Toxic leadership - a real problem or sour grapes?

[JohhnyD]

In a thread on PA training, I posit that the major issue facing CAP is toxic leadership.

Your thoughts? Opinions?

If this is a real issue, in your opinion, what PRACTICAL solutions do you suggest?

[dwb]

A major problem in leadership is bad leaders. Hardly a problem unique to CAP.

The question is, are those bad leaders just the naturally occurring left end of the bell curve? Or is there something systemic in CAP that fails to root them out, or worse yet, promotes them?

I would argue it's a localized problem, not systemic. I think particularly since the governance reforms, the median quality of region and wing commanders has gone up, and those commanders pick better subordinate unit commanders too.

I'm not wearing my rose-colored shades here. There are definitely instances of bad leadership. But that's because CAP is made up of people. There are bad leaders in the USAF, in government, in the private sector, in elected office, etc.

To say it's a "major issue" for CAP implies there is something in CAP's culture from the top down that fails to halt bad leadership, and I just don't think that is the case nationwide.

[baronet68]

I wonder if it's the use of the word "Commander" in the title?

Some people see "CAP" as meaning "Control And Power" and will gravitate toward positions of authority to fill their personal needs. 

Maybe, if we changed the title from Squadron Commander to something like "Squadron Director" or "Squadron Manager", the number of "Control And Power" types would be lowered and those seeking true leadership roles would increase?

[Eclipse]

In a thread on PA training, I posit that the major issue facing CAP is toxic leadership.

Unfortunately you don't offer the actual issue as an alternative, though members with sour grapes
over not getting their way is an ongoing issue, usually due to a fundamental misunderstanding
of the situation as a whole.

"Toxic" Leadership requires malevolent intent - that is rare in CAP. Few people join
to make other people's live difficult.

The primary issues with CAP leadership are inexperience coupled with inappropriate posting,
lack of choice in the selection, and lack of ramifications or even remediation for poor performance.
Nepotism is sprinkled in there as well, which can exacerbate already bad situations by perpetuating
the cycles and the number of inappropriately posted people, then it's geometric from there
as people with the requisite skills get fed up and leave, with only less-capable members in their wake.

Rewarding in appropriate behavior and poor performance also feeds on the problems, and the organizaiton
espouses one set of behaviors, and then often rewards the opposite.

Being poorly prepared for a job you should not have taken, or only took because no one else would do
it, puts people on the defensive, and the higher the waves of "good iders" coming at them, the less
inclined they are to listen, because it makes them feel weak, and they have not been mentored to understand
that asking for help is not weakness.

The above is bad for the membership and the organizaiton, and worst for the respective member, but isn't "toxic"
in any meaningful way that this '90s buzzword implies.

[N6RVT]

quote author=Eclipse link=msg=438138 date=1625967262]"Toxic" Leadership requires malevolent intent - that is rare in CAP. Few people join to make other people's live difficult.

The primary issues with CAP leadership are inexperience coupled with inappropriate posting, lack of choice in the selection, and lack of ramifications or even remediation for poor performance.  Nepotism is sprinkled in there as well, which can exacerbate already bad situations by perpetuating the cycles and the number of inappropriately posted people, then it's geometric from there as people with the requisite skills get fed up and leave, with only less-capable members in their wake.

I was going to add to this, but just said the same thing in different words.

[JohhnyD]

So the opinion of some here is that in experience and lack of training is the issue. That certainly hard to coral with.

What are the solutions?

[RiverAux]

Well, this is a solution that has been roundly criticized here in the past, but good old fashioned democracy can certainly help.  Squadron members (senior only) elect their commanders, Squadron commanders elect group/Wing Commanders, etc. Each with definite terms (2 years for squadron command) with the prospect for only 1 additional term if elected again.

This system works just fine for the CG Aux and there is no better direct analog to CAP.  It addresses the toxic leadership issue in multiple ways and offer other benefits:
1.  If someone is just an obvious toxic personality they won't get elected in the first place.
2. If it becomes clear that they are toxic, then they won't get re-elected. 
3.  Everyone knows that any individual will only be in command for a brief period of time, so even if they dislike them, they know that they only have to wait a short bit before someone new takes over.  I think that the current 4 year term for squadron commanders is too long to alleviate this concern. 
4. Increases the diversity of leadership such that pretty much anyone that stays in for 5-10 years will probably have a shot at squadron command or higher at some point in their career if they are interested. 
5.  The definite limits on time in command make it easier to ask someone to take the job.  They know they won't be stuck in it for 8 years until some other sucker takes it.

