Performance Reviews for CAP Officers

[Dragoon]

After all the "just a pilot" or "just the testing officer because my kid's a cadet" kind of member really doesn't need it. (And regardless of their rank, they really acting as officers)

1.  My kids a cadet member -- if they are not actively helping the squadron by taking part, then they don't need to be there. 

Yeah, but sometimes "actively helping" involves nothing more than occasionally driving some kids in the van.  No squadron commander is going to turn down that help, but neither does such minimal commitment require some kind of performance evaluation.

2.  Just a pilot members:  If somebody joins CAP just to fly and doesn't want to do any staff jobs or any of the grunt work, I suppose thats fine.  But, they should know up front that they will be on the very tail end of the alert roster and o-ride call sheet.  If the squadron ever gets to the point where they honestly have all the jobs filled with people actively working in them (and not just filling a blank on the chart), and each of those officers has an assistant actively working with them then MAYBE we could have room for people to be "just a pilot".  )

People have to acknowledge that in order to make the organization work we need people to do a lot of grunt/office work.  Frankly, I'm not sure its always worth our time to train up the "just a pilots" to CAP standards.  We will get more bang for our buck training up a multi-tasker. 

Your normal flying squadron with 1 plane assigned to it really doesn't need more than 6-9 pilots to ensure a 100% probability of having someone ready to fly the plane 24/7.  There are many more slots on the org chart than that. 

The guy that wants to be "just a pilot" needs to remember Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."  In CAP, the power is the airplane and the airplane is staff work. 

Sounds good - but it doesn't normally work that way. First, having a "just a pilot" who's work (or retirement) allows them to answer the call almost any time is EXTREMELY valuable - I can't see not using the guy because he won't be your squadron admin officer as well.  Second, most units not only have to man the planes, they are required to put X hours on the plane in order to keep it.  Right or wrong, that's how the game is played.  And every "just a pilot" who pays for an hour of proficiency flying each month helps the unit keep their utilization rate up and therefore keep the plane. 

And in any case, no reason to evaluate that guy on a staff job he doesn't hold!


Now, if you've got a choice between the "cadet chaperone"  and the full fledged cadet programs officer, I know who I'd take.  Ditto the choice between "just a pilot" and the full fledged flight rated squadron operations officer.

But normally, that choice isn't there - there aren't enough applicants to allow most squadrons to turn away useful help, in any quantity.

(Truth in advertising - as a squadron commander, I only accepted folks who were willing to commit to attend all meetings and hold a staff job.  It worked out OK, but there were always the exceptions, like the CFI who was willing to do checkrides all day long but didn't want to attend staff meetings, and the guy was willing to fix the van for us, but was really lousy at staff work.  I got better compliance than many units, but still had to compromise a lot.)

[arajca]

The only comment I have on the "just a pilot" mindset is that one (or more) of those "just a pilot" types needs to step up and maintain the pilot specific paperwork.

[lordmonar]

Again...on the surface...a formal evalution process is a good thing.  It allow you to give feed back to your troops to let them know where they stand and what is expected of them.

But....adminstratively is it necessary...if I am going to task all my commanders to make sure all their people get these done, what is in it for them.

I, as a commander, am the only one who should be doing the evaluation because I am the promotion approval authrity (even for Lt Col and Maj).  It must gove over my desk first before it goes to wing.

If as we say...most squadrons are small...I should know all of my SMs and do not need a piece of paper to determine if they are ready for promotion.

Likewise...if a member is a staff officer who is not up to snuff....I don't NEED to do a formal review to help him get up to snuff.

That is my only complaint of a formal PR system.  Those that are working for you and doing a good job and continuing their PD are ready for promotion when you sign their 2a.  Those that are just sitting on their current level of PD, maintaining their mission readiness and or meeting their commitmenst do not need to have PR's done of them because they do not want/need to be promoted.

If on the other hand you got some guy who you never see but once a quarter and he somehow completed his promotion requirments shows up one day with a 2a for you to sign.....its a no brainer to disapprove it and tell him why and be done with it.

But requiring annual PR's for all (even you inactives) is more a waste of your commanders and suprvisors time. IMHO.

[Monty]

Again...on the surface...<snippers>

But requiring annual PR's for all (even you inactives) is more a waste of your commanders and suprvisors time. IMHO.

Agreed.  I suppose I should clarify that when my folks give me their promotion forms, I go ahead and do the feedback form (that is strangely similar - though not exact - to an AF officer's form) for their benefit, more than mine.  And of course, to keep me grounded when it comes time to thinking if they're ready.

I'm human and am more apt to be kind in practice with someone that e-mails and calls me with updates on their stuff...and I might forget that so and so has a hard time turning in reports on time.  Once confronted with the squadron-specific evaluation form I have, I can run down the list and rate my folks so as to make a well-balanced determination, give the form to the promotee, and let 'em know that the things that I considered less than perfect should be where their emphasis is as they work to their next grade.

