Are CAP Senior NCO ranks coming back?

[Eclipse]

Cadets are there to learn everything.  They are in the CP to take.

Seniors are there to give.  They will learn much, but their first role is the mission.

NCO's and Officers are "different".  Neither is "better", just different.

NCO's use a direct leadership model - hands-on, knows your name, maybe turns the wrench with you once in awhile.
An NCO's scope is generally, but not always, more limited than an Officer's, and in most cases an NCO can personally "do"
to make things happen.

Officers use an indirect leadership model - larger scope, might not be good with names, sees people as assets - managers.
By design they may seem more separated or aloof because that is the nature of the situation.  It also tends to be self-actualizing.
Generally their ability to "do" is very limited and their role is planning and directing.

(As a side note, the CAP commanders and staff who struggle, do so because they try to exisit in both world - plans, programs, and direction, while still turning the wrench themselves.  The only way to maintain that for any length of time is to control every resource,
which then gives you the cliques and the clubs. They can't delegate, so they have to keep others out of the sandbox)

Cadets, since they need to learn everything, need to start with, and understand, the direct leadership model - it's easier for a developing mind to help others use the same skills they recently learned.  As they grow and can understand indirect leadership, they move into the cadet officer ranks and jobs with larger scope.

Anyone who has ever herded cats, in any context, knows it's easier for an element leader to move 5, than an a commander to move 50,
because the element leader has a single task to worry about, and can "touch" the resources to get it done.  A commander has 12 other balls in the air, and must rely on concise, clear commands, and good NCO's to carry them out.  In some cases his "battlefield awareness" is limited to information from those same NCO's.

So cadets progress from slick-sleeve to diamonds and theoretically learn both indirect and direct leadership lessons and see the pitfalls and advantages of both.  From there, they will be better leaders in general whether their future is corporate, military or other.

We need mentors of both styles or leadership who can provide our cadets examples to model (and our seniors, too, who I see increasingly are coming to us with little leadership experience).  Successful military NCO's would clearly fall into that category, but so would police Sergeants, Fire Lieutenants, and production floor team leaders. 

Middle-managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals would generally be expected to bring good skills in indirect management to the table,
just as successful military officers.

The caveat to both, however, is that in a military world, followers are duty-and legally-bound to obey orders, with generally swift and direct consequences.  In CAP, the obligation to obey usually ends with your personal value of membership (perhaps a little further in ES), so in CAP there needs to be more consensus building and indirect leadership, especially with senior members, which is why the concept
of a Senior NCO corps being anything but PD-related tends toward failing.

At the end, we need the abilities, not the grade.  We all know military officer who's experience brought nothing to CAP and were actually a liability because they thought they had some special Jedi skills simply because of their DD214.

[HGjunkie]

Would care to educate me on what you mean by "gateway"?

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen? no, there is a good NCO to make up the middle.

The only problem with this argument is......then why use officers either?  If we are not the "military" then we can call our squadron commanders "station leaders" and do away with all ranks and uniforms.  While it is true we are not active duty military we are the volunteer axillary to the military and we have modeled ourselves on the military structure.  A better argument would be to say....we structure our units on the model of the operational flying squadron (say a fighter or bomber squadron) that would have only 8-10 enlisted guys in a 200+ person squadron.  They do great with very little NCOs.   

Makes sense. There are many points of view on this, so it is a hard argument to fight.

Quote from: HGjunkie on Today at 08:56:55 AM
besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

That one is just dumb.....and ruins your entire credibility.  YOU DON'T SALUTE NCOs....no need to think about it.  Cadets don't salute RM NCOs so why would they salute CAP NCOs?

I phrased this incorrectly. I Guess I was trying to say that Cadets would have to learn more C&C to deal with SM NCO's. It would be a rocky slope for some cadets.

[flyboy53]

[Oh, the job would get done with an NCO in them, but it wouldn't be done any differently because an NCO was in them.

Yes and no.

I agree that the major requirements of the job could be successfully completed by either an officer or an NCO.

But much of the time, it would be done differently.

Kinda like a flight sergeant and a flight commander at encampment.  Ostensibly both have pretty much the same job (supervising the cadets in the flight), but they go about it in different styles.

You were emphasizing that there is some sort of special NCO leadership style.

Well, to be fair, it isn't just me.  It is the hundreds of  millions of current and former servicemembers since Roman times,  But go on . . .

If they are performing the exact same job as a CAP officer would normally do, how is this special leadership style going to manifest itself?  How is a CAP NCO going to do the maintenance officer job differently than a CAP Captain so that these NCO leadership skills show themselves?

