Vice Commander Applications

[MSG Mac]

National HQ has now requested that applications for the post of National Vice Commander be submitted NLT 15 May 14. Same criteria as for National Commander.
Former Wing Commander
Bachelor's Degree
Level V
Submit to a background and credit checks.

[James Shaw]

Well I match all but Former Wing Commander, I guess I will have to wait.

[MSG Mac]

So do I.

[Panache]

If it's the same requirements for National CC, than those "requirements" are just "suggestions".  Feel free to apply if interested.

[PHall]

If it's the same requirements for National CC, than those "requirements" are just "suggestions".  Feel free to apply if interested.

They're not "suggestions", they are requirements. But the BoG has stated that they will consider waiviers for some requirements on a case-by-case basis.
But would have to pled a pretty good case to get them to waive the Wing/Region Commander requirement.
Something like running a sucessful medium size business might work.

[Panache]

If it's the same requirements for National CC, than those "requirements" are just "suggestions".  Feel free to apply if interested.

They're not "suggestions", they are requirements. But the BoG has stated that they will consider waiviers for some requirements on a case-by-case basis.

Okay.  "Strongly-worded suggestions" then.

[lordmonar]

If it's the same requirements for National CC, than those "requirements" are just "suggestions".  Feel free to apply if interested.

They're not "suggestions", they are requirements. But the BoG has stated that they will consider waiviers for some requirements on a case-by-case basis.

Okay.  "Strongly-worded suggestions" then.

No....a requirement......with the caveat that the whose who wrote the requirement may ignore it if they think it is in the interest of the organization.

But yes your point is taken......if you want to try for the job.....go for it.....the worst that will happen is they say no.

[Panache]

They're not really requirements if they're not really required, are they?

[Mitchell 1969]

They're not really requirements if they're not really required, are they?

Requirements that can be waived = "waiverments?"  Or..."requiwaives?"

[Panache]

Requirements that can be waived = "waiverments?"  Or..."requiwaives?"

I think this is an acceptable compromise.   

[Flying Pig]

Where there is a will, there is a waiver.

[The14th]

Having legit requirements like that makes the position look good, but waiving them kind of defeats the purpose. Just means that will take whoever they actually want, regardless.

[JeffDG]

Having legit requirements like that makes the position look good, but waiving them kind of defeats the purpose. Just means that will take whoever they actually want, regardless.

No, it lets them set expectations, while at the same time leaving themselves flexibility for extraordinary people who don't meet them.

Take, for example, the degree requirement.  Who does not think that people like Bill Gates or Sir Richard Branson do not have experience equivalent to a degree, even though they're college dropouts?

Strict requirements lead to brain-dead decisions, like zero tolerance policies.  Waiverability leads to decision-makers exercising something called "judgement".

[Eclipse]

The problem is that they are characterized as "requirements", which means by design it
will pre-filter those "otherwise qualified" candidates before they even get a chance to
be compared to other applicants.

The Gates' and Bransons' would review the "requirements" and close the page.

I suppose you could make the argument that by the time anyone gets to the point
where they are experientially qualified (running Microsoft is not the same as running CAP)
for HEADCAP, they would have actually read the regs, as well as the C&B, and thus would know the "requirements" aren't.

What it should say is something to the effect of "preferred skills and experience", etc.

[Ned]

The minimum qualifications required for the National Commander and Vice Commander are found in the CAP Constitution, Article XIII.

The letters calling for nominations are simply quoting the CAP Constitution, which also inlcudes the ability for the BoG to waive a requirement should the applicant be able to "demonstrate comparable skills and experience."

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

[LSThiker]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

[Alaric]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

[THRAWN]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Reminds me of something I heard once about either making jaywalking a felony or murder a misdemeanor...

If it's required, it can't be waived. If it can be waived, it's not required. This shouldn't even be a thing.

[JeffDG]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

[JeffDG]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Well, if they didn't have waiver authority, the BoG has the authority to simply amend the C&BL of CAP.  So, if they wanted to, they can amend the requirements at any time they deem it to be appropriate to do so.  The C&BL simply formalizes this authority in this instance by granting them the ability to waive the requirement.

[Eclipse]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Well, if they didn't have waiver authority, the BoG has the authority to simply amend the C&BL of CAP.  So, if they wanted to, they can amend the requirements at any time they deem it to be appropriate to do so.  The C&BL simply formalizes this authority in this instance by granting them the ability to waive the requirement.

Agreed, but certainly a more taxing undertaking them simply saying "waived".

