How many speaciatly tracks can you be in at once?

[Eclipse]

^ You're making an assumption that CAP only takes care of certain people with certain specialties. May I remind everyone that our National Commander has a Master Rating in Finance and another one in Personnel.

+1 - I know of members who have "toiled in (relative) obscurity" and received national-level awards and been promoted the full clip, because
that (relative) obscurity was in staff and activity roles at all levels of the organization.

Cyborg, those of us who know of your situation may not think it's fair, or that you're caught in changing expectations, but to a certain
extent, if you're serving at a "company" (unit) level, why should you expect to be promoted to a "field" (Group+) or higher level?

I think this dichotomy is one of the ways we do a disservice to our membership and is a big part of why our grades are so watered down.

As I've always said, the "whys" of your participation and involvement aren't relevent, you're either there or you aren't.
Far too many commanders factor in the "whys" above the "wheres".  As a CC, I'll have compassion for your personal situation,
and I'm not going to hold it against you, but by the same token, if you can't fulfill the need at the expected level, then someone
else has to.  The ebb and flow of involvement is perfectly acceptable, but there's a baseline of activity that happens every day
to keep the doors open, a baseline that most "weekly" members never see, and many aren't even aware of.  The people
holding up those baseline corners are the ones who will be most "visible" come award and promo time, even if the average
member doesn't actually "see" them.

There is a culture that if you "check the boxes" in CAP, yet sit quietly in the room at a unit level, you can still expect to make it to Level IV and Lt Col.
Now, if you actually follow the way the regs are written, and especially the specialty tracks, you'd see this is nearly impossible even today because
most tracks require a Group+ level of assignment, or participation in large-scale activities in order to complete the Senior and Master.

However historically there has been a lot of winking at those requirements, and because it's at the subjective discretion of the CC, no substantiation
required.

"Well, Frank, to get a Master in ES, you have to have served as an ESO at the Wing or higher..."

"I don't want to do that...but I go to NESA every year and always help with the SARExs.  Those are both Wing or higher."

"Yep, done."

Master in CP, but never been to an encampment?  "She's been a unit CC of a cadet unit for 30 years, who knows more then her?"

Rinse, repeat in the other areas.

This is another area where compromise and retention have actually defeated their own purpose. 

We need to move away from this idea that "everyone can be a Lt Col".  Maybe they can, but should they?

Just like in the real world, people level-out to their abilities and interests.  There's always going to be
nepotism and random opportunity, so that just has to be assumed and left to it s own, but for the average
member, serving admirably at a squadron level, the reasonable expectation should be making Captain
as the pinnacle, and not assuming Major or Lt Col unless they choose to venture out or up.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have a Master in Administration and a Technician in Safety.

If it's only the gregarious, outgoing ones who are worthy of promotion/recognition and the rest of us hit a "ceiling," well, then, CAP needs to make that known.

[Walkman]

If it's only the gregarious, outgoing ones who are worthy of promotion/recognition and the rest of us hit a "ceiling," well, then, CAP needs to make that known.

I see where you're going in your line of thinking. I don't read the other posts in the way you are. Maybe its a matter of personal perspective. I read it as not meaning the there are "glamour" tracks and jobs that get all the glory, but that in order to progress to the higher levels, more activity & leadership is expected. And that activity & leadsership can definitly be "behind the scenes" type of work, as Storm Chaser noted our Gen Carr. It's not the specific track one is in that matters, its what you do with that track that does.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cyborg, those of us who know of your situation may not think it's fair, or that you're caught in changing expectations, but to a certain
extent, if you're serving at a "company" (unit) level, why should you expect to be promoted to a "field" (Group+) or higher level?

I'm not necessarily saying "promotion is it."

If you look at Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy Of Needs," you might see what I mean.

As I've always said, the "whys" of your participation and involvement aren't relevent, you're either there or you aren't.

A bit cookie-cutter black-and-white, don't you think?

The people holding up those baseline corners are the ones who will be most "visible" come award and promo time, even if the average member doesn't actually "see" them.

Perhaps that has been your experience in CAP.  It has not been mine.

