and a 1st Lt from another Squadron was very condescending to him thinking he was a cadet.  It was somewhat uncalled for and I spoke to this person showing that CAP member was a Senior Member.

Incidentally, this same member was the one who recruited me when I was in college.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

lordmonar

I disagree that the ONLY authority is "command" authority.

There are more then one type of authority then just the ability to kick someone out of CAP.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major Carrales

Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 04:50:39 AM
I disagree that the ONLY authority is "command" authority.

There are more then one type of authority then just the ability to kick someone out of CAP.

Don't misunderstand...the context here is that one CAP Officer "orders" another as in the case of "pulling rank."

I get the vision of some CAP major ordering a 1st Lt out of a chair so they, themselves, can sit...or other metaphors related to that such "abuse."

I juxtapose this to Commander's authority...an order comes down from Wing to Groups and Squadrons and it is implemented from the top down with attached warnings of Transfers to "GHOST" squadrons or being GROUNDED from CAP activities in air and ground.

The WING commander can say "Such and Such policy must be implemented by 32 of OCTEMBER 20X6 for you will be transferred," that carries the weight of a CORPORATE MANDATE.

There is no authority in CAP that allows some random CAP Captain, for example, to use a lieutenant as a "lackey" or  otherwise throw their weight around.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

lordmonar

With in the context of our core values......yes there is.

All things can be abused....but that does not mean that the authority is still not there.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major Carrales

#32
Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 05:34:15 AM
With in the context of our core values......yes there is.

All things can be abused....but that does not mean that the authority is still not there.

Don't over analyze...I am not in a fighting mood... ;)  I've not indicated that there is no "authority" beyond command...only that it is there that it is the most visible.  We are discussing the "abuse" of "pulling rank..."

Unless you believe that a Major could haphazardly order around Lieutenants on meaningless whims?  I can't see you supporting that.  Also, I think you would agree that taking advantage of a "grade superiority" for tasks of questionable relevance to any missions does nothing but 1) build ego in the Senior officer and 2) diminish the structure due to abuse of power.

Also, my main point was on the nature of Grade and how it is attained in CAP in relation to why it should be respected.  You have not really addressed that in favor of a point I don't think I made.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

ColonelJack

Quote from: FW on April 12, 2012, 01:48:23 AM
From a C&C standpoint; you guys can salute my posts any time you feel like it.... >:D

By ... your ... command ...

Jack
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., CAP (now inactive)
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
Honorary Admiral, Navy of the Republic of Molossia

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 05:34:15 AM
With in the context of our core values......yes there is.

Explain, please.

There are no "shades" of authority in CAP, you either have it, through posting or delegation, or you don't, and for those who have it through delegation, the lane is generally defined pretty specifically, and neither is based on, or connected to, grade or PD level.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

#35
There are different theories on authority.  Max Weber is a recognized authority on...well...authority.  He states there are three kinds of authority:
Rational-legal - that which comes from your position
Traditional - that which comes from establish customs
Charismatic - what you can convince others of by virtue of your ability to convince.

I'd say there are more, but that's quibbling.  For example, Weber doesn't recognize expertise authority as a seperate apsect, he lumps it under charisma.

Traditional authority comes from the military rank structure - you grant a general certain authority because they are a general, even if they are not in a position.  Therefore, in CAP, it would be accurate to say that because we voluntarily accept the military structure with integrity, our core values give someone authority.

lordmonar

#36
Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 05:34:15 AM
With in the context of our core values......yes there is.

Explain, please.

Here is what the Navy says about Authority and Power.  The USAF uses similar language...or at least it did when I went to the NCO Academy.

http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14144/css/14144_67.htm

QuoteAUTHORITY  AND  POWER

With  authority  comes  power.  Power  is  the ability to influence people toward organizational objectives.  However,  you  have  limits  on  your authority  and  power.  View  your  authority  and power as a funnel, broad at the top and narrow at the bottom. Always assume you have enough authority  and  power  to  meet  your  obligations,  but do  not  exceed  that  limit. Authority Authority   only   exists   when   subordinates accept the idea that the supervisor has authority over  them.  Subordinates  can  fail  to  recognize authority  through  disobedience,  denial,  or  work delays.   Subordinates   usually   accept   authority readily;  however,  abusing  your  authority  as  a supervisor  can  make  you  ineffective. Although most authority in the Navy results from  a  member's  rank  or  position  in  the  chain of command, many types of authority exist. Most authority in the Navy is delegated.

LINE AUTHORITY.  —Line authority is the authority  you  have  over  subordinates  in  your chain  of  command.  This  type  of  authority corresponds directly to your place within the chain of command and does not exist outside the chain of  command.

STAFF  AUTHORITY.  —Staff  authority  is the  right  of  staff  to  counsel,  advise,  or  make recommendations to line personnel. This type of authority does not give staff the right to give line personnel orders that affect the mission of the line organization. A chief from another work center or division could, by virtue of his or her rank, exercise staff authority  over  a  person  in  your  work  center  or division by counseling or advising him or her to get  a  haircut.  Failure  to  follow  the  advice  or counsel  may  result  in  nonjudicial  punishment (NJP) for the subordinate. The other chief would not,  however,  have  the  authority  to  enter  your work  center  or  division  and  make  changes  that only  you  and  your  superiors  have  the  authority to  make.

FUNCTIONAL AUTHORITY. —Certain  staff organizations are granted functional authority to direct  line  units  within  the  area  of  the  staff's specialty.  Examples  of  staff  organizations  with functional  authority  include  the  Legal,  Equal Opportunity,  and  Safety  Departments.

Power

In  conjunction  with  your  authority,  you  use power to influence others toward the accomplish- ment  of  command  goals.  You  can  use  power  for personal gain or for the good of the organization. However,  if  your  subordinates  believe  you  use power for personal gain, you will soon suffer an erosion  of  that  power.  On  the  other  hand,  if subordinates  believe  you  use  power  to  accomplish the organizational goals, your power to influence them will become stronger. Your power will also become  stronger  when  you  share  it  through delegation  of  authority. Of the six types of power—reward, coercive, legitimate, informational, referent, and expert— you may use one or more in various combinations. Each  situation  will  determine  the  one  or  ones  you use.

REWARD  POWER.  —Reward  power  stems from  your  use  of  positive  and  negative  rewards to influence subordinates. Positive rewards range from  a  smile  or  kind  word  to  recommendations for  awards.  Negative  rewards  range  from  corrective- type  counseling  to  placing  a  person  on  report. You will find one of the best ways to influence your  subordinates  is  through  the  use  of  your reward power. As a chief, you are responsible for starting the positive reward process. First, write a  recommendation  for  the  award.  Once  the recommendation   is   typed   in   the   command's standard award letter format, forward it up the chain  of  command  for  approval.  Your  job  does not end here. Always follow-up on the recommen- dation,  using  your  influence  and  persuasion  to  get the  award  to  the  proper  command  level. Frequent use of positive rewards will amplify the  effect  of  a  negative  reward.  Give  positive rewards freely, but use restraint in giving negative rewards. If you use negative rewards frequently, subordinates   will   begin   to   expect   a   negative reward.  Their  expectation  of  a  negative  reward will  lessen  your  power.

COERCIVE   POWER.   â€”Coercive  power results from the expectation of a negative reward if   your   wishes   are   not   obeyed.   For   example, suppose you have counseled a subordinate twice for minor infractions of regulations. At the third counseling session, you threaten the subordinate with  NJP.  At  the  next  occurrence  of  the  un- desirable behavior, you place the subordinate on report. Coercive  power  works,  but  is  not  the  preferred method of leading subordinates. It works best if used when all else fails and you feel sure you can carry  through  with  a  threat.  Before  giving  a threat,  you  should  have  some  insight  as  to  how the CO will handle the case. You do not want to recommend  maximum  punishment  only  to  have the CO dismiss the case at mast.

