squadron commander?

[lordmonar]

Term limits are a two edged sword.

Pro

1) They help prevent burn out.
2) They ensure that fresh ideas are being brought into the unit...prevent stagnation.
3) They allow for other capable members some time to develope and grow into better officers.

Con

1) Change for sake of change
2) With no place to send the old commander, it makes it difficult for him to step away....they either interfer with the new commander or they just leave the program.
3) Finding his replacement is difficult....the military solves that problem my moving the officers around.....CAP must promote from with in.....and if you have a hard policy....then sub-prime officers will by default be given the job.

[NIN]

When your a good Commander, you train up the next generation of Commanders. A bad Commander will create a bad atmosphere.

Thats a fact.  At least 25% of my efforts as a unit commander, once I got my feet under me, was training up my talent pool so that I could have a good pick of potential replacements when the time came.  Whether that was recruiting new members with specific skill sets (ie. former military), ensuring that my membership was advancing thru the professional development program, or just overall unit-level leadership and mentorship as it pertained to decision making and policies.

My last two tours as a squadron commander were from 1999-2004 and again from 2006-2008.

The first 5 years was a "fix a busted unit" assignment and I think I did OK, went from "almost deactivated" to "2004 Region Squadron of Distinction"  Not too shabby.  My thoughts on selecting and training a successor were two fold:

1) A unit is not just the commander. So unless the whole staff are working as team and know their jobs, it doesn't matter who is in the big chair, there is only so much one guy can do.
and
2) No matter how good a job I've done over the last 4 years, if I hand the unit over and it falls flat on its face in 12-18 months, I've failed and its gonna reflect poorly on me.

When I handed the flag to my successor on Veteran's Day 2004, #2 was key, and #1 was already in the bag. I had a finely oiled machine of a staff really kicking some butt and taking some names.

I left it in capable hands, but my successor had a job change that necessitated he hand over the reigns after a little over a year. The next commander was a former cadet from another wing, recently new-back-in-CAP SM who was a full-time ARNG Major and happened to rejoin about 2 1/2 months before my successor had to step down.  There was a little disconnect and he managed to spend his first 60 days in command driving off anybody who was doing work (me included).   (the new guy was not someone I'd trained and inculcated, so things went off into the weeds for 6-8 months under him as he spent all his time re-inventing things that were working just fine in his own image and not realizing that leading volunteers in CAP is a *lot* different than leading soldiers in the Guard).  He got picked up for an active duty tour elsewhere and had to give up the unit, and I stepped in as a pinch hitter just about 2 years after I'd last left command.

The 2nd time around, I had to do a lot of "pick up the pieces" after the previous commander did a really good job of really ripping apart a staff that knew their jobs, knew their place and knew how to get things done. That was a royal pain, smoothing feathers, putting apple carts back up on their wheels, etc.    The guy who'd been my successor the first time got his job situation sorted out and came back to the unit, and after about 14-15 months, I handed the unit back to him, again with my #2 above as an operative concern.

That was in 2008.  My successor had moved up to wing, the Major who took command temporarily (he had been my outstanding safety officer) did a fine job and handed the unit off to the current commander, who is doing a fantastic job as well.  These are all guys I trained, and it shows. 

And that should be a lesson to any unit commander: you can be as good as you want while you're in command, but if the whole things falls down like a house of cards cuz you're not there to hold it together, you've missed the point of the whole exercise. You're there not just to "command," but to "lead, develop & grow" the organization under you to accept new members and to bring those new members along to take over as you move onward and upward.

[Patterson]

^ Wow....that is a great lesson there!

What does a Squadron Commander do when he is now forced to turn over Command though?  Will he or she be offered a Group Position?  Does that person go from an excellent and worthwhile leadership role to second assist Aerospace Officer for a Group Staffer who has held the position for 10 years?

Perhaps if there were more of a "Command Track" those that are proven leaders can follow it would not be so difficult to go from enjoying running a Squadron to something else.  You would know future Command/ Leadership roles are available.

Right now, the majority of Group Commanders and some Wing Commanders I have met, never once Commanded a Squadron.  Moreso, how can a person spend 4 years as a Wing Chief of Staff, followed by 4 more years as a Wing Vice Commander, followed by Selection as a Wing Commander?  Isn't that almost worse than being a Squadron Commander past the "4 year max term limit"??