It is going to manifest itself in the way the maintence NCO relates to each of the other members of the unit and the maintenance professionals above her at higher.

Obviously the wrench doesn't care if it gets spun by a airman, staff sergeant, or a general. 

I think you should drop by and watch some Air Force maintainers as they work.  Feel free to suggest to them that they don't need NCOs (or alternately that they don't need officers) since everyone can pretty much do everyone else's job.

Tell us what they say.

Now, if we want to limit the role of CAP NCOs to serving in cadet and composite squadrons where their primary duty is to advise cadet NCOs, that would at least give them some explicit reason for being in existence.

Uncanny.  It's like you have actually been reading my posts.  We agree that there is a valid, useful role for senior NCOs in the CP.

Its just unnecessary since that same person could do the exact same thing as a CAP officer.

Oops.  I take it back. 

Officers act and lead as officers.  NCOs act and lead like NCOs.

It is difficult or impossible for officers to act and lead like NCOs.

Cadet NCOs would benefit from an NCO role model or two to observe and watch.


(But we have a currently successful program essentially NCO-free, so the world won't end if we don't get more NCOs.  But it would be a better world if we did.)
QED


Now let's go eat some BBQ and celebrate the Glorious Fourth!

And so we're back; full circle. I think we've exposed the real issue: a lack of effective leadership training and respect of senior members.

Yes, I believe that cadets need an NCO as a mentor, but I also see the problem as the fact that there is no apparent difference, in terms of rank and respect, between the cadet program and senior members...and part of that is because we have eliminated that aspect as the senior member training program has evolved.

It is for that same reason, that I've run into cadets, too often, with chips on their shoulders --who think that their experience and training makes them better than the senior members in leadership roles over them. That mentality sometimes actually gets worse when those cadets get to the age where they can qualify for senior member status. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of re-education. In my own case, I'm aware of a female cadet major who thinks she's on par with her squadron commander, a major with 10 years service and training, who makes the squadron commander's life absolutely miserable.

It doesn't matter to me whether a retired Air Force Senior NCO choses to retain his or her rank or pursue an officer appointment. Part of that is that individual's preference and goals. It has been that way for me. I can guarantee, however, that that former Senior NCO will use his leadership training to the benefit of our organization. I do now.

I wonder sometimes what would happen to senior members if the same standards were placed on them as on cadets. Imagine seeing a flight of senior members drilling or running aerobics? Imagine a serious uniform inspection. Imagine the impact that would have on cadets?

[Eclipse]

I wonder sometimes what would happen to senior members if the same standards were placed on them as on cadets. Imagine seeing a flight of senior members drilling or running aerobics? Imagine a serious uniform inspection. Imagine the impact that would have on cadets?

We do this stuff all the time.  You mean other units aren't?

[RiverAux]

I agree that the major requirements of the job could be successfully completed by either an officer or an NCO.

But much of the time, it would be done differently.

Kinda like a flight sergeant and a flight commander at encampment.  Ostensibly both have pretty much the same job (supervising the cadets in the flight), but they go about it in different styles.

Their jobs are actually different.  An NCO in a squadron staff job is doing the EXACT same job as might be done as a CAP officer.  Their duties and responsibilities in that job would be EXACTLY the same.  I'm at a loss to figure out how the NCO is going to do the paperwork differently than the officer.  The requirements of the position are going to be much more determinative in what actually happens than the military background (or lack thereof) of the person in that job. 

Uncanny.  It's like you have actually been reading my posts.  We agree that there is a valid, useful role for senior NCOs in the CP.

If the stated explicit role of the CAP NCO program was to serve only as advisors to cadet NCOs, then there would be a useful role for CAP NCOs.  But, that certainly isn't the case now.  As it stands, CAP NCOs are just there.  They have no specific purpose as NCOs.  I don't think it would change much on the ground, but at least there would be some logic behind the program. 

CAP needs to either decide on a real reason to have NCOs or eliminate them entirely.  Right now they are members just like everyone else that just happen to be NCOs rather than officers.   

[Nolan Teel]

Lets just get rid of rank all together!!!  :clap: 

The Rank Structure in CAP only shows your education level in CAP.  Everyone can be a LTC, all you have to do is check the boxes. 

I will say I like how the TXWG Commander handles direct promotions... he simple asks how does the advance rank help CAP and how has this person been pulling their weight in the unit.  If you cant justify it, they aren't getting the promotion.