LEGITIMATE POWER. —Legitimate power comes   from   the   authority   of   your   rate   and position  in  the  chain  of  command.  You  use  this power  in  day-to-day  business.  Although  legitimate power increases with added responsibilities, you can decrease that power if you fail to meet all of your  responsibilities. To  increase  your  legitimate  power,  assume some of the division officer's responsibilities. At first, the division officer will be glad to have the help.  In  time,  the  division  officer  will  view  the responsibilities  as  yours  and  formally  delegate additional authority to you. That would increase your  legitimate  power  without  diminishing  the power  of  the  division  officer. Just as you can increase your legitimate power by  assuming  more  responsibility,  you  can  decrease that power by losing responsibility. For example, if you permit the division officer to assume some of  your  responsibilities,  the  division  officer  will eventually begin to view your responsibilities as his  or  hers.  You  will  then  have  less  legitimate power.  However,  when  a  subordinate  wishes  to assume  some  of  your  responsibilities,  formally delegate  those  responsibilities  to  the  subordinate. That makes the subordinate accountable to you. You then increase the subordinate's power while retaining  your  power.

INFORMATIONAL  POWER.  —Informational power depends on your giving or withholding of information or having knowledge that others do not have. Use informational power when giving orders  to  subordinates.  Give  orders  in  such  a manner  that  your  subordinates  presume  the  order originated at your level. When forced to comply with  orders  you  do  not  agree  with,  don't  introduce the  order  by  saying    "The   division   officer said.   .   ."   Phrase  and  present  the  order  in  a manner  that  leaves  no  doubt  you  initiated  it. Rely on your own resources to stay fully informed instead  of  depending  on  others.  Subordinates  may present unreliable information in a manner that makes it appear to be true. Superiors may become so involved with projects they forget to keep you informed  of  tasks  being  assigned  or  upcoming inspections.  Information  is  power.  Stay  informed!

REFERENT  POWER.   â€”Referent   power derives from your subordinates' identification or association  with  you.  You  have  this  power  by simply being "the chief." People identify with the ideals  you  stand  for. The chief has a pre-established image. You can enhance  that  image  by  exhibiting  charisma, courage,  and  charm.  An  improved  image  increases your  referent  power.  Always  be  aware  of  how others will perceive your actions. A negative image in the eyes of others will lessen your power and render  you  ineffective.  Maintain  a  positive  image!

EXPERT  POWER.  —Expert  power  comes from  your  knowledge  in  a  specific  area  through which  you  influence  others.  You  have  expert power because your subordinates regard you as an expert in your rating. Subordinates may also have   this   type   of   power.   When   you   combine expert power with other types of power, you will find  it  an  effective  tool  in  influencing  others. However, when you use it by itself, you will find it  ineffective.

So....keeping in mind the core values of CAP....a Lt Col can order around a 2d Lt...because he is a Lt Col.  Does that mean I can make them be my lackies and do stupid stuff?  No because that would violate the core value of respect.  But a Lt Col can order anyone to follow the regulations.  Failure to do so would be cause for that member's commander to discipline the individual for not following orders.  So in CAP....... RANK and GRADE give us legitmate power but no Coercive power.  Position gives us both legitmate and coercive power as well as reward power.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on April 12, 2012, 02:57:00 PMSo....keeping in mind the core values of CAP....a Lt Col can order around a 2d Lt...because he is a Lt Col. Does that mean I can make them be my lackies and do stupid stuff?  No because that would violate the core value of respect.  But a Lt Col can order anyone to follow the regulations.  Failure to do so would be cause for that member's commander to discipline the individual for not following orders.  So in CAP....... RANK and GRADE give us legitmate power but no Coercive power.  Position gives us both legitmate and coercive power as well as reward power.

This is not how CAP works.

Rank isn't even calculated in CAP, nor posted in any way where anyone would even be aware of it, and grade does not confer any authority whatsoever.
A Lt. Col. can not order around a 2d Lt., nor anyone else, absent a command posting or the delegated authority of a commander.

I don't see where you're connecting "core values" to this.  The only connection is in respect, which means you say "Sir" after "no", and salute if appropriate.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Eclipse, I think you're right in all cases except the ones where two people from different chains of command are interacting. Which does happen quite a bit.

I don't agree that rank is useless. Instead, I think that whenever a member is carrying out an order, that order comes from someone higher up than you are with an authority stronger than yours. So I, as a Capt, cannot tell a 1st Lt CDC how to run his program in another squadron, because his authority is derived from the squadron commander, who has his authority derived from the wing commander, who will almost always outrank everyone at the unit level. There are situations where this may not NECESSARILY apply, but for the most part, the authority of a position is derived from the person above, who holds a rank that prevents someone from just shrugging and saying, "Nah."

This means that if I wander across a 2d Lt sitting around doing nothing, and I need help on a project, then I expect my request for his help to be accepted. If he says he can't, it had better be because he already has orders from his chain of command that conflict with my own. But the fact that a chain of command exists doesn't necessarily prevent one from taking command of a subordinate in situations that do not conflict with the initial order.

Really, the same concept applies with cadet and senior interactions. If I tell a cadet to do something, I expect it to be done so long as the order doesn't conflict with the orders the cadet already has. As the highest ranking member in a situation where authority is not otherwise assigned, it is my responsibility to use the resources to accomplish a mission, and if there are no other orders preventing me from doing so, then I am fully EXPECTED to take command of the situation.

And if it helps, look at it from the reverse. Say that you and a bunch of other members from different chains of command at an event find yourselves in a situation that needs immediate addressing. You are the highest ranking member, and if the issue doesn't get addressed, someone's going to get chewed out. Guess who it's going to be?
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

lordmonar

We choose to use the military model for our organisation we are required to show miliatry customs and courtesies to those with more grade.  We have a whole section in the cadets manuals explaining the differences between rank and grade (even on AD there is no where rank is calculated and posted...if you need to know you have to ask TIG date and TIS dates).

But beyond that....I whole heartedly disagree with you assumption that grade carries no authority what so ever.

Granted postional authority (i.e. Line authory) outweights staff authority....as it does in the AD military.....and with CAP's promotion system (i.e. no billet limitations, no HYT (High Year Tenure) and inability to move people around) we have a very disjointed system.  However, again that does not negate the fact that grade and rank does confer authority.....just less then position does.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#40
You're both showing the inherent problems with they way CAP implements grade, but neither is supporting your own arguments with anything
regulatory.

In CAP there is an inference of authority where none actually exists.  In Nathan's examples, he's got no business telling anyone to do anything if his only authority to make them do it is his collar insignia.  In the cadet example, that is primarily because of the senior-cadet paradigm and has nothing to do with grade.

We've all either had the experience, or know of new members who have, where as a slick-sleeve you join CAP all wide-eyed and will listen to
anybody with color on their shoulder, only to find out later that the Captain who's been giving you all sorts of orders got his grade because he's a CFI, hasn't ever flown for CAP, and has no authority whatsoever (not to mention no idea what he's talking about). He "...only started showing up after years away from CAP the week before you joined..."

If a random 1st Lt is directed to "do that" by a random Major, that 1st Lt. is certainly free to tell that Major "no, Sir".  There's no insubordination, because CAP doesn't create an environment of subordination based on grade.  If he didn't say "Sir", and didn't salute, you could probably make a case regarding respect, etc., but that would be pretty thin.

Nathan's example of the group going FUBAR doesn't hold water, either.  I've been in any number of situations where the highest ranking
member of the group was literally the last person who you'd want pulling a "Haig", and no one would ever expect him to take charge.

Even the oath acknowledges that authority is based on position, not grade.
"I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and regulations of the Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge all duties and responsibilities as well as obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God."

Note, it doesn't say "superior officers", it says "officers appointed over me".

This issue has been beat to death on this forum, and no one has ever cited even a gray area in this regard, while anyone with Google could find the military regulations and/or public laws that establish the authority and responsibilities of those with commissioned and non-commissioned grade.

"That Others May Zoom"

FlyTiger77

Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 07:34:27 PM
...obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God."[/i]

Note, it doesn't say "superior officers", it says "officers appointed over me"...


Although I agree with your main point, "superior officers" vs. "officers appointed over me" is a distinction without a difference.