[BillB]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC. At the time toi become Region CC, you had to be a current or former Wing CC. Col. McCormack never was a Wing CC. But due to his experience as Vice Commander CAP-USAF, he got appointed.

[JeffDG]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Well, if they didn't have waiver authority, the BoG has the authority to simply amend the C&BL of CAP.  So, if they wanted to, they can amend the requirements at any time they deem it to be appropriate to do so.  The C&BL simply formalizes this authority in this instance by granting them the ability to waive the requirement.

Agreed, but certainly a more taxing undertaking them simply saying "waived".

Not really.

Amending CAP's C&BL can be done by the BoG by motion.

I presume that granting a waiver, as a power vested in the BoG as a body (and not in the Chairman for example) would be done precisely the same way, ie. by a motion approved by a majority vote.

[JeffDG]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC.

Well, that's one way for a USAF Colonel not to get bumped down to Lt. Col. in CAP! 

[THRAWN]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

[lordmonar]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

The point is that there may be a square peg out there who can do the job.....but for one reason or another does not have all the boxes checked on his/her resume and the BoG holds the right to make that decision.

With out the caveat then they BoG's hands are tied....or they have to go out of their way to make the changes.

So.....the foward thinking people on the BoG who wrote the C&BL anticipated that they may in some unknown future need to hire someone who does not meet all the requirements but is the best person for the job.

[NIN]

Look, the military has all kinds of requirements that are put forth all the time. And there are sometimes waivers for those requirements, with appropriate justification, documentation, and higher headquarters sign off. It does not make them any less of a requirement, it just means that if you can justify the request for a waiver you may actually be granted that request. Then again you might not.

In the matter at hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the minimum requirements as a baseline. However if an individual has some other experience that, say, would stand in the stead of something like level 5, and they feel that they have a reason to request a waiver, and they have the ability to do so. The BoG also has the ability to opine that their request for a waiver is wanting.

Think of it like this: would you turn down an applicant who was highly qualified, say of the caliber of a Jack Welch, just because he had not been a wing commander in Civil Air Patrol previously? Maybe he had been a long time member, has excellent equivalent qualification otherwise, and might be a great candidate. Do you tell the guys to sit down and shut up just because he did not attend National Staff College?

[Eclipse]

Think of it like this: would you turn down an applicant who was highly qualified, say of the caliber of a Jack Welch, just because he had not been a wing commander in Civil Air Patrol previously? Maybe he had been a long time member, has excellent equivalent qualification otherwise, and might be a great candidate. Do you tell the guys to sit down and shut up just because he did not attend National Staff College?

There's a pretty big difference, frankly, between a "long time member who has never been a Wing CC" and someone who has never worn a CAP uniform.

There are a lot of members who have been Wing and Region CVs and CSs who would know as much or more then anyone in the center seat,
but it probably speaks volumes as to how much day-to-day influence Regions and NHQ have over day-to-day operations below wing level
that anyone could just walk in the door having never been a member and assume the role of Region CC.  Those jobs are purely strategic
in nature, big ideas, hand out awards, say "no" a lot and write checks with no idea if your subordinates can actually cash them,
but yo could skate quietly and never have any idea how to run a CAP unit, group, or ES mission.

[NIN]

I'm not saying a guy shouldn't have a lot of experience in the program. What I am saying is that there may be a equivalent experience to certain requirements that may actually trump other candidates.

The other side of the coin is, as an old commander of mine used to say all the time, " if you are doing things the way you always did them, you're going to get the results you always got." It might be in our best interest to have someone in the top slot who is -not- a long time member. I am NOT saying there are a lot of candidates who would fit this definition, but when you start talking about people who are qualified to be the CEO of a national organization like Civil Air Patrol, sometimes, just maybe, they need really good advisors on the "Tuesday night" part, and maybe someone who is a leading authority on nonprofit management, or strategic management, etc.

A guy like Jack Welch, to use my prior example, might not know how to administer a physical fitness test or flight release a mission. But maybe that is the problem we've had all along: our national leadership is not well versed in strategic thinking and long-term planning, but rather is built from the ground up with a lot of tactical experience in CAP. 

Again, nothing wrong with being well experienced in the organization. However, perhaps what we need is someone who is well experienced outside of the organization.

[lordmonar]

You are probably right......hence the reason whey we have the waiver rule. 

Again the point being.........the BoG considers everyone who wants to apply and hires the best.....even if they don't have all the "requirements".

No Wing or Region CC experience.......but you got say wing CV or Region CS or National experience......okay we will consider you.
No Level V.........but it is just because you need NSC.......okay we will consider you.
No Degree......okay we will consider you.

