Commander’s Specialty Track

[captrncap]

The National Board announce at Commander's Specialty Track.

Does anyone know what is expected in this track or when it will be released?

[IceNine]

Don't hold your breath.  This is about the 3 "serious" attempt to validate the need for this track.  It started when the made the 222 as a holder saying this track is "in production" and here we are.

Then they started a rave when they did away with the commander's guide, and created the UCC.

I hope this isn't just a phase but we will see.

[Eclipse]

If I recall the conversations, the impetus (i.e. whining) for this was based on commanders complaining that they were "too busy with their commander jobs to pursue their own professional development, and therefore are stifled in their own progression".

I didn't buy it then, and haven't thought about it since.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Boy, that Commander's Guide was a nice thing to have. It still comes in handy, at least where it's still relevant (and in many places, it is).

I wish NHQ would do that book again, UCC or not. It's a handy guide. You can't exactly take a laptop computer everywhere.

[IceNine]

Do you have a copy of that guide?  I can't even find a cheap scanned copy online anywhere

[JC004]

Do you have a copy of that guide?  I can't even find a cheap scanned copy online anywhere

Yup.  linky

I'm actually working on an updated version of this as an unofficial pub, but it's been on the back burner at the moment unless I can get more volunteers to help with it.  I already have a couple.

[RiverAux]

It is fair for commanders to say that holding a commanders position can hurt their PD.  After all, every specialty track I've looked at requires you to be doing a staff job of some kind and unit commanders aren't really supposed to be serving on their own staff.  Sure, they often have to fill holes where they lack officers, but it is very likely that the missing staff officer is in a position un-related to the commander's specialty track. 

On the other hand, a commander position should only be for a few years.  The number of people going from squadron commander directly to group commander to wing commander is probably way too low to justify a PD track just for them.

Of course they always have the option to make themselves an admin officer so they don't actually have to do much to advance through the PD levels.   

[afgeo4]

It is fair for commanders to say that holding a commanders position can hurt their PD.  After all, every specialty track I've looked at requires you to be doing a staff job of some kind and unit commanders aren't really supposed to be serving on their own staff.  Sure, they often have to fill holes where they lack officers, but it is very likely that the missing staff officer is in a position un-related to the commander's specialty track. 

On the other hand, a commander position should only be for a few years.  The number of people going from squadron commander directly to group commander to wing commander is probably way too low to justify a PD track just for them.

Of course they always have the option to make themselves an admin officer so they don't actually have to do much to advance through the PD levels.   

PD requires staff or command position and even if it didn't, one actually can be on a staff position and be the commander at the same time. The commander may also officially be the PA officer, AE officer and lots of other stuff, earning ratings.

[RiverAux]

PD requires staff or command position and even if it didn't, one actually can be on a staff position and be the commander at the same time. The commander may also officially be the PA officer, AE officer and lots of other stuff, earning ratings.

I didn't say that you COULDN"T be a commander and be a designated staff officer.  But, it certainly isn't recommended.

[IceNine]

While a commander may have to do the job because of a lack of personnel or whatever.  It is not likely that they are doing that job as completely as is required by the track guides. 

It is therefore unlikely that a commander, while serving, can complete specialty tracks for their "other" duties.

I for instance do my own LG, and Comms.  However, I don't do them as completely as a staff officer would if they were devoted to those jobs.  I do exactly what is required by the regs and nothing more, and I would bet this is more the norm than the exception.

I have yet to see a commander who hits the target squarely enough and often enough to be able to devote a large amount of time to designing a staff program that is benchmark quality.

[RiverAux]

Thats pretty much what I was getting at. 

[afgeo4]

Well... there's no reason why a CC couldn't COMPLETELY do Professional Development, Cadet Programs, Personnel or Admin as specialty track. Those jobs are required to be done by the CC anyway and wouldn't require additional duties on his/her behalf.

[RiverAux]

No, the commander provides oversight to all that stuff -- he isn't supposed to be down in the dirt doing the job.  It just happens that often CAP commanders have to do that stuff due to a lack of personnel.

[afgeo4]

No, the commander provides oversight to all that stuff -- he isn't supposed to be down in the dirt doing the job.  It just happens that often CAP commanders have to do that stuff due to a lack of personnel.

Commanders can't oversee something they know nothing about. A good commander should have at least tech ratings in CP and PD and the AEPSM

Having a rating doesn't mean you're doing the dirty work. It means you're competent in the field to some level. It requires education and experience. Coincidentally (not!) the same things being a commander requires. It also means you're able to teach others to do the work.

Don't forget, most squadrons don't have enough active seniors to take up every slot in the staff list. Most get by with just 3 to 4 active seniors who have to take up multiple jobs, become proficient in them and teach others to do them in their absence.

[IceNine]

They may be doing the regulatory requirements, but they are not doing it to the job.

Admin is more than making sure forms are filled out, and sent in, kept in stock etc.

Same with every other staff job.  The required tasks are being met but the extra credit is not being taken on.

[IceNine]

No, the commander provides oversight to all that stuff -- he isn't supposed to be down in the dirt doing the job.  It just happens that often CAP commanders have to do that stuff due to a lack of personnel.

Commanders can't oversee something they know nothing about. A good commander should have at least tech ratings in CP and PD and the AEPSM

Having a rating doesn't mean you're doing the dirty work. It means you're competent in the field to some level. It requires education and experience. Coincidentally (not!) the same things being a commander requires. It also means you're able to teach others to do the work.