The current oath of enlistment for Soldiers states "officers appointed over me" as well, and rank/grade does matter there.

Again, I agree with your main point. In my experience, grade in CAP denotes personal accomplishment/achievement as opposed to authority (which is generally limited in any instance).
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 12, 2012, 07:45:20 PMAlthough I agree with your main point, "superior officers" vs. "officers appointed over me" is a distinction without a difference.
In CAP it is a very important distinction.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 12, 2012, 07:45:20 PMThe current oath of enlistment for Soldiers states "officers appointed over me" as well, and rank/grade does matter there.
I agree, but the military does things literally 180 off from the way CAP does in this regard, otherwise we would not have SMWOGs commanding units
full of field grade officers, nor the real possibility than an NCO could be the national commander.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Eclipse, I don't doubt that you believe what you're saying, but I'm trying to figure out WHY you believe that way.

Unfortunately, my work computer does not have a PDF reader on it (yeah, weird), so I can't peruse the regulations on my own from here. But off the top of my head, the "paradigm" of rank itself does indeed infer the authority that we're discussing. We can draw from many examples that the attempt is at least MADE to equate rank with authority, even if it is not always successful. IE, the leader of CAP is going to be promoted to a rank that outranks every other member of CAP.

Basically, we follow a military structure, and we have a rank hierarchy that is loosely associated with position. Reasonable minds would conclude that those with a higher rank therefore have an authority over those with a lower rank. There is, based on the nature and existence of our rank structure, no reason to assume otherwise.

So why are you assuming otherwise?

For instance, I would say that the "obey the orders of the officers appointed over me" doesn't in any way invalidate my argument. I assume rank to be a measure of authority, so when someone is promoted to a higher rank than me, then they are by default appointed to an authority over me. The only way that it supports your argument is if I were to accept your argument first, and then say that since rank holds no authority, then there is no appointment.

I am not closed off to the idea that you could be right, at least as far as the books go. I am just not familiar with a regulation that either removes authority from rank, or states that rank itself has no authority simply because positional authority exists. The two authorities are not mutually exclusive. And as much as this makes some people shudder, I don't think that there needs to be a regulation specifically stating that those in higher ranks have authority in situations unrelated to the chain of command.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 07:49:33 PMthe leader of CAP is going to be promoted to a rank that outranks every other member of CAP.
Until their tour is done, and then they retain the grade and go back to a unit.  This is especially true with former Wing CC's.

Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 07:49:33 PM
Basically, we follow a military structure, and we have a rank hierarchy that is loosely associated with position.
Below the Wing CC slots, grade isn't connected with position in any way.  There are no grade requirements to hold any position in
CAP at any level, including the ability to have those who choose to wear NCO grade from another service appointed as commanders.

Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 07:49:33 PM
I am just not familiar with a regulation that either removes authority from rank, or states that rank itself has no authority simply because positional authority exists. The two authorities are not mutually exclusive. And as much as this makes some people shudder, I don't think that there needs to be a regulation specifically stating that those in higher ranks have authority in situations unrelated to the chain of command.
That's exactly what the military has, and exactly what we would need in order for grade to have any meaning beyond professional development in CAP.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Is there a similar, specific recognition of undebateable authority that every senior member (including 18 yo flight officers) always has authority over cadets (including 20 yo cadets)?

Like I said, I can't get the regulation up on this computer, otherwise I would look myself.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 08:06:46 PM
Is there a similar, specific recognition of undebateable authority that every senior member (including 18 yo flight officers) always has authority over cadets (including 20 yo cadets)?

Like I said, I can't get the regulation up on this computer, otherwise I would look myself.

Yes - I would say the CP regulations establish the senior authority and responsibility for cadets.
Specifically 52-16 2.1a
a. Role of Adult Leaders. A critical duty of adult leaders is to keep cadets safe by monitoring their conduct, following operational risk management (ORM) principles, and exercising sound judgment. Unit commanders will take all reasonable measures necessary to protect cadets from harm while under CAP supervision. Senior members will be present at all activities involving cadets. Detailed position descriptions for the senior staff are suggested in CAPP 216 Cadet Programs Officer's Handbook & Specialty Track Study Guide Apr 2011 .

As to the military piece that CAP lacks, it's the commission.  The commission grants authority from a sovereign power, and in the US, Title 10 which is the UCMJ delineates the enforcement of that power.

10 USC § 890 - ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.


CAP officers lack any commission from a sovereign power, and their is no equivalent to the UCMJ that delineates enforcement of disobeying a superior officer (as such).   We are essentially a corporation, the Col's, while serving as wing CC's, are literally the board of directors (corporate "officers"), but the
other commanders and staff are just managers working their divisions or departments. 

Someone working in finance doesn't generally have any authority over people working in HR, just because they've worked there a long time and have the gold pen set you get for 10 years service.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 08:20:22 PM
Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 08:06:46 PM
Is there a similar, specific recognition of undebateable authority that every senior member (including 18 yo flight officers) always has authority over cadets (including 20 yo cadets)?

Like I said, I can't get the regulation up on this computer, otherwise I would look myself.

Yes - I would say the CPT regulations establish the senior authority and responsibility for cadets.

Really? Which part? It might be there, but if it's only IMPLIED by the status of the senior members as higher-ranking individuals (since the definition of "adult" doesn't get much attention with cadets), then there is no reason to assume that similarly-worded implications of authority regarding rank should be treated any differently.

That, or by your logic, cadets don't have to obey seniors outside of their chain of command because the regs don't specifically say that they do.

And since we're being nit-picky and laying it all out on the table, are you able to cite the regulation that specifically grants the authority of a commander to command those in the chain of command? Is a squadron commander prevented from giving a direct order to a subordinate several links down the chain because there is no specific regulation permitting it? Or is that authority only IMPLIED?
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Eclipse

#48
I cited 52-16 above as to the authority of cadets vs. seniors.

The authority of squadron commanders is actually a delegation of the real authority of the respective wing CC, which itself is granted by the constitution, bylaws and AFI's.  Unit CC's don't have the same type of authority as a corporate officer.  A wing CC has vested authority and fiduciary responsibility for the corporation, a unit CC does not, indicated in part by the fact that no one below wing CC can sign a contract.

Squadron CC's have a specific area of authority as defined by their appointment - those assigned to his charter are subordinate to the appointed commander, those who are assigned to other charters, aren't.  A Group CC's charter includes the subordinate units are defined by the respective wing.
You could make the argument that any authority below wing is somewhat artificial because it is a delegation of higher authority.

Military officers have an inherent authority conveyed via the commission itself.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spaceman3750

Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
That, or by your logic, cadets don't have to obey seniors outside of their chain of command because the regs don't specifically say that they do.

I saw a C/LtCol tell one of my lieutenants to pound sand once... I didn't like what my SM wanted the cadet to do - "Here cadet, I need two people to go unload uniforms from my car.", but I also wasn't thrilled with the cadet for her attitude.

Seniors should not be directly involved in the affairs of the cadet program (including giving cadets direct orders) unless:

1) They are the commander
2) They are CP staff
3) They are staffing an activity/ES and they have subordinate cadets
4) There is an immediate safety or cadet protection issue

I try very hard to stay in my lane and I expect my seniors to do the same (as a CDS). Those who directly inject their own "solutions" or "directions" into the cadet program without working through the CP staff are likely to be taken off of my Christmas card list (full disclosure: I'm guilty of minor infractions to this rule. I do not send myself a Christmas card as a result.)

When I need something from a cadet or cadet staff, I work through the chain.

Nathan

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 12, 2012, 08:47:17 PM
Quote from: Nathan on April 12, 2012, 08:24:57 PM
That, or by your logic, cadets don't have to obey seniors outside of their chain of command because the regs don't specifically say that they do.

I saw a C/LtCol tell one of my lieutenants to pound sand once... I didn't like what my SM wanted the cadet to do - "Here cadet, I need two people to go unload uniforms from my car.", but I also wasn't thrilled with the cadet for her attitude.