A totally separate way to avoid this problem is to reduce the authority given to those in command as much as possible.  If the squadron commander only has very limited authority there isn't much they can do to any given individual.  CG Aux does this by basically giving no authority to any of the Aux leadership at any level ---the CG makes pretty much all the decisions on anything worthwhile, with the exception of some spending decisions.  This would require some restructuring of the CAP/AF relationship to make it work and the AF doesn't seem interested in assuming more responsibility for CAP so probably isn't workable. 

[dwb]

1.  If someone is just an obvious toxic personality they won't get elected in the first place.

Let me tell you a story about Florida (Wing) Man...

I don't think our current system is all that terrible. Everyone is accountable to someone, including CAP/CC who is accountable to the BoG. The people doing the selecting at the wing and region level understand what the job entails and are probably better informed to make a good selection.

Where we fall down is building bench strength at the unit level. It's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

[N6RVT]

Let me tell you a story about Florida (Wing) Man...

I don't think our current system is all that terrible. Everyone is accountable to someone, including CAP/CC who is accountable to the BoG. The people doing the selecting at the wing and region level understand what the job entails and are probably better informed to make a good selection.  Where we fall down is building bench strength at the unit level. It's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

As another member of both orgs, I can tell you the elected leadership model of the USCGAUX worked because elected leaders do not actually command. I say worked because I have not seen a contested election in over a decade.  What we now see is units disappearing for lack of anyone to command them, even when the position is open to anyone who will take it.  My own Division (equivalent to a CAP Group) has lost half its flotillas (equivalent to a squadron) since I joined in 2005.  And it had just just merged with another division.

It wasn't toxic leadership, it was essentially no leadership at all.

And the USCGAUX's main competition had been US Power Squadrons, who after a 100 year existence folded up in 2017 and became "Americas Boating Club".  Dumping the uniforms and flotilla structure cost them half the members they had left and its basically a website now.

[JohhnyD]

From FB Group "Civil Air Patrol"

Recruiting and retention. We can, as a group do better.

I travel a lot and always try to visit, and even help, units at my various destinations. The experiences have been widely varied, both good and bad. I showed up at a gulf coast squadron one night, in senior pilot polo, and was greeted warmly by the commander. "You're a pilot! What are you checked out in and what for?" Everything and everything.  "Want to fly a sundown patrol tomorrow night, we'd love the help! Here's the lockbox code and you can take Rodney along as an MO to show  you our routes and comm procedures".
Juxtapose that against two different units in another state. Visited the first twice and NOT A SINGLE PERSON spoke to me out of the 20 or so in attendance unless I initiated the conversation. Then, during the meeting, they lamented about how hard it was to keep members and their critical shortage of pilots. "I" initiated a conversation with the commander and told him to ping me if they needed to crew a mission and needed a MP, MO or MS. The response floored me: "Pilots from other wings can't fly here unless you do a FULL F5, at your expense of course".
Was in another city in the same state and sent an email / left VM for every contact listed in the 'find a unit' page as well as the unit's FB page letting them know I'd be in town, with full kit, for a week and would be delighted to help out if needed. Crickets.


Guess which of the three units has NO PROBLEM finding and keeping people!


We, each of us, ARE the ambassadors for CAP!

[Eclipse]

1.  If someone is just an obvious toxic personality they won't get elected in the first place.

The last 8 or so years of presidential elections show that to be false, regardless of
which side of the aisle you are on.

"Bad" leaders are generally the ones you don't agree with, but regardless all it takes is a small number
of people to care enough to vote with a limited selection of candidates to wind up with "bad".

And with CAP often the election would make our AWOL friend Майор Хаткевич homesick.

[JohhnyD]

One solution proposed - elections.

Any other solutions?

[Holding Pattern]

Unit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.

[RiverAux]

It's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

Well, that describes most units, but they usually have more members on the books that aren't quite as involved. 