Don't forget, most squadrons don't have enough active seniors to take up every slot in the staff list. Most get by with just 3 to 4 active seniors who have to take up multiple jobs, become proficient in them and teach others to do them in their absence.

If a commander needs to know the programs there is no reason to have a staff officer assigned to that job.

I know enough about Finance to order a check and sign the minutes.  Thats pretty much it.  I have a staff officer that does that job for me.  And I have a number of other staff that were told when they accepted the jobs to "do the job" and let me know if you need anything.

Using your staff is good command, feeling the desire to know how to do the nitty gritty of every job it not.

It is uninformed to assume that a commander is proficient in every staff job that they supervise, It is tough enough keeping up with the staff jobs you are interested in, let alone trying to command and keep up to date with the changes in every program (things a staff officer should do)

[afgeo4]

No, the commander provides oversight to all that stuff -- he isn't supposed to be down in the dirt doing the job.  It just happens that often CAP commanders have to do that stuff due to a lack of personnel.

Commanders can't oversee something they know nothing about. A good commander should have at least tech ratings in CP and PD and the AEPSM

Having a rating doesn't mean you're doing the dirty work. It means you're competent in the field to some level. It requires education and experience. Coincidentally (not!) the same things being a commander requires. It also means you're able to teach others to do the work.

Don't forget, most squadrons don't have enough active seniors to take up every slot in the staff list. Most get by with just 3 to 4 active seniors who have to take up multiple jobs, become proficient in them and teach others to do them in their absence.

If a commander needs to know the programs there is no reason to have a staff officer assigned to that job.

I know enough about Finance to order a check and sign the minutes.  Thats pretty much it.  I have a staff officer that does that job for me.  And I have a number of other staff that were told when they accepted the jobs to "do the job" and let me know if you need anything.

Using your staff is good command, feeling the desire to know how to do the nitty gritty of every job it not.

It is uninformed to assume that a commander is proficient in every staff job that they supervise, It is tough enough keeping up with the staff jobs you are interested in, let alone trying to command and keep up to date with the changes in every program (things a staff officer should do)

Telling people to do the job and not teaching them how is the biggest problem in CAP. We cannot afford to allow people to teach themselves. That's how problems happen. Every person has his/her opinion on how to perform the tasks set forth in regulations and many people are apprehensive about approaching their commanders with questions/issues in fear of sounding "stupid" or incompetent.

Train the trainer must be the policy for us to be professional and standardized as it is envisioned by our leadership. I never ASSUME anything. I expect the commander to be at least somewhat proficient in the 3 basic missions of CAP. If we appoint commanders who aren't we can't expect them to carry out those missions. If we don't carry out our missions then why should we exist? Why should tax payers pay for us?

Staff officers are tools of the commander to carry out the missions. When those tools aren't in place, the responsibility to carry those missions out still exists and rests solely on the commander. If the commander is not able to carry out those missions then the commander needs to be replaced or the unit shut down. We aren't a day camp or a club to sit around and chat. We have missions to carry out set forth by the US Government. We may be volunteers, but we're not a joke.

[Major Carrales]

No, the commander provides oversight to all that stuff -- he isn't supposed to be down in the dirt doing the job.  It just happens that often CAP commanders have to do that stuff due to a lack of personnel.

I've commanded a squadron twice in my 10 year existance in CAP, once without a staff and once with.

The first time (2001) I was totally unprepared, the modus operandi of the time was for the COMMANDER to do almost everything.   Only positions that required specific knowledge and skills, like COMMS or FINANCE, had a staff officer.  Most aviation positions at that time, STAN/EVAL and FLIGHT OPS, operated on their own.  

When I took over then, it was because no one else wanted it and GROUP was threatening that if I didn't take the roll the unit would be closed and its members transferred to other units.  This would have spelled the end of CAP in Corpus Christi.  Thus, I took over...

It was not a possitive experience.  I had to do all the paper work, was answerable for everything and had no guiding hand.  The Unit was at the lowest point in its existance.  I burnt out and did not return for almost 2 years.  That later happened to several COMMANDERS after that experience and just prior to my second command.

My second time began on 16 OCT 2006...this time around, I have tow things going for me.  1) STAFF people, albiet being as lost as I was however willing to learn and dedicated to seeing the unit grow and 2) CIVIL AIR PORTAL (Later CAPTALK) where I could run ideas by the forum and its people I came to befriend.

Yes, a commander is ultimately responsible for all that occurs; however, it is the duty of the squadron members to take onm position as officers to insure the running of a unit.  NO MAN IS A SQUADRON, nor should any person have to be.

The Commander should keep up and offer support to the staff officers who are, or will become, subject matter experts in time.  The the Commander can insure that each one has what they need to make the WHOLE CAP squadron operate.

You know, Cadets do Drill and Ceremony.  I saw a demonstration of some D&C that was most impressive.  When I got a chance I asked one of the instructors how it was made to be so precise.  He said words to the effect that...every person is an element and knows what they must do.  When a command is called or some situation comes up, the strength of the formation comes from each person having integrity, strength from within.  Thay all know what to do, that translates to the formation.  I think we can learn something from that.

[MIKE]

Telling people to do the job and not teaching them how is the biggest problem in CAP.

That's called management, don't you read Dilbert?

[IceNine]

^ You are correct, telling them to do it without training is a problem.

But people that a fully capable of doing it are just hindered by a commander who doesn't have a clue asking a bunch of questions.

Keep a finger on the pulse, don't try to squeeze the heart.