Seniors should not be directly involved in the affairs of the cadet program (including giving cadets direct orders) unless:

1) They are the commander
2) They are CP staff
3) They are staffing an activity/ES and they have subordinate cadets
4) There is an immediate safety or cadet protection issue

I try very hard to stay in my lane and I expect my seniors to do the same (as a CDS). Those who directly inject their own "solutions" or "directions" into the cadet program without working through the CP staff are likely to be taken off of my Christmas card list (full disclosure: I'm guilty of minor infractions to this rule. I do not send myself a Christmas card as a result.)

When I need something from a cadet or cadet staff, I work through the chain.

My philosophy is no different.

However, we're talking about two different things. One is the ideal way that the program SHOULD be run, and one is the authority that a senior member has the right to exercise over a cadet regardless of the situation. I do my best to be as hands-off in administering the cadet program as possible, but that task is made much easier and safer since I know I have the authority to intervene directly if need be.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Ned

Interesting discussion.

I think we can all agree that there is no CAP version of the UCMJ which specifically requires obedience to the orders of officers/ NCOs of superior grade and establishes consequences for disobedience and/or disrespect.

Yet we do go to all the trouble of promoting people in a hierarchical sequence from SM through Maj Gen and base some customs and courtesies for cadets and seniors entirely upon grade.  You'd think there would be a reason for that other than simple tradition and mirroring of our AF partners.

And Nathan, I think the authority for unit commanders is found in the specific regulations that authorize commanders (and pretty much commanders only) to assign, transfer, promote, and discipline members.  Commanders are the only folks with a "stick" in CAP, and the rest of us pretty much have to do what the officer-with-a-stick says we have to do.

It might be interesting to draft a simple CAP "UCMJ" type regulation that would provide some sort of guidance for the exercise of authority.  We could do things like create an actual CAP commission granted by the National Commander / NB / BoG (pick one or more) that requires obedience from inferior grades and move on from there.

What do you suppose such a regulation would look like?

Eclipse

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 09:29:41 PM
What do you suppose such a regulation would look like?

I can't honestly see how it would be workable without a lot of changes to the existing curriculum and plans.

For starters we'd need to have a lot more expectations of responsibility to go with the authority.  Far too many people
are happy to boss people around, but then raise the "I'm just a volunteer / not my problem" flag when it's their turn to listen.

The circular way members are appointed to command slots, then cycle back into the racks would be an issue as well.

I've advocated not promoting anyone unless they are moving up the chain, and suppressing the grade structure in general,
with the commensurate expectation that anyone wanting to move up the chain, has to promote.  With that idea we'd
get back to the balance where the field grades are at an appropriate scope and experience, and those who choose not
to take the responsibility, can stay in the company grades.

"That Others May Zoom"

spacecommand

What kind of answer was the OP looking for?  A hypothetical situation or a "real world" situation that the OP finds himself in?

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 07:34:27 PMEven the oath acknowledges that authority is based on position, not grade.
"I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and regulations of the Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge all duties and responsibilities as well as obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God."

Note, it doesn't say "superior officers", it says "officers appointed over me".

When a member is promoted to a higher grade......he is "appointed" over you.

Eclipse....be careful of what you are saying.  If ONLY the chain of command applies......then my cadets don't have to listen to you.
My cadets don't have to salute you.  My cadets don't have to be respectful to you.

Think of all the time here on CT you brought some cadet NOOB to task for not being respectful to someone else on this board?
If what you are saying is true....then you violated your own ideas of authority.


Bottom line.....REG are NOT the only source of authority. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#55
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 12:37:22 AM
When a member is promoted to a higher grade......he is "appointed" over you.
No, he isn't.  Some random Major in RMR is not " appointed over" a random captain in NCR simply by virtue of grade.
Absent a unit, activity, or ES chain, he has zero authority whatsoever to direct that NCR Captain to do anything.  He has
no sovereign commission to grant him power based purely on his grade.  Were they to meet, the Captain owes him
a salute, and "sirs", and the general respect that should exist between members, but he is under no obligation to
tote any bales the major might want moved.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 12:37:22 AM
Eclipse....be careful of what you are saying.  If ONLY the chain of command applies......then my cadets don't have to listen to you.
My cadets don't have to salute you.  My cadets don't have to be respectful to you.
Two places you're wrong.

First, we're not talking about military courtesies and respect, those have never been on the table, and are not disputed.
Second, cadets are bound to obey the directive of senior members by virtue of the senior-member cadet relationship.
Now, I'm not about to tell cadets not in my charge to lift barges just because they are cadets and some seniors view them
as hired hands, but in terms of safety or bad ideas, I would fully expect they would comply, and that authority and
responsibility is implicit in 52-16 as quoted above.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 12:37:22 AM
Bottom line.....REG are NOT the only source of authority.
Regulations are, in fact, the only source of authority, you're trying to compare "power" with "authority", and that's not what we are discussing.  "Power" comes from all sorts of places.  A member who has obtained the Wing CC's password to eServices has "power", that doesn't give him the "authority" to use it or to promote everyone in his unit to Major.

"Authority" can only come from regulation, rule of law, or consensus of the governed, the latter of which is essentially the same as the first two.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Wrong again!

Authority and power come from many different places.

Line.....position
Staff....Rank
Functional.....The dotted lines that cross the chain of command.

Period....end of story.

Our customs and courtisies are based around the understanding about STAFF authority.  Our regulations and pamples "see customs on display" even point out the unique nature of CAP compared to the real military.

But if you don't accept the concept of STAFF authority......then outside your immidiate chain of command you don't have to listen to anyone.   

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You can't jump a cadet/senior member from another squadron for failing to salute you.  You can't dress down a poster here on CT for being less then repectful.

Finally authority and power come from places outside rules of law and/or the consensus of the governed.........I simply point out to you that North Korea does exist.  ;D

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

We're.

Not.

Talking.

About.

Power.

Nor respect in the form of courtesies, either has been debated.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 01:01:32 AM
But if you don't accept the concept of STAFF authority......then outside your immidiate chain of command you don't have to listen to anyone.
Any authority a staff officer has is delegated from the commander, and is regarding the narrow lane of their staff posting.

As ESO has no authority whatsoever in regards to the cadet program in their AOR (etc, etc.)They may have knowledge, they may even have "power",
but they have no authority.
   
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 01:01:32 AM
You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You can't jump a cadet/senior member from another squadron for failing to salute you.  You can't dress down a poster here on CT for being less then respectful.
Yes, I can, because both the "loco parentis" relationship between cadets and seniors, as well as the requirement for customs and courtesies are
explicitly called out within regulations and pamphlets.

I've provided several cites in defense of my arguments, no one has come up with anything that grants authority in CAP based on grade.


"That Others May Zoom"

FlyTiger77

Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2012, 09:06:24 PM
I see that but I am still going to have to disagree.

+1
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 01:13:42 AMI've provided several cites in defense of my arguments, no one has come up with anything that grants authority in CAP based on grade.

So if a General speaks to you, do you listen more respectfully and thoughtfully than you would for a 2dLt?

Yes, you do?  That's authority based on nothing more than your respect for their grade.

It's not a bad thing. 

Spaceman3750

Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

NCRblues

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 13, 2012, 03:48:22 AM
Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone....
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Spaceman3750

Quote from: NCRblues on April 13, 2012, 04:28:42 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 13, 2012, 03:48:22 AM
Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone....

Hm. Interesting.

NCRblues

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 13, 2012, 04:33:19 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on April 13, 2012, 04:28:42 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 13, 2012, 03:48:22 AM
Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone....

Hm. Interesting.

And in fact I just found this on the Mo supreme court database of decisions and opinions...