The NER policy will be judged in a few years, after we begin seeing the results.  Tell me how a Squadron Commander is to develop further if he or she is not afforded the chance to advance after maxing out the Swuadron Command time limit policy?

A few awesome Squadron Commanders will leave when they are told "your done now....pick an assistant staff job".

CAP is like a business....you leave the guy who does great at his job in his job until he no longer makes you money!  Then again.....maybe Group Commanders should be looking out for their Squadron Commanders!

[lordmonar]

Yep that is the two edges of the term limit sword.

Go getter, effective, energetic commander that everyone likes, has the time and talent to do the job and wants to do the job......out you go, your 3 years are up.  No what?  another squadron? Group? Wing?....sorry the good jobs are filled up and they don't rotate for a year or two....so he cools his heels and gets bored and the goes and joins the Boy Scouts or CGAUX or USACA.

So.....I think that we should adopt a policy that says "a typical tour of duty as squadron/group commander, group/wing staff is two years.  Consecutive tours can be served".  This places the concept that maybe we should be moving our people around if they need to.....but no requirment to break up a winning team simply because the timer has gone "bing".

Back this up with a formal yearly reveiw process.....ala OER's or EPR's.....and active monitoring by the group and wing commanders...and we got a good system.

[RiverAux]

I think that overall term limits for squadron commanders are probably a good thing.  Three or four years is probably a good compromise that lets the really good ones have a decent interval to make their stamp.  I would hope that the really bad ones would be removed before they get to that level.  But, I could also argue that the 2 year limit the CGAux has is probably good as well.  So, we could play with the exact time limit a lot and I wouldn't be too upset about what was settled on.

But, the one thing I can say that is if a unit has the same commander for more than 5 years, that commander is most likely not doing a great job of developing his members OR just likes playing king/queen too much to pass it off to someone else.  If you can't find and train a replacement in 5 years you're not trying very hard.

[Patterson]

^ Not a question about training replacements, question primarily the lack of further leadership and Command development for those that are both capable and desiring. Unfortunately, for various political/ timing reasons there is very little opportunity to advance up the command ladder. 

I could agree the 20 year Squadron Commander might be excessive.  Again, Wing and Group Commanders need to remember the "span of control" methodology and focus on thier subordinate Commanders development/ goals for the unit, etc.

I really wish the Commanders at every level had a much better PD program available to them should they aspire to Command at higher levels.  Currently we have the Organizational Excellence Program, but it is completely dependent on the individual's personal relationship with his or her Commander at both the Wing and Region level.

[JeffDG]

I really wish the Commanders at every level had a much better PD program available to them should they aspire to Command at higher levels.  Currently we have the Organizational Excellence Program, but it is completely dependent on the individual's personal relationship with his or her Commander at both the Wing and Region level.

Not speaking to OE specifically, but a mentor should never be your immediate supervisor.  The line between mentor and supervisor is not one that can be crossed easily or frequently.

[Larry Mangum]

As a currently serving Squadron Commander, my goal from day one of assuming command was to find and start training my replacement.  Unfortunately, it is not that easy, when your seniors are all primarily long serving members, who are tired and discouraged from the constant changes and mandates imposed upon them by Wing and NHQ.  Sixteen months later, I finally have a successor in training, after convincing a sponsor member, nine months before, to convert to being a regular member. He has now completed SLS and last month became the Deputy Commander for Cadets.

For the others, we are slowly getting them reenergized and involved by revamping professional development, and providing aircrew training for those who were interested.  We are also planning on conducting UDF training in the near future. 

[Private Investigator]

Go getter, effective, energetic commander that everyone likes, has the time and talent to do the job and wants to do the job......out you go, your 3 years are up. 

What about an average Commander? The guy/gal does not walk on water, but they are not drowning either. Sometimes you have to call them and remind them that reports are overdue, or that they have Cadets over 18 and they have not taken CPPT yet, etc, etc. They are really just average, but they are the first ones to point out the weaker Units and make excuses why they got overlooked again for Regional Unit of Noteriety.

[lordmonar]

Go getter, effective, energetic commander that everyone likes, has the time and talent to do the job and wants to do the job......out you go, your 3 years are up. 

