Wing Level Recruiting and Retention

[Snake Doctor]

I'm looking for a Wing level Recruiting and Retention Officer job description. I've already been to 20-1 and that is useless.
I'm also looking for a Wing Level Recruiting and Retention Plan.

Thanks in advance!

[capmaj]

This help at all?    http://images.magnetmail.net/images/clients/CivilAir/attach/RECRUITANDRETENOFFICERJD2012.pdf

[Private Investigator]

...
I'm also looking for a Wing Level Recruiting and Retention Plan.

I am guessing your Wing never had one. So did you think about running your question by Region? They might have an ideal what they would like from the Wings in their Region instead of a 'cut and paste' from a Wing outside of their Region.   

[Snake Doctor]

capmaj, That will help. Thanks!  Private Investigator, Don't have a Region RRO and out Wing never really had one.  The job description from CAPR20-1 is more tactical than strategic. It would be fine for a Wing RRO to get in the weeds to help but not all the time.   
And usual I don't want to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to. Modify maybe.... :-)

[capmaj]

Take a look at this. It's a 2014 layout of Goals and Objectives from Minn Wing. Might help get you started.


https://www.mncap.org/rs/

Also, this..............   http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/recruiting_and_retention/

[Snake Doctor]

I've been to both and I am going to incorporate some of MN Wings stuff. When I get this done I will share.

[NIN]

Oh I'm theiving that.

/new wing recruiting & retention guy too

[stillamarine]

When I was the wing RRO I mainly tried to help the squadrons with staffing larger events and with getting material to them. I stockpiled as much material I could order from eservices. Sometimes it was faster for me to run stuff to them than them ordering it last minute. I also acted as a point of contact with several school districts with my day job as an SRO. Sometimes I got calls returned to me easier that way.

[Snake Doctor]

NIN, I'm hoping to get something put together to keep mu RRO on track as well help others with this. CAPR20-1 is OK to a point.
stillamarine, I'm swiping what you wrote.

[THRAWN]

I've said it before: recruiting ain't rocket surgery, but you do have to recruit, vice hire, or crab trap. Identify what types of resources you need: need pilots? Recruit pilots. Need AE types? Recruit them. Focus on what you need, versus building numbers. Get existing members in the fields you're targeting to talk to potential members about their experiences. The attached article does a good job of explaining the concept. Granted, it's ES/EM specific, but the idea is the same.

Good luck!

[Eclipse]

Identify what types of resources you need: need pilots? Recruit pilots. Need AE types? Recruit them. Focus on what you need,

Critical to the process and outside the RROs job, this needs to be completed in advance of the fiscal year.

I would also say that retention issues, these days, are more important then recruiting.
When you look at the 25-40% annual churn, it becomes clear that CAP doesn't have as much issue bringing people
in, and they do keep them.

[THRAWN]

Identify what types of resources you need: need pilots? Recruit pilots. Need AE types? Recruit them. Focus on what you need,

Critical to the process and outside the RROs job, this needs to be completed in advance of the fiscal year.

I would also say that retention issues, these days, are more important then recruiting.
When you look at the 25-40% annual churn, it becomes clear that CAP doesn't have as much issue bringing people
in, and they do keep them.

Agreed. Mostly because the "wrong people" are being brought in. We tend to swear in pretty much anyone who walks in the door, as opposed to identifying who is needed, targeting that group, and putting them to work.

[Private Investigator]

Identify what types of resources you need: need pilots? Recruit pilots. Need AE types? Recruit them. Focus on what you need,

Critical to the process and outside the RROs job, this needs to be completed in advance of the fiscal year.

I would also say that retention issues, these days, are more important then recruiting.
When you look at the 25-40% annual churn, it becomes clear that CAP doesn't have as much issue bringing people
in, and they do keep them.

Agreed. Mostly because the "wrong people" are being brought in. We tend to swear in pretty much anyone who walks in the door, as opposed to identifying who is needed, targeting that group, and putting them to work.

We do bring the "wrong people" in on many levels. And do not get me started on Membership Committees. 

[NIN]

NIN, I'm hoping to get something put together to keep mu RRO on track as well help others with this. CAPR20-1 is OK to a point.
stillamarine, I'm swiping what you wrote.

I'm working on my plan/goals, too, and I will share when I have them

[NIN]

And do not get me started on Membership Committees. 

Just curious what your experience has been. My unit has used a Unit Membership Board since about circa 2000-2001, with nary a problem.