[NCRblues]

Senior member #1 "have we found a problem yet?"
Senior member #2 "no sir, but don't fret, when we do find one, we have plenty of solutions...to...whatever it may be"

Man oh man, we are really digging on this one.

Where did this "problem" arise from?

I want to know who it was that was sitting at a squadron meeting, and went, "my god, if only we had a past NCO still wearing his stripes...that would solve this"

[Ned]

  I'm at a loss to figure out how the NCO is going to do the paperwork differently than the officer.  The requirements of the position are going to be much more determinative in what actually happens than the military background (or lack thereof) of the person in that job.     

Well, there it is.

You look at squadron jobs as paperwork.  If that were true, I'd have to agree with you.

(All squadron jobs have paper work, of course.  This is CAP, after all.  )

But I look at squadron jobs as leadership roles that require officers - you know, leaders - to accomplish effectively.  Otherwise we wouldn't need coaches, mentors, managers, or leaders in units. 

Just clerks.

We are debating whether some of these hardworking officers could or should be of the "non-commissioned" variety.

Your "hey, the paperwork is the same either way" argument isn't an argument against NCOs as much as it is an argument for doing away with any sort of leadership roles in CAP.

(What a great idea for your next thread.  Think of the possiblities of boosting your post count back up to the top!)

[lordmonar]

Would care to educate me on what you mean by "gateway"?

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen? no, there is a good NCO to make up the middle.

Sure they do...all the time.  There is usually an NCO somewhere in the chain but not always.

Quote from: HGjunkie on Today at 08:56:55 AM
besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

That one is just dumb.....and ruins your entire credibility.  YOU DON'T SALUTE NCOs....no need to think about it.  Cadets don't salute RM NCOs so why would they salute CAP NCOs?

I phrased this incorrectly. I Guess I was trying to say that Cadets would have to learn more C&C to deal with SM NCO's. It would be a rocky slope for some cadets.

No...they would no....they already know it (or should!).

[lordmonar]

I wonder sometimes what would happen to senior members if the same standards were placed on them as on cadets. Imagine seeing a flight of senior members drilling or running aerobics? Imagine a serious uniform inspection. Imagine the impact that would have on cadets?

We do this stuff all the time.  You mean other units aren't?

No...we focus on real work   

Let's keep things in perspective.  We inspect, drill and PT our cadets because that is their "job".  My job is to run that program.  My ES officer's job is to run that program and my Admin Officer's job is to do paper work.  There is no need to do all those "fun" things and call it a "standard".

Now back to our orignally scheduled rant.

[RiverAux]

  I'm at a loss to figure out how the NCO is going to do the paperwork differently than the officer.  The requirements of the position are going to be much more determinative in what actually happens than the military background (or lack thereof) of the person in that job.     

Well, there it is.

You look at squadron jobs as paperwork.  If that were true, I'd have to agree with you.

(All squadron jobs have paper work, of course.  This is CAP, after all.  )

But I look at squadron jobs as leadership roles that require officers - you know, leaders - to accomplish effectively.  Otherwise we wouldn't need coaches, mentors, managers, or leaders in units. 

Just clerks.

We are debating whether some of these hardworking officers could or should be of the "non-commissioned" variety.

Your "hey, the paperwork is the same either way" argument isn't an argument against NCOs as much as it is an argument for doing away with any sort of leadership roles in CAP.

(What a great idea for your next thread.  Think of the possiblities of boosting your post count back up to the top!)

Like it or not, most staff jobs in the squadron are not really leadership positions as they generally do not actually supervise or lead anybody.  There are a few that potentially could have a few people working for them, but that is the exception.  And yes, most staff jobs revolve around filling out paperwork and not much more than that. 

But the idea that there would be an actual difference in how a CAP NCO does just about any of the CAP staff jobs is absurd.  I'd say that they would be just as likely to do a great job or as poor a job or set a good example or a bad example as any other CAP member. 

[Short Field]

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen?

Yes.  It is only in organizations that have few officers and many enlisted that the officer would not deal directly with enlisted of all grades.  There are probably more officers in the USAF that supervise two or three enlisted (E1 to E7) than there are that supervise over 100 enlisted.  Read "supervise" to mean "works for in the organization - to include Squadron Commanders, Branch Chiefs, Section Chiefs, OICs, etc..  If you have a large number of people under you, you need intermediate leadership positions.  As a 2nd Lt, I had a E-7 NCOIC and a E-4 working for me.  The E-7 wrote the paper on the E-4 but I never considered going through the E-7 to give the E-4 a task...