I will say that elections may not work as well at cadet squadrons where it is common for there only to be a bare minimum number of senior members in the first place.

What we now see is units disappearing for lack of anyone to command them, even when the position is open to anyone who will take it.  My own Division (equivalent to a CAP Group) has lost half its flotillas (equivalent to a squadron) since I joined in 2005.  And it had just just merged with another division.

CG Aux has other issues, but at least one of them isn't toxic leadership.  I have only heard of maybe 1-2 cases of that being a significant problem (based on discussions on a now-defunct board).

[JohhnyD]

Unit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.

Hasn't that been done already?

[JohhnyD]

It's just a really hard problem when the modal unit is being held together by two or three seniors. Elections aren't going to fix that problem.

Well, that describes most units, but they usually have more members on the books that aren't quite as involved. 

I will say that elections may not work as well at cadet squadrons where it is common for there only to be a bare minimum number of senior members in the first place.

What we now see is units disappearing for lack of anyone to command them, even when the position is open to anyone who will take it.  My own Division (equivalent to a CAP Group) has lost half its flotillas (equivalent to a squadron) since I joined in 2005.  And it had just just merged with another division.

CG Aux has other issues, but at least one of them isn't toxic leadership.  I have only heard of maybe 1-2 cases of that being a significant problem (based on discussions on a now-defunct board).

What are the average, mean and modal unit sizes?

[Eclipse]

Unit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.

Hasn't that been done already?

Essentially meaningless.

There's no requirement that anyone respond.
The data is never shared.

[Holding Pattern]

Unit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.

Hasn't that been done already?

No. A single omnibus survey done once for the entire org is different than members informing their unit commander with the oversight of the next level of command and IG reviewing the data every 2 years.

Rinse and repeat at the wing level and region levels and we'll start to see some change.

[JohhnyD]

Unit Climate Surveys and Wing Climate Surveys.

Hasn't that been done already?

No. A single omnibus survey done once for the entire org is different than members informing their unit commander with the oversight of the next level of command and IG reviewing the data every 2 years.

Rinse and repeat at the wing level and region levels and we'll start to see some change.

You appear to have more faith in the IG system than I do, but in essence, I agree with the idea.

[coudano]

I disagree that malevolent intent is requisite for toxic leadership.   I have observed and served under a number of leaders that I would describe as toxic who, I believe, believed they were doing the right and best thing.  Depending on how you look at things... they weren't actually even 'wrong'.  They were simply completely inconsiderate (to the negative impact) of people under them.  And failed to either establish positive environment and/or eliminate negative environment.  The end result is a leader who advances themself and their interests at the cost of the health and welfare of the people under them (although the leader isn't /intentionally/ harming his subordinates).

That's almost the worse kind of toxic leadership.  The leader who is intentionally malevolent is much easier to identify.  The 'accidental' or 'ignorant' toxic leader is far more dangerous in my opinion.



I agree with dwb (no surprise).  While CAP definitely has pockets of toxicity, CAP also has pockets of absolutely outstanding excellence.  And all sorts of everything in the middle.



I think the solution to toxic leadership is accountability.  If your people don't thrive and succeed, then neither should you.  It has not been my experience that senior leaders in CAP have been particularly proactive at seeking and destroying toxic leaders subordinate to them.

I do not hate the concept of anonymous 360 degree feedback.  However no system for accomplishing this exists.  It's doable but I don't see CAP prioritizing it soon.

As has already been alluded, we are having enough trouble keeping our head above water...  360 degree feedback and leadership accountability top to bottom and left to right are a few tiers up the maslow's heirarchy of organizational needs.

In the mean time, my proposal is that the best weapon against bad leadership is we need more people to do it right.  Problem is a lot of the good folks that would do great get ejected via toxicity.  We need to find ways to identify the good ones and prop them up and sustain them through a local sucky situation so they can make positive contributions on the other side.  It has not been my experience that CAP has been particularly proactive about seeking and promoting the positive behaviors, either.

[JohhnyD]

Problem is a lot of the good folks that would do great get ejected via toxicity.

Indeed!

And for those who claim "no such thing!" - I reply "Pineda"

[RiverAux]

What are the average, mean and modal unit sizes?

