Vice Commander 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.