GAWG Group Consolidation.

[exFlight Officer]

Attention GAWG Members - If you aren't aware, Effective  1-Jan-2012  GAWG will consolidate it's six groups into four.


http://www.gawg.cap.gov/groups_squadrons.htm

[SARDOC]

Looks like that exceeds a decent managerial span of control.  Any ideas why the Change?  It looks like there are enough squadrons to support two more groups.

[SamFranklin]

The squadron is the most essential unit in all of CAP. The other echelons are important too, but we really couldn't operate without squadrons. Most people seem to agree with that view.

If that's true, what are the implications?

We ought to ensure our very best people are available at the squadron level. This means cutting groups, wings, and regions down in terms of personnel. The message is not that we don't love our talented wing folks, but that we value them so much that we need their expertise where it matters most -- at the squadron. Strong squadrons need less assistance from group and wing, while weak squadrons can never get enough, even under the best circumstances.

True, span of control is an issue that suggests groups are needed. But the flip side is that (a) most organizations are becoming wide and short, not tall, (b) the price of span of control is your best leaders are unavailable to lead squadrons. If I were King, I'd do something like this:


-- Reduce the region staff to 6 people.   CC, CV, AE, CP, ES, MS/DA
-- Reduce the wing staff to about 12 people for small wings and 24 people for the largest wings:  CC, CV, CS, AE, CP-2, ES-3, FM, LG, IT, DP/PD, and maybe a couple others.
-- Reduce the group staff to a handful of people:  CC, CV, AE, CP, ES, MS/DA --- more if you're California, and just 2 or 3 people if you're a mid-size Wing.
-- Restructure a lot of regulations accordingly to eliminate most of the paperwork that today requires 30 or more people to run a wing.


In going from 6 groups to 4, Georgia has taken a step in the right direction. But as I look at the map, it seems like 2 groups would be even better -- metro Atlanta and southern Georgia. My hunch is that most people think of the wing in terms of "Atlanta" and "Everyone Else" anyway.

[RiverAux]

Looks like that exceeds a decent managerial span of control.  Any ideas why the Change?  It looks like there are enough squadrons to support two more groups.

There are wings out there with no group structure at all with more squadrons than some of those groups. 

I think span of control isn't as big an issue for our sort of organization than it would be for many others.  On a day to day basis squadrons operate pretty independently and don't need a lot of oversight.

Personally, I think groups should be more focused on developing new squadrons and training the ones they have rather than in processing paperwork and acting like mini-wings. 

I know that in CG Aux the group equivalent (called Divisions) are usually made up of only about 5-7 units and they eat up a tremendous amount of talent in running the Divisions with very little benefit to the units.  They could easily be increased to 10-15 in areas where units are highly concentrated.  Out in the middle of the country where distance becomes a factor, small divisions make more sense.  Same thing for CAP.

[Ned]

^^^ Taking us off topic for a moment, I have spent several years as both a wing and region DCP, and the region CP shop unequivacly requires a minimum of three qualified folks to be successful.  And the region CP shop is not particularly paper-work driven.

At a minimum, the Region CP shop needs to:

* Conduct a successful CAC

* Plan and implement one or more Region Cadet Leadership Schools yearly (typically a week-long school for 15-30 students.)

* Conduct a yearly Region Cadet Competition (another signifcant activity with a hundred or so participants each year)

* Coordinate/mentor/coach the roughly six or so wing DCPs.

* Visit major wing activities such as conferences, encampments, competitions, etc to evaluate CP status and spread best practices.

* Participate in SAV/CIs as necessary.

* Analyze the agenda items for NB and NEC meetings from the CP perspective and write position papers for the boss.

* Plan and implement the CP portions of the Region Conference

* Work closely with the volunteer National Cadet Programs officer and corporate team to review and improve the CP.

To start. 

Notice that I haven't even mentioned the paperwork drills for things like screening and recommending the COY and Sorensen nominees for the Region, NCSA selection support, serving on the various Region committees like awards, Finance, etc.

It cannot possibly be done even poorly by one person.  Success requires a minimum of three highly qualified CP officers.

And the Wing level is even more intensive, what with SUIs for dozens of squadrons, encampments, various wing leadership schools, model rocketry programs, etc.


I agree that the squadron is where we do the essential work of the cadet program (and the other missions as well), and we need outstanding CP leaders there.  But we cannot succeed by stripping the essential personnel out of group, wing, and region to do it.

[Eclipse]

I think span of control isn't as big an issue for our sort of organization than it would be for many others.  On a day to day basis squadrons operate pretty independently and don't need a lot of oversight.

That assumption is one of the biggest mistakes made in both directions, up and down the chain.

The role of the Group CC is supposed to be insuring that the units are meeting >all< the mission mandates, sharing resources and people, avoiding duplication of effort, and providing a filter, again in both directions, between the units and the wing.

It is nearly impossible for the average-sized unit these days to meet even the mission minimums "independently".

[RiverAux]

And I see no reason that a group commander and their staff couldn't do just that with 10-15 squadrons under them.  If Wings can control that number of squadrons (and get good grades on CIs and SAREVALS) without groups than those very few Wings big enough to need groups can do so with more than 5-7 squadrons per group. 

The hidden cost of having too many groups is that they each suck 20+ of the most talented people out of the squadrons and put them into group staff.  Perhaps that is why in some cases squadrons can't do as much on their own as they should. 