I've also had people that were about as socially decent as a case of prostate cancer who, when evaluated on the same attributes, still were able to score sufficient to get my endorsement for promotion.  Of course, they got their form back with my recommendations for a social shift.  (I.e., "she had a face that could stop a clock" and "her image made time stand still" are the same thing, but one is a bit more socially acceptable to say.)

[DNall]

Well we have a Fm50 for cadets to be done once each phase, plus for activity graduations, & as often past that as you wish - I have a sit down counseling session w/ them & a couple of their superior cadets... at roughly every other promotion, at least once a quarter. It's the only time I let down the wall & talk to them openly about how I think they're doing & what I'd like to see them work on, the rest of the time I do that thru C/Off & NCO staff.

I think it might be appropriate to come up with similiar form for adults. One that might be used as mentioned for promotion reviews, also for specialty track mentor reviews, and it can be recommended to use at least once a year w/ each member, but nothing mandatory, for now. I do think there's already too much load down on extremly understaffed local units. I also don't think you can get anything meaningful out of the forms beyond the local level at this point, cause you just can't enforce an even standard when there's so much uneven-ness in each aspect from one unit to another. All bigger problems not helped by this process... but an optional form there to help you manage your people if you choose to use it, I could go for that.

[lordmonar]

Well we have a Fm50 for cadets to be done once each phase, plus for activity graduations, & as often past that as you wish - I have a sit down counseling session w/ them & a couple of their superior cadets... at roughly every other promotion, at least once a quarter. It's the only time I let down the wall & talk to them openly about how I think they're doing & what I'd like to see them work on, the rest of the time I do that thru C/Off & NCO staff.

I think it might be appropriate to come up with similiar form for adults. One that might be used as mentioned for promotion reviews, also for specialty track mentor reviews, and it can be recommended to use at least once a year w/ each member, but nothing mandatory, for now. I do think there's already too much load down on extremly understaffed local units. I also don't think you can get anything meaningful out of the forms beyond the local level at this point, cause you just can't enforce an even standard when there's so much uneven-ness in each aspect from one unit to another. All bigger problems not helped by this process... but an optional form there to help you manage your people if you choose to use it, I could go for that.

Oh I'll go along with that...everyone who gets promoted gets a feed back to where he stands and where he aught to be going.  That way you are focusing you efforts on those who need it.

[ZigZag911]

 

Sounds good - but it doesn't normally work that way. First, having a "just a pilot" who's work (or retirement) allows them to answer the call almost any time is EXTREMELY valuable - I can't see not using the guy because he won't be your squadron admin officer as well.

Active participants in the flying program -- mission pilots & aircrew, transport pilots, orientation pilots, check pilots -- are actively contributing....normally one finds these folks involved in AE, ES training, and so forth....often serving in Ops Officer, ES, Stan/Eval or Safety roles.

These are not 'just pilots'.

The ones who simply want to fly at a reduced rate, however, without pitching in to some aspect of the CAP program, we really don't need

Tags - MIKE

[ZigZag911]

I, as a commander, am the only one who should be doing the evaluation because I am the promotion approval authrity (even for Lt Col and Maj).  It must gove over my desk first before it goes to wing.

As commander you should be the FINAL evaluator within the unit....what the military calls 'senior rater'.  Your comments would tend to be more generic, concerning the person's overall attitude, performance, and leadership potential.

Assuming you are delegating supervisory tasks, the officer an individual reports to is best suited to comment directly on his/her performance, initially.

[DNall]

The ones who simply want to fly at a reduced rate, however, without pitching in to some aspect of the CAP program, we really don't need

No kidding!!!

[Hoser]

First, CAP is a volunteer organization therefore performance reviews are meaningless and counterproductive. I wouldn't give you two dead flies for them. Second, professionalism cannot be mandated. It is a quality and attitude that an individual has and fosters and helps spread throughout an oprganization, by example and by enthusiasm. If an individual sits on his keister and does nothing, or is a whiner, A#$h*&! but does nothing outside the regs, i.e. moral terpitude, blatant insubordination, etc, then there really is nothing that can be done officially. The unofficial channels provide for more options....... the cold shoulder, "forgetting to pass on information about activities" etc. My experience has been these folks will go the way of the dodo.
That is my opinion, I could be wrong

Hoser

[RiverAux]

When we talked about "just a pilots" we meant people that just wanted to fly and do absolutely nothing else.  If they're holding an Ops position they're not "just a pilot".  If they're doing AE, CP, etc. in addition, they are not "just a pilot". 

It is a quality and attitude that an individual has and fosters and helps spread throughout an oprganization, by example and by enthusiasm.

That is true, but the problem is that CAP really doesn't try to do that at all with its Officers while reviews are an integral part of leadership development in the cadet program.  Why can't a similar system work to develop adult leaders?