Or it could be someone from completely outside the organization (say a former CAP-USAF CC)........okay we will consider you.

Now what trade offs the BoG would actually make........we opinions are like FPOCs....everyone's got one and they all hurt when you land on them!

This way we keep our options open.

[PHall]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC.

Well, that's one way for a USAF Colonel not to get bumped down to Lt. Col. in CAP! 

But he's still drawing that COL retirement check!

[Mitchell 1969]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Reminds me of something I heard once about either making jaywalking a felony or murder a misdemeanor...

If it's required, it can't be waived. If it can be waived, it's not required. This shouldn't even be a thing.

Ultimately, this is all about semantics. The desired qualities were announced, along with notice that waivers would be considered. There seems to be understanding of what was meant. No laws broken, no consciences shocked.

[Mitchell 1969]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

There's no way to assemble a package of all possible waiver possibilities. It's a pretty individual process.

How about....

An Army Brigade Commander who is a 30 year CAP member but never held command of anything in CAP larger than a squadron? Or not even that, but who served as Director of a Wing HQ function?

Or....a Wing Commander with 110 units out of the 120 needed for a degree?

Or...a Wing CV who has been working for a CC with health problems limiting him/her to a low-profile participation?

[BillB]

Whan will the At Large member of the BoG be announced?

[Flying Pig]

Quals and requirements are waived all the time in civilian employment.  Not really a big deal if they are in CAP as well. 

[Alaric]

Quals and requirements are waived all the time in civilian employment.  Not really a big deal if they are in CAP as well.

I can tell you when my company sets a requirement in the HR system, if you don't have it, you don't even get throught the initial screening process.  For instance if we say requires a master's degree, and your resume and online application do not indicate a master's degree no human being will ever see your application.  That is a requirement, if we say we would prefer a master's in engineering; then the human who looks at your application (once it passes the REQUIREMENT of having a master's) will determine if you meet a preference.

[SunDog]

We had a hilarious one once - the guy had a Masters; the ad asked for a BS. He spelled them both out, and HR screened him out. That was the last time we allowed HR to be invovled in the hiring process. We screened ourselves, arranged the interviews, then told HR who to do the on-boarding paperwork for.

They screamed for a bit, about us not "being qualified to interview without an HR person present" - fiefdom nonsense; we got a one hour presentation from an independent expert, and a "cheat sheet" to follow, to stay out of EEO trouble.  Worked O.K. for the next 10 years I was there.

If you're screening with software/keywords, you might take an occasional look at the ones getting blocked - really, really good software is still pretty stupid. . .

[Private Investigator]

Where there is a will, there is a waiver.

Where there is a will, sometimes a murder occurs   

[Private Investigator]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC. At the time toi become Region CC, you had to be a current or former Wing CC. Col. McCormack never was a Wing CC. But due to his experience as Vice Commander CAP-USAF, he got appointed.

Bill that was a very good example, thank you sir   :clap:

[Alaric]

We had a hilarious one once - the guy had a Masters; the ad asked for a BS. He spelled them both out, and HR screened him out. That was the last time we allowed HR to be invovled in the hiring process. We screened ourselves, arranged the interviews, then told HR who to do the on-boarding paperwork for.

They screamed for a bit, about us not "being qualified to interview without an HR person present" - fiefdom nonsense; we got a one hour presentation from an independent expert, and a "cheat sheet" to follow, to stay out of EEO trouble.  Worked O.K. for the next 10 years I was there.

If you're screening with software/keywords, you might take an occasional look at the ones getting blocked - really, really good software is still pretty stupid. . .

Not in my purview I work for a company with 200K+ employees they are not going to have people screening applications

[JeffDG]

We had a hilarious one once - the guy had a Masters; the ad asked for a BS. He spelled them both out, and HR screened him out. That was the last time we allowed HR to be invovled in the hiring process. We screened ourselves, arranged the interviews, then told HR who to do the on-boarding paperwork for.

They screamed for a bit, about us not "being qualified to interview without an HR person present" - fiefdom nonsense; we got a one hour presentation from an independent expert, and a "cheat sheet" to follow, to stay out of EEO trouble.  Worked O.K. for the next 10 years I was there.

If you're screening with software/keywords, you might take an occasional look at the ones getting blocked - really, really good software is still pretty stupid. . .

Not in my purview I work for a company with 200K+ employees they are not going to have people screening applications

That's why networking is so important.

If you send you application to HR, you've reduced your odds of being hired by at least an order of magnitude.