"Community Service Organization
A non-profit, non-partisan community organization which is designated as an IRS Code 501(c)(3) agency, or a human service organization that serves citizens including children, youth, and the elderly are included inside the general RSMO for in loco parentis"

~ Mo supreme court circa 1995


In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Dad2-4

I was going to stay out of this discussion because.......well, just because. But I decided to make a couple of quick comments.
While on AD as a USAF Security Policeman we were frequently reminded that there's a difference between rank and authority. Being at a SAC base full of heavy aircraft meant there were TONS of officers. Of course they all outranked the rank and file SP troops. But they could not even get near their planes without the SP clearing them at the entry control point. They had the rank, we had the authority. And more than one officer (new 2nd Lewy up to LtCol) tried to "pull rank" when they forgot their ID badge in their gym locker and couldn't come in.
On another note concerning "in loco parentis", mention that you have some of the same rights and responsibilities as their parents to a classrom full of jr. high or high schools kids and watch the sparks fly.  >:D

lordmonar

Eclipse,

1) You don't read do you.  STAFF authority as defined in the article I quoted....not as "a member of the Staff"...which is either Line or Functional Authority. Depending on the situaiton.

2)  We show customs and coutesites because those individuals have AUTHORITY over us. 

3) CAP gives officers authorities over other officers and members when they promote them.  You can't debate it.  The SM oath is exactly like the AD oath.....Officers Appointed Over Me.....means all officers not just the ones in your chain of command (Line Authority).  BTW the SM oath is the first cite that you were asking for prooving that you are wrong.

4) CAPR 35-3 provides clauses for both insubordination and failing to follow the orders of "higher authoirty"....with out stating that either of these must be in your chain of command. (that would be second cite that you are wrong).

So there you go. 

You think that the only source of authority is via the chain of command......okay....you are wrong...but okay.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

usafcap1

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 11, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 11, 2012, 11:29:23 AM
Well, it appears, from a post on another thread, that the OP is a cadet. That doesn't relieve him from knowing that information, though.

His profile shows an age of 20. He may be a flight officer wanting to pull rank (whatever that means in a CAP context) on a SM. Who knows.

No I'm still a cadet
|GES|SET|BCUT|ICUT|FLM|FLS*|MS|CD|MRO*|AP|IS-100|IS-200|IS-700|IS-800|

(Cadet 2008-2012)

Air•plane / [air-pleyn] / (ar'plan')-Massive winged machines that magically propel them selfs through the sky.
.

Eclipse

#67
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:03:17 AM2)  We show customs and coutesites because those individuals have AUTHORITY over us. 
Not in CAP.  Cite anywhere, anyplace that says that.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:03:17 AM
3) CAP gives officers authorities over other officers and members when they promote them.  You can't debate it.
Cite, please.

Per CAPP 151:
Rules for Saluting. It is a courtesy exchanged between members of the Civil Air Patrol when in military-style uniform as both a greeting and a symbol of mutual respect

It says nothing about authority.

In your examples, every former Wing CC would be free to tell everyone else in the wing, except the current one, what to do, and would be free to roam into other wings and go the same.  Ditto for those wearing one and two stars.

You might also note that FW, who is a full Colonel, agreed with me on my description of CAP grade in this thread.

Seriously, cite the regs that give grade authority.  Cite an example where this works in practice.  Cite anything.




"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

#68
Quote from: NCRblues on April 13, 2012, 04:28:42 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 13, 2012, 03:48:22 AM
Eclipse,

I might ask around at work tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure in loco parentis applies to schools and not a whole lot of other people. And that's fine with me, because it makes me legally liable for Timmy's sprained ankle after he does something stupid.

Actually it applies to every youth organization (in which CAP qualifies) according to the SCOTUS. In fact, the TLC class for CAP has almost an entire section on that alone...

Yep, as mentioned, that concept is a cornerstone of CPT and supervision of cadets or any similar organization, even having 3 friends over to play in your pool, etc.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Quote from: Dad2-4 on April 13, 2012, 05:04:04 AM
On another note concerning "in loco parentis", mention that you have some of the same rights and responsibilities as their parents to a classrom full of jr. high or high schools kids and watch the sparks fly.  >:D

Well, you don't have the same rights and responsibilities as their parents - that could be the reason why sparks fly.  In the context of CAP, we are different than schools because we are not a government institution.  In some ways that expands the power of in loco parentis and in others it limits it.  For example, we are not limited in the same way with regards to prohibiting free speech, but we also draw the authority from the parents, who can deny portions of it.

Quick search, these pages appears to summarize it pretty well. 

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html
http://www.quaqua.org/inlocoparentis.htm

Nathan

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 09:29:41 PM
It might be interesting to draft a simple CAP "UCMJ" type regulation that would provide some sort of guidance for the exercise of authority.  We could do things like create an actual CAP commission granted by the National Commander / NB / BoG (pick one or more) that requires obedience from inferior grades and move on from there.

What do you suppose such a regulation would look like?

Well, I wouldn't think it would look a whole lot different than what we think intuitively when we consider the concept of rank and hierarchy.

CAP members have various missions to accomplish, and various chains of command. I do believe that in order to facilitate efficiency, then the chain of command must remain paramount. But I see absolutely no reason why one member should not be able to give another member an order so long as the order is not at odds with directives from the member's chain of command.

Contrary to what Eclipse believes, I honestly don't think that embracing this type of philosophy requires us to rewrite anything, because I'm fairly certain that rank already has an implied authority that you find in the regulations themselves.

Promotion, for instance, is not merely a matter of taking tests, but requires approval at higher levels of command, and therefore can be denied. What's the point of denying a promotion if the promotion means nothing? Why are commanders given that particular power? It was always my impression that with increased rank comes an increased responsibility and breadth of power, and if a commander felt that a member was not capable of handling the power that comes with the increased rank, then the promotion would be denied. There really isn't any other reason for a commander to have the power to deny a promotion, so it seems that the regulations were already accounting for the rank/authority association.

The fact is that we have no regulations specifically prohibiting the use of rank as a measure of authority and command power, and we have plenty of regulations and powers (such as what I mentioned above) that clearly imply that sort of effect. Writing it out specifically wouldn't do much more than convince people like Eclipse of something that people like me assumed (rightly or otherwise) was already the "spirit of the regulation."
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

Major Carrales

An interesting debate...I usually (in my mind) considered Eclipse and Loardmonar to be on the same page on this subject.

I maintain that there are some things that are clearly true and those that are not in method, policy or practice.

TRUE

An assigned commander is an Authority in CAP as is an delegated one also but of a differentiated type.  Thus, I am a Squadron Commander and responsible for the direction, mission readiness and overall well being of the Unit I command.  It's not "playing" at anything in that is is responsibility.  In the same manner that a Principal of a school is in charge of their campus, a manager of a store is in charge of their facility and a military commander is in charge of their unit.

Delegated authority is key and also exists.  As the Squadron Commander I can delegate Cadet Programs to a DCC and Squadron Leadership Officer, overall I am still responsible for that element of the program in that I am the Commander.  All boons and boondoggles are attached to me.

UNTRUE

Your given grade issues you an anuthority over others in a CAP setting by default.   This cannot be.  I am a major, should I have a Lt Col in my unit who either 1) just acquired that CAP grade because of prior service, 2) rose to that rank years ago and has been in active only to return 2) transferred in from another Wing...I will show the necessary respects via customs and courtesies...but I am assigned as the unit commander any the ultimate responsibility for the unit is still mine.  Should that person overstep that authority and either undermine it or start issuing orders without such authority this is...in itself...a disrespectful act.

TRUE

In loco parentis has to have a big place in CAP.  There has to be a level of authority over the cadets that hold responsibility.  Those finding fault with in loco parentis may have an assumtion that it means "anything goes."  This is not so.  What it does mean is that a person is in a position of resposibility...that relationship narrowly defined.

Someone has to be in charge at CAP activities.  We have to look about the cadets to prevent hazing, bullying and other behaviors that come out of a lack of supervision.

It does not mean to impose personal, religious or other beliefs on a cadet.  This may be where the problem is.  In loco parentis means "in the place of the parent" not "Another Parent."   Don't let the concept distract from the debate.  I suspect some believe that phrase means that a person take more liberties than it actually implies.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Nathan

Nobody is arguing that rank does or should override the authority assigned to position. So in your example, I haven't and would never advocate a random Lt Col overriding your decision about how to run your unit. Your authority is derived from the wing commander as long as your orders concern your own unit.