Last I saw the average CAP unit size was somewhere around 30.  I'd be interested in current data on that. 

I do not hate the concept of anonymous 360 degree feedback. 

The thing is that you would need the next level to take such surveys seriously and act upon them.  Is a Wing Commander going to fire a squadron commander because 90% of the submitted reviews indicated that they were doing a horrible job?  I sort of doubt it.  The existing processes for evaluating unit effectiveness don't ever seem to result in firings when they find that a lot of stuff that should be done, isn't.

[Larry Mangum]

I would argue, that while there have been toxic leaders in the past and that we always have to be onguard for such, there has been a measurable increase in the quality of leadership at the wing and region and national levels.

If you want to fix the leadership issue in CAP however, we need to start training people to be leaders and stop assuming that everyone has what it takes to be leader or already knows how to be a leader. The military spends a lot of time on building leaders. Does CAP do that? Does professional development do it? I know part of the changes to the professional development program is a desire to accomplish that mission, but I have not heard of any surveys or statistics to show if it is being effective in doing so.

Just my 2 cents.

[JohhnyD]

The thing is that you would need the next level to take such surveys seriously and act upon them.  Is a Wing Commander going to fire a squadron commander because 90% of the submitted reviews indicated that they were doing a horrible job?  I sort of doubt it.  The existing processes for evaluating unit effectiveness don't ever seem to result in firings when they find that a lot of stuff that should be done, isn't.

That really is the issue, isn't it?

[JohhnyD]

Toxicity in the US Navy appears widespread: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/navy_report.pdf

The results of this project are unambiguous. There was a broad consensus across interviewees on numerous cultural and structural issues that impact the morale and readiness of the Navy's surface force. These include: an insufficient focus on warfighting skills, the perception of a zerodefect mentality accompanied by a culture of micromanagement, and over-sensitivity and responsiveness to modern media culture. Structural issues identified include lack of resources and consistency in surface warfare training programs, and the Navy's underwhelming commitment to surface ship maintenance—a problem that spans decades.

Concern within the Navy runs so high that, when asked whether incidents such as the two destroyer collisions in the Pacific, the surrender of a small craft to the IRGC in the Arabian Gulf, the burning of the Bonhomme Richard and other incidents were part of a broader cultural or leadership problem in the Navy, 94% of interviewees responded "yes," 3% said "no," and 3% said "unsure." And when asked if the incidents were directly connected, 55% said "yes," 16%
said "no," and 29% said "unsure." This sentiment, that the Navy is dangerously off course, was overwhelming.

[Ned]

If you want to fix the leadership issue in CAP however, we need to start training people to be leaders and stop assuming that everyone has what it takes to be leader or already knows how to be a leader. The military spends a lot of time on building leaders. Does CAP do that? Does professional development do it? I know part of the changes to the professional development program is a desire to accomplish that mission, but I have not heard of any surveys or statistics to show if it is being effective in doing so.

I was on the BoG when we designed and implemented the current process for identifying and selecting CAP's CEO / National Commander.

It was apparent to us that the particular skillset needed to successfully lead a multi-million dollar organization with over 100 employees, tens of thousands of volunteers, a large aircraft and vehicle fleet, and a maddeningly complex set of customers and stakeholders was unlikely to be solely the product of CAP's professional development and education system.  Which at the time consisted of about three weeks of full time instruction plus a couple of weekends.

We knew that the most competitive candidates will have developed critical leadership and management skills outside of CAP, whether it was in the private sector, military or government, or in other NGOs.

Not to knock CAP's internal training in any way.  I have always been impressed with the curricula and experience of the instructors I have had growing up under the previous PD system, and in particular my time at the National Staff College.

But it is what it is.  And suffers from the inherent limitations of an education system designed to accommodate volunteers - namely the time and treasure members are required to invest to progress in our system.

In my Army career, my Uncle Sam sent me to countless schools, including spending many months away from my family and, importantly, my civilian career.  And in garden spots like Alabama and Kansas.  Tough to take for a California boy.  That in addition to several metric tons of distance learning.  And even before that, Uncle Sam expected me to pay for and complete a 4 year degree before I could play.

In my civilian career, I have been required to attend literally thousands of hours of both technical and management training.

