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.

[FW]

WIWAWC, there were just 3 groups I dealt with (in PA).  Each group had between 20 and 25 squadrons. It worked because of dedicated staffers and group commanders who were allowed to deal with problems; as they saw fit.  Even dealing with SUI's were not problematic as, we could be flexible with inspection personell. 

Good communications, understanding the concept of deligating and, an engaged membership makes life much easier...

[RADIOMAN015]

WIWAWC, there were just 3 groups I dealt with (in PA).  Each group had between 20 and 25 squadrons. It worked because of dedicated staffers and group commanders who were allowed to deal with problems; as they saw fit.  Even dealing with SUI's were not problematic as, we could be flexible with inspection personell. 

Good communications, understanding the concept of deligating and, an engaged membership makes life much easier...

I think this whole issue boils down to the experienced personnel that are available and are willing to make the commitment to help out all the squadrons in their respective area. This could involve quite a bit of travel and time commitment -- many volunteers today are challenged to commit to large blocks of time on a continual basis.

The squadrons are really where anything worthwhile takes place in CAP and IF there's experienced personnel at the squadron level, it's unlikely that groups would be needed or the number of squadrons supervised by a group could be increased.
RM

[Fubar]

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.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

[Spaceman3750]

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.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

[Eclipse]

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron?

No.  Groups are a Headquarters Component, not an operational entity.

The SUI's are quick and painless because, just like a CI, they are related to the administration of the Group itself, not the Group's subordinate units.
There are a lot of pages which are simply "N/A".

[lordmonar]

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.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

If you only got 4 people assigned to group....why have a group?

[Spaceman3750]

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.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

If you only got 4 people assigned to group....why have a group?

Because, as I mentioned, we have people serving group while remaining assigned to their squadron. We have 4 assigned to the group HQ unit, and a few more doing additional duties. We're going to be expanding our ADY staff in a few months, but their unit of assignment will stay at their squadron. Why rob the individual units of expertise?

[BillB]

When I served as a Group Commander, I pulled people from Squadrons as ADY. Most Group duty assignments are advisory or coordination and does not add that much to a staff's work load. ES and Cadet Programs required additional staff to keep work load down, but all were additional duty from Squadrons. A Squadron PAO can serve as Group PAO with little added work load. An Assistant Group PAO can take up part of the load, and this applies to all Group duty assignments.

[Eclipse]

A Squadron PAO can serve as Group PAO with little added work load. An Assistant Group PAO can take up part of the load, and this applies to all Group duty assignments.

Exactly the circular reporting structure I alluded too earlier, and missing the point.

The unit with the double-posted member gets, by practical reality, more attention from the Group than any other and lacks real oversight, because the member is essentially auditing himself.

If there isn't enough to keep a group staffer busy on a full-time basis, it's because he's not doing it right.

[lordmonar]

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.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

If you only got 4 people assigned to group....why have a group?

Because, as I mentioned, we have people serving group while remaining assigned to their squadron. We have 4 assigned to the group HQ unit, and a few more doing additional duties. We're going to be expanding our ADY staff in a few months, but their unit of assignment will stay at their squadron. Why rob the individual units of expertise?

Then you have a much larger group staff....you are just not doing the paper work right.

1) If the job needs to be done....then you recruit and train enough people to do it.
2) If these guys are so good that they can do their job and Group's job at the same time...you have to be careful you don't burn them out.
3) Just because I am "assigned" to group...does not mean I can't still be active with a squadron.

[DBlair]

^^^ 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.

+1

[titanII]

It seems to me (somewhat of an outsider on the whole higher-than-squadron level) that what we've got here is a classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. We need the skilled and experienced people in the higher (group/wing/region) echelons, where they can be very effective; yet we also need those same kind of people in the basic, real nitty-gritty-get-things-done level (squadron).

[CAP_truth]

Groups need to be the buffer between wing and squadrons. The should be the resource to small squadron who do not have the personnel to do all the jobs. But the group cc  should not be a blockage for the wing to conduct its duties either. Communication between wing staff and the group's staff should be open so information can be passed along without timely delays. The group cc should be copied but should allow the staff personnel to talk to each other. As a wing staff office I do need information from my counter parts at group and squadrons but I should contact them directly but cc the commanders, not send them to the commanders and have them pass the information along and wait to see if I get a reply.