It has, as I recall, shooed off 2-3 (during my time as commander) prospective members who were a little sketchy. It also gave me a leg to stand on (ie. it wasn't just the capricious and arbitrary decision of one person) the one time I actually had to say to a prospective member "Hey, uh, you know, maybe you're not a good fit for CAP at this time..." (In one instance where somehow we did not use the membership board, it resulted in a person joining who there for ALL the wrong reasons. Grrrrr..)

I also know of an instance where a long-time member went to rejoin after a break in service and a local unit commander rejected his application out of hand for some relatively minor information (ie. "I was arrested for shoplifting when I was a teenager, over 35 years ago..") that hasn't precluded membership in the active duty military or the National Guard.   Running that thru a membership board/committee might result in a less arbitrary decision.

[Eclipse]

Identify what types of resources you need: need pilots? Recruit pilots. Need AE types? Recruit them. Focus on what you need,

Critical to the process and outside the RROs job, this needs to be completed in advance of the fiscal year.

I would also say that retention issues, these days, are more important then recruiting.
When you look at the 25-40% annual churn, it becomes clear that CAP doesn't have as much issue bringing people
in, and they do keep them.

Agreed. Mostly because the "wrong people" are being brought in. We tend to swear in pretty much anyone who walks in the door, as opposed to identifying who is needed, targeting that group, and putting them to work.

It's not just the wrong people, but that's a big part of the whole problem.

In many units, every warm body is viewed as a "savior".  "Podunk Composite is super-excited because Goober from
the fillin' station is thinking about joining and he's seen some kids playin' in the field behind his shed, so he's sure
to turn them around..."

There is zero strategic plan to justify anything, steer anything, inform anything, or support anything.

"We need more pilots." is the general mantra.  OK, fair enough.  Why?

"Because we're not flying enough hours..."

Um, says who?  How many missions were not accomplished due to lack of pilots? Not training, missions.

"None."

Ok, well then you have enough pilots.

"Well NHQ says we have to put 200 hours on each airframe every year."

Or?

"We risk losing the plane."

So?  If no missions went unattended, and you aren't flying the needed hours, then simple math says
you already have too many airplanes.

"Well, what if we get more missions?"

Then you request more resources...then...

Maintaining 550 airplanes because "if you don't you'll only have 400" is typical military reasoning.
They might as well be incubators.

So we bring in more pilots, but there's no missions to perform, the bureaucracy stagnates their ability to
even get into a CAP plane, and these FNGs find themselves standing on a ramp or watching
an icing video on a severe clear Sunday instead of flying their own plane.

Then we wonder why they don't stick around.

Another retention issue is that we don't recruit "pilots", we recruit "everything" - some
well-meaning guy who wants to use his ticket for more then hamburger runs is hounded to
become the Snacko, Logistics, Finance, and any other open position at every echelon.

If we need "pilots" we should recruit "pilots" and let them be "pilots" while developing
members internally over a multi-year period for possible staff and other service.

Once they have a clue.

[THRAWN]

"Another retention issue is that we don't recruit "pilots", we recruit "everything" - some
well-meaning guy who wants to use his ticket for more then hamburger runs is hounded to
become the Snacko, Logistics, Finance, and any other open position at every echelon."

That's actually pretty much my point: we do not "recruit everything". What we do is bring in anyone who wanders by, give them a cool sounding title, and....no training, or support or a second thought. That is why we have the turn over that we do. If we moved to a targeted recruiting strategy, seeking out pilots, ES types, AE types, finance, logistics, admin, chaplain, etc., we will have people that fit the job that we need done.

[Eclipse]

Agree 100%.

[Snake Doctor]

"Another retention issue is that we don't recruit "pilots", we recruit "everything" - some
well-meaning guy who wants to use his ticket for more then hamburger runs is hounded to
become the Snacko, Logistics, Finance, and any other open position at every echelon."

That's actually pretty much my point: we do not "recruit everything". What we do is bring in anyone who wanders by, give them a cool sounding title, and....no training, or support or a second thought. That is why we have the turn over that we do. If we moved to a targeted recruiting strategy, seeking out pilots, ES types, AE types, finance, logistics, admin, chaplain, etc., we will have people that fit the job that we need done.

Agree! Membership review boards are great if used. That is an opportunity to get the prospective members expectations and more importantly layout the squadrons expectations. "Yes we need your pilot skills but in turn we need an Administration Officer. That job entails........"

[Eclipse]

"Yes we need your pilot skills but intern we need an Administration Officer. That job entails........"

Why are these things the same conversation or viewed as the same people?