CAP simply has to leverage off a prospective leader's outside skills and training, but we do a lot of CAP-specific training, and cover the care and feeding of volunteers.  (Which is certainly not among the Army's core skills.)

We are fortunate that many members who are already successful leaders outside of CAP find CAP command and staff jobs to be rewarding.

[JohhnyD]

We are fortunate that many members who are already successful leaders outside of CAP find CAP command and staff jobs to be rewarding.

We are indeed. And when we get good to great leadership, amazing things happen. Thank you for your TTT - you make a difference!

[Larry Mangum]

If you want to fix the leadership issue in CAP however, we need to start training people to be leaders and stop assuming that everyone has what it takes to be leader or already knows how to be a leader. The military spends a lot of time on building leaders. Does CAP do that? Does professional development do it? I know part of the changes to the professional development program is a desire to accomplish that mission, but I have not heard of any surveys or statistics to show if it is being effective in doing so.

I was on the BoG when we designed and implemented the current process for identifying and selecting CAP's CEO / National Commander.

It was apparent to us that the particular skillset needed to successfully lead a multi-million dollar organization with over 100 employees, tens of thousands of volunteers, a large aircraft and vehicle fleet, and a maddeningly complex set of customers and stakeholders was unlikely to be solely the product of CAP's professional development and education system.  Which at the time consisted of about three weeks of full time instruction plus a couple of weekends.

We knew that the most competitive candidates will have developed critical leadership and management skills outside of CAP, whether it was in the private sector, military or government, or in other NGOs.

Not to knock CAP's internal training in any way.  I have always been impressed with the curricula and experience of the instructors I have had growing up under the previous PD system, and in particular my time at the National Staff College.

But it is what it is.  And suffers from the inherent limitations of an education system designed to accommodate volunteers - namely the time and treasure members are required to invest to progress in our system.

In my Army career, my Uncle Sam sent me to countless schools, including spending many months away from my family and, importantly, my civilian career.  And in garden spots like Alabama and Kansas.  Tough to take for a California boy.  That in addition to several metric tons of distance learning.  And even before that, Uncle Sam expected me to pay for and complete a 4 year degree before I could play.

In my civilian career, I have been required to attend literally thousands of hours of both technical and management training.

CAP simply has to leverage off a prospective leader's outside skills and training, but we do a lot of CAP-specific training, and cover the care and feeding of volunteers.  (Which is certainly not among the Army's core skills.)

We are fortunate that many members who are already successful leaders outside of CAP find CAP command and staff jobs to be rewarding.

Well said Ned!

[etodd]

Last I saw the average CAP unit size was somewhere around 30.  I'd be interested in current data on that. 

We have probably 20 members in our squadron that get counted since they keep paying dues as a donation, but haven't attended a meeting in years.  When Nat'l throws out numbers for marketing, it includes these people. The number of truly active people, nationwide, that attend meetings regularly would be eye opening I'm sure.

[N6RVT]

We have probably 20 members in our squadron that get counted since they keep paying dues as a donation, but haven't attended a meeting in years.  When Nat'l throws out numbers for marketing, it includes these people. The number of truly active people, nationwide, that attend meetings regularly would be eye opening I'm sure.

Since I started entering the sign-in sheets to the system, its been pretty consistent at about 50%.

More concerning is the fact about half of those who attend are in their first year, and that never seems to change.

[JohhnyD]

We have probably 20 members in our squadron that get counted since they keep paying dues as a donation, but haven't attended a meeting in years.  When Nat'l throws out numbers for marketing, it includes these people. The number of truly active people, nationwide, that attend meetings regularly would be eye opening I'm sure.

Since I started entering the sign-in sheets to the system, its been pretty consistent at about 50%.

More concerning is the fact about half of those who attend are in their first year, and that never seems to change.

Of our 140+ members, we probably see 80+ or so pretty regularly.

[baronet68]

What are the average, mean and modal unit sizes?

Last I saw the average CAP unit size was somewhere around 30.  I'd be interested in current data on that. 

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

[JohhnyD]

What are the average, mean and modal unit sizes?

Last I saw the average CAP unit size was somewhere around 30.  I'd be interested in current data on that. 

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Awesome, thank you!