[Private Investigator]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

I disagree. Management is management. Of course you have the "Peter Principle". Some people have a great CV but no growth potential and/or they got promoted two steps above where they should be and are clueless regarding the entire scope of the program.   

[THRAWN]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

I disagree. Management is management. Of course you have the "Peter Principle". Some people have a great CV but no growth potential and/or they got promoted two steps above where they should be and are clueless regarding the entire scope of the program.   

Sure, there is some crossover in the concepts. But there are differences in managing an organization where you can fire and put people in jail and an organization made up of volunteers. The motivations of the subordinates are different and how you as a leader react to and motivate them are much different.

[NIN]

Sure, there is some crossover in the concepts. But there are differences in managing an organization where you can fire and put people in jail and an organization made up of volunteers. The motivations of the subordinates are different and how you as a leader react to and motivate them are much different.

How many military folks go on to successful civilian careers (esp. upper management sorts, 1, 2, 3 & 4 star generals)? Plenty.  And they do so in organizations where you can't just "put people in jail."

A *good* leader is a *good* leader, whether he or she is in charge of a girl scout troop or a multi-national corporation.

This idea that former military folks can't "lead" in CAP because "we're volunteers" or "they can't put people in jail" is, frankly:


In the big scheme of things, CAP is a 60,000 person nationwide organization. Like several others of its ilk (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Red Cross, etc). 

[THRAWN]

Nobody said that they can't lead. But it does take a different skillset to successfully lead volunteers than it does to lead in a business or military setting.

[NIN]

Nobody said that they can't lead. But it does take a different skillset to successfully lead volunteers than it does to lead in a business or military setting.

Absolutely.

Those skill sets are not mutually exclusive, however.

And being the CEO of a nationwide 60,000+ member membership organization comprised substantially of volunteers is, IMHO, not that much different than being the CEO of, say, the Red Cross or even the Boys and Girls Clubs.  Or maybe even General Electric when you get right down to the necessary skills. 

When you get to that level, you're not so much "leading volunteers" as you are "strategically leading."

Does the National Commander do much "firing" of people? No.

Should the National Commander have an innate understanding that 99% of the organization consists of unpaid volunteers doing 99% of the organization's work?  Absolutely.

If you look back over the last 20-30 years of CAP leadership, we have a number of national commanders who were "less than strategic thinkers" (to put it mildly). 

CAP's history over that time is a lot of missed opportunities, dalliances off into the weeds that caused us to lose credibility, head-butting with our parent organization, etc, etc, etc.   We had tactical thinkers off fiddling with double-breasted service coats when maybe, just maybe, we should have been thinking about the 5-10-15 year strategic plan for the organization, considering the long term effects of burdensome requirements on the membership and the mission, and pursuing mutually beneficial fundraising opportunities and partnerships with aviation organizations and industry leaders. Just for starters.

A commander or CEO's job is to "set conditions" to ensure that the organization can succeed, don't you agree?

CAP is going to need a CEO/National Commander who can lead and manage the organization in such a way that it continues to be relevant and is positioned to to continue into the 2nd half of the 21st Century, so that we can see the 100th anniversary of the organization, not just the 75th.  That he or she might have been a squadron commander, or even been to National Staff College, is not always entirely relevant to that need when you're talking about the skills needed to do that.

[Private Investigator]

If you look back over the last 20-30 years of CAP leadership, we have a number of national commanders who were "less than strategic thinkers" (to put it mildly). 

A commander or CEO's job is to "set conditions" to ensure that the organization can succeed, don't you agree?

CAP is going to need a CEO/National Commander who can lead and manage the organization in such a way that it continues to be relevant and is positioned to to continue into the 2nd half of the 21st Century, so that we can see the 100th anniversary of the organization, not just the 75th.  That he or she might have been a squadron commander, or even been to National Staff College, is not always entirely relevant to that need when you're talking about the skills needed to do that.

#1 I am thinking of our NASCAR relationship. What did we have car #64?

#2 I agree.

#3 Talent always rises to the top. 

[NIN]

#3 Talent always rises to the top. 

Please explain the gent from FL

I take your meaning, however. 

I don't disagree that CAP leadership can, and probably should, be home-grown.  But I also think that if we got an otherwise-qualified applicant from outside the organization, a lack of CAP experience shouldn't be a deal-killer for someone who would be a major game-changer for the organization.  But the people who would fit that category, you're talking less than a handful of people in the entire country who would be qualified, available, willing, etc.  And by "less than a handful" I mean only 2-3, maybe.