However, if you two are at a random activity and he asks you to help him with some particular project, then the idea is that his rank gives him the authority to make that an order. Your status as a unit commander is irrevelent outside of the unit, and in a situation where positions either don't exist or do not interfere with the given order, rank is the only other way of determining who is in charge of a situation, and subordinate ranks are obligated to respect that.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

lordmonar

Joe....what you are saying is true to an extent.

Line authority is as you say in the chain of command starting up at the National CC down to your CC to you CDC or CDS to your direct supervisor to you.

That is Line Authority.  The Safety Officer does not have LINE authority over anyone...except his assistances in the Safety Shop.  Just like the The squadron commander in the next town does not have any LINE authority over you.

Now the Safet Officer has FUNCTIONAL authority over everthing that falls into the SAFETY area but he has not Line or Functional authority over any one or anything outside of SAFETY.

NOW.....and here is my point......all officers and NCOs have STAFF authority by vertue of their grade and rank!
All things being equal a ANY Lt Col can order ANY Major an below to do something.

Of course in most cases LINE and FUNCTIONAL authority over ride STAFF authority.  That is why the 1st Lt Squadron Commander can order around the former wing commander squadron member.

But OUTSIDE OF THE squadron.......the Col out ranks the 1st Lt and has STAFF authority over him.....as demonstrated by the fast the 1st Lt salutes the Col.

Now is this in the regulations?  No...but it is not in the USAF's regulations either.  It most certainly is in the corporate knowledge of the USAF and is backed up by common practice and precidence.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#74
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:34:34 PM
NOW.....and here is my point......all officers and NCOs have STAFF authority by vertue of their grade and rank!
All things being equal a ANY Lt Col can order ANY Major an below to do something.

100% incorrect - not by regulation, not by precedent, not by custom in CAP. 
The chaos that this would inject into CAP operations would be incredible.  A large group of people with little CAP experience, or no current knowledge,
being allowed to order others around simply because of their rank and because they "felt like" it?

Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:34:34 PM
Now is this in the regulations?  No...but it is not in the USAF's regulations either.  It most certainly is in the corporate knowledge of the USAF and is backed up by common practice and precedence.

Again, incorrect.  It is part of the UCMJ which I quoted above.

Explain a single example where this is workable, and your staff examples are not correct.  A safety officer has delegated authority to administer the wishes of his commander or higher HQ, he cannot, on his own, implement any policy or procedure that his commander does not approve, nor can he
compel others downstream to comply with anything outside his lane or on his whim.  This idea that a staffer is "king of x" at his echelon is the root cause of a lot of "tribal knowledge" conflicts in CAP.

An ESO, for example, is not approving qualifications on his own whim or authority, he is implementing the Wing-CC approved process and procedure for
those approvals.  Either they meet the spec or they don't.  The ESO's job is to recommend and frame those procedures back up the chain to
the Wing CC, but he can't make changes or tell people to do anything downstream that isn't already in the regs or an approved SOP/supplement, etc.
He's theoretically the SME in his respective department, and that's about it.




"That Others May Zoom"

spacecommand

Quote from: Nathan on April 13, 2012, 07:24:36 PM
However, if you two are at a random activity and he asks you to help him with some particular project, then the idea is that his rank gives him the authority to make that an order. Your status as a unit commander is irrevelent outside of the unit, and in a situation where positions either don't exist or do not interfere with the given order, rank is the only other way of determining who is in charge of a situation, and subordinate ranks are obligated to respect that.

I find that two members at some random activity asking another member to help another and that other member helps as a courtesy and respect for each other, that is one thing and a far cry from a higher grade member having the authority to order another lower grade senior member to do something based on that person having a higher grade/or rank alone. 

In addition for CAP and CAP activities, grade/rank is not the only other way of determining who is in charge of a situation.  If it came to that, then a lot of things have already failed/gone wrong if you do not know who is in charge of a given situation, ORMs maybe off the charts, and people are not following proper procedures for that event already.




lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 07:45:56 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:34:34 PM
NOW.....and here is my point......all officers and NCOs have STAFF authority by vertue of their grade and rank!
All things being equal a ANY Lt Col can order ANY Major an below to do something.

100% incorrect - not by regulation, not by precedent, not by custom in CAP. 
The chaos that this would inject into CAP operations would be incredible.  A large group of people with little CAP experience, or no current knowledge,
being allowed to order others around simply because of their rank and because they "felt like" it?

What chaos.....it is how we run things down here in NVWG....Don't know you ILWG does it...but there is no chaos.

Quote
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2012, 07:34:34 PM
Now is this in the regulations?  No...but it is not in the USAF's regulations either.  It most certainly is in the corporate knowledge of the USAF and is backed up by common practice and precedence.

Again, incorrect.  It is part of the UCMJ which I quoted above.

Explain a single example where this is workable, and your staff examples are not correct.  A safety officer has delegated authority to administer the wishes of his commander or higher HQ, he cannot, on his own, implement any policy or procedure that his commander does not approve, nor can he
compel others downstream to comply with anything outside his lane or on his whim.  This idea that a staffer is "king of x" at his echelon is the root cause of a lot of "tribal knowledge" conflicts in CAP.

An ESO, for example, is not approving qualifications on his own whim or authority, he is implementing the Wing-CC approved process and procedure for those approvals.  Either they meet the spec or they don't.  The ESO's job is to recommend and frame those procedures back up the chain to the Wing CC, but he can't make changes or tell people to do anything downstream that isn't already in the regs or an approved SOP/supplement, etc. He's theoretically the SME in his respective department, and that's about it.
Eclipse......You are exactly right.....all authority devolves from delegation.  It is confered by the commanders on to subordinates.

I agree 100%

LINE AUTHORITY is from the National CC on down to the lowliest C/AB by placing everyone into a supervisor/subordinate chain.
FUNCTIONAL AUTHORITY is from the National Commander through the command chain to the repective staff officer.
STAFF AUTHORITY is from the National Command throught the promotion authority to the indivdiual officers.

You are absolutely right My authority as a MSgt and Your authority as a Major is delegated to you by CAP promotion regulations.



PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#77
Your authority as a MSgt comes from your promotion as an enlisted person in the military, the responsibilities and authority are specifically
delineated by the AFI's and UCMJ. 

You have no authority as a MSgt in CAP, any more than I do as a Major based on grade alone.
Every bit of authority in CAP is positional in nature, and nothing else.

You keep comparing power to authority, and bringing in the military model which is not appropriate to CAP, but you have yet
to cite anything close to a CAP-equivalency of the UCMJ, and your interpretation of "appointed" is no correct in this context.

When CAP promotes a member to a given grade, that person is not automatically appointed above everyone else in that grade.
it simply doesn't work that way, in either practice or the regs.

It's also interesting that in all the years you and I have conversed on these topics, and the positional nature of CAP grade has
been bandied about, usually with respect to doing away with it because it is "meaningless" (not my words), you've never once
taken the stand that grade is anything more than ceremonial.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 11:47:21 PMYou have no authority as a MSgt in CAP, any more than I do as a Major Lt. Col. based on grade alone.
Sure you do...I know I do.

QuoteEvery bit of authority in CAP is positional in nature, and nothing else.
I Disagree.

QuoteYou keep comparing power to authority, and bringing in the military model which is not appropriate to CAP, but you have yet
to cite anything close to a CAP-equivalency of the UCMJ, and your interpretation of "appointed" is no correct in this context.
Power and authority go hand in hand....Power with our authority is simply chaos....your example of the cadet with the Commander's password.  Authority with out power is simply useless. 

CAP does not have an equuivalancy of the UCMJ because it does not need one.  It is simply the nature of our military model.  We teach it all the time.  Those with grade have authoirity over those with out it.  No one ever made a regulation about it becuse no one ever thought that some one would suggest that a Lt Col did not have any authority.

QuoteWhen CAP promotes a member to a given grade, that person is not automatically appointed above everyone else in that grade.  it simply doesn't work that way, in either practice or the regs.

Yes it does.  It gives them STAFF authority.  Go back and read the article I posted it explains the different types of authority very clearly.   Staff authority is ALWAYS there unless it is trumped by LINE or FUNCTIONAL authority.