[Eclipse]

What are the average, mean and modal unit sizes?

Last I saw the average CAP unit size was somewhere around 30.  I'd be interested in current data on that. 

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Does this remove AE, Congressional and patrons?

Regardless, with no tracking or vetting for participation, the numbers don't mean anything, or they can be used for
any point one wants to make.

I've argued for years that CAP's empty shirt quotient is at least 30%, and more likely in the 40's.

[TheSkyHornet]

From FB Group "Civil Air Patrol"

Recruiting and retention. We can, as a group do better.

I travel a lot and always try to visit, and even help, units at my various destinations. The experiences have been widely varied, both good and bad. I showed up at a gulf coast squadron one night, in senior pilot polo, and was greeted warmly by the commander. "You're a pilot! What are you checked out in and what for?" Everything and everything.  "Want to fly a sundown patrol tomorrow night, we'd love the help! Here's the lockbox code and you can take Rodney along as an MO to show  you our routes and comm procedures".
Juxtapose that against two different units in another state. Visited the first twice and NOT A SINGLE PERSON spoke to me out of the 20 or so in attendance unless I initiated the conversation. Then, during the meeting, they lamented about how hard it was to keep members and their critical shortage of pilots. "I" initiated a conversation with the commander and told him to ping me if they needed to crew a mission and needed a MP, MO or MS. The response floored me: "Pilots from other wings can't fly here unless you do a FULL F5, at your expense of course".
Was in another city in the same state and sent an email / left VM for every contact listed in the 'find a unit' page as well as the unit's FB page letting them know I'd be in town, with full kit, for a week and would be delighted to help out if needed. Crickets.


Guess which of the three units has NO PROBLEM finding and keeping people!


We, each of us, ARE the ambassadors for CAP!

I distinctly remember this post. It really stuck out to me.

My story was that I first visited a unit and was thrust into a conversation of brevities and jargon that I couldn't decipher. Before I was explained how professional development worked, I was being told about needing to complete my Level 1 and CPPT. Before I was explained how cadet promotions work, I was told about cadets getting the Mitchell Award being able to go into the Air Force. None of these things made sense to me.

I started visiting another unit because I really joined CAP to get involved in youth flying; charity flying if you will. I didn't really understand how it all worked, but I made a contact with another squadron that had a plane and started to visit them each week in addition to visiting the first unit as well. I started talking with a flight instructor from the second squadron who told me that I needed to be there every other week to do some ground school and learn the 182 and G1000. Every time I'd show up, the instructor would be late, and I'd sit there for an hour and a half and by the time it seemed that my turn came to get my lesson, he had to leave; I swear he sat there chatting with the older guys at the pilot table for the last 90 minutes. I'd go back and visit the first unit, and there was an animosity with me that I didn't belong there because I obviously was more interested in the second unit as a flyer, and I was suggested to transfer (I was a CAP member by this point). I was told that if I really wanted to fly, I needed to become a Mission Scanner, then Observer, and work on all of these other items before I could be a CAP pilot. I was told that I needed to really push the instructor to sit with me because that was the only way I'd get his attention. .... yeah, forget it.

Eventually, over time, I got involved in working with cadets, and that has been my exclusive role since I joined 6 years ago. To this day, I have never once flown in a CAP airplane. My time in a CAP 182 consists of me sitting on the ramp with a battery-GPU plugged in so I can understand how the G1000 works (I'm already familiar with it...).

So that's not to discuss my issues or what I need to do to get a Form 5. But I know exactly where that Facebook post is coming from.

[baronet68]

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Does this remove AE, Congressional and patrons?

Yes.

[N6RVT]

"The mean (average) of a data set is found by adding all numbers in the data set and then dividing by the number of values in the set. The median is the middle value when a data set is ordered from least to greatest. The mode is the number that occurs most often in a data set."

Because I have not seen this since College and freely admit I could not follow what you were saying (but understand it now)

[N6RVT]

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Does this remove AE, Congressional and patrons?

Yes.

If the mode is 18 and the average is 39, there must be some monster size squadrons.

[JohhnyD]

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Does this remove AE, Congressional and patrons?

Yes.

If the mode is 18 and the average is 39, there must be some monster size squadrons.