There is a culture that if you "check the boxes" in CAP, yet sit quietly in the room at a unit level, you can still expect to make it to Level IV and Lt Col.
Now, if you actually follow the way the regs are written, and especially the specialty tracks, you'd see this is nearly impossible even today because
most tracks require a Group+ level of assignment, or participation in large-scale activities in order to complete the Senior and Master.

I never had a "check-the-boxes" mentality...but maybe I was incorrect to hope that if you did your job in an exemplary manner at the level you were serving in at the time, somehow that could be recognised.  Obviously I am incorrect.

Again, I think it comes down to personality typology.

I have some training at the university level in psychology/sociology.  The United States, in particular, is a culture where extraversion is valued and introversion is not.

In that sense, CAP is simply reflecting the broader culture of the society it exists within.

[Storm Chaser]

It's not the specific track one is in that matters, its what you do with that track that does.

Bingo!

I have a Master in Administration and a Technician in Safety.

If it's only the gregarious, outgoing ones who are worthy of promotion/recognition and the rest of us hit a "ceiling," well, then, CAP needs to make that known.

Administration is one of the few specialty tracks that don't require higher headquarters staff assignments. Most others do and perhaps when they finally update CAPP 205 (the current version is from 1996), the new changes will reflect that.

It's not about being "gregarious" or "outgoing"; it's about being a leader and taking on more responsibilities for the benefit of the organization. This is what volunteer service is all about. According to CAPP 50-2, "this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost."

[Eclipse]

As I've always said, the "whys" of your participation and involvement aren't relevent, you're either there or you aren't.

A bit cookie-cutter black-and-white, don't you think?

Yes, and that's the point - CAP needs a lot more of this.

We're all volunteers. 

If I'm running an activity or a squadron, and you tell me you can't participate at the level I need, it doesn't
really matter "why".  You can't be there.  No harm, no foul, but you can't expect to be appreciated at the
same level or pace with the people who are.

In your case, if you're using that Admin track, or any other abilities, at a level commensurate with Major,
then you should be promoted, if you aren't, well, I don't know what else to say.

I've had more then a few conversations with people who started reducing their CAP involvement, for one
reason or another, right around the same time they finally got LIII or LIV punched.  They
were edge players for a decade, and were clearly not all that involved in the organization beyond
as an occasional distraction.   They weren't promoted, or in some cases not until they ramped back up.

One conversation I had regarding a Lt Col promotion "This person's resume clearly shows a member
who is 'backing off' their involvement.  Why would we promote them?"

Hard to argue that. 

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not necessarily saying "promotion is it."

If you look at Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy Of Needs," you might see what I mean.

No offense, but if your self-esteem and self-actualization are dependent on being promoted to major in CAP, then you have bigger problems than that.

[JeffDG]

Administration is one of the few specialty tracks that don't require higher headquarters staff assignments. Most others do and perhaps when they finally update CAPP 205 (the current version is from 1996), the new changes will reflect that.

Hate to disagree with you, but I thought that didn't sound right, so I just went and looked at the tracks to confirm.

There are 20 different PD tracks you can follow.  Of those, 5 (25%) have a requirement for higher-HQ service for the "Master" level (Finance, IG, Operations, Emergency Services, and Historian).  Two of those (IG and Operations) have higher HQ requirements for "Senior" rating, and only IG has higher HQ requirement for technician (since IGs aren't appointed below Wing level, this makes sense).

Notably absent from the requirements for higher HQ are Command, and lest you think this is just the old tracks that haven't updated to this, the CP track that was released earlier this week has no such requirement.

[Storm Chaser]

Hate to disagree with you, but I thought that didn't sound right, so I just went and looked at the tracks to confirm.

There are 20 different PD tracks you can follow.  Of those, 5 (25%) have a requirement for higher-HQ service for the "Master" level (Finance, IG, Operations, Emergency Services, and Historian).  Two of those (IG and Operations) have higher HQ requirements for "Senior" rating, and only IG has higher HQ requirement for technician (since IGs aren't appointed below Wing level, this makes sense).

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.

[Eclipse]

the CP track that was released earlier this week has no such requirement.

Master requires a "leadership role" in a Group or higher level activity with a 40+ hour curriculum.
That's essentially being a key staffer for an encampment or NCSA.