What about an average Commander? The guy/gal does not walk on water, but they are not drowning either. Sometimes you have to call them and remind them that reports are overdue, or that they have Cadets over 18 and they have not taken CPPT yet, etc, etc. They are really just average, but they are the first ones to point out the weaker Units and make excuses why they got overlooked again for Regional Unit of Noteriety.

??
Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

All commanders should have a formal annual review.....any short commings need to be addressed in that review....and if they are marginal then the wing commander is free to fire them at his leasure.

Term limits are not a cure all for bad leadership.

Term limits are good in that they help prevent burn out, they give us an easy way of getting rid of bad or marginal commanders, they allow others the chance to sit in the hot seat and get some command time.
Term limits are bad in that they force the hand of higher headquarters....you got to go...good or bad...your time is up.  They add to the appointment of commanders where are available in stead of commanders who are ready and able to take command.  They shunt otherwise good officers to jobs they have already done and that leads to boardom.

Like I said before.....I think the principle of a tour of duty being X number of years long...is great.  It gives the sittle commander a nice time frame to plan his tour of duty and plan his career.  But it hsould not be a hard and fast rule.  If the sitting commander is doing a good job and his subordinates are not getting squashed by him/her sitting in that position....there should no be any manditory movers.

[JeffDG]

Like I said before.....I think the principle of a tour of duty being X number of years long...is great.  It gives the sittle commander a nice time frame to plan his tour of duty and plan his career.  But it hsould not be a hard and fast rule.  If the sitting commander is doing a good job and his subordinates are not getting squashed by him/her sitting in that position....there should no be any manditory movers.

Having a fixed term is great.  Having term limits is bad policy IMHO.

The fixed term would require the next echelon to at least look at the commander on a schedule and determine if they are effective.  That way, inertia won't keep someone in the job...they have to do the work anyway, so they can either re-appoint or appoint someone new...

[Private Investigator]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

[arajca]

Another good point about fixed terms or term limits is you may find more members willing to take on the job if they know it's not for an indeterminate time period.

This can be established by policy or by agreement between the incoming commander and his next higher commander.

[JeffDG]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

[SarDragon]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

Hence, the need to find and train your replacement as soon as you take office.

[JeffDG]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

Hence, the need to find and train your replacement as soon as you take office.

Regardless, you will require the squadron to go through all the phases of teambuilding when you change command, even to your hand-picked successor.

Change just for the sake of change is a bad idea...

[arajca]

Is this a rant about commanders who are butt holes or that term limits are a good thing?

It goes back to the cup is half full, no what you said it was half empty!

We all know Commanders who we thought was awesome but others know the same Commander and saw something totally different. The good deal about term limits is the Unit Commander is done at three years.   :clap:

Except when you get a Unit Commander who just gets everything firing on all cylinders, and boom, you're done because of a term limit.

Hence, the need to find and train your replacement as soon as you take office.

Regardless, you will require the squadron to go through all the phases of teambuilding when you change command, even to your hand-picked successor.

Change just for the sake of change is a bad idea...

No change just for the sake of no change is not a good idea either...

[bosshawk]

I certainly agree with the concept of picking your successor and training him/her for the eventuality.  However, in my 18 years in CAP, I could count on one hand the number of commanders(Sq, Gp or Wing) who actually did this and the results certainly showed that lack.  Unfortunately, the idea also applies to staff positions and the same lack appeared with amazing regularity.

[Private Investigator]

I certainly agree with the concept of picking your successor and training him/her for the eventuality.  However, in my 18 years in CAP, I could count on one hand the number of commanders(Sq, Gp or Wing) who actually did this and the results certainly showed that lack. 

I disagree. When I was in the postion to select Squadron Commanders I always wanted to interview at least three people for it. You will never know where your talent is. 

The problem with handpicking your successor is the "good ole boy syndrome". I.e. a Squadron that is a "flying club" will want to continue with a Commander that will go along with that activity. How about the Commander who picks his wife to succeed him? You know he has 'control' issues.

[FW]

The concept of "training your successor" is a good solid one.  Picking your successor first is not (for the reasons mentioned above).  IMO, it's best to insure everyone is given the training and information necessary to take over if and, when necessary.  A strong team to pick from is your best chance of continued success.