[Lt Oliv]

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen?

Yes.  It is only in organizations that have few officers and many enlisted that the officer would not deal directly with enlisted of all grades.  There are probably more officers in the USAF that supervise two or three enlisted (E1 to E7) than there are that supervise over 100 enlisted.  Read "supervise" to mean "works for in the organization - to include Squadron Commanders, Branch Chiefs, Section Chiefs, OICs, etc..  If you have a large number of people under you, you need intermediate leadership positions.  As a 2nd Lt, I had a E-7 NCOIC and a E-4 working for me.  The E-7 wrote the paper on the E-4 but I never considered going through the E-7 to give the E-4 a task...

I guess the USAF is significantly different, then.

In the USN, a non-PO would not report directly to an Officer. There are times when a PO might (I am thinking of numerous enlisted assistants to department heads) but a non-PO always has a PO of some level above them in their Chain.

The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

[Short Field]

The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

There was never an issue.  The E-4 was MY clerk and the E-7 was MY assistant.  We were in the USAF, different cultures and different environments. 

[Lt Oliv]

The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

There was never an issue.  The E-4 was MY clerk and the E-7 was MY assistant.  We were in the USAF, different cultures and different environments.

Right....that is exactly what I said in the line above the one you quoted.

My statement was one of "Huh, no kidding?" more than questioning your actions. I was never in the USAF, as such, I have no clue how the culture around the Chain of Command is. I can only speak from the POV of a sailor. I'm sure if we had a soldier jump in, we'd get yet a third take on the Chain of Command.

However, we digress.

The point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade. But it does not have that same military sound to it. As such, SM is a great place for those who don't WANT a military grade. And since grade does not equal positional authority or leadership responsibility, I am just trying to say that we seem to be focusing a bit too much on SM being a "junior" grade.

[RiverAux]

The point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

[Lt Oliv]

The point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

No, it is a grade. It is not a MILITARY grade. But it is a CAP grade.

[ZigZag911]

I can see some benefits in Ned's view; back when we had USAF LNCO's at wing level, the good ones had a profound impact on seniors and cadets -- sometimes more than the LO's.

I'd really like some hard examples of how the staffer's grade made a difference in their impact.  A good leader and staffer is just that, regardless of grade, and being an LNCO doesn't make you any more (or less) "not in the chain" than the State Directors are today (which is the real problem).

The duties are identical, and my experience does not echo the above.

Back when LO/LNCO were active duty Air Force, LOs were more likely to be on a pre-retirement 'sunset' tour, and often approached their CAP duties wit h a somewhat minimalistic, 'short timer' attitude.

Even when this was not the case, LNCOs simply had a more 'hands on' relationship with cadet encampments, squadron activities and the like...this is not an indictment of the LOs, but rather in my view was a result of the nature of the officer/NCO roles in the USAF....LO tended to deal more with wing brass, ops/ES, regulatory/legal issues, relations with military authorities.

Different, not better or worse....

[ßτε]

The point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

No, it is a grade. It is not a MILITARY grade. But it is a CAP grade.

No, it is not a CAP grade. It is a membership status. Any use of SM as a grade identifier is only just a matter of convenience. It is used in lieu of grade for those senior members who have not been appointed to a grade.

[PHall]

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen?

Yes.  It is only in organizations that have few officers and many enlisted that the officer would not deal directly with enlisted of all grades.  There are probably more officers in the USAF that supervise two or three enlisted (E1 to E7) than there are that supervise over 100 enlisted.  Read "supervise" to mean "works for in the organization - to include Squadron Commanders, Branch Chiefs, Section Chiefs, OICs, etc..  If you have a large number of people under you, you need intermediate leadership positions.  As a 2nd Lt, I had a E-7 NCOIC and a E-4 working for me.  The E-7 wrote the paper on the E-4 but I never considered going through the E-7 to give the E-4 a task...

I guess the USAF is significantly different, then.

In the USN, a non-PO would not report directly to an Officer. There are times when a PO might (I am thinking of numerous enlisted assistants to department heads) but a non-PO always has a PO of some level above them in their Chain.

The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

Many officers in the Air Force do not supervise anyone. They're the pilot of a single seat fighter and until they are a Flight Commander, they only supervise themselves.

In the Aircraft I flew in (C-141C Starlifter) we usually had two officers (the pilots) and four enlisted (Flight Engineer, Scanner and 2 Loadmasters) on a crew.
So in the pilot world, there's not many opportunities to get experience supervising large number of people until you become a Squadron Commander and above.