QuoteIt's also interesting that in all the years you and I have conversed on these topics, and the positional nature of CAP grade has been bandied about, usually with respect to doing away with it because it is "meaningless" (not my words), you've never once
taken the stand that grade is anything more than ceremonial.
It is "meaningless" because 90% of the time the only authority that we encounter in CAP will be Line or Functional authority.  As it was when I was on AD.

You very seldom ever encountered some random officer ordering you around.  a) They are usually too busy to do so.  b) they understand that crossing the chain of command (LINE AUTHORITY) is not something you really want to do.  But just because you don't encounter it too often does not mean it does not exist.  If you were to vist my squadron and you gave an order to one of the Lt's.......he/she would be expected to follow that order.....enless it ran counter to standing orders from his FUNCTIONAL or LINE superiors.  If there is a conflict he should tell you about it and attempt to find some one in his LINE to resolve the conflict.

This is exactly what happens on AD.

Now before when we talked about grade in CAP.....and it being meaningless....that was more comparing it to the military model.

The Military has quotas on rank.
The Militry is very aware of the concept of making sure that the highest ranking member is also the highest in the LINE of command.
The Military can move its officers to where they are needed.
The Military retires or releases officers that have reached their peak.

So in comparison to that....CAP rank is meaningless.  It is not necessary to possess a particlar grade to get a particlar job.  CAP could do away with military grade very easilly....if it chose to do so.

But in this debate we are discussing the nature of authority as it applies to a military type organisation.  In a military organisation....all Lt Cols our rank all Majors, etc and so forth.  That is called STAFF Authority.

Line Authority is based on your position in the chain of command.....STAFF authority cannot interfer with the LINE Authority.  So a Capt in your LINE has more Authority then a Genearl who is only exerting STAFF authority.  Because the general can't exert Staff Authority to influce the mission....that is for the LINE.

So...General Soandso(who is not in the chain of command) orders LT Newguy to get a hair cut.....Capt Youngman can't countermand that order.  It is legal, and it with in the scope of STAFF authority.  General Soandso orders Lt Newguy to leave his duty post to run an errand....Capt Youngman can countermand that order...because that is part of the mission and that falls into the scope of LINE authority.

It as simple as that.
Now the USAF (and the other services) know that this is Masters Level Leadership and they make sure that they avoid these sorts of stituations.  They try to make sure that the commander is the rnaking member of the unit....so his Line and STAFF authority are congruent.  The teach their officers NOT to go around randomly ordering other people around.  They teach their SNCOs and Officers how to resolve these issues when they come up.

I have not ever suggest that rank is simply ceremonial.  I have suggest that CAP spends too much time where STAFF and LINE authority are not congruent (I have never said it this way before).  I have suggest ways that we can fix that (award grade based on position instead of progression in the PD system).  But I suggest this not because it is meaningless...but because IT DOES have meaning.  However it is very difficult to teach the subtlies of different types of authority.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#79
Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 12:52:35 AMBut in this debate we are discussing the nature of authority as it applies to a military type organisation.  In a military organisation....all Lt Cols our rank all Majors, etc and so forth.  That is called STAFF Authority.

No, we're actually not.  You keep comparing military grade-based authority to CAP's structure, when most of us know that is a fruitless endeavor.
CAP is paramilitary, not military.  And for this discussion, there's a chasm of difference. This basic truth about CAP is the fundamental reason why
many current and former members of the military struggle in CAP - our duck walks and quacks, but it's not really a duck.

You don't have "staff authority" unless you are appointed to a staff position, and then that authority if only the narrow lane to which your
staff position was delegated the commanders authority.

You can spin this 12 ways to Sunday, but there's a Venti with your name on it if you can get anyone from NHQ to agree with you.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Okay.....let's try a little thought experiment.

50 officers from 50 different wings are all in a room.  The National Commander walks in and says...."Here is a list of tasks that need to be accomplished in one hour" and walks out.

Now....the National Commander just issued an order.

Who has the duty to carry out that order?
Who has the authority to ensure that they get carried out?
Who is in charge of the exercise?
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Who has the duty to carry out that order?
Everyone in the room, equally.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Who has the authority to ensure that they get carried out?
The National Commander, and no one else.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Who is in charge of the exercise?
The National Commander, and no one else.

The alphas in the room will surely take control, as in any group dynamic, however that does not give them the authority to do so, nor
to direct anyone else to do anything.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2012, 01:59:23 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Who has the duty to carry out that order?
Everyone in the room, equally.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Who has the authority to ensure that they get carried out?
The National Commander, and no one else.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Who is in charge of the exercise?
The National Commander, and no one else.

The alphas in the room will surely take control, as in any group dynamic, however that does not give them the authority to do so, nor
to direct anyone else to do anything.
Now that's chaos.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

Major Carrales

#84
I rethought this a bit....I think it is a difference between respect and authority.  We respect the grade for the reasons I posted several pages back.   

The authority is for the successful achievement of any mission we are given.

Comments? ;)
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

lordmonar

Quote from: Major Carrales on April 14, 2012, 02:33:03 AM
I rethought this a bit....I think it is a difference between respect and authority.  We respect the grade for the reasons I posted several pages back.   

The authority is for the successful achievement of any mission we are given.

Comments? ;)
Authority is the Legitmate use of power.

We show respect to people who are placed in authority over us.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Extremepredjudice

If you are going to have ridiculously large governing bodies, such as NB, why not add the NEC to NB, and make the regional commanders work with whoever is in their region. Then the teams will present their ideas to the NB as a whole.
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

lordmonar

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 14, 2012, 05:56:19 AM
If you are going to have ridiculously large governing bodies, such as NB, why not add the NEC to NB, and make the regional commanders work with whoever is in their region. Then the teams will present their ideas to the NB as a whole.
??? The NEC is part of the NB.  Regional commanders are supposed to work with the wing commanders in their region.  And the teams do present their proposals to the NB as a whole.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SarDragon

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 14, 2012, 05:56:19 AM
If you are going to have ridiculously large governing bodies, such as NB, why not add the NEC to NB, and make the regional commanders work with whoever is in their region. Then the teams will present their ideas to the NB as a whole.

I suggest that you give CAPR 20-1 a close read. Page 3 in particular.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

ol'fido

#89
Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Okay.....let's try a little thought experiment.

50 officers from 50 different wings are all in a room.  The National Commander walks in and says...."Here is a list of tasks that need to be accomplished in one hour" and walks out.

Now....the National Commander just issued an order.

Who has the duty to carry out that order?
Who has the authority to ensure that they get carried out?
Who is in charge of the exercise?
As near as I can tell from gleening through the last 3 pages of posts, the point of contention between you and Eclipse is that you feel that grade regardless of the chain of command imparts it's own authority. You used the example of the major ordering the first lieutanant to get them a cup of coffee. I don't knoiw that such an authority exists in real life. Certainly, a 1stLt must render proper customs and courtesies to the Maj but for all practical purposes that's where the authority ends.

I say for practical purposes, because I don't believe that any senior officer who has been properly trained and educated in military protocol or in the mechanics of rank, grade, postition, authority, or duty is going to try to exercise such power over a junior officer not in his direct chain. That may be the the problem here. In the real military, the chains of grade, rank, and position are more clearly established whereas in CAP they are not. Having the authority and knowing when to and in what situation to exercise it is two different things. Going back to the coffee model... the major may ask a lieutenant to get him a cup of coffee and the LT may do so out of courtesy. However, if the lieutenant is working on a task assign by his boss, then he can and should respectfully say that, "I'm sorry, sir, but the Col has got me jumping through hoops right now." And the senior officer should have the savvy to say, "Well, in that case, can you just point me to the coffee pot.".

The only time I feel that a "random" senior officer should exercise any "authority" over more junior personnel not in his direct chain is when he observes gross violations of regulations or safety protocols. The "authority" should be limited to stopping the actions that are in contention. The senior officer should then drop back and punt to the chain of command that those junior personnel belong to. The senior officer's authority ends there if appropriate corrective action is taken by the "offenders" chain of command.
Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

lordmonar

You are exactly right.