[Eclipse]

^ I agree 100%, the problem is when people other than commanders start making policy decisions or otherwise circumvent
command authority because of the practical reality of having the keys to the system.

That's what usually shuts down the lines of communication.

There are also issues with staff at a higher echelon believing they have "force powers" simply because they happen to be
appointed at a higher echelon (not to mention people who don't even recognize their lane, let alone staying in it).

Then there's the "random show-up" where a wing or group staffer just waltzes into a meeting and pontificates on "whatever",
regardless of what might be scheduled for that night, etc.

[Spaceman3750]

The should be the resource to small squadron

I'm a newly-appointed Group ESO. I sent an email a few weeks back telling squadron CCs and ESOs that I am a resource, a means to an end if you will. I emphasized that I am not there to tell them what their ES goals will be - I am there to help them make their ES goals happen, whatever they may be. I am making a point of knowing what training resources are available at other squadrons in my group so that when a squadron comes to me and says "We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

[Eclipse]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

[EMT-83]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

Exactly how? A squadron without qualified personnel is going to obtain the qualifications by reading the regulations?

Working with neighboring units to share resources and expertise, with the Wing or Group ESO providing some coordination, sounds like a winner to me.

[Spaceman3750]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

Exactly how? A squadron without qualified personnel is going to obtain the qualifications by reading the regulations?

Working with neighboring units to share resources and expertise, with the Wing or Group ESO providing some coordination, sounds like a winner to me.

Seconded. I'm not handing them anything, I'm just telling them where to look for information and putting them in touch with a SET.

[ZigZag911]

Then there's the "random show-up" where a wing or group staffer just waltzes into a meeting and pontificates on "whatever",
regardless of what might be scheduled for that night, etc.

WIW Gp CC, I required staff to give sqdn CCs advance notice of visits, and coordinate what they had to do to avoid disrupting sqdn activities.

Only exceptions were me, my deputy and my IG (groups still had IGs back then).

[Eclipse]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

Exactly how? A squadron without qualified personnel is going to obtain the qualifications by reading the regulations?

Working with neighboring units to share resources and expertise, with the Wing or Group ESO providing some coordination, sounds like a winner to me.

There's nothing wrong with working with neighboring units, and coordinating that cooperation is part of the Group's job, however in a lot of cases unit CC's a so uninformed as to have no idea where to start, and spoon feeding them propagates that issue.  Many expect the Group or Wing to come and "fix" things, when in fact the Group or Wing should primarily be responding to specific requests for things not possible or difficult at the home unit.

Anyone who can read can get through the majority of the ES curriculum without much outside input, including aircrew tasks.  Proficiency comes with doing, but the baseline only requires initiative and interest, neither of which higher HQ can instill, and the lack of which is the primary reason for
units that fail in this regard.

Lots say the "want to 'do' ES", then stall when they see it actually requires work and follow-through.

[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 .

As a follow-up to this, I originally thought that I couldn't do group staff "full time" and though that I would be bored.

Well, I just laid out the next three months on my calendar, and realized that I'm booking training activities into the next quarter and we're only 12 days into the year (Eclipse, before you say it, I'm simultaneously trying to build up their ES programs so that they can be self-sufficient in the future, I just don't have a lot to work with right now ). That, plus a seat on the local SAR council that I've got to fill, would keep me very busy for the forseeable future.

That said, I still won't transfer. I really, really enjoy the seniors that I work with at my squadron and I find CDS to be a very rewarding role. I'll just have to build up the squadron ESOs to do some schedule alleviation.

[lordmonar]

That is one of the things with groups...or even wings for that matter.

If it is not a full time job.....then you don't need the job!

Let's take personnel.

Now if you are a small wing like NVWG there is not really a need to have a group personnel officer taking care of the few pesonnel issues that are being sent to wing.

Operations, logistics, and communications are another matter though.

So....just because you have a group does not mean you have to mirror every position that is at wing.  Use what works.