[Eclipse]

And I see no reason that a group commander and their staff couldn't do just that with 10-15 squadrons under them.  If Wings can control that number of squadrons (and get good grades on CIs and SAREVALS) without groups than those very few Wings big enough to need groups can do so with more than 5-7 squadrons per group.

CI's and SAREvals have very little to do with whether the squadrons are successful, or even meeting their own, respective missions.

[RiverAux]

But they do evaluate how good a job the Wing is doing in general and in ES in particular.  If they can do well on those with 10-15 squadrons (and no groups) that indicates that they are not being administratively overstretched and that the span of control is adequate.

[Eclipse]

"In General"? No.

The CI's inspect the administrative compliance of the wing staff and the 001 unit, not what wing's units are doing (that's what SUI's are for), and I'm sure we all know that wings can be fully compliant, and even get high marks, regardless of the success level of their units.  AE POA's are submitted but never tracked, CAC's are appointed and have no meetings, and the meeting minutes are folders of "no meeting this month".

I've seen CI teams do a random, cursory, unit-level once-over while they were in town, but that is usually connected to a vehicle or airplane assigned there, not the unit itself.

How well a wing does in ES is a function of whether or not the members "care" about ES.  I'd be willing
to bet that those wings without groups have the same relative percentage of "a few good men" who do anything and
everything, many on wing staff, and for the most part irrespective of what their units are, or are not, doing.

And with a span of control that large, the units that are "lost" (as every wing has), are likely all the more so.

[davidsinn]

The hidden cost of having too many groups is that they each suck 20+ of the most talented people out of the squadrons and put them into group staff. 

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

[Eclipse]

The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Yeah, but I have an issue with that - I know that this is pretty common in most wings, even mine, but
doing this sets up all sorts of potentially circular reporting relationships, blurs a lot of lines, and generally means
people have two full time CAP jobs, neither of which is getting done full time.

What if, oh...I don't know...we actually recruited enough people to actually fully staff the organization without
having to cannibalize things?

[davidsinn]

The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Yeah, but I have an issue with that - I know that this is pretty common in most wings, even mine, but
doing this sets up all sorts of potentially circular reporting relationships, blurs a lot of lines, and generally means
people have two full time CAP jobs, neither of which is getting done full time.

If I was only at group I would be bored to tears. My group job only requires my complete attention twice a year. When the oride budget comes out and when the useless AE reports are due...That reminds me...

[SARDOC]

I think an adequate group structure could actually do a lot to help it's subordinate units.  I just don't see it actually happening in my wing.

[Eclipse]

^ Kinda my point.  It's not supposed to be boring.  The units are supposed to be driving resource requests, or the Group CC pushing higher performance.

It's boring because we don't do it right.  There isn't really a staff job anywhere in CAP that isn't "full time" if we're doing it by the book and to the extent intended.

[SARDOC]

^^^Exactly,   I agree.  If your Groups are that weak and ineffective, maybe downsizing or elimination of them altogether might be appropriate.  If I were a Wing Commander and my groups were that " boring"...I'd be lighting a fire under their butts...making this program even better, like a Holding quarterly CP, AE, ES functions...rotating around the state so that there was always something to keep our members active.  Active members are happy members...create opportunity and they will come.

[Eclipse]

If you downsize the groups, who does that work?  The Wing already has plenty to do (unless you fold
some of the group staffers into the wing as deputies, which I have, on occasion, thought would be a
good idea).

Part of the problem with Groups is that many wing staffers think they can walk right past them without
a thought, then they want to hold the Group CC's responsible for things when they don't work.

[RiverAux]

The hidden cost of having too many groups is that they each suck 20+ of the most talented people out of the squadrons and put them into group staff. 

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

So, your group structures have an average of 5 persons, maybe 1 of which is actually assigned full-time to the group? 

Well, then I would agree that you're not sucking up much talent but then again I can't see the groups getting much accomplished with that minimal staffing.

On the other hand, if you have folks assigned to groups that are full-time with a squadron it is inarguable that the groups are taking up personnel time that would otherwise be spent on squadron development, training, etc. 

[Spaceman3750]

The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Yeah, but I have an issue with that - I know that this is pretty common in most wings, even mine, but
doing this sets up all sorts of potentially circular reporting relationships, blurs a lot of lines, and generally means
people have two full time CAP jobs, neither of which is getting done full time.

If I was only at group I would be bored to tears. My group job only requires my complete attention twice a year. When the oride budget comes out and when the useless AE reports are due...That reminds me...

Ditto. I'm a squadron ESO and a group ESO and wouldn't transfer from my squadron for anything right now (like you said, I would be bored). If my group was more active in ES it would be one thing but right now I've taken the posture of being there as a resource for squadrons and am there to help them with their goals - not to dictate their goals, which means the onus is on them to keep me busy .

[ZigZag911]

Speaking as a former group CC, if you and your staff are doing the job properly  -- visiting units, actively supporting new/struggling squadrons, performing SUIs, providing expertise and leadership for training and multi-unit events, building a sense of teamwork and cohesion among the squadrons -- then 7 or 8 squadrons is the most a group can service and supervise effectively.

And, might I add, that requires a minimum staff of 10-12 experienced CAP officers.

How often have we read posts about units commanded by members with very little experience? Where there is a group structure, that echelon ought to be the resource helping that unit CC & staff get on the right track and run an effective CAP program.

I do agree that groups that do nothing but process paperwork and heap criticism on subordinates are a waste of time and energy.