The previous rev has similar requirements at the Senior level.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It's not about being "gregarious" or "outgoing"; it's about being a leader and taking on more responsibilities for the benefit of the organization. This is what volunteer service is all about. According to CAPP 50-2, "this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost."

That sounds a bit like the "all CAP, all the time" I referenced earlier.

And how many typical "leaders" do you know who weren't extraverted to some degree?  Ronald Reagan sure would not have been "The Great Communicator" if he would have been an introvert.

No offense, but if your self-esteem and self-actualization are dependent on being promoted to major in CAP, then you have bigger problems than that.

None taken, because it does not depend on gold bottlecaps.

I suppose the gist of what I am getting at is recognition in general for what one does, and in CAP, outside of promotions/chest candy, what else do we have?

I have seen too many cases in both the workplace and CAP of glad-handing, politicking and outright brown-nosing to "climb the ladder."

I am simply not made of that.

I would be a lousy politician, because my attitude would be more "I would like you to vote for me, but if not, that is your choice."

Nor would I be good in sales: "I would like you to buy this widget, but I am not going to force it down your throat."

[Storm Chaser]

It's not about being "gregarious" or "outgoing"; it's about being a leader and taking on more responsibilities for the benefit of the organization. This is what volunteer service is all about. According to CAPP 50-2, "this core value implies a commitment on the part of all CAP members to place the organization's purposes first and foremost."

That sounds a bit like the "all CAP, all the time" I referenced earlier.

Not at all. No one is expecting you to put CAP before everything else. But as Eclipse explained so well earlier, you can't expect to be "recognized" at the same level than those who are going above and beyond in the organization.

And how many typical "leaders" do you know who weren't extraverted to some degree?  Ronald Reagan sure would not have been "The Great Communicator" if he would have been an introvert.

And your point is? Who would want a president who wasn't a leader? I wouldn't. Leaders need to be "outgoing" to a degree because they need to lead, motivate and influence people to accomplish the mission.

No offense, but if your self-esteem and self-actualization are dependent on being promoted to major in CAP, then you have bigger problems than that.

None taken, because it does not depend on gold bottlecaps.

I suppose the gist of what I am getting at is recognition in general for what one does, and in CAP, outside of promotions/chest candy, what else do we have?

How about the satisfaction that what you do in CAP makes a difference. There are many types of non-profit and volunteer organizations and they don't all have grades and/or uniform awards and insignias. If you're in it for the "promotions/chest candy", then you're in it for the wrong reasons.

I have seen too many cases in both the workplace and CAP of glad-handing, politicking and outright brown-nosing to "climb the ladder."

I am simply not made of that.

I've also seen many members "climb the ladder" because of hard work, dedication, professionalism, experience, education/training, leadership qualities, among others. Those are the kind of members we need promoted.

I would be a lousy politician, because my attitude would be more "I would like you to vote for me, but if not, that is your choice."

Yes, it is. And maybe I prefer to vote for someone I feel can make a difference. YMMV.

Nor would I be good in sales: "I would like you to buy this widget, but I am not going to force it down your throat."

A good sales person doesn't need to "force" anything "down" anyone's "throat". That said, a lousy sales person shouldn't make excuses because he/she is not good at sales. The same goes for leaders. We don't need excuses in CAP; we need results.

I think the grade system in CAP is a bit misguided as it's used as a form of recognition for progression in the program instead of an indication of leadership and/or level of responsibility. We forget that there are other effective ways to recognize the hard work and dedication of our members.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

A good sales person doesn't need to "force" anything "down" anyone's "throat". That said, a lousy sales person shouldn't make excuses because he/she is not good at sales.

I do not make excuses.  I fully own up to the fact that if I had to be a sales person, I would not do well at all.

We don't need excuses in CAP; we need results.

Is it an "excuse" if you were to own up to a fact that your personality may not be suited to a particular career field/line of work/CAP speciality track?

It somewhat brings this to mind:

I think the grade system in CAP is a bit misguided as it's used as a form of recognition for progression in the program instead of an indication of leadership and/or level of responsibility. We forget that there are other effective ways to recognize the hard work and dedication of our members.

Now THAT I can agree with 100%.  Do you have any suggestions?