But now you have crossed over into the should vs could area of the subject of authority.

The concept of STAFF authority says that all leaders has some authority simply because they hold a particular grade and rank.  Using that authority is based on the situation.  Military leaders are taught when and how to execute that authority and the limits to that authoirty.  STAFF authority does not extend into the mission or operational area.

The Navy article uses the example of STAFF authority as a "random" officer telling a junior to get a hair cut....as you pointed out...simply enforcing the established regs.

A random officer can order you get your hair cut, stop horse playing, stand at attention when a senior officer walks into the room, go and get coffee....but he can't order you to deploy your ground team, stop you from flying a mission, or issue any order that interferes with the mission/operational orders issued to you by someone with LINE authority.

But just because STAFF authority is limited, is seldom exercised or should be exercised with care does not mean that it does not exist.

STAFF authority exists to solve situaitons like in my thought experiment because it would the basis for the senior member in room to establish HIS authority to take on the tasks and order the rest of the officers to get the mission done.

As you say....for practical purposes it almost never happens.  90% of the time any CAP member will only be dealing with people within the chain of command (LINE Authority) or working with someone who has deligated authority (Functional authority) based on his staff position in the wing/group/unit.

If you are looking for a heirarchy of the different types of authority.....Line is always on top, followed by Functional and Staff in that order.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

I agree with your definition of the concept, it just doesn't apply to CAP.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2012, 04:10:09 PM
I agree with your definition of the concept, it just doesn't apply to CAP.
Well I guess we are at the point where we just have to agree to disagree.  :)
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major Carrales

Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2012, 04:10:09 PM
I agree with your definition of the concept, it just doesn't apply to CAP.

The main issues here seems to revolve around CAP unit culture.  Some units follow long established traditions associated with CAP back to the 1940s and 1950s...some isolated units exist in a vacuum and, if separated from other CAP units, develop their own culture.  Still...others try to bring in the cultures of other organizations.  This said, there are some CAP units that operate much like they were anything from frontier military units/outposts (a State away from Wing HQ) to a bunch of guys sitting around a table.

Is this lack of homogeneous culture in CAP a problem? 

Well, maybe this idea being debated between you two sheds some light on the matter.  I am not former Military, but I believe there needs to be an adherence to CAP's roles, traditions and unique status as an Auxiliary of the USAF and of the Army before that.  That is the lineage of CAP.  I feel CAP has its own traditions and operations that sometimes are a mixture of the military and the civilian.  Sometimes, there are almost factions that try to impose their understandings on others and then become upset when these notions are questioned. One such place is with this idea of grade.

When others enter from other organizations or mindsets...there is a clash.  Officers and Enlisted personnel of the Military bring with them the culture of their units.  Community minded civilian/general aviation pilots bring with them their mindsets and expectations.  The average person looking to serve their community in a unique way enters theirs as well.

There are certain elements of CAP history and tradition that I cling to.  There are understandings of how CAP works that I adhere to based on having lived with them for the 13 or 14 years I have had anything to do with CAP.  They often clash with some of the people on here, or used to.

I have said it many times on line that CAP cannot be judged through the prism of other organizations.  With RiverAux I have maintained that USCG Aux rules would not work or fit with CAP.  With others I have maintained that what works and operates in the USAF is not necessarily some thing that will work for CAP.  Other try to bring in rules even from the other Cadet corps that exists out there.

However, it is CAP culture that we need to focus on.  At least, that is how I see it.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

RADIOMAN015

#94
Must be a reason why we are called the CIVIL Air Patrol, civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force as defined by  AF Instruction 10-2701.

I would tend to believe that one's position in the organization (versus displayed rank), would be the primary supervisor authority/instructions.   Even staff members get authority from within their line management function to direct operations within their functional areas.     

Regarding rank, I would think that at least the lower ranking members would consider what was said/told to them.   HOWEVER, I think the way something is said/phrased is likely going to determine its' effectiveness in being complied with.  Civilian Adult membership wise in CAP, I don't think the word "I order you" is going to go very far with anyone, especially IF it's someone one doesn't know out of the unit and was delivered in a nasty "I'm a wanna bee" way, without respect for a member.   

BTW I've seen very high rank people in CAP approach adult members very quietly and tell them they were out of uniform. In one instance at a wing conference the high ranking member took the other member into the men's rest room and actually was able to correct the uniform (took off the wing patch on the light blue uniform) and the guy wasn't even in the unit.   The adult in question was getting an award, is a real work a bee for the wing and I'm sure that high ranking member wanted to be sure the member would be in compliance.

When I see something real stupid (which is usually uniform issues) that an adult member is doing, I normally will tell them nicely, and the answers one gets can be mind boggling  :o:(

Frankly, I take pity on those that volunteer to be in the adult leadership of this organization.  Regardless how you look at it, we aren't military, it isn't paid employment.  Volunteers can basically pick what they like/want to do.  The leadership challenge is how to (how well to) get everyone to work together, staff all the positions with "qualified" OR at least "semi-interested" personnel, and yet meet the individual volunteers' expectations as to why they joined.  Not easily accomplished.
RM

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 14, 2012, 05:56:26 PM
Regarding rank, I would think that at least the lower ranking members would consider what was said/told to them.   HOWEVER, I think the way something is said/phrased is likely going to determine its' effectiveness in being complied with.  Civilian Adult membership wise in CAP, I don't think the word "I order you" is going to go very far with anyone, especially IF it's someone one doesn't know out of the unit and was delivered in a nasty "I'm a wanna bee" way, without respect for a member. 

Respect is really the key here. Short of "Stop that {unsafe, hazing, etc}, right now!" No one in CAP should be barking orders.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 14, 2012, 05:56:26 PM
BTW I've seen very high rank people in CAP approach adult members very quietly and tell them they were out of uniform. In one instance at a wing conference the high ranking member took the other member into the men's rest room and actually was able to correct the uniform (took off the wing patch on the light blue uniform) and the guy wasn't even in the unit.   The adult in question was getting an award, is a real work a bee for the wing and I'm sure that high ranking member wanted to be sure the member would be in compliance.

When I see something real stupid (which is usually uniform issues) that an adult member is doing, I normally will tell them nicely, and the answers one gets can be mind boggling  :o:(

R E S P E C T again (key Ms Franklin). Leadership 101, praise in public, criticize in private. I don't offer uniform or other regulatory advice / corrections (in private) unless I'm 100% certain and I've gotten some of those mind boggling answers as well.

Major Carrales

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 14, 2012, 05:56:26 PM
Must be a reason why we are called the CIVIL Air Patrol, civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force as defined by  AF Instruction 10-2701.


No, the reason the word "CIVIL" appears in the title of this organization is related to "CIVIL DEFENSE" which was a paramilitary movement of HOME LAND DEFENSE and EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT during WWII and the COLD WAR. 

The Civil Defense aspect even survives in our signage.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

ColonelJack

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 14, 2012, 05:56:26 PM
BTW I've seen very high rank people in CAP approach adult members very quietly and tell them they were out of uniform. In one instance at a wing conference the high ranking member took the other member into the men's rest room and actually was able to correct the uniform (took off the wing patch on the light blue uniform) and the guy wasn't even in the unit.   The adult in question was getting an award, is a real work a bee for the wing and I'm sure that high ranking member wanted to be sure the member would be in compliance.

I've seen that too, RM, and I've also seen - and done - the opposite.  I recall very clearly back in the '80s, when Gen. Bill Cass (then CAP/CC) was at Robins AFB for the GAWG conference.  He came into the O-club in  uniform and his lapel insignia was hanging half off - and he didn't know it.  I was the first to see him and (very quietly) said something like, "General, sir, your lapel brass is hanging."  Gen. Cass stopped, glanced down, and saw it; he didn't have another frog on him, so I took one off my ribbon rack and gave it to him.  He thanked me and went about his business, and I went about mine.

He's a pretty cool guy, at least he was the one time I met him.

Jack
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., CAP (now inactive)
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
Honorary Admiral, Navy of the Republic of Molossia