We are at 142 and climbing. Toured 6-8 prospective new members last week, 5 this week. Best guess is we will end 3Q2021 (9/30) at 160+/- and 4Q2021 between 175 and 200.

[PHall]

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Does this remove AE, Congressional and patrons?

Yes.

If the mode is 18 and the average is 39, there must be some monster size squadrons.

We are at 142 and climbing. Toured 6-8 prospective new members last week, 5 this week. Best guess is we will end 3Q2021 (9/30) at 160+/- and 4Q2021 between 175 and 200.

But the "real" question is, how many will be around to renew in one year?
If you can get your renewal rate for first year members to be above 50% you will be beating the historical average that CAP has had for decades.
Recruiting is not the problem, it's retention where CAP has had their problems.

[JohhnyD]

As of 13 Jul 2021:

Average = 39
Median = 33
Mode = 18

Total of 1099 squadrons and flights (excludes non-units such as headquarters, holding/reserve, legislative, etc.)

Does this remove AE, Congressional and patrons?

Yes.

If the mode is 18 and the average is 39, there must be some monster size squadrons.

We are at 142 and climbing. Toured 6-8 prospective new members last week, 5 this week. Best guess is we will end 3Q2021 (9/30) at 160+/- and 4Q2021 between 175 and 200.

But the "real" question is, how many will be around to renew in one year?
If you can get your renewal rate for first year members to be above 50% you will be beating the historical average that CAP has had for decades.
Recruiting is not the problem, it's retention where CAP has had their problems.

Our YOY growth rate implies a high renewal rate. I don't have those stats handy, but our engagement is high. Further, our promotions per cadet are very high, among the very best in the "LARGE" cadet population squadrons, and that argues for a higher than average renewal rate.

We are also in the early stages of "spawning" new units in local schools. That will create a "bulge" until the detached flights charter, and then a fall off. But as of right now, we are truly blessed with the wind at our back. We have a great set of cadres (cadet, senior member and ES), a supportive command environment - both local and Wing and a small, but growing NCO team that is amazing.

Recruiting IS the problem, retention IS the problem, community engagement IS the problem and we regularly address them all. None of these issues exist in isolation. At the heart of our success is truly impressive, widespread, cultural servant-leadership. At least that is my opinion, YMMV.

[SarDragon]

But the "real" question is, how many will be around to renew in one year?
If you can get your renewal rate for first year members to be above 50% you will be beating the historical average that CAP has had for decades.
Recruiting is not the problem, it's retention where CAP has had their problems.

I have heard this at every CAWG Conference I have attended, starting in 2001. The other thing I hear repeatedly is that about 50% of the cadet membership fails to renew, every year.

[JohhnyD]

But the "real" question is, how many will be around to renew in one year?
If you can get your renewal rate for first year members to be above 50% you will be beating the historical average that CAP has had for decades.
Recruiting is not the problem, it's retention where CAP has had their problems.

I have heard this at every CAWG Conference I have attended, starting in 2001. The other thing I hear repeatedly is that about 50% of the cadet membership fails to renew, every year.

I repeat myself:

Recruiting IS the problem,

retention IS the problem,

community engagement IS the problem

and we regularly address them all.

None of these issues exist in isolation. At the heart of our success is truly impressive, widespread, cultural servant-leadership. At least that is my opinion, YMMV.

BTW the corollary is that toxic/failed leadership is at the root of those units that are NOT finding vibrant growth.

[JohhnyD]

Our four-year box score:

7/17 - 77
7/18 - 74
7/19 - 90
7/20 - 122 (COVID)
7/21 - 143

Our current leadership team took over in early 2019. I joined in July 2019. Our prior leadership team built a very credible unit, the current team stood on their backs and built even better.

Double-digit growth rates year after year after year are a result of consistent and repeatable efforts inside of a supportive command climate. The nay-sayers will tell you why you cannot grow, I suggest that you can.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Toxic glory hounds have chased away more talent than can rejoin. 

Nothing like unethical cheaters being promoted because they help cover for each other. 

I sometimes miss CAP. I learned a hell of a lot, and apply it DAILY in my business life. I owe CAP a lot. But returning in the current climate is just not in the cards, if ever again at this point.