Nobody says to to the new CEO of Yahoo "Hey, you came from Google.  Your experience is not relevant here.  I can't believe you can do the job unless you started in the mail room here and worked your way up..."

[Eclipse]

I don't disagree that CAP leadership can, and probably should, be home-grown.  But I also think that if we got an otherwise-qualified applicant from outside the organization, a lack of CAP experience shouldn't be a deal-killer for someone who would be a major game-changer for the organization.  But the people who would fit that category, you're talking less than a handful of people in the entire country who would be qualified, available, willing, etc.  And by "less than a handful" I mean only 2-3, maybe.

I don't disagree on paper.

However, one of the weak links here is there's no transition training.  I've been here a bunch of times.

An Army Lt Col is appointed as commander or leader of "x".  The bill of goods he's sold is that
since he ran a "hospital / battalion / air wing / whatever" he should be able to "wrangle a bunch
of old farts and kids into marching in a straight line".

He comes in as an O-5, and assumes he will have at least a competent staff and can figure
it out on the fly while he's "leading".  This is a reasonable expectation in the military, any successful
business, etc.

What he gets on day-1 is a note from the last CC with information on how the coffee maker works
and the realization that he's going to be essentially a one-man show.

Now he's a clueless "leader" with 1/2-trained staff and no idea where to start.  The few staff
he has are resentful this newb got the job they wanted, so only give him 1/2 attention.

Lt Col Newb expects people to obey his Oaks, even though there are 3 other oaks in the room
with more seniority, or worse, Maj Newb or Capt Newb can't figure out why he's supposed to
be commanding people with higher grade then his.

6 months later everyone is asking "What happened to Lt Col Newb?"

BTDT a bunch of times at various levels.

People with success in the military or business have skills and experience that are vital to
CAP viability, but the idea that just because you carried a CAC for a few years you will be the
savior of all, is pretty naive.

In fact, this "where is the Messiah" complex that CAP has is probably another of the top-ten
problems.  Instead of fixing things from within and using the people we have, we're constantly
hoping someone will randomly walk in the door and "fix everything for us".

The correct vector on this is to recruit these accomplished officers, NCO, and business leaders,
and require a year of transition time, sitting quietly in the room and getting a clue.

Frankly, that should be required of >all<.

[NIN]

And a guy who doesn't get that is NOT a guy you hire at the National level for *anything*.

You really shouldn't "hire" that guy at the squadron level, either.

But we do. Why? Because:

a) there aren't a lot of options (thats a problem)
b) non-military folks automatically conflate "military Lt Col with command experience" with "able to run a CAP squadron effectively"

And that is *not* generally the case with a guy who has next to ZERO prior CAP time.  It might be occasionally.  But probably 7 times out of 10 its not.

Now, if the same guy has 2-3 years in CAP?  Yeah, different matter.

At the squadron level.

Which is considerably different than at the echelons we're talking about in terms of "volunteer leadership" and "strategic thinking"

[ZigZag911]

I am still of the opinion that anyone needs several years in CAP before taking on a senior leadership role (Wing CS and higher, Group CC)...it's good to know the organization and its people before taking charge.

[PHall]

I am still of the opinion that anyone needs several years in CAP before taking on a senior leadership role (Wing CS and higher, Group CC)...it's good to know the organization and its people before taking charge.

If it were my call I would say that you have to be an ACTIVE member for a minimum of 10 years before you could take a Senior Leadership role.

But that's just my opinion. Yours may differ. YMMV.

[lordmonar]

I am still of the opinion that anyone needs several years in CAP before taking on a senior leadership role (Wing CS and higher, Group CC)...it's good to know the organization and its people before taking charge.

No one is discounting that.

but the skill set to run a wing are not the same skill set to run a region or NHQ.

Someone from out side of CAP COULD.....COULD effectivly run our organisation an the national level with out once being a squadron dweeb.

As NIN pointed out CEO is pretty much a CEO........no matter what the worker bees are cranking out.

In Eclipse's case....I too have seen that.....military people taking over at squadron thinking that volunteer officers are going to respond the same way their active duty officers responded.    And it didn't work out.

Now that same officer working at a higher level may have actually worked out better because the volunteers at higher headquarters tend to be a different mind set then squadron dweebs.

Not always.....but the point here is that given all the thing we would like to see in our national commander and other leaders.......we should not let a piece of paper that WE wrote keep us from sticking the best candidate into the position.

[MSG Mac]

#3 Talent always rises to the top. 

Please explain the gent from FL

I take your meaning, however. 

Crap floats to the top also.